The war in Ukraine is putting the pacifist narrative on the ropes. Chanting only “no to war” today divides responsibilities between aggressor and victims. Demanding a “negotiated solution” could imply capitulating at the negotiating table to a much stronger Russia that would end up imposing its conditions. And to suggest “dealing with the roots of the conflict” fuels the narrative used by Putin to justify the war.
But the war also highlights the limitations of the alternative militaristic perspective. Ukraine insists on the need for NATO to control its airspace to avoid bombing by Russian aircraft. And NATO has replied that it does not intend to do so because that would imply entering into direct confrontation with Russia and would extend the war beyond Ukraine. In other words, the international community supplies arms so that the Ukrainian people can confront the Russian army while Western countries observe the conflict from a cautious distance.
Let’s be honest. Once war has broken out, and in the face of an aggressor so powerful and so determined to kill, there are no good options. The debate on whether or not to supply weapons is a perverse dilemma. Either answer entails the death of thousands of people. I believe that anyone who has no doubts about this dilemma is unaware of the consequences of their position. The heated arguments we often hear are more conditioned by our own political disputes than by the needs of Ukraine.
In any case, the government and the people of Ukraine have every right to defend themselves as they see fit. And we have no right to judge the option they choose.
In practice, Russian aggression must be met with an array of strategies, of which the military approach is only one. The international community prioritizes sanctions and has not given up on diplomacy. The Ukrainian people themselves are confronting the occupying forces with multiple initiatives of nonviolent resistance: unarmed civilians are stopping war convoys, seizing tanks or engaging in heated confrontations with soldiers of the occupying forces. Nonviolent actions will not stop the invasion, but they do provide morale and courage to the resistance, and international support and admiration. In the long run, civil disobedience against the occupying forces will make Russian control unsustainable. It thus become a fundamental tool to compensate for the imbalance of power vis-à-vis Russia’s military might.
There are also various ways for us to get involved in Europe demonstrating against Putin’s aggression, sending humanitarian aid, taking in refugees and supporting the Ukrainian community. Almost everyone knows someone of Ukrainian origin. It is time for fraternity, to spread our kindness. It is time to reach out, to listen, to share hugs. And this includes the Russian community in Europe, which is caught between their outrage at the aggression and anguish over their stigmatization. It is essential to distinguish between the Russian regime and the Russian people and to avoid xenophobia. Putin is a dictator who violently suppresses any expression of protest by his own people.
Putin’s war is different from all the other wars we have known in our recent history. It is the first invasion of this magnitude in a country bordering the European Union. It is also the first time that a country has attacked another with this forcefulness, and without military provocation. And, above all, it is the first time that the aggressor threatens to use nuclear weapons. Ukraine is the direct victim of this aggression. But the social, economic and political impact extends beyond its borders and concerns us more than any other recent war.
The current response is bringing out the best in many people, organizations and countries. Putin has the power of arms but Ukraine has the power of reason. Resistance to this war must also help us to build new consensuses and new synergies in order to stop the other wars being waged around the world, and to prevent new ones from breaking out.
Kristian Herbolzeimer, Director of ICIP.