War rhetoric

Peace Palais in The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of one of the
international courts of justice in this town that tries to combat
 war and its excrescences. 

Gradually the words of the politicians of the parties involved in the Russia-Ukraine War become harder. For instance, some time ago the American president Biden called the Russian president Putin a killer and recently he called him a war criminal. Now it is so that pres. Biden is a free citizen and like any citizen of the USA he is free to express his opinion. However, pres. Biden is not just a citizen of his country, but he is a political leader who has responsibilities towards his country, especially bringing welfare and peace there. Is it therefore right to call his political opponent a war criminal, even though and even if there are good reason to think so?
Let me first say something about the term “war criminal”. “War criminal”, or rather “war crime”, is a legal term. I’ll not go into detail here, but what a war crime is, has been determined by international treaties and law, like the Geneva Conventions. In short, it is a superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering inflicted upon an enemy like wilful killing, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity, deliberately targeting civilians, deliberately killing innocent civilians, etc. If there is a suspicion that a war crime has been committed, the International Criminal Court in The Hague can start an investigation and prosecute the suspected offender. Recently, the Court has started such an investigation in Ukraine in order to find out whether war crimes have been committed there (by both sides). So, at the moment the case is, what we call, sub judice. However, judicially it still has to be proven that war crimes have been committed in Ukraine and who the offenders are. When a case is sub judice, it is common practice that politicians refrain from making statements about it in order not to influence the investigation and the verdict. Therefore, politicians like pres. Biden should not say whether pres. Putin is a war criminal or isn’t.
So far the juridical side. However, there are also practical reasons not to call pres. Putin a war criminal. Some people may not think so, but we need politicians for many reasons. Restricting myself to the present Russia-Ukraine War, it is their task to bring this war to a decent end. As president Zelensky of Ukraine stresses again and again, this war can end only with negotiations. But who wants to negotiate with a war criminal? Can you make it to negotiate with a war criminal? Of course not. You talk only with a war criminal, if it is the easiest way to get the person in prison. In other words, calling Putin a war criminal makes negotiations to end this war impossible. That’s why you shouldn’t do so, even if you think he is. That’s why, for example, neither pres. Zelensky nor pres. Macron of France does so.
In addition, calling Putin a war criminal can also backfire on the war and even prolong fighting and atrocities. There is a psychological effect that people accused of bad behaviour may shield themselves off from the accusations instead of getting the insight that they are on the wrong way. They can even become proud of what they are doing. Accusations of bad behaviour can also make that they are just supported in their behaviour by their inner circles (who often also are implicated in the crimes). This can make that war criminals not only continue their crimes but even increase them, because they don’t give a damn about what others say. So, war crime accusations can lead to more war crimes.
Calling Putin a war criminal, and, sadly enough, also the investigations, whether war crimes have been committed by the Russian army, can also backfire in another way. As Joseph Wright and Abel Escribà-Folch write in The Conversation: “Leaders who face the prospect of punishment once a conflict ends have an incentive to prolong the fighting. And a leader who presides over atrocities has a strong incentive to avoid leaving office, even if that means using increasingly brutal methods – and committing more atrocities – to remain in power. When losing power is costly, leaders may be more likely to fight to the death”, like when they risk to be prosecuted for war crimes.
In view of all this, it is important that politicians should moderate their words when involved in a war, certainly in a war like the Russia-Ukraine War that will be difficult to end, as it seems now. Hard words, like calling Putin a war criminal, will make this war last longer and will make it difficult to solve the conflict. But what we see is that the rhetoric becomes harsher and harsher. Now pres. Biden and others say that Russia must be weakened, but an analysis like the one just given will make clear that also this statement probably will make that the war will last longer. Do I want to say then that Western politicians must keep their mouth shut? Of course not. They must say what their limits are, and I think they have said so already clear enough: Western democracy, for short, and the internationally accepted borders, like the borders of Ukraine and the other European countries with Russia. This plus real support to Ukraine is a clear sign. To my mind, by starting this war, Russia has weakened itself already so much that it will need a long time to recover. Why then spend words on it that only will make the problem bigger? Politicians must solve problems, not make them. They must bring problems to a good end and find decent solutions, once problems are there.