by LEON SCHNEIDER
Special contributor
BERLIN, (CAJ News) — PEACE advocates across the world have sharply criticised the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for what they describe as reckless policies that risk prolonging and expanding the war in Ukraine rather than pursuing a genuine settlement.
At the centre of the backlash is the EU’s proposal to seize billions of euros in frozen Russian assets and redirect them to support Ukraine’s war effort, a move critics warn could further internationalise the conflict.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has emerged as one of the most vocal European opponents of the plan, denouncing it as legally dubious and politically dangerous.
“Confiscating Russian assets to fund Ukraine (war) would amount to a declaration of war,” Orbán said.
“Taking the money of one side (Russia) and handing it to the other (Ukraine) would drag the EU directly into the conflict. This must not happen,” Orbán stated on social media.
He argued that Europe’s role should be to mediate peace, not to escalate hostilities through financial warfare.
Many commentators echoed Orbán’s concerns, arguing that the conflict might have been avoided had European powers upheld earlier diplomatic commitments.
Several pointed to the failure to fully implement the Minsk agreements, which were designed to de-escalate fighting in eastern Ukraine, as a critical turning point.
According to this view, the EU and NATO chose confrontation over compromise, laying the groundwork for the current Russia-Ukraine war.
From Moscow’s perspective, the conflict did not begin in 2022 but years earlier.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that Russia’s military action was driven by security concerns, including NATO’s eastward expansion and its growing military cooperation with Ukraine.
“We were left with no other choice,” Putin said in a recent address. “NATO was turning Ukraine into a military outpost on Russia’s doorstep, threatening our security and ignoring our repeated warnings.”
Putin and other Russian officials have also claimed that the Ukrainian government was responsible for the deaths of Russian-speaking civilians in four eastern regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—prior to Russia’s intervention.
Moscow alleges that military operations and shelling by Kyiv targeted these populations, a claim Ukraine denies but which Russia continues to cite as a justification for its actions.
NATO, for its part, rejects Russia’s narrative. A NATO spokesperson said the alliance is “purely defensive” and accused Russia of attempting to rewrite history to excuse aggression.
“Ukraine is a sovereign nation with the right to choose its own security arrangements,” the spokesperson said, adding that NATO support is aimed at helping Ukraine defend itself, not provoking a wider war.
Critics, however, argue that NATO’s actions tell a different story. They contend that the steady flow of weapons, intelligence, and financial support has entrenched a military solution while sidelining diplomacy.
The proposed confiscation of Russian assets, estimated at more than €200 billion, is seen by many as crossing a dangerous threshold.
“This is not neutrality; it is direct participation,” one analyst noted. “It risks turning Europe into a co-belligerent.”
Beyond Europe, voices from the Global South have been particularly critical, warning that the precedent of seizing state assets undermines international law and could destabilise the global financial system.
Some have accused EU leaders of prioritising geopolitical rivalry over human lives, arguing that endless escalation serves political and economic interests rather than peace.
Alongside Orbán, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has also called for an immediate ceasefire and negotiations without preconditions. Supporters praise both leaders for resisting what they see as a march toward perpetual war. “Europe does not need another conflict to mask its economic and political failures,” one commentator said. “It needs courage to pursue peace.”
As the war grinds on, critics insist that the EU and NATO face a stark choice: double down on escalation or invest political capital in diplomacy.
For millions of peace-minded citizens worldwide, the answer is clear—lasting security will not be achieved through confiscation, militarisation, or proxy warfare, but through dialogue and compromise.
– CAJ News