By Matt Underwood Zelenskiy says Russia must be held responsible for the “crime of aggression,” and frankly, it’s about time. He’s absolutely right. This isn’t just about the immediate atrocities, the documented war crimes – terrible as they are. This goes to the very core of the problem, the initiating act that spawned all the subsequent horrors. The “crime of aggression” – the unprovoked invasion – is the root of the evil. Everything else branches out from there. Justice really does have to start at the beginning.
It’s easy to see the clarity of the situation, the undeniable truth that something fundamental needs to change. Holding Russia accountable for this foundational crime isn’t just about punishment; it’s about establishing a precedent, a deterrent. It sends a powerful message to any potential aggressor in the future: that launching a war of this kind will come with severe consequences. This is about safeguarding the future, not just dealing with the present.
The question then shifts to the “how.” It’s a complicated matter, no doubt. The suggestion of dividing Moscow into zones, mirroring the post-war division of Berlin, offers a stark visual, a way to make even the most oblivious Russian citizens see the truth. They need to understand that Putin is a war criminal. We’ve seen how quickly regimes can crumble when they lose public support. The precedent of Ceaușescu’s downfall is a stark reminder.
It’s clear that the international community needs to be far more assertive in pursuing justice for this “crime of aggression.” The current situation, with the invasion of Ukraine, highlights the weakness in our ability to hold those in power accountable for actions like this. The existing frameworks and mechanisms seem inadequate, struggling to contend with the scale of the crisis and the geopolitical complexities involved.
The difficulty lies in the enforcement. History is littered with examples of unpunished aggression, with countries like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Nicaragua serving as reminders of the challenges. The potential cost is enormous, both in human lives and in the logistical and financial burdens of rebuilding and managing the situation. The question of who pays and how is a significant hurdle.
One aspect that clearly arises is the need for reparations. Russia needs to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine. The devastation is immense, and the responsibility for rebuilding lies squarely with the aggressor. That’s a fundamental part of justice and a tangible step towards rectifying the damage done.
Furthermore, a significant element that comes up is the issue of nuclear weapons. One drastic solution is to strip Russia, and indeed all nuclear-armed nations, of their nuclear arsenals. This is not a simple proposition, and this touches upon the heart of the security concerns. The idea would drastically reduce the ability to threaten the world. This is linked to the need to curb the influence of warmongers, who could then not continue to threaten the world with such powerful capabilities.
But the realities of the situation are also stark. Who would dare to invade a country with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal? Who would accept the cost of doing this? It creates a situation where further escalation cannot be ruled out.
Another important point to note is that removing nuclear options might actually lead to a clearer path to victory for Ukraine. Without this threat, allies would potentially be able to lift restrictions on munitions, thus changing the balance of power. This is clearly a complex calculus, one where the benefits have to be weighed against the very real risks.
However, a serious consequence of such a plan could easily result in World War 3, and the consequences would be catastrophic. The removal of such weaponry and the response by Russia could result in the deployment of those weapons.