A Duel Should Settle The Ukraine War

Thanks, Kylar, for the debate, and for bringing this news to my attention. I don't know if my first post will be long or short (yet), but I apologize if my posts end up being very long. Forgive me if this ends up sounding like a essay. So: Why do I not think dueling is a good idea to decide conflicts? After all, isn't it better, as the High Priest said, for one man to die rather than a nation? Dueling is substituting one man for an army. Instead of the armies fighting, the men (leaders) fight. By examining the causes and the effects of dueling we may hope to arrive at a conclusion as to whether dueling is a satisfactory method of resolving conflicts in general and this conflict in particular. It will be helpful, first of all to determine what the actual "purpose" of war is in the first place. Although this debate is confined to a particular war, (the Ukraine War) finding a general purpose for war will be beneficent to our exploratory journey and may certainly aid in determining the answer to this question before us. In general, nations engage in warfare because (a) one nation wants something from another nation, and (b) that other nation is unwilling to hand over that something. World War I started because Austria-Hungary levied a plethora of demands on Serbia, and Serbia was unwilling to meet them. World War II started because Germany and Japan (and possibly Italy) both wanted to increase the size of their nations (or arguably empires). The Civil War started because the South wanted independence, due to their not-unfounded fear that slavery would one day be banned. In fact, just about every revolution on the face of the earth, including the American Revolution, was the result of certain bands of citizens wanting independence and the mother nation refusing to grant that longed-for autonomy, although on second thought I realize that the American Revolution was initially initiated because of the colonists' indignation concerning certain British tax policies and actually need not have proceeded to the revolutionary phase. Generally, both nations think they are in the right, and both nations will do everything in their power (limited by the nations' sense of honor) to win. Tactics, espionage, economic policy, and, yes, even dueling-- all will be actuated (or not actuated) based on the leaders' evaluation of whether the considered actions will result in gaining or losing what they went to war over. Of course, the nation's "scum line" will also play a part; for example, one nation may be quite willing to assassinate its enemy's leader while other nations may shrink from such an unchivalrous action. Ukraine will accept the duel only if (a) Ukraine thinks it can win, and (b) Ukraine's sense of honor and proprietary does not preclude such a method of settling a dispute. (It may be noted that if Petro Poroshenko simply does wish not to duel, based on fear of a failure in (a) or (b) or other personal reasons, Ukraine will also not accept.) Risking your president is a big step, and when you throw in the result of the war, dueling really is reduced to a very important throw of a die. The die may be weighted in one nations' favor, based on the skill of the opponent, but generally a nation will only initiate a duel if it thinks victory is very doubtful or if it thinks its leader is far superior than the other nations' leader regarding feats of arms. So, to (a) and (b) we may add (c), Ukraine's potential cost/potential benefit evaluation. For example, if a nation is losing badly and has a Hulk of a president who majored in fencing, then dueling is a no-brainer. If a nation has a 5' 2' 69-year-old grandma with asthma, then dueling is not smart. It may be noted that so far I have been unable to determine a universal "should" or "should not." All three determinants of dueling are variable, and to establish a general principle I would have to superimpose my own (b) and state that dueling is morally or wrong or morally preferable or other such nonsense. I shall avoid both stances, as it seems to me that each circumstance much be judged situationally. If there was a war initiated by nobility with little or no importance (say the Duchess' daughter called the Prince a warthog and refused to apologise) then dueling would make sense. Let the idiots settle their disputes private. However, in the case of crucial, international issues between intelligent nations such as aptly-named World Wars, then dueling makes no sense--to either party. Why risk your leader and the outcome of the war over the doubtful outcome of one twenty-minute sword fight? Would the reader think placing the American Revolution in the hands of two duelists an intelligent decision? The dubiousness of dueling is exacerbated when one realizes that presidents are not selected due to their superior sabership. They are selected due to their ability to lead a nation in times of war, peace, calamity, and prosperity. This latter condition has resulted in an abundance of relatively ancient leaders, who while prized for their wisdom may have their pugilious efficacy doubted. Going back to the universal "should" or "should not" I would now promulgate that a duel SHOULD NOT settle the Ukrainian War. From Ukraine's standpoint, basically leaving the outcome of the War up to the chance result of a swordfight (or pistol fight, or battle-ax fight) would be ignorant and stupid. You don't toss a coin to determine the outcome of your football game if the odds are on you. If Pro disagrees, I would simply ask whether he wold say the same of the Revolutionary or Civil Wars. War is serious, is fought to be won, and as a leader you would be unwise to leave the result up to what could very well come down to a slip or a chance deflection. Unless, of course, you are doomed anyway. Which leads me to my conclusion that the Luhansk People's Republic's president's offer of a duel can be interpreted in a few ways: 1) He doesn't think the LPR can win the war, 2) He's not taking the war seriously and doesn't think there's much at stake, and 3) He thinks he can beat Petro Porenshka pretty easily--and that he wishes to do so. That deals with (c). Obviously the LPR thinks dueling is a good idea for it, as it has initiatedthe duel. I do not think Ukraine will accept, as Petro Porenshka is 48 and probably not the finest swordsman around. (a) Ukraine-no | LPR-yes (b) Ukraine-probably no | LPR-yes (c) Ukraine-no | LPR-yes The very fact that Igor Plotnitsky has offered the invitation tells me that he is either not taking the war seriously or thinks that killing a grey-haired chief executive is the best plan for winning. Neither make me want to support him. Since Ukraine would not benefit from the duel, I take the should not side. Having looked at why a nation would duel, we will now look at results that might ensue. I would guess that there is a good chance of sore losing; nations refuse to abide by the agreed rules and conditions of the debate, cry foul play, refuse to stop fighting, etc.. This also tells us that trusting dueling to resolve a conflict is a bad idea. Ergo, the should not side. Bottom line: Only soldiers who think their cause is either not worth fighting or lost suggest duels. If the cause is lost, then the other nation will probably either not accept or on the other hand refuse to concede in the event of a defeat. If the cause is not worth fighting, the war should stop and the leaders should be judged in a real court instead of sent out as make-believe gladitators. I still have characters left, but I need to take a MacroEcon practice test. Sorry if my arguments are incoherent.