By John Q. Hosedrinker 
For the seventeenth time this year, Russia convened a UN meeting to rewrite history and justify its Ukraine invasion, ignoring the UN Charter. Russia’s actions, including the deployment of weapons supplied by North Korea and Iran, have caused over 12,000 Ukrainian civilian deaths and widespread destruction. This aggression necessitates continued international support for Ukraine’s self-defense and pursuit of a just peace, founded on the UN Charter’s principles. Only Russia’s complete withdrawal from Ukraine can resolve this conflict. The international community must reject Russia’s attempts to distort reality and uphold the truth.
Read the original article here
If Russia is so concerned about Ukraine’s defensive actions, then Russia should simply stop invading. This fundamental point lies at the heart of the matter. The entire conflict stems from Russia’s initial aggression, and any subsequent actions by Ukraine are inherently reactive. To frame Ukraine’s defense as the problem fundamentally ignores the aggressor’s role.
The use of literary references, such as Tolstoy’s “How Much Land Does a Man Need?”, serves as a powerful rhetorical tool. It subtly highlights the absurdity of Russia’s insatiable land grab, drawing a parallel between the fictional character’s fatal greed and Russia’s current actions. The irony is potent; a nation invoking the works of its own literary giants is simultaneously undermining its own justification for the invasion.
The concerns voiced about escalating the conflict are misplaced. While the potential for wider conflict is a legitimate concern, it’s crucial to remember who initiated the situation. Russia’s invasion bears the sole responsibility for the heightened tensions and the threat of wider war. To place the blame for potential escalation on Ukraine’s self-defense is a distortion of reality.
The significant contributions of the UK to Ukraine’s defense are noteworthy. The provision of financial aid, weaponry, training, and potentially even special forces involvement showcases a substantial commitment. This commitment should serve as a model for other nations, encouraging them to move beyond mere expressions of support and contribute tangibly to the Ukrainian cause. The UK’s actions demonstrate a clear understanding that decisive action, not mere words, is required.
Concerns about the potential change in US policy after a shift in administration are valid. However, these concerns should not overshadow the immediate need for continued strong support for Ukraine. Europe should not wait for US actions to determine its own. It’s imperative for European nations to develop their own strategies for ensuring Ukraine’s survival, regardless of US involvement. This involves strengthening their own defense capabilities and maintaining a united front against Russian aggression.
The argument that European nations are hesitant to commit troops due to domestic political considerations is a significant hurdle. However, the long-term consequences of appeasement could be far more damaging than the short-term political risks of decisive action. The historical parallels are troubling, suggesting a potential repetition of past mistakes. A proactive, unified European approach, independent of US involvement, is vital.
The need for a stronger European defense is paramount. The current situation has exposed vulnerabilities and a reliance on external powers that cannot be sustained. A more robust European military capacity, independent of US support, is essential for maintaining regional security and deterring further Russian aggression. This approach ensures Europe’s self-reliance and the ability to protect its interests and values. It’s not about simply mirroring the American military machine but establishing a potent, unified force that can address regional challenges without relying on external intervention.
Ultimately, the central message remains clear. Russia’s aggression is the root cause of the conflict. Ukraine’s defensive actions are a direct response to an illegal invasion. If Russia genuinely seeks to de-escalate the conflict, the only logical step is to end the invasion. Any other approach perpetuates the violence and ignores the fundamental principles of international law and sovereignty. The responsibility for peace lies squarely with Russia.