[The Russo-Ukrainian War and the rest of us.]
[[link removed]]

NOTHING IS WORSE THAN SILENCE IN THE FACE OF AGGRESSION  
[[link removed]]


 

Bill Fletcher Jr.
January 22, 2023
The Nation
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The Russo-Ukrainian War and the rest of us. _

Friend or foe? Ukrainian soldiers on a tank pass along the road on
March 9, 2022, in Kyiv., Murat Saka / dia images via Getty Images

 

The announcement of the Ukraine Solidarity Network
[[link removed]] is a small step in
breaking a strange combination of silence, ambivalence, and complicity
within some left-leaning circles regarding the Russian aggression
against Ukraine. Code Pink [[link removed]], for
instance, which is outspoken on international affairs, falls into the
“ambivalent” category, criticizing the Russian invasion—but not
supporting Ukrainian resistance. Black Alliance for Peace
[[link removed]] is
an example of a group that is complicit through its support of the
invasion.

Particularly since the end of the Cold War and the turn towards
capitalism within China, much of the US left and progressive circles
have found themselves adrift in navigating the stormy seas of
neoliberal globalization and growing right-wing authoritarianism.
Given the crimes of the United States—domestically and
internationally—it came as no surprise that a great deal of the
attention of left and progressive forces has been on the posture and
practice of the US government (and its allies). This approach,
however, began running into complications when governments in the
Global South that had appeared to have embraced a left,
anti-imperialist approach, began embarking on approaches that were
either complicit with neoliberal capital and/or undertook repressive
measures against their populations—in the latter case in response to
popular protests. Zimbabwe under former President Robert Mugabe is a
case in point; the Ortega regime in Nicaragua is a more current
example. In both cases, the left-wing “bona fides” of these
regimes covered over an increasingly authoritarian approach, often
mixed with corruption.

In response to the history of US interference in the internal affairs
of, quite probably, most countries on planet Earth, many of us became
understandably suspicious of any actions around the world that seemed
to meet with an endorsement by the USA, regardless of the internal
dynamics of such actions. Could this be, we wondered, another example
of US imperialist interference? Is this just another US-supported
puppet movement attempting to realign a country?

Rather than undertake a critical examination of each situation, the
impulse was to react or go silent. To the two cases examples
earlier—Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and Ortega’s Nicaragua—I would add
the allegedly “anti-imperialist” theocracy in Iran.

And then came the Russian-Ukrainian crisis beginning in 2014,
ultimately leading to the Russian invasion in February 2022.

The Ukraine Solidarity Network was founded with an emphasis on
opposition to great-power domination; the right of nations to
self-determination (and the respect for national sovereignty); and the
right to self-defense in the face of aggression. For some on the left,
including, and with all due respect, Noam Chomsky
[[link removed]],
the mere fact that the US government, and its NATO allies, support the
Ukrainian government has obscured the real set of issues contained in
this crisis. As a result, we who formed the Ukraine Solidarity Network
concluded that the silence needed to be broken…from and by the Left.

The confusion that exists in many left and progressive circles in
connection with Ukraine revolves around NATO and its expansion after
the collapse of the USSR. As Chomsky and I both agreed
[[link removed]],
prior to our exchange on The Real News Network in April 2022, NATO
should have been dissolved and it should never have expanded. The
expansion was driven not solely by the ambitions of US administrations
but also fear on the part of many of the post-Soviet governments in
eastern Europe regarding the intentions of post-Soviet Russia. That
said, a comprehensive security agreement should have been negotiated.
It was not.

Yet the NATO expansion largely ended in 2004 and, in the case of
Ukraine, there was little _public_ support for joining NATO prior to
2014 and the commencement of Russian support for secessionist
movements in the eastern part of the country, along with the Russian
seizure of Crimea. Nevertheless, the response by Western countries was
limited—beside expressions of outrage—and there was significant
opposition within NATO to admitting Ukraine, which in practical terms
meant that Ukraine would not be entering the alliance.

Russian President Putin gave away any ground for progressive/left
support when—on the very night of the invasion—he framed the
impending assault in terms that would have made Tsar Nicholas II
proud. By describing Ukraine as a national fiction
[[link removed]] and
engaging in a polemic
[[link removed]] with
Lenin and Stalin on the “national question,” Putin made it clear
that what was underway was not a defensive move against NATO but a
reassertion of a Russian sphere of influence.

The last time that I checked, those of us on the left side of the
aisle were supposed to stand in opposition to spheres of influence. We
do so by standing in favor of the right of nations to
self-determination.

Our network stands resolutely in favor of peace—but not the peace of
the graveyard. A cessation of hostilities by the
aggressor—Russia—and their withdrawal of troops would be a start.
Comprehensive negotiations would ultimately be necessary in order to
guarantee peace and security for Russia _and_ Ukraine. To this we
would politely add that it is not up to those of us in the United
States to instruct the Ukrainians on what and how much territory they
should cede to Russia in order to guarantee an alleged peace.

Many sincere people believe that supporting the right of Ukrainians to
armed resistance somehow encourages war, with the possibility of
escalations. However, no similar objection was ever raised in 1935
when Ethiopia was invaded by Fascist Italy and begged for support. Nor
were such concerns raised—at least, not by the left—in 1936 when a
pro-fascist coup attempt took place in Spain, supported by the direct
military intervention of Italy and Germany, leading the Spanish
government to request international assistance, including from
imperialist powers (some of whom did use claims of devotion to peace
to deprive the Spanish republic of the means to defend itself).
Nothing like that was raised during the Vietnam War when the
Vietnamese fought against US aggression, despite the ever-present
threat of nuclear attacks by the USA.

_Copyright c 2023 The Nation. Reprinted with permission. May not be
reprinted without permission
[[link removed]].
Distributed by PARS International Corp
[[link removed]]._

_Please support  progressive journalism. Get a digital subscription
[[link removed]]
to The Nation for just $24.95!    _

BILL FLETCHER, JR. is a past president of TransAfrica Forum, a
longtime trade unionist, and a cofounder of the Ukrainian Solidarity
Network. He is a member of the editorial board of _The Nation_.

_THE NATION [[link removed]] Founded by abolitionists in
1865, The Nation has chronicled the breadth and depth of political
and cultural life, from the debut of the telegraph to the rise of
Twitter, serving as a critical, independent, and progressive voice in
American journalism._

* Ukraine
[[link removed]]
* Russia
[[link removed]]
* wars of aggression
[[link removed]]
* NATO
[[link removed]]
* self determination
[[link removed]]
* Solidarity
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]