Creating new perspectives since 2009

Silence is not an option, and sending weapons to Ukraine perpetuates the war

March 6, 2023 at 12:00 pm

People attend a rally in support of Ukraine on the 1st anniversary of the Ukraine – Russia war, waving Slovak, American, European, and Ukrainian flags in Kosice, Slovakia on February 24th, 2023. [Robert Nemeti – Anadolu Agency]

As is usually the case in long wars, the warring parties and their affiliated media in the Russia-Ukraine conflict have painted each other using uncompromising language, making it nearly impossible to offer an unbiased view of the ongoing tragedy that has killed, wounded and displaced millions of people.

While it is understandable that wars of such horror and near complete disregard for the most basic human rights often heighten our sense of what we consider to be moral and just, parties involved and invested in such conflicts often manipulate morality for political and geopolitical reasons. This logic is underway in Ukraine. Both sides are adamant that nothing less than a comprehensive victory is acceptable. The Ukrainian view is fully supported by western countries in word and deed, sending billions of dollars’ worth of modern weapons that have done little except make an already bloody conflict worse. They perpetuate the war, not end it.

The Russians hardly see their war in Ukraine as a war against Ukraine itself. In his speech on the first anniversary of the war, Russian President Vladimir Putin presented the war as an act of self-defence. “They are the ones who started this war, and we are using our forces to put a stop to it,” said Putin in a joint session of the Russian Parliament and Kremlin officials.

NATO members have also characterised the war using similar language. “We are fighting Russia,” said Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. Although her statement was withdrawn later on, Baerbock was actually being honest: NATO and Russia are, indeed, at war.

The narratives of both sides, however, are both complex and polarised. To even attempt to offer a third view on the war, or to even approach the subject in a purely analytical manner, immediately qualifies one to be accused of being “biased” one way or the other. Each side believes that its version of the truth is moral, historically defensible and consistent with international law. As a result, many reasonable people find themselves retreating in silence.

READ: Israel is gradually taking Ukraine’s side in the war against Russia

Silence is an immoral position, especially during times of war and human suffering. Anyone who thinks otherwise should think again. In Islamic theology, it is accepted that, “Anyone who refrains himself from speaking the truth is a mute devil.” This maxim is shared by most modern philosophies and political ideologies. Among many such statements addressing the matter, one of the most powerful assertions by Dr Martin Luther King Jr. was, “The day we see truth and cease to speak is the day we begin to die.”

Yet, there is no single truth on the Ukraine war that can remain fully truthful after being placed within a larger context. The war on Ukraine is indeed illegal; but the preceding civil war in Donbas and the violated Minsk agreements at the behest of Western powers — as admitted by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel — were also immoral and illegal. In fact, none of these acts can be analysed accurately or understood fairly, without considering the others.

Russia VS NATO: Ukraine, gas, Death Sea... - Cartoon [Sabaaneh/Middle East Monitor]

Russia VS NATO: Ukraine, gas, Death Sea… – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/Middle East Monitor]

A year after the war started, more fuel has been added to the fire, as if the main goal behind the war is prolonging it. Concurrently, very few proposals for peace talks have been advanced or considered. Even a proposal made by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, hardly a peacenik, was dismissed almost immediately by the pro-Ukraine camp. When someone like Kissinger is accused of being a compromiser, we can be certain that the political discourse on the war has reached a degree of extremism unprecedented in decades.

Aside from the morality of speaking out against the continued war, and the immorality of silence, there is another matter deserving of our attention. It is not simply a dispute between Russia and its allies on one hand, and Ukraine and NATO on the other. It is affecting all of us.

A comprehensive study conducted by researchers from the Universities of Birmingham, Groningen and Maryland examined the possible effect of the war on household incomes in 116 different countries. The study created a model for the future, based on what millions of people around the world, especially in the Global South, are already experiencing. It looks bleak. Just the fact that energy prices could force an individual household to spend anywhere between 2.7 to 4.8 per cent more is enough to push 78 to 114 million people into extreme poverty. Since hundreds of millions already live in extreme poverty, a massive section of the human race will no longer be able to afford proper food, drinkable water, education, healthcare or shelter.

Hence, our silence on the inhumanity and futility of the war in Ukraine is not only immoral, but also constitutes a betrayal of the fate of hundreds of millions of people around the world. This is why the war in Ukraine must end, even if one party is not fully and comprehensively defeated; even if NATO’s geopolitical interests are not served; and even if not all of Russia’s goals, whatever they are, are achieved.

The war should end because, regardless of the outcome, long-term instability in that region will not cease completely any time soon; and because millions of innocent people are suffering and will continue to suffer, in Ukraine and around the world as a direct result of the conflict. And because only political compromises through peace negotiations can put an end to this horror.

READ: After a year of his crazy war in Ukraine, is Putin dragging the world into nuclear conflict?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.