When Russia embarked on its illegal invasion of Ukraine there was a collective outcry against the monstrous injustice of its aggression.
The assault flouted all our values and prompted profound revulsion. It was an attack on the underdog, a violation of personal and national space and an outrageously violent reaction to a political dispute.
A humanitarian tragedy unfolded in the European continent. We had not seen images of bombed-out houses, displaced families and conscripted men since 1999.
The response has, therefore, been both vocal and visible. President Joe Biden broke protocol – and, perhaps, diplomatic practice – when he spoke “from the heart” to denounce Vladimir Putin as a war criminal and indirectly suggest regime change.
Other leaders have gone the extra mile to show their closeness to besieged Ukraine. The prime minister of Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia travelled to Kyiv to meet President Zelensky. They were followed by the president of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson walked the streets of Kyiv with Zelensky in a show of solidarity. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, Josep Borrell visited Kyiv and the town of Bucha. Von der Leyen remarked that this is where “we have seen our humanity shattered”. Despite age and infirmity, Pope Francis has signalled that he would like to visit Kyiv.
While there may be diverse motivations for these gestures of solidarity, what they have in common is genuine outrage based on ethical principles.
Firstly, there is an understanding that the international order has an ethical dimension. It can only be guaranteed if nation states are allowed to exercise the right to self-determination while preserving their territorial integrity without the fear of military action, violence and economic ruin.
Secondly, this ethical international order serves only to underpin another, more important, right – the right to live safely and in peace. International organisations and neighbouring and partner countries are reiterating the necessity of protecting innocent civilians, as they continue to be killed or displaced.
The response to this crisis has, so far, been shaped by some of these considerations. If the West is to win the battle of ideas and of hearts and minds, it must continue to place ethical concerns at the heart of the matter.
For example, though Russia is not a major economy (the largest country in the world has an economy comparable to that of the state of Texas), it is a major supplier of essential commodities, including raw materials and energy. Its isolation through sanctions is already affecting the world economy. Will the European Union and other countries baulk at the continuation of sanctions once the impact becomes more serious?
On the other side, Russia remains a nuclear power. To what extent can it be relied upon not to escalate the conflict further?
The goal should be to try and end hostilities as soon as possible and aid Ukraine in restoring some semblance of normality in full respect of its right to self-determination. Easier said. But as the West races against time to provide the victim of this aggression with the arms to defend itself, it must also aggressively explore all diplomatic avenues for peace.
The more prolonged this conflict, the greater the violence and the greater the loss of life.
The credibility of the West will be maintained if it acts effectively under the guidance of ethical principles. Achieving this balance will not be easy. It would risk severe damage to its reputation if it fails.