Here in Germany, many people are against further arms deliveries to Ukraine. While the consequences of this would only be more suffering, the motivations of the pacifists remain diverse.

The war in Ukraine divides Germany into those who want to supply Ukrainians with weapons and those who reject them. Those who reject it usually cite their general opposition to the war. However, the motivations of the alleged pacifists are different. These lines of distinction are particularly clear in the published "Manifesto for Peace" by Alice Schwarzer and Sahra Wagenknecht and at the linked demonstration at the Brandenburg Gate. With this heterogeneity, two questions arise for us pacifism-loving Germans: does German pacifism bring peace, and should we ask more closely why anyone would speak out against arms deliveries?

Pacifism is a lifestyle. Usually, this attitude is not influenced by considerations of individual conflicts. An almost libertarian view is that in most conflicts, neither party is defending the values of freedom. Civil wars in the Middle East or conflicts between multiple totalitarian regimes reinforce this position. Its advocates see themselves as realists, albeit of a fatalistic nature. They refuse to support governments or groups that exercise power against their own people. Some even see any conflict involving state institutions as a moral stalemate in which support for any side is forbidden. With regard to the vast majority of conflicts in this world, this position is understandable, but in the case of the Russian attack on Ukraine, it is not.

Anyone who, like me, has traveled to Ukraine since the war began is aware of one thing:

Ukraine is fighting for its independence from totalitarian Russia and the dream of making its society freer. The three revolutions that took place in Ukraine in 1991, 2004, and 2014 all had similar goals: a move toward greater freedom and transparency and away from being tied to Russia and the kleptocratic legacy of the Soviet Union. Ukrainians understand that a future of freedom and prosperity is not possible if they depend on Russia. They voluntarily fight as individuals who must first defend their homeland and then want to worry about politics.

This realization causes headaches for many German pacifists. Selenskyj is not a dictator who can send his citizens into an unnecessary war and whose defensive war can only be ended when Western support with weapons stops. His approval ratings were just under 31% before the war; now they are over 90%. They will probably fall again after the war as well.

This shows that Ukrainians are concerned with one thing alone: defending their homeland as individuals, not as loyalists to their president. It is true that Ukraine, like many states under Russian influence, is a state with much corruption. However, supporting Ukraine does not mean supporting those corrupt structures.

Supporting Ukraine means supporting individuals there who are defending their homeland. One should always prefer the direct support of individuals; however, this is not possible in terms of arms deliveries. Ukrainians will continue to fight, regardless of the West. Only their chances of victory and freedom will change if the West supplies too few or no weapons.

When talking to pacifists, one quickly encounters a phrase repeated like a mantra: "Weapons don't create peace, weapons are for killing." You hear it especially often from members of the postwar Baby Boomer and Generation X generations, who classify themselves as center-left.

They have had no material concerns or concerns for their own safety in their lifetime. They believe that every conflict can be resolved without violence and only with negotiation. This is probably the case because they have never had to participate in an armed conflict. This childlike naiveté is almost always accompanied by a visceral fear of firearms.

Alice Schwarzer is currently the best example of this group. She sometimes seems cheerfully naive, almost senile, when she talks about her vision of peace in Ukraine. According to her, the war would stop if Ukraine laid down its arms and negotiated. Of course, for that to happen, the arms shipments would have to stop.

She fails to realize that in that case, a still-armed Russia would impose its maximum demands. In the currently occupied territories, this would mean mass human rights violations, even genocide, over the next few years. The massacres of Butcha, Mariupol, and other smaller cities stand as sad evidence of this and make negotiations impossible for Ukraine at this time.

Schwarzer cannot be accused of condoning these consequences. Her naiveté in this case is particularly surprising and infuriating since, as a feminist, she would not advise any rape victim not to fight back and negotiate with her rapist for her integrity and bodily self-determination while he is still above her.

Ironically, this metaphor was not invented by proponents of arms transfers, but by Putin himself. In a phone call with Emmanuel Macron, he quoted Russian folklore in reference to Ukraine, saying, "Whether you like it or not, my beauty, you have to endure it." The fact that even this rhetoric does not stop Schwarzer from wanting to disarm Ukraine is very irritating.

Among the peace activists, one group stands out in particular. They talk conspicuously little about Ukraine, but much more about the United States and NATO. There seems to be little interest in Ukrainian-Russian history, not in the Holodomor, and not in the centuries-long suppression of Ukrainian culture. Instead, one hears a lot about how it was actually the U.S.'s fault that Russia invaded Ukraine and, of course, that the arms shipments should be stopped.

The fairy tale of a constrained and threatened Russia is shared by people who support Russia's war of aggression, or at least do not reject it. They are not pacifists, and they use pacifism merely as a fig leaf. Prime examples of this are Sahra Wagenknecht and the AfD. Many of them are said to have ties to Russia.

Unlike the other pacifists, one can assume that they are aware of the consequences of their appeal. When they call for an end to arms deliveries and negotiations, they are in fact calling for a Russian victory and an end to Ukraine as we know it. They do not share the ideals of a liberal, open, and free-market society and see authoritarian Russia as a countermodel to the West. Publicly, this often manifests itself in their anti-Americanism.

Sahra Wagenknecht is a representative of the classic left of the last century: material Marxist and anti-American. Just days before the barbaric invasion, she made bizarre talk show appearances, blaming the U.S. for the escalation. When Vladimir Putin says that the fall of the Soviet Union is "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century," I can't help but think that Wagenknecht shares that opinion.

Judging from previous comments, one can get the impression that Wagenknecht supports Russian land gains and thus an expansion of the counterpole to the liberal West. The fact that she calls Russia's war a brutal invasion in a single sentence in her petition seems like lip service in light of the abundance of her pro-Russian statements. If we Germans buy Wagenknecht's "pacifism," it shows that pacifism itself too often goes unquestioned.

For the most part, German pacifists are driven by positive ideals. Unfortunately, they lack knowledge about Ukraine and an understanding of armed conflict in general. Many would certainly change their minds if they talked to Ukrainians or learned about the situation on the ground.

Some, however, will not be convinced, largely because they have other motives. For this reason, it is important to always question why someone calls himself a pacifist and rejects arms deliveries. And it should be noted that German pacifists will not bring peace to Ukraine.

This article was written by Felix Hosse. Felix is a German writer and commentator and a fellow with Young Voices Europe. He is the co-founder of the EGO Institute, where he serves as president and executive director.