On the 17th of March, 2022, namely on the 22nd day of the Russo-Ukrainian war, Investigative Europe published an article with a horrific chart about how, even after the 2014 weapons embargo, EU member states continued exporting weapons to russia. €346 million worth of military equipment were distributed, European products and machinery that today is still being used against innocent civilians - the picture of a just and moral Europe was stained once more, if not completely destroyed.
It was just a matter of time until numerous questions appeared: “How was it even possible to evade the regulations of the council decision for so long?”, “What were the main catalysts behind such a shameless scheme”, and, most importantly:
What happened to Churchill’s “structure, under which all can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom”, in which the war-mongering should have been eliminated once and for all?
The historical mismatch and the absence of logical responses from the affected governments was what influenced me to take up my personal investigation, to find answers and explain how and why Europe could have enabled russia on its path toward aggression against Ukraine.
WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH COUNCIL DECISION 2014/512/CFSP?
Let’s start with looking into the embargo decision. On the 31st of July, 2014 the council of the EU settled restrictive measures in view of russia's actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine, namely that:
“The direct or indirect sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts therefore, to Russia by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, shall be prohibited whether originating or not in their territories.”
10 articles, lots of prohibitions, and a seemingly powerful reaction towards the annexation of Crimea. It would seem logical that after the collective implementation of the European embargo, the aggressor would be cut off, right?
Only they weren’t. Why not? The answer is simple: loopholes. Primarily in Article 2 (§4), where:
“The prohibitions in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be without prejudice to the execution of contracts or agreements concluded before 1 August 2014, and to the provision of spare parts and services necessary to the maintenance and safety of existing capabilities within the Union.”
This specific exception is usually identified as the main loophole that was used by EU states to circumvent the prohibitions. But which immoral European countries made the most profit exploiting the loophole after 2014?
FRANCE: PLAN DE FINANCEMENT “IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW”.
€152 million worth of military equipment, the export of 44% of the European arms sold via loophole to russia, plus the authorization to send “chemical as well as biological agents.” - these decisions have now become a part of France’s legacy with regard to the Russo-Ukrainian war. At first glance, such a legacy is paradoxical, considering that the French government has always insisted on finding diplomatic solutions rather than military ones.
Yet digging further into the contradictory situation, one realizes that French authorities not only exploited the previously mentioned loophole (justifying their sly decision by saying the embargo was not retroactive) but also outright mentioned their defiance of the embargo in countless official statements.
Throughout 2014-2020 there were two successive French governments: the first led by President Hollande, and the second by President Macron. After russia ruthlessly violated international law by annexing Crimea in 2014, Hollande justifiably condemned such an aggressive act, and called on the EU to respond against such an impudence accordingly.
Nevertheless, allow me to remind you of one certain statement from the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, issued five months prior to the weapons embargo, which should have triggered suspicion as to the two-faced attitude toward the then-proposed sanctions:
"On the one hand, we cannot envisage supplying Russia indefinitely with arms given the way it has behaved, on the other hand, there is the reality of jobs and the economy."
To be fair to history, Hollande himself was, indeed, a mediator in two of the Minsk Protocols and canceled the sale of two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships to the current aggressor state. However, another dubious statement came at a NATO summit on July 8, 2016, when Francois Hollande stated that russia should no longer be considered a threat, but rather as a partner:
"Russia is a partner which, it is true, may sometimes, and we have seen that in Ukraine, uses force, which we have condemned when it annexed Crimea."
As for the presidency of Macron, the exploitation of the loophole continued in full force until 2020. It is rather questionable why the next president did not stop the “technically legal” but immensely immoral usage of the loophole in the embargo sooner, especially after countless of his negotiations with putin and an apparent understanding of his character.
What is a fact, though, is that the dismissive attitude of French authorities (including also the rather immature reply of the ministry that "France is not the only European country to have acted in this way”) speak volumes to their inability to take responsibility for sending weapons to a state that was bound to start the war at any given time. As at no point did the French government raise doubts over the potential use that could be made of their exported weapons.
“But why?” you might ask. Well, there is only one answer I can give you: it was an ignorant business intended for enrichment, enabled by the government’s duplicitous usage of the loophole in the regulation.
No more, no less.
GERMANY: DIE HEUCHELEI BASED ON A DECADE-LONG ADDICTION
€121.8 million worth of military equipment, the export of 35% of the European arms sold via loopholes and the suspicious absence of the German government’s official response to Investigative Europe - this is what history can attribute to Germany. But in comparison to France, Germany had much more complicated reasons to exploit the embargo, despite being one of the top countries boasting about rule of law.
But let’s first start with the reasoning from several politicians as well as pacifist NGOs for why Germany wasn’t breaching the embargo: the products that were exported to russia were labeled as “dual-use.” But what is an exact definition of “dual-use goods”? Well, according to the Council Regulation (EC) no 428/2009:
“Dual-use items shall mean items, including software and technology, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, and shall include all goods which can be used for both non-explosive uses and assisting in any way in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”
So, by definition dual-use includes items for “military purposes.” Therefore, the next glaringly obvious question would be: how come the German government facilitate russian imperialism despite the previously mentioned 2014 EU regulation stating that:
“the sale, supply, transfer or export of dual-use items for military use or to military end-users in russia should be prohibited”?
Well, the Federal Government of Germany responded that no items listed as “weapons of war” were ever sold, as there was “no concrete evidence” of it being used for military applications and “if there were indications of any kind of military use, the export licenses were not granted.”
But looking into the previously not openly known report from the Federal Ministry of Economics (now available to WELT AM SONNTAG) tells us a different story:
ICE BREAKER SHIPS, SPECIAL PROTECTION VEHICLES, RIFLES...
One has to be either naïve or duplicitous to ratify such exports as “for civilian purposes” to a state with a history of invasive wars.
Moreover, the latest usage of the same reasoning in defense of Germany’s exports was recorded in March 2021 - the same month, when the russian army began massing thousands of personnel and military equipment near its border with Ukraine, representing the largest mobilization since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. What happened next can be clearly seen now.
But were such machinations done only for enrichment? No, I wouldn’t say so. The other reason lies in a simple word: addiction.
The roots behind Germany’s urgent need to maintain its economic prosperity by continuing to do business with russia - even if it meant stepping on the just principles laid after the WW2 - can be traced back to 1998, when Gerhard Schröder became chancellor and adopted his open pro-russia policy, going as far as willing to forge a new coalition with the kremlin’s "flawless democrat”.
His latest comments about going back to dealing with the current aggressor state after the war and atrocities it is committing right now in Ukraine do neither Schröder nor the political party he represented for so many years (the SPD) any favors. And when talking about the SPD, one should also note that the architect of their appeasement policy was the current president of Germany: Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
One can argue that such individuals only wanted to do what was best for Germany’s economic prosperity and were simply oblivious during the time, when Putin hadn't yet fully revealed his true nature. Yet the same cannot be said about the “Mutti” of Germany, Angela Merkel.
During her 16-year reign Merkel witnessed russia’s imperialistic and authoritative personality up close: the invasion of Georgia, the Syrian civil war, the annexation of Crimea, and the war in Donbas. Seeing such sudden unpredictability and instability of her main “business partner” should have given the reason to practice the independence of Germany’s economy, right?
In reality, though, opportunism won, and Germany's economic dependence on russian gas rose to 55%.
And despite Chancellors being renewed every 4 years, the consequences still remain: opportunity steadily turned to addiction. Addiction made the economy reliant on the foreign policies of the “business partner”. The dependence on russia that came from such ties made Germany’s as well as Europe’s response back in February too slow. And any potential threat to russia’s economic capabilities led to the hypocrisy seen nowadays.
This appears to be the main reason why Scholz hasn’t immediately stopped exploiting the loopholes and initially stood against sending weapons to Ukraine.
End of the story.
ITALY: DIVERGENT VIEWS WITH A SLICE OF RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA
€22.5 million worth of military equipment, the export of 6,5% of European arms, and an additional €21.9 million in arms and ammunition in 2021 – a relatively tiny result compared to the giants of the chart, yet it still stands as the biggest one within the “small contributors” group. As a prior response to such a revelation, the Italian government has issued that they have delivered only vehicles, which are not as lethal or destructive as arms and dual-use products.
And, of course, one could agree with the previous statement on its non-harm in a bigger picture of the war, yet seeing these vehicles used not only by the russian army on the Ukrainian frontline, but also by the local Syrian militia leaders, makes me shiver of the ignorance of such perspective. Especially after discovering that the authorization on their export was granted long after the embargo decision was adopted.
But why were these exports still conducted, when Italy had no troublesome addiction to russian gas, with its officials knowing that they would not get as much enrichment as the previous two states? Well, I could only find one logical answer: it was a political decision based on the long history of friendship, which has fostered a new generation of Russophiles as well as influenced many of Italy's high-level governors and political parties to continue striking personal friendships with russian ones, including putin.
The pious outcome of such a historical love affair today can be clearly seen in the case of Zelenskyy’s address to the Italian parliament in March, where an estimated one in three parliamentarians were conspicuously absent during the speech. Moreover, rather baffling comments from Bianca Laura Granto, Vito Comencini as well as Nicola Fratoianni “justifying” such nonattendance are enough to realize the full picture of “pro-russian loyalism” policy, making certain representatives in the government use either privileged rhetoric of ignorant pacifism to explain their decision about not supplying Ukraine with weapons, or a straight-up fabricated russian excuse of NATO being the main culprit of it all.
Such a visible political divergence has paved its influence on the public media, making many of Italy’s talk shows feature certain pro-players in delivering kremlin’s propaganda - like Nadana Fridrikhson, an official TV host of the channel owned by the russian Defense Ministry. What is more tragic is the fact that such a choice of “trustworthy and competent guests'' is made only to boost the ratings with no regard for the consequences whatsoever.
With the constant spread of misinformation, it is unsurprising that almost half of Italians believe the information on the subject is distorted, 25% of Italians don’t trust the media about the war in Ukraine, and (the creme-de-la-creme of it all) a quarter of Italians claiming that the news and images of the massacres are falsified or artfully constructed by the Ukrainian government to delegitimize putin.
Nevertheless, with the current Prime Minister’s sudden compliance with NATO and 2022 EU sanctions as well as with the delivery of weapons to Ukraine, there is a chance for Italians to finally break out of the political and cultural bubble russia has spent years implementing onto them.
But would Italy fully embrace the pursuit of a democratic Europe?
Only the future will tell.
HOW DOES THIS REVELATION STATE A DANGER TO “A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC EUROPE”?
I would like to begin this section with the statement made by Admiral Lord West of Spithead, who straight-to-the-point described the main conclusion of this scandal:
“Using loopholes to avoid the EU arms embargo on russia post the Crimean invasion is effectively a crime and breathtakingly stupid”.
And in all cases, his words are mostly correct. As not only did such exports effectively violate Council Position 2008/944/CFSP, in which: “Member States are determined to prevent the export of military technology and equipment which might be used for internal repression or international aggression or contribute to regional instability”, but also this particular exposure has shown one of the most pivotal weaknesses of the EU policy as a whole, namely the inconsistency and duplicity of its member states with regard to compliance with sanctions against the current aggressor state.
Moreover, one has to keep in mind that the three previously mentioned states are not the only ones to have “sinned”. Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Finland, Slovakia, and Spain have also gotten themselves into this mess, contributing to the total number of €346 million worth of military equipment. And what is, indeed, tragic is that, despite closing the infamous loophole in the fifth package of sanctions on April 8, the damage has already been done. Not only in Ukraine, but in Europe as well.
In Ukraine, the consequences are seen in the number of casualties and war crimes conducted by the russian army with the weapons secretly given throughout six years of avoiding the 2014 EU embargo. In Europe, however, the free and democratic future is now also under an enormous risk, if not completely doomed. With the current disturbing rise of ultra-right and nationalist parties, like “Rassemblement national” in France / “FPÖ” in Austria / “AFD” in Germany, etc., such exposure presents a perfect opportunity for them to use manipulative and pro-russian rhetoric to gather more followers, who are gravely disappointed with the corruption of seemingly democratic parties as well as with the current inflation.
The primal essence of democracy and rule of law should not cease to exist when economic opportunities arrive, especially when they come from an outright totalitarian state. For the results of such secretive and immoral businesses, derived from using the purposefully made loopholes, not only make the democratic values worthless, but now also lead European countries into the same political crisis - in other words, “ultra-right and kleptocratic heaven” - as their main “business partner”, namely russia.
And that is how delivering weapons to Ukraine comes as a vital solution to such a crisis.
WHY HAS THIS SITUATION MADE IT ESSENTIAL TO DELIVER WEAPONS TO UKRAINE?
1. It’s no secret that such export has inevitably given the russian army a slight improvement and the courage to actually start the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This places the blood of Ukrainians who died during the time when Europe was responding slowly a bit on the hands of those nations that chose to have economic and political closeness with a dictatorship. Consequently, Ukraine will need the same amount, if not more, of heavy weapons to survive and prevail over the continuous russian aggression.
2. The Ukrainian military and people are not only protecting the existence as their sovereign state, but the peaceful future of the EU as a whole. Even from the economic perspective, it is better to help Ukraine with heavy weapons now than to later help us rebuild what will inevitably be destroyed while the European officials take their sweet time to think. One has to realize that the more days Ukraine waits for any military support, the more people are ruthlessly dying. Every second matters.
3. Ukrainians - men, women, and children - lay their lives for EU values. Now it is time for the EU to show that their deaths were not in vain. It is time for the EU to pass the test of whether it is in line with the principles and values it proclaims. And delivering weapons would be the first important step to make.
Lastly, Ukrainians sincerely appreciate all the help already provided. Yet one has to realize that the guaranteed victory can be achieved faster only by supplying Ukraine with weapons. For having such a possibility and not using them means to partake in the war on the side of the aggressor state and give a public confirmation that the free and just Europe has, indeed, perished.
IT'S TIME TO #ARMUKRAINENOW
Comments