INTRODUCTION April 2025. Palm Sunday — a time when the Christian world, regardless of denomination, prepares for Easter, the holiday of life and resurrection. But in the Ukrainian city of Sumy, this day turned into a symbol of horror, grief, and the ultimate loss of faith that war might have any limits. War criminals from the Kremlin launched a targeted strike on public transportation — a trolleybus carrying dozens of civilians. The strike hit just as people had gathered for a church ceremony. Metal became a cage, and the living — the condemned. Almost everyone on the trolleybus perished. Among the dead — children. More than a hundred people were killed or wounded in the attack. This tragedy in Sumy was not just another episode in a chain of crimes. It was a watershed moment. A point where even the most restrained voices began to speak aloud about the right to retaliation — not as an act of revenge, but as an attempt to restore justice, twisted beyond recognition. But where is the line between righteous anger and destructive rage? Can revenge ever be just? Or does every retaliatory strike only open another layer of pain and suffering — that very Pandora’s Box from which it is impossible to release only the “necessary” forces? Or does Ukraine have the right to become the Crying Avenger — one who retaliates with tears in their eyes, but with cold calculation? In this article, we will analyze the moral, legal, and historical grounds for the right to respond — not only with weapons, but with words, memory, and diplomacy. To understand: where does pain end, and where does justice begin? #UkraineWar #SumyOffensive #RightToRevenge #GlobalJustice #WarEthics
PROBLEM DEFINITION Why did Sumy become the new turning point in the perception of war? The answer lies not only in geography but in symbolism. A city standing on the threshold of the Russian border became the stage for one of the most barbaric episodes of recent years — an attack on civilians during a sacred ceremony. This event caused an emotional explosion both within Ukraine and abroad. From a political and psychological standpoint, revenge as a concept has ceased to be abstract. It is no longer just an emotional reaction — it is a political reality, one that Ukrainian leaders, military personnel, diplomats, and ordinary citizens must contend with. The question is not whether there will be a response, but what form it may take — and what form is acceptable. The role of the global community becomes critically important in this context. Support for Ukraine has taken many forms thus far: weapons, sanctions, diplomatic pressure. But is this enough to stop evil that has already crossed every moral boundary? Or is the passivity of international institutions perceived as approval? Historical precedents allow us to see: revenge is not always a path to destruction. In some cases, it has become an act of restoring justice. However, the risk of overreach — of becoming a mirror image of evil — is always present. This is why this study aims to portray not just raw emotion, but a system: political-legal, moral-historical, and strategic. Revenge is not only a scream of pain, but a step whose consequences affect future generations.