In 1998, UNESCO launched a grandiose project "Culture of Peace", which stated that the end of the" cold war "also means the disappearance of the culture of troops, the education of military personnel in the spirit of"readiness for war". The reason for the turn to a culture of peace is the collapse of the bipolar construction of peace, built on " mutual deterrence and fear of retribution."

The "Culture of Peace" project has been supported by prominent legal scholars, historians, and military officials, but modern realities, particularly the Kosovo crisis, have shown the ephemeral nature of even the most well-intentioned ideas when a dominant military-political bloc takes on the role of determining the fate of entire nations and states. It seems that we are returning to the early feudal era of "the right of the strong," and no matter what casuistic arguments are made in favor of order and democracy, aggression remains aggression, and the destruction of civilians remains genocide, even if it is shamefully referred to as a side effect of humanitarian intervention.

Unfortunately, UNESCO's position does not clarify the impact of peace culture in peacekeeping operations or who can be considered a peace culture advocate.

In none of the peacekeeping operations has it been possible to become an arbitrator who is not involved in the dispute of the parties to the conflict, which usually leads to a disastrous outcome of peacekeeping. Indeed, there is no perfect military solution, and in principle, only political perspectives determine military objectives. However, in the means and methods of conducting a peacekeeping operation, the moral character of the peacekeeper is no less important for the success of the operation than the equipment, knowledge of language and customs, and legal culture.

The culture of peace implies the moral responsibility of the "soldiers of peace." "The external world is not a good in itself; it becomes important only in connection with the internal rebirth of humanity," wrote the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov.

A peacekeeping operation is doomed to failure in advance if the "missionaries of peace" divide peoples into "victims of conflict" and"instigators of conflict". A world built through division is unstable and always requires the presence of a large contingent of troops. A real shift towards peace comes from peacemakers who act on the principle of mercy to the entire population, abandoning the labels of "loved ones"." and "distant", "strangers" and "friends". Peacekeeping is usually an intervention in political and ethnic conflicts, and it is impossible to solve the Gordian knot of problems that have accumulated over decades, and sometimes even centuries, by simply sending in a military contingent. A peacekeeper may also be involved in providing water and electricity, providing medical assistance, and distributing food, but in any case, the moral assessment of their actions is the highest in creating conditions for the reconciliation of the warring parties.

V. Solovyov clearly understood that the internal rebirth of humanity requires the joint efforts of all nations, so it is unacceptable for a particular nation or community of nations to have a monopoly on the role of "peace missionaries." A military officer who feels condescending towards the population may be drawn into internal strife because one side may disagree with the humiliating role

page 44

"ward". Operation "Turquoise" in Somalia failed just at the moment when intertribal conflicts began to be understood in a non-moral, civilizing context: General Aidid's soldiers were portrayed as a band of marauders, while their opponents were given false peace-loving traits.

The moral duty of peacekeeping is to ensure that neither side feels victimized or insulted. For example, it is difficult to determine whether the Serbs were "aggressors" when there were mutual ethnic cleansing campaigns in Bosnia to rid the country of its foreign population. The principle of "every nation has its own state" may have prevailed, which UNESCO has opposed in its declarations.

In the Russian military tradition, the phrases " defend peace "and" defend the Fatherland " are synonymous, have the same semantic context, since a peacekeeper soldier has a sense of justice and courage. Russian colonization, with the exception of the Caucasian epic of 1830-1865, was peaceful. To a Russian person, according to the remark of F. Dostoevsky, not peculiar to the arrogance of " civilizationism&"the desire to" bring order and law" to the life of the ward population. Let us recall that the liberation wars of Russia in the Balkans were associated with a powerful patriotic upsurge, with the idea of liberating the Slavic brothers and, if historical memory is revived, did not pursue the goal of establishing a political protectorate of Russia. It is impossible to compare Russian military policy with the imperial plans of Germany, which considered the Balkans as its fiefdom. But here's what's interesting: the German dynasties in Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece, as well as the Russophobia of the ruling circles, have failed to erase the historical gratitude of the people towards the Russian liberator.

Now, in difficult times for Russia and its army, it is so important to restore trust in our country, which has always been a protector of weak and enslaved nations. Therefore, Russia's participation in peacekeeping operations is justified both historically, politically, and morally. Regardless, the presence of Bundeswehr soldiers or Italian Bersaglieri will be viewed with mixed emotions in the Balkans for years to come, evoking strong historical associations. And as much as NATO would like to use its propaganda machine to create a" peacemaking image " of the bloc, hypocrisy and brutality rule in a world where large-scale armed violence is proclaimed an "act of mercy." Do not give in to the illusions of" universal approval " in the face of unprecedented political, diplomatic, military pressure, economic bribery and manipulation of public opinion in Europe and the United States.

Peacekeeping without morality is a "dead cause." The passion for destruction and enmity cannot be eliminated rationally: no matter what arguments the peacekeepers make, the Serbian population will not trust the "peacekeepers" who have tarnished themselves with destruction and hatred towards the Serbs on their historical land. It is difficult to imagine a peacekeeper engaging in dialogue with a people who are allegedly "responsible" for the genocide and suffering of another people. The complex of alienation constantly looms over the UN peacekeeping operations, because instead of creating a favorable moral environment for pacification, military personnel are forced to carry out the orders of politicians under the slogan of "protecting democracy and human rights." No matter how appealing the claims of "the value of human life" and "natural human rights" may sound, it is important to understand the cultural and historical context in which interethnic conflicts arise, and to recognize that there are no absolutely right or wrong parties to a conflict. A peacemaker must be equally merciful and equally uncompromising: merciful to the population and uncompromising to the instigators of the conflict.

In Suvorov's instructions to soldiers, along with bravery and courage, the words "humanism" and "pacification" are mentioned, and the great Russian commander was not mistaken, as pacification is much more difficult for a soldier, as humanism is achieved through understanding people's souls, personal example, and self-discipline. No matter how complex the legal and political definitions may be for peacekeeping, rational norms are complemented by moral obligations: law is only the "lower" limit of morality, and within the framework of law, we can only talk about "external agreement." True peace can only be achieved in people's minds and hearts, just as wars begin long before they are officially declared.

If a peacemaker considers it his duty to be a defender not of peace, but of specific political forces, then it is clear why peacemaking can be ineffective, and in other cases it can lead to devastating consequences for all parties involved. In a sense, Russian military ethics have defined a time when courage is comparable to peacefulness. The modern era has assigned the role of both defender and peacemaker to our Russian soldiers.

page 45

Permanent link to this publication: