Home / Feature / ZELENSKY’S WAR: WHO IS AT FAULT ?

ZELENSKY’S WAR: WHO IS AT FAULT ?

 

Author: Mashuk Ahmed Khan

L.L.M.; M.Phil.; M.A.; PG Dip.(LP).; PG Dip. (HRM).; MCIPD

A Legal Academic; and

Member of The University of Oxford Philosophical Society; and

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

______________________________________________________________

 

 

What is happening in Ukraine is no doubt very distressing to any rational human being. We have experienced many alike, but the humanity does not deserve this kind of ruthless treatment anywhere in the world. The Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to be a fait accompli for the Ukrainiansbut who is responsible for this?

Warmongering and waging wars on weaker nation states by the super-powers and their allies have become a regular pattern for the last 40 years. The US has been more engaged in direct interference with the nation states’ internal political affairs more so than Russia since 1990. The US having taken advantage of its sole super power status after the collapse of the USSR (“Soviet Union /USSR”) posed itself as a mentor of the global political order. The United Nations Security Council (“UNSC”), all the more so, has become a forum of convenience for the mighty players to secure approval of any action(s) collective or otherwise from the UNSC, by virtue of their influence over its members; or conversely, to block any substantive resolution being passed by using its flawed veto system – as justified or preferred often, by all, or any of the big fives. Russia vetoed the UNSC’s draft resolution on 25 Feb. 2022 that would have demanded Moscow to immediately stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraw all troops. How could Russia have shot itself in the foot by voting in favour of a UNSC resolution drafted against it? As a matter of reference the US also blocked, at least four times, similar resolutions, which were drafted by the UNSC to halt indiscriminate Israeli bombings on helpless Gazan Palestinians, in May 2021. So what is the difference here between Russian President and the US President?

Volodymyr Zelensky (‘Zelensky’) a comic actor – cum – President of Ukraine, overly ambitious, amateur politician, with meagre or no knowledge of how the US and the West European foreign policies work, immersed himself in the realm of expansive Western capitalism. In so doing, he has made himself and his nation the victims of capitalists’ war. His motivation to become the Ukrainian president came about from his acting role in ‘Servant of the People’ (his political party was named after this hit TV series) as a High-school teacher who accidentally, against all odds, became a president. That was his only political experience as far as everyone is aware. However, he managed to capitalise his screen-image and popularity to sway the Ukrainian people, to welcome him to lead Ukraine as a real President, and so they did. What a bonanza that was for Zelensky!!  Today he is faced with one of the most devastating wars in human history. War means, destructions and re-constructions (of set of values and norms of a nation/society’s socio-economic and political culture, and its geography) that involves deaths and suffering of innocent civilians beyond measure. But for some, war means business; it adds more economic value to their wealth and assets; and for some nation states, an increase in their gross domestic product (GDP). But for the politicians, war could either bring a leadership success or failure – nonetheless, a history (good, bad, or ugly) will be written – they have very little to lose.

It was Zelensky’s naive approach pursuing Yushchenkos’ (Ukraine’s President: 2005 – 2010)  legacy to lead Ukraine out of the Kremlin orbit and join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 1949 (“NATO”/ “Military Alliance”), and the European Union (which is already fractured by Brexit and about to tail-off further as the whisper of Frexit (of France) and Nexit (of Netherland) are afloat in the air) with the aim of satisfying his bitterness against Russia; for its annexation of Crimea in 2014, and for aiding the pro-Russian separatist groups, affiliated with self-proclaimed Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics. These Republics were internationally unrecognised until their recognition by Russia just before the Russo-Ukrainian war began on 24 February 2022, which Zelensky termed as a “violation of the integrity and sovereignty of the territory of Ukraine”. Zelensky is caught up in a booby trap set up by the West to which he was a major contributor with an over-inflated view of himself. He is now, screeching and begging for help to his imaginary ally NATO, with his all-consuming patriotism to, rescue his nation from the deaths and destructions inflicted upon them by Russia. Zelensky is praised for his courage by the West and earned a heroic status, not for fighting, but facing alone, the world’s biggest army. He was offered evacuation from Kyiv by the West which he blatantly refused saying that “I don’t want a ride, I need planes”. At least he realised that if he had left Ukraine it would bring him shame and humiliation that will cause irreversible damage to his political career. Despite this, the UK is still insistent on his evacuation programme which may not be realised until its need is ripen. The danger is, Zelensky’s exile from Ukraine, may prolong the war for an indefinite period.

Promises of Russia, US and the UK ( the “three Bigs”) under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum  (“1994 Memorandum”) – assuring Ukraine of its security – is not fully operative, for its lack of legal status. Hence, the guarantees provided by the said 1994 Memorandum were bound to fail, as it has, indeed. The verbiage of protecting Ukraine’s national security by the NATO was a hoax for the obvious reasons. Ukraine is only an opportunity partner of the NATO, not a member as yet; and the protection afforded to its members under Article 5 (of NATO) therefore does not extend to Ukraine. It is inconceivable that the legally non-binding status of the 1994 Memorandum, or the NATO’s limitations were beyond contemplation of the parties at the time of signing the 1994 Memorandum. It seems as though, a Castle was built in the air, for the Kyiv government, in Budapest, to which it thoughtlessly entered. Because, the deal was economically lucrative for the corrupt Ukrainian leaders – albeit at a future deadly cost to their people – as appeared to be the case today. It is probable that Zelensky is feeling the pain of Ukraine’s reliance on the NATO to his bones, in as much as he regrets the non-binding 1994 Memorandum; which it was believed, to be the proverbial magic crystal – capable of solving all Ukrainian national security problems. Recently, Zelensky has blamed the NATO, in a strongly worded heart-broken speech that;

 “Starting from today everyone who dies will die because of you as well, because of your weakness, because of your disunity.” (Zelensky, 4 March 2022)

His reaction was prompted from NATO’s refusal to his request – to create a no-fly zone – over Ukraine. What Zelensky still fails to comprehend that the NATO cannot create a no-fly zone over Ukraine to prevent Russian planes entering its air-space, as it would require direct confrontation with Russia by the West. Russia has not attacked a NATO member state for it to take such measure against it. Therefore the US and NATO’s support for Ukraine other than for the rule-based international order could spark a third World War. The nuclear buttons are on the red on both sides; the crisis must be dealt with utmost caution. Zelensky is the victim of his imprudent decision – inviting Russia’s adversaries to its doorstep.

Zelenskiy leaned heavily to the West to become a NATO member which posed an obvious threat to the Russian national security. Regardless of the West refuting Russia’s such concern, it is a fact so practical, to be avoided by President Putin (‘Putin’). It was in 2007 Putin unequivocally expressed his concern about NATO’s eastwardly expansion, and warned the West to, back off its military deployment from the East European region; and to abort the idea of inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia into its military alliance. But the West persisted in its continued mission to expand NATO’s territory to Russia’s Border in the guise of enhancing the Euro-Atlantic security. The West argues NATO’s expansion towards the Eastern Europe as its modernisation, but what does it actually mean? To put simply, it is a specious assertion creating a false equivalence between modernisation, and eastwardly expansion of NATO that attempts to encircle Russia in order to maximise its strategic geopolitical advantage over Moscow [Emphasis added].  Modernisation of the NATO cannot be equated with its expansion to Russia’s next door (Ukraine). It could at best, encompass, equipping the NATO with sophisticated weapons to outdo its enemies; yet a further question arises who are the NATO’s enemies. In fact the Warsaw Treaty Organisation 1956 (“Warsaw Pact”), was founded in the Cold War era to confront NATO. Neither of those Intra-governmental  Military Alliances was meant for peaceful purpose; but rather symbolic to arms race between the Socialist and Capitalist blocs that divided the world with a notional Iron Curtain – augmented with a literal Iron Curtain of Berlin ( the “Berlin Wall”) – to maintain their ideological divisions of the Cold War [Further emphasis].

Historically, the communist world had grown substantially after the Second World War, spreading from Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, and North Vietnam to other parts of Asia (Cambodia and Afghanistan), Africa (Angola and Mozambique), and Latin America (Nicaragua). Moscow and Beijing’s policies were preferred by many political and intellectual elites in the industrialised countries, as opposed to that of the Washington, and London. India for example led the Non-Aligned Movement (“NAM”), often sided with the communist bloc at the UN and the regional organisations, though claims itself a neutral actor. The recent abstentions of India from the UN over the Ukraine issues exemplify its tacit siding with Russia, as embedded in its character, in terms of international relations. The angry Biden administration is bullying New Delhi to join the US-led condemnation of Moscow, warning that “there is no room for excuses or equivocation”. Is it not undemocratic? India as a member of the NAM (comprised of 120 member nation states) had every right to adhere to its tenets. The whole purpose of the NAM was, for its members to exercise their free-will at the UN, and not submits to the coercion of the big powers.

While the former USSR had made a quick progress developing its nuclear programme after the Second World War, the US had opted for parity through careful spending on defence and arms control treaties. Such parity policy was adopted by the US in order to strike a balance between its defence spending, and the domestic needs, due to scarcity of economic resources. The opponents of parity policy argued that the US should have pursued a policy of peace through its strength (?) rather than peace through negotiations from a position of parity. But that did not find much favour at the time. Many US political elites argued that the Vietnam War should have been fought differently, perhaps because; it did not produce the quick and effective goal for the US. President Nixon’s fatigue policy of ‘Vietnamisation’ of Vietnam – that was to remove communism with a prolonged war without further physical presence of the US forces in the South Vietnam, had not been appreciated by those who were in favour of peace through strength (bombing).  Nearly two decades of war with five US Presidents (Eisenhower – Ford), being the Commander-in-Chief, ended with a human cost to the US of its 58,121 service men (which they still bemoan), and more than two millions to Vietnam, with 26,000 bomb craters that pockmarked Indochina. However, pursuant to US’s parity policy there was a short-lived period of Cold War Detente with Moscow, with its peak in 1975 (markedly, the year of Helsinki Accord between the USSR and the West) and death in 1979 – following the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. The most dangerous terrorist (as labelled by the West) of the 21st Century, Bin Laden, was in fact created by the US to fight the Soviet troops and oust them from Afghanistan. The hostilities between the USSR and the US soured further and the Cold War resumed.

According to US officials the “United States funnelled more than $2 billion dollars in guns and money to the Mujahidin [in Afghanistan] during the 1980s; it was the largest covert war since World War II”, as cited by Steve Coll in Anatomy of a Victory: CIA’s Covert Afghan War, Washington Post July 19 1992.

The UK foreign Secretary Liz Truss stated that if individual Britons were to join Ukraine in its fight against the Russian troops she would have no objection to this – leaving it at the individuals’ discretion. Thanks to the British Ministry of Defence for its precautionary measure warning that any British military personnel who will join the fight in Ukraine against Russia, will face, Court Marshall. In order to avoid the possibility of NATO’s implied confrontation with Russia, President Biden (“Biden”) also personally vetoed the UN resolution to stop Poland from supplying Ukraine with MIG-29 fighters. It would be a grave mistake for the West to adopt a strategy of fighting a covert war in Ukraine, whereas the game involved – comprising four super-powers (Russia, US, UK and France).

With the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991 the Iron curtain was lifted automatically, providing opportunity for the West to see beyond its horizon with a new telescope to expand Western capitalist terrain, in the name of democracy. Russia inherited a broken economy from the USSR primarily caused by President Mikhail Gorbachev’s (‘Gorbachev’) failure to successfully implement his reforms known as ‘Glasnost’ – which refers to openness, in dealing with the West; and ‘Perestroika’ – a series of political and economic reforms. The suddenness of these reforms together with growing instability, both inside and out of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev’s Perestroika failed. His appeal to the West for support and assistance, particularly to President Georg H. W. Bush (Bush Senior) received no attention whatsoever. Gorbachev felt betrayed by the West, but there was no U-turn for him. The Soviet economy suffered a mortal stagnation that followed with stagflation and ensuing collapse of the USSR in 1991 – re-birthing Russia. It was a long awaited American dream came true. Consequently, many of the Warsaw Pact member states turned to NATO and the European Union (“EU”) in the hope of securing their nations from potential wars and economic misfortune. The US and NATO quickly embraced the opportunity to extend their Military Alliance to the Balkan Republics, to Russia’s complete disliking. Those Balkan Republics have a historical tie with Russia, dates back to Russian empire of the Czarist period and, moreover of significant strategic importance to Russia.

George Keenan (“Kennan”) the intellectual father of the America’s containment policy during the Cold War perceptively warned in May 2, 1998 (New York Times interview) about what the Senate’s ratification of NATO’s first round of expansion might trigger as stating:

 “ I think it is the beginning of a New Cold War, Kennan stated. “I think the Russian’s will gradually react quiet adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else”

Kennan was right in his assertions, but the US and NATO proceeded with their provocative new rounds of expansion to the Balkan states. This was no doubt a ‘Realpolitik’ measure, to strengthen US hegemony, and close any gap, which could have been filled by the EU creating its European Defence Force. Sadly, Ukraine is now paying the price for its eagerness to join the mighty Military Alliance of NATO – that portrayed itself as a Russian adversary.

Putin cannot be said a Leninist idol per se. Although he respects the nobility of the erstwhile Soviet Union, he does not want to learn a lesson from it. He is a man of his own making – from a Checkist (secret police) to a President. Today Russians are able to candidly discuss the drawbacks of Lenin and Stalin without the fear of being incarcerated by Putin’s regime. Russia has moved far away from the Leninist drunkenness. Putin being a traditionalist portrays somewhat the image of an imperial Russian Czarist to his political approach. Hence, Putin’s aim to revive the Russian glory cannot be totally discarded. Further, there appears to be a strong sense of revivalism of the lost Russian identity revolving in the minds of Putin and the Russian political and intellectual elite as exemplified by the Russian invasion of Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine. However, it is unlikely that Putin will attempt to create another Russian empire of Czarist or any other imperialist traditions.

Notwithstanding the fall of the Soviet Union, the West still treats Russia as a remnant of the former Soviet Union, in other words, a Little Soviet. That in itself is humiliating to Russia as it is struggling to salvage its original identity that was succumbed to the Soviet Union in 1922, and wishes to be more integrated into the group of Euro-Atlantic nations. But the West had not sufficiently welcomed Russia as an equal cohort in the global political and economic sphere; it always tries to corner Russia as an old foe, which it is not. Every time Putin is blamed, an inference is drawn from the Soviet period of Russia. Liz Truss, the British Foreign Secretary, recently said of Putin that “he still has the image of Soviet Union”. Even Japan having joined the international sanctions against Russia, compared Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, with Russia’s occupation of its four islands (Habomai, Shikotan, Kunashiri and Etorofu), north of Hokkaido, which Russia inherited from the former Soviet Union. Why should today’s Russia take any such blame(s) totally attributable to the former Soviet Union? What the West ignores that, the USSR came into being in 1922 following Bolshevik revolution and the removal of the Tsars, culminated in the the execution of the whole Romanov family. Thus the USSR and Russia are not the synonyms of each other.

It was of course necessary to condemn and isolate Putin for his invasion of the Sovereign Ukraine. But the US and the NATO have engaged in an arbitrary economic war against Russia, having imposed sanctions of a magnitude – tantamount to starving or suffocating the Russians to death – with their economy completely destroyed. On the other spectre of the game, the Ukrainians are not only suffering economic turmoil, but deaths and destructions, for allowing themselves to advancing the West’s strategic interests in the global economic and military landscape. The youthful Zelensky is given a small role to play, in this game-changing drama, as a real President, to the Ukrainian’s absolute detriment. The problem has gone far beyond than Zelensky could ever envisage. The only concern now is how to extricate Ukraine from this devastating war. Can this be achieved, if the West continues to resist Putin’s long-standing demand to end NATO’s expansion towards Eastern Europe?  Surely, Zelensky did not have the foresight to see this inevitable corollary due to his lack of political acumen, and reflection to, Russia’s early warning contending NATO’s eastwardly expansion. He (Zelensky) ignored the importance of both the socio-cultural and linguistic uniformity of Ukraine with Russia, and that Ukraine cannot be unfriendly to its next-door neighbour and the old Soviet partner. It is the historical past that often dictates the present and future of the global politics. The end of Cold War and the Russia’s weakness emerged from the Soviet disintegration did not provide the West, a guarantee, that Russia has fallen on its knees and would never rise again.

Following the Soviet disintegration in 1991, Ukraine inherited a huge stockpile of Soviet nuclear arms and was the third largest nuclear power in the world with some 5,000 nuclear weapons and 174 Intercontinental Ballistic missiles. The Lisbon Protocol 1991 (“1991 Protocol”) to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 1991 (“START”) in which Ukraine was a signatory along with Russia, Belarus and Kazakstan. The 1991 Protocol transferred the USSR’s obligation under the START to the said four breakaway nuclear provinces to comply. The primary obligation under the START was the gradual reduction of the strategic offensive weapons, not the immediate dismantling or hasty abandonment of its nuclear deterrents. But the three Bigs (Russia,US,and the UK) had gone further, and dissuaded Ukraine from keeping its nuclear weapons in its entirety, and sought transfer of those from Ukraine to Russia, to be dismantled. The US   incentivised Ukraine with half a billion US dollars of which the dismantling costs of 175 million dollars were immediately provided. For Russia and the West the legally non-binding 1994 Memorandum was a great achievement although ultimately led to Ukrainian disaster. If it was not for bad faith, there was a mutuality of obligation between the parties to the 1994 Memorandum to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty from any kind of military threat(s) or occupation. The three Bigs had not honoured the contributions made in good faith by Ukraine towards maintaining, Euro-Atlantic peace and security. If Ukraine had preserved its nuclear arsenal instead, it would not have become susceptible to any foreign invasion again and again.

With reference to the dirty war on Iraq, Saddam Hussain (“Saddam”) was induced by the US to invade Kuwait. Like Zelensky, Saddam was carried away by Iraq-US friendly relationship at the time and foolishly relied on the statement of US Ambassador, April Glaspie, in Baghdad, who told him “[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait”. However the coin was reversed immediately after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait alleging him of violating its sovereignty in flagrant breach of the international law. The UNSC was steered to act promptly in order to form the International Coalition and authorise Operation Desert Storm to oust Saddam’s regime, from the Oil rich Kuwait by force. As with the Ukrainian crisis, in contrast, Russia for months prior to its invasion, was building up its massive military force on the Ukrainian border to the world’s awareness; but the whole world remained insensitive to this foreseeable invasion of Ukraine, except for delivering political rhetoric and predictions.

The UNSC remained quiet until the invasion had taken place, but was unsuccessful in its attempt to pass the resolution proposed by its members as Russia vetoed against the move. There was no call upon the UN General Assembly until the 2nd of March where 141 of the 193 members voted in favour of Ukraine, condemning Russia’s invasion and seeking Russian withdrawal from there. This should have been done in the first place knowing that UNSC was ineffective and could not have secured any resolution in favour of Ukraine due to its 15 member flawed composition, and subjective veto system.  As the General assembly has more voting members, it is certainly a helpful forum for, greater consensus building, and proving international solidarity on important issues such as of Ukraine. That could have persuaded both parties to come to a negotiating table. Putin was waiting for such move by the world community with priorities given to Russia’s core agenda – but he was belittled by the West – to his complete despair.

Given the US’s history of aggressive meddling in the affairs of nation states, and the effect of cumulative malice from its defeat and ensuing withdrawal from Afghanistan; and Russia’s successful competition with the US in Syria to make room for itself in the Middle-East, is arguably shifted to Russia’s border- Ukraine. This is seen by Putin as a practical challenge – even in the light of US’s ‘Realpolitik’ – threatening Russia’s national security. A war is a must for the US either with direct involvement or by proxy as had been witnessed by the world in both the Cold War and post Cold-War periods. The US, so they say, assumed responsibility for policing the whole world, and boasted creating a new world [dis]order, after the Soviet disintegration. That stimulated the swelling of Russian antagonistic approach to US’s return to a New Cold-War that eventually turned ‘Hot’ – to the West’s surprise.

While Zelensky has been trying to negotiate a ceasefire to end the war inviting Putin to seat with him face-to-face, the West has been adding ‘fuel on the flame’ by attacking Putin personally with humiliating statements, such as:  Putin has gone ‘full tonto’, ‘he must be punished for war crime’, ‘he will pay the price for his invasion of Ukraine’; Prime Minister Borris Johnson’s promises of sanctions to ‘hobble’ the Russian economy, ‘Putin must not under-estimate the West’, ‘We [UK] have nuclear deterrent’, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged the UN to ‘set up a special tribunal to punish Putin’ for war crimes; Borris Jonson’s call for ‘expelling Russia from its permanent membership of the UNSC’, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab’s offer to the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) of the UK’s prison facilities for the potential convicts of war crime (while UK’s prisons are already over-crowded with indigenous prison population)etc.. and it goes on. The other former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has remained silent for obvious reasons – holding tightly his controversial knighthood.

On top of all these, the Prosecutor of the ICC Karim Khan (QC) (“Chief Prosecutor”) has become proactive to prosecute Putin for war crimes based merely on media propaganda and having invited the ICC member states to come forward with referral(s) to expedite his investigation for war crimes in Ukraine. Resultantly, 39 countries including the UK have come forward with referrals. The Chief Prosecutor should not have solicited such referrals. That should have been left to the ICC member states, to come forward proprio motu (by one’s own motion) – based on their own findings of facts. However, the Prosecutor has put those referrals before the Pre-trial Chamber on 1 March 2022 (within 8 days of invasion) seeking its authorisation to investigate, and has received approval. Russia and Ukraine are not members of the ICC, but Ukraine has submitted to its jurisdiction. The US is a signatory to the Rome Statute but has not ratified it, for apparent reasons – i.e.; to protect its military from being prosecuted for war crimes and therefore maintained its distance to say much in this regard. On a factual analysis there is no doubt the Chief Prosecutor will face difficulties collecting independent and impartial evidence due to ICC’s lack of resources as it cannot be on the war field to gather factual evidence or bring witnesses to testify evidence in court. So it will have to rely primarily on hearsay evidence which have little weight in criminal proceedings unless it is a firsthand hearsay, testified by the witnesses, in court. Further, the Laws of War, and the International Humanitarian Laws, provide some tolerance for the harm to civilian and, other collateral damages, unless caused deliberately or recklessly.   Also the higher the chain of command the more difficult it is to hold someone responsible for war crimes.

It was a call too early by the ICC Chief Prosecutor to commence investigation of war crimes in Ukraine in the absence of any concrete evidence.  Moreover, it is a requirement of the Rome Statute (“Statute”) that a member state (which ratified the Statute) must exhaust its national courts before referring individual(s) to the ICC. In accordance with Article 1 of the Statue, the jurisdiction of the ICC “shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions”. Hence it cannot override the jurisdiction of the national courts of the accused. Russia is not a member of the ICC, and it is unlikely that the Russian will have the courage and opportunity to bring Putin to justice in their national courts ever. Even if they did Russia still cannot refer Putin to the ICC for it is not a member of it, and statute barred to do so under Article 1. It is to be seen how the United Nations (“UN”) reacts to such situation if so arises. All those pre-mature actions by the ICC and the humiliating verbal attacks on Putin by the West; worsening the case for a compromised solution to this war soon, to ending the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

The annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine’s Donbas region in 2014 was a result of the West’s deliberate ignorance of Putin’s concern and his warning about NATO’s expansion to the Eastern-Europe, at Munich security conference in 2007. The second invasion of Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022 has taken place, because the West continued pushing its own case for the NATO’s expansion having ignored Putin’s concern in its entirety. Putin has allowed 7 years grace periods before each invasion of Ukraine for the West, and Ukraine, to respond positively to his contention.

That said Zelensky is a circumstantial ‘patriot’ who stood firmly against Russian invasion, shoulder to shoulder with his people. It is his political inexperience and presumed fear of Russia, forced him to seek refuge to the West which proved to be unproductive. Ukraine should never have abandoned its nuclear arsenals completely, and lean towards NATO instead, to protect its sovereignty; and provide NATO with geopolitical advantage at the cost of Russia’s national security. The history will note again how erroneous decisions of national leaders lead their nations to damage and destructions. Zelensky the assumed bearer of the Western democracy (who never had its true flavour) is an inadvertent saboteur of the peace-loving Ukrainian nation. He should not have relied on the West to democratise Ukraine. Democracy is neither a Seal of the US President nor an exclusive product of the West. It must be a home-grown product of individual nation states to suit their socio-politico-economic cultures. It requires organic growth for its sustainability.

It is not the leaders of the state, but its ordinary people, sustain democracy. The people of Ukraine are risking everything; their lives, family, homes, assets and wealth to fight against Russia while Zelensky is well protected with all his military might surrounding him in Kyiv. Zelensky is the author of this disaster having pursued the legacy of his predecessors without considering the repercussions of his actions.

However, it is irrelevant now whose fault it was behind this war; the damage has been done. The best thing the world politicians can do right now – rather than being too busy scoring political points domestically and internationally – is to approach the crisis with genuine eagerness, in order to save the innocent people of Ukraine from further suffering. Why has it been left for that long, since “where there is a will there is a way”. It is hoped that the Russo-Ukrainian peace talks in progress reaches a fruitful conclusion soon.

Finally a few lines quoted hereunder from John Donne’s famous poem, ‘No Man Is an Island’

“ Any man’s death diminishes me,

Because, I am involved in mankind.

And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;

It tolls for thee.”

The unnecessary destruction of human beings through warmongering or waging wars on nation states by the super-powers must stop if humanity were to be given a chance to flourish.

Concluded:

London, 14 March 2022   Email: mashukahmedkhan@yahoo.com