Why don’t they give weapons to Ukraine? 

In some sense, Putin got what he wanted: throughout the past months, the global security system has undergone irreversible changes. What is important for us, is that we are witnessing the formation of a consistent and powerful international anti-Russian coalition. We are not alone in the world, and this is good news for us. So why aren’t we getting help that we seemingly need to much?

Stopping the conflict means weakening the aggressor, not arming the victim

The modern science of conflictology offers many ways to solve conflict situations. In a state of stress, at war, in conflict, we don't always understand why some decisions are made or not, which we consider to be obvious. Meanwhile, the situation may be examined from the formal standpoint. At the moment, everyone understands who the aggressor and the victim are. It is obvious that the resources of the aggressor surpass ours. There is a consensus in the world that peaceful regulation is impervious. In this situation, in order to stop the conflict, we should not arm the victim, but disarm the aggressor. With all due respect and understanding to the victim’s position, who is begging for resources to defend itself (lethal weaponry against the aggressor), we have to understand the position of the global community. They are acting, strictly speaking, according to the textbook: providing the victim with military resources will most probably cause further escalation of the conflict. The only way to stop the conflict is to quickly and effectively rid the aggressor of their resources. Strictly speaking, if we want to stop the attack of a well-armed and well-trained soldier on a regular passer-by, we have to disarm the attacker and immobilize, weaken them as quickly as possible. If we give an adequate amount of weaponry to the victim, we will guarantee the continuation of the conflict, and the only thing left to do is stock up on beer, in order to enjoy the bloody spectacle of a constant fight, which will most probably lead to the deaths of both parties. The fact that we are not being given weapons today is evidence that the global community does not plan to continue the eternal conflict with the possibility of our death in it.

“Full neutralization of the attacker” demands time

There is also a scenario of “fully neutralizing” the aggressor. In this case, it is possible to give weapons to the victim, however, only in the ‘cold phase’ of the conflict, and only within the framework of changing the configuration of the international security system. This demands time. Everything has to happen exclusively in a complex of difficult and long political and economic measures of global influence on the aggressor. The sanctions developed based on complex models and which are systematically imposed will ruin their resources irreversibly. Today, despite the insignificant level of change in resource availability, the vulnerability of the aggressor’s resources has become fatal, and their availability is decreasing swiftly and irrevocably. Therefore, even with this scenario, any escalation of the crisis may become a fatal mistake, for a complex of long and difficult political and economic measures of global influence on the aggressor to be developed.

Nobody will give modern weaponry to a nation which is falling into militaristic hysteria

There is another reason our partners are not ready to give us the assistance we need. If we speak in broad terms, we have not proven to the democratic community that in case of success we will not turn from a victim into an aggressor. The now popular half-joking calls to ‘end the war in Moscow,’ ‘ruin the Kremlin’ are not only an instance of lack of understanding of our goals. And even not just a symmetric reaction to similar statements made by Russian soldiers. They are a dangerous indicator of a dramatic growth in radical moods, which is characteristic of the conflict situation. Positive self-organization based on common values, which helped us in the revolution, is being partially replaced by detrimental hysteria of ‘we lost’ and simultaneous calls to total war by all means possible. We have to understand that any radicalization, militarization of civil moods is an additional argument for those who do not want to give us military assistance. Nobody will give modern weapons to a nation which is in militaristic hysteria, even if was caused by foreign aggression. We have to keep calm, demonstrate our strive for peace and democratic values. We have to show tolerance, regard for others’ opinions, human rights and freedoms, international law. And the impending parliamentary elections in this context are a timely and responsible test for us on our way to stable peace and security. Therefore, we should regard our western partners with understanding, and follow our own choice responsibly. Pain, fear and hatred are bad advisors. It is quite obvious now that Ukraine has allies. The resource advantage our allies have in all regards, first and foremost, intellect, leaves no doubt that we have a chance to withstand and win this war.