Okay. Article finished, but now I'm going for a walk before checking the latest news and if needed revising accordingly.
(I think I'm still waiting/hoping for one big change in particular.)
As with the last on this war, it'll be big picture. Histories and approaches to international law that should completely disrupt how we think about our (in)ability to respond effectively and ethically to atrocity.
But as with the last, the news is still unfolding.
So a walk first, then class.
Then I post.
@MLClark Regarding the "(in)ability to respond effectively and ethically to atrocity" ...
I'm sure you know "Things to Come," H.G. Wells' 1936 film loosely based on his 1933 novel "The Shape of Things to Come." He posited the notion of an airborne benevolent dictatorship to impose international will on certain hotspots.
Our inability to respond in the real world is due to the fear that a "benevolent" dictatorship could turn malevolent. Sovereign nations don't want to be told what to do. (1/x)
@MLClark Sometimes atrocities are committed by supposed "benevolent" nations. The European colonists considered themselves benevolent, forcing their religions and cultures on the "heathens" while they looted natural resource. The U.S. thought it was in the right when it invaded Iraq in 2003. And, of course, Vietnam ... (2/x)
@MLClark I don't see a solution. The grievances and grudges have been around for centuries.
Besides, certain sovereign nations are more than happy to use terrorists and extremist groups as proxies in their larger chess game. Iran won't spill its own blood, but it's sure happy to have Hamas attack Israel to distract us, which makes their ally Russia happy for reasons you know.
I don't see a "Wings over the World" in future, and I'm not sure we should have one.
Humanity sucks, amirite? <shrug>