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.
