Although it seems paradoxical in nature, the question must be asked: can violence be ethical? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word “ethical” is defined as “following accepted rules of behavior” and “morally right and good.” For this reason, violence is often automatically dubbed unethical, while the reality is not so straightforward. Two recent situations, the United States invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2013, demonstrate how in certain situations violence is necessary and ethical, while in others it is immoral. In the first instance, the invasion, while not desirable, was just; however, in the second, the violence was clearly unethical. Although political violence is never optimal, it can be justified under certain conditions, such as to prevent the harm of a group of people, and only when all other options have been exhausted, or when the violence is defensive.

While preemptive violence is often unethical, it can be justified if it is utilized to prevent the imminent harm of a group of people with minimal harm to innocents. When the U.S. government invaded Afghanistan, the motive was to remove the Taliban from power and close terrorist camps, thus protecting thousands of people from future terrorist attacks and liberating Afghan citizens. As the Taliban continued to harbor Al Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the attack on September 11th, it was highly probable if not inevitable that more attacks of this kind would continue. Although the primary purpose was to protect American citizens, the U.S. also intended to help the Afghan people, particularly women, as they were severely abused and denied rights under Taliban rule. As all motives of this invasion were centered on helping and protecting innocents, it was ethical. By contrast, the Russian invasion of Crimea was unethical, as the motive was unrelated to protecting innocents and in fact violated basic human rights. The purposes behind the invasion were to gain land and fuel the pro-Russian revolt occurring in Ukraine.These motivations would neither protect nor help people in any way, which should be a central purpose if violence is ultimately called upon. Moreover, many civilians were subjected to a loss of rights, including abduction and torture. In addition, the Russian military violently forced several minority groups out of Crimea, with numerous members of these groups killed in the process. This clearly shows that Russia did not invade with the safety of the people in mind and instead caused innocents to be harmed.

Additionally, if all possible peaceful solutions have been attempted, but have not been sufficient, then a solution involving violence can be considered morally acceptable. Before the U.S. government began the attack on Afghanistan, a set of conditions was laid down, and if met, the military would not have carried through the invasion. President Bush demanded the Taliban close terrorist training camps, hand over Al Qaeda leaders responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and return all detained foreign nationals. The Taliban initially refused to comply, but under the threat of impending war, agreed to return the American citizens. However, they still refused to meet the other requirements. Only after the Taliban failed to fully meet these demands did the U.S. initiate the strikes against Afghanistan. Although the Taliban did agree to partially meet the demands, this was not sufficient to avoid war, especially with the proximity of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. By laying down these demands before striking, the U.S. first attempted peaceful solutions and only when there was no other acceptable compromise left did the government attack. By the same argument, the invasion of Crimea cannot be justified. The Russian military forces invaded because they felt Crimea should still be part of Russia. Russia first spread propaganda, convincing Crimeans that Russia had come to free them. Although according to Russian propaganda the Russian military was there to liberate the Crimeans, in actuality their motive was far from this. When the Russian military invaded Crimea, due to the propaganda and Russian ancestry of a great number of Crimeans, many citizens embraced the annexation. Instead of attempting peaceful negotiations with Ukraine or allowing the Crimeans to democratically decide whether or not to secede Ukraine, Russia simply invaded without warning.

Finally, defense is a third case in which political violence can be justified. The invasion of Afghanistan was a direct reaction to the attack of the World Trade Center. As the Al Qaeda terrorist group, protected by the Afghanistan government, had just recently attacked the United States, the invasion was an act of defense. The U.S. government could not let these terrorists go unpunished, free to strike again. Thus, the U.S. and its allies attacked the Taliban to defend the country and American citizens, as well as other countries, from more devastating attacks such as the one on September 11th. The fact that it was an act of defense, in response to an attack, is another reason proving the invasion was ethical. By contrast, the invasion of Crimea was unprovoked. There was no provocation or attack by Ukraine prompting the Russian military to invade Crimea. Instead, Putin’s motives were solely in the interest of gaining power. Annexing Crimea gave Russia a geographical advantage in terms of defending its border. It also resulted in economic benefits for Russia, as Crimea gave it control over an increased number of oil and gas lines. These were the true motives behind Russia’s invasion; unlike the invasion of Afghanistan, the Crimean invasion was not provoked or for defense, and was thus an example of unethical political violence.

One might argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was unjust or the annexing of Crimea was actually ethical. But, according to the standard created—violence is ethical when preventing the harm of people, as a last resort, or in defense—it is clear that these arguments can be easily refuted. One might consider the U.S. attack unjust because the soldiers killed many Afghan civilians during the war. From the initial attack to the present, approximately twenty thousand civilians have been killed. However, although the U.S. military possibly should not have stayed in Afghanistan for as long as it did, the initial attack can still be justified. Initially, the U.S. and its allies were unaware that this many innocents would be killed; in fact, one of their aims was to liberate the citizens by putting a better government in place. Additionally, they were aware that refraining from attacking Afghanistan would mean sacrificing more innocent American lives in future terrorist attacks. Supporters of Russia’s annexation of Crimea may make the statement that many Crimean people were in favor of joining Russia to justify the invasion. Though this may be true, it still does not make the violent acts committed ethical. Crimea was formerly part of Russia and many civilians thought that it should rejoin Russia, thus justifying, in the Russian government’s mind, the 2013 invasion. But, the invasion remains unethical because the citizens were not given the chance to make a democratic decision and many of their rights were ignored in the process. Additionally, Russia violently seized Ukrainian land without an ethical justification.

The situations mentioned, the invasions of Afghanistan and Crimea, clearly exhibit how, depending on the circumstances and motivations, political violence may or may not be ethical. The standard created is universal and can be used to evaluate all cases of political violence. If the motivation for the violence is the prevention of the harm of a group of people, or defense, or all other options have been exhausted, only then can the act of violence be considered just. The invasion of Afghanistan was a direct retaliation to the attack on September 11th to protect and liberate innocents, and peaceful solutions were attempted prior to taking action. The invasion of Crimea lacked provocation and the attempt of a nonviolent compromise; it harmed, rather than helped, civilians. Based on the above criteria and evidence, the case of the attack on Afghanistan can be justified, while the annexation of Crimea is obviously unjust.

Bibliography

"Bush Announces Strikes Against Taliban." Washington Post. October 7, 2001. Accessed March 8, 2015.

"Ethical." Merriam-Webster. January 1, 2015. Accessed March 5, 2015.

Friedman, Uri. "Putin's Playbook: The Strategy Behind Russia's Takeover of Crimea.” The Atlantic. March 2, 2014. Accessed March 21, 2015.

Kramer, Andrew, and Michael Gordon. "Ukraine Reports Russian Invasion on a New Front.” The New York Times. August 27, 2014. Accessed March 18, 2015.

Rogers, Simon, and Mona Chalabi. "Afghanistan Civilian Casualties." Theguardian. April 12, 2013. Accessed April 2, 2015.

Rubin, Alissa. "Rebelling Against Abuse, Afghan Women See Signs of Change." The New York Times. May 27, 2014. Accessed April 3, 2015.

Somin, Ilya. "Crimea Under Russian Occupation." Washington Post. March 19, 2015. Accessed March 21, 2015.

Somin, Ilya. "Don’t Forget about Russia’s Invasion and Occupation of Crimea.” Washington Post. August 28, 2014. Accessed March 11, 2015.

Templeton, Tom, and Tom Lumley. "9/11 in Numbers." Theguardian. August 17, Accessed April 3, 2015.

Wintour, Patrick, Kamal Ahmed, Ed Vulliamy, Ian Traynor, and Jabal Saraj. "It's Time for War, Bush and Blair Tell Taliban." Theguardian. October 7, 2001. Accessed March 21, 2015.