As the news media coverage and world leadership conversations continue with regards to the Russia-Ukraine War. I began to reflect upon the idea of labelling a leader as a criminal to denounce ones actions. I condemn the barbaric act of war, where tons of lives are lost, changed and altered because of a leaders decision. I began to think about this from the point of view of the microcosm: an individual who takes up arms, begins to shoot to kill, or a kind of endeavour where there is tragedy. For instance: the loss of life through school shootings, random homicides, criminal acts, the lives lost that take place upon a regular basis within a nation and so on.

It is the duty of first-responders including the police to try to find the suspects and hold them accountable, charged, given the penalties and in some instances even the death penalty, which I strongly disagree with. If you take these scenarios to mirror them along-side the act of war, where there are 10’s, 100’s, 1000’s, or more casualties and death. Where is the accountability and responsibility of trying to locate whoever is responsible, hold them accountable, straight away? To stop the killing of life and livelihoods. Should not then first responders, police, try to find the culprit / suspect and provide a course of due process, for accountability and responsiblity?

As I sit and write these thoughts, I know it is not as simple but it is just a form of common sense thinking. Why would nations leaders be allowed for a call-to-arms, acts of wars, and still sit in one’s office’s, make calls and carry out business as usual during a war? While one individual who has committed a crime, is then searched for, first responders do not rest until the individual is found, locked up, taken off the streets, as they are viewed as a danger to society and not worthy to live life as once was?

To me it really does not make sense. Especially as we have conversations such as: we are living in the 21st century, and care about innovations, sustainability and creating betterment for societies, yet; the barbaric act of war is still allowed to take place. The barbarism is viewed especially more drastic, considering these are two nations: Russia and Ukraine who are advanced as a type of civil society, as opposed to nations such as Syria, Afghanistan, or the Middle-East that are considered amongst the developing nations. However; these exact views can be transferred to any nation that is war-torn. And especially where a humanitarian crisis exists.

What further boggles my brain is that President Vladimir Putin and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could not find solutions to their disputes through a negotiation process, and especially as the Ukrainian leader did not reach-out for help to manage energy costs, which of-course were not addressed during any address to nation-states. I also did not think it was necessary for the Ukrainian President to be addressing the congress’ of various nations, to be viewed as a hero, when his own people are having to leave everything to become refugees and migrants. But maybe the zoom / video calls were advocating for support in various forms?

President Vladimir Putin could have offered to purchase and negotiate a land-deal with Ukraine rather than the act of war. This thought mimics the history of the United States, with the Land Grant Acts. Also when there was opposition to historical land purchases, members who owned the colonies and eventually could not support a colony in the now United States of America, decided upon the agreement of land purchases. This type of action could further be explored for discussion and dialogue.

I also think that it is a possible idea that President Vladimir Putin could have explored to further reduce the risk (s) of war. But the issue that also arises from this type of act is if a land-purchase becomes successful, individuals must accept a new sense nationalism. There is less risk to the loss of life, and it would be up to the leaders of a nations populations to address their own people to the decision of land purchases. This may spark opposition from a nations population. War also in similar ways does the same, creates a sense of forced conformity, and forcing individuals to leave a nation that is known as home.

The above view and opinion is a critical of present practices of how war is opposed and condemned in-terms of accountability for death, preventions, reducing the risk of war as much as possible, the sociological creation, escalations of a humanitarian and refugee crisis.

As we are critical in-terms of the systematic procedures within organizations, as well as how Russia was led to war with Ukraine. I continue to appreciate the efforts by The United States of America’s leadership, upon a united front with law-makers, in efforts to condemn war and war crimes. There of-course are the fine lines of nations wanting to intervene, without the desire to contribute to war or further escalations for war.

Reflections | As I was cultivating the idea for this writing I was proud to see images of U.S. Senator M. Rubio (R-FL) with Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza who opposes President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Further Reading:

  1. Marco Rubio US Senator for Florida | Rubio, Graham, Colleagues Applaud Senate Passage of Russian War Crimes Resolution
  2. The New York Times | Biden called Putin a “war criminal.”
  3. Google Arts & Culture | California Land Act of 1851
  4. National Archives | The Morrill Act (1862)

Related Blog Post:

Notes: These thoughts were originally hand-written on March 17th 2022.

With Love & Kindness! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: