Ukraine

[RichardB]

I have fallen out with some of my friends on the left by saying I thought that Stop The War had got this issue wrong.

In what way?

[Pulcinella]

My partner, currently in Florence, was in one of the churches there yesterday and, as is his wont, even though he's a Quaker, he lit a candle there in front of an icon. He was then approached by a chap (who turned out to be a reporter for La Repubblica) who asked him why he had chosen that particular spot to light the candle. Apparently (and unbeknownst to my partner) it was an image of a Ukrainian saint. A nice serendipitous happening (which might even make its way into the newspaper, as my partner then gave an interview as a visitor from York, though probably only in the local not national section). The pope is in Florence today: a somewhat more important visitor, I suspect.

[Serial_Apologist]

In what way?

They would see your observation in #5, with which I agree absolutely, as simplistic. Tarig Ali, in a lengthily argued article in News from Natoland, has argued that Putin has some justification for invading Ukraine on the grounds of multiple past actions by NATO indicating double standards re interference in sovereign states and moving its forces eastwards to threaten Russia's security; but those states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland etc) have elected of their own volition (free will would naturally be too ambivalent a description) to join NATO as part of their return to capitalism deal.

I'm no apologist for NATO - it had served the west's rhetorical purposes in holding back Communism, when we really know from admission from Neocon former heads at the Pentagon was no actual threat. That said, what interests, really, could NATO ever have in attacking Russia? What would have been the point? Is there any other explanation for Russia's claims to NATO being a threat to itself, other than a smokescreen to hide Putin's historical long-term mission to re-establish the Russian empire of the Tsars? My disagreement is with those on the left who use a relativist argument that partly excuses Putin - one could as easily have excused Hitler's rise on grounds of the humiliation of Germany after WW1.

[RichardB]

They would see your observation in #5, with which I agree absolutely, as simplistic. Tarig Ali, in a lengthily argued article in News from Natoland, has argued that Putin has some justification for invading Ukraine on the grounds of multiple past actions by NATO indicating double standards re interference in sovereign states and moving its forces eastwards to threaten Russia's security

I don't think Tariq or STW have argued that Putin's invasion is in any way justified, unless I'm missing something important. What they are saying is that the Russian government's "security concerns" over NATO expansion have been ridden roughshod over since the breakup of the USSR, which is surely unarguable, and that any response by Western governments needs to take that into account, as opposed to ramping up the usual good vs evil propaganda with the help of their tame media. And then there is the obvious hypocrisy of NATO members who now argue that national sovereignty is paramount and national borders aren't to be redrawn by force, which comes as something of a surprise to anyone who knows the recent history of Serbia/Kosovo. As far as I can see this is all in line with the STW statement.

[french frank]

I don't think Tariq or STW have argued that Putin's invasion is in any way justified, unless I'm missing something important. What they are saying is that the Russian government's "security concerns" over NATO expansion have been ridden roughshod over since the breakup of the USSR, which is surely unarguable, and that any response by Western governments needs to take that into account

I may have been reading the wrong sources (again), but surely it is Ukraine that wants to join NATO, not NATO that wants Ukraine to join? And is Ukraine's independence more at risk from attack by Russia or Russia from attack by the West?

(I won't bother to pursue the matters of humanitarian/human rights issues again as they seem to be unenlightening).

[Frances_iom]

I may have been reading the wrong sources (again), but surely it is Ukraine that wants to join NATO, not NATO that wants Ukraine to join? And is Ukraine's independence more at risk from attack by Russia or Russia from attack by the West?

(I won't bother to pursue the matters of humanitarian/human rights issues again as they seem to be unenlightening).

They are today's equivalent of Stalin's "useful idiots" - have any of those States once behind the iron curtain ever suggested that Russian occupation was attractive - Belarus had an election stolen in plain sight, Russia as evidenced even in the UK assassinates its perceived opponents and jails any who oppose the Putin rule.

[RichardB]

surely it is Ukraine that wants to join NATO, not NATO that wants Ukraine to join? And is Ukraine's independence more at risk from attack by Russia or Russia from attack by the West?

A "pro-Western" faction in the Ukraine wants Ukraine to join NATO, but of course NATO has for some years been encouraging them. The communiqué from the June 2021 NATO summit in Brussels contains these words: "We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process". (item 69)

[french frank]

A "pro-Western" faction in the Ukraine wants Ukraine to join NATO, but of course NATO has for some years been encouraging them. The communiqué from the June 2021 NATO summit in Brussels contains these words: "We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process". (item 69)

That doesn't really negate what I said. You ignore my question: "And is Ukraine's independence more at risk from attack by Russia or Russia from attack by the West?"

[RichardB]

That doesn't really negate what I said. You ignore my question: "And is Ukraine's independence more at risk from attack by Russia or Russia from attack by the West?"

I wasn't intending to negate what you said. The point was the desire for Ukraine to join NATO comes from both sides, not from one or the other. I didn't respond to the question because I don't really understand it!

[RichardB]

As a contribution to the discussion, here is the statement from the Stop the War Coalition which has been referred to (signed by 11 Labour MPs who then withdrew their endorsements after being threatened with having the whip removed):

Stop the War condemns the movement of Russian forces into Ukraine and urges that they immediately withdraw. We call for an immediate ceasefire alongside the resumption of diplomatic negotiations to resolve the crisis.

This dispute could and should be resolved peacefully, and that remains the only basis for a lasting settlement, rather than the imposition of military solutions. That it has not been resolved is not, however, the responsibility of the Russian or Ukrainian governments alone.

The conflict is the product of thirty years of failed policies, including the expansion of NATO and US hegemony at the expense of other countries as well as major wars of aggression by the USA, Britain and other NATO powers which have undermined international law and the United Nations.

The British government has played a provocative role in the present crisis, talking up war, decrying diplomacy as appeasement and escalating arms supplies and military deployments to Eastern Europe.

If there is to be a return to diplomacy, as there should be, the British government should pledge to oppose any further eastward expansion of NATO and should encourage a return to the Minsk-2 agreement, already signed by both sides, by all parties as a basis for ending the crisis in relations between Ukraine and Russia.

Beyond that, there now needs to be a unified effort to develop pan-European security arrangements which meet the needs of all states, something that should have been done when the Warsaw Pact was wound up at the end of the Cold War. The alternative is endless great power conflict with all the attendant waste of resources and danger of bloodshed and destruction.

We send our solidarity to all those campaigning for an end to the war, often under very difficult conditions, in Russia and Ukraine. Stop the War can best support them by demanding a change in Britain’s own policy, which can be seen to have failed.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I don’t think NATO or the actions of the UK and US have much to do with the invasion of Ukraine except in so far as the signals we’ve sent out over the years of gradual disengagement e.g the withdrawal of BAOR / cuts in defence spending . We assumed the Cold War was over and it turns out it wasn’t. I don’t think where we are is as dangerous as 1983 when Cruise missiles were deployed in the UK after SS20 deployment in East Germany but things are perceptibly less secure.

[RichardB]

I think this is an interesting interview with international relations expert Anatol Lieven: "That raises the question, since we never intended to defend them, of what in God’s name were we doing? Claiming that we were going to admit them to NATO: It goes beyond actual irresponsibility. In my view, this was deeply immoral, to make such a commitment that we had no intention of fulfilling. This does not in any way excuse or justify the Russian invasion or the monstrous lies with which Putin justified this invasion. Maybe this isn’t the moment, but at some stage, I do hope that we have an honest and searching discussion of the errors of Western strategy that led to this disaster."

https://prospect.org/world/worse-than-a-crime-its-a-blunder-russia-ukraine-lieven-interview/?fbclid=IwAR3D6UaFkxWno7Jr-oI6I6K9whYHDFUnN1lYHCgcdyG3npi8eKRQz45XMSA

[Frances_iom]

I think this is an interesting interview with international relations expert Anatol Lieven: "That raises the question, since we never intended to defend them, of what in God’s name were we doing? Claiming that we were going to admit them to NATO: It goes beyond actual irresponsibility. In my view, this was deeply immoral, to make such a commitment that we had no intention of fulfilling. This does not in any way excuse or justify the Russian invasion or the monstrous lies with which Putin justified this invasion. Maybe this isn’t the moment, but at some stage, I do hope that we have an honest and searching discussion of the errors of Western strategy that led to this disaster."

https://prospect.org/world/worse-tha...pi8eKRQz45XMSA

Putin's reaction I think explains why Ukraine voted in a government with an unambiguous ambition to join NATO as a bulwark against the type of operation we have seen in the last couple of days - the West has turned a blind eye to Russia's use of force in numerous situations - we saw how post Stalin USSR reacted to dissent in conquered European countries hence the obvious attraction of NATO membership as that entity imploded - why do these 'useful idiots' continue to push Russian security as a reason to accept the current situation in Ukraine.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I think this is an interesting interview with international relations expert Anatol Lieven: "That raises the question, since we never intended to defend them, of what in God’s name were we doing? Claiming that we were going to admit them to NATO: It goes beyond actual irresponsibility. In my view, this was deeply immoral, to make such a commitment that we had no intention of fulfilling. This does not in any way excuse or justify the Russian invasion or the monstrous lies with which Putin justified this invasion. Maybe this isn’t the moment, but at some stage, I do hope that we have an honest and searching discussion of the errors of Western strategy that led to this disaster."

https://prospect.org/world/worse-tha...pi8eKRQz45XMSA

A very interesting article - well worth the extended read . Thanks for posting - I am not sure either how rational Putin is being. It’s extremely difficult to read his objectives. I think he has bitten off more than he can chew . The consequence for us will perhaps just be higher inflation , increased energy bills and the like . The consequences for the Ukraine and Russian families may be incalculable.

[RichardB]

why do these 'useful idiots' continue to push Russian security as a reason to accept the current situation in Ukraine.

I don't know who you have in mind but it can't be the interviewee in the linked article - even in the few short words I quoted, he describes the invasion of Ukraine as unjustifiable.

I didn't believe that Putin would go ahead with a full scale invasion. It seemed to me that his objectives would have been served better by keeping tensions at almost breaking point for as long as possible. But as EH says, maybe the explanation is that he is not behaving rationally. Having manoeuvred himself into his seemingly unassailable position in Russia over a period of many years with what seemed like strategic intelligence and calculation, has he now lost the plot? Certainly his pronouncements this week could be interpreted that way.