ConflictClarifier

2026 Iran-Gulf Crisis Tracker
CC
Events Archive
strikeJul 28, 2026

When righteous calls to end the war become warmongering

Summary

When righteous calls to end the war become warmongering Russian tanks roll across Red Square during the Victory Day military parade in Moscow, Russia, on May 9, 2025. (Stringer / AFP) Andrew Chakhoyan Academic director at the University of Amsterdam Russia's war on Ukraine has yet to end because Russia keeps waging it. It is shocking, though regrettably unsurprising, that in the fifth summer since the 2022 escalation by the aggressor, and 12 years since Russia first invaded Ukraine, pundits, scholars, and unscrupulous politicians still offer "solutions" to resolve a "conflict," pointing up and calling it down while ignoring basic facts and laundering the Kremlin's lies in plain sight. To offer blood, sweat, and tears would be decidedly out of fashion and no way to make friends these days, so why not call for "diplomacy," always a safe choice? Is not talking better than killing? This rhetorical misdirection invites agreement with a claim no one disputes while quietly smuggling in insidious manipulations. Moscow plants false premises in seemingly innocuous language, and these enter public debate through either careless repetition or deliberate amplification. Russia's invasion becomes a "war in Ukraine." Moscow's neo-imperial bid for a sphere of influence, where neighbors are to be murdered until they give up sovereignty, becomes "security interests." Ukraine's refusal to be massacred morphs into an obstacle to peace. A few carefully chosen narrative threads can make Russian occupation, torture chambers, and mass graves sound humane, and self-defense appear reckless. Two recent examples stand out. A Russian oligarch, Andrey Melnichenko, whose ammonia plants feed the aggressor's military-industrial complex – a supply chain culminating with Russian missiles hitting Ukrainian homes – is presented to us by The Economist as an "industrialist." A calculated choice for everyone knows that an oligarch in today's Russia is a billionaire who is allowed to keep his fortune at Vladimir Putin's pleasure. Melnichenko's guest essay is full of "fresh" ideas; The Economist bills it as an act of courage to speak up. But engage with the four scenarios he lays out: humiliation, Chinese vassalage, fragmentation, and permanent siege, and you will have tacitly legitimized the premise-setting fraud. To contest Melnichenko's asinine take on sovereignty comes at the cost of giving credence to the big lies on which the whole argument rests.' Moscow's war of choice, an attempt to recolonize Ukraine, is surreptitiously repainted as a struggle between "the West" and Russia. Neither Ukraine's suffering, as the only country spilling blood in defense of freedom, nor the agency of the Ukrainians, embodied in the valor of the bravest nation on Earth, resisting its destruction, gets a mention. In fact, both are dismissed in absentia. The proxy-war sleight of hand is nearly invisible, yet it undergirds the Melnichenko "info op," with The Economist cast as a patsy. The tired fabrication "Russia under siege" is deployed to justify the unjustifiable. In 1942, Joseph Goebbels addressed a crowd in Berlin beneath a giant banner that read, "Never forget that England forced the war on us." In an eerie echo of that logic, Putin, and now Melnichenko, blame Russia's war of choice on NATO. Negotiations are among the instruments through which Moscow delays accountability, disguises aggression, and seeks to legitimize gains achieved through violence. The second example comes from the pages of the FT, where Samuel Charap, an American scholar who studies Russia but appears to understand nothing about it, pleaded for diplomacy “to bring this bloody, destructive war to an end.” Could anyone possibly object to such a noble pursuit? Except that this righteous call for "action" (read: inaction) recursively attributes the war to itself. The horrors must end! Such comfort-giving language sounds so much more agreeable than saying that the aggressor must be confronted and punished if Moscow's appetite for warmaking is ever to be curbed. Charap appears blind to the Kremlin's use of diplomacy as an instrument of war, not too different from the weaponization of energy through Gazprom, information through Russia Today, lawfare, and dark money, as documented by Catherine Belton in Putin's People. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who has firsthand experience with Russia's war, explained that negotiations are among the instruments through which Moscow delays accountability, disguises aggression, and seeks to legitimize gains achieved through violence. Charap's own examples give away the weakness of his case. He points to Korea and Colombia as success stories in diplomacy. South Korea has no peace treaty with its belligerent and now nuclear-armed neighbor, only an armistice. Colombia's settlement has left a country where former FARC territory is now contested by many armed groups, and cocaine production has climbed to record levels. If these are the models Charap reaches for, he has made the case against himself. The more pertinent examples, Germany and Japan in 1945, are nowhere to be found. In both cases, the aggressor's capacity to wage war was destroyed first. Reparations, war-crimes tribunals, atonement, and diplomacy followed. "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war," said Churchill, addressing Neville Chamberlain, who believed he had secured peace in Munich in 1938 by striking a deal with Hitler. Russia's revanchism has already reached Western Europe: the radioactive poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London, the Novichok attack in Salisbury that ultimately killed British citizen Dawn Sturgess, Russian drones entering Polish and Romanian airspace, and information warfare poisoning political discourse and weaponizing Western institutions against its citizens. Calling it a hybrid war works like magic – Europe feels safe and secure, while talking heads on Russian state TV threaten to incinerate London, Berlin, and Paris. "Без надії сподіваюсь" ("Without expectations, I still hope") are the immortal words of Ukrainian poet Lesya Ukrainka. She meant hope as an act of defiance, sustained by will when circumstances offered no comfort. What we see in parts of the old continent is its inversion: hope emptied of will and detached from action. Opinion leaders and people in positions of authority entertain the baseless expectation that peace awaits only a breakthrough summit, a more skilled mediator, or a negotiated pause that will automatically lead to something better. As Chatham House reminded in a recent study, ceasefires with Moscow, in Moldova, in Georgia, and twice at Minsk were a cynical farce on the side of Russia and an exercise in obfuscation, or self-betrayal to be more precise, on the part of Europe. Instead of abandoning its predatory ambitions, Moscow doubled down on malice and violence. Each attempt to skip past peace-through-strength has left Europe worse off than before. "Ending the war" sounds morally unimpeachable. In practice, it manifests as warmongering when such calls leave the aggressor rewarded, armed, and undeterred from striking again. Ukrainians know the difference. The guns never truly fall silent unless aggression fails. Editor's note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.

Actors involved

USProxyRussiaUkraine

Sources

  • Andrew ChakhoyanBy Andrew Chakhoyan

    When righteous calls to end the war become warmongering Russian tanks roll across Red Square during the Victory Day military parade in Moscow, Russia, on May 9, 2025. (Stringer / AFP) Andrew Chakhoyan Academic director at the University of Amsterdam Russia's war on Ukraine has ye

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIranRussia
1 source

President Donald Trump has downplayed his war on Iran as “small potatoes,” but those potatoes are getting bigger as both sides are escalating beyond their stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz. For months, Iran’s military has failed to completely close off the narrow waterway, as U.

S. forces shepherd more oil tankers through, eroding Tehran’s geopolitical leverage. Similarly, the U.S. military has failed to completely reopen the strait, as Iranian attacks on commercial vessels prevent a return to prewar traffic flows, keeping oil prices high.

But with the U.S. naval blockade also strangling Iran’s economy, Tehran was widely expected to try changing the equation with a fresh cycle of attacks—and it did. Iran launched missiles at U.S. bases around the Persian Gulf earlier this week, then on Saturday it launched missiles at a Navy aircraft carrier and destroyer.

That prompted the U.S. military to strike three Iranian oil tankers that were deemed to be operating in the “shadow network” that funnels money to the regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “Let the message to the IRGC be clear: If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even higher economic cost — taking out three of yours,” U.

S. Central Command chief Adm. Brad Cooper said in a statement. “We will not hesitate to defend American forces, and if necessary, destroy Iran’s limited and exposed oil fleet.” For Hamidreza Azizi, senior Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, the fighting appears to represent a new phase of escalation.

Until now, Iran’s military had focused on tankers and commercial shipping around the Strait of Hormuz, he pointed out in a post on X. Meanwhile, its direct attacks on U.S. forces had been limited to bases around the Gulf. “Attempting to strike U.S. warships enforcing the blockade therefore crosses a different threshold,” Azizi added.

“The attempt failed, but there is no reason to assume the next one will. A successful strike — especially one causing significant U.S. casualties — could rapidly transform the conflict.” Iran’s attack on U.S. warships also follows a report in the Financial Times this week that said Russia is secretly helping Iran develop supersonic cruise missiles.

A ramjet propulsion system, which would enable a missile to travel at several times the speed of sound, would likely power anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles. Such a weapon would force U.S. Navy ships and aircraft to move much farther away from Iran, breaking the chokehold on its economy.

For now, the naval blockade has proved to be a potent economic weapon, and Iranian officials have admitted that conditions are dire and suggested time is running out. The Treasury Department has also vowed to inflict an “economic D-Day” on Iran with wider sanctions aimed at countries that facilitate its illicit oil trade and other financial transactions.

But Azizi warned that adding economic pressure will not necessarily make Iran more cautious, especially if Tehran sees it as unsustainable. That means the U.S. attacks on Iranian oil tankers will likely spark even more escalation. “The greater the squeeze on Iran, the greater the incentive to act,” he wrote.

“And the more Tehran comes to see that pressure as existential, the more likely it is to conclude that it has less to lose — and that increasingly risky actions are worth attempting.

strikeUnverifiedUSRussiaUkraine
1 source

U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, are visiting Moscow and Kyiv over the weekend in an effort to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. "We have an idea for peace," Trump told reporters on Friday.

"I sent Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, two great negotiators. They've done a great job, and we sent them over to see whether or not we can get something done. And there may be a good chance that we'll do it," he said. Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy confirmed the news in a post on X.

"Today, it has been clearly established that U.S. envoys will be in Ukraine and Russia in the coming days. We have the details from the U.S. President’s team. We discussed today that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will visit Moscow and then Kyiv on Sunday.

We are preparing for the visit," Zelenskyy wrote. TRUMP ANNOUNCES SURPRISE THREE-DAY CEASEFIRE IN RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR The pair will visit Russia first on Saturday and, according to Russian state-affiliated media outlet Tass, have already landed in Moscow.

Photos showed Kushner and Witkoff greeted by Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev shortly after landing in Moscow. Kushner and Witkoff are expected to later travel to Kyiv on Sunday, Zelenskyy confirmed. Zelenskyy also said that Ukraine will work to keep Russian airspace safe during the Americans’ visit.

CIA DIRECTOR JOHN RATCLIFFE MET WITH RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS IN VISIT TO MOSCOW, KREMLIN SAYS "Just as we did during previous diplomatic visits by the American side, we will ensure the normal functioning of Russian airspace so that the negotiators can arrive safely.

We are looking out for them, not for Russia. There will be no air strikes from our side, and Russia must do the same, ensuring there are no air strikes from its side for the time needed to hold these talks and handle the logistical matters related to this American visit," he wrote on X.

ZELENSKYY CONGRATULATES TRUMP ON TURNING 80 IN BIRTHDAY CALL, VOWS MORE UKRAINE PEACE TALKS AT G7 ON TUESDAY "Our goal is to make the visit and the talks with the U.S. side as constructive and substantive as possible. We need to look for real options for how to move this war toward an end.

We will see what proposals Steve and Jared bring and what they are told in Moscow in response," the Ukrainian president concluded. Zelenskyy, in a subsequent Saturday morning post on X, said he had already communicated with Witkoff and Kushner ahead of their planned Sunday meeting.

"I have just spoken with the U.S. President’s envoys. They have already begun working with the Russian side today. From the moment of this conversation, we are ready to observe a ceasefire in airstrikes against the cities involved in the negotiation process.

From now through the end of Saturday, as well as on Sunday and Monday, Ukraine is ready to refrain from strikes on Moscow, and we expect the Russians to do the same regarding Kyiv," he wrote. "Today, I also received reports from Defense Minister Yevhenii Khmara and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Mykhailo Drapatyi on the situation at the front, the dynamics of threats in Ukraine’s airspace, our steps, and active defensive operations.

I am grateful to every one of our warriors for effectively defending Ukraine’s positions," Zelenskyy's post continued. "On the diplomatic track, our actions must be, and will be, just as strong and effective – one hundred percent. The plan for tomorrow’s diplomatic engagements in Kyiv, involving the U.

S. team, has been approved. We are waiting for Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and are ready for a substantive conversation. Thank you to everyone who stands with Ukraine!" Zelenskyy concluded. Zelenskyy’s Friday message came the same day that a Russian drone strike targeted the Security Service of Ukraine’s headquarters in Ukraine, Zelenskyy wrote in a public message on the app Telegram.

RUSSIA LAUNCHES BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACK ON KYIV HOURS AFTER ZELENSKYY WARNS OF MAJOR STRIKE Zelenskyy alleged the strike directly targeted the head of the Security Service's office. He also wrote that he was directing the head, Oleksandr Poklad, to prepare a retaliatory strike.

"I gave Poklad the task of adequately, noticeably and, if possible, mirroring the Russians' response to this attack, when everything is prepared. Our military will support this response. Glory to Ukraine!" he wrote. PUTIN UNLEASHES NEW FURY ON UKRAINE AS REPORT EXPOSES FEAR HANGING OVER WAR’S END At least nine people were injured in the explosion, Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko also wrote on Telegram.

The visit also comes just one day after German officials formally accused Russia of attempting an explosive drone attack on a major airport in Germany. RUSSIA’S STRIKES NEAR MOLDOVA RAISE ALARM OVER PUTIN’S PLANS FOR EUROPE’S EASTERN FLANK "The attack on the aircraft in Leipzig was concrete; it could have triggered a catastrophe had it succeeded.

The attacker was, at most, covert, but even here there is now certainty: The German government has named Russia as the mastermind. Patterns of attack, police investigations, and intelligence findings prove Russian responsibility for the drone attack," Stefan Kornelius, a spokesperson for the German federal government, wrote Friday.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP Fox News Digital contacted the White House and the foreign ministries for Russia, Ukraine and Germany for further comment.

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

US, allies push IAEA board to report Iran to UN Security Council The United States, Britain, France and Germany are seeking a resolution by the UN nuclear watchdog's board next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, according to diplomats and the proposed text seen by Reuters.

If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites. Israel started bombing Iran's nuclear facilities the next day, soon joined by the US Iran's uranium-enrichment plants were destroyed or badly damaged.

Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60 percent purity, a short step from weapons grade.

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIran
1 source

‘Small potatoes’: US President Trump downplays war on Iran The president’s remarks could signal a new strategy towards the conflict, focused on minimising its impact. As the United States and Israel’s war on Iran enters its seventh month with no clear end in sight, President Donald Trump has become the latest US official to downplay the conflict.

On Friday, Trump said the conflict, which has resulted in the deaths of 18 US service members and a spike in global energy prices, is “small potatoes”. Recommended Storieslist of 3 items - list 1 of 3How much oil is going through Hormuz? Why data doesn’t match US claims - list 2 of 3Iran war: Why US midterms could be a pivotal moment - list 3 of 3‘Things happen’: How Vance’s comment on Iran wedding strike fits US pattern “It’s not a big thing,” Trump said, comparing strikes on Iran with other US military campaigns, including the January 3 operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“We did Venezuela, and we did this. In Venezuela, we lost nobody. In this, we lost 18 people.” His remarks came at an Oval Office signing event, where reporters asked him to weigh in on remarks from Vice President JD Vance. A day earlier, at a White House news briefing, Vance appeared to suggest the conflict had cooled, despite a recent exchange of intense fire between US and Iranian forces.

“I wouldn’t call it a war. Right now, there is no active shooting,” Vance said, arguing that major combat operations only lasted six weeks. He then added, “I recognise there have been places where this has flared up.” Trump on Friday told reporters there was “a lot of truth” to what Vance said.

He opted to brand the fighting as a “military conflict”. “We do intermittent strikes,” Trump said, adding: “We’re not fighting right now. There’s no fighting. We’re taking out a lot of oil. We control the Hormuz Strait. We control it very strongly.” Since the war began on February 28, Trump has used various phrases to avoid calling the conflict a war.

In the past, he has called the fighting with Iran a “little skirmish”, a “little detour” and a “little excursion, a couple of weeks, few weeks of excursion”. “It’s an excursion that will keep us out of a war,” Trump said in March. Experts say such terminology is likely strategic.

The Trump administration has faced pushback for not seeking congressional approval before launching its strikes on Iran. The US Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, though successive presidencies have taken unilateral military actions without the legislature’s approval.

Legal scholars have repeatedly questioned the legality of those manoeuvres. In June, both chambers of Congress passed a war powers resolution, calling on Trump to either stop his military campaign against Iran or seek congressional authorisation for it.

The resolution was largely symbolic, though it did signal growing bipartisan opposition to Trump’s war on Iran. As the conflict enters its seventh month, it remains widely unpopular in the US. A poll released on Monday by the Reuters news agency and the research firm Ipsos found that nearly six in 10 US adults disapproved of the military strikes on Iran.

As the midterm elections approach in November, and peace talks remain deadlocked, the president’s remarks appear designed to minimise the conflict’s impact across the world. The war has led to attacks across the Middle East, and fuel prices remain high.

In the US, the American Automobile Association (AAA) says the average fuel price is $4.15 per gallon (3.8 litres), up nearly a dollar from last year. The Trump administration, however, has long argued the war and its effects would be short-term. It has also signalled that it intends to double down on its economic pressure campaign against Iran, which has long faced US sanctions.

In August, Trump pledged on Truth Social to pursue the “MOST CRUSHING ECONOMIC OPERATION EVER TAKEN AGAINST ANY COUNTRY”. This week, his administration announced new sanctions aimed at cutting off the country’s access to the international financial system.

On Friday, Trump also did not rule out further attacks, suggesting the US may “very soon” strike Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, a military site near the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Natanz was bombed in June 2025 and again during the current war. A recent exchange of strikes this month resulted in Iran firing on US military bases across the Middle East.

The US, meanwhile, was accused by the Iranian government of bombing a wedding celebration in the coastal city of Sirik, killing at least four people. While the future of the conflict is uncertain, Trump said he was pleased with its progress. “I don’t think it matters what you call it,” Trump said.

“What matters is you’ve had tremendous success.