Pacifist and the war – Pacifist: “There are aspects that speak against arms deliveries” – News

More and more weapons for the Ukraine is the wrong way, says the philosopher Olaf Müller. He advocates a pragmatic pacifism, even now.

SRF News: You have decided to resist the impulse to help the beleaguered Ukraine with arms supplies. Why?

Olaf Müller: The impulse overcomes almost every decent person – in the sense that the attacked in war must be helped. But there are also aspects that speak against arms deliveries.

Such a strong escalation could set in motion that Europe would be reduced to rubble at the end.

There are precise fears that such a strong escalation could set in motion, at the end of which Europe would be reduced to rubble and ash. You have to avoid that.

So the West should abandon Ukraine militarily?

That’s the bitter part, which I had the greatest difficulty in admitting to myself. Because it sounds kind of wrong to let someone down.

Somehow it sounds wrong to let someone down.

However, when the danger becomes too great that something much worse will happen, then there is nothing you can do but make a mistake. In the present case, this would consist of letting someone down – in doing so, one would avoid a huge risk to humanity.

No brutality without Ukrainian resistance?


open box
close the box

Olaf Müller says it is not known whether the Russians would have actually committed genocide if the Ukrainians had not defended themselves militarily against the invasion. «The Russian soldiers have become more and more brutalized in the course of the fighting, they have now become horrific. It is anything but clear that the brutality would have assumed such proportions if there had only been peaceful forms of resistance from the start,” says the philosopher and pacifist Müller.

You mention nuclear escalation.

Exactly. If the Russians find themselves in increasing difficulties thanks to western arms supplies, they could possibly use a small, tactical nuclear bomb in combat. If it really comes to that, it won’t be the last nuclear weapon to be used in a war. So there is a risk that a taboo will be broken and lead to a world we do not want to live in.

Legend:

Olaf Müller fears that the Ukrainians could use military aid from the West to get the Russians into such trouble that they could use a nuclear bomb.

Reuters

So Ukraine must allow itself to be occupied by Russia so that the atomic bomb taboo is not broken?

First, no one can know if an atomic bomb will actually be used, but this concern is not unfounded. That leads me to say, bitterly, that the horrific heteronomy of another country would be the lesser of two evils compared to the huge danger I fear.

advocate of a pragmatic pacifism


open box
close the box

Olaf Müller does not reject acts of war per se, there are morally correct acts of war for him too. He therefore calls himself a “pragmatic pacifist”. This distinguishes him from ethics and Christian pacifists, who advocate an absolute moral ban on war, says Müller. He describes his attitude as follows: “I always have to be prepared for situations in which there is every indication that the use of weapons will help prevent a much worse evil than the damage that will result from the use of weapons on both sides.” In his eyes, an example of this is the Allied war against Nazi Germany.

Would you argue the same way if you taught in Kiev or Mariupol instead of Berlin?

If I were directly affected, I would have pleaded for capitulation long beforehand – because I don’t want my country to be shot up. There are also Ukrainian pacifists who say the same thing. The occupation of a country is not an irreversible thing, it changes again. But the dead are dead forever – and so far 40,000 to 50,000 Ukrainian civilians alone may have been killed in the war.

If Putin gets away with the nuclear threat and can simply take over a sovereign country like Ukraine – if this sets a precedent: what kind of world are we living in then?

In my book, I spoke with a heavy heart in favor of equipping NATO’s eastern border with martial defense systems so that the Russian army would not even think of trying to advance further. This deterrence logic would not be stable in the long term, but it would be wise in the current situation.

In this case, wouldn’t the potential for escalation exist at NATO’s eastern border?

That’s right – so it shouldn’t be left at that in the long run. But in the short term, the deterrence should be so great that Putin cannot fool himself a second time: He assumed that the Ukrainians would welcome the Russians and that his army was powerful. This must not happen a second time.

The conversation was conducted by Simone Hulliger.

source site-72