I remember that at the beginning of this century, and in connection with the invasion of Iraq, there was a discussion in the international political sphere that went beyond the public. At the center of the controversy revolved two opposing positions, on the one hand, those who considered the war legal, and on the other, those who understood it as illegal. The discussion was relevant because the consideration of this or that issue contributed to the support and approval of the UN and, therefore, the international community for the invasion of the United States and its allies.

The truth is that this classification is somewhat unlikely, I find it difficult for anyone to explain what legal warfare is without blushing. Starting a war in itself must be a criminal act, only self-defense explains and justifies it, and it must be emphasized that he who defends himself never takes the first step in a conflict. However, as you can imagine, it is not even worth judging the legitimacy or justification of a war like the one that arose after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, based on strategic geopolitical reasons that hide a menacing ego and protection from the encroachment of outdated ideologies …

Organically, the international order considers war to be legal if the human rights of the country’s inhabitants are affected. The truth is that if this is the case, then it seems that we do not make much effort to maintain this legitimacy, and, based on this principle, it is surprising how little we participate in wars.

But the most pleasant and even more surprising thing is that when you go to the horror of war, there are rules! Forget the quixotic “in love and in war everything is permissible.” The existence of war crimes makes you feel like a holy innocent, maybe some deaths can be criminalized and others not? Aren’t they a crime? Is thirty deaths on the Melilla fence legal?

You are sent to war by some gentlemen in the offices, they force you and do not let you surrender, although you are against participation in the conflict, but yes, they ask you to be a gentleman on the battlefield, not to tarnish either their name or their honor; as if the war itself could have something honorable. Now it turns out that war is like a game of rugby, a beastly game played by gentlemen, where officers are treated according to their rank and age when they are taken prisoner.

Are we teased, are we told that certain limits cannot be crossed in war, such as death? When you’re in a hole fighting for your life or the life of your family, you don’t read the do’s and don’ts, it’s just too late.

It’s like when we played football in the park, the game goes to death and there’s nothing else. I imagine what some people think, those farther from the battlefield, that everything is like a Gilov joke and that when the enemy runs out of bullets, they can wield a regular one, guess what: it’s not worth it.