Recently, I witnessed a heated debate between two of my friends.
One condemns Zelensky for his “stubbornness” and unwillingness to compromise. He believes that the reality of global politics is that powerful states dictate the terms to everyone around them, while weaker states have no choice but to accept this, maneuver between the giants, appease them, and find ways to survive.
In his opinion, since Ukraine is weaker and cannot stand against a huge Russia (it has no strong cards to play), it should not have fought but rather submitted to Putin’s demands: abandoning integration with Europe, giving up NATO membership, ceasing the development of the Ukrainian language, and surrendering its independence—all to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and prevent the war. He thinks Ukraine could have navigated more skillfully between the West and Russia.
As an example, he cites France, which almost surrendered to Hitler without a fight in World War II. Yes, the French covered themselves in shame in the eyes of the world, endured the presence of fascists in their cities, served them, and worked for them. But in return, they did not lose millions of lives like the Soviet Union or Poland and managed to preserve their cities and cultural treasures from bombings.
The second friend responds: if everyone in World War II had acted like France and surrendered, then perhaps fascist ideology would still exist today, and we would all be slaves of the Aryans. The victory over fascism was made possible only through the courage and resilience of the Soviet Union, the resistance of the French, the Poles, the Norwegians, and many other peoples. That is precisely why the fascist plague was stopped.
Today, Ukraine has taken the first blow of Russian imperialism, just as Poland once took the first blow of Hitler’s fascism. The entire world should be grateful to Ukraine and should help it.
And if we still think in primitive terms like “the strongest rules,” then why do international law and diplomacy exist in the modern world? Does this mean that powerful countries can simply seize their neighbors by right of strength, just as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Genghis Khan did? Does this mean that humanity has erased three millennia of progress and returned to the law of the jungle?
They are still arguing. One says that human lives are the most important thing, while the other insists that honor and justice matter more.
What do you think?
COMMENTS