The tragedy in Ukraine exposes flaws in international systems and how we view war-torn civilians

It is just over two weeks since the geopolitical world was turned on its head as a result of Vladimir Putin's decision to invade Ukraine. As news developed, it became evidently clear that this will not be a war, but a massacre, inflicting damage upon millions of innocent civilians and uprooting lives, places and nature. Amongst the many that the threat causes, the overwhelming reaction can only be to sigh.

For, briefly putting aside the devastating humanitarian crisis that this will cause, this is another example of the fragilities of the world system that we live in. It is possibly the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis just under 60 years ago. 

Some causes are obvious. Putin has waved about wildly delusional Russian motives for the attack and the mask behind his previously inscrutable persona is slipping. Make no mistake, this is a decision far removed from the majority of his citizens and even advisors and is built upon narcissistic and pure maniac tendencies. Far from his pretence that Russia are claiming back Ukraine from its "neo-Nazi" leaders, the reasons are largely strategic. They are overly difficult to highlight in one article, but the geopolitical tensions Ukraine finds itself caught up in are imperative if we are to understand the reasoning for the bombardment that is occurring. 

Much like the Cold War, it is an ideological battle in which democracy and authoritarianism are pit against each other. The acceleration of democratic parties in Ukraine has driven a largely pro-Western view in the country, which has led to extensive talk of the country joining NATO, an alliance stipulating that its members, including many Western countries, are strategically aligned. 

Unsurprisingly given the direct border contact Russia has with Ukraine, Putin sees these overtures are a direct threat, not only because of the physical and geographical isolation it gives the country, but also due to the ideological nightmare of being bordered by a state with a pact with its perennial enemy United States. It does not help that Ukraine are increasingly oil-rich, and have port links that Russia already attempted to break with its annexation of Crimea in 2014. It is perhaps the fault, or the powerlessness of the wider world, that this was condemned at the time but quickly forgotten on a global level.

Nevertheless, the deplorable and tragic civilian casualties that are rife are the fault of Putin. I can't help but feel sadness that, as we have seen so many times before, those who are blameless bear the brunt of decisions from tyrants who have trodden their way to power. Sadly, it is the way of the modern world,  both in dictatorial states like North Korea and China and expansionist ideologies that underpinned the US bombing of the Middle East. 

Credit: HQ Markets

Perhaps it should not be a shock to see these powerful states exploit their power on the world stage. No clearer expression of that is illustrated with the UN, whose Security Council is effectively useless because any one of its five permanent members can veto resolutions - as Russia have done in the past fortnight.

When systems are structured in this way, that overwhelming power is inevitable. The Russian veto is only the most recent of many that all these five nations have used, and the common theme is that in all instances, the veto is used for self-interest and individual gain. 

We are rightly having discussions about the legitimacy of institutions on a country-wide level, as indeed I have on this blog, such as the government, the police and the monarchy. Rarely do we see such expression of distaste to the flawed international structures that ought to take their portion of the blame for the many worldwide atrocities committed. 

None of this excuses the Russian occupation, but the desperation of governments and businesses to maintain good public image is puzzling at best. Where were global sanctions on China when they marched into Hong Kong and took away the prized Western ideal of democracy? Where were they on the US when they used the legitimation of anti-terrorism to bomb civilians in the Middle East much akin to Russia? They were only non-existent because of economic and political alliances.

It is always dangerous to have a "whataboutery" tendency when discussing tragic civilian displacement and death. The question of moral consistency is a pertinent one though. There cannot be a bigger moral outrage to an invasion Ukraine than of Afghanistan simply because the former is a European country, because that indicates a preference towards preserving white, European lives. In a society where multiculturalism is beginning to thrive, seeing non-whites as "the other" still reflects deep-seated prejudices and unconscious bias.

We must ask ourselves where the compassion that we have developed now has been for refugees and victims of war-torn countries throughout the 21st century. The plight of a seemingly-African refugee being beaten by waiting Spanish police from last week shows a bleak contrast. Even from Ukraine, UN experts have been concerned by the discrimination of black and brown students, who receive inhumane treatment that does not befall their white counterparts.

Lest you ask why race is important in this context, it is because it profoundly impacts both inherent bigotry and individual refugees. There has been little to no protest about the cost of caring for displaced Ukrainian refugees, despite the immense financial cost it will pose. Systemic discrimination holds its place in all scenarios and cannot be ignored because it affects not only those throughout the world, but also the people of colour fleeing Ukraine.

Fundamentally, the important concern is the suffering of Ukrainians, and that cannot be disputed. I - and so many others - cannot begin to imagine the threat of death at your doorstep, being forced to leave your home and environment all at the flick of a Russian switch. 

War must not be glorified akin to the the stories of "hero" planes and British soldiers going to fight for their newly-made friends. It is a devil that has its consequences in both lunatic leaders and failed international systems. Whilst those coexist, it will always continue to wreak havoc upon innocent people trying to live in peace. 

But these international systems and race biases are important subplots that - at least to me - make the self-righteous reaction to war in Europe seem very hollow. Tribalism is to be expected, but it would be a stretch to justify Ukrainian sympathy based on similar cultural values. Most people in this country have little sympathy for people with different political views, let alone those in countries with widely differing ideological stances.

Granted we are powerless to an extent, with those international systems like the UN practically futile in peacekeeping powerful states. Ideological warfare is a dangerous animal, as history has shown, so powerful economic and social isolation of Russia is important in the long-term. Putin's power is too entrenched though, domestically and internationally, for this to enact credible change.

It did not need this war to make us realise that war is wrong, much like it does not take a murder for us to condemn that. Maybe it can ignite a spark within our consciences that will lead to this level of indignation more frequently in the future, including when it is committed by our own elected officials. When it is comes to supporting different races though - as the Black Lives Matter movement showed - anger and conscience can be short-lived.