Russia’s Invasion, Ukraine’s Corruption—No Heroes Here

---

We’re transforming your reading experience by removing all ads and focusing on high-quality, in-depth geopolitical analysis. Enjoy a cleaner, more enjoyable news experience, free from distractions. Help us continue to provide exceptional content by donating today. Your support ensures we remain independent and reader-funded. Visit linktapgo.com/thedumshow to contribute. Thank you for making The DUM News better than ever! – Matt

---

---

SOMEWHERE IN THE GREY: From the moment we are old enough to recognize patterns, we are conditioned to see the world in binaries. We pick a favorite superhero and instinctively understand that their nemesis must be the villain. We choose a sports team and immediately recognize its rivals as the enemy. The media reinforces this thinking in politics, marketing, and global conflicts. Coke versus Pepsi. Democrats versus Republicans. Capitalism versus Communism. It’s no surprise that when war breaks out, this framework carries over. One side is good, the other is evil. One side is the aggressor, the other is the innocent victim. But reality is never that simple.

The war in Ukraine is no different. Russia is the aggressor. There is no ambiguity in that fact. The invasion was an unjustifiable act of war, one that has led to the deaths of thousands and displaced millions. But does that mean Ukraine is entirely innocent? Does that mean any criticism of Ukraine’s government or its leadership equates to support for Russia? This is the flawed logic that dominates modern discourse: if you don’t support one side, you must be siding with the other. This is the same tribalism that makes people refuse to acknowledge their own political party’s corruption or turn a blind eye to their favorite brand’s unethical practices.

Ukraine is not the beacon of democracy and virtue that it has been made out to be. The country has long struggled with deep-seated corruption, money laundering, and oligarchic control. Before the war, the West recognized Ukraine’s endemic corruption as a major hurdle preventing it from joining NATO. NATO’s own policies prevent the inclusion of nations with unresolved territorial disputes or ongoing internal conflicts, which is exactly why Ukraine was never invited to join. This isn’t a conspiracy; it’s a documented reality that even Ukraine’s closest allies have acknowledged in the past.

The Ukrainian government itself has been in turmoil for years. In 2014, the U.S. backed a revolution that ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, a leader with ties to Russia. While his government was corrupt, so too were the forces that replaced him. The post-revolution government installed Western-friendly leaders, but Ukraine did not suddenly become a bastion of democracy. Instead, the country has remained embroiled in a civil war in the Donbas region, where Russian-backed separatists have been fighting Ukrainian forces for over a decade. This conflict did not start in 2022; it has been ongoing since 2014, with both sides accused of war crimes. The Azov Battalion, once a volunteer militia and now integrated into Ukraine’s National Guard, has been heavily scrutinized for its neo-Nazi affiliations and accusations of human rights violations. Yet, during wartime, these criticisms are swept aside, and any discussion of Ukraine’s problematic elements is met with immediate condemnation as “pro-Russian propaganda.”

The Western media has worked tirelessly to paint Ukraine as the last line of defense against authoritarianism, but the reality is far murkier. Ukraine has engaged in its own authoritarian practices, including banning opposition parties, silencing journalists, and enforcing mandatory military conscription that has resulted in young men being dragged off the streets and forced into combat. These are not the actions of a liberal democracy. The same leaders who once criticized Ukraine’s corruption are now funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into the country without accountability, raising questions about where that money is actually going.

One of the most glaring issues with Ukraine’s leadership is Volodymyr Zelensky’s insatiable appetite for revenge and retribution. His rhetoric has become increasingly aggressive, targeting not just Russia but anyone who fails to meet his growing demands for money and weapons. When aid is delayed or questioned, Zelensky reacts with open hostility, showing no gratitude or diplomatic restraint. He has continuously demanded more advanced weapons, sometimes even criticizing his Western allies for not providing enough, as if billions in aid were somehow insufficient. His blatant disrespect for his own benefactors raises serious concerns about his leadership and motives.

Adding to this is Zelensky’s refusal to hold elections, an essential marker of democracy. Instead of allowing the Ukrainian people to have a say in their leadership, he has opted to extend his rule indefinitely under the pretense of wartime necessity. Elections, even in times of war, have been held in other democratic nations, but Ukraine has suspended them altogether, removing a fundamental democratic check on power. This alone exposes the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting solely for democracy; a leader who refuses elections is not leading a free nation.

Further eroding Ukraine’s credibility is its relentless dissemination of false information through state-controlled media. From the early days of the war, Ukraine’s propaganda machine has been in overdrive, fabricating narratives to rally Western support. The infamous “Ghost of Kyiv” myth, portraying an ace fighter pilot single-handedly taking down Russian jets, was debunked as fiction. The story of Ukrainian soldiers heroically dying on Snake Island after refusing to surrender turned out to be exaggerated; the soldiers were captured, not killed. These fabrications, while effective in shaping public perception, undermine Ukraine’s credibility. If Ukraine is willing to manufacture myths, how much of its narrative can be trusted?

Beyond misinformation, Ukraine has been involved in more direct acts of aggression that challenge its portrayal as the pure victim. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline attack, initially blamed on Russia, has growing evidence suggesting Ukrainian involvement. The attack on the Kremlin with a drone, a blatant escalation of conflict, is yet another instance where Ukraine has not acted as the victimized state it claims to be. These incidents reveal that Ukraine is not merely defending itself but is actively engaging in military provocations that threaten to escalate the war further.

The notion that supporting Ukraine equates to supporting democracy is a convenient narrative, but it ignores the larger geopolitical reality. Ukraine has been a money laundering hub for decades, a place where oligarchs—both Ukrainian and Western—have moved billions through shady financial networks. Hunter Biden’s infamous dealings with Burisma are just one example of this web of corruption, yet any attempt to question Ukraine’s role in international money laundering is immediately dismissed as “Russian disinformation.” The truth is, Ukraine’s leadership has never been clean, and its deep entanglements with Western elites should raise just as many concerns as Russia’s oligarchy.

The issue of human trafficking is another dark underbelly of Ukraine’s global image. The country has long been a hotspot for human trafficking, with reports of forced labor and sex trafficking increasing since the war began. The chaos of war has only exacerbated these crimes, with criminal networks exploiting refugees and using the conflict as cover. Yet, because Ukraine is the “good guy” in this narrative, these crimes are barely discussed. The West is so determined to paint Ukraine as a flawless victim that legitimate concerns about its government’s failures are ignored.

To question Ukraine’s leadership, its corruption, or its human rights abuses is not to support Russia. It is possible—and reasonable—to oppose both sides of this conflict. The Western world has adopted an all-or-nothing mindset that demands total allegiance to Ukraine, punishing those who dare to suggest that perhaps neither side deserves uncritical support. This binary thinking, the same thinking that has fueled sports rivalries and political divisions, is now being applied to a war where the reality is anything but black and white.

The war in Ukraine is tragic, and Russia’s actions deserve condemnation. But Ukraine’s government is not above scrutiny simply because it is the victim of an invasion. To pretend otherwise is to fall into the same trap of binary thinking that leads to blind nationalism, unquestioning party loyalty, and the inability to recognize that in war, as in life, few things are truly black and white.