In a fairly-big Russian city there is an alley surrounded from both sides by trees. Those trees were planted by the unsung heroes - mechanics, infantrymen, snipers, paratroopers, drivers, medics - of the post-Soviet invasion part of WWII, two decades after the war.

One knows that they were planted by the unsung heroes because beside each tree stands a small plaque describing the hero who planted it - name, years of living, rank, achievements. Some did good in the war, showing bravery and leading their men to glorious battles. Some did great, allowing the Red Army troops to advance by conquering and holding another side of the river. Some did magnificent, destroying an entire tank division of the enemy on their own by sneaking in the enemy base.

All of the heroes are Russians.

* * *

When a country is in war with another, its citizens are told about the heroism and bravery of the soldiers who chose to die on the battlefield - the further away they die from their country, the more aggressive the propaganda. Heroes of the war are told about as if they are a person of legends, their achievements become known: how many people killed, how many enemy tanks destroyed, how many foe supply trains turned upside down.

The atrocities of war - some of them bound to be committed by soldiers of either side, maybe some by the war hero, even - are never brought up, for people must cheer. If they don't cheer, they don't support the war effort. If they don't support war effort, they don't support violence of various sorts towards the enemy - and the government can't have that: they _must_ cheer. Killing brings everything, from territory to international prestige.

And so people cheer. Hundred more tanks destroyed? Wonderful! Let another piece of propoganda live! A thousand more enemy soldiers died? Splendid! Issue another orded to print those booklets!

A thousand of our soldiers died? Horrendous! Those evil bastards! They're nothing but scum of the earth, and we knew that from the beginning as we started the war! Let people know just how cruel and bestial the enemy is! Let the people chew on the bone. They like it.

* * *

We never mourn those who died on the other side of the conflict. They were people, too, but we choose to forget about it so that our tribal spirit might rejoice. Our people won again! Hurray! Our people are good. They are not people at all.

This is how we justify what can't be justified with any reason: we choose to forget that on the other side, those are people, too, with families, feelings, fears, hopes and dreams. We tell ourselves: those who die that aren't from our tribe - our tribe - aren't like us, so they can't feel like us, they can't think like us, they can't be like us. It doesn't matter if we kill them: they were animals all along anyway. We kill them so we, the glorious human being might thrive off the resources that used to belong to them.

Any kind of oppression and abuse is justified by this line of thinking, but war is the most atrocious of them all. We purposefully train people to kill other people - teach them methods of agony and destruction - so that we can send them abroad, make them kill those who aren't like us - even if the difference is just an opinion, a negotiable idea - and put our hands upon new territories, as if we deserved to have them, and put our hands upon, and put our hands upon new people, as if they must now stand by our side, and put our hands upon new resources... you know, why not. The rest is ours anyway.

* * *

The nationalism behind such wars is sneaky as a rat. It's in the news talking about "our troops", as if they're really ours and not the government's; it's in the "<national> way", it's in how we treat those outside of our nation. The morally-bankrupt governments impose upon its citizens the notion of belonging to a particularly favored group of people - the city, the region, the state, the nation, the country - while hinting between the lines of the severe repercussions of expressing disloyalty or disrespect to anything you belong to, even if you don't like said belonging.

Indeed, the repercussions are severe: alienation from the peers who are often far less mindful about the situation. The same tribal instinct that fuels nationalism - a sense of belonging to an artificial social construct - fuels one's fear of alienation: no matter how much one doesn't like those around them, deep down, they want to belong and are afraid of being turned away from.

Nationalism is nothing more than a way for the government to make its citizens behave the way it wants them to. War from which it can benefit? Declare! No need to consult those who'll pay for it. They'll happily take the bait later when we launch the propaganda, anyway, so why would we care about them now?

* * *

Granted, there are times when people must defend themselves from an invading force: it is then where the soldiers' heroism begins to shine, for they're risking their lives to save others. Then, however cruel, fighting is justified if you only use it to protect yourself and others. Often, however, it is not the case, and the justification of this is what I oppose with all my heart.

In either case, it is wrong to see the other side of the conflict as mere causalties of war. Maybe they haven't been right, maybe they had different opinion on how to solve the mutual problem - but to use it as a reason to agree to insensitivity to allow for greater violence? They, too, had feelings; they, too, had something to fight for. Rather than seed disorder more, shan't we learn about what drove them?

Demonizing anyone won't ever help an issue: seeing someone as an adept of evil is fooling yourself, for there's a person behind the veil of lies. Failing to see that person might not seem like that big of an offence when you're the one weave the lies, but as soon as the tide turns... It is when the golden rule seems most applicable.