Why Defunding Military Aid to Ukraine Would Be a Mistake: A Green Defence of Self-Determination
Since 2014, and especially following the full-scale invasion in 2022, Russia has violated multiple international agreements, including the Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk Accords. These violations have been accompanied by widespread human rights abuses in occupied territories: forced deportations, torture, suppression of Ukrainian language and culture, and the exploitation of natural resources. The Kremlin’s actions are not isolated incidents but part of a broader strategy of colonial expansion and destabilisation. Defunding military aid would embolden this aggression and signal a retreat from the international community’s responsibility to uphold justice.
Critics of military aid often argue that continued support fuels conflict and delays peace. However, this perspective overlooks the nature of Ukraine’s struggle. Ukraine is not waging a war of conquest; it is defending its people and territory against an invading force. The notion that peace can be achieved by pressuring Ukraine to accept unjust terms—such as ceding territory or relinquishing sovereignty—is deeply flawed. As the British-Ukrainian Green activist Viktoriya Ball emphasises, peace without justice is not peace at all. It is a capitulation that would store up more barbarism for the future.
The humanitarian consequences of defunding aid would be severe. Ukrainian civilians continue to suffer under relentless missile and drone attacks, with towns and villages razed and millions displaced. Military aid has been crucial in enabling Ukraine to protect its infrastructure, maintain essential services, and prevent further atrocities. Removing this support would not only jeopardise Ukraine’s ability to defend itself but also exacerbate the humanitarian crisis, leading to more deaths, displacement, and suffering.
Moreover, the strategic implications of defunding aid extend beyond Ukraine. An outright Russian victory would embolden authoritarian regimes worldwide, undermining international law and setting a dangerous precedent that borders can be redrawn by force. It would also destabilise Europe, increase the risk of further conflicts, and weaken the global response to other crises, including the climate emergency. As highlighted in the late motion submitted to Green Party Autumn Conference, L2 ‘Standing up for Ukraine’, supporting Ukraine is essential to resisting the rise of right-wing authoritarianism and defending democratic values.
Some argue that military aid contradicts Green principles of nonviolence and environmental sustainability. While it is true that war has devastating ecological impacts, the alternative—allowing Russia to dominate Ukraine—would be far worse. Russia’s war has already caused massive environmental destruction, including deliberate flooding, pollution, and the targeting of energy infrastructure. Supporting Ukraine’s defence is not about endorsing militarism but about preventing further ecological and human catastrophe.
Furthermore, Greens have a unique role in advocating for a just and sustainable recovery. This includes ensuring that reconstruction efforts prioritise community needs, environmental protection, and democratic governance. By supporting Ukraine’s self-defence, we help create the conditions necessary for such a recovery. Defunding aid would leave Ukraine vulnerable to exploitation by foreign powers and corporations, undermining the prospects for a grassroots-led, people-centred rebuilding process.
It is also important to recognise the agency of Ukrainians themselves. Progressive social movements and trade unions in Ukraine support the country’s war of self-defence while opposing neoliberal policies. Their voices must be central in shaping the future of Ukraine. Solidarity means listening to those most affected and supporting their right to resist oppression. As Greens, we must stand with these movements, not abandon them in the name of abstract pacifism.
The moral imperative to support Ukraine is clear. But there is also a practical dimension. Military aid does not necessarily require increased spending; it can involve reallocating existing resources and ensuring that aid is used effectively and accountably. The goal is not to escalate conflict but to enable Ukraine to defend its sovereignty and protect its people. This approach aligns with Green values of justice, democracy, and human rights.
In conclusion, defunding military aid to Ukraine would be a grave mistake. It would betray the principles of self-determination, embolden authoritarianism, and deepen human suffering. Greens must advocate for a balanced approach that supports Ukraine’s right to self-defence while promoting peace, justice, and sustainability. This is not a contradiction—it is a necessary stance in a world where the forces of oppression are on the rise. Solidarity with Ukraine is not just a political position; it is a moral obligation.
Image credit: Up9 – Creative Commons
I agree with Paul Ingram and Linda Walker that Seb’s analysis is simplistic and displays zero knowledge of the events both within and outside Ukraine that led up to the conflict which is presented here as merely a battle between the good guys – that’s us, of course , and the bad guys who, of course are the dastardly Russkies. However, just as Gaza did not begin on Oct 7th, neither did Ukraine begin in Feb 2022.
Seb seems unaware of the 30 year war waged by US neocons to bleed Russia using EU and NATO enlargement as its weapons, the violent and illegal coup in 2014 that deposed Yanukovich engineered by Neo-nazi Ukrainian militias of Svoboda, Right Sector, and Patriot of Ukraine, tacitly supported by the west, the consequent rebellion of the Eastern regions ( absolutely justified IMHO), the brutality and atrocities these rebels received at the hands of the Azov battalion,the treachery of the west regarding the Minsk agreements, which would have ended all conflict, and the refusal to negotiate with Russia immediately before the invasion as revealed by Merkel just this week. Read about Mackinder’s “Heartland Theory” and how this was enthusiastically taken up in the US by Brezhinsky and Wolfowitz, and listen on You Tube to Jeffrey Sachs,John Mearsheimer, and countless interviews by Glen Diesen and on the “Neutrality Studies” channel, and perhaps this may open your eyes to the reality of the “Great Game” of geopolitics cynically played out by the US/NATO empire before our eyes in which Ukraine has been “played” by the pre-Trump USA to weaken Russia as part of a grand strategy for US control of the “heartland” of Eurasia, and hence ( according to Mackinder’s flawed and obsolescent theory),the world.
Reacting against this struggle for the chimera of global dominance, a plethora of senior and respected politicians, academics and geopolitical strategists have been saying for decades that NATO enlargement – particularly Ukraine and Georgia – regarded as”the greatest prize” by the US Neocons – is “…stupid on every level….if you want to start a war with Russia, that’s the best way of doing it” ( Sir Roderick Lyne, former UK ambassador to Ukraine).
Without any doubt, Ukraine is OUR war of choice.
I will also point out that when George Bush announced in 2008 that Ukraine ( and Georgia) were going to join NATO, opinion polls in Ukraine consistently showed that only 20- 25 percent of the population supported this – and this remained so until the civil war in 2014 (Google it). No referendum was ever held on the matter. So please tell me where is the treasured “sovereignty” there? Yanukovich respected this ,and was elected in 2010 on a programme of NO to NATO and only “maybe” to the EU, hence the reason the West wanted him gone. There is a leaked phone call on YouTube between Victoria Nuland (then the US Sec of State ) and Geoffrey Pyatt ( then US ambassador to Ukr ) where they are discussing Nulands choice of Ukrainian politicians to form a new government for UKr about 10 days before the coup, the latter described later by a right wing US thinktank as “the most blatant coup in history”. After the coup, Nuland boasted about how US administrators and officials were now carrying out a quite extrordinary multiplicity of roles in Ukraine’s state apparatus. Biden was involved in approving or disapproving Ukrainian senior appointments. So please forgive my hollow laughter whenever there is talk about Ukraine’s “sovereignty”.
For a full understanding of the history of the conflict in Ukraine I recommend either (preferably both) of two books as essential reading.
“The Russia-Ukraine war and its Origins” is just published and is available as a free to download ebook, written by Ukrainian academic Ivan Katchanovski, working at the University of Ottawa, Canada in the School of Political Studies and in their Conflict Studies and Human Rights Program, available here
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-98724-3
The second is “Provoked”, by US writer and podcaster Scott Horton. Both authors are well represented in various YouTube videos.
Both of these are magisterial studies, extensively referenced eg”Provoked” has 7500 (!) references,the majority are hyperlinked and can be accessed via a free pdf index dowloadable from Horton’s website.
Read either of these books ( preferably both) and you will realise that the western MSM narrative of the conflict in Ukraine is a farrago of falsified history. Then maybe we can begin to have an informed discussion about how to end the conflict.
The only imperialist army in Ukraine is Russia’s.
Jeff Lucas’ pro-war rationalization that Russia’s invasion was provoked by US neocons is supported by laughable sources:
– Jeffrey Sachs, the neoliberal shock therapist
– John Mearsheimer, the “realist” who tells smaller nations they have to accept imperial domination under great power spheres of influence
– Glenn Diesen, a leader of the tiny red-brown, anti-immigrant, anti-Ukraine, Russian oligarch-funded Peace and Justice Party of Norway
– Scott Horton, director of the rightwing hyper-capitalist Libertarian Institute
– Ivan Katchanovski, the academic who can’t his “false flag” conspiracy theory about the Maidan massacre published in peer-reviewed journal
What a reactionary menagerie!
Yes, the war started before Feb. 2022 in 2014 as Putin’s counter-revolutionary response to the pro-democracy Maidan revolution. That is what provoked Putin. He feared that example would inspire a democratic revolution in Russia.
To suggest, as Paul Ingram does in his comment, that the war will end with negotiations if only arms to Ukraine are cut off is wishful thinking. Do you really think Putin will stop his aggression if Ukraine is disarmed? Oh wait! Trump and the Republicans already did that for 7 months in 2023-2024. And Putin’s response was to escalate air and ground offensives in Ukraine.
The war will end when the costs to Russia of continuing its aggression are higher than stopping the war, which means sufficient weapons to Ukraine to repel Russian aggression, full oil and gas sanctions to defuel and defund the Russian war machine, and a massive, international peace movement demanding Russian Troops Out!
In the modern world, no country exists on its own, likewise Russia can only exist and perpertrate war so long as other countries will trade with it. Without its raw material exports and dependent on imported technologies the trading partners of Russia must also be held responsible for enabling, condoning and perpetrating the war against not only Ukraine, but also the democratic values it represents.
Well said! I agree with every word.
James Baker USA secretary of state”not one inch eastwards” in regards of NATO expansion. 2014 the democratically elected leader of Ukraine was usurped by a CIA and MI6 backed revolution.One month into the conflict terms were offered by Russia.Boris Johnson at the behest of USA persuaded Zelensky to decline.USAwanted the Russian oil supply to be replaced with USA supplies.Nordstrem 2 destroyed.Blackrock was Ukrainian resources.Even Trump described this a a proxy war.Not to mention the role of the Azov brigade.How many more Ukranian’s and Russians must die? Don’t just listen to western press, there are different perspectives.
It is grossly inaccurate to lay the blame for defaulting on the Minsk agreements solely at Russia’s door. Zelrnsky and Poroshenko before him never intended to honour the agreements. At least that is what Zelensky claimed in a Der Spiegel interview. He viewed them as a way to buy time to build up Ukrainian armaments.
And it was not an ‘unprovoked’ invasion. Illegal and unacceptable but not unprovoked.
In late 2021 Putin tabled a draft proposal for a Russia/NATO security agreement but Biden refused to consider it.
US ships had been patrolling the Russian coastline;press articles were appearing claiming that the US could take out all Russian nuclear missiles in a first strike; and the talk was all of Ukraine joining NATO.
Once the war started Russia quickly offered Ukraine a peace deal which Zelensky was preparing to accept. Boris Johnson flew to Kiev to insist that he should not,and that the West would provide whatever was needed to enable Ukraine to win.
It is not in the interest of the people of Ukraine to prolong this war. And opinion polls this summer showed a strong majority in favour of negotiating for peace.
Climate Chaos and fascism – both exacerbated by war and militarism – are the greatest threats to the future security of Europe.
It is time we got serious about negotiating an end to this war.
Seb makes a strong case for continued supply of weapons to Ukraine, but make no mistake, his claim that it is aligned with Peace is Orwellian. His case may be ‘just’, but it is not about Peace. Peace is about understanding the principal drivers of conflict and seeking resolution through negotiation. It is about understanding that the world is complex, full of injustice, hatred from past injustices, fear and aggression. Within ourselves and the other. Peace is about sitting together to listen to each other’s truths with compassion, understanding that they are multidimensional. Peace is most definitely not about righting wrongs through violence, even when that is justified. So please, do not confuse these things.
We have heard so many times this claim that anything short of a full Ukrainian victory would embolden authoritarians around the world and normalise redrawing of boundaries. But these norms have already been broken, by our government and by our allies. On several occasions.
All Seb’s descriptions of Russia could easily be applied to the invading forces of US-UK in 2003. I was representing the Party on the Stop the War Steering Committee at that time, organising the massive public protests. But if we had been able, would Stop the War have been justified in supplying Iraqi forces with weapons to resist the imperialist invaders? Maybe some readers here might think so, but it would not have been the path of Peace.
Russia has the edge in this war and is grinding Ukraine down in every factor. Even with future US weapon deliveries paid for by Europeans already suffering massive cuts to welfare and other public spending, Ukraine does not have the manpower to resist Russia. Some have said that it is immoral to encourage Ukraine to continue, by press-ganging men off the streets to join the killing fields. And whilst both sides, Russia and Ukraine, continue to make unrealistic demands of the other as conditions for negotiations, our futures are all compromised.
Beware words like appeasement or capitulation. They live in the words of binaries and are deployed to justify confrontation and aggression. No-one is suggesting that Ukraine as a state should surrender its sovereignty and live under Russian governance. Not even Putin. Peace negotiations will inevitably start with both sides demanding more than they walk out with at the end.
Also this word self-determination. As a principle it is very important, yet is a slippery concept. What of the self-determination of those in south east Ukraine prior to 2022 who were calling for greater autonomy within Ukraine, and granted it by the Minsk agreements. Seb talks about the Russians breaking the Minsk agreements, but this is a very partial interpretation, completely in contradiction to that of many others.
It is way past time to stop this war. It has been extraordinarily damaging, obviously to Ukrainians and to Russians, but also to the rest of us and to the planet. We cannot absolve our part in this simply by labelling it as ‘Russia’s war’. Whilst Russia was indeed the egregious aggressor in 2022, the war has been driven by political actors across Europe and North America. Millions displaced, the trigger for a cost-of-living crisis that could yet destroy liberal democracy in Europe, and certainly has damaged global governance for a generation. This last we simply cannot afford because the survival of our and many other species is in the balance. Every global catastrophic risk has been exacerbated by the damage to our collective capacity to manage the situation. A huge price to pay for our judgement of what is right and wrong in this war.
Rather than continuing to flood Ukraine with weapons, when the main beneficiaries are arms industry executives and militaries experimenting with new technologies, we should be building a global alliance of states seeking to pressure both sides to sue for peace. Labelling those working for a negotiated peace as a matter of urgency now as abstract pacifists is offensive. I was in Beijing last week talking with Ukrainians and Chinese interlocutors attempting to explore just how it could work. We believe that the Chinese hold the key, because they have influence on the three main parties to this conflict (ignoring the profiteering Trump Administration), but they need the explicit and active invitation from all of them – Russia, Ukraine and Europe. Unfortunately, those prioritising a continuation of this war – all three of those parties – still resist. But recognise that it is not only Russia that is the obstacle.