By: Domen Mezeg (Nova24tv.si)
“Direct involvement in the conflict, sending our military forces and offensive armaments would be steps too far. As countries that border Ukraine and that want to end this war as soon as possible, we must do everything so that Ukraine gets enough weapons to defend itself,” MEP Brglez said controversially. It is obvious that Ukraine cannot win without offensive weapons. The key to long-term peace is for Russia to lose hope, which is conditional on a successful counter-offensive and favourable negotiating terms for the attacked side.
A few days ago, former social democrat Aurelio Juri caused a stir with his public calls for the disarmament of Ukraine. He is the first signatory of last year’s two open letters on this topic (here and here) and co-signatory of another letter from this year. A few days ago, he invited to the event of the Peace Institute, the common thread of which is the pacification of Ukraine and the disarmament of Europe. More here. However, in the case of Juri, it is not about transient pro-Russian positions. He showed his disapproving attitude towards Western civilisation as early as 2002, when he publicly opposed the entry of the NATO fleet into the Slovenian sea. More here. Milan Brglez continues in this intellectual tradition.
In his interview for Svet24, Brglez reproached Europe (in a familiar style) for not doing enough to “end the war faster and achieve peace”. We have already heard somewhere for such a peaceful approach, which between the lines means less armament for Ukraine and more nice words at various conferences, and for Russia less tension and a more successful “special operation”. Brglez did not intend similar pacifist words to the aggressor side. So, Europe should come to its senses for once, and Russia needs to be understood a little better…? Brglez also spoke about the trip of Janez Janša and the others to Kyiv, as well as the poor Ukrainian children, etc. Then another controversy followed. To the question “Is more weapons for Ukraine the right solution?” he retorted: “You are simplifying.”
“It is not about more guns; it is about the country’s right to defend itself. And our duty to help the country that is attacked defend itself.” But how can a specific attacked country be helped other than with more offensive weapons in order to successfully carry out a counter-offensive? With more helmets, just like Germany before the start of the war?! Or is “help” meant only as moral support, and the Ukrainians should defend themselves only with bows, blowguns, and spears? Another option is to freeze the conflict, and provide Ukraine with steel security guarantees that will deter new Russian experiments in advance… And a country has the right to self-defence anyway, which is guaranteed by international law. This right in itself is not a solution, it is just a letter on paper… It is clear that without heavy weapons the occupier will not be driven out and that the conflict will “ferment” for years to come…
Brglez already disappointed with the European resolution
To the question “Where is the limit of this aid: planes, military forces?” he replied: “Direct involvement in conflicts, sending our military forces and offensive armaments would be steps too far. As countries bordering Ukraine who want to end this war as soon as possible, we must do everything to ensure that Ukraine gets enough weapons to defend itself.” If the countries in whose interest it is to ensure peace do not “get involved” now, then they will have to when the war is closer. Experience shows that Russia does not stop, but that it must be stopped. And the only language it understands is the language of power. Let us remind you: at the end of last year, a resolution was adopted in the European Parliament, which called the Russian Federation a “state sponsor of terrorism”. Left MEPs, including Brglez, abstained from voting.