A few public actions prepared the way for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the purpose of which was to define a special military operation as forced, necessary and inevitable. The use of armed force against Ukraine was discussed during those public events. The Russian authorities applied many arguments, and a great deal of attention was paid to the moral justification of war. In this article, I consistently analyze three problems: why did Russian officials use moral language to justify the war, what arguments did they use, and would these arguments retain their effect in the long term. I will examine several addresses made by the President of Russia and the Russian Federation Security Council meeting materials to address these questions. I conclude that Putin's lack of legitimacy forced him to justify the war in moral terms, and the peculiarities of Russian moral discourse allowed him to do that. However, even if this strategy was effective to a certain extent at the beginning of the war, it can hardly be stable and sustainable. Keywords: invasion of Ukraine, Russia, Ukraine, just war, morality

This article deals with the critique of Just War Theory (JWT) which appeared in the works of Carl Schmitt. JWT was revived in the middle of 1900s and was treated as an absolutely secular direction for military ethics. However, being Christian in its origin JWT retained a certain religious reasoning. This call for political morality could be compared to an appeal to divine law, but outside of the Christian context it loses its validity and weight. These features of JWT were noticed by Schmitt who offered the concept of bracketed warfare instead. The bracketing of war was an essential component of jus publicum Europaeum and it presupposed the recognition of an enemy as equal. Bracketed war was defined in political and legal terms and did not presuppose moral or religious evaluation of armed conflicts. In the 20 th century bracketing of war was replaced with discrimination of war as morally and legally unacceptable act. JWT served as a theoretical foundation for this change. Though it is the prerogative of JWT to prove itself as an attempt at humanism, the invasion of morality into politics, from Schmitt's perspective dehumanizes the enemy and increases the totality of a conflict. Schmitt insisted on purifying the political sphere from all moral constituents in order to make it more balanced. A mere political approach to war made Schmitt's theory of bracketed war more humane and reasonable than JWT.

В статье рассматривается наказание как источник легитимации войны. Прослеживается история развития пунитивной (наказательной) парадигмы войны, ее смена легалистской парадигмой и отмечается реактуализация идеи наказания как справедливого основания войны. Для того чтобы решить эти задачи, автор рассматривает становление пунитивной доктрины войны в сочинениях христианских авторов III-IV вв. Прослеживается логика обоснования войны в мысли Амвросия Медиоланского и Августина Аврелия, для которых характерно было указание на необходимость наказания греха в качестве ключевой причины войны. Далее рассматривается процесс секуляризации учения о справедливой войне в Новое время. В этот период активно развивается легалистская парадигма войны с характерным для нее пониманием права государств на защиту своего суверенитета и территориальной целостности как справедливой причины войны. Автор отмечает типичное для современной теории справедливой войны обращение к идее защиты прав человека как основания для оправдания войны. Также рассматривается возрождение интереса к идее наказания и разбираются возможные причины реактуализации пунитивной парадигмы на рубеже XX-XXI вв. Ключевые слова: война, наказание, теория справедливой войны, Августин, Гуго Гроций, Майкл Уолцер Каноническая история теории справедливой войны традиционно начинается с Отцов Церкви IV-V вв. Амвросия Медиоланского и Августина Аврелия. Вероятнее всего, первым, кто употребил словосочетание «справедливая война», был Аристотель. В «Политике» он сравнивал войну с варварами с охотой на рабов, называл ее соответствующей природе, а потому справедливой 1 .

-

The article deals with the problem of moral justification of humanitarian intervention by modern just war theorists. At the beginning of the article, we discuss the evolution of the dominant paradigms of the moral justification of war and explain why the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention appears only at the present stage of the development of ethics and the law of war. It is noted that theorization of humanitarian intervention began in the last decades of the 20th century. This is due to a significant transformation, a retreat in the legal and ethical studies of war from the position of radical condemnation of aggressive actions and the recognition of the political subjectivity of non-state groups. Thus, there is a rethinking of the long tradition, the Westphalian system of international relations, according to which the state was recognized as the main participant of big politics, and its sovereign right to conduct domestic policy was considered indisputable. Further, we take the works of Michael Walzer as the main source of modern conceptualization of the ethics of humanitarian interventionism, since Walzer repeatedly addressed this topic and formulated a position on this issue that is representative of the entire modern Just War Theory. The arguments of Walzer and his supporters in favor of the moral justification of humanitarian intervention are considered. Among them are the following. First, the argument about the state as an organization which goal is to protect the rights of its own citizens. If this goal is not not achieved, the state shall loose its power over these people and in this territory. Second, Walzer calls for identifying governments and armed forces involved in mass murders as criminal and, therefore, deserving of punishment. Finally, there is, perhaps the most important, demonstrative argument: an appeal to the self-evident impossibility to stand aside in cases of mass violence in any state. This is followed by a critique of these arguments, as well as a demonstration of how the modern Just War Theory can respond to these criticisms.