Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 4:39:29 GMT
Fellow ministers, Belarra and Montero, I have heard and read time and time again your statements and arguments why you are completely opposed to the sending of weapons to Ukraine for its defense against the invasion of the Russian army. I am not going to go into the complex and profound geopolitical, diplomatic and military strategy reasons that intervene and explain Putin's attitude , because I have no idea in this discipline, as I suppose you don't either, because it is not our specialty, we are more focused on other matters represented in the ministries you direct. I focus only on the arguments you put forward to condemn the shipment of weapons that Ukrainian society desperately demands in order to defend itself and resist the cruel invasion. Although I do not agree with the string of disqualifications that you receive for defending this position, I also do not agree with those that you throw at those who do not share yours, describing them as "defenders of war." Likewise, I do not find the most precise comparison when it comes to illustrating your position, which seems to me to be closer to that of Chamberlain or Petain.
Seems to me that the alternative that expresses your refusal to arm Ukrainian society and thereby renounce its self-defense to expel the invader from its land, is the one made by Chamberlain with his commitment to agree to all of Hitler's demands to avoid war. Although that attitude, known as the Appeasement Policy, failed. It seems to me that what you are defending and temporizing is granting all of Putin's demands, which represent the end of Ukraine's sovereignty, because this will achieve the end Guatemala Mobile Number List of the war. You may be right, although it would not be fair or dignified for a leftist and progressive option defended this solution. It is not understood that the left does not defend the right that a society has to defend itself The other comparison could be that of Marshal Pétain who, to avoid confrontation with the invading troops of the German Third Reich, signed the armistice, in the face of “the overwhelming war power of the German army”, as is now argued in relation to the Ukrainian and Russian ones. Hitler accepted the armistice and established the conditions of the occupation of France, but thousands of French men and women, and many of our republican Spanish countrymen, took up their weapons and faced the invader, despite the infinite disproportion of forces and the risk of lose their lives, as was the case for thousands of them.
And precisely those people with a left-wing culture and democracy have revered and appreciated their value. I do not understand, you are not understood, that precisely from the left you do not defend the right that a society has to defend itself and also our obligation to help them exercise this right to fight against injustice. It is very possible that you are right when you argue the lack of effectiveness that sending weapons to Ukraine can represent given the disproportion of the respective Armies, since it can represent a drop in the ocean, without any possibility of leveling forces. But you should listen to the arguments of experts and diplomats, as pacifist as you, who understand that these weapons can prolong resistance for a few weeks or months and thereby lower the political cost, reduce the aggressor's expectations and put themselves in a better position for negotiation. and the cessation of the invasion. Anyway, colleagues, Belarra and Montero, thanks to these weapons, Ukraine can avoid the total capitulation that Putin seeks and can save an important part of the country from occupation and, in addition, it can represent an important asset when negotiating. And above all, perhaps, these weapons can also help keep alive the hope of a society that is cruelly attacked today. And, many citizens will be able to shout that motto that you two and we have shouted, excited and applauded so many times: “Better to die standing than to live kneeling.
Seems to me that the alternative that expresses your refusal to arm Ukrainian society and thereby renounce its self-defense to expel the invader from its land, is the one made by Chamberlain with his commitment to agree to all of Hitler's demands to avoid war. Although that attitude, known as the Appeasement Policy, failed. It seems to me that what you are defending and temporizing is granting all of Putin's demands, which represent the end of Ukraine's sovereignty, because this will achieve the end Guatemala Mobile Number List of the war. You may be right, although it would not be fair or dignified for a leftist and progressive option defended this solution. It is not understood that the left does not defend the right that a society has to defend itself The other comparison could be that of Marshal Pétain who, to avoid confrontation with the invading troops of the German Third Reich, signed the armistice, in the face of “the overwhelming war power of the German army”, as is now argued in relation to the Ukrainian and Russian ones. Hitler accepted the armistice and established the conditions of the occupation of France, but thousands of French men and women, and many of our republican Spanish countrymen, took up their weapons and faced the invader, despite the infinite disproportion of forces and the risk of lose their lives, as was the case for thousands of them.
And precisely those people with a left-wing culture and democracy have revered and appreciated their value. I do not understand, you are not understood, that precisely from the left you do not defend the right that a society has to defend itself and also our obligation to help them exercise this right to fight against injustice. It is very possible that you are right when you argue the lack of effectiveness that sending weapons to Ukraine can represent given the disproportion of the respective Armies, since it can represent a drop in the ocean, without any possibility of leveling forces. But you should listen to the arguments of experts and diplomats, as pacifist as you, who understand that these weapons can prolong resistance for a few weeks or months and thereby lower the political cost, reduce the aggressor's expectations and put themselves in a better position for negotiation. and the cessation of the invasion. Anyway, colleagues, Belarra and Montero, thanks to these weapons, Ukraine can avoid the total capitulation that Putin seeks and can save an important part of the country from occupation and, in addition, it can represent an important asset when negotiating. And above all, perhaps, these weapons can also help keep alive the hope of a society that is cruelly attacked today. And, many citizens will be able to shout that motto that you two and we have shouted, excited and applauded so many times: “Better to die standing than to live kneeling.
