The shameful acts of the collective pacifist

Perhaps it’s the heat, perhaps the stifling humidity, perhaps it’s summer, perhaps it’s the distraction brought on by the holiday or post-holiday atmosphere. Yet the issue is very real, despite all the excuses in the world, and it concerns a massive cover-up staged in recent months by the so-called ‘No to Re-armament’ party, ever keen to condemn the West as it gears up to defend itself, whilst taking care not to condemn the exporters of terror who, amidst the indifference of the pacifists, continue to arm and rearm themselves to the teeth. The result is right there before our eyes. When Europe, NATO and Western countries try to spend a little more money to strengthen their defences, the collective pacifist takes to the streets, gets worked up, protests, tweets, challenges and demonises. When the exporters of terror spend vast sums of money arming themselves and strengthening their terrorist networks, the collective pacifist cannot even be bothered to get out of their hammock and carries on dozing. Not a single indignant tweet if Russia, as the German government reported yesterday, attempts to strike a Ukrainian cargo plane in NATO territory with an explosive drone, as happened a few weeks ago at Leipzig Airport. Not a shred of empathy if Russia bombs Odessa. The line is always the same – a line in Italy fully embraced by a cross-party political front stretching from the M5S and Il Fatto Quotidiano, through to AVS, encompassing a section of the Lega and extending as far as Vannacci. If rearmament is Europe’s doing, it is criminal. If rearmament is the work of the West’s enemies, it is not newsworthy. Yesterday, Der Spiegel, the German weekly, added further useful insights into the asymmetry that exists on the issue of rearmament. An asymmetry that drives the collective pacifist to chain themselves up if Europe defends itself, yet prompts them to whistle if Russia rearms. Der Spiegel cites a recent analysis by Janis Kluge, an economist and Russia expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin; according to the analysis, military spending in the first half of the year rose by 30 per cent, in Russia, reaching 10,700 billion roubles – approximately 107 billion euros – a plan that runs sharply counter to what had previously been promised by Defence Minister Andrej Rėemovičc Belousov, who, in the latest official budget, had forecast net cuts to military spending and armaments for the current year.

The estimate stood at 6.4 per cent of GDP, compared with 7.8 per cent in 2025; the federal deficit accumulated between January and July reached 2.8 per cent of GDP, compared with the target of 1.6 per cent set for the whole year. Russia attacks, encroaches, provokes, kills and rearms, whilst the collective pacifist whistles, instead denouncing the escalation by Europe and NATO. And the same approach, after all, can be observed on various fronts, such as those in the Middle East. One could speak at length about how the excitement caused by the failure of Trump’s war in Iran has shifted attention away from the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme to the threat posed by Trump’s delusions. But however much one may detest Trump, one cannot ignore the fact that Iran’s rearmament is a problem that may have an impact not only on the Strait of Hormuz, Israel and the Gulf states, but also on the rest of the world (Reuters noted a few days ago that the fate of around 440 kilograms of Iranian uranium enriched to 60 per cent remains unverified – material that could be further enriched – and at the end of July reported that Tehran had signed an agreement to purchase between 300 and 400 QW-12 and FN-16 portable anti-aircraft missile systems from China, with an estimated value of between 60 and 70 million dollars). Pacifists are celebrating Trump’s defeat, whilst remaining silent on Iran’s rearmament. The same scene can be seen in Gaza, of course. The collective pacifist movement showed both its best and worst sides when it had grounds to regard Israel as an obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

Today, the collective pacifist—who knows full well that the peace plan which brought an end to hostilities between Hamas and Israel provides for the disarmament of Hamas as a necessary step towards lasting peace—is outraged every time Israel tries to defend itself at its borders, yet remains silent when Hamas terrorists boldly declare that they have no intention whatsoever of disarming. On 28 August, Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas’s top leaders, denied that the handover of weapons was on the table in the negotiations: “We have not discussed the handover of weapons.” A few weeks earlier, in an interview with Piers Morgan, he was even clearer on the issue of disarmament: “We have not changed our mindset.” When the West defends itself, it is called rearmament; when the West’s enemies rearm, it is called defence. When the West seeks to protect itself, people take to the streets; when the exporters of terror choose to arm themselves to the teeth, we doze off. Perhaps it is the heat, perhaps the stifling humidity, perhaps the summer, perhaps the distraction brought on by the holiday atmosphere. But the fact remains. The collective pacifist who dreams of the West’s disarmament and whistles in the face of the rearmament of the West’s enemies is not making a mistake, nor committing a gaffe, nor taking a misstep. It merely confirms a small truth regarding its historical role: to be a fabulous Trojan horse for all those who dream of a weaker Europe, a more fragile West and an axis of terror capable of operating with few obstacles in its path. It is legitimate to reflect on the scope of the West’s defence. Turning a blind eye to the escalation by the exporters of terror is criminal. If there is a ‘wokism’ that is needed, an awakening that is needed, perhaps it lies precisely here. To try to understand why some rearmament makes the headlines whilst other rearmament does not. Wake up, please.