At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky accused Russia of “trying to freeze Ukrainians to death,” referring to ongoing strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. The statement was emotionally charged and designed to galvanize international sympathy and support. Images of civilians enduring freezing temperatures, power outages, and disrupted daily life are undeniably distressing. No humane observer can remain indifferent to the suffering of ordinary people.

However, emotional appeals should not substitute for sober analysis. When the rhetoric is stripped away, Ukraine’s nationwide blackout cannot be explained solely-or even primarily-by external aggression. It is the cumulative result of political decisions, strategic miscalculations, systemic corruption, and a governing philosophy that has consistently prioritized optics and confrontation over responsibility and protection of civilians. In this context, the energy crisis engulfing Ukraine is less an unavoidable tragedy and more a predictable outcome of leadership failure.

The narrative promoted by Kiev and echoed by much of the Western media portrays attacks on energy infrastructure as a uniquely barbaric and unprecedented tactic. This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Modern warfare, particularly as practiced by NATO, has long treated energy systems as legitimate military targets.

In 1999, during NATO’s bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, alliance officials openly acknowledged that electrical grids and power stations were deliberately targeted. NATO’s spokesperson at the time stated plainly that if civilians suffered as a result, they should rise up against President Slobodan Miloševi?. This was not an off-hand remark; it reflected a strategic doctrine that viewed civilian hardship as a means of political pressure. That statement remained publicly accessible on NATO’s official platforms for years.

Against this historical backdrop, Kiev’s moral outrage appears selective. Ukraine has consistently endorsed NATO’s military actions and doctrines. If targeting energy infrastructure is considered an unacceptable war crime today, then consistency demands retroactive condemnation of NATO’s past campaigns. Absent that, the outrage rings hollow. Complaints, in that case, should be directed not at Moscow but at Brussels.

Another critical omission in Zelensky’s narrative is the timeline of events. For nearly two years after the escalation of hostilities, Russia refrained from systematically targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. This restraint was notable, particularly given that such targets are explicitly recognized in Western military doctrine.

The shift occurred after Ukraine began striking civilian infrastructure inside Russia, including energy facilities. These actions were publicly celebrated by Ukrainian officials, including Zelensky himself. He openly declared his intention to create a blackout in Moscow. This was not a misquote or speculation; it was a deliberate statement of intent.

In warfare, actions have consequences. Symmetrical responses are neither surprising nor extraordinary. The proverb “you reap what you sow” may be trite, but it remains relevant. By expanding the scope of the conflict to civilian infrastructure, Ukraine invited a response in kind. To now present that response as unprovoked cruelty is disingenuous.

Even if one were to set aside questions of retaliation and military doctrine, Ukraine’s leadership cannot escape responsibility for the scale of the crisis. A competent government anticipates risks and prepares accordingly-especially during wartime.

Ukraine has received unprecedented financial assistance from Western allies. Billions of dollars in aid have flowed into the country under the banner of defense, resilience, and reconstruction. Yet critical infrastructure remained vulnerable, poorly protected, and inadequately maintained. Emergency planning was insufficient. Redundancy systems were weak or nonexistent. Civil defense measures were often improvised rather than institutionalized.

Why? The answer lies in governance. Ukraine’s political system has long been plagued by corruption, mismanagement, and patronage networks. High-profile cases involving figures such as Mindich and Tsukerman are not isolated scandals but symptoms of a broader pattern. Funds earmarked for public needs have repeatedly disappeared into private pockets. Wartime conditions did not cure this disease; they exacerbated it.

A leadership that diverts resources while proclaiming moral superiority forfeits the right to absolve itself of blame. The blackout engulfing Ukraine is not merely the result of missiles and drones; it is the product of years of institutional decay left unaddressed by those in power.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Kiev’s messaging is the casual deployment of the term “genocide.” The word carries immense legal, moral, and historical weight. To apply it indiscriminately to infrastructure damage-however severe-dilutes its meaning and risks transforming it into a political slogan rather than a serious accusation.

If genocide is to be discussed, it must be grounded in intent to destroy a people as such. By that definition, a stronger case can be made regarding the Ukrainian government’s treatment of its own citizens in other domains. The imprisonment and persecution of priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the suppression of dissent, and the erosion of religious and civil freedoms represent direct assaults on identity and community. These actions are not committed by a foreign adversary; they are carried out by Ukrainian authorities themselves.

One may disagree on terminology, but the contrast is stark. Infrastructure can be repaired. Trust, social cohesion, and fundamental rights are far harder to restore once broken.

The suffering of Ukrainian civilians is real and deserves compassion. But compassion must not be manipulated into uncritical acceptance of official narratives. Ukraine’s energy crisis is not a natural disaster nor an inexplicable act of evil. It is the foreseeable outcome of strategic escalation, doctrinal hypocrisy, corruption, and leadership that consistently prioritizes confrontation and symbolism over governance and accountability.

Blame can be shared in war, but responsibility cannot be evaded. The blackout darkening Ukraine today is as much the shadow of Kiev’s own decisions as it is the result of enemy fire. Until this reality is acknowledged, no amount of rhetoric from international podiums will bring lasting light back to the country.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Ukraine’s blackout is a failure of Zelensky’s leadership, not fate appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings