So many people talk about Volodymyr Zelenskyy as if he is the ultimate defender of democracy. And look, I understand why. Russia invaded Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to defend itself against a foreign invasion. I don’t support what Russia did. I don’t believe Russia had the right to invade Ukraine, and I absolutely do not want to see Ukraine conquered or its people suffer.
But I also have some shit to say about this whole situation, because I think people need to learn how to look at things from more than one perspective.
Defending your country against an invasion and defending democracy within your own country are two different things.
You can do one without necessarily doing the other.
Let’s talk about Zelenskyy for a moment. People love to portray him as this champion of democracy standing against authoritarianism. But what about the things happening inside Ukraine under his leadership? What about the controversies surrounding forced mobilization and the treatment of people who don’t want to be sent to fight? What about the fact that Ukraine hasn’t held national elections since the full-scale invasion began in 2022?
Now, before somebody comes into my comments swinging, let me acknowledge something important. Ukraine is under martial law because Russia invaded. Ukrainian law prohibits elections during martial law, and there are legitimate concerns about whether elections could be conducted safely and fairly while the country is actively at war. This isn’t simply a matter of Zelenskyy waking up one morning and deciding that he doesn’t feel like having an election.
But I still think we should be able to discuss what happens to democracy when a country remains under wartime restrictions for years. We should be able to question government policies, scrutinize the use of emergency powers, and ask how citizens’ rights are being protected without automatically being accused of supporting Russia.
Because here’s the thing: a leader doesn’t automatically become a perfect defender of democracy just because he’s fighting an authoritarian government.
And this brings me to NATO.
I believe Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was wrong. Period. Ukraine is a sovereign country, and its people deserve to live without being subjected to a foreign invasion.
But I also believe that NATO’s relationship with Russia, its eastward expansion, and the security concerns surrounding Ukraine’s potential alignment with the alliance deserve serious discussion. There have been years of geopolitical tension, competing security interests, failed diplomacy, and disagreements over the future of European security.
We can debate NATO’s decisions and the consequences of Western foreign policy without pretending those debates somehow justify Russia invading Ukraine. Explaining the context behind a conflict is not the same thing as excusing the aggression that started it.
And that’s where I think so many conversations about this war fall apart.
People seem to think that if you criticize Zelenskyy, you must support Putin. If you question NATO’s decisions, you must support Russia’s invasion. If you point out problems within Ukraine, you must want Ukraine to lose.
Why?
Why can’t we acknowledge that multiple things can be true at the same time?
Russia can be wrong for invading Ukraine. Ukraine can have legitimate reasons to defend itself. Zelenskyy’s government can still be criticized. NATO’s policies can still be questioned. And ordinary people on all sides can deserve compassion.
These positions aren’t mutually exclusive.
And you know what? I don’t want things to get worse for Ukraine. I don’t want Ukrainians to lose their homes, their families, their freedoms, or their lives. I don’t want Russian civilians to suffer either. I don’t want ordinary Russian people dying in a war they might not have wanted any part of. I don’t want Ukrainian families losing their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents, or friends to a conflict that seems to have no end in sight.
I don’t want any of these people to suffer.
Because here’s what bothers me about the way we discuss war: we spend so much time arguing about leaders, governments, alliances, and national interests that we sometimes forget about the actual human beings caught in the middle.
And those human beings aren’t all sitting in government offices making decisions about military strategy. They’re people trying to live their lives. They’re people who want to go to work, raise families, see their friends, pursue their dreams, and make it home at the end of the day.
Some Ukrainians may willingly choose to fight for their country. Others may be terrified of being sent to the front lines. Some Russians may support their government’s actions. Others may oppose the war or simply be trying to survive under their own government’s policies.
These people aren’t all interchangeable representatives of their governments.
And I refuse to treat them that way.
My problem isn’t with Ukrainians defending their homes. My problem is with the idea that supporting Ukraine means you must unquestioningly support everything its leadership does.
The same goes for Russia. Opposing the invasion doesn’t mean hating every Russian person. And questioning NATO doesn’t mean supporting Putin.
I don’t want to see Ukraine destroyed. I don’t want to see Russia destroyed. I don’t want either population to be collectively punished for the decisions of the people who govern them.
And yes, I understand that wars are complicated. I understand that Ukraine is defending itself against a much larger invading power. I understand that wartime governments make decisions under extraordinary circumstances. None of that means every decision should be beyond criticism.
So, where does that leave us?
Honestly, I want this war to end. I want a resolution that protects Ukraine’s sovereignty, gives Ukrainians a meaningful say in their country’s future, and reduces the suffering of ordinary people on both sides. I want a future in which security concerns can be addressed through diplomacy rather than an endless cycle of threats, violence, and retaliation.
And I want people to stop treating international politics like a superhero movie where one side must be entirely good and the other must be entirely evil.
Real life is more complicated than that.
You can stand against an invasion without blindly supporting the invaded country’s government. You can criticize a leader without endorsing that leader’s enemy. You can care about a country’s independence while questioning whether its government is adequately protecting individual freedoms.
And you can care about Ukrainian lives and Russian lives at the same time.
I don’t think that’s contradictory. I think it’s called having empathy.
At the end of the day, the people who suffer most in war are often the people who have the least control over whether it happens in the first place.
And I think we should remember that before we turn every discussion about Ukraine into another opportunity to pick a side, wave a flag, and stop asking questions.
Because if we’re genuinely concerned about democracy, human rights, and human life, then those principles shouldn’t disappear just because the government we’re criticizing happens to be fighting an enemy we oppose.