RUTHFULLY YOURS

When is winning a war absolutely necessary? It can be hard to say. Was Harold’s defeat at the hands of William in 1066 a good or bad thing for England, and for Britain and the world, in the light of subsequent history? I do know that Magna Carta subsequently came into being and that Britain ran an empire and was instrumental in freeing the world of slavery, in enshrining the rule of law, and in shaping and making the modern prosperous world. Not bad while, at the same time, colonising, civilising and populating the new territories of North America, Australia and New Zealand; and, to boot, inventing association football and cricket and other sporting codes.

So there it is — and I haven’t mentioned Sir Isaac Newton nor any of the scientific, engineering and artistic feats bequeathed to mankind. If Harold had won would this have changed history for the better or worse?

My only purpose in bringing this up is to suggest that losing a specific war might not be a bad thing when viewed in a counter-factual historical perspective. On the other hand, it is much safer to avoid losing wars. Being defeated by Germany and Japan in World War II would not have worked out well I think. Though from the perspective of modern-day Germans and Japanese it is at least arguable that defeat has been sweeter than victory would have been. Domestic populations eventually suffer from tyrannical regimes, if not as badly as the conquered.

One of the defining factors is the intentions of each of the respective warring parties. In the second world war it is fairly clear that the principal Axis powers had territorial ambitions and a certain callous disregard for the welfare of those whom they defeated. Whereas the Allies were interested primarily in restoring the pre-war status quo. Best not to lose if you future will be as slaves to overlords.

This brings me to Ukraine and Israel, and to why I have a different perspective on the two conflicts in which they are involved.

This is Dave Sharma as reported in The Australian on May 29: “I think the fundamental principles being tested [in the Israel-Gaza war] are the same [as in the Russia-Ukraine conflict]. Aggression cannot be rewarded.”

Aggression cannot be rewarded. Really?

Aggression is regularly rewarded. If I am not mistaken, the Norman nobility replaced the English nobility. The communists took South Vietnam. China owns Tibet and cows the world into compliance on the status of Taiwan. Turkey owns more than one third of Cyprus. Russia (de facto) owns Crimea. Whether an aggressor is rewarded depends on how big is the aggressor and how strategic the territory at risk for those who might defend it. Thus the fundamental principles being tested are hardly ever the same.

One fundamental principle turns on how the defeated party will fare. In the unlikely event that Ukraine were to win by pushing Russia out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea, then Russia would suffer the ignominy of defeat but would otherwise get on with Russian life; albeit broodingly plotting a rematch. If Russia were to win it would likely take over the four “annexed” provinces of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, along with cementing its incorporation of Crimea. Ukrainians would otherwise remain in control of the rest of Ukraine; join the EU and receive lots of reconstruction aid.

I am not sure how much blood and treasure should be expended to ensure that Ukraine wins in view of the likely outcome if they don’t.

The equation in the Israeli-Gaza war is much more straightforward. If Israel wins, the people of Gaza will have a chance for a peaceful more prosperous future – the fruits of defeat. The people of Israel will live more securely. If Hamas wins, it will not only put Israeli lives at growing risk, it will embolden its enemies more generally and put the very existence of Israel at risk. And if Israel were to lose to an invading Islamic force, slaughter would ensue, of that there is little doubt. The stakes are much higher than in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. So much higher that there is no cost in terms of blood and treasure that should not be expended to ensure Israel wins. No level of support that should be withheld from Israel.