俄羅斯在烏克蘭有沒有打死平民百姓？當然有，這是戰爭，俄羅斯軍隊也不是天使。這就是為什麼我們一定反對戰爭，因為平民不可能倖免，死多死少的問題而已。美軍在伊拉克、阿富汗、敘利亞、塞爾維亞，還有以色列在約旦河西岸，都說自己從來不轟炸平民，可是高智商的您相信嗎？
我們翻開歷史，在拿破崙戰爭之前，基本上歐洲的戰爭大致還能夠在沒有平民居住的曠野或農田上進行。簡單說，打仗是軍人的事，而當時的軍人很多是貴族，平民百姓沒有資格參與。這個傳統到十九世紀初，也就是法國大革命之後，就不再被遵循，不管平民或貴族，只要阻礙到利益那就必須死。所以軍隊開始在城市裡面大肆殺人，把村莊放火焚燒，這些行為不再被認為是不道德的，最起碼已經脫離了道德的範圍，用所謂的國家利益當作一個幌子，就可以合法殺人。
人類的偽善就是如此，十九世紀的戰爭任意佔領他國的土地及殺害平民，已經是司空見慣了，但是歐洲各國根據基督教的原則還是有一些空泛的要求，只是大家做不做得到？心裡都有數。結果就變成互相指責對方在戰場上殺害平民，以此讓自己居於道德的高點，並使軍事行動具備正當性。
第一次世界大戰交戰雙方開始用重砲互相轟炸城市，飛機飛到敵人的住宅區上空投下炸彈。這個時候戰爭已經是所謂的總體戰，地不分東西南北，人不分男女老幼，大家都會被動員，所以理論上每一個敵國的國民都是潛在的敵軍。所以站在這個角度來看，能不殺嗎？等到更加殘酷的第二次世界大戰開始，歐、亞洲的戰場同樣存在「三光」，把敵人土地上的人民當作畜生一樣宰殺。在太平洋上作戰，雙方一樣任意動員或者殺害當地的土著。至於把戰俘隨意處決或者虐待致死，那都已經不在話下了。
人類的戰爭對待平民百姓的態度，就是反映道德標準的墮落。古代的中國、日本、以及歐洲都有武士或者騎士精神，到了這個時候已經蕩然無存，只剩下一些偽善的口號跟原則而已。
今天與其不斷強調俄羅斯在戰爭中殺了平民百姓，為什麼我們不去探究這場戰爭的根源以及背後的歷史、文化因素？如果這些根本的觀念不釐清，只去談誰殺了誰，真的沒有什麼意義。也該看另一面，請問之前在烏克蘭東部、南部被活活燒死的那些說俄羅斯語的人民，是不是就算活該呢？
到底哪一邊比較高尚？筆者的答案是沒有。俄羅斯發動戰爭可惡，烏克蘭的政客的操作同樣也可惡。這並不是各打五十大板，而是了解到整個東歐極端民族主義的起源以及這三十幾年來的各種操作所得到的初步結論。這樣當然曲高和寡，但筆者早已習慣了，這二十幾年一向很少站在多數的一方。
我們這個世界再度被各種負能量所包圍，未來將充滿危險。所以給我們的啟示應該是去思考：台灣未來是不是要想辦法避免戰爭？尊嚴以及和平之間，我們要找到一個平衡點，否則只剩下一張嘴、一些口號，歷史證明這樣並不能保障平民百姓的平安。
奮 起 
So, TL;DR: “Yes, russian soldiers murdered/raped/mutilate/tortured civilians, but it’s okay because every army does it in war. So don’t feel too bad about it. If you don’t believe me, let me show you how much I know about Western history and bow down before my erudition."
The Ukraine crisis is morally very clear cut: russia is an evil aggressor motivated by a demented historiography of “greater russia" that is more fantasy than actual history, and every act of violence perpetrated by russia and its agents is therefore immoral. Ukraine, on the other hand, is undertaking the most noble, honorable act: self-defense; and each act of Ukrainian self-defense directed against the russian invaders is justified, and moral. That’s pretty much it. Nothing else left to analyze.
Taking up arms is not inherently, categorically a bad thing, contrary to what the author says.
If your country and/or people are under attack, taking up arms is not only justified, it is a duty. Pacifism is nice in theory, but in practice, it is morally untenable. Pacifism is usually employed by ethically dishonest people with a hidden agenda. The hidden agenda in this article, is to shore up putin’s immoral war in Ukraine, because that particular act of evil potentially is an analogue of, and possibly a prologue to, another act of evil – the “unification" of Taiwan into China, by force. That’s really what you’re trying to do: laying the groundwork justifying a future homicidal campaign to subjugate or “pacify" Taiwan and my people. So let’s just be upfront about that.
I’m no friend of the japanese, but let me bring this up: would the author still think pacifism is a good idea in the Sino-jap wars? Of course not.
BTW, no, war fighting in Europe was not historically exclusively the privilege of the aristocracy – military leadership was. The rank and file soldiers in European wars were largely comprised of peasants and commoners forced to fight for their medieval, feudal lords. This is an important clarification. When the nobility died in battle, they “perished" in honor and glory; when commoners/peasants died in war, they were simply an expended resource that needed to be replenished, like horses. That was the reality.
讚讚