Don't Put Out Fire with Gasoline

In my family, all men have fought in wars. I haven't delved deep into genealogy, but those I knew personally: great-grandfather, grandfather, father - World War I, World War II, the Soviet war in Afghanistan. I naively thought the tradition would end with me: at the start of the full-scale invasion, I was 43, with a fairly successful media career (weekly magazine editor-in-chief, TV show executive editor, journalism professor at one of the most prestigious universities) - it's hard to imagine that one day, this person would become a regular infantryman. But I did. I volunteered for the Armed Forces on the first day of the great war. There's nothing heroic, valiant, or exceptional about this act. It's my constitutional civic duty. And let's not start that foolish tune: I pay taxes for the army, so let it protect me. During martial law, this doesn't work.

Since ancient times, European cities followed a principle: when a fortress is under siege, not only knights defend it, but also militia - from guilds of tailors, potters, blacksmiths, and others. The journalists' "guild" also had to (I'm talking about moral duty here) send its representatives to the military. And I was glad to be among them.

At first, it was hard to accept that the war would last long; it seemed we would fight for a few months, stop the enemy, and return to peaceful work. But when circumstances change, the best thing to do is adapt. I made my choice - after almost three years of service, I signed an officer's contract to increase my effectiveness in the military. Such is the iron logic of war

For someone observing the war from a safe distance, it's always easy to speak pompous phrases about the need to "stop the madness," "stop killing each other," "seek peaceful solutions," and so on. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with such statements; moreover, they're saturated with humanism like a fashionista with perfume. But the devil is always in the details. When I went to school, we were taught as a dogma that "the USSR is the bulwark of peace" and if it got involved in any armed conflict, it wasn't war but a "struggle for peace." Similarly, today's Russia claims it's ready for negotiations, compromises, and that all it needs is the respect due to a great power. The fact that this respect involves the actual destruction and assimilation of peoples enslaved by Moscow is modestly silenced. There's no doubt that a ceasefire would mean an operational pause for Russia, necessary for rearming and economic recovery before the next thrust westward. Making peace with Putin today, forgiving his war crimes, making concessions is like putting out a fire with gasoline.

The next victim of Russian aggression could be either Ukraine or any other Eastern European country - Kremlin political technologists have never experienced a shortage of ideas for raising new and new territorial claims.

Therefore, if we're talking about just peace today, it should be in the context of a full military victory of the international coalition over the Kremlin's anti-human regime, not in the context of concessions and lifting sanctions on Russia. The consequence of this victory should be not only Ukraine's restoration of its 1991 borders but also the liberation of all peoples enslaved by Russia, who should receive freedom and independence, just as the former Soviet republics did. The empire must die!