Ukraine: Between Power and Principle

Between Power and Principle:

A Meditation on Ukraine and the Tragedy of International Order

✍️Author’s Note
Ukraine stands at the crossroads of idealism and realpolitik. This essay weighs principle against power — and asks whether Europe still possesses the moral courage to defend both.

This essay is not an attempt to settle the moral ledger of the war in Ukraine, nor to excuse the inexcusable. Rather, it is a meditation born from the enduring struggle between the moralist and the realist—two voices within me, and within the tradition of political thought itself. One seeks justice, the other stability. One dreams, the other remembers.

What follows is not a blueprint but a reflection, offered with humility, for those who wish to think more deeply about the difficult choices nations make, and the tragic rhythm of history that often surrounds them.

—William J.J. Houtzager, Aka WJJH

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”

— Aeschylus

I often find myself caught between two voices—not fleeting opinions, but enduring philosophical dispositions. One insists on the moral imperative of siding with the oppressed, of defending liberty, and of resisting tyranny. The other whispers that history is tragic, power is inescapable, and moral purity, when untampered by prudence, can become its own form of violence. These voices are not easily reconciled, but perhaps their tension is precisely what it means to think and act politically in an imperfect world.

The Voice of Conscience

How can one witness the destruction of a people—cities razed, lives shattered, culture erased—and not feel compelled to act? To stand with Ukraine is to affirm the dignity of sovereignty, the right to self-determination, and the value of a political community free from coercion. It is to echo Kant’s hope for a cosmopolitan order governed by reason and law, where perpetual peace might one day emerge from the moral progress of humankind. It is to believe that history, while often cruel, can be bent by the better angels of our nature.

The Voice of Tragedy

Yet what if this vision is noble but brittle? Hobbes reminds us that in the absence of a sovereign authority, the international realm remains a state of nature—not chaos, but lawlessness. Power, not morality, regulates behaviour. Fear, not trust, is the governing impulse. As Raymond Aron warned, the international system is inherently tragic, for it lacks both final judges and reliable protectors. States, unlike citizens, live in anarchy. They do not merely act according to ideals, but in response to threats, interests, and historical wounds.

From this view, Ukraine is not only a victim but also a crucible—a stage upon which centuries of tension between East and West, empire and nationhood, identity and autonomy, erupt once more. It is here that Berlin’s warning resounds: that no single value—freedom, justice, peace, order—can be maximized without sacrificing others. The plurality of human goods makes politics not a science of solutions, but a practice of judgment.

The Limits of Universalism

Post-Cold War liberalism, triumphant and self-assured, dreamt of a world governed by norms: human rights, free markets, democratic governance, NATO’s protective embrace. Francis Fukuyama envisioned the “end of history,” where ideological conflict would dissolve into liberal consensus. But as history resumed, so too did the older structures of power, interest, and grievance.

Isaiah Berlin’s insight returns with force: the attempt to universalize liberal values risks becoming coercive. Sovereignty, once a defensive principle, is reasserted in Moscow and Beijing as a shield against the moral and strategic overreach of the West. The irony is painful: institutions built to safeguard peace now provoke fears of encirclement.

Metternich and the Architecture of Restraint

After the carnage of the Napoleonic Wars, Metternich and his contemporaries at the Congress of Vienna crafted a conservative peace, grounded not in justice but in balance. It was not an idealistic project, but a realist one. It sought to manage diversity, not erase it. It affirmed sovereignty as a necessary constraint on power, a recognition of the plurality of political forms.

Sovereignty, as reasserted in the Vienna Settlement, became the organizing principle of diplomacy. This consensus sought to preserve peace by honouring limits and avoiding ideological crusades. As Metternich warned, utopianism is a dangerous force when unleashed in a world of competing nations.

Today, the echoes of that settlement are distant, but not irrelevant. The idea that a durable order requires respect for limits—geographical, ideological, strategic—is as pertinent now as then. Ukraine, in this light, might have served as a neutral bridge between Russia and the West. But the geopolitical tide flowed differently, and with it, the prospect of neutrality dissolved.

Tragedy Without Illusions

Does this excuse Russia’s invasion? No. The war is a moral crime and a violation of international law. But the conditions that enabled it were shaped by more than Russian aggression. The West’s expansion of influence—however well-intentioned—was interpreted as encroachment. The 2014 sanctions, the rhetoric of regime change, the dismissive labelling of Russia as a mere “regional power”—all contributed to the erosion of diplomacy.

Obama, usually a measured realist, misread the depth of Russian resentment. The West, in seeking to spread freedom, forgot that the international order is not a classroom of students, but a theatre of sovereign actors. The moralist demands consistency; the realist accepts paradox.

The Ethical Realism of Prudence

Ukraine has the right to choose its alliances. But rights exist within structures of power, not above them. The 1991 founding act and Ukraine’s 1996 constitution originally envisioned neutrality—a choice not of submission but of prudence. The later aspiration to join NATO was legitimate, yet strategically combustible. Kissinger’s counsel—that Ukraine serve as a bridge, not a battleground—was a call for wisdom, not weakness.

By becoming a bulwark, Ukraine also became a pawn in a larger struggle between China and the United States. Here again, realpolitik eclipsed moral clarity. In the absence of trust, security becomes a zero-sum game. The tragedy is not that Ukraine chose the West, but that no framework existed to accommodate that choice without triggering conflict.

A Broken Order, A Fragile Hope

The institutions built after 1945 have served the West well, but today they are perceived as instruments of hegemony. Their legitimacy frays when their application seems selective. Sovereignty, once championed by the West, is now reasserted by others as a defence against Western dominance.

If history teaches anything, it is that no order is permanent. The American moment is passing; a multipolar world is emerging. This does not mean liberal values are obsolete, but they are no longer hegemonic. We must now rediscover what coexistence looks like when power is diffuse and values diverge.

Conclusion: Between Freedom and Fate

War is never just. Even when necessary, it is always a defeat for humanity. The war in Ukraine is a tragedy for Ukrainians, for Russians, and for Europe. It could have been avoided. But sleepwalking, pride, and the erosion of diplomacy brought us here.

To think philosophically is not to justify evil, but to understand the conditions under which it arises. Between idealism and realism lies the domain of judgment. Between the moral imperative and the tragic awareness of limits, we must learn to act.

There is no final answer—only the duty to hold both voices in tension. To never surrender our conscience, but never silence the warnings of history.

This, perhaps, is the burden of political responsibility in a broken world.

Netherlands, WJJH, October, 2025

📌 Blog Excerpt

Reflection: The essay explores the complex interplay between moral imperatives and pragmatic realities in international politics, particularly regarding the Ukraine conflict. It emphasizes the tension between ideals of justice and the harshness of historical power dynamics. Ultimately, it calls for a reflection on ethical realism and the necessity of diplomatic prudence amid competing national interests.