Fear is one of the most powerful emotions driving human behavior. It compels individuals to act, sways public opinion, and justifies decisions that might otherwise seem irrational. In the realm of global politics, fear is often weaponized to unite allies, suppress dissent, and advance agendas. This article delves into how fear is used as a tool to influence actions, shape narratives, and justify power plays—often at the expense of the very people it claims to protect.
Fear as a Tool of Control
Fear has historically been employed as a means to maintain control. In earlier eras, religious institutions leveraged the fear of hell and damnation to enforce morality and ensure conformity. Confession, for example, was not merely about absolving sins but also about reinforcing the power of the church through fear of divine punishment.
Today, fear persists as a potent force, used to manipulate behavior and rally support. It compels action through desperation or panic, as seen in personal and societal contexts. Blackmail, manipulation, and even acts of aggression can trace their roots to fear. On a larger scale, political figures and institutions wield fear to frame narratives that shape national and international policies.
Fear in Global Politics: The Case of Iraq
One of the most striking examples of fear being weaponized in modern history is the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Former President George W. Bush effectively stoked the fear of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to secure Congressional approval and public support for military action. Branding Iraq as part of the “Axis of Evil,” this fear-driven narrative painted Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat. However, the lack of evidence for WMDs and the disastrous consequences of the war exposed the extent to which fear can be manipulated to serve ulterior motives.
Zelenskyy and the Fear Factor
Zelenskyy has harnessed fear with remarkable precision, using it as a rallying cry to unite NATO allies and European leaders against Russian President Putin. By framing Putin as a modern-day villain—a “terrorist” and “evil” figure threatening democracy—Zelenskyy has effectively positioned Ukraine as the last line of defense for Europe. If Ukraine falls, the whole of Europe will be next.
Zelenskyy’s rejection of a ceasefire underscores his commitment to this narrative. During interviews and speeches, he emphasizes that pausing the conflict would embolden Putin, likening him to a relentless aggressor. This rhetoric has deeply resonated with European leaders like Emmanuel Macron, who view Putin as a destabilizing force in global politics. However, it has faced resistance from others, such as U.S. President Trump, who reportedly dismissed Zelenskyy’s appeals and questioned the narrative, then had him packed out off the White House!
The Power of Narrative: Convincing Leaders, Overlooking Realities
Zelenskyy’s background as an actor and scriptwriter plays a pivotal role in his ability to captivate audiences and rally support. Like a skilled lawyer presenting a case, he crafts narratives that simplify complex realities into compelling stories. These narratives, while effective, risk overlooking the suffering of ordinary people who bear the brunt of the conflict.
Much like a lawyer persuading a jury to view white as black, Zelenskyy’s rhetoric convinces political leaders to act decisively, sometimes without fully examining the nuances. His portrayal of Putin as an existential threat has galvanized action, but it has also overshadowed the human cost of the war—the displaced families, abandoned children, and lives lost and suffering in the chaos.
This dynamic underscores the immense influence of performance in politics. Zelenskyy’s knack for weaving persuasive narratives allows him to rally leaders with the power to enact change, but it also highlights the responsibility of those leaders to critically examine the facts and the broader implications of their actions.
Beyond Comparisons: Hitler vs. Putin
While invoking fear is a powerful strategy, drawing historical parallels must be done carefully. Zelenskyy often likens Putin to Hitler, evoking the Munich Agreement to warn against the dangers of appeasement. While such comparisons resonate with Western audiences, they risk oversimplifying the profound differences between the two leaders and their contexts.
Historical Context: Hitler’s ideology was rooted in racial supremacy and genocide, leading to the devastation of World War II. Putin, by contrast, frames his actions as pragmatic nationalism, aimed at consolidating power and addressing regional stability.
Motivations and Actions: Hitler’s conquests were driven by aggressive expansionism and domination. In contrast, Putin’s actions, including the annexation of Crimea, have been partially justified as responding to the will of the Crimean ethnically Russian people seeking economic and political stability.
By framing Putin as a villainous aggressor, Zelenskyy simplifies a complex geopolitical reality, underscoring the need to approach such comparisons with critical perspective and caution.
Empathy, Human Cost, and the Role of Law
The human cost of war is profound, far-reaching, and often obscured by the grand narratives of geopolitics and power struggles. Behind every political decision, there are countless lives irrevocably altered—families displaced, children orphaned, and communities devastated. Empathy, as an essential quality in leadership and policymaking, often gets sidelined in favor of military strategies, economic interests, or territorial ambitions. Yet, without empathy, the voices of ordinary people—the very individuals most affected by conflict—are all too easily drowned out.
Empathy requires leaders to see beyond borders, ideologies, and political frameworks to truly understand the human toll of their actions. In Ukraine, for example, the stories of currently 100,000, a number which is increasing everyday, abandoned babies, mothers driven to despair, and citizens living amid destruction are poignant reminders of what is at stake. These stories underscore a moral imperative: The focus of law and governance must be on the welfare of people, not on perpetuating destruction and conflict.
At its core, the law exists to uphold justice, protect rights, and ensure the well-being of society.However, when laws and policies are influenced by geopolitical agendas, they risk becoming tools of power rather than instruments of fairness. The annexation of Crimea, for instance, illustrates this tension. While the West views it as a breach of international law, many Crimeans saw it as a chance to escape poverty and corruption under Ukraine’s governance. Ignoring the will of the people in favor of rigid geopolitical frameworks undermines the very purpose of law—to serve and protect the interests of those it governs.
For laws to truly benefit people, they must prioritize the voices and desires of ordinary citizens. In conflicts, this means recognizing the humanity of those on all sides and working toward solutions that alleviate suffering rather than exacerbating it. Geopolitical laws and strategies should take a back seat when they conflict with the fundamental needs and rights of the population. The goal should not be to uphold abstract principles at the cost of human lives but to create a framework where peace, dignity, and prosperity can thrive.
Empathy and the human cost of war must guide decision-making, not as afterthoughts but as foundational principles. By prioritizing the welfare of people over geopolitical agendas, we can create a world where laws serve their true purpose—protecting lives, preserving peace, and fostering prosperity.
Conclusion: Fear as a Catalyst for Change
Fear is a powerful catalyst, capable of driving unity, progress, and action. However, when weaponized without accountability, it can also lead to hatred, war, and destruction. Zelenskyy’s fear-driven narrative has successfully galvanized support, but it also highlights the dangers of oversimplification in the face of complex realities.
The human cost of war—displacement, poverty, and loss—must remain at the forefront of global discussions. Beyond the narratives of politics and power, leaders have a responsibility to prioritize the well-being and voices of ordinary people. Only by balancing strategic interests with empathy and understanding can we hope to break free from the cycle of fear and build a more just, peaceful world.
