The very considerable support for continuing weapon supply to Ukraine by policy makers and supporting elites in most western countries is shocking. The decision of Britain to even supply depleted uranium shells with all their longer-term health and safety risks is shocking beyond words.
What is the stated rationale behind this? The most common beliefs appear to be that these weapons are necessary for the military success of Ukraine and ensuring military success of Ukraine is of the highest importance just now, overcoming the high health and safety risks.
Only for the sake of argument, let us imagine that the west succeeds beyond all expectations in securing a definite and impressive military victory for Ukraine in the near future. What will happen then? Then Russia always has the option of unleashing its nuclear weapons, once an existential threat to Russia is confirmed by such a military advance of Ukraine helped by weapons and training provided by many western countries and NATO members. Once Russia unleashes its nuclear weapons, then either the war ends with very heavy destruction in Ukraine, or else the USA and/or other NATO members respond with nuclear or extremely destructive conventional weapons. So either a nuclear war gets started, or/and the much dreaded direct clash between Russia/NATO starts with all chances of later going nuclear. From then on it is a matter of speculation whether Russia too will be joined more directly by some close allies or not, but regardless of whether this happens or not a direct clash between Russia and USA which has all chances of going nuclear is bound to be extremely destructive for the entire world.
So it should be clear to those who support continuing weapon supply of more and more highly destructive weapons to Ukraine that even if their highest hopes regarding Ukraine’s military victory, ill-founded though these are, are actually realized, still only highly destructive ends for the entire world will be achieved. Do these weapon suppliers want to be a part of this, of having contributed to this?
The deniers among them say that Russia will never use nuclear weapons, so there is no harm in arming Ukraine more and more to boost chances of its military victory. Their false narrative is based on their fond hope that supply of more and more weapons will enable Ukraine to largely get back its lost territory, inflict heavy harm on Russian forces and Russia will simply and very tamely accept this fate without using all its options.
This is a completely false narrative with no evidence to support this. In addition the chances of Ukraine achieving a military victory even with all the continuing weapon and training help provided by western countries are highly unlikely. All that these weapons supplied for Ukraine can achieve is to prolong the war and make it more destructive, with further pushing ahead of the overdue option of ceasefire and negotiation based peace. In fact ceasefire and peace constitute the only credible option today.
In such a serious situation as exists today for world peace, it is shocking that the west is not giving adequate attention to the weapons supplied by them being used against targets in Russia. As several sophisticated weapons and weapon systems being supplied by western countries cannot be used in the very near future without western personnel playing a more direct role, this brings the situation one stage closer to what the entire world dreads—a direct war between the USA/NATO and Russia with the possibility of some other countries also joining on both sides.
Even in 2021 there were many reasons for serious concerns over the safety and peace of world but the way in which these dangers have been allowed to increase following the invasion of Ukraine is shocking. If events of 2014-22 are clearly studied (or perhaps it is helpful to go further back in history to 1990) then this was clearly an invasion provoked by the USA and its close allies who wanted a Ukraine-Russia war to weaken Russia in various ways. While the west establishment strongly denies its provocation role, there are several western analysts who agree about the provocation but say that despite all the provocation the invasion was wrong. It would be useful if they also mention what other options Russia could have used with reasonable chance of success to protect its national and security interests as well as to protect Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine who were being increasingly attacked. There can be a debate on this, if only to learn lessons for future.
The greater urgency now is to handle the existing situation in such a way that further harm to the people of Ukraine and Russia , as well as escalatory harm to entire world can be avoided and so the way ahead for this has to be found by cease-fore followed by negotiations for peace in a spirit of give and take.
As for war-mongering elites, isn’t the core group more or less of similar kind of persons who already have their hands red with the blood of several hundred thousand innocent people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the former Yugoslavia and other places? Do they want more blood on their hands from the prolonged Ukraine conflict? Instead they should strive to at least partially make up for very costly mistakes made earlier by working now for peace.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Protect Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Earth without Borders and A Day in 2071.
