Sticking it to the Russians

When the Ukrainian regime first accepted responsibility for the invasion of the Kursk region of Russia the justification was that it was simply giving it to the Russians as the Russians had given it to them.  And this, as far as it goes, is perfectly true.  This will not give its supporters in the West any pause for thought that this equality might mean that both sides are equally reactionary.  When one of the early apologists for the Ukrainian state justified support for it and its alliance with Western imperialism and NATO, he said that:

‘To describe the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, in which the latter country has no ambition, let alone intention, of seizing Russian territory, and in which Russia has the stated intention of subjugating Ukraine and seizing much of its territory – to call this conflict inter-imperialist, rather than an imperialist war of invasion, is an extreme distortion of reality.’

He went on to justify the supply of western weapons to Ukraine with the argument that:

‘Since the Ukrainians’ fight against the Russian invasion is just, it is quite right to help them defend themselves against an enemy far superior in numbers and armament. That is why we are without hesitation in favour of the delivery of defensive weapons to the Ukrainian resistance.’

“Defensive weapons” became the loophole through which this support for western imperialist intervention was smuggled in – ‘we must also oppose the delivery of air fighters to Ukraine that Zelensky has been demanding. Fighters are not strictly defensive weaponry, and their supply to Ukraine would actually risk significantly aggravating Russian bombing.’

This loophole has now been ripped apart to reveal wholehearted support for western imperialism, with the provision of main battle tanks spearheading the invasion of Russian territory; ATACMS /HIMARS/ storm shadow missiles hitting targets inside Russia; special forces troops on the ground ensuring their successful operation; attacks on Russian territory including on radar stations that warn of nuclear attack from the West; and now the F16 fighter planes that were claimed to typify a non-defensive weapon.  By its own admission Ukraine and Western imperialism is on the offensive

The British Ukraine Solidarity Campaign has been urging its government to supply more military material than it has, in effect criticising one of the most hawkish western imperialist powers from the right – for not being aggressive enough! According to its earlier analysis the war is an imperialist proxy war and they should now be opposing the Ukrainian state and western imperialism.

They cannot because they will not, and they will not because they have decisively placed themselves as the ‘left’ of a pro-imperialist alliance.  This formal and informal coalition has far, far stronger partners than them, from the imperialist states it calls on to arm Ukraine to the reformist left that is reformist precisely because it will never break from its own imperialist state.  It does not have the political tools to explain its capitulation and navigate its way out of it.  It can currently damn this imperialism for its role in perpetrating genocide in Palestine while urging it to greater action in Ukraine, as if it had a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality, a good side and a bad side, that will sometimes play a progressive role in advancing the interests of the working class.

It has hooked itself up to Western imperialism with excuses that by supporting the Ukrainian state it is supporting the Ukrainian people, while it disregards altogether the class nature of the state and of the different classes within it.  By this logic we are now witnessing the invasion of Russia by the Ukrainian people.  Given that the invasion is led by the most effective units of the Ukrainian armed forces, which are also among the most rabidly nationalistic and reactionary, we should also be hearing its support for the working class Russian conscripts fighting them.

We don’t because the reality of Ukraine has exposed the hollowness of its claims to victim status.  It chose to build a large army trained by NATO and to allow the CIA to camp in its territory in order to assist its covert actions against Russia.  It chose to seek NATO membership and float the idea of stationing nuclear weapons on its territory. 

Whenever it is not urging increased intervention by its own imperialism the pro-war left is dispensing analysis oblivious to its meaning.  Even in the paragraph quoted above, it is noted that Russia is ‘an enemy far superior in numbers and armament’.  Left to itself, Ukraine would have already sued for peace.  That it has not is because of the support of Western imperialism, and just as the war continues because of imperialism so is the nature of the war determined by it.

The Western media portrays the Kursk invasion as an ‘incursion’ even as it celebrates the magnitude of the territory conquered as much larger than that won by Russia over many months in the Donbas.  It claims that the Western powers that finance and plan its war; that trains its army; provides the weapons, targeting and intelligence for its attacks on Crimea and Russia, had no knowledge of the invasion.  Only the ignorant or stupid could swallow this nonsense. We are expected to believe that Ukraine has not told the US and NATO of its invasion when it is supposedly required to tell them how far it can fire its missiles. NATO helped plan its 2023 offensive, so the idea it has not done so now – peddled by the Western media – simply exposes its output as propaganda.

A western-planned invasion of Russia using US and German armoured vehicles, and British main battle tanks has crossed another Russian red line, just as many earlier ones have been erased.  There is no reason to believe that this is the last, while such a course leads to a world war and a descent into hell.

The pro-war left feigns concern for the Ukrainian people while more of its young men try to escape from being sent to the front, recruiter’s vehicles are burned, and it faces into a freezing winter with a power system mostly destroyed.  Instead of supporting the end of the war it rows in behind its own imperialism’s increasingly belligerent prosecution of it, using Ukraine as its proxy.

This support for continuation of the war is in the interest of neither the Ukrainian or Russian working class.  It is not even in the interest of the Ukrainian state that is now bankrupt, in hock to western imperialism, and denuded of people and territory it will not get back.  The Russian state has no interest in a forever war on its doorstep, or any peace deal that sees NATO camped in whatever is left of Ukraine and that is only a temporary respite before another NATO inspired conflict is provoked.  Just like the previous Minsk Accords experience.

The only player that has an interest in continuation of the war is Western imperialism, which has no concern to end the bloodshed, as it has demonstrated in its support for the Zionist state in Palestine. But as we have argued, one other minor performer has evinced no interest in an end to the war without Ukrainian victory.  Why would its position be any different, having hitched itself to Western imperialism?

The Ukrainian regime is now claiming that its invasion is intended to encourage negotiations, which Russia has said are impossible while its territory has been invaded. The invasion is an initiative born of approaching Ukrainian defeat that it cannot escape, from ‘an enemy far superior in numbers and armament.’  Either Western imperialism accepts this prospect and tries to extract something from it or it escalates and crosses more red lines and brings hell closer.

Socialists should be supporting the end of this war and opposing the supply of weapons and troops to Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a whole.  If they continue to support it, their claims to socialism will be a case, not of wearing the emperor’s new clothes, but of wearing the uniforms of the armed forces of western imperialism.

6 thoughts on “Sticking it to the Russians

  1. worth listening to this from the pro war, pro Nato left from over two years ago. Foolish in the extreme. The guy being interviewed was a founder of the marxist journal Critique. Just pro war pro nato and pro capitalist guff from him. Was this always his real politics.?

    Jacobin Radio w/ Suzi Weissman: A View From Ukraine w/ Bohdan Krawchenko | Jacobin Radio

    SHOWS.ACAST.COM

    Jacobin Radio w/ Suzi Weissman: A View From Ukraine w/ Bohdan Krawchenko | Jacobin Radio

  2. I have a query concerning the presentation of your blog. How does it deal with topics already covered like for example the recent street disturbances in England? When you move on to the next topic or issues are the previous ones closed until you decide to write about them again? Is there any point in making a comment about something you have spoken about in the past? Your blog seems to fall between a weekly journalism and longer essays broken up into parts . This format I find somewhat bewildering. Not really the best format for on going discussion. If the blog is really not intended for debate or discussion but for you to give your thoughts on matters you think are important them maybe you should disable the comments invitation altogether.

    e

    • If you want to continue to comment on a previous post you can and it can be read. The ‘recent comments’ column on the right of the home page will show it. So, the point of commenting is that people will read it.

      I tend not to write about issues and events that are better covered elsewhere unless I feel there is a need to amplify a particular view. This means that the frequency and nature of the posts will vary but I don’t see that as a problem. Sometimes when I start writing I come to realise that I have bitten off more than I intended to chew, which necessitates separating the posts because they require further work before I would be happy to post. I have a number of such in the pipeline.

      • if you are breaking up your essays into parts it would be helpful to know how many parts there will be. I often don’t know if you have presented the whole thing yet. Normally I would not draw a conclusion of a book or essay until I have read the whole thing. Clearly it is tricky to give advance notice when you are writing about news type stuff however some things you cover are suitable for advance notice on the number of parts intended.

  3. Trotsky described them, in the 1930’s.

    “Where and when has an oppressed proletariat “controlled” the foreign policy of the bourgeoisie and the activities of its arm? How can it achieve this when the entire power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie? In order to lead the army, it is necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize power. There is no other road. But the new policy of the Communist International implies the renunciation of this only road.

    When a working class party proclaims that in the event of war it is prepared to “control” (i.e., to support) its national militarism and not to overthrow it, it transforms itself by this very thing into the domestic beast of capital. There is not the slightest ground for fearing such a party: it is not a revolutionary tiger but a trained donkey. It may be kept in starvation, flogged, spat upon – it will nevertheless carry the cargo of patriotism. Perhaps only from time to time it will piteously bray: “For God’s sake, disarm the Fascist leagues.” In reply to its braying it will receive an additional blow of the whip. And deservingly so!”

    (Trotsky – An Open Letter to the French Workers)

    Of course, the USC doesn’t even call for the disarming of the fascist leagues such as the Azov Battalion, but does gyrations seeking to apologise and excuse them, and their role in the Ukrainian state and military, just as some of them do gyrations apologising for the fascists of Zionism, and equating anyone who opposes that Zionist fascism and genocidal behaviour as being “anti-Semitic”!!!!

    I give as prime evidence, this statement by the AWL’s “Will Roberts”, and also promoted by their Jim Denham, who as you know believes that imperialism and the capitalist state defends workers interests. Roberts opposed the inclusion of Zionists in a placard calling for fascists, racists, and Islamophobes off the streets in Finchley.

    “Including ‘Zionists’ with no further context in a list like that is deeply irresponsible. Finchley is an area with one of the largest Jewish populations in the country. If ‘Zionist’ here means ‘anyone who sees a connection with Israel, or identifies with the Israeli state in some manner’, then this graphic failed to encourage ‘community self-defence’ – in fact, it was actively opposing it.

    As socialists, we want to see an end to nationalisms of all kinds. But in the context of a fascist threat against a local community, there must be no political bar to entry. It would be outrageous for an organisation to vet local Muslim communities on their politics in order to let them protest with us. It is just as outrageous to demand that Jewish people pledge their opposition to the Israeli state in order to fight Tommy Robinson and the violent anti-immigrant protests done in his name.”

    But, everyone knows what the term “Zionist” means! You can easily look it up if you don’t know, which would be surprising for any moderately informed politically active person. Zionism is a racist, colonialist, and nationalist ideology, based on ethno-nationalism, which sought to colonise Palestine and violently expel its indigenous population, in order to create an ethno-nationalist, exclusivist Jewish state, which is what it did, and has continued to do.

    To oppose the inclusion of Zionists in conditions where British fascist thugs are on the streets attacking Muslims, whilst, at the same time, the Zionist state in Israel is carrying out a genocide against Palestinians, the worst atrocity of the 21st century, so far, is not only to apologise for the actions of Zionism in Gaza, but is to totally obliterate any concern for the Muslims in Britain under attack, and whose families in many cases are being slaughtered by Zionism not only in Gaza, but the rest of Palestine!

    To equate Zionism with Judaism, or even someone who “identifies with the Israeli state in some manner’” is to simply amplify the propaganda of the Zionist state carrying out that genocide that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism. It also belies the truth behind the politics of Zionist groups like the AWL, that talk about their support for groups in Israel that seek to build Israeli Jewish-Arab organisations to oppose the actions of the Zionist state.

    You can, of course, identify with Israel, and with Israelis, even in an abstract way with the “Israel state”, meaning some geographical political entity, without being a Zionist, and without identifying with the Zionist state in Israel, which is carrying out that genocide. As one of those on the Al Jazeera documentary about the Stern Gang noted, you can have an Israeli state that is not Zionist, or you can have an Israeli state that is Zionist, but in that case it will be a Stern Zionist state.

    Imagine if this was the Sudetenland in 1938, and a German community was under attack by Czech nationalists, would the AWL have so warmly welcomed Sudeten Nazis to defend it?

Leave a reply to Boffy Cancel reply