Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Palestine. Who is right?
Each culture has an elder telling the young about the origin of their people. These are legends, myths, and facts that blend into a plot worthy of an epic tragedy.
Every human community sees its surroundings from its own customs.
A young Arab woman is scandalized by women in miniskirts, while young women in miniskirts believe that the lives of Arab women are torture. And the fact that any extremism, whether liberal or conservative, causes suffering.
It is undeniable that a young Muslim woman beaten to death for not covering her hair is a violation of human rights, and it is equally violent to dress children in a sensual manner to subject them to prostitution and erotic exhibitionism on social media in search of likes.
From this perspective, it is possible to infer that human perspective involves very intimate issues. And even in the harshest dictatorships, there are enthusiasts of the regime and their own oppression.
It is important to distinguish between people and government.
All people are honorable, deserving of full life and international respect. Governments, however, are not.
History does not lie,
Ukraine is one of many peoples who have never lived in peace for long. Since its origin, it has been a stage for occupations, ruptures, and loss of autonomy.
Russia, on the other hand, is the sum of many peoples united by a series of rulers covetous of power and ungenerous to their own people.
Israel has a government that does not represent its people, but only a few groups, and it harms itself so much that it would not be surprising if these groups lived on another planet, very far from the terror inflicted by itself.
Palestine has never had the opportunity to grow. Constant suffering, poverty, and lack of hope have made the place a breeding ground for extremists (but any country in the same circumstances would produce the same people and result in the same consequences).
None of the mentioned countries are equal to themselves, or to the 195. As none are.
What causes war is not the difference between cultures, but the behavior of rulers.
The struggle is not for differences, but for power.
⚠️ Research conducted with the aid of Deep Research is subject to referential ambiguity.
🖥️Clean HTML code using a proprietary tool.
👥Research by Guilherme Felipe, Curation by Sílvio Lôbo
The Moral Labyrinth of Geopolitics: Is There a Right and Wrong?
The discipline of geopolitics, in its essence, investigates the relationships between geography, power, and politics, exploring how the Earth's physical characteristics, natural resources, and distances influence the decisions and conflicts between states. In this complex international chessboard, the question of whether there is a "right" and a "wrong" emerges as a persistent and often frustrating dilemma. Geopolitical reality rarely bows to simplistic moral dichotomies, being frequently shaped by national interests, security imperatives, the pursuit of power, and divergent perceptions of justice.
One of the main reasons for the difficulty in defining a "right" and a "wrong" in geopolitics lies in the intrinsically relativistic nature of power issues. What one state considers a legitimate act of defense or power projection, another may perceive as an unjustified aggression. This asymmetry of perspectives is fueled by a myriad of factors, including history, culture, ideology, and the very military and economic capabilities of each state actor.
National Interests Versus Universal Principles: A Constant Field of Tension
At the heart of the debate about right and wrong in geopolitics lies the tension between national interests and universal principles. States are, by nature, driven by the need to protect and promote their own interests, whether economic, security-related, or influence-based. This pursuit of self-preservation and prosperity can, at times, directly clash with norms and values considered universal, such as territorial sovereignty, the self-determination of peoples, and human rights.
Curious and estranging points arise when we observe how the same principles are selectively invoked by different actors. For example, a country may vehemently defend the right to self-determination of an allied people, while simultaneously suppressing separatist movements within its own borders. This inconsistency, although contradictory from a strict moral standpoint, is often explained by the pragmatic logic of geopolitics, where the application of norms is subordinated to convenience and strategic calculation.
Another intriguing aspect is the way historical narrative is instrumentalized. Each side in a conflict often presents its version of events, constructing a discourse that legitimizes its actions and delegitimizes those of the opponent. What for one is a legitimate historical claim, for another may be an excuse for occupation and expansion. This battle for narrative is a crucial component of modern warfare, shaping internal and external public opinion and influencing international support.
Ukraine and Russia; Israel and Palestine: Who Is Right?
The complex and tragic situations in Ukraine and between Israel and Palestine are paradigmatic examples of the difficulty in unequivocally attributing "right" and "wrong" in geopolitics.
- Ukraine and Russia: Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was widely condemned by the international community as a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and international law. Ukraine, in this context, is seen as the victim of aggression, defending its territory and independence. However, Russia presents a set of justifications that include security concerns, NATO expansion towards its borders, and the protection of Russian-speaking populations. The perception of "right" and "wrong" here heavily depends on the interpretive framework adopted: one focused on sovereignty and territorial integrity, the other on the security concerns of a major power and complex historical narratives. The estrangement arises when we see Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, openly defying fundamental norms of international law while claiming legitimacy for its actions.
- Israel and Palestine: The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is one of the longest and most complex in the world, characterized by antagonistic historical, religious, and territorial claims. Israel argues for historical rights to the land, the need to ensure its security against attacks, and the right to self-defense. Palestinians, in turn, strive for the recognition of their state, the end of the occupation of their territories, and the right of return. The question of who is "right" is deeply divisive. For many, the occupation and actions against the Palestinian civilian population are unacceptable and violate international law. For others, Israel's actions are necessary responses to threats to its existence. The point of estrangement is the perpetuation of violence and the lack of a lasting solution, despite decades of negotiations and international interventions, with both sides presenting narratives of victimization and justification for their actions.
Conclusion: The Search for a Nuanced Geopolitical Morality
Ultimately, geopolitics operates in a space where absolute morality is a rarely accessible luxury. What may be considered "right" by one state, from the perspective of its interests and threat perceptions, may be seen as "wrong" by another. The pursuit of a definitive moral judgment in complex geopolitical scenarios frequently leads to dangerous oversimplifications and the disregard of nuances and multiple layers of responsibility.
As researchers, our role is not necessarily to dictate who is "right" or "wrong," but rather to analyze the factors that lead to these divergent perceptions. It is crucial to understand the motivations, histories, interests, and discourses that shape states' actions. The true complexity lies in recognizing that, in the intricate global power game, the line between right and wrong is often thin, fluid, and subject to interpretation, and that the consequences of such interpretations can be devastating.
