Targeted killing of enemies after conquering a war, be it a win of the whole country or a single city, often becomes a norm in war. Such an approach of the winning party is seen in civil wars and inter-country wars. Very recently, the Taliban forces in Afghanistan have shown it. Of course, the winning party kills targeted enemies for various reasons including an intention to take revenge over the selected enemies of enemy parties/countries and willingness to make significant damages to the enemy party/country. Even if there may be some justification for such killing from the winning party, it is not justifiable on legal, moral or humanitarian grounds.
Of course, given the power imbalance between Russia and Ukraine, winning the ongoing war by Russia may be just a matter of time. Russia is the second most powerful country in terms of military means, while Ukraine is the 22nd most powerful country. Russia has thousands of nuclear bombs while Ukraine has none. Moreover, Russia has many other sophisticated military weapons including hypersonic missiles. Already, Russia has taken control/significant control over several strategically important Ukrainian cities including Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv and Mariupol. The usage of sophisticated bombs can quicken Russia’s win of the war in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, though urban warfare may take a bit more time to completely win. Russia’s quick win has become clear with its usage of some sophisticated weapons including hypersonic missiles.
But should Russia use the technique of targeted killing of politicians, military personnel and other Ukrainian officials, especially those who are now fighting and supporting the war against Russia, after winning the war in the whole of Ukraine or a city of it, given that there is no political/diplomatic agreement/solution to the conflict between the two countries? To me, targeted killing is not expected at all. Indeed, given the power imbalance, Ukraine can not pose a significant threat to Russia. Moreover, Russia, as it repeatedly made clear, does not have any intention to keep Ukraine occupied and there does not seem any remarkable gain for Russia by causing lasting damage to Ukraine in economic and other terms.
No less important is that those Ukrainians who are now fighting are fighting for keeping their country a sovereign country. I do not see anything wrong with it at all. Indeed, no country wants to remain occupied by other countries. Consequently, political leaders, military forces and, sometimes, civilians take arms to protect the motherland from any invasion. What would have Russian politicians and military forces done, if Russia were in the same situation as Ukraine? Definitely, it would have done the same. Consequently, fighting for the motherland cannot be considered a crime by any invading force once the war or fighting is over in a city or in the whole of Ukraine.
Of course, it is ideally expected that the post-win targeted killing is ended in all civil wars and inter-country wars. With particular reference to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, it seems reasonable that Russia avoids the post-win targeted killing technique in Ukraine. Russia needs to understand that its post win targeted killings if it uses such an approach, may create more enemies in Ukraine while its friendly dealing with the post-win situation can help minimize the enmity of Ukraine with it.
Nota bene: The editorial views expressed are written by the Editorial Team (the Chief Editor) of Dhaka Opinion Magazine.
