Humanization of Warfare
DIDPress: Express Tribune reported in an analysis that the concept of “humanizing warfare” only gains meaning in the absence of international ethics. The ongoing wars in Ukraine and, particularly, in Gaza are stark examples of the dehumanization of warfare.
However, the war in Gaza is not a war—it is an unprecedented genocide that cannot be justified within any ethical or humanitarian framework.
Throughout history, wars have evolved in nature—from religious (16th–17th centuries) to dynastic (18th century) and national (19th–20th centuries). But in the 21st century, particularly after 9/11, Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory has materialized, and wars have taken on a civilizational dimension. The objective is no longer territorial conquest but the annihilation of peoples who uphold a different way of life or ideology.
In this context, to better understand the global situation and modern warfare, we must consider the perspectives of the world’s other major powers: Russia and China.
In today’s chaotic international order, the only path to sustaining peace lies in building trust, honoring commitments, protecting minorities, and refraining from using military force to resolve political disputes.
China and Russia have consistently defended the right of nations to self-determination, in line with the UN Charter. For instance, the failure of America’s democratization project in Afghanistan stemmed from its disregard for the traditions of the Afghanistan people.
By imposing a civilizational war on Afghanistan and later on Arab nations during the Arab Spring, the U.S. sought to reshape cultures in its own image—but faced fierce resistance.
Regarding Ukraine, Russia maintains that its war is not for territorial expansion but to protect people facing oppression. Moscow frames its military intervention in Donbas as a response to the Ukrainian government’s persecution of Russian-speaking minorities.A telling example of this repression is Zelensky’s August 2021 statement to the people of Donbas: “If you feel Russian, then go to Russia.
”Russia also sees NATO’s eastward expansion as an existential threat and argues that the West, by ignoring the root causes of the crisis, is prolonging the war. According to Sergei Lavrov, Ukraine’s importance to Russia’s security far exceeds that of Greenland to the U.S.
Russia does not believe European powers can play a neutral role in Ukrainian peace efforts, as they have been complicit in the aggression from the outset, unconditionally supporting the Zelensky regime—which Moscow views as illegitimate and under martial law.
As for China, the U.S. integrated it into the international system in the 1990s, hoping that engagement with capitalism would turn it into a “responsible stakeholder.” However, China’s peaceful rise, rooted in Confucian thought, has challenged U.S. dominance, reviving security competition and the “Thucydides Trap.”
Today, as John Mearsheimer puts it, China is the “golden goose” of the global economy. Despite the Cold War-style rivalry between the U.S. and China, few foresee direct military conflict—because the world cannot afford to lose such a power.
In summary, if wars have become civilizational, then ethics must also be examined at a civilizational level. Civilizations represent humanity’s collective progress, and Russia and China, as two great civilizations, deserve respect in a multipolar order—not as enemies to be suppressed, but as legitimate and dignified rivals.