The Dilemma of Ideological Consistency: Defending Ukraine in a Polarized World

In recent years, conversations about geopolitics have become more divisive, with discussions on issues like the war in Ukraine often degenerating into ideological battles rather than rational debates. The paradox of modern discourse is that even when faced with clear moral imperatives, such as the right of a country to defend itself against aggression, people will still find ways to rationalize their biases and ignore objective facts. In the case of Ukraine, the moral clarity of the situation is overshadowed by a fractured understanding of principles, driven not by reason but by deeply ingrained emotional biases and political polarization. The Socratic idea of defending one’s principles in the face of adversity seems lost in the current climate, as people cherry-pick narratives that justify their preexisting views rather than engaging in honest intellectual inquiry.

The Case for Ukraine: A Moral Imperative

The war in Ukraine is, at its core, a simple question of self-defense. Russia, an aggressor nation, invaded Ukraine, and the Ukrainian people, in turn, have fought for their right to exist as an independent, sovereign nation. On a moral level, this should not be up for debate. The logic is straightforward: a nation has the right to defend itself against external aggression, and international support for Ukraine is not just an act of charity—it is an endorsement of the fundamental principle of sovereignty and self-determination.

However, despite the moral clarity of the situation, many people, especially those who once prided themselves on their defense of freedom and human rights, have been quick to justify Russia’s actions or downplay Ukraine’s right to resist. These individuals, often caught up in the emotions of political tribalism, fail to see beyond their ideological filters. The claim that “Ukraine is corrupt” or that “the United States should not be involved” does little to change the core issue at hand. Ukraine’s corruption, while undeniable, is not the cause of the war; the war itself is a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, driven by an imperialist agenda from Russia. The argument that Ukraine should not receive foreign aid because of its internal flaws fails to account for the fact that the war itself is an external attack, not a civil conflict or a domestic issue.

This issue is particularly striking when contrasted with the principles many people claim to uphold. Those who advocate for liberty and individual rights often become some of the most vocal opponents of Ukraine’s defense efforts. They will criticize the government for allocating resources to Ukraine, yet these same individuals live comfortably in a society that has largely benefited from global peace and security. They argue for financial responsibility and economic self-interest while ignoring the larger moral and strategic implications of allowing an authoritarian regime to undermine international order and threaten democratic nations.

The Socratic Model of Defending Principles

To understand the root of this disconnect, it is helpful to consider the Socratic approach to defending principles. Socrates, in his dialogues, is often portrayed as a figure willing to sacrifice personal safety and comfort in defense of his beliefs. Whether he was being tried for corrupting the youth of Athens or facing the death penalty for his ideas, Socrates maintained his commitment to truth, reason, and justice, even when it was inconvenient or dangerous. His defense of his philosophy was grounded in a sense of duty to the greater good, not personal gain or ideological conformity.

In contrast, the modern debate around Ukraine is often marked by a lack of intellectual honesty. Instead of taking a principled stance based on the clear moral facts of the situation, many people retreat into their ideological corners, clinging to a narrative that aligns with their political leanings. In doing so, they abandon the very principles of justice, human rights, and sovereignty that they claim to uphold. The failure to recognize the right of Ukraine to defend itself is a stark departure from the values of freedom and self-determination that these individuals profess to champion.

The emotional disability that many exhibit in these discussions—refusing to consider the perspectives of others and denying basic truths in favor of self-serving narratives—reflects a profound lack of intellectual courage. Instead of engaging in a rigorous examination of the facts, many people choose to remain within the comfort of their biases, unable or unwilling to break free from the chains of ideological tribalism. This mirrors the societal dysfunctions Socrates warned against: a populace more concerned with preserving their comfort and reinforcing their beliefs than with striving for truth and justice.

The Emotional and Cognitive Barriers to Rational Discourse

What complicates the situation further is the deeply emotional and personal nature of the debate. For many, political beliefs are not just abstract ideas; they are integral parts of their identity. This leads to a phenomenon where the defense of Ukraine becomes more about a person’s political allegiance than about the rights and wrongs of the situation. As emotions become entangled with reason, individuals are less likely to engage with the issue in a detached, rational manner. Instead, they filter the information they receive through their emotional biases, often leading to distorted conclusions.

The cognitive biases that shape these beliefs are further exacerbated by the role of social media algorithms, which tend to prioritize content that aligns with users’ preexisting views. This creates a feedback loop, where individuals are continually exposed to information that reinforces their perspective and excludes content that challenges it. The result is an environment where rational discourse is overshadowed by polarized emotional reactions, leaving little room for meaningful conversation.

The Dangers of Moral Relativism

One of the most troubling aspects of the current discourse surrounding Ukraine is the rise of moral relativism. The argument that “both sides are at fault” or that Ukraine is as corrupt as Russia is a form of moral equivalence that ignores the key difference between an aggressor nation and a victim of aggression. This relativistic stance allows individuals to sidestep the difficult but necessary moral judgment of supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself. By equating the two sides, these individuals avoid confronting the reality of Russia’s actions and the broader implications for global peace and security.

Moral relativism, in this context, serves as a way to avoid uncomfortable truths. It allows individuals to maintain their ideological purity without having to confront the deeper implications of their beliefs. However, as Socrates would argue, this approach to ethics—where the distinction between right and wrong is blurred to avoid personal discomfort—is fundamentally flawed. Truth and justice are not subject to personal interpretation; they exist independently of our biases and desires.

Conclusion: The Need for Intellectual Courage

The war in Ukraine, as a moral and geopolitical issue, demands the intellectual courage to face uncomfortable truths and engage in honest, reasoned discourse. The failure to recognize Ukraine’s right to defend itself against Russian aggression is not just a political stance; it is a denial of basic principles of justice and sovereignty. To break free from the ideological echo chambers that dominate the modern political landscape, we must engage with each other honestly, critically, and empathetically, seeking the truth rather than protecting our own biases.

In the spirit of Socrates, we must be willing to defend our principles—no matter how inconvenient or uncomfortable—against the forces of ignorance and emotional manipulation. Only then can we hope to navigate the complexities of global politics with integrity, reason, and compassion.

---

Упадок грузовиков-полуприцепов: Наследие, похороненное дешёвой рабочей силой

Американский водитель грузовика-полуприцепа когда-то был титаном открытых дорог — суровый одиночка, который тащил грузы страны через метели и поломки, создавая культуру стойкости и уважения. Эти первопроходцы, часто деревенские парни с мозолистыми руками и острыми языками, построили систему межштатных дорог, тянули 200-сильные рухляди в горы со скоростью 6 миль в час и превратили стоянки грузовиков в классы суровой мудрости. Они не просто держали руль — они были хребтом индустрии, сформировавшей артерии и самобытность страны. Сегодня это наследие рушится — не от естественного угасания, а от искусственного потока дешёвой рабочей силы, организованного корпорациями вроде Amazon, которые наживаются, пока дальнобойщики тонут. Состояние грузоперевозок не просто плохое — оно подстроено так, чтобы оставаться таким, и в ближайшее время лучше не станет.

Десятилетия назад вождение грузовика было ремеслом. Водители учились у наставников — месяцы в качестве помощников, накидывая цепи в снег, осваивая неписаный кодекс дорог. Приглушить ближний свет, чтобы показать, что путь свободен; мигнуть только для предупреждения. Кивок на заправке означал уважение. К 1970-м рации трещали «10-4», а зарплаты отражали жертвы — 110 тысяч в сегодняшних долларах для профсоюзных водителей (The Guardian, пересчёт 2020). Эта культура достигла пика в моменты вроде 2017-го, когда дефицит поднял спотовые ставки до 6 долларов за милю — 7000 за рейс с яблоками из Якимы в Денвер (DAT, 2017). Дальнобойщики стояли на плечах предшественников, требуя платы за свой труд. Не идеал — водители дрались друг с другом не реже, чем с погодой, — но это было их.

Потом пришёл потоп. После 2017-го Федеральное управление безопасности автотранспорта (FMCSA) зафиксировало 270 тысяч новых перевозчиков к 2023-му — рост на 45% (FreightWaves). Многие — водители Relay, армия независимых от Amazon, подцепленная через приложение, таскающая голубые трейлеры за 1,30 доллара за милю. Это не деревенские парни прошлого — молодые, часто на визах (10-20 тысяч H-2B в год, оценка), набитые по трое в кабину, меняющиеся на стоянках, делящие студии. Обучение? Четыре недели, не месяцы — едва хватает на переключение передач, не говоря о душе дороги. Они мигают дальним светом — лазеры на 4000 люменов (IIHS, 2015), — ослепляя ветеранов на обочине, думая, что помогают. Попробуй поправить — драка: упрямство из языковых барьеров и выживания, где гордости нет места.

Это не естественный сдвиг — это искусственно, подстроено компаниями вроде Amazon, которые процветают на хаосе. Модель Relay — гениальный ход жадности: 1,30-2 доллара за милю против 3-4 у UPS (DAT, 2023), аварии — на страховке субподрядчиков (требуется 1 миллион автострахования, условия Amazon). Склады растут — 33 новых центра в 2023-2024 (блог Amazon) — но без парковок, без туалетов. Водители забивают улицы, оставляют мусор и мешки с дерьмом (1,2 миллиона на уборку в Сан-Бернардино, 2023), города платят — невидимая субсидия, держащая логистику Amazon на 15% от их 482 миллиардов выручки (WSJ, 2024). Прибыль взлетает — 46,8 миллиарда в 2024, — а дальнобойщики получают 40-60 тысяч, половину от 102 тысяч (с учётом инфляции) пятнадцать лет назад.

Почему не станет лучше? Система зафиксирована. Корпорациям не нужен дефицит — 6 долларов за милю в 2017 напугали брокеров, не боссов. Американская ассоциация грузоперевозок (ATA) вопит о «дефиците 80 тысяч водителей» (2023), но это миф — 1,5 миллиона водителей работают (BLS), 450 тысяч CDL выдают ежегодно. Барьеры падают — 18-летние гоняют между штатами (пилот FMCSA, 2022) — не для решения проблемы, а для переполнения рынка. Визы и иностранные CDL (Канада/Мексика) текут рекой, берут 1,30, потому что дома это золото — 20 тысяч в Пенджаб против 40 тысяч на растяжку в Канзасе. Они не требуют большего; они не остаются. Трое в кабине, студии — это работа, не жизнь. Интеграция? Американская мечта? Не их война.

Старые перевозчики вроде Swift приспособились — интермодальные ж/д и региональные рейсы снизили аварийность до 0,85 на миллион миль (FMCSA, 2023), — но хаос Relay сверг их с трона посмешища за пять лет (2018-2023). Swift копил свой ярлык «Sure Wish I Finished Training» десятилетиями; новички Relay сделали это быстрее, разбиваясь на чёрном льду (два в кювете, твоя история), пока Amazon отмахивается. UPS истекает кровью — 91 миллиард выручки, маржа 5,7% (2024) — с профсоюзными зарплатами (40 долларов/час), которые не сбросить. Преимущество Amazon вечно — субподрядчики разбиваются, города убирают, прибыль копится.

Старики построили это — дороги, грузовики, кодекс. Они мёрзли в кабинах, тянули слабосильные машины, сделали вождение ремеслом. Теперь их наследники мигают лазерами, игнорируют рации, тянут за копейки, потому что Amazon и ATA хотят дешевизны, не качества. Политики режут налоги (5 миллиардов с 2000, ITEP) вместо парковок или туалетов — работа манит, мешки с дерьмом нет. Поток не остановится; он слишком выгоден. Дальнобойщики страдают — ослеплённые, разорённые, похороненные, — пока корпорации стоят на их плечах, засыпая могилу грязью. Это не упадок; это снос. И так останется.

---

The Emergence of Objective Emotions

---

The Emergence of Objective Emotions

Emotions are typically regarded as subjective—fluid, personal, and inconsistent. But if emotions arise in response to real-world conditions that affect one's ability to meet their needs (i.e., their rights), then emotions—when properly understood and traced to their source—may in fact have an objective basis.

Consider this: if a child is neglected, the resulting fear, grief, or anxiety is not a random emotional state—it is an accurate, biological signal that a critical need (safety, connection, sustenance) is not being met. If that child’s emotional response is proportional to the violation, and the cause is clearly identifiable, then the emotion is not merely subjective—it is descriptive of an objective reality.

Thus, objective emotions can be defined as:

Emotional responses that are proportionate, appropriate, and clearly attributable to a real-world stimulus which affects one’s ability to meet essential needs or exercise core rights.

When emotions are misfiring—such as disproportionate rage in traffic, or numbness where fear might be expected—that does not indicate that emotions themselves are inherently subjective, but that the calibration has been thrown off. This miscalibration can be due to trauma, abstraction, cultural confusion, or modern detachment from immediate survival contexts.

But when a person feels anger at injustice, or grief at genuine loss, or fear in the face of real danger, those emotions are not irrational. They are objective internal responses to external violations. They are evidence of the mind’s alignment with reality.

This challenges the common belief that reason and emotion are diametrically opposed. Instead, it suggests that properly calibrated emotion is a form of reason—it is the body’s way of intuitively enforcing ethics before formal ethics even exist.

Emotions as Self-Enforcement Mechanisms for the Protection of Human Rights: An Evolutionary Perspective

---

Emotions as Self-Enforcement Mechanisms for the Protection of Human Rights: An Evolutionary Perspective

In modern discussions on psychology and ethics, emotions are often viewed as messy, irrational phenomena to be managed or minimized. But from an evolutionary standpoint, emotions may serve a far deeper, more rational function—one that ties directly into our ability to perceive and defend our human rights. This essay explores the hypothesis that emotions evolved as internal self-enforcement mechanisms to detect and respond to perceived violations of human needs, or what we now describe as rights.

The Foundation: Rights as Actions to Meet Needs

If we define rights as "the actions one must be free to take in order to meet their needs," then the violation of a right is the obstruction or denial of those actions. For a being to survive and thrive, especially in a social species like humanity, such rights must not only be identified but protected. Yet, in the early stages of human development, before complex language or legal systems emerged, there was no external structure to safeguard these rights. The role of defense, then, fell to the individual—and emotions became the evolutionary mechanism by which this self-regulation could be achieved.

Emotions as Internal Justice Systems

Emotions serve as intuitive, affective signals that something is either beneficial or harmful to our needs. Hunger compels us to seek food. Fear compels us to avoid danger. But it goes further: anger, for example, often arises when one perceives a violation of fairness or autonomy—core aspects of one's rights. Shame and guilt serve to maintain social cohesion by compelling individuals to repair harm they may have caused to others' rights. These emotional responses function as immediate, embodied feedback mechanisms, pushing us to act, retaliate, withdraw, or correct behavior to maintain the equilibrium of justice within social groups.

In a sense, before there were laws, there were emotions.

Civilization and the Misalignment of Emotional Calibration

However, modern civilization has radically altered the environments in which our emotions evolved. The last few hundred years—mere moments in evolutionary time—have ushered in abstract systems of law, indirect access to resources, and impersonal social interactions. Yet our emotional systems have not adapted at the same pace. As a result, emotional responses that were once adaptive now seem disproportionate or misaligned.

Consider the modern frustration of being cut off in traffic. Objectively, this event is minor and rarely life-threatening. But emotionally, it triggers anger—likely because our brain interprets it as a threat to our right to safe and fair movement. In a hunter-gatherer context, where path access, food distribution, or hierarchical encroachment had direct survival implications, such violations were serious. The emotional systems evolved in those contexts are now being activated in situations where the stakes are much lower, yet the feelings remain intense.

Trauma and Emotional Rewiring

This perspective also sheds light on trauma and coping. Trauma can be seen as the internal record of rights repeatedly violated without resolution. The emotions that accompany trauma—anger, fear, numbness—are part of the psyche’s attempt to protect itself from further harm. Avoidance behaviors, hypervigilance, and emotional shutdowns can all be interpreted as defensive patterns to prevent future violations.

Therapeutically, understanding emotions as rights-based enforcement mechanisms could transform trauma recovery. Rather than viewing emotions as symptoms to be suppressed, they can be approached as signals pointing to unmet or historically violated needs. Healing, then, becomes not merely the resolution of emotional distress, but the restoration of one’s autonomy and rightful action in the world.

The Case for Emotional Intelligence as Justice Intelligence

If emotions are indeed part of an ancient internal justice system, then cultivating emotional intelligence is also cultivating the ability to discern and respond to justice—both personal and collective. This reframes emotional literacy as not just a tool for self-regulation but as a foundation for ethical behavior, conflict resolution, and societal cohesion.

The future of human growth may depend not on transcending emotions, but on integrating them—understanding them not as flaws but as finely tuned instruments designed by evolution to preserve what we now philosophically call rights.

The goal of this essay is not to provide a comprehensive debunking of Russian propaganda, the American echo chamber, or their effects on people's cognitive abilities and functions. Rather, it aims to address the style of argument used and demonstrate its inherent invalidity as a fallacy. Instead of focusing on content—except to provide examples—we will examine only the structure and style of the argument itself.

First and foremost, I am not an authority or gatekeeper of morality and ethics. However, objective reality exists and matters. Those who engage in criticism of specific subjects expose themselves to counter-criticism, which is entirely justified in any debate.

In this section, I will focus on how people use emotions to justify their positions or deny the positions of others. Emotional reasoning in the context of objective debates is inherently flawed. In fact, the phrase itself is an oxymoron—a self-contradiction. Is it possible to discover the objective truth of reality through emotions alone? I don’t know. However, all truths and facts we obtain and describe about reality come from reason, critical thinking, and the avoidance of cognitive fallacies, such as personal biases, confirmation bias, and appeals to emotion.

Let’s establish a fundamental baseline: in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine is the victim, and Russia is the aggressor and the abuser. This is an objective fact of reality. It is not subject to emotions, desires, or wishes. No matter how much one may wish otherwise, this fact remains unchanged. One can obfuscate it, deny it, get angry at it, ignore it, or refuse to engage with those who present it, but the fact itself does not change, nor does reality.

This fact alone justifies Ukraine’s right to self-defense. No one would argue that an individual being assaulted should not defend themselves under any contemporary moral, ethical, or legal system. The same principle applies to nations. If a country is invaded, assaulted, attacked, or violated, it has the right to defend itself. That right is not contingent upon subjective moral interpretations, nor does it depend on the perceived morality of the nation or its people. It exists as an inherent principle.

Arguments against Ukraine’s right to self-defense often rely on emotional appeals rather than logical reasoning. Claims such as "Ukraine is corrupt," "I don’t like Ukraine," "I hate Zelensky," or "Ukrainians are lazy and don’t pay taxes" are emotionally charged statements that do not alter the fundamental fact that Ukraine has the right to defend itself. Regardless of how intensely these sentiments are expressed, they remain irrelevant to the principle of self-defense.

A particularly ambiguous line of argument comes from individuals who claim to support Ukraine yet make statements that seem to undermine this support. This is especially common among people who grew up in Soviet Ukraine and later emigrated or became refugees. When pressed on whether they support Russia, they often respond with criticisms of Ukraine that have no bearing on its right to self-defense. This obfuscates the issue. Ukraine’s flaws—its corruption, systemic issues, and historical complexities—do not negate its right to defend itself.

So, what exactly is the point of these criticisms? Are they attempting to portray Ukraine as undeserving of defense? Or are they seeking to justify or lessen the severity of Russia’s aggression in their own minds? This moral ambiguity raises difficult questions about whether such arguments stem from ethical misunderstandings or intentional malice. After three years of war and extensive debate, one would expect people to understand that personal dislike for Ukraine or its leadership is irrelevant to the nation’s right to self-defense.

Regardless of one’s opinions on Ukraine, its government, or its people, the principle remains unchanged: Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, has the right to self-identity, self-determination, self-governance, and self-defense. Emotional appeals do not alter this reality, nor do they hold weight in a rational, structured debate.

The fundamental and objective status of Ukraine's victimhood is not up for debate—it is an established fact. Those who attempt to obscure this reality are engaging in a propaganda tactic aimed at sowing uncertainty about the legitimacy of Ukraine’s victimhood. The goal of this tactic is to create a false equivalency between the aggressor and the victim, leading to victim-blaming, victim-shaming, and other psychological distortions.

There should be no debate about Ukraine’s victimhood—Ukraine is the victim. However, there is an important nuance: supporting Ukraine’s right to self-defense is not the same as supporting Ukraine itself. Many people firmly believe in Ukraine’s right to defend itself but do not necessarily support or identify with Ukrainian culture, language, or national identity. They may not learn Ukrainian, adopt Ukrainian customs, or donate to Ukrainian causes. Their support is rooted purely in the principle of self-defense, not in an affinity for Ukraine as a nation.

This distinction is crucial. A person might acknowledge Ukraine’s corruption, its cultural or political flaws, and even have personal grievances with Ukraine. Yet, these issues remain irrelevant to the fundamental right of self-defense. It is entirely possible—and consistent—to arm Ukraine, help it resist aggression, and uphold its right to sovereignty without endorsing everything Ukraine represents. One can defend Ukraine’s right to exist and fight back without necessarily agreeing with its policies, cultural stance, or internal dynamics.

The fundamental issue is one of moral integrity—it is morally imperative to defend the principle and right of self-defense, including that of Ukraine. However, it is important not to conflate support for Ukraine’s right to self-defense with unconditional support for Ukraine as a nation, its people, or its culture.

For example, I fully support Ukraine’s right to defend itself, including providing military aid, but that does not mean I automatically support Ukrainian society, its culture, or its internal politics. In the early stages of the war, there was a surge of global support for Ukraine, with many people even learning the language. While such gestures may be emotionally compelling, my support for Ukraine is rooted entirely in ethical honesty: I support Ukraine because it has the right to defend itself and because it is the victim—regardless of my personal feelings about the country.

Many people misunderstand this distinction. They assume that if someone advocates for arming Ukraine or providing financial aid, they must also fully support Ukrainian culture, be blind to corruption, or ignore systemic issues within the country. This is simply not true. It is entirely possible to support Ukraine’s right to self-defense, acknowledge its victimhood, and assist in its defense while recognizing the country’s flaws, corruption, and complexities.

A useful analogy is the right to free speech. Most people agree that everyone has the right to free speech, yet this does not mean they agree with or endorse everything that is said. Defending someone’s right to speak is not the same as supporting the content of their speech. Likewise, supporting Ukraine in its right to self-defense is a matter of principle—it does not equate to endorsing everything happening within Ukraine.

When an individual uses emotional biases to deny Ukraine's status as a victim, they adopt a delusional stance and an invalid argument that has no bearing on the truth. A person may choose not to support Ukraine, and that is entirely their prerogative. However, if they go further and actively criticize, demonize, or bad-mouth Ukraine simply because they dislike the country, that reflects a moral failing on their part.

In essence, no one is obligated to help the victim, but actively attacking, insulting, or spreading negative rhetoric about the victim while they are still being assaulted is a voluntary action that demonstrates moral irresponsibility. This perspective is, of course, my interpretation and opinion. However, I believe that withholding judgment is a far more morally defensible position than choosing to criticize and vilify the victim in the midst of their suffering.

Being unsure about whether Ukraine is the victim in this situation is, at best, a sign of weak critical thinking skills and, at worst, a profound lack of ethical understanding. If this uncertainty arises from genuine confusion, it is somewhat understandable and forgivable. However, if such ethical ambiguity is deliberately promoted to spread fear, uncertainty, division, and obfuscation, then it represents a significant moral failing. One can only hope that those who hold such views do so due to misinformation or exposure to relentless propaganda. If not, then it is an act of malice—moral corruption on a significant scale.

For decades, Ukraine has struggled with Russian political, economic, and cultural influence, and the effects of this struggle are still being felt today. The deep divisions within Ukraine, the corruption, and even the early failures in the war against Russia can all be traced back to a long history of Russian interference. It wasn’t just about shared language or culture—this was a deliberate effort by Russia to keep Ukraine weak, divided, and dependent. 

The process of Russification in Ukraine wasn’t just some organic blending of cultures—it was a systematic effort by the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union to erase Ukrainian identity. Generations of Ukrainians, especially in the east and south, grew up in Russian-speaking environments, went to Russian-language schools, and consumed Russian media. Over time, many of these people stopped identifying as Ukrainian in any meaningful sense. They weren’t necessarily traitors or pro-Russian activists, but when the time came to define Ukraine as an independent nation, these communities became a serious roadblock.  

Ukraine could never fully establish a unified national character because large parts of the population had been conditioned to see Russia as their cultural and political home. This isn’t some conspiracy theory—this is the reality of imperialism. A nation that has been culturally eroded for centuries doesn’t just snap back to independence overnight.  

Beyond the cultural aspect, Russia actively worked to destabilize Ukraine politically and economically. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine struggled to build functioning institutions, and corruption was rampant. But it wasn’t just "Ukrainian corruption"—a lot of this corruption was tied directly to Russian money.  

For years, Russian-backed politicians, oligarchs, and intelligence operatives ran interference to keep Ukraine from aligning with the West. Take the **Party of Regions**, led by Viktor Yanukovych—one of the most blatantly pro-Russian presidents Ukraine ever had. His entire administration was geared toward keeping Ukraine in Russia’s orbit, rejecting EU integration, and suppressing opposition. When the Ukrainian people had enough and overthrew him in 2014, where did he run? Straight to Russia.  

It wasn’t just him. A whole network of Ukrainian oligarchs, politicians, and business elites had deep ties to Russian interests. They used their wealth and power to push Russian narratives, fund pro-Russian media, and block reforms that would have made Ukraine stronger. If something like this happened in the U.S.—if a congressman was caught taking money from China to promote Chinese propaganda—we’d call it treason. But in Ukraine, this kind of Russian infiltration was treated as just another political reality for decades.  

When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, one of the biggest questions was: how did they take so much land so quickly, especially in the south? Unlike Kyiv or Kharkiv, where Ukrainian forces put up fierce resistance, cities like Kherson and Melitopol fell with barely a fight.  

There’s strong evidence that some Ukrainian military officers and security officials had been compromised long before the invasion. For example, Andriy Naumov, a top officer in Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU), fled the country just before the war started and was later arrested in Serbia. That’s not a coincidence.  

Russian forces met minimal resistance in the south, and within days, local pro-Russian officials were already cooperating with them. This suggests that the occupation wasn’t just a military success—it was an inside job.  

In the months after the invasion, President Zelensky fired multiple high-ranking officials for suspected collaboration with Russia. Ukraine has been tight-lipped about the full extent of these betrayals, but the sheer amount of land Russia took in the first weeks of the war suggests that some Ukrainian leaders helped them do it.  

Since 2022, Ukraine has been aggressively purging Russian influence from its institutions. Pro-Russian politicians have been exiled or arrested, Russian-linked businesses have been shut down, and Ukraine has pushed harder than ever to establish its own national identity. This isn’t just about getting rid of corruption—it’s about survival. The war exposed just how deep Russian influence ran in Ukraine, and if Ukraine wants to win, it has to cut out the rot completely.  

The idea that Ukraine is somehow unworthy of help because it was corrupt or unprepared for war ignores the bigger picture. Ukraine didn’t just struggle with corruption—it was actively sabotaged by Russian-backed forces for decades. If anything, the fact that Ukraine has been able to resist Russia at all, despite this history of infiltration and betrayal, is a testament to its resilience.  

This war isn’t just about territory—it’s about Ukraine finally breaking free from the long shadow of Russian control. And for the first time in a long time, it looks like they might actually do it.

Not Noobs

The difference between exterminating ants and trapping one inside a fingernail for decoration comes down to intent and necessity. When we exterminate ants, it’s usually because they pose a problem—infestations can damage property, contaminate food, or cause health issues. The goal isn’t to make them suffer; it’s to eliminate them as quickly and efficiently as possible. While the ants may experience biological suffering, their deaths serve a practical purpose, and efforts are often made to use methods that minimize prolonged distress.

Biological suffering refers to the physical experience of pain and distress, which animals and insects can feel through their nervous systems and biological responses. Self-aware suffering, on the other hand, is what humans experience—we don’t just feel pain, we reflect on it, anticipate it, and assign meaning to it. While an ant doesn’t contemplate its suffering the way a human would, that doesn’t mean its suffering is meaningless. Pain is still pain, and distress is still distress, even if the creature experiencing it isn’t self-aware in the way we are.

On the other hand, trapping a live ant inside a fingernail serves no necessary purpose. It turns a living creature into a fashion accessory, forcing it to struggle in a confined space until it eventually dies. The suffering isn’t a byproduct of necessity—it’s the entire point of the act. There’s no benefit beyond momentary amusement or attention, and the harm is intentional. This is what makes it unethical: it disregards the basic well-being of another living thing for pure vanity.

Ethically, the distinction is simple: if harm is unavoidable and serves a legitimate purpose, we can justify it—but if harm is inflicted purely for entertainment, it crosses into cruelty. People might dismiss it by saying, "It's just an ant," but the principle remains. When we start normalizing casual cruelty, it reflects something troubling about how we view life, even at its smallest scale.