Fighting for the apparent good - Robin Hood Syndrome

When prehistoric man was surprised by an enemy, his body released adrenaline. His heart would beat faster, his breathing accelerated and the blood pressure increased.

Man was ready for a fight or flight in this mode. When man decided to fight, the excitement gave him enormous power and could lead to disinhibition, which allowed him to defeat the enemy.
The ability (disposition, drive) to fight enemies with great commitment is deep within all of us and was essential for survival. When the will to fight was weak in a tribe, it would perish.

While we live in the 21st century, the predisposition to fight against enemies is still fully developed.

In my “Peace” post in December 2017, I described how wars were waged almost continuously over the last 3000 years. 

The Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research counted 20 wars and 385 conflicts worldwide in 2017.

         Most people now desire peace.

But this also applies:

"The devoutest cannot live in peace if the evil neighbor does not like it."
But when there is conflict, when does a state that has a fully defensive predisposition have to say: up to this point and no further?

The conflict between the West (USA/Western Europe) and Russia is particularly suitable for discussing this in concrete terms in a current conflict.
    In 1989 the western border of the GDR was the border between NATO and the Soviet Union. In 2004, the Baltic States, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria joined NATO, moving NATO’s border closer to Russia’s. But that went further in 2008.
     Jack Matlock, former ambassador to Moscow, said: “In 2008, NATO decided to put Ukraine on a track to gain membership. A country deeply divided internally, right on Russia’s doorstep.”

In September 2008, Ukraine and the EU reached an agreement on an Association Agreement.

This sparked fears in Russia. Russia began supporting rebels in the Donbass, whose population was predominantly friendly to Russia. And Russia annexed Crimea. How can Russia justify this step? Sevastopol, Russia’s most important naval port on the Black Sea, is located on Crimea. Crimea was assigned to Ukraine only in 1954 by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Elections in 1994 revealed that the majority of Crimean citizens are friendly to Russia. Only Russia declared the 2014 elections (after annexation) as valid.

To secure peace, one should always try to understand the enemy's point of view.

     What would happen in the reverse, if Russia tried to organize a military alliance with Canada and Mexico? The USA rightly reacted vehemently when Russia concluded a military alliance with Cuba under Fidel Castro.

In 2018, all 29 NATO countries spent around 963 billion dollars on military armaments. Russia disarmed (also because of the crisis) and spent 61 billion in this area (Sipri).

Given these figures, can Russia really be dangerous?

Is it justified to start talking about a Cold War, again?

Since they could carry weapons, humans have waged wars. Must this continue in the 21st century?

Or is the rule now: If you don’t have enemies, you go out and find some?

Or rather: If you aren’t with us, you’re against us?

Russia is aware that it has nothing to offer that is on par with the Western arsenal. Based on military logic, it is thus understandable that Russia restarts a nuclear armament. Do we want to die in a nuclear war unleashed under unfortunate circumstances?

Wouldn’t it better to come to terms in a peaceful coexistence? The Eastern European states worry that Russia could once again try to “protect” the Russian minorities living there. So couldn’t one speak openly about these fear at a conference and make Russia promise to not move any borders in the future?

An objection may be that Russian agents kill critics of the regime. We cannot allow that. But can we really achieve anything by means of economic sanctions and the Cold War?

We have only reached one thing: Rearmament has returned.

          The predisposition to want / be able to fight enemies with great commitment is not equally pronounced in all people. Anyone who wants to follow this “urge” these days can play violent computer games, join a soccer fan club or join a left- or right-wing extremist group.

Be it peaceful or militant - what matters is the resistance. This saying was expressed by a left-wing extremist movement, but could also come from a right-wing extremist group.

Based on a readiness to fight enemies, the disposition developed to be able to also fight evil.
Leftist organizations convey to their adherents the conviction that they are fighting against evil (capitalism) and are thus standing up for good. This is very appealing to young adults and many fall for the Robin Hood syndrome.

The young bourgeois parties have a much harder time. They need to strive to find the best path on which the market economy can thrive while incorporating as many social components as possible.

In a grouping in which all share the same world view, the group members feel secure.

That "we-feeling" contributes to a positive attitude to life. All are on the same level and can fight together against people who dissent.

It is often overlooked that the good that is fought for is only supposedly good and often such engagements have catastrophic consequences. I described examples in the post titled “The problem with do-gooders” in March 2018.