What Does the Ukrainian Working Class Want?
As the U.S. and Russia discuss a possible ceasefire, what role do the Ukrainian people—especially the working class—have in shaping the outcome? Paul Jay speaks with Ukrainian political scientist Denys Gorbach about the war, class dynamics, and the neoliberal assault on workers’ rights during the conflict—a rare, progressive, class-conscious look at the war in Ukraine.
Support Ukrainian resistance — not monstrous rearmament plans
First published at People and Nature.
“What peace?” is a wide question. To narrow it down, we can ask: what sort of peace is being discussed among Ukrainians?
In an interview about the Trump-Putin talks, and the prospects for any agreement, our comrade Denis Pilash, a member of Sotsialnyi Rukh, said that “Ukrainians have two things in mind when thinking about any deal: the fate of people in the occupied territories, and how to prevent Russia from restarting the war.”
These points could frame areas for agreements, he argued. He pointed to the Ukrainian government’s position that it will not recognise illegal annexations, but would accept a ceasefire followed by negotiations.
On security guarantees, Denis argued that NATO membership is not only problematic but also unlikely. But “some sort of security guarantees involving important players are needed, to ensure Russia does not invade again”.
This in turn raises questions about who can guarantee security for who, and how.
To answer these, we need to look at broader, contextual issues, I believe. Here are comments about four of these.
Authoritarianism versus democracy
For many Ukrainians, the war has forced the issue: live under Putin’s authoritarian rule, or in a democracy, albeit seriously flawed. The answer has been: stubborn resistance to the invasion by civil society.
But is it right to see this resistance as part of a wider international battle between authoritarianism and democracy? I think this is a problematic framing.
The western European powers, including the UK, which have now promised to support Ukraine after the reversal of US policy, are among the greatest enemies of democracy and democratic rights. Not because of their domestic political systems, in which valuable democratic rights and freedoms, won in past struggles, still persist. But because of their support for vile dictators who defend the interests of capital internationally.
They had, after all, hoped to continue to work with Putin’s regime before and after 2014 — despite Chechnya, despite Syria — and only revised their view in 2022.
The clearest reminder of these powers’ attitude to democracy and human rights is in Gaza. They continue to arm and support Israel, despite 15 months of relentless war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed daily in Gaza, and now the West Bank, by a government of extreme right-wingers and near-fascists.
Disproportionate targeting of civilians; deliberate blockading of food and medical supplies; bombing of civilian infrastructure; Israeli ministers’ explicit calls for ethnic cleansing — each of these are war crimes. But the western governments continue to supply weapons to Israel, and to witch-hunt their own citizens who protest.
Does this mean we should refuse the support given to Ukrainians resisting Russian aggression by the genocide facilitator Keir Starmer or the near fascist Georgia Meloni? No. But we should open our eyes to their motivations.
Their claims to be fighting authoritarianism are hypocritical lies. Leading Ukrainian politicians, too, are culpable: they have taken the opportunity provided by war to undermine democratic and labour rights.
Furthermore, we should challenge the European leaders’ idea of “security”. I believe that they mean, security for capital and its structures of power. The same “security” that underpins their murderous, racist policies targeting migrants. For us, security means, security for people. These are different, opposite, things. We need to define our collective stance on this.
The labour movement and social movements need an independent programme under which to mobilise in support of Ukraine.
Ours is not the first generation that has had to deal with the problems of making limited alliances with our class enemies. Collectively we should look at examples of resistance to Nazi occupation regimes during the second world war.
Many of these — in Greece, the Balkans, France and elsewhere — were organised predominantly through the workers’ movement, but worked alongside, and in constant tension with, the bourgeois states-in-exile who were supported by Britain and other western powers.
Rearmament
Following the reversal of US policy, the European powers have decided on long-term rearmament programmes, that is, substantial state investment in arms manufacture.
We must not become cheerleaders for these programmes. We are not required to endorse them, in order to support politically the provision to Ukraine by western European states of the weapons and ammunition it needs. We can support non-state actors in Ukraine — medical volunteers, civil society groups supporting the military, and so on — without endorsing the strategies of the ruling class.
In a recent article about rearmament, the socialist journalist Owen Jones argued that “defence spending must be scrutinised”. I agree.
Jones pointed out that “a significant amount” of the UK defence budget goes on Trident nuclear missiles, which have no relevance to the war in Ukraine; that billions have been spent on aircraft carriers and Ajax armoured vehicles that military specialists say are useless.
Furthermore, the UK government has predicated rearmament on massive cuts in other state spending.
This is a typical neoliberal false choice: support for Ukraine, or for public services. It is framed by the mainstream politicians, and supported by the Putinesque far right.
We need to challenge it. Let us win support for our demands to cancel Ukraine’s debt. Demand the seizure of frozen Russian financial assets, that the European authorities are likely to hand back this year. Demand an end to arms supplies to Israel. Tax the rich to fund public services.
The nature of the Russian threat
To develop our approach to these issues, we need also to characterise the nature of the Russian threat. For our friends in Ukraine, and the Baltic states, this threat is immediate. We need to seek their advice.
We also need to assess to what extent Europe faces a wider threat of Russian military action.
There is a strand of establishment opinion that compares the present moment to 1938, and warns that appeasement of Putin will lead to all-out war. This overlaps to some extent with rearmament policies.
I have doubts about this. Having concentrated its forces in Ukraine for three years, Russia has not only failed to capture Kyiv, but has captured only one fifth of Ukrainian territory, at huge cost – including the abandonment of its closest ally in the Middle East, Bashar al Assad.
Look, too, at the growth of social movements against some of eastern Europe’s Putinesque regimes, in Slovakia, Serbia and Hungary.
We need to ask not only whether the Kremlin, driven by deranged nationalism, might WANT to launch attacks more broadly to Russia’s west, but also: to what extent is it ABLE to do so. Perhaps it is more likely to use cyberwarfare, low-level sabotage and of course support for far-right parties in Europe.
I do not have answers to these questions. But if we do not discuss them, we will not put together meaningful strategies.
What can the labour movement and social movements effectively do?
I hope this conference will discuss not only what governments can or will do — over which our influence, the influence of civil society, is always limited — but also what we can do independently of governments.
Of course, we need to link support for Ukrainian resistance, and for a just peace, with wider fights for social justice, against anti-migrant policies, and for effective action on climate change. Everyone here is familiar with these arguments.
Beyond this, I will make just one point. Let us compare the demonstrations against support for Ukraine — attended in the UK by one or two hundred campists, Stalinists and cranks — with the demonstrations against Israeli genocide, regularly attended in the UK by hundreds of thousands of people.
When we go to those demonstrations with a banner stating “From Ukraine to Palestine, Occupation is a Crime”, there is enormous sympathy in the crowds.
These crowds are made up largely of young people who believe in a better future — free of war, of oppression and of the threat of climate disaster.
Making common cause with them is crucial, if we are to strengthen support in western Europe for Ukrainian resistance and for a just peace.
Based on a talk given at a panel,“What peace?”, on Wednesday 26 March held as part of the Solidarity with Ukraine event in Brussels. Pirani wishes to thank the European Network for Solidarity with Ukraine for inviting him to speak on the panel.
Ukraine: The left’s dilemma amid a crumbling world order: Prepare to fight or let others determine the outcome?
Friday 28 March 2025, by Oleksandr Kyselov
With a madman in the White House, all pretences have fallen away and raw power again reigns supreme. Trade wars, huge aid cuts, explicit demands to annex Greenland and depopulate Gaza — every new day brings forth another crisis that throws into question internationally recognised collective and individual rights and undermines global institutions that supposedly exist to defend them. Is this genuinely the world we were hoping for when we criticised the hypocrisy of the West? Is the internationalist left simply going to accept this new state of affairs?
Negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, so desired by many commentators, now seem closer than ever — even if Ukraine currently has little say in the matter. What kind of deal are the great powers preparing for us? A gentleman’s agreement to give Russian President Vladimir Putin a slice of our land and a veto over our future in return for US President Donald Trump receiving 50% of our natural wealth? Of course, there is also no room in such talks for the pleas of the Russian anti-war opposition. But who cares about nuance when “peace” is on the table?
An armistice may very well be needed — for Ukraine to catch its breath. Prolonged war has not made us stronger, and this is even more true for the left which has barely survived. However, to avoid wasting time before a potential new round of fighting resumes — whether in Ukraine or on a larger scale — we must soberly assess the new environment and identify its pressure points. Moral appeals only work when someone can be made to feel shame, which is clearly not the case anymore. A credible left response needs to be rooted in reality, respond to material conditions and leverage political openings, rather than cling onto eternal truths.
Instability is growing and, as a result, smaller nations are increasingly vulnerable — especially when strategic locations, resources or trade corridors are at stake. Therefore, when dealing with defense matters, the left’s approach should not focus on exploiting and spreading fear but rather on how to avoid becoming easy prey for imperialistic predators. Given this, there are several key points worth keeping in mind when it comes to security.
First, insisting on having the means to defend oneself is not warmongering. Without these means, diplomacy is reduced to little more than pleading for mercy. Rather than hiding away in a bubble, the left must take an active role in deciding how weapons are procured, produced, distributed and used. This cannot be left to lobbyists, oligarchs, arms dealers and foreign powers.
Second, crisis preparedness is a significant asset. In war, natural disaster or even revolution, those who are best organised and know what to do determine the outcome. Speaking from our own bitter experience, the left, which has been largely confined to safe spaces in universities, NGOs or social media, has been sidelined. In crisis situations, practical skills, resoluteness, access to useful social networks, and the ability to mobilise resources make one indispensable. In Ukraine, too often, it was the right who could provide these.
Third, social infrastructure is critical for resilience. As has become evident in Ukraine, a country at war needs functioning railways, hospitals and energy systems, as well as an adequate housing stock and qualified personnel to run all those. Whatever is unreliable in peacetime will surely fail once a crisis breaks out. Weakening social investments under the pretext of defence or fiscal austerity, as well as loosening state controls and coordination for the sake of freedom of competition, are acts of sabotage and must be called out as such. The sooner individual voices consolidate into a single loud voice, the greater the likelihood of putting these issues on the agenda and giving the neoliberals a good fight.
Fourth, regardless of what munitions are at our disposal, wars are ultimately fought by people. Strong military defence depends on popular participation and willingness, neither of which are permanent. No amount of coercion can completely replace consent. It is enough to recall the story of the French-trained Anne of Kyiv brigade [which was disbanded due to mass desertions]. A conscription-based army with a large reserve force is not the only affordable and realistic way to guarantee self-determination. But it is important to understand that this creates a structural dependency, which necessitates ensuring the legitimacy of actions and that people’s trust is won.
Finally, no one can survive alone. Pooling resources, sharing knowledge, leveraging economies of scale, and even entering into a common defence agreement can all contribute to mutual security and saving costs. While cooperation is crucial for countries, it is even more critical at the grassroots level, where solidarity and joint efforts are essential for effectively organising on a global scale and delivering results. Simply listening and hearing each other would be a vital first step.
One could, of course, say that instead of seeking to influence decision-making, the left should identify mounting frustrations, amplify them and channel them toward systemic subversion. Yet even if we believe the left’s odds of winning amid this chaos as good, unless the global situation changes drastically, similar questions about guaranteeing security and peace will continue to reappear.
Ruling elites face a looming legitimacy crisis due to their incapacity to respond to a growing number of external threats and the rise of extreme right forces at home — both of which are the fruits of the neoliberal turn these same elites orchestrated. This vulnerability provides an opening that the left can seize to reshape the debate and win, at least, some of our key demands.
Acting in a quick and determined manner now can help give peace a chance. Even where collapse is imminent, the left can best position itself by joining the battle to strengthen the power resources of the working class today, rather than wait until the only remaining option is underground resistance to a fascist dictatorship, whether home-grown or imposed from outside.
Links 3 March
Attached documentsukraine-the-left-s-dilemma-amid-a-crumbling-world-order_a8918.pdf (PDF - 909.1 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8918]
Oleksandr Kyselov
Oleksandr Kyselov is a member Sotsialnyi Rukh (Ukraine), currently in Sweden.
International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment