[WSMDiscuss] Ukraine: Invasion and Resistance: What the Left (worldwide) should do

[Sukla Sen]

[This is a remarkably cogent and strikingly elaborate explication of what's
going on in Ukraine and what the global Left - the Left in Europe and the
North America in particular, should do - while opposing the "war of
invasion". Regardless of whether one agrees with it, in toto or at all, it
deserves a close reading.

An extract:

<<...We consider that empathy towards populations affected by war,
repression, and exile is a fundamental driving force of internationalism
and militant ethics.

...

In the face of a war of aggression, solidarity means recognizing the right
of Ukrainians to defend themselves. That the Ukrainian government is
capitalist does not change the situation. Nor does the existence of the
extreme right in Ukraine, like everywhere else, and actually less than in
many countries, Russia in particular.

...

*Faced with the risk of escalation into continental war and use of nuclear
weapons, we must oppose any moves towards direct conflict between NATO and
Russia.*

...

*We support state sanctions that target the personal property of the
Russian elite, and trade and financial sanctions which reduce the Russian
state’s income and its ability to continue its invasion and occupation of
Ukraine*.

*We also support civil society initiatives for boycott and pressure on
corporations to divest from Russia, whenever the target is direct support
for the Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine*.

...

There is also a largely spontaneous movement of cultural and sporting
boycotts. This has signalled Western condemnation of Russian policies and
actions and solidarity with Ukraine.

Some boycotts express a hostility to Russian culture or Russian citizens as
such. These cause unjustified discrimination, alienate well-meaning
Russians, and reinforce an aggressive Western campaign of demonisation of
the Russian ‘other.’

...

The flood of refugees testifies to the extreme violence of this war. It is
rare to witness such an exodus in such a short period of time. It suggests
a genocidal ‘cleansing’ and elimination of Ukrainian and disloyal elements
from the planned territory of the ‘New Russia’ colonies.

*The international anti-war movement must be independent of the great
powers*. *That means not aligning itself with the Western powers (United
States, European Union, Great Britain) as the western liberals, social
democrats and greens have done. It also means not aligning itself with
Russia or China with a ‘campist’ position (supporting whichever ‘camp’ is
against western imperialism)*.

...

*We are opposed to NATO expansion and aggression*. *We oppose all increases
in military spending by NATO countries. Indeed, we call for reductions in
military spending in favour of social, health and education sectors in
particular. We oppose all future expansion of the already extensive NATO
facilities in Europe and propose a reduction in NATO forces as an essential
element of the demilitarisation of the East European space. We oppose all
NATO deployment outside its member countries. We oppose any countries
joining NATO. We are in favour of any country leaving NATO, and the
dissolution of the alliance. The future security of European countries,
particularly the poorest countries, must be based on a broad and
non-confrontational framework*.

...

We see no contradiction between calling for reduction of military spending
in NATO countries and supply of weapons to Ukraine. In fact, donation of
weapons to Ukraine without increasing military budgets in NATO countries
would contribute to the reduction of the NATO stock of weapons. Of course,
this will only have a limited effect, since the NATO countries are
providing Ukraine with mostly older weapon series, particularly the
Soviet-era weapons still in use or in storage by the NATO members in the
east of the EU.,

...

The only former Soviet republics in Europe which have not joined NATO are
Belarus, a (rather dependent) ally of Russia, as well as Moldova and
Ukraine. NATO might continue to make false promises of future membership to
these two countries, but the current conflict has confirmed NATOs refusal
to expand further into the former USSR space. However, NATO military
support will likely be increased to these countries and to other western
allies in the former USSR, notably Georgia, which has its own recent
history of conflict, invasion and occupation by Russian forces and local
allies. Local populations are likely to prefer the perspective of NATO
membership, in the absence of credible alternative security arrangements.

If Russia is partially or largely victorious in this war, Moscow will be
increasingly likely to threaten or use force in its relations with Belarus,
and the former Soviet republics in the south Caucasus and Central Asia. The
CSTO has a police focus, but could be expanded. However, only Belarus and
Armenia are militarily and economically dependent on Russia; other CSTO
states may be tempted to diversify their alliances, particularly towards
China. A Russian defeat would likely accelerate this process. While the
Russian goods and labour markets remain important for many of these
countries, oil and gas producers like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan
and Turkmenistan have more options for economic development.

*The elimination of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons is more
important than ever*. *Russia, the US, France and the UK should reiterate
their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons. *Faced with the
current military stalemate, Putin has repeatedly upped the strategic ante
by brandishing the nuclear threat and then firing a medium-range hypersonic
missile at a target near the Polish border. Both sides have accused the
other of planning chemical or biological attacks. We see that, instead of
making war impossible (the ‘balance of power’ doctrine and concern with
‘mutually assured destruction’), possession of nuclear weapon is actually
used to enable conventional warfare in the heart of Europe, under the
shelter of the atomic umbrella of the aggressor. The peace movement has
long argued that only nuclear disarmament could free us from this threat.
Putin has proved us right. But beware: all the powers possessing nuclear
weapons seek to make them politically acceptable, and again and again come
forward with concepts for tactical use of smaller, more acceptable nuclear
weapons.

* We have all seen the banners carried by Ukrainians in the diaspora in
peace demonstrations: “If Russians stop fighting, there will be no war; if
Ukrainians stop fighting there will be no Ukraine.” The stronger the
Ukrainian resistance, and the greater the ability of progressive Ukrainians
to participate in and shape that struggle, the better the peace, and the
better society Ukraine will be afterwards.*

...

*We denounce the war crimes committed by the Russian army in Ukraine*. *In
addition to the unjustified invasion, Russia has attacked civilians, and
attacked civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals. Russia has prevented
civilians from leaving besieged cities, while also threatening civilians
with military tribunals if they do not leave. The fact that western leaders
are denouncing Russian war crimes doesn’t mean that we should be silent!
Rather, we denounce all war crimes and crimes against humanity, regardless
of the responsible actor. We denounce the hypocrisy of the Western powers
who denounce Moscow by invoking international legality and great
humanitarian principles which they themselves have repeatedly violated*.

...

*}*The rights of minorities in Ukraine must be recognised*. *But advocating
this right must not fuel Putin’s discourse, which claims to intervene to
defend Russian-speaking Ukrainians threatened with genocide. The question
of the return to legal linguistic equality, and the use of the country’s
various languages in education, administration and the media, including in
the Donbass and in the Crimea, cannot be resolved under Russian occupation.
A genuine concern with minorities in the Ukraine must also incorporate
measures to protect the Ukrainian and Tartar minorities in Crimea, more
than one quarter of the population, who have lost virtually all linguistic
and cultural rights since the Russian invasion and unilateral incorporation
of that territory into the Russian Federation*.

...

*We support political, financial and material solidarity with the forces of
the left and the independent social movements in Ukraine*.>>

In this context a very useful glimpse into how the Chinese regime is
projecting the massive and brutal invasion: <
https://groups.google.com/g/greenyouth/c/hSPQ_Ol2uyI>. This would help the
reader to decode the positions of very large section of the Left.]

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article61764

Thursday 24 March 2022 (last updated on 28 March), by *JOHNSON Mark,
ROUSSET Pierre*

We present  our understanding of the tasks facing the left, particularly in
the West. We hope to contribute to the debate and the construction of the
peace movement, solidarity with the Ukrainian left and social movements,
refugee support and anti-racism, and the strengthening of alternatives to
imperialism in the west and the east of the European subcontinent.
  Contents

   - Theses on the peace movement
   <http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article61764&fbclid=IwAR3xryAQreCTsF-95EIqlBt0Of_AgcA-UWLJN8YpswJCvrM8tzrqHqqYSB0#outil_sommaire_0>
   - Theses on solidarity with (...)
   <http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article61764&fbclid=IwAR3xryAQreCTsF-95EIqlBt0Of_AgcA-UWLJN8YpswJCvrM8tzrqHqqYSB0#outil_sommaire_1>

We live in a world of permanent war. This conflict has a global impact, on
food and fuel prices, on trade relations, on regional integration, and on
the way the left understands war, imperialism and solidarity.

The international anti-war movement had become less active in recent years,
despite conflicts in Yemen, Congo, Ethiopia, and of course, more than once
in Ukraine. We now face an urgent challenge of rebuilding our international
solidarity and peace movements.

The reconstruction or strengthening of anti-war movements poses different
challenges for socialists in an imperialist country or not, in a NATO
country, with bases and American missiles (like the Spanish State) or
without (like France), in a country threatened militarily by Russia
(Georgia) or dependent on a Russian security guarantee (Armenia).

Here in Europe we must make every effort to strengthen the links between
anti-war resistance in the West and East of our sub-continent, on all sides
of the conflict. We must understand each others’ specificity, and find ways
to act together on a continental and global level around common axes of
mobilization (see below).

In the west of Europe, we could start by asking the question: why did we
not see this war coming sooner? Left comrades and allies from Ukraine,
Russia and other countries in the region have been sounding the alarm bells
for several years. But many in the western left believed that the rise in
military tension on the borders of Ukraine was essentially a means of
pressure exerted by Moscow on the NATO countries. We only took into account
the NATO factor, and our own struggle against our own ruling class.

We now see things more clearly. Putin’s speeches just before and since the
invasion make clear Russia’s imperial project, in its military, economic,
political and cultural dimensions.

This conflict has come at a moment of deep crisis in NATO, after the
debacle in Afghanistan, and tensions relating to the Trump administration.
Internal divisions were evident, with some European NATO countries
proposing a stronger West European military coordination, with a weakening
of US coordination. US President Biden chose other levers to regain US
control in the Asia-Pacific zone, with redefinition of the role of the Quad
and the establishment of the AUKUS (at the cost of relations between the US
and UK on the one hand and France on the other).

The military assets of the United States and NATO were (and remain) weak in
Europe, compared to the Cold War period. This weakness showed in Biden’s
immediate response to the Russian invasion, when he immediately announced
that there would be no military intervention by the US. Several European
NATO countries expected quite a different stance, particularly those
countries with a historical memory of Russian or Soviet invasion and
occupation.

Putin intended to win quickly and place the Western powers before a *fait
accompli*, as he had successfully done many times, in Chechnya, Syria,
Georgia, Donbas, Crimea, and Kazakhstan. This time, Putin’s planners
underestimated the resistance of the army and population of Ukraine – both
Ukrainian and Russian speakers. Nevertheless, Putin’s show of force exposed
and accentuated the divisions within NATO. Almost every day, leaders of
NATO countries make contradictory statements about what the alliance’s
strategy is, particularly regarding support to Ukraine.

The conflict has also exposed a three way split in the European left.

The biggest sections of the left - the social democrats and the greens -
have become the biggest cheermongers for NATO, as in previous conflicts. We
want to help these progressives understand the injustices committed by our
rulers, in Eastern Europe and in the rest of the world. Putin has made this
explanation more difficult. After this invasion, some progressives have
become more favourable to the European Union and NATO.

Part of the anticapitalist left has been unable to find its feet in a
conflict imposed by a non-western imperialism. These comrades are confused.
They refuse to go beyond mild criticism of the Russian invasion, are
reluctant to extend solidarity to Ukraine, and insisting against all the
evidence that NATO is sole or main responsible, that Ukraine is a western
puppet or proto-fascist state, and that Russia is the real victim. Their
position is ‘campist’ – they automatically support whoever is against the
Western ruling class. Ukrainians, and also Syrians, have tried for years to
warn the Western left against this dead end politics. Let us hope some
comrades’ eyes will finally open now that we have another Russian
imperialist war to deal with.

*The campist failure is not just in the military and geopolitical
dimension. The starting point of solidarity is surely the defence of
populations who are victims of war.* The campists fail to act in solidarity
with the Ukrainian population, in the name of their twisted geopolitical
considerations. They coldly separate human suffering, recognising the
victims of US imperialism, and marginalising, ignoring or denying the
existence of victims of other imperialisms (in Syria, the victims of Bashar
al-Hassad and his Russian supporters, in Eurasia the Chechens, Georgians
and Ukrainians, and in China the Uygur and Tibetans).

We reject this approach. We consider that empathy towards populations
affected by war, repression, and exile is a fundamental driving force of
internationalism and militant ethics.
------------------------------

*’If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade
of mine.’*

*Ernesto Che Guevara*
------------------------------

We present below our understanding of the tasks facing the Western left in
particular. We hope to contribute to the debate and the construction of the
peace movement, solidarity with the Ukrainian left and social movements,
refugee support and anti-racism, and the strengthening of alternatives to
imperialism in the west and the east of the European subcontinent.

<http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article61764&fbclid=IwAR3xryAQreCTsF-95EIqlBt0Of_AgcA-UWLJN8YpswJCvrM8tzrqHqqYSB0#outil_sommaire>Theses
on the peace movement

*This is an unjustified war of Russian imperialism against the poorest
country on the European continent.* *Russia should immediately end all
forms of interference in Ukraine, and withdraw all its troops and
mercenaries, and immediately de-fund pro-Russian militias in the Donbas.
United Nations peacekeepers should be deployed in the territory of the
so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics and in Crimea, until the
definitive status of these territories can be peacefully resolved, based on
the will of the population, including former residents who have left these
regions as a result of conflicts in recent years.*

*We support Ukrainian armed resistance; we desire Ukraine’s liberation from
its foreign occupiers by any legitimate means. It follows that* *we are in
favour of the supply of defensive armament to the Ukrainian authorities and
people.* *We recognise Ukrainians’ right to obtain weapons from any source,
including from NATO countries.*

We particularly support the delivery of weapons most suitable for the needs
of a popular resistance, including anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft
defence systems. We reject the impossible preconditions and excuses of
those who oppose a Ukrainian victory by demanding that Ukraine must first
guarantee that no weapons fall into the hands of the extreme right or
criminal elements (impossible), or that Ukraine should only purchase
weapons from non-aligned countries even when NATO countries will provide
them for free.

In the face of a war of aggression, solidarity means recognizing the right
of Ukrainians to defend themselves. That the Ukrainian government is
capitalist does not change the situation. Nor does the existence of the
extreme right in Ukraine, like everywhere else, and actually less than in
many countries, Russia in particular.

It is not up to us to decide for the Ukrainians the form of their
resistance. So far, they have engaged in a multifaceted armed struggle,
alongside civic mobilisation. Pacifism and passive resistance would not
have been enough to avoid the tragedies and the human cost of this war, of
which we are all aware. A lightning victory for Putin would have been an
encouragement for him to go even further.

Ukraine’s own armaments industry is not sufficient to meet the country’s
immediate needs, and was heavily damaged during the conflict. It does not
produce the specific weapons which are most required, and not in sufficient
quantities.

*Faced with the risk of escalation into continental war and use of nuclear
weapons, we must oppose any moves towards direct conflict between NATO and
Russia.*

Direct conflict between imperialist countries would bring much greater
suffering, with potentially global negative impacts. The Ukraine conflict
is the latest in a long series of indirect confrontations between the NATO
countries and Russia, earlier the Soviet Union, stretching back into the
Cold War. Moves that could provoke an entry into direct inter-imperialist
conflict include ‘tactical’ use of small nuclear or chemical weapons inside
Ukraine, NATO imposition of a ‘no fly zone’ over parts of Ukraine, and
presence of NATO troops inside Ukraine.

Western support for Ukraine in this conflict, including the supply of
defensive weapons and non-military aid does not make this a direct
inter-imperialist war, just as the numerous conflicts during the Cold War
were not inter-imperialist wars, even if the West and the USSR usually
provided support to opposing parties.

*Against the Russian invasion, we call for Boycott, Sanctions and
Divestment (BDS)*

*We support state sanctions that target the personal property of the
Russian elite, and trade and financial sanctions which reduce the Russian
state’s income and its ability to continue its invasion and occupation of
Ukraine.*

*We also support civil society initiatives for boycott and pressure on
corporations to divest from Russia, whenever the target is direct support
for the Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine.*

This is not the first time that we have advocated the use of international
sanctions. We called for sanctions against the apartheid regime in South
Africa. We do so nowadays too, as part of the BDS campaign in defence of
the Palestinians, and with regard to Burma (Myanmar) after the military
coup last year. The type of sanctions is obviously a fundamental question.
We must not just align ourselves with Washington or Brussels. Rather, we
must take into account the opinion of the Ukrainian progressive currents
concerning the nature of those sanctions which can be defended and those
which must be condemned, in the specific current situation. Since the
invasion, the Ukrainian population has been overwhelmingly in favour of the
sanctions proposed by Western governments. The Ukrainian left has not
objected to any specific sanctions so far. The Russian radical left does
not oppose BDS so far; neither do they call for BDS.

Sanctions have focused on reducing Russian access to financial markets and
banking services, alongside a rapidly expanding list of import/export bans.
Some of the eastern EU member states are calling for a total ban on trade
with Russia. The larger western economies so far prefer targeted bans and
punitive import taxes on Russian products. These sanctions will certainly
cause a severe recession in Russia, even if the EU and other Western
European countries have so far avoided the most effective sanction:
reducing its purchase of Russian oil and gas [1
<http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article61764#nb1>]. Western
companies have nevertheless started reducing their purchases from Russia,
enabling Asian, particularly Indian and Chinese buyers to obtain big
discounts on oil purchases.

Boycott by civil society and pressure on institutions to divest their
investments in Russia has been widespread and diverse in the few weeks
since the invasion. Anticipating demands from civil society and from
western governments, a growing number of multinational and smaller
corporations are suspending or terminating their Russian operations. There
is also a trend of consumers refusing Russian goods and services, which
negatively impacts the Russian economy, with the main impact falling on the
general population rather than decision-makers.

There is also a largely spontaneous movement of cultural and sporting
boycotts. This has signalled Western condemnation of Russian policies and
actions and solidarity with Ukraine.

Some boycotts express a hostility to Russian culture or Russian citizens as
such. These cause unjustified discrimination, alienate well-meaning
Russians, and reinforce an aggressive Western campaign of demonisation of
the Russian ‘other.’

*All refugees from Ukraine must receive the best welcome. **For the first
time, the European Union has activated its “temporary protection”
directive, in the favour of these refugees, which gives them access to
work, study and social protection. This precedent must now be used for the
benefit of other refugees (Syrians and others). Under pressure from civil
society, several European states have already extended “temporary
protection” and other country-specific measures (free transport, etc.) to
all Ukrainian refugees – citizens or foreigners previously resident in
Ukraine. We should continue the pressure, also in solidarity with refugees
from other countries. We denounce the institutional and widespread racism
exposed in the much greater western humanitarian response to Ukrainian
suffering compared to the suffering of non-white (or non-Christian)
refugees from other conflicts and catastrophes.*

*Most refugees from Ukraine are concentrated in Ukraine’s western
neighbours - all of them EU member states except for Moldova. These are
among the poorest countries in Europe. Most refugee support services in
these countries are provided by civil society. The state is failing to
provide housing and social protection and is too slow in expanding the
health and education facilities required for those refugees who will stay.
The state must do more.*

*All EU countries should share the financial burden of refugee crises.*

The flood of refugees testifies to the extreme violence of this war. It is
rare to witness such an exodus in such a short period of time. It suggests
a genocidal ‘cleansing’ and elimination of Ukrainian and disloyal elements
from the planned territory of the ‘New Russia’ colonies.

*The international anti-war movement must be independent of the great
powers.* *That means not aligning itself with the Western powers (United
States, European Union, Great Britain) as the western liberals, social
democrats and greens have done. It also means not aligning itself with
Russia or China with a ‘campist’ position (supporting whichever ‘camp’ is
against western imperialism).*

A pro-Russian, campist alignment inside the peace movement would mean
avoiding criticism of Russia’s regional imperialist expansion, uncritical
acceptance of the Russian claims of genocide against Russian-speaking
Ukrainians, legitimising the Russian-controlled puppet statelets in the
Donbas, and calling for the right of self-determination (separation from
Ukraine and integration into Russia) for areas under Russian military
control, in a Russian-controlled process. It would also mean falsely
portraying Ukraine’s bourgeois government as a fascist or illegitimate
western puppet government and exaggerating the size and influence of the
Ukrainian nationalist far-right, while minimising or ignoring the
increasingly authoritarian and reactionary nature of the Moscow regime
itself.

A pro-western alignment would mean avoiding criticism of NATO militarism
and the European Union’s neo-colonial economic expansion into Eastern
Europe. It would mean legitimising anti-democratic moves by the Ukrainian
political and economic elite (including the banning of left-wing
organisations and savage restriction of labour union rights. Uncritical
pro-western alignment in this war may also increasingly mean justifying
restrictions on civil liberties in the western countries, and criminalising
anti-western opinions and political activity.

*We are opposed to NATO expansion and aggression.* *We oppose all increases
in military spending by NATO countries. Indeed, we call for reductions in
military spending in favour of social, health and education sectors in
particular. We oppose all future expansion of the already extensive NATO
facilities in Europe and propose a reduction in NATO forces as an essential
element of the demilitarisation of the East European space. We oppose all
NATO deployment outside its member countries. We oppose any countries
joining NATO. We are in favour of any country leaving NATO, and the
dissolution of the alliance. The future security of European countries,
particularly the poorest countries, must be based on a broad and
non-confrontational framework.*

Throughout Western Europe, increases in military budgets are expected.
Germany in particular is taking a historic turn in terms of its military
commitments. European NATO countries continue to hesitate between the
classic, US-led integration, and a more autonomous European integration
(Germany and Netherlands have already integrated their tank battalions and
marines, more joint units, and joint procurement and logistical support are
planned). Both options have imperialist ambitions; the European-led
approach would likely only mean a refocusing on the near abroad, and a
lower engagement in US-led global expeditionary forces.

We see no contradiction between calling for reduction of military spending
in NATO countries and supply of weapons to Ukraine. In fact, donation of
weapons to Ukraine without increasing military budgets in NATO countries
would contribute to the reduction of the NATO stock of weapons. Of course,
this will only have a limited effect, since the NATO countries are
providing Ukraine with mostly older weapon series, particularly the
Soviet-era weapons still in use or in storage by the NATO members in the
east of the EU [2
<http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article61764#nb2>].

In the European NATO countries, there is also growing popular support for
the reinforcement and construction of military bases, and the installation
of the most advanced technologies of warfare of the United States. Some
NATO members in the east of the EU propose to donate their own soviet-era
armaments to Ukraine, in exchange for more modern weapons from the richer
NATO members further west. The three Baltic former Soviet republics and all
of the USSR’s former satellite countries in Europe are now in NATO. Many of
these countries have a border with Russia, Ukraine and/or Belarus, and a
relatively recent memory of Soviet/Russian aggression and occupation. The
current conflict has proved understandable feelings of insecurity, which
the authorities and mainstream media are of course further encouraging.

It is likely that the governments of some European countries, which are
currently neutral, will apply to join the Organization, and there is
growing public support for this. Western European neutrals would probably
be welcomed into NATO, as would the former-socialist countries in
south-east Europe (former Yugoslavia, Albania) where Russia has no
territorial claims. There will be continued pressure on the EU neutrals
(Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria and Malta) to participate in joint
peacekeeping, conflict prevention and other civil-military cooperation with
EU NATO members in the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The scope
of the CSDP is likely to be widened, drawing the neutrals more and more
into a de facto alliance dominated by NATO members.

The only former Soviet republics in Europe which have not joined NATO are
Belarus, a (rather dependent) ally of Russia, as well as Moldova and
Ukraine. NATO might continue to make false promises of future membership to
these two countries, but the current conflict has confirmed NATOs refusal
to expand further into the former USSR space. However, NATO military
support will likely be increased to these countries and to other western
allies in the former USSR, notably Georgia, which has its own recent
history of conflict, invasion and occupation by Russian forces and local
allies. Local populations are likely to prefer the perspective of NATO
membership, in the absence of credible alternative security arrangements.

*We are opposed to all deployment of Russian troops outside Russian
borders. **We are opposed to all international deployment of police forces
between the member countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation
(CSTO). We favour the dissolution of the CSTO.*

If Russia is partially or largely victorious in this war, Moscow will be
increasingly likely to threaten or use force in its relations with Belarus,
and the former Soviet republics in the south Caucasus and Central Asia. The
CSTO has a police focus, but could be expanded. However, only Belarus and
Armenia are militarily and economically dependent on Russia; other CSTO
states may be tempted to diversify their alliances, particularly towards
China. A Russian defeat would likely accelerate this process. While the
Russian goods and labour markets remain important for many of these
countries, oil and gas producers like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan
and Turkmenistan have more options for economic development.

*The elimination of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons is more
important than ever.* *Russia, the US, France and the UK should reiterate
their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons. *Faced with the
current military stalemate, Putin has repeatedly upped the strategic ante
by brandishing the nuclear threat and then firing a medium-range hypersonic
missile at a target near the Polish border. Both sides have accused the
other of planning chemical or biological attacks. We see that, instead of
making war impossible (the ‘balance of power’ doctrine and concern with
‘mutually assured destruction’), possession of nuclear weapon is actually
used to enable conventional warfare in the heart of Europe, under the
shelter of the atomic umbrella of the aggressor. The peace movement has
long argued that only nuclear disarmament could free us from this threat.
Putin has proved us right. But beware: all the powers possessing nuclear
weapons seek to make them politically acceptable, and again and again come
forward with concepts for tactical use of smaller, more acceptable nuclear
weapons.

<http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article61764&fbclid=IwAR3xryAQreCTsF-95EIqlBt0Of_AgcA-UWLJN8YpswJCvrM8tzrqHqqYSB0#outil_sommaire>Theses
on solidarity with Ukraine

*For national liberation! Ukrainians have the right to live in peace!*

*We have all seen the banners carried by Ukrainians in the diaspora in
peace demonstrations: “If Russians stop fighting, there will be no war; if
Ukrainians stop fighting there will be no Ukraine.” The stronger the
Ukrainian resistance, and the greater the ability of progressive Ukrainians
to participate in and shape that struggle, the better the peace, and the
better society Ukraine will be afterwards.*

*Outsiders should not call for peace at any price, while Ukrainians
massively support continued military resistance. In this context, peace at
any price means maximising the Russian gains at the Ukrainians’ expense.*

Ukraine is likely to offer a constitutional commitment to neutrality and
reiterate its existing refusal of permanent foreign bases (the only foreign
power maintaining troops permanently in Ukraine is Russia, which has had
forces stationed in parts of the Donbass and Ukraine for several years
already). Russia has demanded that Ukraine be permanently denied some
categories of heavier or offensive weapons. The question, then, is what
security guarantees will Ukraine have in the new peace? Russia and the West
promised to respect Ukraine’s borders when Ukraine gave up all its nuclear
weapons (the only country ever to do so). The value of those promises is
now sadly clear to everyone. Presumably Ukraine will seek some kind of UN
or OSCE mandate. The greatest obstacle to such a deal will be Russian
opposition, and the continued threat of Russian intervention, particularly
if Russia maintains its de facto colonies in the Donbass.

*We denounce the war crimes committed by the Russian army in Ukraine.** In
addition to the unjustified invasion, Russia has attacked civilians, and
attacked civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals. Russia has prevented
civilians from leaving besieged cities, while also threatening civilians
with military tribunals if they do not leave. The fact that western leaders
are denouncing Russian war crimes doesn’t mean that we should be silent!
Rather, we denounce all war crimes and crimes against humanity, regardless
of the responsible actor. We denounce the hypocrisy of the Western powers
who denounce Moscow by invoking international legality and great
humanitarian principles which they themselves have repeatedly violated.*

The victors of this war will likely establish some kind of tribunal. Our
preference is for independent courts in a democratic Ukraine, with a
perspective of restitution and reconciliation between Ukrainians, and
between the citizens of Ukraine and citizens of Russia.

*The rights of minorities in Ukraine must be recognised. But advocating
this right must not fuel Putin’s discourse, which claims to intervene to
defend Russian-speaking Ukrainians threatened with genocide.* *The question
of the return to legal linguistic equality, and the use of the country’s
various languages in education, administration and the media, including in
the Donbass and in the Crimea, cannot be resolved under Russian occupation.
A genuine concern with minorities in the Ukraine must also incorporate
measures to protect the Ukrainian and Tartar minorities in Crimea, more
than one quarter of the population, who have lost virtually all linguistic
and cultural rights since the Russian invasion and unilateral incorporation
of that territory into the Russian Federation.*

Russian has successfully spread propaganda regarding the situation of
Russian-speakers in the Donbass region, leading to the confusion of many
western leftists and in some cases their support for Russian demands. We
should be clear that the self-proclaimed people’s republics in the Donbass
are Russian-backed entities, run by an alliance of Russian envoys, local
mafia and far-right adventurers. There is massive social, political and
cultural repression, worse than anywhere on the European continent and
accross the Russian Federation. Russia has recognised these ‘states,’
without defining their borders. Presumably Russian troops will impose fake
referendums in neighbouring regions and gradually integrate these into the
‘New Russia’ colonial project. In this context, to call for immediate
Russian-speakers self-determination in these regions is to give effective
support to Russian colonisation of Ukraine and the consolidation of
extremely reactionary colonial administrations. The Ukrainian left, which
includes many activists from the Donbass, calls for the reinforcement of
Russian-speaking Ukrainians’ rights as part of a new democratic arrangement
after the expulsion of the invading forces.

As our friends from the Social Movement Ukraine point out, Putin’s
discourse perversely joins the discourse of Ukrainian-speaking
ultranationalists, who have always considered Russian-speaking Ukrainians
to be of dubious loyalty.

*Reject all ‘clash of civilisations’ poison!*

The vast majority of Russian-speaking Ukrainians are resisting the
invaders. Even in the cities recently occupied by the Russian army, unarmed
civilians demonstrate their rejection of the occupation in large and
peaceful demonstrations. Russian-speaking Ukrainians continue to fall as
victims of the Russian war, find themselves victims of bombardments or find
themselves on the roads of exile. Recognising the overwhelming loyalty of
Russian-speakers, the Ukrainian government recently unblocked Russian
social media and encouraged citizens to directly engage with their family
and friends in Russia. A partial or full victory for Ukraine may provide
the basis for reintroduction of Russian-language into public
administration, education and public media. Conversely, a Ukrainian
humiliation may encourage the far right to again target Russian-speaking
Ukrainians as a disloyal and untrustworthy element.

Inside Russia, and among Russian-speakers in other countries, Russian
imperialism is also promoted as a cultural and political crusade to restore
Russian ethnic/linguistic/cultural domination in the regions formerly part
of the Russian or Soviet empires. One element of this is the denial of
Ukrainian identity (Ukraine does not have a meaningful history separate
from that of Russia, the Ukrainian language is a dialect of Russian,
Ukrainian culture is a folk variant of Russian culture, etc.). Parts of the
western left have been vulnerable to this great-Russian propaganda, perhaps
because their regional knowledge is limited to their study of the Russian
component of the revolution in the Russian empire and the Russian component
of anti-Stalinist resistance in the USSR. Also perhaps because of the low
status of Ukrainian culture, in the west, reflecting its marginalisation as
the poorest country on the continent, and the concentration of Ukrainian
migrants in the most unstable and worse paid sectors of the West European
economy. Whatever the explanation, the failure of most of the western left
to engage with Ukrainian thinkers and activists is a continuing source of
amazement and dismay to us.

There is also a resurgence of western claims of ‘civilisational’
superiority, contrasted to Russian ‘orientalism’ and barbarism. In this
western discourse, which has deep, reactionary roots ‘Europe’ is synonymous
with civilisation and progress, and anyone to the east or the south is only
admitted to civilisation and progress to the extent that they demonstrate
loyalty to ‘western’ values.

*We support political, financial and material solidarity with the forces of
the left and the independent social movements in Ukraine.*

*By providing leftist solidarity to the resistance of the Ukrainian people,
we are helping the Ukrainian left to the best of our ability to strengthen
itself, instead of leaving the field open to neoliberals and the far right.
We advocate practical and concrete people-to-people solidarity. We cannot
be satisfied with a simple political position or declarations of principle,
or with a criticism of our own government.*

*Solidarity is needed on both sides of the front line. We don’t impose
solidarity, we offer it. We take the lead from the Ukrainian resistance and
the anti-war movements in the aggressor country. That means, in the first
place, listening, in the second place, thinking, and then acting.*

*We should not associate ourselves with the numerous western left calls for
peace at the expense of Ukrainians. Some of these initiatives are
well-intentioned. But they remain arrogant proposals, drafted and promoted
by Westerners, about Ukrainians, without Ukrainians.*

The left forces in the Ukraine are fully engaged in all aspects of the
liberation struggle. Supporters of some groups have joined the same
military or civil defence forces, but the scale of these initiatives is
still small. The left has developed several humanitarian initiatives which
deserve our support. Ukrainian progressives continue to organise, lobby and
publish for civil and political demands, and resist all attempts to impose
reactionary reforms using the war as a pretext. There are also left
activists in the Ukrainian diaspora, playing an important role in the peace
movement and refugee aid initiatives.

The Russian left, feminist and peace movements face increasing repression,
but continue their efforts. They are supported by a growing mobilisation of
Russian progressives in the diaspora. In previous wars, the families of
dead soldiers have played an important role in raising public awareness and
protesting against militarism, alongside students and other activist
communities.

The left in Belarus is numerically weak but continues its efforts for
democratisation and social justice. There are underground networks
encouraging and facilitating desertion and emigration of young men called
for military service, as well as unconfirmed reports of sabotage of
logistical operations.

Left-wing parties in Central Europe (former satellite countries of the
USSR, now members of the European Union) increasingly act in political
solidarity with the Social Movement (SR) in Ukraine, relaying its proposals
and even withdrawing from those left-wing forums like the Progressive
International, which avoid taking a position on the liberation of Ukraine.

Several progressive groups in Ukraine have started fundraising. Progressive
associations in the Netherlands, Germany and elsewhere organize fundraisers
for progressive and humanitarian initiatives in Ukraine.

In terms of material support, labour unions in France, for example, are
preparing to send a workers’ convoy to show solidarity and deliver aid.

*We reject Russian and western imperialist plans for Ukraine. Russian
troops out! Ukrainian goods, services and workers should have access to
Western markets, without any obligation on Ukraine to open its own markets.
Ukraine’s debt should be cancelled. Funds from any Western sanctions should
be transferred to the Ukrainian authorities.*

Moscow’s efforts for the capitalist economic integration of the former USSR
under Russian domination has stalled in recent years. In response to
earlier western sanctions, Putin has imposed a change in Russia’s long-term
strategy, disengaging from western economic circuits and western-dominated
institutions, increasing domestic agricultural and industrial capacity
through import substitution and intensive investment into strategic
sectors. Putin wants to reverse Ukraine’s economic integration into the
European Union as a peripheral territory, and the planned privatization of
Ukrainian land into the hands of Western companies. Instead, he has
resolved that the forcible reintegration of Ukraine, the second largest
economy in the former USSR but now the poorest country in Europe, will
cement Russian imperial dominance over its “near abroad” for another
generation.

His ambition is to integrate the fertile plains and industrial centres of
Eastern Ukraine into the Russian economic space, strengthening Moscow’s
dominant role in the production of a wide range of agricultural and mining
products, as well as its industrial capacity and its competitiveness.
Following the annexation of Crimea, this invasion aims to expand Russia’s
access to the Black Sea, the only year-round navigable sea route on
Russia’s European edge.

For this project, Putin’s Russia needs “only” eastern and southern Ukraine.
Without the fertile black soil and industry of the east and without its
coast, any Ukrainian rump state would be impoverished, deprived of
resources and at the mercy of all its neighbours. Conservative strategists
in Moscow have already floated the idea of offering Poland, Hungary and
Romania territories in the west of Ukraine, reopening a Pandora’s box of
tensions between the various European countries and nations.

Ukraine will likely be bankrupt after this conflict, and its economy
disrupted, and degraded, particularly if Russia maintains control of
territories in the East and South of the country.

Western imperialism will seek control over whatever Ukrainian territory
Russia does not occupy, based on the existing neoliberal and unequal EU
partnership agreements with neighbouring countries

*Pierre Rousset, Mark Johnson*
------------------------------
P.S.

Updated on 27 and 28 March 2020 to correct typographical errors and
ambiguities identified by readers, and to align the English and French
versions of this article, produced by the authors.
Footnotes

[1 <http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article61764#nh1>] Rather than
accelerating the transition to renewable sources of energy, western
countries are using the war to justify an expansion of nuclear energy and
coal-burning.

[2 <http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article61764#nh2>] Including
Germany, which inherited and withdrew from service the entire arsenal of
the GDR armed forces.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/attachments/20220401/ab335e51/attachment.htm>