By The Economist at 11:32 AM 5/30/2020 (PDT)
It has been six years since Russian-backed separatists declared independence from the Ukrainian government in the Eastern Donbass region of the country. Since then, little change has been seen in a slow moving war, the main impact being the destruction of property and infrastructure in the region and the loss of approximately 10,000 lives.
In the first session of the United Nations Security Council, two blocs stood out: those who supported providing only humanitarian aid, and those who believed humanitarian aid should be paired with action to combat Russian interference in the Donbass region, such as the use of peacekeepers. Several ceasefire agreements have been attempted, but failed to last. As the United Nations Security Council nears the ends of its first session, a divide between those wishing to find solutions for peace and those wishing to remain neutral while providing humanitarian aid has emerged.
While humanitarian aid is essential to rebuilding the lives of the struggling citizens, the best aid that could be given to the Ukrainians is an end to the war. As the war continues, more aid will have to be given, an endless stream that will do little more than heal the symptoms of the war rather than fix the root cause.
What use is humanitarian aid to repair a damaged house if it could become the victim of shelling a week later? How much value is a thousand dollars to a Ukrainain citizen who will die in the crossfire the next day? There questions must be considered if the delegates of the Security Council wish to help the citizens of East Ukraine. Humanitarian aid is of paramount importance, but the best kind of aid may be an end to the war.
To edit this page, click here.