Reject selective compassion
Civilian suffering should matter whether victims live in an allied, neutral or hostile state.
Apply the same standards
Aggression, torture, indiscriminate attacks and collective punishment should not become acceptable when committed by a preferred government.
Recognise legitimate defence
Opposition to war need not require denying people the right to resist invasion or mass violence. It requires constant scrutiny of means, aims and alternatives.
Support prevention before crisis
Diplomacy, arms control, conflict mediation, fair economic relations and accountable institutions receive less attention than military preparation but may prevent violence.
Avoid romanticising any side
Victims can also commit wrongdoing, and just causes can be pursued through unjust methods. Moral analysis should resist propaganda from every participant.
Care for consequences after war
Consistent opposition includes support for refugees, reconstruction, trauma treatment, demining, accountability and reconciliation.
Evidence notes
Consistency can be tested by comparing reactions to similar conduct by allies and enemies, attention given to different civilian populations and willingness to criticise one's own government.
Ethical questions
Do we condemn the same acts when committed by allies?
Can peace advocacy ignore people facing immediate aggression?
How much public funding should move from weapons toward prevention and reconstruction?
Conclusion
A consistent opposition to war combines resistance to aggression with equal concern for all civilians, rejection of double standards, support for non-violent prevention and accountability for every side.