By Matt Underwood Russian forces take Ukrainian villagers across border, media says. This news immediately conjures a feeling of dread, doesn’t it? When you hear about elderly people, those who simply wanted to stay in their homes, being taken across the border, it feels like a deliberate tactic of terror. It’s hard to see any military value in the abduction of pensioners, making it seem like a cynical maneuver to use as leverage later. It’s a grim reminder that this war may not have a foreseeable end.
Just like with Hitler, the world seems paralyzed, waiting for the inevitable. The hesitancy, the half-measures – they only serve to embolden the aggressor, and it’s the civilians who ultimately pay the price. It’s easy to feel embarrassed, especially when you realize that this act may constitute a war crime, and it makes you feel frustrated.
The forced relocation of civilians, regardless of the size of the village, is a clear sign of intimidation and an attempt to exert control. This isn’t a standard evacuation procedure; it’s a calculated move designed to instill fear and create leverage. It appears to be an attempt to pressure the population to leave, claiming their homes.
When you consider that children are being abducted and indoctrinated, the situation becomes even more disturbing. While some might claim they are simply being escorted out of a warzone, the circumstances suggest a more sinister purpose. It’s a way to use civilians as bargaining chips, pressuring families and the state.
The very idea of a “peace” talk now looks like just a pause to regroup, especially as long as civilians are being forcibly moved across borders. The only real off-ramp appears to be a change of leadership in Russia, where permanent war to rebuild the Soviet empire is the priority, even if it costs millions of lives and the economy of his country.
This isn’t just about Putin; it’s about a broader system of support that welcomes someone like him after he is gone. The appeasement that some might suggest as a tactic is not working. The key is in denying the reward for aggression.
The balance between standing up to aggression and restraint is incredibly delicate. But you cannot be complacent about any of this. No one is asking for NATO to declare war on Russia, but the point of the deterrent is to support Ukraine, and it seems like it’s not enough.
Forcibly moving civilians across an international border under armed control isn’t a standard practice. If it’s truly voluntary and for safety, there needs to be transparency, family access, and independent humanitarian oversight. Without that, it looks a lot like forced transfer and leverage.
If “peace” just means freezing the lines while Russia keeps the people and the territory, that’s not peace; it’s a reward. Appeasement is a lazy slogan, and restraint only works if the other side is satisfied. The pattern here, however, is repeated grabs followed by the next demand, making restraint look like permission.