More than 380 scientists, including 65 members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, obviously signed an open letter within 24 hours, also published on the Internet. When reading the letter, I couldn’t help but wonder if they actually read it?

And if they did, I continue wondering if they truly mean this? Now, I am not a true fan of science in general, considering that much of the weaponry and technology being used to lay waste to Ukraine right now was developed with the help of scientists. However, this letter and the reasons why the scientists are against the war appear to me almost …cynical…As I understand it, apparently, they are against the war, among other things, for the following reasons:

1) It undermines the foundations of the established system of international security.
Hm. A system that obviously has severe flaws, otherwise the war would not exist? You can’t blame Putin for pointing out flaws in a security system, I guess…

2) There are no reasonable justifications whatsoever for this war… The war against them [Ukraine, that is] is unjustified and obviously pointless.
May this be interpreted to mean that the scientists might agree to war if there were “reasonable” justifications or sense for it? The question immediately arises as to what would pass for a “reasonable” justification for war among those scientists (for an answer, see number 4)? What we would desperately need is a “reasonable” method of dissuading an “unreasonable dictator” from starting a “pointless” (on scientific terms) war for “unreasonable” reasons. Is there perhaps “scientific input” on this somewhere?

3) With Russia being made an outcast, …they cannot now [continue] with their work in a normal manner,…without full-fledged cooperation with colleagues from other countries.
Putin certainly didn’t consider that and he will apologize immediately once he is done with Ukraine, where people can’t “get on” with their lives.

4) Russia’s isolation from the world means further cultural and technological devaluation of our country, with complete lack of positive prospects.
Conversely, if a war would provide “cultural and technological upgrading” and “positive prospects”, then science wouldn’t have a problem with it?

Maybe, this all sounds reasonable to scientists, maybe even the Russian military, but this type of scientific logic continues to be a riddle to me…