It is concerning when individuals who struggle with the most fundamental aspect of self-identity—what it means to be male or female—position themselves as authoritative voices on foreign policy. If someone is deeply uncertain about their own biological reality, how can they claim to understand the geopolitical intricacies of a war-torn region on the other side of the world?
Of course, gender identity and international conflict are separate topics, but a strong sense of cultural and personal identity should be foundational, especially for those who claim to care about national sovereignty and cultural preservation. And yet, some of the loudest voices championing Ukraine’s right to exist as a distinct nation—opposing foreign influence, defending tradition, and securing borders—are the same ones who reject those very principles when applied to their own country. They advocate for open borders, cultural deconstruction, and the rejection of societal norms, yet expect unwavering support for Ukraine’s fight against an external aggressor.
Should we really be taking their guidance on matters of national security? They struggle to define who they are but feel confident in defining the course of an international war. They reject the cultural foundation of their own nation while insisting that Ukraine’s culture must be preserved at all costs. They wear their Ukrainian flag pin with pride, right next to their symbols of ideological rejection of the very principles they claim to support abroad.
Perhaps before leading the charge for global conflict, they should first resolve the contradictions in their own worldview. They first need to win their internal war within themselves before they suit up in the battlefield of comment sections to pretend to hold moral consistency.