I'm Scared like Hell

Last Thursday, Vladimir Zelensky of course did not call on the West to launch a pre-emptive NUCLEAR strike on Russia. Regardless, his statement was a communications and political blunder. It handed Kremlin propagandists a chance to spin it misleadingly but effectively. It was a mistake, even if his comment—in the original, not the Kremlin "translation"—can be understood, at least from the perspective of the Ukrainian public.

The West has responded to Russia’s increasingly loud nuclear sabre-rattling with threats that any use of nuclear weapons would prompt an immediate and decisive response using CONVENTIONAL weapons against Russian military targets. Zelensky's logic, from the Ukrainian point of view, is thus legitimate and coherent. If you're seriously worried about a Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine, then don't wait until it causes tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties—do everything to prevent it, including the pre-emptive use of CONVENTIONAL weapons.

The logic is similar to earlier calls to close the airspace at the start of the aggression—appeals that, like this recent one, fell on deaf ears in the West. Zelensky misjudged how such a statement would resonate with the broader public, including among those who otherwise support Ukraine but are, justifiably, afraid of escalation—especially the increasingly serious threat of nuclear weapons use.

The response to Russian aggression, and especially to Moscow’s nuclear blackmail, requires resolve but also a cool head. But if the West does not use conventional weapons pre-emptively, it doesn’t mean the nuclear threat is over. Unfortunately, the world finds itself in a situation where there are no longer comfortable or simple exits from the looming danger. We cannot just turn back the clock or magically reset the world to its previous state (well, maybe without Ukraine on the map, but Facebook philosophers say they brought it on themselves), pretending the crisis is over.

With his aggression against a neighbouring state—and, above all, with the debacle of his supposedly mighty military, now laid bare—Putin has cornered himself with no visible exit. But an exit does exist, it lies on Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. Putin has unleashed a storm of external aggression and internal violence against his own population and believes he cannot stop if he wants to stay in power. Yielding to his aggression only reinforces his belief that he can succeed—not just this time, but in future episodes.

He had no rational security reasons for attacking Ukraine. It was a logical step in escalating his imperialist policy of building a "Russian world," the foundation upon which he has built his authoritarian regime for over twenty years. Bargaining with Ukraine’s fate doesn’t eliminate the nuclear threat—it only delays and amplifies it. If Ukraine falls, new victims of Putin's imperialism and new nuclear threats will follow.

The beginning of the end of this crisis will come the moment Putin realizes there is no way out of the mess he's created through increasingly desperate nuclear posturing. That is why unity, resolve, and clear-headedness are essential. Giving in to nuclear blackmail sends a dangerous message to others who share Putin’s worldview. North Korea's ballistic missiles, which Kim Jong-un is now enthusiastically launching over his neighbours, are also delivering that message.

The problem with "peace-making" at the expense of Ukraine's survival isn't just that it's morally unacceptable—it’s dangerous and will take us even further from peace. A global security architecture that includes Russia? Absolutely—but only one that does not legitimize and encourage violent border changes by fascist-leaning dictators with nuclear weapons.

I understand and share people’s fears about the growing threat of nuclear escalation. Honestly, I’m damn scared, too. Psychologically, I even understand the escapism that sees naive shortcuts as a way back to safety, peace, and cheaper gas. Horrified and frightened by the mounting consequences of the aggression, many seek a solution in appeasing the aggressor. Putin is mad and unpredictable and has nuclear weapons. Zelensky can be influenced, so let's cut Ukraine off from aid and force them to surrender.

The moral dilemmas such an approach creates are often resolved by equating the bully with their victim. Of course, I’m not saying Zelensky, Ukraine, or the West are spotless. As I often read in comments on my writings, no situation is purely black-and-white. You know what? I agree. But the shades of grey are often so drastically different that we cannot and must not lump them together. Nothing—absolutely nothing—that we can criticize Ukraine or the West for justifies Russia’s aggression and crimes on the occupied territory of its neighbour.

But not all advocates for "peace" at the cost of Ukraine's survival are the same. Many express genuine compassion and solidarity with Ukrainians and attempt to resolve the unavoidable moral conflict between their principles and the consequences those principles bring upon Ukrainians by insisting they act in Ukrainians' best interest. If they stop their national liberation struggle, the bloodshed will end. Sound familiar?

Others blame everyone except the Kremlin for the war and the threat of nuclear catastrophe. Still others resolve the issue with apathy and cynicism. Last Friday, Newsweek’s senior commentator Josh Hammer put it this way: "Let’s be as clear as possible: the average American citizen doesn’t and shouldn’t care whether an ethnically divided, strategically insignificant, historically disputed Slavic backwater or two in eastern Ukraine ultimately takes orders from Kyiv or Moscow." Fuck you, stupid Slavic Untermenschen—why should we trouble ourselves over your lives?

"A line must be drawn somewhere," declared Frederick Blair, Canada’s immigration director in June 1939, when nearly a thousand Jews fleeing Nazi Germany on the ship St. Louis were denied entry. The U.S. and Cuba had already turned them away, claiming too many among them were communists and spies. The trick of stigmatizing the victim and morally equating them with the perpetrator to wash one’s conscience and avoid helping people in distress wasn’t invented yesterday. We also know how those stories end.

Damn, I’m scared. I want this senseless bloodshed to end as soon as possible. But let’s not forget who pushed us to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. The threats of nuclear war do not come from Kyiv, Brussels, or Washington. They come exclusively from Moscow.

This must stop. Resolutely, but with a cool head. The road to peace requires a clear and convincing message: nuclear blackmail, let alone the use of nuclear weapons, cannot benefit Putin's regime. It is not a viable path to victory for his imperial ambitions—it can only accelerate the inevitable end of his terrorizing of neighbouring states, Russian citizens, and the world. Once again, we face a moment where we must decide whether and how to confront fascist evil. The future of Ukraine—and all of us—depends on where we draw the line.