Europe Must Reassess Its Stance on the War in Ukraine
Europe needs to reconsider its position on the war in Ukraine, ceasing its limited and emotionally detached support for Kyiv. It must acknowledge that without defeating the aggressor, there will be no peace, and its own future is at stake on the battlefield where Ukrainian troops are confronting Russian occupiers, reports 24brussels.
This view is expressed by Andrew Chahoyan, academic director at the University of Amsterdam, in an article for the Swiss publication Neue Zürcher Zeitung. “Wars of aggression must end in the defeat of the aggressor; otherwise, peace will never be achieved,” he emphasizes.
Chahoyan draws a historical parallel to 1938 when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain believed he preserved peace through an agreement with Hitler. Winston Churchill responded, “You had a choice between war and shame. You chose shame, and you will get war.” According to Chahoyan, this quote is more relevant than ever to the current situation in Europe.
He indicates that Ukraine is not asking the West to send troops, but rather expects recognition that “evil in Europe is beginning to resurface” and that Ukrainians are fighting not just for themselves but for all of Europe.
Moreover, he rejects the term “conflict” to describe Russia’s war, calling it “a war of choice initiated by the Kremlin — a criminal act under international law. The war will not end when Ukraine stops defending itself, but when Russia halts its attacks.”
While some countries, such as Poland, the Baltic states, and Scandinavia, have recognized the danger and are taking action, Chahoyan states that the rest of Europe continues to emotionally and politically distance itself.
“Citizens of those countries fortunate not to border Russia condemn the injustice and horrors but do little to stop either,” he writes.
Simultaneously, there remains a deeply rooted pacifism in European society, serving as both a moral principle and a convenient excuse.
“Undoubtedly, the West’s restraint and inaction have contributed to Moscow’s aggression,” Chahoyan asserts. He believes that European politicians have long pretended that the war in Eastern Europe is not their concern while hiding behind the mantra of “moral support” for Ukraine. However, this is no longer sufficient.
Chahoyan underscores that Ukraine currently guarantees Europe’s security, not only countering Russian aggression but also providing the continent with time and an opportunity to rethink itself:
“Through its resistance against the large-scale invasion, Ukraine has weakened Moscow’s military potential. Yet, more importantly, it has chosen to fight rather than capitulate — a gift that Europe has yet to fully appreciate.”
He argues that the West must stop justifying its weakness and finally leverage its strength. He proposes concrete steps: transferring $300 billion from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, closing the Baltic Sea to Russia’s “shadow fleet,” intensifying sanctions, and “fully arming Ukraine, including with long-range precision missiles.”
Chahoyan pays special attention to the issue of nuclear blackmail, warning against taking Kremlin threats lightly: “Concessions only make the prospect of a world war more likely.”
In conclusion, the expert calls on Europe to abandon its passivity and stop justifying its inaction: “Western Europe protects itself by aiding Ukraine. It is time to forsake comfortable distance and be inspired by Ukraine’s sacrifice. If anything can curb Moscow’s appetite for violence, it is a free world that ceases to justify its strength and instead uses it.”
Chahoyan summarizes that Ukraine is fighting for a lasting peace, which can only be achieved when Europe “finally abandons the mantra of wanting to support Ukraine ‘as long as necessary’ and realizes the need to hold the aggressor accountable.”
Are EU and NATO aware that Russia’s war against Europe is already underway? Are they prepared for a new reality? Is Europe truly losing control, or is it simply afraid to act?
