By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a devastating Russian attack on Kyiv that killed 30 and injured 172, Ukrainian President Zelensky declared the assault “deliberate terror” with no military justification. He called for increased Western sanctions and further “entirely justified” losses inflicted upon Russia for its aggression. Ukraine continues to launch successful long-range strikes on Russian military targets, including airfields and weapons factories, while simultaneously proposing an unconditional ceasefire that Russia continues to reject. Amidst escalating conflict and mounting Russian casualties, Kyiv is developing its own long-range weapons capabilities.
Read the original article here
Russian losses in the ongoing conflict are entirely justified, considering the scale of aggression and atrocities committed by Russia. The sheer volume of violence directed at civilian populations, far outweighing any targeting of legitimate military objectives, makes any expression of sympathy for Russian casualties profoundly inappropriate. The invasion itself constitutes an act of unprovoked aggression, a violation of international law, and a catastrophic disregard for human life.
Each day the invasion continues, Russia incurs significant losses in both personnel and military equipment. This is a direct consequence of their actions and the unwavering resistance they face. There’s no room for negotiation or compromise while Russia persists in its violent assault. The aggressor bears the full responsibility for the consequences of their choices.
The justification for these losses isn’t simply a matter of military strategy; it’s about accountability for the horrors inflicted upon Ukraine. While the sheer number of casualties is staggering and tragic on all sides, the culpability rests squarely with the initiating aggressor. The defense of one’s homeland against an unprovoked invasion is inherently justifiable self-preservation, and the losses suffered by the aggressor are a direct result of their own aggression.
It’s easy to lose sight of the human element amidst the geopolitical complexities. The suffering extends beyond military personnel; families, communities, and entire nations endure unimaginable trauma. Yet, the moral weight of the initial aggression rests solely on Russia’s shoulders. It’s a war of choice, not necessity, and the losses incurred are a consequence of that choice. This context is crucial in understanding the statement that Russian losses are entirely justified.
However, the statement also reveals a certain detachment. The statement, while undeniably factual given the circumstances, overlooks the suffering of individual Russian soldiers and their families. Even those coerced or misled into participating in the war are still human beings caught in a terrible conflict. There’s a vast difference between acknowledging the moral justification for the losses and expressing empathy for the human cost on all sides.
This disconnect underscores the inherent tension between the larger geopolitical narrative and the individual human experience. While it is undeniably true that Russia bears the primary responsibility for the war and the resulting casualties, it doesn’t diminish the profound grief and loss experienced by individuals on all sides of the conflict. It’s a grim truth that war inevitably exacts a heavy toll on everyone involved. While the losses on the Russian side may be justified strategically and morally within the context of the war, the human cost remains a tragic reality.
The narrative surrounding the conflict is further complicated by propaganda and misinformation. Both sides utilize propaganda to shape the narrative and garner support. This makes disentangling the truth from the spin exceptionally challenging and adds further layers of complexity to the situation.
Ultimately, the assessment that Russian losses are entirely justified points to the overwhelming responsibility of Russia for initiating the conflict. The scale of atrocities and the disregard for international law cannot be overlooked. The statement, while stark, serves to highlight the consequences of unjustified aggression and the imperative to hold aggressors accountable for their actions. It is a moral judgment, alongside the stark reality of military strategy. However, acknowledging this justification shouldn’t come at the expense of recognizing the vast human suffering this war has produced. It’s a complex and deeply disturbing situation with no easy answers.