In the end

____

After all war

Someone needs to clean up.

What order?

It's not gonna happen.

Wisława Szymborska, “End and Start”

“War,” says Hillman, besides contains in general the word peace: peace as victory. This merger of peace with military triumph reveals itself full in prayers for peace, in which, quietly and between the lines, they ask for triumph in war” ... due to the fact that all war will end. More or little happily; more or little satisfying to the disputed parties and their allies; giving little or greater guarantees of security, or yet establishing any form of peace. The dream end of war is lasting peace. But past has given us many examples of different types of peace. So we know the "chamber of disgrace", we know the peace of appearance, already the next day to return transforming into a war, a peace of hurtfulness and generating resentiments, step by step leading towards a fresh war, or yet – the most desirable – peace of righteousness. In principle, it is part of a war triad that allows us to justice the war, decide whether it was fair in full or in its elements. Paradoxically, the conditions of just warfare at least in explanation can be the easiest to fulfill.

Today, erstwhile we consider post-war justice, we frequently talk about 2 different approaches – we can afford minimalism or maximism. The erstwhile means, above all, rules limiting imagination and possible excesses which could become the share of winners. Postwar rules, here understood as permission, specify how 1 can proceed/what to do after winning. any of these principles derive straight from the explanation of just war, others are designed in international/humane law, but all of them are alternatively a set of general principles. The chiefs stay to defend themselves, recover what was originally taken, and punish the aggressor. It's undisputed, and you can't agree to anything less. Any another option is not peace, but a suspension of the dispute, a frost of war, actually giving time to "rethink the war" and restart it. specified unresolved disputes take revenge, specified unfinished wars take revenge, lifting their heads in an even more cruel version, even more bold, even more demanding, without knowing the limitations erstwhile erstwhile they were told effectively "enough."

But erstwhile we think of “fair peace” present (just peace), is dominated by the second approach, and thus maximism, or maximism, which assumes that "post-war justice alternatively imposes on the winners of work alternatively than giving them any peculiar rights/licenses" (Frowe).These are mostly legal but besides moral obligations. This "fair peace" implies, among another things, the judgement of guilty crimes and aggression, war reparations, any penalties and sanctions to be met by an aggressor or yet elements of rehabilitation and renewal, including renewal of social ties and the concern for memory. However, there is no area in “fair peace” to pet an aggressor on the head and tell him, “Well, keep the land earned. We can work together. No 1 will drag you to the orchards.” specified a proposal, peculiarly set above the heads of victims or another curious parties, would be a fresh version of the shameful peace. This would be – this English word game – not “just peace” (just peace) and "peace only" (just peace). Peace for besides advanced a price, peace as a transitional state, possibly impermanent, in the background having another war.

Multidimensional post-war justice, well-built post-war, should offer something completely different than restoring status quo ante. In this ante, in a pre-war state, there can be direct reasons for the conflict (depending on the war in question, these may be: prohibited armaments, aggression of the government towards its own citizens, discrimination, racial segregation leading to genocide, all forms of human rights violations, aggression towards neighbouring states or internationally, driven to the limits of madness the desire for power, imperial reasoning etc). No 1 in their right head would want to build a fresh home on the broken foundations of the erstwhile one, no 1 would set it up with rotten, rotten boards, due to the fact that rather quickly, like in a fairy tale of 3 pigs, another aggressive wolf will come, blow, blow and... this home will fall apart. Here, like Ukraine today, solid safety guarantees are needed, allowing the country to easy rebuild, develop, and not to feel on the back of Russia (because it will attack again) on 1 side, and the force of the US on the another side. A better state of peace is needed, in which by each case we change words specified as “independence”, “sylerence”, “self-determination” or yet “integration”. This is simply a possible peace – how hard to accomplish – where “security” is closer than beyond.

We request specified decisions to keep global order, to guarantee that this – nevertheless large it is not a disaster, how devastating the conflict would not be – we are yet able to settle it, trying to guarantee that this settlement does not origin losses even more severe, so that it does not become the start of another dispute. past knows the day and century wars, knows the conflicts of herding neighbours for decades, but besides the settlements to measurement the intersection of the Gordian node. He knows wars frozen, for years paralyzing the improvement of countries, wars causing long-term anxiety between neighbors, wars perpetuating the uncertainty of tomorrow. In each of them peace is simply a fragile dream, sometimes a dream, another promise, sometimes besides hard to fulfill. Hillman argued – otherwise rightly – that war is normal. What does that mean? Its constancy and regularity in history, universality and omnipresence on a global scale, and yet a kind of acceptability and a kind of approval for war, this (for Arendt) "final justice of global affairs". The question is, can peace be normal...

***

Today's wars are no longer a war between neighbors over proverbial copper, but a game of large business. Trump plays about Ukrainian uncommon metals, but besides about his influence in the region. He's playing for Trump's image of success. However, given how much the United States invested in supporting Ukraine and how much Trump promised to do after the war was concluded, an easy solution is not an option. Although we hear about “a fresh course in American diplomacy” or “the request for far-reaching concessions”, it would be bad for Trump himself if Ukraine lost the war. Then, at the beginning of his tenure, he would have turned out to be the American president who had to bow before Russia. And his propaganda of success – preached by each associate of his cabinet – will not usually fit. However, it has traditionally been far from American doctrines of "peace by force" (Peace through street in the United States known since George Washington and on the Old Continent raised by Emperor Hadrian II), or later making planet safe for democracy is crusade for Freedom. What Trump promises to the president of Ukraine, and what he tries to play for with Putin, for now remains the secret of their telephone conversations. The vague details presented concern erstwhile the erstwhile “leader of the free world” not only wants to negotiate, but even arranges relations with the apparent war criminal. The script seems to presume not only a concession, but the plundering of Ukraine from part of its territory, not only a deficiency of warrant of its future by NATO, but besides a possible threat to Europe, which must take up its security, stand on its own feet and bring back the old regulation that erstwhile you want peace, you must be ready for war (si vis pacem para bellum).

It is said that no 1 is 100% satisfied with good negotiations. This is most likely the script that Ukraine is facing. A script that we cannot passively look at, but which we must actively create. We request a “peace of the just” alternatively than “the only 1 that can be achieved”. reasoning of a "fair peace" for Ukraine, we know what we cannot accept. Nothing above the heads of the interested. Mark Rutte rightly says that it is crucial to affect Ukraine in everything that concerns it. Although peace is needed, negotiations cannot take place without the participation and decision-making of those who are victims of Russian aggression towards Ukraine. Equally rightly, in consequence to Trump's talks with Putin and his self-proclaimed negotiating leadership, representatives of six European governments (including Poland) are saying that "Ukraine and Europe must be part of all negotiations", and in the following part the statement: "We are committed to respecting its [Ukraine] independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russian aggression". specified support is besides the awareness that Europe must find its own voice and its own strength, protecting its interests in NATO on the 1 hand, and taking care of all dimension of security, so well defined by the priorities of the Polish Presidency.

Looking at the possible "negotiation" it is worth remembering the fresh words of Mette Frederikson, Prime Minister of Denmark, who, summarizing the discussion on Europe's defence strategy, stated that "If Russia is allowed to win the war, Putin will proceed it". It is hard to disagree, due to the fact that the possible frost of the conflict would let Russia a mirage of victory, and in the long word to rise funds, train soldiers, gain silent allies, which in the long word will translate into strengthening its military force and... another war. And we can't afford that. In the end, the consequences of this area will be borne by all of us.