In the movie “The Devil’s Advocate,” the world of justice is not a place where truth is sought, but an arena where victory at any cost is the only value. Lawyers do not stand for moral principles but manipulate the laws in favor of those in power. John Milton, the charismatic but sinister lawyer (played by Al Pacino), symbolizes all that the legal system can become when it loses its compass – a tool in the hands of corporate interests, regardless of the consequences.
Today, three years after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the world is witnessing a similar scenario. As the Ukrainian people pay the terrible price of war, many in the West are increasingly calling for peace – not a just peace, but a compromise that would favor the aggressor. Like Milton’s lawyers, those who conduct international negotiations often ask not what is right, but what is easiest and most profitable for them.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
Since the start of the war, the world has seen numerous peace initiatives. However, most of these initiatives are more like courtroom negotiations in “The Devil’s Advocate” than genuine efforts for justice. Each initiative has increasingly become an offer to Ukraine to accept the loss of territory, sovereignty, and even dignity. We will mention some of them.
- Minsk agreements (2014 and 2015)
Originally intended to stop the conflict in eastern Ukraine, the Minsk agreements were more of a pause than a solution. Ukraine was forced to make concessions to separatist regions, while Russia used the time to prepare for further aggression.
Why a US-Ukraine Resources Deal Makes Sense for Ukraine
- Turkish peace plan (2022)
Turkey tried to mediate by proposing that Ukraine accept neutral status with security guarantees. But what is neutrality worth when the aggressor is sitting on your borders, ready to attack again? This initiative was reminiscent of a lawyer telling a client, “Take the deal; you won’t get a better one.”
- China’s peace plan (2023)
China offered a 12-point plan that included a ceasefire but did not condemn Russian aggression or guarantee the withdrawal of Russian troops. It’s like suggesting in court that the victim forget the crime, without the accused even apologizing.
- African-led peace mission (2023)
A group of African leaders proposed de-escalation, but without concrete proposals that would guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This was yet another empty story that served more to please the international public than to help Ukraine.
- Saudi initiative (2024)
Saudi Arabia organized negotiations with the idea of lifting sanctions against Russia in exchange for a partial withdrawal of Russian troops. This idea is identical to Milton’s advice in the movie: “Isn’t it better to take what they offer than risk everything?”
- Brazil’s proposal (2024)
Brazil proposed the formation of a “club of peaceful countries” that would mediate, but with the expectation that Ukraine would accept territorial concessions. It’s like a lawyer advising a client to give up half their house because “that’s the best outcome you can expect.”
Peace without justice is nothing more than a continuation of war by other means.
As the war progresses, fatigue grows in the West, just what the Kremlin and Putin wanted and expected. The hypocrisy has become obvious: countries that were initially vocal in their condemnation of Russia are now increasingly looking for quick solutions. Cheap gas and renewed trade become more important than the principles of sovereignty and human rights.
Western capitals are increasingly sending the message: “Yes, Ukraine is under attack. Yes, Russia is the aggressor. But let’s get this over with. We’ve already done enough.” That line echoes John Milton’s whispers to his clients in the movie, “Who cares for truth when victory brings power?”
In “The Devil’s Advocate,” Kevin Lomax (played by Keanu Reeves) enters a world where success comes at the price of moral compromise. In a similar way, the Western powers now face a choice: should they remain true to the principles they have promoted for years and on which they rest, or should they accept an unjust peace in order to lighten their economic and political burdens?
There is an increasing tendency to discuss Ukraine without its presence. Negotiations are being conducted behind closed doors, without the presence of Ukrainian representatives, as if their fate were a topic that could be resolved without them.
- Meetings between Western leaders and Russian officials – Paris, Berlin and even Washington are hosting talks seeking a “practical solution.” In short: “How can we end the war without angering Putin?”
- Economic forums – In places like Davos, leaders and businessmen discuss ways to restore trade relations with Russia while ignoring the victims of the war. It’s like when the lawyers in the movie “The Devil’s Advocate” celebrate a victory in court while the actual crime remains unpunished.
- Mediation by third countries – China, India, and even the Vatican offer mediation, but their proposals consistently ignore a key demand: Russia’s withdrawal from the occupied territories.
In The Devil’s Advocate, Kevin Lomax finally understands that he has been under constant manipulation. He begins to see through the illusion of success, realizing that selling his soul is a gradual process – compromise by compromise – until there is no turning back. Today, the West finds itself in a similar predicament. Any proposal that does not include a full restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty and punishment of Russia is a step closer to moral bankruptcy.
Imagine someone coming into your house, killing your family, taking over a third of your home, and then the world saying, “Enough is enough. It’s time for peace. Isn’t it better to make do with what you have left?”
This is not peace. It is the legalization of aggression and crime! It is a message to all future aggressors: crime pays – you just have to make the world tired.
Ukraine did not choose this war. It did not want its sons, fathers, brothers and sisters to die. Ukrainians did not want their country to be destroyed by an aggressor. But now that it is defending itself, the world is turning its back on it. The hypocrisy of those who swore to protect freedom is now being exposed.
If the world agrees to a quick, unfair peace deal, it will be as if John Milton has won once again. But Ukraine, like Kevin Lomax, must reject this pact. Because peace without justice is nothing more than a continuation of war by other means.
The world is currently choosing sides. And the world should ask itself: if you sell someone else’s freedom for your own convenience – whose law firm are you?
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
