The EU is wrong to arm Ukraine. Here’s why

"The EU is wrong to arm Ukraine. Here’s why", critically examines the European Union's decision to finance arms for Ukraine in response to Russia's invasion. The article argues that this move, a significant shift from the EU's traditional non-military stance, may exacerbate rather than resolve the conflict.

Firstly, the author notes a gradual shift in the EU's identity, from a primarily political and economic union to an increasingly militaristic entity. This is evidenced by substantial investments in military capacity, including the creation of the European Defence Fund. This fund, according to the author, not only supports the development of controversial military technologies but also signifies a broader trend where social and political challenges are increasingly addressed through military means.

The decision to arm Ukraine is seen as part of this militaristic shift. The author argues that supplying arms to a conflict zone, especially one as volatile as Ukraine, is likely to prolong and intensify the conflict. Historical instances are cited where weapons supplied for specific purposes ended up in unintended hands, exacerbating conflicts rather than resolving them. The article suggests that the weapons supplied to Ukraine could similarly change hands over time, potentially fueling further conflicts.

Furthermore, the author criticizes the EU for undermining non-violent forms of resistance in Ukraine, which have historically been effective. By focusing on military support, the EU is perceived as neglecting the potential of non-violent, civilian-led initiatives that could offer a more sustainable path to peace.

Another point of critique is the timing of the EU's decision, coinciding with peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. The author views the move to expedite Ukraine's request for EU membership as provocative, potentially derailing diplomatic efforts and peace negotiations.

Lastly, the article implies that the EU's decision is influenced by the arms industry's lobbying efforts. This is seen as a culmination of years of strategic positioning by the industry to benefit from EU funding, resulting in a scenario that favors the industry rather than peace.

In conclusion, the article calls for the EU to reorient its approach, prioritizing diplomacy and peace over militarism. The author argues that the stakes of continuing on a militaristic path are too high, and a shift in strategy is essential for sustainable peace in the region.