Should Superman intervene in the Russia/Ukraine situation?

[HsssH]

This reminds me of short discussion we had in Jon's thread about the potential of his environmentalism. And I think it is kinda same situation here and leads to books like Other History of DC Universe were someone will question why Superman or Wonder Woman did nothing when we were moving towards WW3.

[Username taken]

Yes, any conflict that would involve the death of innocents should get Superman involved.

And he should basically force both sides of said conflict to a diplomatic solution. In Russia’s case, he should do a Qurac and disable their military.

[Prime]

It's kinda hard. Where do you draw the line? Aliens bad but shitty humans aren't?

[superduperman]

The problem is, the only REAL solution is to overthrow Putin. Then you're stuck with the problem of replacing him. Would Superman take over Russia? Would he be a stand in until NATO or the UN or whoever can pick a successor? You would also have to purge the Russian government of all his loyalists. For all intents and purposes Russia doesn't know how to be a functional democracy.

[Ascended]

Like someone already said, superheroes are built for a binary morality where good guys do good things and bad guys do bad things. It's not a world built for the shades of gray of the real world, nor the long-lasting consequences of major action. Superman, as we understand him from his two dimensional world, is ill fitted for handling the complexities of real life conflict.

But if Clark were real, yes he'd intervene. How could he not? He's a guy who cannot let the lesser evil stand. I mean, come on, innocent people are dying so a KGB douchebag can change the lines on a map; if *you* had the powers of Superman, would you sit back and watch it unfold? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[JAK]

Like someone already said, superheroes are built for a binary morality where good guys do good things and bad guys do bad things. It's not a world built for the shades of gray of the real world, nor the long-lasting consequences of major action. Superman, as we understand him from his two dimensional world, is ill fitted for handling the complexities of real life conflict.

But if Clark were real, yes he'd intervene. How could he not? He's a guy who cannot let the lesser evil stand. I mean, come on, innocent people are dying so a KGB douchebag can change the lines on a map; if *you* had the powers of Superman, would you sit back and watch it unfold? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Exactly. That's why I like the idea of him just disarming everything within an area - unless they want to have a giant troop fist fight, they'd have to figure it all out without force.

[RobinGA]

I'm really not sure whether Superman would intervene. Let's face it, he's had a non-interventionist turn.
But there is tremendous suffering going on in the Ukraine. It's not some pointless conflict either.
Ukraine is rich in natural resources, is the breadbasket of Europe, it has some clear strategic importance.

But even if say Superman were to follow 3 a.m. observation of overthrowing Putin, do we really know that
would put Russia on the path to being a liberal constitutional democracy? I mean there are lots of little Putin's in the
form of oligarchs, street toughs doing the regimes bidding, Russia bots. You would need a whole reconstruction of the society.
Unless Superman were willing to become President of Russia something like this would happen again.

It is pretty far removed from the fun and games of the comics. I mean President Biden today was vowing to fight World War III if the
Russians invade the Baltic states, including I suppose using nuclear weapons. That is some pretty serious shit.

[manwhohaseverything]

People really think superman needs to take over russia?Democracy in russia is a long game and totally unconnected to current situation.all Superman has to do is bargain with putin.If you touch the capital of ukraine Your nukes go bye bye before you can blink.His only threat.my take.

[Jabare]

Superman's not real, but the fact that people are debating what Superman stands for and some arguing against him fighting against a Despot is telling.

This is an unprovoked attack, something that a superhero movie or cartoon would deal with.

If Superman isn't going to defend a nation from slaughter and other upcoming war crimes I don't know what he stands for anymore

[Timothy Hunter]

The comics addressed the question of superheroes intervening in foreign affairs briefly in the 52 series.

After the events of Infinite Crisis, the United Nations passed the Freedom of Power treaty, barring superheroes from operating outside of their country of origin.

I thought that this was a great look into the geopolitics of the DC Universe, but aside from being brought up in Geoff Johns' Green Lantern and Judd Winnick's Outsiders, the treaty was never brought up again in the comics.

If superheroes existed in the real world, I reckon there would be laws put in place similar to this one.


The question being asked in the thread, of whether or not Superman intervene in the Ukraine, is a loaded one which depends if Superman in this scenario is the world's only superhuman or one among many superhumans.

If it's the former, and Superman had all the powers he has in the comics, he could do anything he wants with no one able to do anything about it.

If it's the latter, then it would be a lot more difficult to for him to intervene in the conflict due to the Russian government and their allies having their own superheroes in their pockets,
alongside his fellow Justice Leaguers who might not back his decision.


I see Superman as more of a non-interventionist. He views his duty as handling problems that are too big for normal people to solve: alien invasions, natural disasters. For him, Superman would consider superheroes meddling in foreign affairs as a slippery slope.

It is interesting to speculate what issues a character like Superman would face if they existed in the real world. With his personality in the comics, I don't think Superman would involve himself with a war, but he would prevent nuclear missiles from being launched. He would obviously stop a terrorist attack, but I don't think he would assist a government in taking down a terrorist organization. He's more of a fireman than a soldier.

[manwhohaseverything]

The comics addressed the question of superheroes intervening in foreign affairs briefly in the 52 series.

After the events of Infinite Crisis, the United Nations passed the Freedom of Power treaty, barring superheroes from operating outside of their country of origin.

The united nations is about to become league of nations 2.0.As if superman needs their authority.He is an outlaw.Put him in jail if they can.

Superman's not real, but the fact that people are debating what Superman stands for and some arguing against him fighting against a Despot is telling.

This is an unprovoked attack, something that a superhero movie or cartoon would deal with.

If Superman isn't going to defend a nation from slaughter and other upcoming war crimes I don't know what he stands for anymore

I agree with this.Superman is a modern day gladiator,ain't no chain that's gonna bind him from doing the right thing.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Hey, so haven't posted on here in awhile and for obvious reasons am not likely to do so again but wanted to pop in to ask what the fuck is wrong with all of you. What on Earth is misfiring in your brains that your same-day response to cities being bombed is "I believe I shall invite and engage in a public debate over the theoretical ethics and logistics of a whimsical cartoon man magicking this ongoing situation into a nice happy ending while real people die or pray they and those they love don't die". I can't imagine why the mods didn't immediately shut this down as the most tasteless shit imaginable, but if any of you are thinking "we're trying to decompress from the horror on the news!" I'd recommend cutting out the middleman and reading some comics, or better yet go outside and touch some goddamn grass.

[manwhohaseverything]

Hey, so haven't posted on here in awhile and for obvious reasons am not likely to do so again but wanted to pop in to ask what the fuck is wrong with all of you. What on Earth is misfiring in your brains that your same-day response to cities being bombed is "I believe I shall invite and engage in a public debate over the theoretical ethics and logistics of a whimsical cartoon man magicking this ongoing situation into a nice happy ending while real people die or pray they and those they love don't die". I can't imagine why the mods didn't immediately shut this down as the most tasteless shit imaginable, but if any of you are thinking "we're trying to decompress from the horror on the news!" I'd recommend cutting out the middleman and reading some comics, or better yet go outside and touch some goddamn grass.

Finally,some action..Someone calling us out..

[bat39]

I'm not even trying to decide Superman's idea of "right" or "wrong" as much as asking if fans are fine with Superman intervening because they feel "Superman should intervene" or because "Superman will do what we agree with"/

Not to start a debate on these issues but I wonder if the idea Superman needs to intervene in real world events changes based on-

1) Suoerman takes a stand on abortion based on his own ability to detect signs of life with super-senses and the ability of Kryptonian tech to make viability possible from almost the moment of conception.
2) Superman goes on a health kick and begins to eliminate all manufacture of dangerous substances- alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, foods high in sugar and/or cholesterol.
3) Superman's solution to the Israel/Palestine is to evacuate the whole region and level all buildings, "If you can't play nice then no one gets to live on the land"

These are extreme examples to make the issue clear. And I am in no way claiming Superman would do them. The point is that an interventionalist Superman doesn't mean he will intervene on your side of an issue or come up with a solution you find acceptable. If you think he has to intervene for Ukraine or Russia because "it is right", how do you justify telling him not to intervene the next time when he is on the opposite of the issue from you?

Yeah, that was my point. We have no way of knowing what Superman would regard as ''right'' or ''wrong'', so we can't assume that he would be on the same side as us in any given situation.

The comics addressed the question of superheroes intervening in foreign affairs briefly in the 52 series.

After the events of Infinite Crisis, the United Nations passed the Freedom of Power treaty, barring superheroes from operating outside of their country of origin.

I thought that this was a great look into the geopolitics of the DC Universe, but aside from being brought up in Geoff Johns' Green Lantern and Judd Winnick's Outsiders, the treaty was never brought up again in the comics.

If superheroes existed in the real world, I reckon there would be laws put in place similar to this one.


The question being asked in the thread, of whether or not Superman intervene in the Ukraine, is a loaded one which depends if Superman in this scenario is the world's only superhuman or one among many superhumans.

If it's the former, and Superman had all the powers he has in the comics, he could do anything he wants with no one able to do anything about it.

If it's the latter, then it would be a lot more difficult to for him to intervene in the conflict due to the Russian government and their allies having their own superheroes in their pockets,
alongside his fellow Justice Leaguers who might not back his decision.


I see Superman as more of a non-interventionist. He views his duty as handling problems that are too big for normal people to solve: alien invasions, natural disasters. For him, Superman would consider superheroes meddling in foreign affairs as a slippery slope.

It is interesting to speculate what issues a character like Superman would face if they existed in the real world. With his personality in the comics, I don't think Superman would involve himself with a war, but he would prevent nuclear missiles from being launched. He would obviously stop a terrorist attack, but I don't think he would assist a government in taking down a terrorist organization. He's more of a fireman than a soldier.

True...if superheroes existed in the real-world, you can bet it wouldn't be quiet as simple as Superman getting to fly to Russia to do whatever he wanted.

Realistically, the fact that Superman is an American (or perceived as one by the rest of the world) would mean that all the major countries of the world, especially those with less-than-friendly relations with the US, would probably be stockpiling kryptonite and red sun radiation weapons. They'd probably be developing their own Bizarros or other Superman clones. They'd have their own super-soldier programs. Anti-Superman defence would be an industry unto itself...one where LexCorp probably corners the market!

That's actually a pretty good reason for superheroes to not get involved in geopolitical conflicts...they wouldn't want a new arms race in superhuman warfare.

And I totally agree - more ''fireman than soldier'' is absolutely what most classic depictions of Superman are, for better or worse.

[manwhohaseverything]

Escalation problem is dealt with in nolan movies.

Gordon himself dubbed bruce a criminal.(which he is).
"You'll hunt me. You'll condemn me. Set the dogs on me. Because that's what needs to happen."
Too naive and a bit optimistic.