The Ukraine War: A Complex Situation of Geopolitical Involvement, Civil Conflict, and Arms Aid

– We must see the Ukraine war as more than just a defensive war against an attacker. There is also a persistent civil war-like state, which is much of the reason for the outbreak of war, and not least a geopolitical involvement which is becoming clearer and clearer after two years of war, says journalist Halvor Fjermeros.

He was invited to NRK’s ​​”Debate” on Thursday evening to discuss Norway’s arms aid to Ukraine, and attacked the mantra that the war can only be stopped by sending more weapons to the war-stricken country.

Fjermeros believes that we must accept the consequences of the dynamics of the war between Ukraine and Russia changing the military-political picture in several places in the world.

Fjermeros emphasizes that he believes people have the right to protect themselves with weapons when they are attacked, but also says that you cannot continue to say that more weapons increase the chance of peace.

– Because they are exposed to a raw, bloody attack from Russia, which is trying to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine and believes that they almost have no right to exist as their own country. There is a breach of the international legal order, says Defense Minister Bjørn Arild Gram when asked by presenter Fredrik Solvang about why Norway continues to supply Ukraine with weapons.

– It is incredibly important that such aggression does not prevail, he adds.

– If we stop supporting Ukraine, they will no longer be able to defend themselves even if they have a strong will and ability to defend themselves. They depend on support and help to stand up to that abuse. I believe it is absolutely necessary to continue supporting Ukraine in its defense struggle.

Fjermeros, on the other hand, believes that Russia’s superiority in population and the possibility of recruitment into the army will determine the situation regardless of how many weapons are “sucked in”.

– Why do you think it has not been possible to say what you are now saying, until now, two years after the outbreak of the war?

– It has been possible to say that, but there has been a chilly climate in the debate which has made it difficult to say anything other than “more weapons for Ukraine”. It has often become “is equal to pro Putin”. I think that sooner or later you have to say that several weapons have reached a limit to what you can achieve with them, says Fjermeros.

– Sooner or later we have to call it quits, he asserts.

– No real Western arms support

Jørn Sund-Henriksen, leader of the Norwegian-Ukrainian Friends Association, is keen that the war be won militarily because the alternative is quite terrible.

– You ask whether weapons can create peace. Maybe, maybe not. Weapons can create victory, and a peace based on a victory and a peace based on occupation are quite different, he says.

He believes that the West has not really tried to really support Ukraine in terms of weapons. He points out that the United States has given 31 tanks when they could have given 100 and that we have given zero Western fighters.

Sund-Henriksen believes Avdijivka in Donetsk fell because Ukraine is out of ammunition, and not because Russia is advancing.

Four options

Professor of military strategy, Tormod Heier, explains that Norway started by sending individual packages, aid, but that we have gradually supplied air defense systems and now fighter planes.

Conflict and international law researcher Cecilie Hellestveit explains what options Ukraine now faces.

As a first alternative, she mentions that the war could escalate with more weapons for the Ukrainians, so that Russia is threatened – also on their territory.

– Then we risk an escalation of the war to Russia, and beyond that as well.

The other possibility, she believes, is a negotiated solution with Russia, which as of now presumably means that Ukraine must give up territory.

She calls the third alternative a “frozen conflict”, which would involve cementing the front lines in Europe between Russia and Belarus on the one hand and the rest of Europe on the other.

– It essentially means that you get a situation like the one that has existed between Israel and Syria, and that is always a destabilizing factor over time.

She adds that such a situation will probably also require a lot of weapons, if not more.

A fourth option is to stop giving weapons to Ukraine, says Hellestveit.

– Weapons can create victory

Storting representative for Venstre Ola Elvestuen believes that we must support Ukraine so long that they can also win the war.

– The difficult situation we are in now, not least because the Republicans are withholding support in Congress and from the United States, Europe has to give more. This means that Norway must also do so, he says.

Former Lieutenant General Robert Mood is clear that we are committed to working to end the war. He adds that it is dangerous for Europe if we accept that borders are changed by force.

– Where I perhaps differ slightly from these others is that there is no contradiction between dialogue and supplying weapons, he says.

– Then for me it will be the case that we have a responsibility, our heads of state have a responsibility, they have asked to be responsible for having an ongoing dialogue every day about how we can stop the war in Ukraine, while at the same time putting Ukraine in able to defend themselves as best as possible.

2024-02-29 21:18:54


#Sooner #call #quits