Two letters – two similar opinions about the war in Ukraine
The publishers of SvitUA received two letters about the war in Ukraine. One from Russia, the second from Belarus. Their authors, a Russian and a Belarusian, asked the editor to publish their opinions on what is happening so that Ukrainians know that not everyone in Russia and Belarus supports Putin and Lukashenko, and so that hatred of the two dictators does not grow into hatred of Russians and Belarusians. For obvious reasons, these people do not give their real names, but the tone of the letters leaves no doubt about their sincerity.
Letter from Russia
The first two days since the beginning of the war passed for me in the mode of constant round-the-clock tracking of what was happening, maintaining contact with relatives and friends and extreme emotion about what was happening.
I passed this phase and stood on the rails. Now I can speak relatively calmly and rationally.
This text will not be about “shameful”, “scary”, “incomprehensible”. There will be no about “I am for peace”, “let’s negotiate” and “poor things, hold on.” It doesn’t impress anyone. I know that there are people who are waiting for me to take a stand. This is understandable, but … A position is possible on a controversial issue where there are two or more parties claiming to be morally right. Regarding what is happening, I prefer to rely not on shaky and ambiguous moral categories, but on the laws that we ourselves have adopted and by which we must live. There can be no two opinions about the law – it must be enforced, and its violation must be stopped.
Let’s turn to Russian legislation.
Article 353 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation states:
– Planning, preparing or unleashing an aggressive war, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of seven to fifteen years.
– Waging an aggressive war is punishable by imprisonment for a term of ten to twenty years.
As a citizen who respects the law, I condemn breaking the law. What position can you expect from me? What else could be the position? Any person who tries to argue with me and prove that what is happening is good is trying to justify the crime and takes the side of the criminals.
Well, okay, you can try to take me out of the rational field and drag me into a discussion on the topic “Why Chikatilo did a great job” or “Chikatilo had no other choice.” But nothing will work here either. Believe me, all maniacs explain their crimes in court as an attempt to cleanse the world of evil. And so far it has not made any impression on the judges or on society. They were punished according to the law. Why should things be different now?
However, I read words in support of the war. Who is supporting this war? According to my observations, these are three categories of people. These are those who have been openly cooperating with our government for a long time, receiving positions, money, titles for this. The second are narrow-minded people who decided to trust only one source of “information” and simply copy-paste clichés from it. And the third ones are not stupid people, but in order to protect their psyche from destruction, they are stuck in the “bargaining” phase and are trying to tighten the logical basis under the absurdity.
Further, I write as the grandson and son of career officers who gave the army their whole lives, were awarded orders and medals and walked the thin line between life and death more than once. I think if my grandfather or father, before being sent on a combat mission, was offered to cut off the insignia from the uniform, and erase the license plates and red stars from the side of the tank or aircraft, they would have arrested the one who gave such an order as an obvious traitor and enemy.
If your command sends you to war without epaulettes, chevrons, flags and insignia of belonging to the army on board a combat vehicle, you are sent as a private person and relieve yourself of responsibility for your actions, and at the same time they impose on you the duty to take care of yourself and protect yourself. In international law, this is called “excesses of performers” and for everything you do, you will be personally responsible. The state has already renounced you!!!
Not much time will pass, and you will see the confirmation of my words: family members will search for and rescue the prisoners, charitable foundations will buy prostheses for the disabled, and the disposal of the corpses of the dead will be the one to whom they will interfere the most. Few people will be able to get a disability or survivor’s pension; you will not be able to prove your participation or the participation of your father and husband in hostilities. There is no entry about this in his military ID, and he most likely handed over the documents before crossing the border.
Regardless of the outcome of this war, its consequences will be tragic. Not only because it will mean the collapse of the economy, the collapse of politics and moral decay. After the end of hostilities, Ukraine will seek from international institutions measures in relation to Russia on the basis of already international norms, presenting documents, testimonies, photos and videos, which you can already see in abundance on the net today.
It will qualify as a war crime, nothing else. Let’s look at the docs again:
“War crimes – senseless destruction of settlements; ruin not justified by military necessity; indiscriminate attacks affecting the civilian population and civilian objects; attack on installations or structures containing dangerous forces (nuclear power plants, dams, hydroelectric facilities). War crimes have no statute of limitations,” – Source – Economic Dictionary.
I hope that no one here will prove to me that the Grad multiple launch rocket systems work with precision and precision at military facilities. By military specialty, I am a rocket engineer, commander of the launch crew of the launcher. Multiple rocket launchers are indiscriminate weapons. And the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reported on the capture of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant itself. War crimes have already been committed. The question of the future is to clarify their scope and consequences.
I repeat: any person who tries to argue with me and prove that what is happening is good is trying to justify the crime and takes the side of the criminals.
And, finally, about the “aggressive” war.
UN General Assembly Resolution No. 3314:
“The territory of a State is inviolable and that it shall not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or other measures of force taken by another State.
Article 1 Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state.
Article 3. Any of the following actions, regardless of the declaration of war, will be qualified as an act of aggression:
a) an invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State on the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack, or any annexation by force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
b) bombardment by the armed forces of a state of the territory of another state or the use of any weapon by a state against the territory of another state;
c) blockade of the ports or coasts of a state by the armed forces of another state;
d) an attack by the armed forces of a state on the land, sea or air forces, or sea and air fleets of another state;
Article 5. No considerations of any nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, can serve as a justification for aggression. Aggressive war is a crime against international peace. Aggression entails international responsibility.”
And soon this responsibility will come. Unfortunately, it will come for all of us in the same way: for those who spoke out and for those who remained silent, for those who condemned and for those who supported, for those who made decisions and for those who were with them in the root agree. So it doesn’t matter if you agree or not. We are waiting for the development of a situation on which we no longer have influence.
In the meantime…read and reread: NO CONSIDERATIONS CAN JUSTIFY AGGRESSION!
Letter from Belarus
I am writing to you with bitterness and shame that Belarus has joined the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine. Let me remind you that on February 27, a referendum was held in Belarus to amend the Constitution – and supposedly the majority of citizens supported its change. This means that the Republic of Belarus will actually cancel the status of a non-nuclear state. Such changes enable Russian President Putin to place his nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus.
The pseudo-referendum in Belarus finally made Lukashenko a vassal of the Kremlin, allowing him to make the Belarusian territory available for the Kremlin to implement its military plans in relation not only to Ukraine, but also to other neighbouring states.
Lukashenko, after the outbreak of the war (together with Russia against Ukraine), lost even a hypothetical hope of being the legitimate leader of Belarus not only for the international community, but also for the Belarusian people.
Wanting to preserve the repressive regime and personal power at any cost, he not only turned Belarus into an economic and political appendage of Russia, but also made it one of the key elements of the Kremlin’s foreign policy adventure, which could lead to the liquidation of the sovereign Belarusian state.
The Lukashenko regime has no signs of political autonomy, and is just a puppet of the Kremlin. Since February 24, rockets have been constantly launched from the territory of Belarus at targets in Ukraine, as well as the unimpeded movement of the Russian army to the Ukrainian border. Without this factor, Russian soldiers would not have been able to reach the capital of Ukraine so quickly.
The self-proclaimed President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko himself confirmed that missiles were fired at Ukraine from the territory of his country and threatened the Belarusian army with an invasion of Ukraine.
The invasion of Belarusian troops into the territory of Ukraine will lead to disastrous consequences not only for the Belarusian people, but also for the dictator, who will actually lose the security guarantee of his “illegitimate presidency”.
