Ukraine: A "just peace" is only possible if Ukrainian people can defend themselves
 |
| Ukrainian anarchists within Ukrainian Territorial Defence Force source: libcom.org |
Lisbeth Latham
In their recent opinion piece in Green Left Weekly Peter Boyle and Alex Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists in Australia should be calling for negotiations in Ukraine and oppose any effort to expand the war. This is in response to Fred Fuentes’s call for support for the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. Boyle and Bainbridge make a number of arguments, similar to other sections of the Western left, which Ukrainian radical forces have rejected as being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, particularly the role of Putin’s Russia as the regional imperialist power.
Boyle and Bainbridge express concern at the costs of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had on human life and the potential for this to escalate as winter approaches. Flowing from this Boyle and Bainbridge conclude that the West’s provision of military support, in the form of weapons, equipment, intelligence, and training, to Ukraine risks unnecessarily prolonging the war and thus human suffering. Instead of supporting, or even demanding military support, as Fuentes, and the Ukrainian left, do, Boyle and Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists should instead be calling for negotiations.
This logic is fundamentally flawed. First, it ignores that the primary cause of suffering and death in Ukraine is the Putin government’s decision to invade. The risk of further loss of life and injury could be immediately avoided if Russian forces were to withdraw from Ukrainian territory unconditionally. For anti-war activists to demand negotiations or a return to diplomacy accepts that Russia has a right to intervene in Ukraine. Such a position echoes the debates in the movement against the Vietnam War. As Doug Lorimer wrote in his history of ‘The movement against the Vietnam War’, in reference to the Communist Party of Australia’s call for the US to “Stop the bombing, negotiate”:
Moreover, should negotiations occur between Ukraine and Russia, these negotiations would be informed by the balance of forces between Russia and Ukraine that exist at the time of those negotiations. The arming of Ukraine has allowed the Ukrainian people to initially blunt Russia’s invasion and subsequently launch counterattacks on a number of fronts. It is precisely this shift, in both the balance of forces and the momentum of the conflict, which has prompted some of Putin’s allies internationally, such as Trump, to call for negotiations to occur. However, as Volodymyr Artiukh and Taras Fedirko have pointed out, the Putin government has acted in bad faith around negotiations, primarily using them as “a smokescreen” for its aggression in Ukraine.
An important question that anyone calling on Ukraine to negotiate regarding its national sovereignty should answer is, what would the basis of negotiations be, when Putin and his allies deny the right of Ukraine to exist as a state? Calling for negotiations while Russian forces are on the backfoot but still holding significant amounts of Ukrainian territory would also place Putin in a position to demand ceding of Ukrainian territory as a basis for peace. Such an outcome could hardly be called a “Just Peace”, but more accurately the rewarding of criminal action.
Central to Boyle and Bainbridge’s argument is the imperial ambitions of the US and its allies to seek to maintain the US’s global imperialist hegemony. It is undoubtedly true that the US is seeking to use the conflict in Ukraine to undermine Russia’s attempts to re-establish itself as the dominant power in the territories which formerly made up the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. In doing this they also hope to isolate China as it emerges as an alternative pole of economic and military power able to challenge US dominance.
Having said this, our assessment of US intentions should not be a primary determining factor in our attitude towards conflicts or popular movements. The orientation of revolutionary and progressive forces should be predicated on the needs and interests of popular movements, and not how imperialist powers might seek to maneuver in relation to those movements to protect their own interests. While many left forces have criticised the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) for accepting military support from the US, the Socialist Alliance (SA), which both Boyle and Bainbridge are in the leadership of, has historically defended the right of the SDF to receive weapons necessary to defend themselves. Indeed, SA and Green Left Weekly have taken a position calling for the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Northern and Eastern Syria - which is to be enforced by the US and Russia.
This begs the question, how the sending of arms to the SDF can be not just permissible but something that would be demanded, but we should oppose the Ukrainian people receiving arms to defend themselves? While our positions on different situations do not need to be, and shouldn’t be, identical, we should be able to explain why they are different, and I personally struggle to see how there is such a fundamental difference.
I believe that progressive forces should defend the right of both Rojava and Ukraine to defend themselves and that this means being able to obtain military equipment from whoever will provide it. Indeed, as has been made clear by the Ukrainian left, particularly the militants of Sotsialnyi Rukh, the defeat of Russia’s military aggression is a prerequisite for the democratic and social development of Ukraine and we should support their efforts to achieve that outcome.
Read more...
In their recent opinion piece in Green Left Weekly Peter Boyle and Alex Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists in Australia should be calling for negotiations in Ukraine and oppose any effort to expand the war. This is in response to Fred Fuentes’s call for support for the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. Boyle and Bainbridge make a number of arguments, similar to other sections of the Western left, which Ukrainian radical forces have rejected as being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, particularly the role of Putin’s Russia as the regional imperialist power.
Boyle and Bainbridge express concern at the costs of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had on human life and the potential for this to escalate as winter approaches. Flowing from this Boyle and Bainbridge conclude that the West’s provision of military support, in the form of weapons, equipment, intelligence, and training, to Ukraine risks unnecessarily prolonging the war and thus human suffering. Instead of supporting, or even demanding military support, as Fuentes, and the Ukrainian left, do, Boyle and Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists should instead be calling for negotiations.
This logic is fundamentally flawed. First, it ignores that the primary cause of suffering and death in Ukraine is the Putin government’s decision to invade. The risk of further loss of life and injury could be immediately avoided if Russian forces were to withdraw from Ukrainian territory unconditionally. For anti-war activists to demand negotiations or a return to diplomacy accepts that Russia has a right to intervene in Ukraine. Such a position echoes the debates in the movement against the Vietnam War. As Doug Lorimer wrote in his history of ‘The movement against the Vietnam War’, in reference to the Communist Party of Australia’s call for the US to “Stop the bombing, negotiate”:
“Almost alone, Resistance continued to support the "Out Now!" demand. We argued that "Stop the bombing, negotiate!" failed to recognise the Vietnamese people's right to national self-determination, the central issue underlying the war”.
Moreover, should negotiations occur between Ukraine and Russia, these negotiations would be informed by the balance of forces between Russia and Ukraine that exist at the time of those negotiations. The arming of Ukraine has allowed the Ukrainian people to initially blunt Russia’s invasion and subsequently launch counterattacks on a number of fronts. It is precisely this shift, in both the balance of forces and the momentum of the conflict, which has prompted some of Putin’s allies internationally, such as Trump, to call for negotiations to occur. However, as Volodymyr Artiukh and Taras Fedirko have pointed out, the Putin government has acted in bad faith around negotiations, primarily using them as “a smokescreen” for its aggression in Ukraine.
An important question that anyone calling on Ukraine to negotiate regarding its national sovereignty should answer is, what would the basis of negotiations be, when Putin and his allies deny the right of Ukraine to exist as a state? Calling for negotiations while Russian forces are on the backfoot but still holding significant amounts of Ukrainian territory would also place Putin in a position to demand ceding of Ukrainian territory as a basis for peace. Such an outcome could hardly be called a “Just Peace”, but more accurately the rewarding of criminal action.
Central to Boyle and Bainbridge’s argument is the imperial ambitions of the US and its allies to seek to maintain the US’s global imperialist hegemony. It is undoubtedly true that the US is seeking to use the conflict in Ukraine to undermine Russia’s attempts to re-establish itself as the dominant power in the territories which formerly made up the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. In doing this they also hope to isolate China as it emerges as an alternative pole of economic and military power able to challenge US dominance.
Having said this, our assessment of US intentions should not be a primary determining factor in our attitude towards conflicts or popular movements. The orientation of revolutionary and progressive forces should be predicated on the needs and interests of popular movements, and not how imperialist powers might seek to maneuver in relation to those movements to protect their own interests. While many left forces have criticised the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) for accepting military support from the US, the Socialist Alliance (SA), which both Boyle and Bainbridge are in the leadership of, has historically defended the right of the SDF to receive weapons necessary to defend themselves. Indeed, SA and Green Left Weekly have taken a position calling for the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Northern and Eastern Syria - which is to be enforced by the US and Russia.
This begs the question, how the sending of arms to the SDF can be not just permissible but something that would be demanded, but we should oppose the Ukrainian people receiving arms to defend themselves? While our positions on different situations do not need to be, and shouldn’t be, identical, we should be able to explain why they are different, and I personally struggle to see how there is such a fundamental difference.
I believe that progressive forces should defend the right of both Rojava and Ukraine to defend themselves and that this means being able to obtain military equipment from whoever will provide it. Indeed, as has been made clear by the Ukrainian left, particularly the militants of Sotsialnyi Rukh, the defeat of Russia’s military aggression is a prerequisite for the democratic and social development of Ukraine and we should support their efforts to achieve that outcome.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
Posts
