The Moral Responsibility for the War in Ukraine

The Moral Responsibility for the War in Ukraine

One of the main questions that worries many of us today is: who should bear moral responsibility for the war in Ukraine.

The relevant culprit was quickly dictated by the West. Even the court in the Hague approached and filed a lawsuit.

Is the truth as simple as it seems at first glance, or rather, is it just presented as being such? Is there only one to blame for everything that results in this war of unhealthy ambitions?

On March 18, 2014, Russia annexed Crimea. The West demonstrated certain dissatisfaction, but only on the surface. Ukraine just accepted the situation. The success of the Crimean operation escalated tension in the eastern parts of Ukraine, where an open, blatant discriminatory policy against the local population was conducted. In April, Donetsk and Luhansk regions declared independence from Ukraine and a little later / in May /, after referendums, these territories were proclaimed people’s republics. Kyiv’s response this time was not late. Military battles followed and heavy weapons were used. The conflict has escalated indefinitely over the years. People died, mostly among the civilian population.

The international community, represented by the French President Francois Hollande and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, worked hard to quell the looming conflict between Ukraine and Russia. On June 6, 2014, in connection with the celebrations dedicated to the Normandy landings / 1944 /, France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine created the Normandy format in order to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine. At this initiative, in early September the same year, within the framework of the Tripartite Contact Group composed of Russia, Ukraine and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, talks were held in Minsk on the issue of Eastern Ukraine. Representatives of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, without being internationally recognized, were attending the talks.

As a result of the talks, the First Minsk Agreement was signed on September 5. It was later confirmed by the “Complex of Measures for Implementing the Minsk Agreements”. The Additional Protocol, or the so-called Second Minsk Agreement, was signed on February 12, 2015.
The Minsk agreements provided for: a cease of fire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons from Ukrainian troops and other agreements covering the socio-economic, financial and communication spheres.

In the agreement, in connection with the envisaged federalization of Ukraine, the autonomy in some of the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk regions is referred to, in accordance with the “Law on Special Status”, which ought to form the basis of a new Ukrainian constitution. Both areas were expected to gain expanded autonomy.

However, all these agreements remain only good wishes, because the Ukrainian side, purposefully encouraged by the United States, as well as by the top NATO and EU executives, did not implement them. Both areas came under systematic heavy artillery fire. The citizens living there, who found themselves on the front line, had been living in constant fear for years, listening to the heavy cannonade and guessing which of the next shells will be theirs. People continued to die – mostly civilians.

The hawks in Kyiv, urged by the West, face the double-headed eagle. They were encouraged by the sweet melody coming from Washington, which gave confidence that help would come from the West. The latter were generous indeed, but that was all.

Under the presidents who came into power after the Maidan Kyiv, leaning on the militant Ukrainian nationalists, established total cultural and linguistic hegemony, followed by unprecedented persecution of the Russian-speaking population. The events in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are a direct consequence of the ongoing ethno cultural persecution carried out by paramilitary nationalist groups, aided by undisguised neo-fascists who operate with impunity on Ukrainian territory.

The question is, will sober, intelligent people be content to blame only one person, Vladimir Putin? Or will they try to find the sources of a multifaceted, complex guilt?

On the eve of World War II, self-deluded by its own illusions, the West in order to avoid a war for themselves, tried to direct the German aggression eastwards – against the USSR – a vicious policy that fell down on its head with mind-boggling force. Western Europe, headed by France, was forced to capitulate, and Britain fled in disgrace from the mainland, seeking refuge behind the English Channel in its impregnable Albion. But Western politicians then at least had the courage to acknowledge their foreign policy collapse and declare war on Hitler. And now, after working together, or rather led by the United States, to systematically turn Ukraine against Russia, they limit themselves to condemning its war and imposing sanctions.

Jonas Stoltenberg has so far limited himself to using NATO’s most powerful weapon – to brand the war – as long as he has a microphone in front of his eyes. Well, after all it is true, he is only a political dummy a figure on whose will nothing depends in the “defensive” union.
The insistent edification with which Volodymyr Zelensky dictates what the West ought to and must do to save Ukraine is amazing. He does not beg, but urges and dictates how the West should act. At first glance, this seems rather strange against the background of the difficult situation in which his country found itself, as a result of the policy pursued by him and the other Ukrainian hawk – Petro Poroshenko. His words sound threatening.

Did they make any promises to him? Won’t he start talking thus making things crystal clear whether the moral guilt is only his, or should be allotted to more people?

Ukraine was simply deceived by the United States and its allies in developed Europe. They gave the Ukrainians money, weapons and shoved them right in the mouth of the Russian bear with a tap on the shoulder. And in the end, they were left alone to sip the potpourri. America and Europe have declared unequivocally that they will not intervene with military forces in the conflict.

One can only wonder whether, if the Ukrainians had complied with the Minsk agreements, this conflict would have erupted in this deadly form. The most basic thing on the part of Ukraine was to implement these agreements, under which its signature also appears. So V. Zelenski has no right to pretend to be a victim, provided that not only did he not fulfill them, but on top of that he fiercely fired at his “own” citizens in the declared as separatist eastern regions.

Why did Ukraine, in the pre-war period, stood up fiercely against Russia and why did they not fulfill the Minsk agreements? The main danger for Ukraine in recognizing the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk is that, given the nature of Kyiv’s domestic policy, there is a real danger that other parts of the country – non-Ukrainian in consciousness – will demand some form of secession in order to protect from rampant Ukrainization. And this would inevitably lead to a serious danger of disintegration or, at the very least, territorial decentralization of Ukrainian statehood – which is the ultimate goal of Russia’s policy towards Ukraine.

The question is: who is the real instigator of the war in Ukraine, who must bear the moral guilt?! To answer this simple question, we need to find out who instigated the ruling circles in Ukraine after 2014 to unleash their militant nationalism, directed entirely against Russia? Who gave them unsecured advances for impunity and protection? Who turned a blind eye when radical-nationalist paramilitary groups, some of which were openly neo-fascist, were recklessly used for Kyiv’s confrontational policy against Russia? Who “nobly” distributed cookies on the Maidan, and later money and weapons, arming, contrary to international norms, the Ukrainian forces for action against Russia?

Who instilled that confidence in the authorities in Kyiv that they can declare with impunity in 2021 that it is not possible to implement the Minsk agreements?

Who?! If we find the answers to these questions, we will also find the main perpetrators for the war in Ukraine, who must jointly bear not only moral but also legal guilt in the future trial of the Hague tribunal against war crimes. It has been difficult to erase the smug look of the American president recently. There is no sign of his disturbing senility. History, in the face of the seduced and abandoned Ukraine, made a great gesture for him – to enter its annals on a white horse. What about Europe? European countries are definitely in dire straits…

Economic sanctions are certainly a severe blow to Russia. However, the country has shown that they can survive in an extremely hostile environment. An example in this respect is the foreign intervention in the period 1918-1921. That they can be self-sufficient, they can develop and defend themselves, relying on their own economic resources and the well-known Slavic stoicism. But US-led sanctions are a severe blow to Europe itself. Its losses will be no less dramatic, with the deprivation of vast Russian markets and commodity sources.

Forgive them, Lord! They all sinned together, even though they knew what they were doing! May they realize what evils they are doing!

Don’t look at the columns of tanks and armoured vehicles! Do not look at the conquered cities, villages and territories! Do not be impressed by the heroism shown and acclaimed on both sides of the front line! And look at the broken windows of this war and the snow in the homes where people continue to live! Let everyone see them! And if there is no realization, be aware of the following: All this comes from Lucifer!

Comments

No comment yet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *