RUSSIA–UKRAINE AND THE FUTILITY OF MODERN WAR 
A Mirror to Humanity’s Moral Crisis
By Kirtan Bhana

9 June 2025

In an era defined by breathtaking technological progress, instant global communication, and boundless access to knowledge, it is nothing short of tragic that war remains one of humanity’s most persistent expressions of power. The Russia–Ukraine conflict, now a grinding and protracted geopolitical disaster, is not just a regional issue—it is a global indictment of how deeply broken our systems of diplomacy, truth, and leadership truly are.

Two nations with a shared history, culture, language, and ancestry have found themselves weaponized—used as proxies in a much larger, more sinister game waged by powers that thrive not on peace, but on prolonged instability. This is not just a battle of territory; it is a battle for the soul of humanity.

The Shared Heritage Torn Apart

The irony is hard to miss. Russians and Ukrainians are not strangers; they are, in many respects, siblings divided by politics but joined by blood. Yet decades of simmering grievances—stoked by external interests and hardened through nationalist narratives—have culminated in a war that benefits no one but the architects of conflict economies. The sheer futility of this war reveals itself daily: ruined cities, broken families, weaponized propaganda, and a new generation raised on fear and hatred.

At a recent teleconference hosted by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, speakers including eyewitnesses, diplomats, human rights experts, and filmmakers brought attention to the suffering endured by civilians in Kursk Region, an area with historical significance from WWII.

Eyewitness accounts detailed the alleged crimes committed during the occupation by Ukrainian forces and foreign mercenaries, with significant emphasis placed on NATO’s role in militarizing the situation under the pretext of defending democracy.

The Militarization of Fear

Perhaps one of the most concerning developments in recent years is the dramatic global rise in defense spending. Across NATO member states, and now even among traditionally neutral countries, military budgets have been inflated to historic highs—all justified through a media ecosystem that thrives on fear, misinformation, and manufactured threats.

This psychological conditioning of the public—through relentless headlines, manipulated images, and sensationalist coverage—has achieved one thing above all: it has made war profitable. Governments, under the guise of security, have channeled billions of taxpayer dollars into military expansion while public services, healthcare, education, and climate action suffer.

In essence, the citizen is coerced into funding violence, often without knowing the full scope or consequences. Parliamentary debates are reduced to fear-based soundbites. Critics of militarism are branded as naïve or unpatriotic. The illusion of imminent threat keeps populations compliant, anxious, and willing to sacrifice their democratic agency for the illusion of safety.

But who profits? Certainly not the people. The beneficiaries are the global defense contractors, the financiers of war, the media conglomerates that thrive on clicks and conflict, and the corporatocracy that has transformed killing into commerce.

NATO, the EU, and the Rebirth of Neo-Colonialism

The conference further highlighted how NATO and the European Union have moved beyond their original mandates. No longer instruments of collective security, they increasingly serve as geopolitical tools for Western hegemony—seeking influence and control far beyond their own borders. Under the banner of democracy promotion, they have facilitated regime change, sanctions warfare, and now proxy conflicts that devastate entire regions.

This new neo-colonialism doesn’t wear the uniforms of old; it wears the suits of diplomats, the language of humanitarianism, and the branding of international cooperation. But the double standards are glaring. The selective outrage. The silence over civilian casualties when bombs drop from the "right" side. The manipulation of international law to justify one intervention while condemning another.

The question must be asked: What is the real goal? If peace was truly the objective, diplomacy—not escalation—would be prioritized. But peace doesn’t fund election campaigns. It doesn’t boost arms sales. And it doesn’t distract populations from rising inequality, broken healthcare systems, or collapsing infrastructures.

The Kursk Region: A Case Study in Contradiction

In Kursk, the conference documented the use of prohibited munitions, the deployment of NATO-supplied weapons, and the impact of foreign mercenaries. Residents returning to their homes after forced displacement reported psychological trauma, destroyed infrastructure, and deep social scars.

History, too, haunts this region. Kursk was a symbol of resistance against Nazi Germany—a stand against fascism. And now, in a cruel twist, the region finds itself again under siege, not from ideological enemies but from those purported to be liberators. The echoes of history demand more than military action—they demand moral clarity and accountability.

Technological Advancement, Moral Regression

What does it say about our species when the same technologies that allow us to explore Mars and cure diseases are also used to drop precision-guided bombs on schools and hospitals? AI, drones, and automated weaponry have not elevated human warfare—they have dehumanized it further. The battlefield is now managed by machines, but the consequences are borne by flesh and blood.

We lament climate change while bombing power plants. We speak of humanitarian aid while funding conflict. We draft international charters while violating them through "exceptions" and "strategic interests." What does this cognitive dissonance say about the psychological state of global leadership?

Perhaps we are witnessing not merely political failure, but a systemic mental and moral breakdown—where power is synonymous with coercion, and diplomacy has been relegated to theatrics.

What If Peace Was Never the Goal?

Let us confront the uncomfortable truth: if peace were a genuine objective, it would be possible. The diplomatic mechanisms, legal frameworks, and international institutions already exist. What is lacking is political will—and that will is absent precisely because war has become too valuable to too many.

So, we are forced to ask a deeper question: was peace ever truly the goal? Or is the illusion of peace, dangled like a carrot before a weary public, just another tool of control?

A Final Call to Reason

The voices from Kursk, and indeed from countless other conflict zones, are not just recounting trauma—they are warning us. The world is being led down a path of endless war disguised as necessary defense, of democracy hollowed out by fear-mongering, and of citizens taxed not for their well-being, but for their obedience.

The futility of war is evident. But unless we break the cycle—of silence, of compliance, of manipulated consent—we will continue to invest in death rather than life.

Let us choose a different path. Not because it is easy, but because it is sane. Because with all we now know, continued war is no longer a failure of politics—it is a failure of humanity.

Kirtan Bhana
Editor, The Diplomatic Society