Petition Statement:

We who sign this petition ask you to immediately stop supplying weapons, military training, and other military aid to Ukraine.  Please mediate peace.

Background (updated 21 July, 2023):

The Ukraine War unnecessarily destroys the separatist regions of Ukraine, and risks direct NATO-Russia and nuclear war.  NATO's military involvement is undeserved, wasteful, immoral, and ultimately omnicidal.  We demand it must stop immediately: before this situation goes any further.

Here are facts of the situation:
1) This is a 'hot' (shooting) war.  People are being killed.
2) It is a civil war in Donbas since 2014, involving 29 failed ceasefires, and 2 broken international ('Minsk') agreements, not an invasion by Russia since February 2022.  Documentaries showing this include: The Donbas and Donbass. Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.  There is a long history to this conflict.
3) NATO and Russia have been militarily supporting opposite sides of the civil war since its early days.  The difference is that Russia in 2022 sent their own troops into the fighting, while NATO sends virtually everything but troops, as an indirect participant.  Moreover, some report that NATO is actually directing the Ukraine strategy.
4) NATO is wrong to accuse Russia of 'aggression' in the conflict because both NATO and Russia are involved militarily in Donbas' war, and sending weapons is not more moral than sending troops.  When you send troops you reduce the requirement for local soldiers, and you retain control of the weapons to the purpose they are sent for.  In fact, the one thing prominent people on both sides (eg. US​, Russian) seem to agree on is the NATO determination to fight this war 'to the last Ukrainian'.  Moreover, reports are that not some but maybe even most of the weapons NATO have been sending have ended up on the black market, even acquired by Russians (by whom they can be reverse-engineered), by Ukrainians selling them.
6) NATO doesn't seem to even acknowledge the narrative of the other side, which is hurting the peace process. For instance, whether Russia 'invaded' Ukraine or not depends on whether or not we recognize the separatist regions' authority to self-govern (which was guaranteed under the Minsk agreements which Ukraine signed).  From Russia's perspective, it was done legally: they first recognized the independence of the Donbas republics, they second signed a treaty with the government of those republics, and third they entered under that treaty.
6) Although NATO is not ostensibly a direct party to the conflict, it has openly and deeply committed itself to the conflict: NATO stands with Ukraine for as long as it takes).  This is further evidence that NATO is directing the Ukraine side, or else NATO presumably would hesitate to commit so absolutely to something you are not controlling.
7) A Ukraine war backed with NATO military support risks escalating into a war between NATO and Russia directly, a fear that your secretary-general of NATO, Mr. Jens Stoltenberg has shared publicly.  Russia has already publicly declared that NATO nations could be 'legitimate military targets' for the supply of conventional weapons alone.
8) NATO is boosting its own military presence nearby, and is accused of preparing for a ground war with Russia (is it?).
9) Russia’s weapon capabilities are advanced, including hypersonic missiles​, more nuclear weapons than all of NATO combined, and a mutually assured destruction system (called the 'Dead Hand').  These are supposed to be deterrents to the wise.  Clearly nuclear weapons have lost their deterrence or Ukraine wouldn't dare attack a nuclear power, especially not within their own borders.  Perhaps we have forgotten the horror of of nuclear war.
10) Since this conflict began, Russia has revised its nuclear weapon policy to legally allow nuclear first strikes on the opponent.  So has the United States.
11) NATO nations are sending nuclear-capable weapons (F-16s) and cluster munitions (which are banned in most countries including many NATO ones).  Russia has warned that the appearance of F-16s within the Ukrainian forces will definitely be interpreted as a nuclear threat, and that the use of cluster munitions is a potential war crime.  Assuming that Russia will retaliate to a perceived nuclear threat with nuclear weapon, we are definitely on-track for nuclear war starting at latest when those planes arrive in Ukraine.
13) Nuclear war can also happen by accident, and nearly has many times in history that we know of, and putting opposing forces of nuclear powers in close proximity in a tense situation only makes accidents more likely.
14) There are no peace talks happening regarding this war, which prevents a diplomatic peace from happening (even though diplomacy solved many other international military crisis such as the Cuban Missile Crisis).  NATO doesn't seem interested in them: for example, on your website the article entitled NATO's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine has no mention of peace talks past, present, or future.  The only mention that article has of 'peace' is how 'peaceful' Ukraine is, despite that being the theatre of this war.  So alien has the idea of peace negotiations in the Ukraine War become that, as the WSJ puts it, "Only Weapons Can End the Ukraine War".
15) The Ukraine War an indirect but real threat to all life on Earth, because it can result in global nuclear war, which is definitely a threat to all life on Earth. US President Biden publicly affirmed that the Ukraine War could escalate into what he called 'Armageddon': not merely as a risk, but as a destination on the current path.  The Doomsday Clock has moved to its most alarming position ever, mostly due to the Ukraine war, and the situation now is even worse than it was when they made that update.
16) Nuclear war is a more urgent danger than climate change.  Whatever is happening with the climate that is a long-term threat issue.  With today's missile technology, and military threat-retaliation times, nuclear war can start and finish so fast that, unless you are hooked up to live alerts, you probably wouldn't even know it started by the time it finishes.
17) NATO should no longer be able to claim we are doing this for the good of the People of that region.  Besides the mere prolonging of the war, and the conscription of civilians into it (by both sides), NATO is sending weapons to Ukraine of residual danger to civilians, including: depleted uranium and cluster munitions.  These leave behind radiation and unexploded bomblets, respectively, for many years, even long after the fight has ended.  Neither do they discriminate friend from foe from children.  They are crimes against humanity and the environment and internationally recognized as such.
18) Under the lend-lease law, it seems that at least some of the 'aid' to Ukraine is considered a loan, which it is unclear how they can repay, effectively risking the sovereignty of that nation.  Is that the price for our help?
19) The sending of such weapons into Ukraine is threatening the NATO alliance itself, because not all NATO nations are in agreement with it (or even sending any weapons at all).
20) NATO's involvement is making its member nations militarily vulnerable.  Our tremendous arms donations to Ukraine have been depleting our ammunition to very low levels, which is publicly admitted by US president Biden.
21) NATO gets nothing in return for Ukraine support.  Is there no better use for those resources?  As just one example of better value for money, it is estimated to require only about $40 billion per year to end world hunger, while EU and NATO have committed $112 billion in military aid to Ukraine between Russia's offensive on February 24, 2022 and the end of May 2023.
22) NATO is presenting the Ukraine war in a context which excludes the possibility of peace with Russia: presenting Ukraine as vital and Russia as a threat.  However Ukraine is not a NATO allow, presumably because the Ukraine parliament voted against joining NATO in 2010.  As a non-ally they are not entitled to our military support and somehow NATO has missed that fact, lavishing them with support as well as any ally could hope, without the reciprocal responsibilities of an ally.  Meanwhile Russia has rejected communism long ago, the US subsequently refused their 1992 offer of an alliance, and NATO has reportedly refused Russia's recent offer to 'stop being enemies'.  It's also dangerous to proclaim someone a threat rather than their behaviour a threat: if Russia's existence, rather than its Government's behaviour, is portrayed as a 'threat', then it leads us to think that destroying Russia is the only solution.  Conversely, if Ukraine is 'vital' for NATO, it leads us to think that no cost to support Ukraine is too high.
23) With seemingly supplies, training, and money pouring in from NATO so long as there's war, the Ukraine leadership has no practical incentive to end the war and in fact has worked more decisively to prevent peace than any party in this conflict.  In fact their president, Zelensky, reportedly refused a peace deal just before the war started, reportedly ignored another one they signed in Istanbul in spring 2022, and more recently is reported to refuse peace talks with Russia to the point of actually making it a law.  This is ironic because he was elected in 2019 on a promise to stop the Donbas war, including a promise to negotiate directly with president Putin.  So much for 'democracy'.  An informative documentary is Agent Zelensky.
24) On the other hand, if NATO stopped supplying arms to Ukraine, the war must end, because the Ukraine government would have no ammunition left to fight.  NATO could bring everyone to the table in advance, to fair peace terms for all.
25) Whatever NATO's intentions are, there are legitimate reasons for Russia to view NATO as a threat.  NATO has a strong public image of being founded (in1949) to deter Soviet/Russian 'aggression', which is essentially confirmed on your NATO website as one of NATO's three founding purposes.
26) Regarding NATO's moving towards including Ukraine in the membership, not only would immediate membership with a war on trigger a NATO-Russia war under Article 5, but it shouldn't be difficult for anyone capable of seeing the situation from the other party's perspective to understand why Russia wouldn't want a military organization explicitly purposed against it setting up missiles right at its border, especially not a short distance from its capital city (Moscow). The world understood this type of concern in 1962 when US president John F. Kennedy used the navy to physically block nuclear missiles being set up close to the USA in Cuba, and almost invaded Cuba. Even the Pope has pointed out that NATO "barking at Russia's door" may have lead to the Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine.
27) Russia also announced allegations of Ukrainian bioweapons research in alleged partnership with the United States.  US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Ms. Victoria Nuland has admitted to 'biological research facilities' in Ukraine in the context of concern of Russians seizing them.  Why worry unless they are somehow dangerous?  Interestingly, we know that the U.S. D.O.D issued a contract for COVID-19 Research to a company in Ukraine, 3 months before COVID-19 was known to exist.  That should concern everyone.
28) It should matter what the People of the contested regions want.  The majority is ethnically Russian, and they provably are not treated equally under Ukrainian rule.  There is a language law restricting any other language but Ukrainian. There is a race law denying human rights for ethnic Russians.  The People provably want to leave Ukrainian rule and join Russia: four contested regions have in September 2022 held referendums showing overwhelming support to join Russia (Donetsk 99.23%, Lugansk 98.42%, Zaporozhye 93%, and Kherson 87%). These referendums have been condemned by NATO as a sham, and illegal, but there are moral problems with automatically rejecting these referendums:
I) They are the only referendums these people are getting.  Ukraine law doesn't allow referendums like that.  The international community isn't offering any replacement referendums, even though to reject the vote without offering to re-do it is undemocratic.
ii) As for legal obligations, NATO could have easily demanded that Ukraine honour the Minsk agreements they signed granting the Donbas self-rule and prevented this whole problem.  Instead, German and French officials admitted those agreements were only to give Ukraine time to arm up.
iii) It's suspicious that the referendums were condemned before they even happened: as if the People must not be allowed any say.
iv) The international community could have sent independent observers to ensure that the referendums were conducted fairly.  Instead the EU and Ukraine actually threatened those who wanted to participate.
v) If we refuse to recognize the 2022 referendums, we could at least recognize the 2014 ones of similar result.  How many referendums does it take?  Do we have the right to effectively cancel someone else's referendum result?  Will we allow the the right of the Ukrainian people to determine their own future.?
vi) There is practical evidence that the people of the regions in question want to be part of Russia.  Neighbouring Crimea was annexed in 2014 by Russia, following their own referendum, and evidence that the ethnically similar People of Donbas really do want to be with Russia is that Crimea, under Russian rule, has enjoyed peace since that time while the People in the Donbas, remaining under Ukrainian rule, has been at civil war since that time against their rulers.
29) It doesn't help us that Ukraine is losing the war.   Despite all of NATO working together to help Ukraine, we haven't been able to push the Russians back, and they still hold much more territory than they had before their 2022 'invasion'.  Isn't that why the Ukraine aid issue is always with such urgency?  Isn't that the reason NATO is sending increasingly heavy weapons?  Isn't that why you had to beg South Korea to send Ukraine weapons, even against their policy of not arming nations in conflict (isn't your exerting pressure against a moral local policy deeply immoral)?  Even the September 2022 referendums in four regions of 'Russia-occupied' Ukraine: doesn't that show that Russia has succeeded to control more land than since they started, and is therefore, winning militarily?
30) Hasn't this war only made Russia stronger, in terms of: increasing the size of the military forces​, increasing weapons production (specifically including drones and hypersonic missiles), improving battlefield tactics​, increasing domestic support for the war, increasing the domestic approval rating for president Putin, and neutralizing domestic political opponents?
31) So far the only net winner in this war is arms manufacturers, especially when weapons sent to people without much time to get skilled in their use can't be expected to last very long.  Then they need replacements.  It's a repeating revenue stream, and a big one: arms are expensive.  Nevertheless even this winfall for manufacturers is temporary: ultimately there are no net winners in a nuclear war because of the extreme final costs to the planet we all have to live on.

NATO, how are you even protecting your own citizens in the matter of the Ukraine war?  Of course you are protecting the Ukraine Government, but your duty should be to your own People first.  There's not much risk to the Peoples of NATO if Russia keeps the separatist regions of Ukraine.  However, as already explained, there's tremendous risk to the Peoples of NATO, and every other living thing on Earth, if this war continues.  Do you at least have bomb shelters prepared, not just for yourselves but your own People, like Russia does (and even Kyiv does): exactly where do we take shelter if your gamble with our lives doesn't work out? 

How can we even prepare ourselves for the risk of nuclear war with leadership guidance like this:

• February 28, 2022: Biden says Americans should not worry about nuclear war after Russian actions
• October 6, 2022: Biden cites Cuban Missile Crisis in describing Putin's nuclear threat
• October 12, 2022: Biden believes Putin won't use nuclear weapons on Ukraine
• October 27, 2022: Biden: Putin's talk of possible use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine is 'dangerous'
• February 22, 2023: Biden says Putin's decision doesn't show he's thinking of using nuclear weapons
• June 20, 2023: Biden warns the threat of Putin using tactical nuclear weapons is 'real'
• July 13, 2023: Biden Reverses Stance on Prospect of Putin Using Nukes

Is this a joke?  We're depending on you to at least give us one clear message on the danger.  I mean our lives literally depend on it.  Please stop the back and forth narratives.

NATO, your actions have been reckless in the matter of Ukraine, but it's not too late to save the Alliance from the most serious dangers.  Even at this late hour Russia still offers that there will be peace if we simply stop sending arms to Ukraine.  As alarmingly difficult as the present situation is, the moral and safe solution, to simply do nothing, is surprisingly easy and cheap.  Please therefore immediately stop all military support of Ukraine.   It would also be very easy for you to mediate terms of peace in Ukraine, ensuring fairness.

If, on the other hand, you would be so villainous as to interfere in someone else's region to transform a situation which would be peace without your interference into the destruction of them, us, and maybe most life on Earth, we declare ourselves morally innocent of your gross mis-leadership by this our formal objection: you won't get any tacit consent for that atrocity out of us.