curtail the us 100% agree, stop exports to ukraine 100% disagree so they will be last on the list of parties i vote for
insane to think if Australia was invaded i’d want a bunch of other pacifists countries telling me how bad they feel and good luck
as a green voter this sucks balls, Ukraine support 100%,
Israel support zero
and treat the US as we’d treat China, Vietnam etc a third party state we trade with.
it wont stop me voting for the Greens as no party embraces all the polices I support but I’ll definitely be voicing my disgust when i meet with my state greens member occasionally and Shoebride will be there sometimes, as Larissa was.
It does, but it’s been their stance since forever…no arms supply, anywhere.
Russia has nothing to do with it.
The booting out of US bases I do agree with, 100%.
They play no favourites with it. It’s naive, but it’s not necessarily what may go forward if they held minority government either, because they’d hold that with Labor.
I’m not going to sour on the Greens for this position they’ve held forever. I don’t agree with it on Ukraine, but I don’t think wanting a position of peace is the worst thing a party could produce as well. And that’s what it is; not support for Russia or a tankie view.
Of course we want peace.
But when people like Putin attack war has come to you whether you want it or not.
And the aim of Putin is genocide. He wants no negotiation. There is only fighting and a chance or death.
I agree. I wish he didn’t hold or even voice it where Ukraine is concerned.
It’s one step back from a hundred forward though, and the US can certainly fuck off. Plus he’s proven he has our back as citizens over abuses committed by Israel a few times.
They care about us. That’s first for me.
Well, given how the allies defeated Hitler by unilaterally disarming, holding hands and singing Kum-Ba-Ya until he was shamed out of his warmongering, it makes perfect sense.
Yeah I said I didn’t agree with it
I’m still voting for them though, they still flog Labor
100% on not supporting the US. Why the hell wouldn’t they support Ukraine? That’s crazy. If you’re not comfortable with supplying weapons maybe just anything else?
If you’re not comfortable with supplying weapons maybe just anything else?
Yes, that’s explicitly the Greens policy, They are against any weapons trade even to allies. They support Ukraine and support medical and other material aid to Ukraine. They are also for trade sanctions on Russia above what we currently have, too.
Shoebridge has just done a terrible job of communicating that on his second day on the job, not realizing how much media will try to twist a negative spin on anything he says.
It’s been their principle since forever
It’s one of two or three naiveties they carry, but they are remaining true to their position
Really? No support for Ukraine?
They ally themselves with Trump’s main ally.
Will never vote Greens again.
They are against all arms trade in general. They do support other aid to Ukraine, and support tougher sanctions on Russia and Russia’s allies.
As usual, Greens have a nuanced policy of which one detail is being cherry picked by media to make them seem like they have an unpopular position.
Respectfully I disagree. These are as far as I can tell Shoebridge’s own words. A barrister and seasoned politician, who is familiar with the media landscape. This isn’t a case of the media cherry picking. Up to 70% of Australians support military aid for Ukraine so the reason that this is being reported on is because it’s not in-line with mainstream Australian views.
Honestly the argument that we should only provide aid if a UN Security council resolution is passed is weak. It would be like only ratifying Palestinian statehood if we first asked the US/Israel for permission.
This isn’t a case of the media cherry picking. Up to 70% of Australians support military aid for Ukraine so the reason that this is being reported on is because it’s not in-line with mainstream Australian views.
If focusing on the most unpopular single thing he said without explaining how it fits into a broader policy isn’t cherry picking, what is?
Most Greens leaders are experienced politicians but they all seem fall into this pattern, even though they should see it coming. Left-leaning-leaders in general make the mistake of getting bogged down on an ethical position (no arms trade) that has minimal effect on the grand scheme of things (Australia has hardly any weapons industry compared to most European countries) and letting it turn people off their party rather than considering the realpolitik effect on the popular vote.
They ally themselves with Trump’s main ally.
I don’t think that’s true. The Greens oppose Russian aggression. The policy supports UN-approved peacekeeping, including military aid for it.
The gap with this here is that the UN makes the UN Security Council responsible for deciding on peacekeeping missions, and the UNSC includes Russia as a permanent member (while excluding most states of the world), and allows any member to veto any resolution. So arguably a better fix here would be to adjust the criteria for when aid directed at peacekeeping should be provided.
Yeah, it sucks. They won’t wake up until they find themselves marching alongside One Nation and worse chanting support for Putin’s genocide. Perhaps not even then. They are the only environment, climate, social justice party of any substance and experience and they are still well worth a vote but they are stupidly naive on some issues. They need a long sit down with the German greens and a frank talk about Putin and Afd.
Here’s what Greens (including David Shoebridge) are actually advocating for in Parliament: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/UkraineSupport47/Report/Additional_Comments_from_the_Australian_Greens - note they are very much not supporting Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
A position against aggression is a good one, the mistake here is deferring to the UN Security Council to decide which aggressors we should retaliate against, which is sadly a flawed mechanism.
They won’t wake up until they find themselves marching alongside One Nation and worse chanting support for Putin’s genocide.
The Greens are against all arms trade in general. They don’t want to send weapons overseas for that reason but do support other aid to Ukraine, Notably, they support tougher sanctions on Russia and Russia’s allies (including those buying Russian fossil fuels).
None of that is “marching alongside One Nation”. The Greens have a pacifist policy - one might say naively pacifist - but it’s the opposite policy of Pauline Hanson’s One Neuron, who want to give away Australian land to US arms manufacturers and are all for the sale of fossil fuels and bombs to anyone.
What a coincidence that this stance aligns perfectly with Russias stance as well.
Shoebridge said the Greens backed the provision of “basic humanitarian and civil assistance” to Ukraine, and support for anti-corruption efforts, but the party opposed global weapons transfers as a matter of principle.
The party would support providing military aid to Ukraine if it were backed by a United Nations Security Council resolution, he said, but Russia would use its veto power on the council to block any such move.
What? That’s basically saying we will happily send military aid if Russia gives it the ok. Someone has fucked up this stance or the messaging around it.
“so they will be last on the list of parties i vote for”
Interesting take given how completely disgusting the vast majority of political parties are in Australia.
the greens have their red lines and so do i, i say bottom but i live in qld my options are usually
labor
greens
liberal
one nation
religious nutters
religious nutters
nutter party
religious nutters
so in this case it’ll be labor liberal greens then all the nutter parties
What is the Liberal party’s policy on supplying weapons to Ukraine? I just looked at their official website, but I couldn’t find any mention of it. In fact, there is an enormous contrast between the amount of policy information on the Greens website vs the Liberal Party website.
The Liberal party website has very little policy information at all, and what it does have is quite vague, such as “put speed limit on spending”. Whereas the Greens website has detailed policies and rationale across a very wide range of issues.
The Liberal party are using a “small target” strategy; which is to say they deliberately do not communicate what their values and intentions are except on a very small number of issues. This strategy relies on the idea that people often don’t think about things that aren’t put right in front of them. If they don’t say anything that you disagree with, then they are more likely to win your vote… and that’s exactly how it seems to be playing out for you.
In my view, if you are picking one idea from the Greens (in this case the idea that they will only provide humanitarian assistance to Ukraine rather than providing weapons), and then deciding to prioritise the Liberal party over the Green for that reason, that effectively rewards the Liberal party for not having any policies. If they have no policies, then they cannot have a policy that you disagree with; but that certainly doesn’t mean what they choose to do will be better than what you voted against.
Wars and the politics and that surround them are not straight forward. It is easy to have an opinion, but it is not easy to solve the problem. So although you might not disagree with one strategy that is put forward, I don’t think it’s necessarily wise to treat a lack of policy as a positive thing (which is what the small target strategy is about).
Seems pretty clear to me:
To this end, the Coalition calls on the Albanese Government to continue to provide military aid to Ukraine and to impose even greater sanctions on the Russian regime. In concert with other nations, such necessary action can tip the scales towards peace.
https://www.liberal.org.au/2026/02/24/4th-anniversary-of-the-invasion-of-ukraine
I used to include labor but their blatant corruption and choosing overseas industry over the people means they are done for me.
The so called party of the people, are definitely not that.
ok rusty
This whole thing seems to be a media distraction from the topic of Australia supporting the Israeli genocide against Palestine.
Note that the background issue to this is that a number of academics, human rights experts and other parts of Australian civil society (not the Greens explicitly) started the Red Lines Package - https://www.redlinespackage.com.au/ - a campaign from outside of parliamentary politics to “ensure that Australia doesn’t fund, arm, or invest in illegal settlements, war crimes, or genocide — anywhere in the world”.
The Red Lines Package came up at the select committee for selection of bills. Labor moved (see p39 of https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/29243/toc_pdf/Senate_2026_09_17.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf going by the actual PDF pages, numbered 25 at the top) that the bill not be referred to the committee (i.e. that it is dismissed without the public even having a chance to discuss it), with no reason provided. The Greens moved (see the Hansard on p39-40) that it should be immediately referred (allowing for public discussion). Independent David Pocock supported the bill as well.
Then the committee voted, and the Labor and Liberal members of the Committee voted down the amendment that the Red Lines Package Omnibus Bill be referred to the committee, effectively denying the public even of the opportunity to submit on it, and completely shutting down the discussion.
So the Greens listened to civil society and agreed that this is something that should be put up for open public discussion through the parliamentary process. Labor and the Liberals said no, we shouldn’t even talk about this. And then the SMH published a hit piece about it (even using the words ‘Red Lines’, so this is clearly what it’s about) and made it about Ukraine, and didn’t even mention Israel once in the article.
so they will be last on the list of parties i vote for
But note that means you’ll be putting parties that don’t even want to talk about us stopping support for the Israeli genocide ahead of the one party that is advocating for not supporting the genocide.
I’ll still be putting Greens at #1 in the Victorian election this November - they are far ahead of any other party in terms of human rights. I fully support Ukraine in fighting off the aggressors, and do think that their policy on supporting victims against aggressors could be clarified and improved.
C’mon David. This is an untenable take (even if “military export” is being interpreted as “all aid” by some).
But I kinda hate that everyone’s been so vocal for Greens to stop focusing on overseas issues WRT Palestine, but are then outraged at this. Both are important.
Initially i was peeved off at this but it does feel like the media cherry picking. Hopefully the party can clarify the stance.
Ukraine need this support. But if the ban also includes getting rid of support for russia/isreal/usa etc it has to be discussed. Realistically if they can support in other areas to massively compensate that sounds okaish but i am not sure AUS is in a position to sit on the sidelines as a pacifist nation given its vulnerability as a remote spot.
Realistically it would be good to see all parties put forward who they are offering support to, esp in the age of super interference. It is easy to say i don’t do politics but from war crimes to fuel prices politics are impacting us.
So you’re good with Labor selling us out to the US and Israel, fine with the NDIS being gutted and overhauled by Palantir, all good with a government that lets American AI companies fuck us up the arse, but you have an issue with one point on the Greens that they’ve held since forever, that’s one driven by peace.
No dramas
Appeasement is not peace.
It’s driven by a position of peace, not appeasement
It’s been their position since forever, for the same rationale: the Greens oppose war and weapons supplies
It might be naive in this current world, but it isn’t appeasement. On that naivety, sinner or later, if we want the decent world we claim we do, we’ll all need to adopt that position.
if we want the decent world we claim we do, we’ll all need to adopt that position.
Sometimes the problem is staring at you in the face 😉
Humans have been throwing shit at each other since we are monkeys and I have no doubt in 2300 we’ll still be fighting wars across planets like in starcraft
our job is to defend ourselves and our allies
You won’t get any argument on that last point, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the Greens and Shoebridge are a far better option than Labor.
Staring us in the face? The threat staring us in the face and we’re doing nothing about is the US and Israel, backed by Labor. They’re a bigger threat than any position the Greens hold on Ukraine. So I wouldn’t go soapboxing or pointing out what our job is if I were you.
Right now it’s to remove the real threat and that’s the US and Israel. It seems quite clear Labor stands against that and I’ll stand behind Shoebridge and the Greens against that, any day of the week.
sorry but ukraine is one of my red lines
climate change
anti-islam
anti-russia
they’re my big 3, saying you won’t provide military support to ukraine is not good enough
you should know me, i don’t give a shit about palestine and while it does piss me off albo taking a big dumb goofy photo with dickfingers, albo strongly supports ukraine, greens don’t, end of story
I don’t give a shit about Palestine
That’ll do me
That’s enough
Edit: while ever you hold that position, don’t have the hide to judge me on Ukraine particularly when I don’t agree with that position
