By Nick Haines, Portsmouth.
Despite being a lifelong supporter of the left, I find myself with a couple of fundamental questions regarding Ukraine and the left’s stance, particularly Young Labour’s recent ‘run in’ with Labour’s leadership.
There can be no doubt that negotiation is preferable to conflict and in the end, all conflicts are settled that way. This said, sometimes the terms of those negotiations can be so iniquitous they simply store up resentment that will surface later and sometimes more explosively.
What troubles me is that organisations such as Young Labour appear to believe that President Putin is open to negotiation. One may even see some merits or justification in some of his complaints but what he is demanding simply cannot be agreed to by Ukraine, the region or the West as a whole. He is demanding too much.
So, what DOES one do if the other side refuses to moderate their demands? There are only two options as far as I can see, acquiesce or fight. What third way IS there? Mr Corbyn is undoubtedly a ‘good man’ yet even he seems incapable of answering this and it’s no surprise to see him painted as an apologist for Russia and willing to allow Russia to take our nation over. That IS, after all the natural conclusion, the only conclusion if he rules out fighting. He can utilise as many appeals to common sense and humanity as he likes, it doesn’t change the fact that Putin does not see the world in the same way.
Nobody wants war but some are more prepared to countenance it than others. If Young Labour and others are going to accuse our leaders and NATO of ‘war mongering’, then that same term HAS to be apportioned to the Russian leadership. If the critics stay silent over Russian militarism and expansion then it’s hardly surprising they get called traitors.
The West may have played its part in the war we see today but it wasn’t they who invaded Ukraine. It wasn’t the West who denied plans to invade, then claimed they were simply seeking to protect ethnic Russians in the Donbass. It was Russia, and that is a simple fact.
Putin’s demand for a buffer zone
As for solutions, well some sort of withdrawal of Russian forces is a must. Perhaps Zelensky will agree to cede the occupied Eastern areas and the Crimea, allowing Putin to claim the campaign as a victory. Sadly for Putin, he has made Ukrainian membership of NATO far more likely than it was before but it is still some way off in the future.
Putin’s demand for some sort of neutral buffer one between the West and Russia is pretty meaningless in these days of missiles being able to travel around the world. How large would such a zone have to be? I also have my doubts that he would agree to a 50 mile DMZ on Russian territory but without reciprocity, it isn’t going to happen. Russia will continue to carry out military exercises on its borders, claiming it has an absolute right to do as it pleases on its own territory. The pity is, Putin will not give other nations the same right.
It takes two to negotiate but for as long as Putin thinks he can ‘win’ he will continue to make impossible demands. Do I think Ukraine is blameless? No. Has Russia behaved like the very Nazis it claims to still loathe? I fear so.
RT exhibits the very worst of this mentality with one presenter claiming the smashed window of a Russian bank in Ukraine was a new ‘Kristallnacht’. It wasn’t and the suggestion is an insult to our intelligence and decency. I fear this email will find its way to the Spam folder unread, no matter, I just wanted to share some thoughts.
I don’t agree with your views on NATO, Nick, but I am sure they will trigger a discussion and that is no bad thing.
On the issue of ‘defence’ I think there is a natural and understandable instinct on the part of all workers for peace and security in their own lives – how can that not be the case? But what has to be borne in mind in any discussion is that there is no “we” and “us” in a class society. What ordinary workers might want to protect, are not the same things that the British capitalist class would want to protect.
Workers would defend their homes, jobs, schools, hospitals and above their families. The capitalist class want to defend their privileges and wealth, their right to exploit everyone else, to keep workers impoverished and ignorant of the truth (hence their control of the media) and – this is important – to do the same to workers in other countries if given the chance. We defend the NHS, we do not defend the Monarchy. We are anti-racists and we do not defend Union Jack-waving jingoism. And so on.
NATO is not an organisation devote to peace and security. NATO bombed Belgrade in 1992 – that was not in defence of British homes. NATO invaded Iraq in 2003, causing even more damage than the Russians are doing in Ukraine today – and that was a war based on lies and not to defend British homes. NATO is simply the collective military arm of the Western capitalist class and socialists should not support it. If it comes to defending ourselves, the best possible protection we could have would be a genuine socialist country that would be the envy of workers everywhere and a pole of attraction to Europe and the world.
None of this is to say that we support the Russian mafia-state or its rape of Ukraine, as articles on this website make clear, we most certainly do not. But NATO is not making noises about defending Ukraine for the sake of ordinary Ukrainian workers (that is all propaganda, like saving “little Belgium” in 1914) – but because they want the right to exploit Ukrainian workers themselves, rather than Putin. And back to Young Labour. As Labour’s youth wing, it should have every right to hold its own views on NATO or anything else.