Greens' Ukraine Aid Opposition Criticized as Flawed Pacifism — SkimNews
Get the Geopolitics newsletter
Daily geopolitics — wars, elections, sanctions, the diplomatic moves that move markets. Free.
- David Shoebridge was elected Australian Greens leader at the end of September, retaining his foreign affairs and defense spokesperson roles
- Shoebridge declared it would be Greens policy to oppose further military assistance to Ukraine, and told Ukrainian-Australian community groups this week not to "burn any bridges" by criticizing the party
- The article argues pacifist frameworks treating violence as a self-perpetuating security dilemma fail to account for bad-faith actors like Russia, who cannot be trusted to honor any negotiated deal
- The piece contends nonviolent resistance requires an occupying force that needs the invaded population's cooperation and possesses moral empathy — neither of which applies to Russia, which does not recognize Ukraine as a legitimate nation-state
- A ceasefire rewarding Russia would signal to Moscow that it can make military gains in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Moldova, which Russia also views as illegitimate states
- Greens support has plateaued at around 12% of the Australian public, with the author arguing the party's Ukraine stance amounts to "internal moral posturing" that misunderstands how peace and security are actually achieved
Why it matters: The Greens' opposition to Ukraine military aid diverges from a popular Australian position favoring more assistance to Kyiv, while the author's critique frames pacifism without deterrence as functionally supportive of Russian expansionism targeting the Baltics, Georgia, and Moldova beyond Ukraine.
Ask SkimNews
