18 June 2025
by Aleksandr Podrabinek
Source: Radio Svoboda
Consider two photographs of soldiers from World War II: one of a German soldier in an SS uniform, the other of a soldier in an American uniform. A child just discovering the world would say these soldiers are the same because they are both in military uniform. An adult, reasonable person would say that they are different because one is fighting for tyranny and the other for freedom.
Some unreasonable commentators take certain superficial similarities between Russia’s war against Ukraine and Israel’s war against Iran as grounds to claim Russia and Israel are no different from each other as aggressors. Such commentators see the world through the eyes of a child. An adult will immediately notice that Ukraine and Israel are democratic states committed to international law and in general respectful of human rights. This is precisely what cannot be said about Russia or Iran. It is natural that tyrannical regimes such as China and North Korea are to be found on the side of Russia and Iran, while democratic states around the world have sided with Ukraine and Israel. Birds of a feather flock together.
Yes, both Russia and Israel were the first to attack their opponent. And from a purely formal point of view, they can be called aggressors. But if we look at the essence of what happened, it is easy to see the difference. Russia has annexed part of Ukraine’s territory and is trying to seize even more, establishing its authoritarian rule in the occupied territories and threatening Ukraine’s very existence. Israel, unlike Russia, does not claim the territory of its enemy. Yes, it calls on the Iranian people to overthrow the rule of the ayatollahs and live in peace with Israel, but it does not threaten the very existence of that country. Israel has every reason to be concerned about its security. Iran’s military support for anti-Israeli terrorists and Tehran’s repeated calls for the destruction of the State of Israel allow Israel’s attack on Iran to be classified as pre-emptive measures of self-defence.
Of course, claims of pre-emptive measures have a mixed history. The Nazis started wars claiming the need to protect ethnic Germans in other countries, the communists and their followers invaded other countries because ‘if not us, then NATO.’ There are many examples, and they have one thing in common. When tyranny takes away freedom of speech, as a result of massive state propaganda people develop a ‘childish view’ of political events encapsulated in phrases such as: ‘they’re all the same’ or ‘if they can do it, why can’t we?’
In democratic countries, where freedom of speech is protected by law and the authorities, such tricks do not work. It is impossible to stop free and thinking people from delving into details and to force them to obediently swallow state propaganda. Everything is out in the open, and cynical lies, disinformation, and patriotic hysteria can easily become an insurmountable obstacle in a political career or even lead to prison. Of course, democracies also have people who like to intrigue away from the glare of publicity, but their days are usually short—in democratic countries, there are enough counterbalances to prevent anyone concentrating all power in their hands.
That is why, in a democratic system, a state’s foreign policy remains, albeit indirectly, under the oversight of civil society. In countries with despotic rule, the opposite is true: those in power are not accountable to society and can commit any atrocities without fear of just retribution. In this sense, the two wars currently being fought in Eastern Europe and the Middle East are clear examples of what constitutes unjustified aggression and what constitutes necessary self-defence. For Israel, the war against Iran is in self-defence against the nuclear threat posed by unpredictable religious fanatics. For Russia, the war against Ukraine is a means to prolong the life of an authoritarian regime and a tool for maintaining political power that has been usurped. This is the main difference; apparent similarities are entirely superficial.
In light of the above, we can draw conclusions that will be met with hostility by despotic regimes, but are also unlikely to find understanding among the leaders of democracies. An aggressive foreign policy is inextricably linked to domestic human rights violations, restrictions on civil liberties, and the absence of public oversight of the authorities’ actions. Simply put, if there are no political freedoms or free and fair elections in a country, the threat of military aggression increases many times over. The conclusion is, then, that the civilized world should not wait for the guns to start firing; it must act when free voices are silenced and elections are turned into a farce.
Sweeping human rights violations are grounds for humanitarian intervention, which will not only restore freedom and dignity to people, but also protect the world from future bloody wars.
Translated by Simon Cosgrove
