The Russo-Ukrainian war raises the question about the utility of ethnography in understanding interstate war. As anthropologyand sociology have historically punched below their weight when it comes to understanding interstate war and warfare, much ofthe academic study of war has been occupied by political science. In this article I discuss why this is unfortunate, yet not inev-itable. I also discuss three strengths of ethnography in studying war. First, ethnography helps us to restore ambiguity into po-larized understandings of war. Second, ethnography can assist us in understanding strategy because of its focus on people andthe societies we constitute. Third, ethnography helps with the ethical responsibility of giving war a human face. I conclude byarguing that war is too important to be left to generals and political scientists, but that this is inevitable if ethnographers con-tinue to distance themselves from the study of war.