Protecting human lives – irrespective of NATO membership

We pity or detest Russians who choose to believe that their President is merely protecting Ukrainians from Fascism. Yet we don’t question western governments’ mantra that the world is powerless to intervene militarily, as to do so would provoke Russia and spark WWIII.

The reason we should question this rationale for why we cannot and should not intervene militarily to protect Ukrainians is simply that it doesn’t make sense.

That the rationale for inaction is merely a glib selfish slogan is exposed by asking, when would NATO and friends consider the risk of military confrontation with Russia justified?

The readily given answer is that a military response would be justified if Russia attacked a NATO country. Should it really matter whether the country being systematically destroyed is a member of NATO? Of course not! Membership of NATO doesn’t make lives more worthy of protection.

But wouldn’t military intervention to help NATO countries such as Poland or Estonia also risk starting WWIII? Of course, it would! On that basis, the current inaction suggests that we’ll give in to the bully’s threats whenever standing up to him would risk WWIII. Not only is this no way to deal with a bully, but it also reveals ugly nationalistic selfishness.

The Ukrainian President is quite right in arguing that if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, he will feel encouraged to swallow up more and more territory that was once a part of Russia or of the Soviet Union. But imagine how different the US response would be if Putin tried to take back previously Russian Alaska.

It also demeans our humanity if we’re prepared to daily watch our fellow human beings die on TV or social media, at the hands of an unhinged dictator. Our inaction exposes cold-heartedness and cowardice.

So let’s question the west’s military inaction and whether avoiding the risk of war between nuclear powers should necessarily mean sacrificing others to save ourselves.