There is a “stark difference of opinion between countries like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and the Czech Republic as compared to western European countries such as France or Germany”, writes Viktoriia Lapa from the Institute for European Policymaking at the Bocconi University in Italy, arguing that “westsplaining” still prevails in the European Union.
“By 2022, Russia had launched a full-scale attack against Ukraine. Words of support came from every direction but concrete support was less forthcoming. During the first days of the war, Germany refused to send weapons to Ukraine and even prevented Estonia from sending its old howitzer artillery weapons by withholding approval,” Lapa writes.
“Lithuania, meanwhile, along with Latvia, Estonia and Poland, were sounding the alarm about the threat the situation posed to the rest of the region and called for Europe to support Ukraine “with every means available”. For many in the region, Europe should commit unambiguously to helping Ukraine win the war.”
“Until recently, even French president Emmanuel Macron was suggesting that Ukraine should compromise on some of its sovereignty to accommodate Putin’s demands. Such comments were coldly received in Baltic and eastern European states.”
“When Macron changed his strategy to say that he did not rule out sending troops to Ukraine, he faced backlash from several European capitals. However, he found an ally in Lithuania.”
“In a positive sign of recognition, EU Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen mentioned in her annual state of the union address in 2022: ‘We should have listened to the voices inside our union – in Poland, in the Baltics, and all across central and eastern Europe.’”
Yeah, that guy is greatly misrepresenting what happened inside the governments. Germany and others didn’t hold back because they didn’t believe what was happening or something, they had a different stance on how weapon deliveries would affect Europe’s ability to defend itself and how this could drag Europe into the hot side of the conflict. We’re they too cautious and slow at times? Absolutely. But that’s not because they were “westsplaining”, but because they had different approaches to this mess. This only becomes “westsplaining” and “belittling” of other nations if you dismiss any approach besides “deliver all the weapons immediately” as a mistake and weapon deliveries as the only solution. Which is almost never true in any issue of this magnitude.
Eastern Europe was a lot more proactive in getting equipment to Ukraine while it was reported that Western European countries needed some initial push by the USA.
There has been this slow dawning in Western Europe that they may need to take a more active role in their collective self defense instead of relying on American guarantees only. Eastern European countries have seemed far more proactive in dealing with the Ukrainian invasion while it looks like, outside of France and the UK, countries are having to remember what it takes to run a military.
The fact that these countries all had stocks of the exact equipment Ukraine was already using. The EU setup a “buy back” of equipment. Where these countries could donate their equipment to Ukraine and they where reimbursed from an EU fund. This made sure Ukraine could use their existing supply lines and support systems to keep the gear running.
And this “different stance” is exactly what the dude has been talking about. Poland was sending tanks almost immediately. They literally disappeared from polish warehouses, were seen on trains and fought in Ukraine. Other countries’ tanks were sent what, a year later? If not even more. There wasn’t a nuke flying for that, there probably was a tantrum and “stern warnings” and that’s it.
The issue is simple. All these countries were under soviet rule until very recently. Every eastern country remembers how life was then. There are jokes about polish exports under soviet rule, that Russia exports empty train cars and Poland exports everything else in them to Russia. The country was robbed for decades. People were killed. That’s why “the eastern flank” doesn’t want Ukraine to fail - because they know what happens when it does, and who is next.
So? How does what you said make “send all weapons immediately” the only solution and the obvious and only thing to do?
when countries that are culturally closest to russia, that understand their decision making the best unanimously say a thing, it’s probably good to listen rather than saying “oh but” and doing the opposite
the “oh but” is somewhat of a dismissal of their lived experiences. they probably know best here - they probably know better than the west here, because this is
more aboutcloser to their culture than the westsBecause it is the only and obvious solution to any country that knew how it was? Like, it was so bad, nobody is even thinking about “oh maybe joining Russia would be coooool”?
Not sending weapons to Ukraine is appeasement and nothing else. If you are alright with appeasement, I would like you to stop your claims on Sudetenland, the free city of Gdansk and probably the Benelux region and the entirety of France.
Then we should probably arm Hamas lest we are guilty of appeasement of Israel. Or wait, now westsplaining away genocide is okay?
Maybe this is a strawman and you are on the correct side of history in the middle east, then I apologize, but too often I see this outrageous hypocrisy in German discourse.
This is a strawman and whataboutism. Nothing more. The conflict in Palestine can end really quickly, and fuck US for not doing anything to resolve it.
What’s your proposed solution to the conflict then? If it’s not weapons for Palestine, why not?
I admit this is far-fetched. But I really don’t, like 0%, understand how you can propose arming Ukraine as a means towards a lasting peace. Maybe you’d like to explain or maybe you don’t.
And maybe you have a similar proposal for conflicts that involve the US as the baddies, because calling for the US to police themselves surely can’t be your solution.
A two state solution where Palestine exists alongside Israel as independent countries. There is no need to fuel the conflict further, just reign in Israel instead of appeasing them.
Stop “whatabouting”.
I’m for a two state solution where Ukraine exists alongside Russia as independent countries. There is no need to fuel the conflict further, just reign in Russia instead of appeasing them.
I’d still like to know why your preferred solution is to apply pressure on the aggressor in one case and to arm the victim in another.
How is this a misrepresentation?
Broadly speaking, Central and Western European countries have largely dismissed Eastern European concerns and wariness towards Russia for literal decades. All the “leading European countries” were pushing for increased engagement with Russia despite their territorial adventurism in Georgia. Hell, increased trade with Russia was practically Merkel’s signature policy (which, it has to be said, has aged like milk).
Eastern Europe has been encouraging caution and skepticism towards Russia’s geopolitical motivations basically since they joined NATO. The rest of the alliance ignored those warnings, and it’s demonstrably biting us in the ass now. Yes, there are many factors at play, but this is absolutely one of the factors, and it’s a big one.
It maybe that I read the whole thing wrong, because I’d agree if we are talking about the lead up to the 2022 conflict since 2014, but I got the impression that the person talked about the reaction to the attack specifically.