It is a question being asked over and over again in villages, towns and cities across Europe and in Ukraine.
Why won’t the West join in the war in Ukraine and come to the aid of a country under siege from the might of the Russian war machine?
There is a very simple answer. For fear of a third World War.
Any war historian would be able to give you the historic timeline of the build up toWorld War 2. A dictator rising to power, identifying specific target groups of people to exterminate and then implementing a brutal regime killing civilians and sacrificing countless soldiers all in the name of an ideology driven by politics and hate. Sound familiar?
No one could ever have predicted that Europe would be witnessing the same scenes less that 80 years later in what we believed to be a much more civilised world.
The question most believed would never be asked again was would the West stand by and watch the dictator wreak death and destruction on a whole population. It is now the question most asked by people across the world.
It is a question being asked to western politicians by news channels.
This week BBC’s Zeinab Badawi interviewed the Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre
She began by asking the question in a different way. Why was Europe so slow to join in the battle.
The Prime Minister took issue and said he did not agree that Europe was slow. He gave the same answer we have heard so many times. Europe and NATO could not possibly be seen to be involved other than providing defensive weapons and humanitarian aid and implementing sanctions.
The journalist pushed the Prime Minister and asked why Europe was still paying over $1billion per day for Russian fuel. That she said was funding the war in Ukraine.
The Norwegian Prime Minister said that Europe was not slow and insisted that Europe had to speed up the introduction of renewable energies to stop the reliance on Russian fuel. He said that Europe cant take down its own economy and resist Russia.
He was asked why Norway didn’t pump more oil and gas. He said that Norway were pumping oil and gas at maximum. He said it was easy for countries who were less reliant on Russian fuel to end their supply.
He insisted that the future was renewable energy and addressing climate change with less reliance on Russia and on fossil fuels.
It was pointed out that Italy was talking about using coal and that Germany might be forced to burn coal, increase nuclear power potential and that the UK could lift the moratorium on fracking.
He was reminded that the drive for renewables might not be possible given that there is a war.
The EU intends to be weaned off Russian oil by 2030 and there might be a delay in retirement of nuclear power , and an increase in the use of coal which would not achieve the goal of renewables because of the war. It was suggested that if Europe stopped the Russian fuel supply it would stop the war. The Prime Minister again refused to accept that logic and said it was sanctions and humanitarian aid, which was the limit of what Europe could do.
Asked how many refugees Norway was taking the Prime Minister said that it did not make sense to put a figure on it as the war was unfolding.
He was pressed again and asked if not getting involved in the war was the best way to deal with Putin.
He said that NATO was securing 30 states and sending troops to countries bordering Russia. ‘Norway is the ears and eyes of NATO in the North’ he said.
His definitive response to that repetitive question was; ‘It would be irresponsible to move to war and it wont help Ukraine’.
Those sentiments were echoed by the President of the United States of America, Joe Biden who said on Friday; “I want to be clear: We will defend every inch of Nato territory with the full might of a united and galvanized Nato,” the president wrote on Twitter.”
But we will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. A direct confrontation between Nato and Russia is World War III