Why aggression is not called aggression

The international crime committed by the military and political leadership of the russian federation against Ukraine is clearly an aggression.

The unlawful acts of destruction of critical infrastructure and residential buildings by missile attacks and through the use of unmanned systems and guided aerial bombs, as well as the killing and wounding of civilians during such attacks, are aimed at intimidating Ukrainian citizens, spreading fear in society, and suppressing the will to resist. Such acts have obvious signs of terrorist activity.

The goal of denazification proclaimed at the beginning of the large-scale invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent actions aimed at implementing this idea, namely the destruction of Ukrainian identity, have signs of a crime of genocide.

This is how the actions of the military and political leadership of today's russia are actually characterized in the aggressive war against Ukraine.

If we do not see all this, if we avoid legal assessments of the international illegal activities of the military and political leadership of the russian federation in its war against Ukraine, then other assessments, far from law, but close to justifying those who commit international crimes, become possible.

If you do not see Ukraine bled to death by the aggressor, destroyed cities, villages, numerous victims of this war, and hundreds of thousands of refugees, you can make any assessment of the activities of the military and political leadership of the Russian Federation. Under these circumstances, we can speak in the paradigm of “conflict” and “crisis.” One can come to statements like the well-known “war is peace” or “violence is help” or “the victim is the rapist.”

Aggression is not called aggression because there is one reason for it, a primitive and understandable one: the aggressor does not call his actions that, the aggressor has invented an alibi for his illegal behavior - the defense of national interests.

The question naturally arises whether there is and has been a reason for protection and what are the national interests referred to in the invented alibi, where everything is held together by white threads that have left a clear bloody trail?

It will be obvious, even with a biased approach due to the aggressor's interest in confirming its alibi, that there were no grounds for defense, because no one ever intended to take any action against the state that unleashed the aggressive war.

And the true meaning of national interests lies in the occupation of Ukraine, in the destruction of a state whose people do not want to live according to the political patterns and rules that the aggressor insists on implementing, and in the satisfaction of imperial ambitions, because Ukraine should be almost a jewel in the crown of imperial russia.

If we follow the false path that the Russian leadership is treading in international relations, then aggression ceases to be aggression in the minds and statements of those who are the aggressor, as well as in the thoughts and statements of those who recognize the behavior of international violence as acceptable in international relations. Force, stupid force, without truth and law, which are destroyed by this force, is when aggression ceases to be aggression.

Is this what humanity wants? Is this what the new world order, established by the great powers claiming leadership in the world, should be like?

These are difficult questions, but the answer is clear: no, because murder is always murder, occupation is always occupation, the destruction of one nation by another is always genocide, and violation of the laws and customs of war is always an international crime.

The criminal law of Ukraine provides for criminal liability for justifying an aggressive war against Ukraine and for the glorification of its participants.

Shouldn't such a criminal offense be included in the criminal law of every state that is committed to international law and upholds justice in the relations existing in the world order? Perhaps national legal systems will thus provide a real legal assessment of aggressive war, support the establishment of the rule of law in Ukraine today and help prevent aggressive wars on the planet in the future!

History knows about the difficult struggle against Nazism in Europe, but history also knows the price of victory over Nazism. Is it really possible to do this again, despite assurances that it will never happen again?

As a call to peace, I would like to say: do not call aggression by any other name, no matter how necessary it is to say it otherwise! Do not seek to justify those who commit an international crime to fulfill their political whims and aspirations, which are incompatible with the human perception of the world!

Petro Yasen