Providing weapons for war

24th February 2022, the war in Ukraine started with the invasion of Russia. Or at least with the desperate trying of an invasion to so-called “re-claim”Russian territory’s. As this is a conflict happening right at the border of Europe the EU nations and their allies have taken clear positions in this war. There is no support for the aggressor Russia. The war has to stop and the original territory boundaries need to be put back in place.
In the course of last year, the support for Ukraine became diverse. Food, infrastructure, refugee programs, money (hundred of billions), education and recently weapons.
While you can argue, that there is a huge demand for humanity support and reconstruction, I am more and more puzzled about the delivery of weapons.
At the beginning Ukraine and the allies were talking about munition. The next level had been guns, then we went to tanks. In the meanwhile Ukraine is supported by the most modern software tools to have their strikes done more intelligent. These days EU starts to deliver fighter jets to Ukraine. The next escalation, I guess, would be an active participation of non Ukraine soldiers in this war. But, still, everybody is threatened by the potential war with a nuclear power nation.
Political parties of all different orientations have agreed in the meanwhile, that the ultimate support of Ukraine with weapons is the right thing to do (the far left wing parties excluded).
I never experienced a war. The last 80 years had been a phase of no war – at least not a world war. The common sense was, that war is the wrong thing and has proven many times, where this military spiral leads to. The last two world wars, started by Germans, are ultimate proof for this. Millions dead, millions suffer, decades of reconstruction. And all wars have one thing in common. They start rather small and then accelerate. The arguments for the war are also always the same. One party wants to take in something, the other party claims this can only be stopped with equal weapons.
I do believe we have to respect the independence and freedom of countries and people. And we have to make sure that this respect is honored by everybody. At the same time I do believe, that the educated world must have developed better “weapons” than just striking back with military options and escalating to the threat of a nuclear strike. Is it that far politics got til 1962 and the Kuba crises?
Fundamentally, I believe Russia need to be fought. But not by killing more people. Sanctions, isolations, economic separation will bring everybody down, if the world would be united and really push these things through. This isn’t naive, it is a different way where you need people with courage.

2 comments

  • Mario

    “create peace without weapons” was a very popular slogan in the 1980ies. Popular because these times the arms race between the super powers were at a very critical point, many thought at a point of no return. Very similar to the Cuba crisis a nuclear was more than likely. These times I was part of the peace movement, spending lots of time for my engagement for a evr lasting peace. As you wrote, Word War II was the last war we were remembering. The so called civilized and developed countries meanwhile found new ways to conquer the world by their economical power. The disarmament started, initiated by Gorbatchow (what a contradiction to Putin) Even the military-industrial complex find new ways to compensate their losses. And in Europe we were sitting in our IKEA-furnitures and dreaming of a peacefull world without any conflicts and military actions. “Create peace without weapons” was obvisously a proven theory. Really? These days I was studying at an international university. Young people from all over the world. They were coming from Latin America, Africa and Asia. The countries they were coming from were Nicaragua, El Salvador, Mocambique, Tschad, Uganda, Eritrea, Palestine and so on. None of them understood the “peace without weapons” stuff. If criminals are in power you can’t rely on ratio and democratical attitudes. You have to fight back or you are killed. In Europe we had the French Revolution and we had some democratical education. And we draw our lessons from Word War I und World War II. But this is only our European lession and a very Europe centristic view. But if countries are ruled by criminals you need weapons because they will not disappear by democratical means. And Putin is a criminal and Russia not Europe. They missed the French Revolution and jumped from the Tsarism right into the Stalinism and the communist suppression. Sanctions are nice but not effective. Putin dominates and determines the price for gas. The more we sanction him the higher the price. We are not delivering goods to Russia? Fine then China or India will buy on the world market and resell to Russia. More than 14 month the sanctions are in place, meanwhile on the third escalation level. And what was the impact for Russia? True, nothing.

  • Frank Obermeier (author)

    I totally understand the logic of your reply. Criminals are different kind of people and they have to be treated differently.
    Here is my thought – everybody is united to fight Putin and even deliver weapons or even participate in the war. But nobody considers this unity when it comes to sanctions and isolation. Nobody stands together and everybody puts the nation interest first.
    Wouldn’t it be interesting to see, what could be achieved if the world would unite and isolate Russia seriously? Even only in theory? Instead of continuing killing people.
    I am for sure not a pacifist, but I truly believe mankind can do better than war!

    PS – I love this kind of debate and feedback 🙏🙏🙏

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *