This opinion article was written Sandra Ukrainka, a Temple of Understanding intern from Ukraine. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own. The opinions stated here do not reflect the official policy, position or viewpoints of the Temple of Understanding.
“The nazis of Ukraine” was a phrase I never thought I’d hear being spoken out loud on the international stage such as the UN, and yet, the Russian Federation delegate didn’t shy away from bringing her home country’s propaganda to the ears of the global community.
Following a drone attack on a bus of Belarusian civilians traveling into Russia on June 17th, Belarus called an emergency UN Security Council meeting. Russia and Belarus have claimed that the strike was carried out by Ukrainian forces, but considering that Ukraine has denied these allegations and the incident has not yet been investigated by an independent party, this is postulation at best. Russia referred to this strike, supposedly carried out by Ukraine, as “Zelenskyy’s ambitions to expand the borders of the conflict,” which is ironic coming from a country that, nearly five years ago now, invaded a sovereign territory and still has not left its internationally-recognized borders. Instead of retrospection, Russia laid the blame on the West for providing Ukraine with weapons that, according to their claim, “are not being used to defend Ukraine but attack Russia.” Russia has also called Ukrainian strikes, which target Russian military infrastructure and not civilians, acts of terrorism. This is all while Russia destroyed a religious monastery that is a UNESCO world heritage site in Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, and killed at least 30 civilians in a recent massive drone bombardment.
The Belarusian Representative to the UN claimed that their country is “being dragged into a war that is not their own,” though it is not that far-fetched to suggest Belarus did that all on its own when it allowed Russian troops to march through Belarus and into Kyiv on February 24th, 2022. The Delegate then proceeded to quote Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus’ President, to issue a threat to the UNSC, and specifically Ukraine: “Don’t test the patience of Belarus.” This might be a good time to remind the audience that the ICC has placed the President of Belarus—whose term should have ended twenty years ago—under investigation for crimes against humanity.
In spirit with the UN’s Geneva Convention Charter, this author reiterates that civilian deaths cannot be tolerated, no matter the circumstances or sides. However, nor should Ukraine be blamed for this strike when no objective evidence has been presented to suggest that Ukrainian forces were involved in this tragedy. Conducting an independent third-party investigation into these deaths is a crucial next step for upholding international cooperation.
France brought up a good point, reminding the Council that under the UN Charter’s Article 51, Ukraine possesses an inalienable right to self-defense, as it is undisputed that it was Russia, with the help of Belarus, that invaded Ukraine—not the other way around. Denmark disputed the two regimes’ expressions of “righteous indignation” at the attack on Belarusian civilians and stated a simple fact: “If Russia was really concerned about civilians, it would stop all war activities.” The UN reports more than 16,000 killed and 48,000 injured in Ukraine in connection to Russia’s ongoing invasion, and that number is evidence in and of itself that Russia does not value life.
This war is one of choice. Russia’s choice. Four months ago, Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, and two nights later, Russia attacked Ukraine’s eastern and central territories with 430 drones and 68 missiles.
The UK delegation reiterated France’s call to action, reminding the Council that while Ukraine has made its commitment to a ceasefire known, Russia continues the war of its own decision. Russia’s speech about the immorality of civilian deaths reveals a stark hypocrisy: the Federation discriminates against life as a whole, and the people of Ukraine do not fall under its category of “humanity.” Russia remains the only obstacle to achieving true sustainable peace in the Eastern European region; not “NATO expansionism,” not “The EU’s goal to Westernize Ukraine,” and definitely not “Ukraine’s counter-attacks against military targets in Russia.” To quote the representative from Latvia, Russia is ignoring its own strikes against residential buildings in Kyiv and seeking to deflect attention from its violations of human rights and countless war crimes during the ongoing invasion.
The truth is straightforward. First of all, historical precedent suggests that Ukraine seeks to maximize efficiency by using its finite military resources on attacking Russia’s military sector, and does not target civilians, as Ukrainian officials have stated many times. Secondly, the map above, as reported by the Institute for the Study of War, shows the main military targets in Russia in red, and the purple pin added to this image approximates where the bus was traveling during the incident. It was nowhere near Russia’s hubs of infrastructure such as oil refineries, the energy sector, and military production facilities. And finally, the international community has extensively documented previous cases of Russia committing crimes against civilians and then lying about it to turn the blame on Ukraine.
Simply put, Russia is spreading disinformation to plant seeds of doubt in the global community’s minds because President Putin knows that it is the only ace up his sleeve that he has left, after having failed at defeating a country that he claimed he could conquer in three days. Ukraine is supported by the rest of the Democratic world, but what this side needs to remember is that the Kremlin’s aggression can only be met with strength against its military targets that fuel the invasion that is nearing its fifth year. Russia can make the decision to leave Ukraine’s territory at any moment, instead of continuing to burn bridges.
Khrystyna Hayovyshyn, Ukraine’s Representative to the UN, called out the international community on their hesitation, declaring that “attacks on military targets within Russia is not an escalation but a necessary step to self defense.” She also warned that the cost of this war to Russia will only continue to rise and the only way to prevent it is for Russia to stop. To add on to that from this author’s side: if Russia does not stop, then it must be stopped.
By the end of this fruitful debate, the UN delegates remained exactly where they were two hours ago, and so did their discussion. I am not writing this to criticize the UN as a whole, but rather turn the global community’s attention to the systemic issue of the UNSC. The Russian Federation is the only permanent member whose ruling president has been listed for war crimes by the ICC, and yet the country continues to hold veto power. There can be no sustainable progression in resolving the war if the system itself is not revised, and that begins with removing Russia’s ability to block the UNSC’s attempts at preserving Ukraine’s integrity. Change begins with one simple question: “The question is no longer whether the Security Council needs reform, but how many more wars the world is willing to watch before it acts?”