Claims by the Slovak publication Zem&Vek and Norway’s recast military aid to Ukraine as evidence that European states and their allies want a direct war with Russia.
The publications promoted the narrative on 22 and 23 September 2026, portraying international support for Kyiv as an attempt to provoke a wider conflict. Their claims ignore the legal basis for Ukraine’s defence and the distinction Western governments draw between supporting a country under attack and taking part in combat.
Zem&Vek argued that the European Union had for years been conducting a “real hybrid war against Russia”. It acknowledged that the EU, US, Nato and other groupings were providing Ukraine with substantial financial assistance and large quantities of weapons, but claimed that the purpose went beyond defending the country. Western weapons, it said, were also attacking Russian territory and killing Russians in their own country. The publication’s article is available here.
presented a similar argument from a different starting point, claiming that European leaders never discuss how to avoid war or achieve peace, but instead keep “provoking” a conflict that, if it began, would be a historic catastrophe for Europe. Its article is available here.
A legal right presented as provocation
The central claim in both accounts is that weapons supplied to Ukraine demonstrate a Western desire for war with Russia. But military support for Kyiv by EU member states, the US, the UK and other countries is framed by those governments as assistance to a state exercising its right to individual and collective self-defence under article 51 of the United Nations charter.
That distinction matters. Ukraine was invaded by Russia in February 2022 and subsequently sought help from international partners. The provision of weapons did not create the war; it followed Russia’s full-scale invasion and Ukraine’s effort to defend itself. Presenting that sequence in reverse turns the response to aggression into its supposed cause.
The support also does not make the EU, European countries or Nato parties to the fighting. Western governments have maintained a separation between helping Ukraine defend itself and directly entering the battlefield. Nato has said it will not send troops to Ukraine or impose a no-fly zone, because either step could lead to direct confrontation with Russian forces.
Deterrence rather than direct confrontation
The stated policy of the EU, the US, the UK and other supporting countries is to give Ukraine the capacity to resist while preventing the war from spreading beyond its borders. Military aid is therefore presented as a deterrent: by increasing the cost of further aggression and reducing Russia’s ability to impose its demands by force, it is intended to make escalation less attractive.
Zem&Vek and instead interpret deterrence as preparation for war. That framing removes the difference between being able to defend against an attack and seeking to launch one. It also overlooks the practical decisions made by Nato and European states specifically to avoid direct military confrontation with Russia.
Western governments have combined military assistance with diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on the UN charter and international law. The existence of those efforts does not remove disagreement over how peace should be secured, but it contradicts the claim that European leaders are concerned only with fuelling a conflict.
How the security balance changed
The two publications also leave out the event that transformed Europe’s security environment: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The attack prompted European states to reassess their defence capabilities, strengthen Nato’s eastern flank and increase spending on security. Those measures are presented by the outlets as evidence of an offensive agenda, even though the stated purpose is to respond to and contain a threat created by the Kremlin.
Stopping military assistance would not automatically bring peace. A weaker Ukrainian defence would give Russia greater scope to continue the war and increase military and hybrid pressure on European states. Continued support, by contrast, is intended to limit Russia’s capacity for further escalation and prevent a greater share of the security risks from being transferred directly to EU and Nato countries.
The dispute is therefore not simply about the volume of weapons sent to Ukraine. It concerns whether support for a country resisting invasion should be understood as escalation or as a means of preventing a wider conflict. The answer will shape how Europe weighs the risks of helping Ukraine against the consequences of leaving its defence weakened.
Should European governments prioritise continued military support for Ukraine as deterrence, or would reducing that support offer a more credible route to peace?
