Friday 25 March 2022

Freelancing for Putin

Reading the latest piece from Socialist Action, you could be forgiven for thinking it was the United States and Britain who had invaded Ukraine, was terror bombing civilians, and playing radioactive roulette by shelling nuclear power stations. And yet here we are, an example of where prioritising the defeat of one's own ruling class and its ambitions is interpreted as throwing your lot in with Russia. What happened to no war but the class war, eh?

Nuance is unpopular in politics, but it is vital for the analysis that informs our politics. What SA say about supplying Ukraine with weapons, and the disgraceful role the Tories played strutting like plucked peacocks on the world stage is right. As are comments and contributions made by others concerning the illiberal turns of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's government and the blind eye conservatives and liberals alike turn to the activities, if not the existence of the openly fascist Azov regiment. All these things are true, but they don't change the fundamentals of the situation: that Ukraine has been invaded by its authoritarian and, to use the old language, imperialist neighbour. The Americans and British might have prefaced the invasion with goading language while France and Germany preferred shuttle diplomacy, but it's obvious Putin was set on this course of action long before the Liz Trusses and Ben Wallaces happily reduced the UK's reputation as a serious nation further.

Again, to restate the ABCs, there are just wars and there are unjust wars. In moments of tension between big powers, in this case between NATO on one side and Russia and Belarus on the other, labour movements have no truck in prettifying either side, let alone offering political endorsements. Britain and America, after all, have done more to destabilise global politics these last 20 years than any other power or alliance. The condemnation they heap on Russian shells flattening Ukrainian concert halls and residential districts are not matched by a scintilla of concern for what their allies are doing in Yemen or Gaza and the West Bank. However, being clear eyed about the blood on our governments' hands does not mean that Putin's regime is shoved in a black box and ignored. Our enemy's enemy isn't necessarily our friend.

The second point is while NATO and Russia are confronting one another, the actual shooting war is between Russia, a big power, and Ukraine, which is a minor power. One of the primary dividing political lines in Ukrainian society since the dissolution of the Soviet Union has been between rebuilding close ties to its former occupier, or tilting toward the West via the European Union and NATO. Both sides have, historically, been bound to their own home-grown groups of oligarchs and when it came to corruption you couldn't get a credit card between the two sides. As a minor power, both the West and Putin have skin in the game - for the West having Ukraine firmly in its camp helps stymie Russia, while for Russia it covets a friendly buffer state to complement the subservience Lukashenko has shown Moscow. Both sides have and continue to find willing support in Ukrainian society, but this does not mean they are the sole active agents. The dynamics that give rise to this split are driven from within. Therefore, the Euromaidan protests that culminated in the Orange revolution was not a CIA coup or some such as the Putin apologists pretend: it was an organic development that the EU and US supported, but did not cause.

A pretty banal statement all told, but something that needs stating. The SA piece strongly implies that Ukraine is but a puppet whose strings are pulled from Washington (with a few tugs occasionally delegated to London). Not a word on how the "special military operation" was designed to force the country into Russia's sphere of influence in violation not just of Ukraine's sovereignty but its national right to self-determination - a principle Marxists are supposed to uphold. Had Putin not rolled in the tanks, the weapons shipped to Ukraine's military would not be exacting their grim price on Russian soldiers and materiel. War is politics by other, more violent means, and Ukraine's will to resist is not a product of Western brainwashing and arms shipments. The onus therefore should be on Russia to stop its attacks and withdraw, not on Joe Biden and Boris Johnson telling Zelenskyy to throw himself and his country on Putin's mercy.

If the main enemy is at home, effectively freelancing for Putin's war undermines the left's political response to the Tories. Not because of optics, though being seen to put a plus where the West puts a minus is bad enough, but because Johnson and his cronies are utterly compromised by their close relationships with Russian oligarchs present and past. There's Johnson's close relationship with Evgeny Lebvedev, an FSB-linked man whose money he was so keen on that he overrode the spooks' security concerns to appoint him to the Lords. There are the millions that have saltered their way into Tory coffers, and the untold billions that have sloshed through the City and the London property market. And just today, we learn Akshata Murthy, the chancellor's wife, has over a billion sunk in Infosys, which also operates unimpeded in Moscow. The threads are anything but red, but there are thousands of them tying the Tories to Russian ruling interests - and helps explain the reluctance the government has shown to sanction them, despite the tough-sounding rhetoric.

Putin's invasion has laid bare this corrupt and corrupting relationship. It's a goal so open that even Keir Starmer has taken a couple of shots at it. This is an obvious vulnerability the left should bang on about, but if we follow the logic of SA, the Chris Williamsons and George Galloways, and sundry tankies, lining up with Putin and pretending the West are responsible for the war prevents us from being the opposition we aspire to be. By conjuring up absurd "anti-imperialist" reasoning to defend the military actions of a brutal imperial power, they make the revolution they profess to work toward in our key metropolitan heartland much more difficult. It's just as well they're stuck out on the margins, a place their politics will forever doom them to inhabit.

Image Credit

14 comments:

Graham said...

The failure to mobilise any solidarity with Ukraine shows the Left is either dead or brain dead. An obsession with NATO has resulted in a paralysis over the war and a refusal to take any action, leaving the political space open for the right.

Today (Saturday) there is a “London Stands With Ukraine” march supposedly to be led by Sadiq Khan. This march has been organised by Another Europe Is Possible (essentially an EU lobby group) and the microscopic Ukraine Solidarity Campaign. There is complete silence from the left about this march and you will find more information about this in the pages of the Sun and Express than, for instance, Socialist Worker or Socialist Appeal. The main web sites and blogs supporting Labour are similarly silent. As a result, I expect this march will be as small as every other solidarity action I have attended during the last month.

Not only is this refusal to organise a betrayal of the Ukrainian people, it is an abandonment of politics and has enabled the Tories to make capital over the war. For instance:
• the blacking of ships carrying Russian oil by Essex and Merseyside dockers should have been the start of an argument against the Tory’s anti-union laws and the ban on solidarity actions by workers
• the obstacles placed in the way of Ukrainian refugees entering the country should have been the start of a campaign for free movement and against racist immigration rules
• the inability to seize oligarch’s wealth should have been the start of an exposure of the web of Blind Trusts and anonymous offshore shell companies that enable kleptocrats to hide their stolen goods and the key role of the City in this.

Instead the left has nothing to say other than rehashing “the main enemy is at home” slogan.

SimonB said...

Fringe groups and grifters like Galloway may spout nonsense about Ukraine but to group “the left” as a bloc with them is also nonsense. Many people have lost their wits due to this war. The most disturbing are, to me, those who seem happy to fight to the last Ukrainian. My leftist comrades generally view the invasion as illegal and Putin as an imperialist crook. At the same time they understand the class and power basis of the people of both countries and deplore the death and destruction.

I’m very concerned that the US is happy to pour weapons into Ukraine no matter what. They’re arming some very dangerous groups who will be happy to turn them onto their fellow countrymen in due course. I’d like to see more humanitarian support. There’s a real risk that because the US views Ukraine as a stick with which to beat Putin and help create a new Cold War alignment that Ukraine shares the same fate as Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Iraq. We should all be aiming to prevent this. Our games aren’t imperialist power games, either Russian, Western or Chinese. We should be thinking of people like ourselves who find themselves powerless victims.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the telltale grifting phrase "fight to the last Ukrainian".

As if the eeeevil West was forcing an unwilling population to fight at gunpoint.

And the similarly asinine reference to "pouring in arms" - much better to just let Putin's thugs genocide them, eh? Then you could continue your "anti-imperialist" posturing with a clear conscience - just as when we let the Bosniaks get slaughtered in the 1990s thanks to our "level playing field". Then again, loads on "the left" simply adored Milosovic's quasi-fascist regime didn't they? After all they were opposed to us, and THAT WAS ALL THAT MATTERS.

Your post just sums up lazy moral bankruptcy.

Bob said...

"The Euromaidan protests that culminated in the Orange revolution"? Are you sure about that? It sounds like you need a crash course on the political history of 21st century Ukraine.

And where is the evidence that the aim of the Russian invasion is to "force the country into Russia's sphere of influence in violation not just of Ukraine's sovereignty but its national right to self-determination"? A more realistic assessment of Putin's objectives is that he wants to impose neutrality on Ukraine. He's trying to block Ukraine's membership of NATO, not demanding that it should form a military alliance with Russia.

Also you make no mention at all of the conflict in Donbass, which is the proximate cause of this war. It was the refusal of successive Ukrainian governments to implement the Minsk accords, allowing the election under OSCE supervision of a regional government with devolved powers, that created this crisis. Shouldn't Marxists uphold the right to self-determination of the people of Donetsk and Lugansk too?

Blissex said...

«The failure to mobilise any solidarity with Ukraine shows the Left is either dead or brain dead.»

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
3,393 civilians killed (349 in 2016–2021)
13,100–13,300 killed; 29,500–33,500 wounded overall
414,798 Ukrainians internally displaced; 925,500 fled abroad

Graham said...

The London march was bigger than I expected but from what I could see mainly made up of Ukrainians.

Totally abandoned by the left, I didn't see a single Labour Party or Union banner.
No CND either - you would think they would have something to say after Putin threat of the first use of nuclear weapons.

The main organized presence on the march were the EU lobby groups, The European Movement and Another Europe Is Possible.

So it looks like the defence of A Nation's Right To Self Determination and of Bourgeoise Democracy against Totalitarianism is down to the Surrey branch of the European Movement.


Anonymous said...

“Not a word on how the "special military operation" was designed to force the country into Russia's sphere of influence in violation not just of Ukraine's sovereignty but its national right to self-determination - a principle Marxists are supposed to uphold. Had Putin not rolled in the tanks, the weapons shipped to Ukraine's military would not be exacting their grim price on Russian soldiers and materiel. War is politics by other, more violent means, and Ukraine's will to resist is not a product of Western brainwashing and arms shipments.”

Neither is the Donbass will to resist a product of Russian brainwashing and arms shipments. There’s been a war going on in the Donbass there for 8 years, one enthusiastically pursued by the Ukrainian government egged on and spearheaded by its fascist elements in and out of the army. What about the right of self determination of the people of the Donbass?

Michael

Blissex said...

«national right to self-determination»

https://www.unian.info/politics/zelensky-extends-sanctions-against-donbas-terrorists-russia-propagandists-11428756.html
“Zelensky extends sanctions against Donbas terrorists”

https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/06/04/war-on-terms-whos-fighting-against-ukraine-in-donbas-terrorists-rebels-insurgents/
“Ukrainian courts refer to Article 1 of the law “On combating terrorism” classifying both “LNR” and “DNR” as terrorist organizations.”

Anonymous said...

«Neither is the Donbass will to resist a product of Russian brainwashing and arms shipments»

George Orwell, 1945: "The Daily Worker disapproves of dictatorship in Athens, the Catholic Herald disapproves of dictatorship in Belgrade. There is no one who is able to say - at least, no one who has the chance to say in a newspaper of big circulation - that this whole dirty game of spheres of influence, quislings, purges, deportation, one-party elections and hundred per cent plebiscites is morally the same whether it is done by ourselves, the Russians or the Nazis."

Blissex said...

«Ukraine's will to resist»

Ruthenia's. "Ukraine" is a multinational state, resulting from the annexation of Silesia and Prussia by Poland (and in small part Russia), and the compensatory annexation of western Poland by Belarus and southern Poland by "Ukraine". Then Poland massacred and ethnically cleansed the german civilians from Silesia and Prussia, so there is no ethnic conflict between Silesia and Prussia and what was eastern Poland in those areas, but Stalin's Belarus and "Ukraine" did not massacre and ethnically cleanse the ruthenians from the previous polish-lithuanian areas, thus creating a long term problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian%E2%80%93Ruthenian_Commonwealth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_1582.PNG

The shadows of history are very long...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism

Blue and yellow are the heraldic colors of Ruthenia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alex_K_Halych-Volhynia-flag.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alex_K_Grundwald_flags_1410-05.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Ruthenian_National_Guard_from_Yavoriv.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png

http://ww2today.com/1-march-1944-the-red-army-marches-across-ukraine
«The population welcomed us warmly, regardless of how hard it was for them to provide food to soldiers; they always found some nice treats — some villagers boiled chicken, others boiled potatoes and cut lard (soldiers dubbed this kind of catering ‘a grandmother’s ration’). However, such attitudes were common only in the Eastern Ukraine.
As soon as we entered the Western Ukraine, that had passed to the Soviet Union from Poland in 1940, the attitude of the population was quite different — people hid from us in their houses, as they disliked and feared the Muscovites and Kastaps [a disparaging name for Russians in Ukraine – translators comment]. Besides that, those places were Bandera areas, where the nationalistic movement was quite strong.»

Blissex said...

«I’m very concerned that the US is happy to pour weapons into Ukraine no matter what. They’re arming some very dangerous groups who will be happy to turn them onto their fellow countrymen in due course.»

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E84QHqtXIAI9hdN?format=jpg
"Support AFGHAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS
Support the brave people of afghanistan in their fight for freedom against soviet aggression and occupation.
All funds collected will be donated to pro-westrern Afghan resistance groupsa selected by the SOF staff.
These funds will be used solely for the purchase of arms, ammunition and medical supplies as specified by the groups receiving assistance"

https://i.redd.it/k2h9edclida71.jpg
"Just the sort of thoroughly reliable chaps we entrust with your charity money."

https://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview
«Q : When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime , a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B : What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?»

Anonymous said...

Yeah, tankies are well represented here I see.

Let's have a free and fair, internationally supervised, referendum in the Donbass to see if they actually love Mother Russia so much eh?

Kamo said...

The passing reference to Yemen is interesting. It's a proxy war for the imperialist rivalry between Saudi and Iran. Yes, both sides have their allies elsewhere, but it primarily relates to real world imperialist behaviour that falls outside the scope of the vulgar left's theoretical understanding of what 'imperialism' is, so the Yemen is of no real propaganda value.

Blissex said...

«It's a proxy war for the imperialist rivalry between Saudi and Iran»

That is itself a superficial reading, the shadows of history are long. The Saudi-Iran story is the current manifestation of a long and convoluted history.

For example Saudi (Nejd at the time) and Yemen already went to war in the 1930s, and Saudi gobbled up a large chunk of northern Yemen, which today are provinces of Saudi, the poorest, and that means 35% poverty rate, and that is brutal third-world level poverty in one of the richest countries in the world.

The story is not complicated: the al-Saud family are allied with the Wahabi salafis, extremist "sunnis", and the yemeni are largely zaidi/shi'i.

BTW these kind of wars/feuds are common among the bandit and pirate (largely because of its previous extreme poverty) states and statelets of Arabia, The present one is the *third* Saudi Kingdom, and the members of the al-Saud family don't forget that for an instant (see the Inkwatha).