2nd March 2022
Just a quick post tonight to ask a question to which I do not know the answer.
If – as a matter of Realpolitik – the invasion of Ukraine could be brought to an end by an amnesty for Putin, would that be a price worth paying?
Would it be worth excusing him from any war crimes prosecution just so as to bring the invasion to an end?
Or should there be an absolute insistence that, whatever happens, Putin must face a war crimes prosecution?
What do you think?
Realpolitik or universal war crimes jurisdiction?
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
Surely the traditional, realpolitik, answer here is yes, give the guy a pardon, a condition of which is that he steps down and retires from public life, then he conveniently drinks some bad tea 6 months later?
Actually, this probably explains why Putin wouldn’t go for an amnesty even if offered. The place he is in mentally means he cannot conceive of others acting in ways other than he would…
I fear you present a false dichotomy and, nevertheless, I can’t imagine Putin has any fear of being hauled before the ICC for war crimes.
Even were this to be a proposal, would you suggest letting him retain his war gains, or would it be dependant upon him retreating behind the original Ukrainian borders, including relinquishing Crimea?
I can’t see any of that as within his imagined realm of compromise.
In other words, ‘ is the insistence on prosecuting Putin worth one more single innocent Ukrainian life – never mind hundreds or thousands more?”
If he is effectively and permanently removed from office and power, I reckon it would take a very hard man or woman to insist of sacrificing more lives and more suffering; even at the risk of precedence and moral hazard. There is no such thing as right or wrong here, just consequences. If not: totally out of the question. In practical terms the removal would probably come first, in which case the question wouldn’t arise. Also, if “pardoned” he would still spend the rest of his (possibly not very long) life looking over his shoulder.
My immediate response would be to grant the reprieve in exchange for avoiding the terrible bloodshed that is unfolding. But it would have to be accompanied by some process that restores and imbeds democracy and the rule of law to Russia.
An excellent question.
The potential long-term and short-term implications are worth thinking about.
Would an amnesty encourage others to try their luck in the belief that should they fail, they too might be offered an amnesty?
Does the threat of the invasion being seen as a war crime lead to Putin pushing harder in the belief that the victors write history?
There’s no easy answer – especially when Putin doesn’t appear to be acting in the most rational fashion.
But the prospect is stopping the war is a appealing one – but would it be stopping or or simply delaying it?
I would want to hear what the President of Ukraine had to say before expressing a view.
I like your answer. My immediate thought was ‘no, I want to see Putin brought to the Hague to answer for all of this,’ but asking the Ukrainian President is a better move.
Thanks, Finty. Others have put a lot of intellect into answering a question that isn’t going to arise. I answered with my emotions. Ukraine voted for a comedian and got a president. We elected a prime minister and got a comedian – and not a very good one at that.
An academic question. Firstly, it assumes that Putin is rational enough to consider a deal. That seems unlikely. Secondly, Russia has no extradition treaty AFAIK.
Many people will want to see Putin pay for his reckless and callous actions. However, when I think of Justice, I strongly believe (like William Blackstone) that the protection of the innocent is far more important than the prosecution of the guilty.
Extending that analogy, I think that saving the lives of innocent people is also more important than the prosecution of Putin and I do think, therefore, that it would be a price worth paying.
First of all I would like to say how much I enjoy reading your informative and interesting commentary on a wide range of issues. Thank you very much for the time and the energy you put in your posts.
As regards your question- it’s certainly a difficult one. I feel that Ukrainian people are, or should be, the only ones who can legitimately make a choice in this sense, as they are the ones who have been directly affected by these awful events. Despite the fact that many others might have really strong feelings and opinions in this regard (myself included), I think the answer is one that only those people who have actually lived through these events can legitimately give.
While I agree with you on an emotional level, is that not akin to having the victim of a crime serve as the judge (not the jury) in the criminal case resulting from that crime? And do the reasons why we don’t permit that to happen not apply equally here?
That’s the wrong analogy. The Ukrainian people would be in the position of a victim who has the choice of whether or not to press charges.
I am not Ukrainian and clearly cannot speak for those currently suffering and in the direct line of fire, but if Putin could really be trusted to stop what he’s doing on those terms then I might well be in favour for the sake of the rest of the world… but…
The utilitarian calculation implied by this question needs to reach beyond the era of Putin. It must take into account the fact of other dictators around the world, and the certainty of other dictators in the future.
Thinking globally and long-term, I think it is unwise to signal that we will allow war crimes to go unpunished. That will only encourage more war crimes, and more death.
I can see your reasoning in this, however I have to disagree, as dictators are addicted to power. To them, the thought of giving up power would be unthinkable
Sure, but the ICC does not (or should not) punish dictators (i.e. Heads of State). It could punish other functionaries, including those not drunk on power but who nevertheless follow orders. I think there are a class of people who are discouraged from committing or ordering war crimes because of the ICC.
Having said that, your overall point is correct: Putin is probably not ‘rational’ in the sense we are discussing here.
It would undoubtedly be worth giving him an amnesty in exchange for stopping the war. The scale of death and destruction we are about to see will be colossal and horrific, and an amnesty would be a very small price foravoiding it.
Unfortunately though, I don’t think this is a realistic scenario. Putin won’t stop hostilities without having some way of claiming victory – anything less would be an intolerable blow to his ego. And in any case he won’t believe that he needs an amnesty, because he will assess his risk of ever being brought before an international court as remote.
Amnesty for Putin would only work if it is such that it ensures he can never gain levers of power. He therefore can never return to Russia.
However he has too many client leaders in countries we do not even know were involved (Eritrea as per UN vote). Who knows where he holds assets and who are the intermediaries.
Realistically, world is not safe unless his residence after amnesty is at St Helena and he is guarded by neutral forces.
So, I see no way but for him to face public court proceedings. In any case these would be far fairer and less degrading than any he inflicted on Khodorkovsky or Navalny.
This sounds like a question for a moral philosophy seminar. There are various issues.
First: take the question “Can it ever be right to do, or refrain from doing, A in order to avert, or cause, B?” How can we be certain that the intended effect will follow from the posited cause? Rarely. If we can be certain, how do we weigh the comparative outcomes? By some form of first or second order utilitarianism? Those theories have their own problems (eg what if the criminal *really* derives more pleasure from the crime than the victim(s) suffer pain as a result of it?).
If not by a version of a utilitarian calculus then how? By the imposition of some absolutist attributions of “aggregate goodness” to the desired outcome as against the alternative? But then we cannot be sure what the alternative would be. The future is rarely determined by the state of the world *now* and a posited causal intervention. So do we have to calculate the possibilities of all potential alternative futures, attribute some “net rightness” (or net utility value) to each of them and then work out the “expected net rightness” (or utility) of all possible alternative future states of affairs?
Take the question “would it have been right to kill Hitler to avoid the holocaust?”. We would presumably agree that killing is usually wrong, and not what *should* be done. On any utilitarian calculation it’s hard to imagine that the pain of 6M people could ever be less than the satisfaction felt by one person. But, how can we be certain that killing Hitler would have prevented the genocide? Maybe some other leader of the Nazis would have emerged who would have been even more “evil” and have been responsible for even more suffering. We can’t know. We could try (pretty artificially) to ascribe probabilities to worse people than Hitler coming to power, or less evil persons, and then make an assessment of the likely consequences…. You will see where this is going.
The short point is that it seems to be very difficult, if not impossible, as a matter of principle, to construct a useful theory of morality of action which is even capable of being applied to these types of counterfactual problems.
And if that’s right, then what alternative is there, practically, if we want a theory that should tell us either “Should I do X?” or “Is it acceptable to do X?”, to a theory of morality based on absolute moral imperatives?
More questions than answers. But life, and even realpolitik, are both more complex than we might like. Which is, of course, why so many politicians like to offer up three word slogans, rather than a considered analysis, in answer to questions whose inherent complexity is often obscured by their apparent simplicity.
This was very much what I wanted to say, so thank you Julian.
The ‘trolley problem’ – would you pull the lever to save 5, knowing that you’d kill one?
Napoleon being exiled to Saint-Helena.
Realpolitik wins.
Not just the Trolley Problem, but cf Causing Deaths and Saving Lives, which I re-read recently. Whilst a bit out of date in some respects, it’s still a good starting point for the layman and for one-time students(!)
Just added that to my ‘books to buy’ list.
Thanks again, Julian (and David!)
If Putin were to order a complete withdrawal from Ukraine then it would be difficult to do anything to him immediately.
If there is a rebellion e. g. the Russian army turned on him and the way to stop bloodshed was to let him retire to St Helena then it would be really hard to justify denying him that – would it be worth one child’s life to lock him up after a trial?
In reality the question is unlikely to arise. The description of the Russian polity as absolutism moderated by assassination was not a joke.
Tyrants don’t do amnesty because whatever they do is justified in their own mind. They do, however, spend their latter days always looking over their shoulders. There is no retirement, no relaxation, no sleeping soundly in their own bed. When the end comes, it comes suddenly and with no one to hold their hand.
it’s late and there are no comments that I can see .. so, rushing in where angels fear to tread ..
I’d want to see the terms of the amnesty. Maybe some sort of exile? Elba wouldn’t cut it. More like General Zod and the Phantom Zone. But that was the result of a trial. At the end of the day an amnesty is just a deal, isn’t it? Someone still has to sign off on it, so the question of the legitimacy of the deal is moot.
Anything punitive, whether a deal or a formal sentence, and he becomes a martyr. As the Field of the Blackbirds shows, the Orthodox world dearly loves a martyr.
If forgoing retribution on Putin would end the war and so save lives, however few, I’d happily forgo retribution. The atavistic urge to punish that seems to be part of human DNA has done more harm over the centuries than good.
But that still leaves the practical problem of how to render him ineffectual for the future without making him a martyr. Otherwise you’re ending one war but the price of that is another war, maybe even another war in Ukraine, a few years down the line. Amnesty or trial .. how do you future-proof it?
Having read the history of Nato expansion eastward post the Soviet collapse, it is evident that Putin’s is in no doubt that Gorbachev was promised by Sec of State James Baker and others that Nato would not incorporate into Nato former Soviet satellites. Putin and a few other Russian elites believe that America went back on its word within five years of such assurances. Therefore, given this distrust, Putin would out of hand discard an amnesty proposal offered to him by Washington if Russia withdrew from Ukraine now or after conquering the country.
The key book to read on this issue is Not One Inch by Mary Elise Sarotte, [2021]. Reading it, one can understand why a former KGB officer {of a superpower brought down without a shot being fired} could hold such a paranoid grievance and resentment towards the adversaries who once respected and feared the Soviet Union.
My view is that Putin, like Hitler, would prefer to commit suicide rather then subject himself to trail or to be pardoned by his ‘enemies’.
Reneging on a past commitment not to extend NATO borders, is no excuse for the aggressive barbarous invasion of a sovereign nation of 30 years standing.
While Ukraine has sovereign entitlement to enter treaties – political defensive or economic, Realpolitik based on its closeness to Russia should be paramount in its decision making process. Its knowledge and experience of Russia’s earlier aggression in Grozny Georgia as well as Donbas should have been guided it’s thinking more effectively.
Expectations by the West were raised too high and too soon. A ‘Swiss’ style neutrality would have sufficed for the foreseeable future with a an incremental trade association with EU – to assuage the it’s neighbour from conducting a repeat of former aggressions
Expectations have been raised
If Putin must face a war crimes trial, so should Blair, Bush, the Saudi leadership and the Israeli civilian and military leadership, all of whom are responsible for multiple and egregious violations of international humanitarian norms and laws. There cannot be one law for one and none for another. Without consistently applied accountability, the cycle of violence is reinforced.
Good q. I’d favour an amnesty, a false identity and a quiet retirement. Gotta make it easier for those guys to give up. If they know they’re to face a war crimes tribunal if they lose, then they’ll never stop and more innocent people will die.
Although it pains me slightly to say, I believe the answer is yes, he should be offered an amnesty in that situation, and if he accepted it then it should be honoured to the end of his days.
As we know, there is a legal notion of sovereign immunity from suit (and I don’t think many would argue that he is a sovereign in all but name), although I imagine that is applicable mainly in domestic matters.
But primarily, there is the practical consideration that the same alternative offered to future despots, and examples of its past applications, might persuade them not to pursue their aims to the bitter end, like Hitler. Also, it would persuade their loyal followers not to obey their orders too blindly, knowing that the boss had a get out of jail card which the followers might lack!
Throughout history, dictators have known they are holding a wolf by the ears and that there is no going back once the Rubicon has been crossed and atrocities (whether human or constitutional) committed.
There is no way Julius Caesar, to take but one example of many, could have stepped down after his Gallic campaigns when his misguided opponents were openly threatening to disarm him (literally) and destroy him by legal means.
Only a small handful of despots , such as Lucius Cornelius Sulla, to my knowledge have ever voluntarily retired (and Sulla had 10,000 of his loyal army veterans to guard him!).
Talking of the Devil above, the next question perhaps is should Hitler have been offered an amnesty, in 1944 say, before his total defeat was obviously inevitable? Where does one draw the line?
Blimey. You do ask the big questions don’t you?
FWIW, he needs an exit, an off-ramp, to let him get out without complete loss of face. I’m attracted to the idea that an amnesty would help, but I’m not convinced that he’s actually in the right place to see it as a solution. He’d have to admit, tacitly or explicitly, that he was somehow in the wrong. I don’t see him doing that. His whole investment is in his autocratic, uncriticised, infallibility.
I’d not think he’d accept an amnesty…
But, if it worked (v big if) and saved lives, then yes.
If, though unlikely, the offer of such an amnesty took Putin permanently off the scene (and left Ukraine independent, or largely so) it would be an excellent outcome. The threat of ICC prosecution, satisfying as it might seem, would be likely to extend the bloodshed; further loss of life could not justify a stand on such principle.
Insisting that the perpetrator of a crime is hanged for it regardless of the consequences to the innocent seems to be motivated by darker sentiments than those that should support notions of justice. Even if there were a Realpolitik solution that didn’t provide for justice at law by means of an amnesty bargain, it would seem better to me – and probably most people under bombardment – than a minute more of hellfire in the Ukraine.
‘Legal’ bargains could reasonably be offered ‘up front’ to Generals and other commanders who may realistically end up in the dock for war crimes. The carrot of a ‘get out of jail free’ card for demonstrable cooperation in bringing a war to an end is a useful way of subverting the effectiveness of enemy armies.
I think it’s supposed to be spies who do that sort of thing rather than courts though.
I doubt that Putin would give a tinker’s curse about a war crimes prosecution, so he would shrug off an offer of amnesty as a, to him, meaningless gesture. He seems impervious to both world opinion and punitive sanctions, wholly in the grip of his ideological obsession with historical revisionism and divided nation theory. The only hope is that his own people turn on him, but would that happen in time to stop the slaughter in Ukraine?
Universal war crimes jurisdiction. If Putin is given an amnesty, it would set a wrong precedent.
Deepak Tripathi
Fabulous question.
The threat of war crimes will not trouble him on jot.
He will cite that ‘Western’ leaders have committed worse ‘war crimes’ in recent history and not one of them have been taken to court.
He could cite many examples which would include invading countries for economic reasons, legitimising torture but to name a couple of examples.
And let us not gloss over what Israel is doing to the civilian population of the Gaza. This is a clear example of a crime committed by many successive administrations.
That said, those around him may be more aware of the impact on their lives.
In the aftermath of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, Putin was ejected from the G8 and faced sanctions. Meanwhile, we also know that since then he has had a “palace” constructed near Sochi, that he has purchased an 80-metre mega yacht that fled a German shipyard just a couple of days before the invasion and that, i the Panama Papers are to be believed, he has literally billions of dollars in stolen funds hidden in offshore accounts.
We also know that his response to 2014’s sanctions against his country was to immediately start to build the foreign currency reserve war chest he thought he would need to allow him to implement this latest attack on Ukraine.
In other words, all the evidence we have is that unless Putin himself personally experiences the consequences of his actions, then inaction on the part of the world community is just going to reinforce the idea that what he has done, twice, can be done without consequence. He will do it again (Georgia?) and again (Finland?) and again (Sweden?).
And more: what about the lesson that a failure to act would send to other autocrats?
What needs to happen this time is that the punishments need to hit Putin, not simply Russian citizens.
Disclaimer: if Justice were truly served, then Tony Blair and George W. Bush would have stood trial at The Hague for War Crimes for their illegal and baseless second Gulf War against Iraq. hen we implement something in a capricious, partisan and inconsistent way, we can’t really call it “the law”.
I assume that it is misrepresenting the facts to their respective elected houses that Bush/Blair stand accused of? In and of itself, that is exactly the same crime that our current prime minister appears to be guilty of too.
In the case that a deception like that could be shown in a court to be both intentional, and the decisive factor in getting a vote through to start a war, does that make it a war crime per se? I’m happy to be corrected, but I thought a ‘war crime’ was a criminal action taken in the execution of warfare, rather than in the production of a democratic vote that caused the declaration?
Based on a read of the International Criminal Court’s definition, I agree you are correct. But the point you raise opens the door to a frankly more alarming issue…
That today, if an “elected” leader were to order their military to conduct an illegal war on a neighbour, then the ICC does not classify that initial order – even if such an order would implicitly include the taking of civilian life – as a war crime.
Reading more deeply, what I can make out (not a lawyer) is that the triggering event that takes one nation to the point of war with another would [must] be at least a de facto [if not de jure] instruction from an elected official through to the designated head of the military, who would be responsible for directing the rest of the military to act.
This strikes me as interesting because it suggests that President Putin may in fact have established a basis in law for his actions that are entirely lawful in Russia, but the moment that order translates into military action on foreign soil, this can immediately result in war crimes for participants.
Remarkable to me in that it suggests that the punishment for participants could easily become far more severe than for that of the instigator.
But I’d still like to see this argued in court. Especially when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine gives us a case of such stark simplicity as President Putin instructing his military – in effect if not literally – to, “Go and seize Ukraine through the use of military force”.
This warrants a lot more discussion and I would be fascinated to see one that involved subject matter experts.
It is possible to argue that our government is currently committing a genocide against our GRT community without being at war or even killing anyone. I would campaign to see our Home secretary in the dock at the ICC if I thought it might work. She acts deliberately to destroy the Romany way of life against their reasonable presented objections, and that is genocide. On the other hand, it’s at least theoretically possible to destroy an entire ‘people’ ipso facto during a war without committing a genocide: Putting paid to the last of the ‘unmet’ tribes in the Andaman’s as an unintended consequence of landing there for tactical reasons during a war, for example ( nobody there has been vaccinated for anything ever ).
I don’t think you can shower an inhabited city with indiscriminate cluster bombs without making Judges at the ICC frown pretty hard. By that yardstick, Dresden was undoubtedly an horrific pre meditated terror campaign unleashed on innocent civilians. The modern ICC would likely have seen Hurst locked up for it along with with Hess. Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Er, it can’t happen again …
Conducting the Nuremberg trials was understood to be an enormous political risk at the time, as putting law and war in the same room seems absurd in several significant ways. Perhaps it only ever comes to public attention when there is a new mass murderer on the rampage, because the last thing power wants discussed openly are its own absurd consequences.
The debate deserves time.
Politicians like Johnson and (possibly) Blair who wilfully deceive Parliament deserve no more public attention or time than any other famous person who happens to get fired for gross misconduct.
The concept of personal justice (accountability) to the international community must be set aside if (as you possit) it delays an end to the war. Pleasing as it would be to see Putin answer for the war crimes being committed now, it cannot be justified if it extends the war by a single day since hundreds, if not thousands are killed or injured each day that the conflict rages – they would be denied the basic human right to life: what of them?. Equally, and isolated Putin, in charge or a very large military and nuclear weapons, with nothing (personally) to lose, could broaden the war.
We are told that some 7000 Russian soldiers have already died for Putin’s whim – surely, the first call for justice ought to be an internal Russian one when, finally, he is removed from power. It is impossible to see a restoration of Russia’s place in the international community whilst Putin continues to hold power in the nation.
First thing is first – let’s end the bloodshed.
Reading the replies on here, I’m impressed by DAG’s readership that can have – and share – different views without descending into bickering.
There’s obviously interest in the question and people seem to want to explore the issue rather than just scream out their views.
I wonder if the Twitter response will be similar.
Absolutely, yes, in my opinion, at least as long as it was conditional upon no further offensive military activity by the Russian state on his watch. Putin is a vile apology for a human being, but, given how the West is constrained, anything which ends the bloodshed in Ukraine and restores peace to that poor country is acceptable.
If the price of peace is allowing Putin a peaceful old age, that is acceptable to me. The greatest good to the greatest number calculus is pretty clear. And I don’t buy “to encourage the others” as no despot has ambitions for a boring retirement.
Fantastic thread – pure Moral Maze territory.
I’m no advocate of amnesty, Putin and the Russian leadership need to stand trial.
Would get much support as it undermines International law so fundamentally?
Could Putin be pardoned after standing trial and found guilty? Not really much point in that.
Bloodshed and killing is the inevitable consequence of warfare. To try to soften it is also counter-productive.
The best recent analogy is the Vietnam war, a major power attacking a small relatively defenceless country to stop the perceived threat from another state, China.
The onslaught on the people of Vietnam North and South was terrifying and the weapons used were indiscriminate. The Vietnamese people won a guerilla war to emerge as a relatively successful country with which the US now has friendly relations.
That can be the outcome for Ukraine and Russia. But first Russia like the US must retreat, no amnesty for Putin or his supporters.
There have been a lot of very good answers already, but for what it’s worth here’s mine. In a hypothetical world with universal jurisdiction for the court, this is a very hard question which can only be answered by the people of Ukraine during actual negotiations. For me, saving of innocent lives trumps thoughts of justice or revenge, and even of deterrence given that the theoretical prospect of prosecution doesn’t seem to have deterred him in this case.
But there’s another answer I need to give. In the world we actually live in, the court’s writ doesn’t run to Russia, or indeed to the USA. These countries are among those which do not recognise the court for their own citizens, and being nuclear powers there is no way any other country is going to send an army in to seize their president. So, unless there’s a change of government in Russia and the new government finds it convenient to get Putin out of the way, the only effect of a prosecution would be to make him unable to leave Russia. That’s a fairly trivial consequence and for me it tips the balance decisively, albeit also meaning that the offer of amnesty is of less value to Putin. Recognising that Putin can’t in reality be prosecuted means that there’s no real precedent set for some Serbian warlord in future. So, sadly, realpolitik wins in this case.
I’ve been thinking about this since Assad used chemical weapons. These people are clearly terrified of being tried for war crimes so they’ll do anything and everything to retain power. So I would be in favor of giving them a means iOS relinquishing that power if it means saving lives.
But they will still be a target so perhaps we could create an exile zone (Elba?) where they can live out their days knowing that they aren’t going to get assassinated
St Helena?
Yes, subject to satisfactory conditions, including:
(A) total withdrawal from sovereign Ukraine territory
(B) he must go into exile from Russia
(C) his assets are frozen and returned to the Russian state after letting him have whatever pension &c he is legitimately entitled to
As others have said, without buy-in from Ukraine such a deal would leave a taste, because primarily it is their sacrifice which we’d be trying to end.
Wearing my amateur psychologist’s hat, is it not the case that for people like Putin to lose power and slink off in ignominy is to be feared almost as much as, say, a martyr’s death?
Are there really any circumstances where Putin would accept an amnesty? And what about all those who have connived in and profited from his policies, ranging from Lavrov and Medvedev to the oligarchs? Removing one man doesn’t seem likely to tackle the repression, corruption and war-mongering endemic in the Russian state, and the threat Russia poses the world.
I feel the word ‘if’ is carrying a lot of weight here. The assumption seems to be that Putin is nuts or has made a mistake. But what if Putin has made a perfectly rational decision – he wants and plans to keep Ukraine. So, nice idea but a non runner.
I suspect all this talk of ‘an error’ or ‘he’s mad’ is merely Western propaganda and a cover for our inability to do anything.
Cast our minds forward 6 months. Putin may be mopping up in Ukraine and has secured a huge land mass and breadbasket. Who cares if the West makes a fuss, he can sell his gas and oil eastwards. Most likely the West will compromise and we can all be besties again and those oligarch properties can return to their owners. The money will level up eventually.
Cast our minds forward 20 years and we may find China and Russia the dominant power bloc and we Europeans have grown a liking for long johns and mittens.
Not very nice but that’s realpolitik.
During the Northern Ireland peace process, there was an acceptance (still controversial to some) that allowing certain criminals to avoid justice was a price worth paying to save lives and to gain security and prosperity in the future. Morally, I felt at the time that was a fair decision, and still do. If the same principle could stop war in this case, I would not object on moral grounds. Ultimately, the needs of the living prevail over the needs of the dead.
However, what I don’t see is a motivation for Putin to take the deal. Surrendering for purely personal reasons would seem to dramatically increase the likelihood of a coup – it would be tantamount to admitting that he wasn’t acting in the interests of Mother Russia after all, and it’s hard to see the military continuing to support him in that case – and a coup poses more immediate threats.
After all, if he retains power, then there’s no realistic way for him to be prosecuted. At worst, he might have to stay within Russia’s borders for the rest of his life – not a big deal. But if there’s a coup, and even if that coup can’t result in him being extradited to the Hague, there’s no guarantee the new regime wouldn’t punish him domestically.
I can’t see any value in the deal, ultimately, because I can’t see any way that Putin would accept it.
Reflections on Putin’s background state that during his youth he once cornered a rat that then viciously attacked him and gave him a live long lesson: Cornered rats are extremely dangerous.
There is good reason for the fact that in most situations heads of state and their close helpers are allowed to leave to a neutral territory as a price for a peaceful end to wars and comparable situations.
I’m a lawyer myself and do not have to like this, but see this as part of ‘the price to pay’…
How are ordinary hostage situations handled in criminal law?
Consider a bank robber when the police arrived faster than he had planned, so he takes the staff and customers of the bank hostage and threatens to kill them.
In many countries the police would presumably initially do anything to keep the hostages as safe as possible, even let him get away with the money initially, but afterwards they’d still try to catch him and he would be prosecuted for the crimes he committed.
I’m not a legal expert, but I don’t think you’d legally get out of the responsibility for crimes by threatening to kill people.
Putin’s war is on a much larger scale, but is it conceptually or philosophically any different from hostage situations that jurisdictions all over the world face regularly?
In both situations there may be practical problems (perhaps the bank robber escapes to a country where we can’t arrest him), but that doesn’t change the philosophical case, no?
I don’t think Putin would take an Amnesty.
His wealth is so vast that it acts like a ginormous padded cell. From what l can summise from reports is that Putin dreams of recreating the old Soviet Union and is waging his own Winter War, this time on Ukraine. Putin isn’t that stupid to realise that he has to destroy Civilian areas to try and take or break Ukraine. He doesn’t care.
I Bet Putin avoids windows, cats at the top of stairs, door handles and has a food taster though.
Here’s my question – if his court defenestrate him, do we let them blame the whole thing on him and avoid investigation?
Does he even care about an amnesty? He seems very happy to spend his time in Russia.
If he’s offered some face-saving way out of this that leaves him in power and also lifts some of the sanctions for humanitarian reasons, he will see that an opportunity to continue his current tightening of his grip on Russia.
Having all his closest collaborators marked as war criminals and liable to be arrested if they leave the country would surely be a lovely bonus for him.
If this emerged as a way to stop this war, I’d say grab it with both hands to avoid the immediate deaths and destruction.
Then our New World Order can take some time to reflect and decide how it wants to deal with Russia in the long term.
It’s an interesting hypothetical, but I don’t see how could ever be a practical reality.
If Putin retains power, why would he care about any attempted war crimes prosecution?
If Putin doesn’t retain power, what possible weight would he place on any such promise regarding his legal liability, over and above that trust he would already need in delegating his personal security to those in power such a scenario anyway?
If a proposed exile from power (either under a new Russian regime, or a foreign one) was one he’d put his trust in to protect his personal security enough to go to that exile willingly (or even begrudgingly), that already requires more than enough trust on his part to surpass the level of trust required in a theoretical war crime amnesty, surely? Not that such an exile that he’d trust enough for him to relinquish power (the ultimate security) necessarily exists, of course.
For a podcast dealing with this complex issue, may I recommend Brian Klaas Power corrupts podcast. The relevant episode is “THE UNTHINKABLE OLIVE BRANCH”. https://www.powercorruptspodcast.com/episodes#/the-unthinkable-olive-branc/
Your last line should be translated as “Realpolitik or the rule of law?”.
Once you place justice in one scale-pan and the collaterally damaged infant corpse in the other, you are in effect allowing your enemy to hold the whole world to ransom.
We may mourn the deaths of bewildered Russian conscripts, but until enough of them are killed fast enough Putin’s (or his successor-junta’s) empire will continue to expand.
Pedantically, waging a war of aggression is not a war crime. Rudolph Hess, for example, was found guilty of waging aggressive war but not guilty of war crimes.
This is important legally as war crimes (and crimes against humanity) have been within the jurisdiction of the ICC for decades whereas the crime of aggression has not until quite recently (2018, IIRC) and has different rules on how it is investigated and prosecuted.
British law has not caught up, yet. The crime of aggression is still exempted from “ICC crimes” in the relevant legislation:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/17/section/1#term-icc-crime
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2001/13/section/28#term-icc-crime
I suppose if they did amend it they’d have to word it so it wasn’t retrospective which would be a bit embarrassing as it’d make it obvious they were covering for Blair and his mates.
I have an immediate problem: I am not very clear as to what a war crimes prosecution involves; and what enforcement powers are attached to it?
This is a classic philosophical puzzle. If we accept the stipulated set-up (i.e. if we accept that giving amnesty to Putin would end the war and save however many lives) then we can view the issue either as deontologists or as consequentialists.
The deontological ethical perspective maintains that there are unqualified moral imperatives like ‘don’t (ever) give amnesty to war criminals’. The consequentialist thinks that we ought to do the thing that brings about the best consequences.
Many of the comments here are implicitly consequentialist (and, in my view, rightly so); even if we exclude certain eventualities by stipulation (e.g. that Putin doesn’t take the amnesty), the thought experiment you’ve posed allows for significant variation in consequences. To mention just one possible outcome (as per Sproggit, above): what effect would providing amnesty have, say, on President Xi’s approach to Taiwan?
Since Putin is operating under an open Nuclear Umbrella and NATO is overtly unwilling to open its own, the probability of a situation arising where a negotiation could be tipped to conclusion by a marginal offer like this is very low, however amusing. We have to rely on the economic pressure, together with the resistance of the Ukrainians, to bring about an end to fighting and possibly the action of someone around Putin to bring an end to his reign. However, since at least some of Russia’s foreign policy position is based on a satire of the US/UK WMD story (Lavrov on an Ukrainian ‘plan’ to have nukes) we can see that there is no certainty that a replacement would be better. If we got one, then whether Putin was in jail or elsewhere is, frankly, immaterial.
My feeling is that the important thing is to bring it to an end, restore Ukraine’s position and have Russia withdraw and back down. If the cost of that is Putin being given a pass then so be it. He’s shown his teeth, maybe that will be enough, but everyone should be aware his regime is not anyone’s friend and trim their sails accordingly.
Re-reading this it sounds wishy-washy but that’s not my intent. I’m just trying to imagine a way in which everyone can find a way to move forward. It may not be what everyone wants but maybe, just maybe, it’s what everyone can grit their teeth and tolerate.
Fascinating questions & commentator responses.
I do however agree with Patrick Mackie, we the readers are being presented with false dichotomy.
The World after Obama really (really) doesn’t have a policeman ( or system) capable of enforcing amnesties of the scale we are now seeing or you are proposing – sure, we have the War Crimes Commission but it’s doubtful that Putin would recognise its authority.
– We’ve the UN that can puff & puff but it’s very hard to imagine Putin being frightened by being called before the Hague.
What we’re actually confronting now is something far more disconcerting – it’s real politik versus the emerging liberal post War order.
We’ve had it ‘good’ for a significantly long period since the end of WW2.
Like 9/11 the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is going to have implications & consequences for decades – metaphorically it has, in my view, tilted the World slightly on its axis – real politik combined with nature abhoring a vacuum will shape the new World Order in ways that cannot yet be forseen.
The quaint ideas of ‘amnesty’ and the perceived values (benefits) of liberalism will, in my view, be significantly challenged in the next few years by the emerging New World Order.
In the words of a blogger we know ‘ brace brace’.
In this scenario, Academia offers a safe retreat from reality. The idea that the threat of ICC proceedings would have any leverage over Putin, belongs in cloud cuckoo land.
International criminal law is the least effective way of encouraging compliance with the norms concerning resort to and conduct of armed conflict. If nothing else, one would have to get one’s hands on Putin to make it stick and he will visit nowhere where there was any chance of his being nabbed.
Tariq Aziz (aka Eight of Spades) walked freely, for example, around the UN Conf on Env and Development/Earth Summit, in Rio, in 1992.
The suggestion gives a new meaning to ‘the Power of Forgiveness’.
An interesting question and interesting answers to date. As a mathematical economist I would like to add the “risk” dimension. The hypothetical is that the offer of an amnesty now will save lives now – which feels plausible. However an amnesty now may also increase the chances of wars and loss of life in the future. So this is not a trivial calculation even before moral considerations.
Considering the blood on the hands of Blair, Bush, Obama, etc etc, all wandering around, racking up millions from milking their positions, I would say it’s obviously a price worth paying. I’d swap “not a putting one man in prison” for “God only knows how many thousands of people murdered” immediately. How many lives are “the principle of the thing worth”? Given our culture is, in effect, mostly without them these days. There is a big pot/kettle element to all this and for anyone tempted to go “We aren’t like the Russians”, I have only one thing to say – Julian Assange.
You seem to be comparing to our treatment of Assange to Putin’s treatment of the Ukrainian people. Not an analogy I find convincing.
No, I’m not comparing the two. If I wanted to compare invasions I could have stuck with Iraq. I was referring to the idea that we live in a democracy with a trustworthy legal system, wholly independent of the state. The cases of both Assange and Craig Murray both are enough to disabuse anybody that cares to see that we have similar issues, maybe just a little less overt, aka honest.
There is no long term solution to this which does not address Russia’s security concerns. The blanket refusal to do so 9despite warnings of the utter folly of this course of action from a simply astonishing number of Western experts, thinkers and diplomats, from Henry Kissinger to Noam Chomsky https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592) is the root cause of us being where we are
It reads as though you are arguing that it’s the fault of the West that an authoritarian state is slaughtering the people of a democratic state and destroying its fabric and infrastructure. Not an argument I find convincing.
Well, that goes to the heart of the question that our host has posed: realpolitik vs law. Was the annexation of Crimea illegal under international law? Yes. Was Russia EVER going to allow Sevastopol to become a Western naval base? No, of course not: that’s not Russia putting a base in Cuba, that’s them putting a base on Martha’s Vineyard. Was never going to happen – realpolitik. But conversely, the Maidan coup was also illegal, both under international and Ukrainian law, and we had no business recognising the new regime. That too was realpolitik. But you can’t call out the illegalities of Russia’s actions with acknowledging those of the West, unless you’re simply using law as another offensive tool.
The Russians have been SO straightforward in this all along: they have said repeatedly, in plain language such that it could not be misunderstood, that NATO expansion presented a security threat to them, and that it incorporating Ukraine and Georgia was a red line that they would HAVE to act on. Depending on your point of view, we either ignored them, or called their bluff. Repeatedly, Russia sought diplomatic routes to deal with the issue: repeatedly, the West refused to engage. Once Zelensky talked of undoing the Bucharest Agreement and acquiring nuclear weapons, Russia could not conceivably let that pass. Hell, look what we’re doing to Iran only on the theoretical possibility, not the stated intention, of them acquiring them.
So, how you assign ‘blame’ in that is complex, and certainly not anything like as one-sided as it’s being universally presented in our media.
But right now, blame is a feel-good side-show and actually only gets in the way of the urgent need: if you want to save lives, and avert WW3, realpolitik is the *only* stage where that is possible. Law won’t achieve that, any more than sanctions (warfare by another name) will. (And arguably, law is just another arm of politics anyway: look at the speed of the ICC announcing an investigation, compared to what they have steadfastly ignored for decades…)
I’m perfectly prepared to acknowledge that the West has made mistakes, though I’m not sure about illegalities. All I was saying is that nothing can possibly justify the brutality and illegality of what Putin is doing to Ukraine.
Thing is, if that were really true, they wouldn’t be happening any more. They continue precisely because they are justified – by Realpolitik. And there’s no difference between what we, the West, and the Russians do in that regard – in fact, I’d argue, the Russians (in this case) are responding to a much more direct and proximate threat than any used to justify Western interventions this century (other than the false 45-minute claim in 2002.)
Which again comes back to the (fascinating) question raised by our host. There is a vast disconnect between the behaviour of states and individuals, and law is not yet a really effective tool in dealing with the former (not least, because we blithely ignore or undermine it when it doesn’t suit us.)
It would be interesting to get a philosopher’s view on whether realpolitik can justify a grossly immoral act. I hope that the answer would be that it can’t. And what a pity that the Russian people have no say in the matter.
If I can use a word not often seen on this blog, it seems to me that the difference between us is that we have different sets of values.
I think the point is that morality and realpolitik operate on different planes: they’re not compatible. So, for instance, the idea that you could divine my values from what I’ve said about realpolitik is spurious. It doesn’t reflect my *personal* values in the slightest: I’ve never so much as thrown a punch as an adult, and I despise the gung-ho military mindset and war hawks who are the go-to commentators of choice for the mainstream media. That notwithstanding, if anything is going to solve this and stop further bloodshed, it will be realpolitik, not morality, and not law either.
If you’re interested, there’s a very interesting talk which touches on this very question, which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeeqooNWO48
Putin, in his closeted and isolated world away from reality (the body language with the long tables says it all) believes in his own propaganda and the advice from those yes men around him. Why would he think he needs amnesty? No more so than did Hitler who was making lebensraum for the German Nation. Putin believes the same. He aspires to resurrect the Russian Empire. He would laugh at any offer of amnesty!
The West is too scared to confront him now, as it was reluctant to confront Hitler when he progressively took the Rhineland, the Austrian anschluss and the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia on the pretext of a common language. It was only when he, with Russia, divided up Poland that Western Europe declared war and then they were not ready!
The threat of a nuclear holocaust is working even better for Putin. He has already taken portions of Georgia, Moldavia and the Crimea. Byelorussia is his lap dog and will almost certainly go to Russia. Kazakhstan already has Russian troops that put down a popular uprising against their regime. Now Putin is taking the Ukraine. Byelorussia is looking for a harbour in the Baltic. Kaliningrad is isolated from the rest of Russia. The signs are all there in both the geography and the history. He will not stop unless action is taken.
The answer is a no fly-zone over at least the western portion of the Ukraine. America, in particular, probably the where with all to stop the war. But at what cost both militarily and politically. They only reluctantly joined both the first and second World Wars. The latter thanks to Japan.
Amnesty for Putin………………..?
I see the question pragmatically. Complete Russian withdrawal would save a large number of Ukrainian lives. Granting amnesty to Putin in exchange for withdrawal, would be well worth it.
As a general matter though, Putin doesn’t care about the ICC and pulled out of the Rome agreement years ago. Putin’s morality has, at it’s center, his overarching belief that Russia must get back control of the former Soviet states.
And, after all, if he had real concern about being labeled a war criminal, he could have avoided committing the crimes.
He knows or believes the ICC won’t be able to get jurisdiction required to try him. ICC jurisdiction require the presence of the defendant at the trial.
There are two formal ways the ICC could obtain jurisdiction: by referral by the Security Council, or the agreement of Russia. Russia has a veto in the Security Council, and would never agree to jurisdiction.
But the ICC can obtain jurisdiction if a member country arrests Putin if and when he’s in that country. The question whether the ICC could or would hold and try a current head of state is purely a question of realpolitik.
In short, charging Putin as a war criminal would at least raise the possibility the he’d be arrested if he sets foot in any member nation. Is that possibility enough to counter his determination to save face and his desire to possess Ukraine? I’d guess not. I think Putin has too much of an ego to consider an offer of immunity. Still, I hope the ICC charges him even if they would never actually try him.