A consensus among politicians and the mainstream media suggests that the UK and EU should continue supporting the war in Ukraine, even to the extent of deploying troops on the ground. However, the reasoning behind this stance is highly questionable. Let’s examine some of the key arguments.
Europe is Under Attack
Here’s a fact-check: No, it isn’t.
One European country (Ukraine) is being attacked by another partly European country (Russia). If Europe is to be treated as a single entity, then this could more accurately be described as a civil war in Eastern Europe. Alternatively, if we consider nations individually, Russia is attacking Ukraine alone, not any other European country.
If Russia Wins in Ukraine, “We’re” Next
This claim is questionable for several reasons:
a) Who exactly is “we”? The idea that Russia intends to attack the UK, France, or Germany (the primary proponents of prolonging the war) is as speculative as the infamous claim about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
b) What does Russia ‘winning’ in Ukraine actually mean? At present, subject to peace negotiations, Russia appears likely to take up to 20% of Ukraine—the areas that are predominantly ethnic Russian or Russian-speaking. Such a scenario does not justify the hyperbolic assertion that “we’re next,” whoever ‘we’ may be.
c) Russia has spent three years capturing parts of Ukraine that were already largely favourable to Russian influence, at great military and economic cost. Why would this imply that “we’re next”? If Russia had originally intended to seize the entire country, their campaign could already be considered a costly failure. Why would they pursue more war after such a setback?
If Russia ‘Wins’ in Ukraine, Some Smaller Local State Will Be Next
This argument is more plausible but remains speculative. The reasoning outlined in points (a)–(c) above still applies. Over the past thirty years, Russia has had numerous opportunities to invade neighbouring states but has not done so. A critical question remains: why has Russia chosen to attack Ukraine in particular? Could it be because they viewed Ukraine as a red line regarding NATO expansion?
Additionally, history demonstrates that occupying a country or territory against the will of its population is extremely challenging. Russia has experienced this firsthand in Afghanistan and the former Soviet states, as well as observing it in global conflicts involving former colonial powers. Those speculating about further Russian invasions must provide a convincing case explaining how Russia could successfully conduct and sustain such operations, particularly given its struggles in Ukraine.
You Can’t Negotiate with Russia – They Can’t Be Trusted
Russia makes the same argument about the West. Successful negotiations require both sides to set aside distrust and seek assurances. Refusing to negotiate on the basis of mistrust is effectively a refusal to explore peace and a decision to continue war.
Russia Shouldn’t Gain from Its Aggression
This is true—ideally, Russia should not benefit from its actions. In a perfect world, an overarching moral authority would:
- Restore Ukraine’s 2014 borders;
- Prevent further violence against ethnic Russians in the Donbas;
- Ensure long-term peace and stability in the region.
However, reality presents serious obstacles:
a) The EU and UK do not possess a force great enough to impose such an outcome.
b) Any attempt by the EU and UK to achieve this militarily would lead to direct war with Russia, causing even more suffering for Ukrainians.
c) The EU and UK lack the moral authority to act as the world’s policemen. Their histories of colonialism and recent foreign interventions undermine any claims to moral superiority.
Ukraine Should Keep Fighting for a Better Deal
This argument is flawed for several reasons:
a) Ukraine appears to be losing the war. A negotiated settlement now would likely be more favourable than a worse deal later, or even total defeat. Ukraine’s decision to reject a more favourable deal in March 2022 only reinforces this point.
b) A deal now could save approximately 2,000 Ukrainian lives per day (according to Jeffrey Sachs).
c) A majority of Ukrainians now support a peace deal, even if it involves ceding territory (according to Gallup polling).
Ukraine Should Continue Fighting to Preserve Its Sovereignty
This should ultimately be a decision for Ukrainians themselves. However, if the EU and UK truly valued sovereignty, why are they not providing billions in aid to groups resisting Israeli occupation in Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza? The selective application of sovereignty as a principle raises questions about the sincerity of this argument.
Ukraine Can Still Win
This is speculative and contradicts the evidence on the ground. Ukraine is currently losing the war—even with previous support from the world’s most powerful superpower, the United States. That support has now diminished. Given these realities, is it reasonable to advocate for continued Ukrainian suffering and death in pursuit of an increasingly unattainable victory?
Russia BAD, US/UK/EU GOOD
While it is convenient to view Russia as the sole villain, the reality is more complex. The UK and several EU nations have supported or turned a blind eye to Israeli war crimes and genocide over the past eighteen months. Western governments have also backed extremist groups in various conflicts, including the takeover of a secular Middle Eastern state by Al-Qaeda affiliates. Additionally, the invasions of Iraq and the bombing of Libya severely undermine Western claims to humanitarian and international law.
Furthermore, political trends in the UK and EU are shifting rightward. It is conceivable that within a decade, many European nations could have far-right governments. Given this trajectory, is it wise to continue expanding European military power?
A more accurate representation of today’s geopolitical landscape is: Russia BAD, US/UK/EU BAD, and any peace deal that reduces suffering GOOD.
The UK/EU Should Deploy Peacekeepers in Ukraine
This proposal is problematic for several reasons:
a) A peacekeeping force can only function where there is a peace to keep. Currently, there is none, and without negotiations, none will emerge.
b) A peacekeeping force must be accepted by both sides; otherwise, it is not a peacekeeping force but an occupying army, effectively at war with one or both adversaries.
c) Russia has stated it would view the insertion of UK/EU forces into Ukraine as an act of war, potentially triggering World War III.
d) If a peace is negotiated, any peacekeeping force should come from neutral nations—not the UK or EU, which are deeply involved in the conflict.
Conclusion
If the primary goal is to minimise suffering and death in Ukraine, then negotiating for peace is the clearest path forward. The argument that more warfare will eventually lead to a ‘better’ peace is speculative at best and disastrous at worst, as it entails more Ukrainian deaths for an uncertain future outcome.
To insist that Ukrainians should die for principles held by Western leaders and media is a form of imperialist thinking that many Ukrainian soldiers deserting the battlefield might reasonably reject. This devastating war must come to an end—sooner rather than later.
