FROM THE LEFT
Trump, Putin and the war in Ukraine
Li Andersson (Left Alliance, Finland): ‘Putin and Trump want a world where countries pick when to comply with international law and when not’
First published at Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine impacted not only the states of Eastern Europe, but also the Scandinavian countries to a particular extent. This applies first and foremost to Finland, which had previously belonged to the Russian Empire and, after gaining its independence at the end of 1917, was attacked by the Soviet Union in 1939 as part of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Today, the country shares a border of more than 1,300 kilometres with Russia. After decades of largely independent foreign and defence policies, Finland joined NATO in spring 2023.
At that time, Li Andersson was still Minister of Education in the cabinet led by Social Democrat Sanna Marin and leader of Vasemmistoliitto, the Left Alliance. After a right-wing government replaced the five-party coalition, she was elected to the European Parliament in the summer of 2024. During a recent visit to our headquarters in Berlin, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Albert Scharenberg spoke to her about the security and defence policy implications of Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine for Finland and Europe.
Since Russia launched its war of aggression against Ukraine, critics both in- and outside of the Left have argued that socialist parties should take security and defence policy more seriously. Do you agree with this assessment? What kind of rethinking has your own party, the Left Alliance, undertaken?
When the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, the Left Alliance was part of the Finnish government. We all want peace, but that invasion forced us to have challenging discussions and debates, because as a governing party, it is not enough to articulate general statements on the importance of peace. You really need to be able to take positions on the difficult issues concerning defence and security.
We were, however, somewhat prepared in terms of our policy lines. For example, the Left Alliance already was in favour of general conscription to the Finnish armed forces, so we did not need to rephrase our policies in this respect. But we did have to accept an increase in defence spending.
This was not an isolated position of the Finnish Left, however. The same decisions were made by other Nordic parties, because we were all confronted with the same situation: a neighbouring country waging a conventional war against another country in violation of international law. From our point of view, it is crucial that the Left very clearly condemns Russia’s war of aggression, and that the Left supports Ukraine, including with arms. The challenge for the Left is that Putin has forced us to think differently about issues of defence. It is not something we would have wanted, but we can no longer exclude the threat of war.
In response to the war and widespread fears of Russian aggression, both Finland and Sweden joined NATO. How did the Left Alliance come to terms with this new reality?
Indeed, the most challenging issue that came up in Finland after the Russian invasion was the question of NATO membership. For us, the actual issue was not that we were eager to join NATO, but that we needed security guarantees — I think this is an important difference to stress from a left-wing perspective. And it is exactly the same concern other countries in Eastern Europe have at the moment.
My party accepts Finnish NATO membership as a fact. That said, we focus on what we want Finland to do within NATO, such as campaigning against nuclear weapons, and ensuring that NATO prioritizes defence, instead of engaging in operations outside of NATO territory.
Nevertheless, NATO membership did not turn Finland’s traditional foreign and security policy upside down. Before we joined NATO, Finland was militarily non-aligned, but as EU members, we did not call ourselves neutral. Unfortunately, Putin has made this option less credible in terms of defence and security policies, since we now have seen Russia invade a sovereign country that was outside of this kind of security architecture.
I think one of the biggest mistakes we made as a left party was that we did not take the initiative to create and develop an alternative European security architecture, including security guarantees. That could have constituted a real-life, concrete alternative to NATO membership that we could have put forward in the debates that arose in Sweden and Finland after the invasion of Ukraine.
I understand that this is a very hard debate. I have full respect for the fact that there are other positions within the European left, and I am fully aware of all the problems connected to NATO. But I think the biggest problem was that with respect to security guarantees, there were really no other options on the table. And I do think that the Left should be self-critical enough to say that we did not develop this kind of solution at an earlier stage, which actually would have been helpful as far as reducing the role of NATO is concerned.
Only two years after Finland and Sweden joined, NATO is led by none other than Donald Trump. What implications does this have for Europe?
The first thing that Trump will push for is a further increase in military spending. I do not think we will support this, or even putting any spending targets in place at all. Our position is that we do not want to lock in defence spending at a certain percentage of GDP such as two percent of GDP or even higher. Furthermore, I really think that setting such a target is a foolish way of measuring defence capabilities. Defence spending should not be based on abstract targets, but on needs and priorities.
There have, for instance, been times when Finland needed to, let’s say, renew our air force and buy new airplanes. In such a situation, defence spending goes up. After the investment is made, however, it can and should drop — even below the NATO target of two percent.
More generally, Finland already spent quite a bit on defence before joining NATO. This was a consequence of us not being in NATO. It is very simple: Without a military alliance, you have to be ready to spend enough to put up a credible defence on your own.
In view of Trump’s approach to international diplomacy, does Europe need a more independent security policy? And if so, what needs to be done to get there?
First and foremost, we think that at this moment, a central aim of our security and foreign policy should be to reduce dependencies on the US. This comes back to the options we were lacking when Russia invaded Ukraine. Thus, we need an increased role for European cooperation in the field of security policies and defence. This includes a strengthening of Europe within NATO.
That’s why we also need a discussion in the EU regarding our armaments industries. If you look at European defence spending, you will find that a lot of the money is spent on buying American weapons. But do we really want to finance the US military-industrial complex? We think it is better to use our money for more European cooperation.
The big takeaway for Europe as far as Trump is concerned is that we need to be ready to stand on our own feet. We cannot fall back on the US, and we should not want to. But if we say we want to reduce European dependency on the US, some countries will probably need to spend a bit more on defence compared to what they spent before.
Would you argue that the European goal should be to acquire some kind of “strategic autonomy” from the US?
Yes, this is a useful concept for the Left because it connects to this time and this moment. How can we decrease European dependency on the US? I think this should be a unifying issue for the Left.
It also contains an industrial policy dimension beyond the defence industry. A lot of policies being discussed right now are more or less in line with how the Left generally thinks about public investment in our industries. The need not to be dependent on US or Chinese technology monopolies, and to develop those industries within Europe — the need for an energy transition of our industries, for instance.
At the same time, we know that a world that is less interdependent also poses new risks. I think the Left should be able to communicate that. I do not think we should cut all ties in terms of trade or commerce, or wage a Trumpist policy of high tariffs and protectionism — that’s not really a progressive alternative, either. Thinking in terms of strategic autonomy could be good for Europe from a leftist point of view, but we should not interpret this as a kind of isolationist policy like those we can now see being implemented, especially by the xenophobic far right.
Concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Europe has been very outspoken and also quite supportive of the country under attack. With respect to Gaza, the story is quite different. While the Gaza war has been widely condemned in the Global South, the European Union and its member states have mostly been fairly quiet about it. In your opinion, do the European countries need to voice stronger opposition to Israel’s warfare?
I absolutely think so. The actions of the so-called Western countries, including the large majority of EU member states, will have a devastating effect on multilateral institutions and the role of international law. Their double standards are so blatant and flagrant. Comparing Ukraine and Gaza makes it all the clearer. There are EU countries that signal they will not implement the arrest orders from the International Criminal Court (ICC) when it comes to Israeli leaders, but who at the same time have been demanding that the Global South should support us when it comes to arresting Putin. Even though the same court issued both arrest orders! That kind of hypocrisy is just astounding.
We are approaching a breaking point in terms of global politics, and the erosion, or rather destruction of international rules-based institutions is one of the most dangerous developments. That is what leaders like Putin and Trump want: to end up in a world where countries pick and choose when they want to comply with international law and when not. That is exactly the kind of global order they are trying to shape. Of course, this is bad news for forces working for peace, international cooperation and understanding, and a rules-based order. It shows how strangely this world has developed and how strong the far right has become.
I think that the incredibly weak response of the European Union countries to the genocide in Gaza will deepen the divide between the Global South and the Global North. This is a very important issue for the Left — we should strive to bridge that gap. We need to show actors in both the North and South that there are still forces, movements, and parties that agree and are willing and ready to work together to defend institutions of international law and human rights.
Lately, there’s been a lot of talk about a ceasefire in Ukraine. What do you think should be the demands of the Left in this context?
I think the Left needs to understand that if there is a ceasefire — and after that, hopefully some kind of more lasting negotiation regarding Ukraine’s future — one part of that will have to do with the question of what security architecture Ukraine will be a part of. It should be clear that Ukraine cannot be left out in the cold.
My opinion is that EU membership would be the smartest solution for Ukraine and should be the priority. It is easier than NATO membership — which the new US administration has ruled out anyway. Ukrainian EU membership, on the other hand, would make them a part of the European security architecture. As it stands now, there are certain political guarantees, although they are, from a defence point of view, not as strong as NATO membership.
I think the European Left should position itself in favour of Ukrainian EU membership after this war. We should still demand that they fulfil the formal requirements. That will not be easy — they will need a lot of support to reform their own administration and society to fulfil the criteria. But this will also represent a huge change for the EU in terms of decision-making about the allocation of resources within the Union. It is a big question for the future of the EU, as well as for the people of Europe more generally. We need people to understand why it is important and get them on board.
Additionally, if there is a ceasefire, there will be a need for a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. There will have to be foreign soldiers on the territory of Ukraine to uphold the ceasefire. The new US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has already declared that US soldiers will not be part of a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine and pushed that responsibility onto Europe. That leads to the question whether a European presence is enough to keep the ceasefire. I personally think Europe should be enough.
Should the Left also focus on what is going on within Ukraine? And shouldn’t we criticise the West’s plundering of Ukrainian resources, like the rare earth deal Trump recently demanded?
Definitely. The Left should denounce such horrible “deals”, or rather extortions, and focus on Ukrainian society.
Since the war began, we have called for a cancellation of Ukrainian state debt. This is a crucial issue because otherwise, the Ukrainians will end up in complete dependency on foreign lenders. That is not autonomy or independence. Thus, I think we should continue campaigning around this issue and work together with Ukrainian civil society, the trade unions, and progressive movements on issues like control of natural resources, workers’ rights, and so on.
Right now, there is a big debate in Ukraine around the country’s labour laws. To my understanding, the government is trying to make permanent some of the changes in labour law that were implemented under martial law. That would significantly weaken workers’ rights as well as the role of trade unions. This is exactly the kind of issue we should politicize. We should cooperate with the Ukrainian Left, and support them in the work they do in their society for the same kind of ideals and the same general political aims that we all share.
Another example is the huge housing crisis in Ukraine. Why is nobody discussing these issues within the EU? Too many observers are only interested in military issues, and not in the domestic issues that are of huge importance to the Ukrainians themselves — and these issues are linked to the question of social justice within Ukraine. That’s what we should focus on.
In closing, what would you, as a Member of the European Parliament, say should be the primary goal for Europe in the current political conjuncture?
I think a lot of citizens actually want Europe to step up in this geopolitical situation. They expect us to build an alternative to this authoritarian, fascist, violent rule that’s spreading across the globe. There is a need for voices who have a different analysis of the role we want to play — strong voices for international law, human rights, for a real solution to the climate crisis, which has a much broader impact on our security and safety than military defence.
That, however, requires a willingness to fight against these tech monopolies and the richest people in the world who are very openly seeking to transform their economic power into political power. Will Europe do that? The biggest fight we are going to have in the European Parliament in the coming years is against the far right. Which side will win and define what position the EU takes in this new geopolitical landscape? That is going to be the decisive battle.
Russian left statements: ‘The Putin-Trump “peace talks” will bring nothing but new imperialist wars’
Below are two statements — one by Russian Socialists for Peace Without Annexations, the other an editorial by the Posle Media collective — produced on the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The statements take a revolutionary left stance on the negotiations underway between US president Donald Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin.
‘A Trump-Putin deal would represent a triumph for imperialism and inevitably lead to more wars of conquest’
Russian Socialists for Peace Without Annexations
Translated by LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal.
The full-scale phase of Russia’s war on Ukraine, which has been ongoing since 2014, began three years ago. For the first eight years it was a covert hybrid war. For the past three years, it has been an unmitigated meat grinder, monstrous in its cruelty.
Ukraine has been dealt an unjust blow by its neighbour. Ordinary Ukrainians, workers, have lost their homes, jobs and lives, and been forced to flee from the war. For three years, the heroic Ukrainian people have resisted Russia’s invasion with insufficient international solidarity and little help from Western countries.
Now, on the heels of the third year of the war, right-wing anti-Communist US President Donald Trump is promoting the idea of peace at the expense of Ukraine. He blames Ukraine for starting the war and seems to want to share Ukraine with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin — well, at least its natural resources. Contrary to what some have been saying, the imperialists are tired and would prefer to end the war by finally stripping Ukraine, the Ukrainian people, of their sovereignty.
Should we support such a deal? Revolutionary defeatists in Russia must stand against such a deal!
It would be monstrously unfair to Ukrainians. It would also lead to the triumph of imperialism and inevitably to many more wars of conquest. If such a deal is reached, Russia will likely start a new war to keep the war machine running and prevent soldiers from returning home. Meanwhile, the impunity with which parts of Ukraine have been annexed will untie the hands of all imperialists, including the Russian Federation.
Do we want the occupation of Ukrainian regions to continue? No!
“People who forge chains for others forge them for themselves’" — Russians living under dictatorship understand the meaning of this phrase. Imperialism is waging an all-out war against everything that is progressive, depriving all peoples of a safe and healthy future.
Do we want new wars of conquest on the part of Russia? No!
Imperialism, revanchism and Russia's desire to again subjugate neighbouring peoples has destroyed relations between Russians and our neighbours (Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Belarusians, Armenians, Georgians, Moldavians, etc.), pushing back the prospects of socialist internationalism. It covers with shame those Russians who do not fight against their imperialism, allowing aggression and revanchism against neighbouring oppressed peoples!
The most important condition now for the struggle is the voice of civil society in the countries of Europe and the United States, and the pressure of workers on Western imperialist governments to not reduce aid to Ukraine, but on the contrary expand it! The left in Europe must agitate for this!
The left also needs to demand Western countries give aid to Ukraine, for free or at minimal cost. Expanded aid from the European Union, even with the temporary suspension of US support, would allow Ukraine to continue its resistance against Russian imperialism, allowing the Ukrainian people to win in the long run!
At home, Russian left-wing defeatists — Communists, socialists, social democrats and anarchists — must speak out in favour of the right of Ukrainians to resist and for the defeat of “their own” imperialism!
We make the same call to the Russian expatriate left! Let this year be the last year of Russia’s imperial aggression!
Three years of war: The lessons of Black February that we haven’t learnt
It has now been three years since Putin’s criminal aggression against Ukraine expanded into a full-scale invasion. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions of refugees have fled their homeland, and dozens of cities have been turned into ruins. Since March 2022, when the initial plan for a rapid “regime change” in Kiev definitively failed, Putin's “special military operation” has become a war of attrition. Disregarding casualties, the Kremlin has continued to raise the cost of war for both Ukraine and its allies with monstrous persistence. For Putin's Russia itself, this war is no longer just about expanding the borders or increasing its influence in the post-Soviet space. Rather it is now an existential problem. The question is: can the Russian regime not only survive, but also make its outlook a new principle of world politics? It seems that the destruction of an independent Ukrainian state — which is the ultimate goal of the “SVO” — would be recognized by all as a sign of the superiority of a true military power over powerless international law. Only when the world enters a new era of imperialist redistribution — a struggle for territories between the strongest military powers — will Russia's “victory” be truly solidified.
Today, after the start of Russian-American negotiations, it seems that this “victory” is close at hand. However, this is not a military victory — the Ukrainian army continues to resist, and Russia has not been able to take a single major Ukrainian city in three years. Instead, it is an ideological victory, a victory of Putin's worldview. The very format of the meeting between Sergei Lavrov and Marco Rubio — representatives of military powers calmly discussing the division of another country's territory and its natural wealth — brings to mind the most shameful and unjust events of the past, such as the partitions of Poland in the late 18th century or the Munich Pact of 1938.
The difference, however, is that, in contrast to what it was like in Munich, this time there are no maps on the negotiating table on which the diplomats might draw the new borders of empires. The US administration does not offer any definitive plan to end the war, and Russia has not yet demonstrated any willingness to compromise and relinquish at least some of its territorial claims. For both sides, these negotiations are primarily of symbolic importance: it is important to them to show that such a scenario should no longer seem unthinkable and that the rules of the game have been radically changed. Although it was rather fruitless, this meeting will go down in history as the beginning of a new era — the era of 21st-century imperialism. However, if the whole world is really divided into predators and victims, is today's Russia — economically weak as it is and having already lost the lives of more than 200,000 soldiers — guaranteed a place among the ruling elites?
As is well known, the Russian Empire turned a deaf ear to a similar question on the eve of its entry into the First World War. Overestimating its own power and blinded by false imperial myths and contempt for its own population, Tsarist Russia did not capture Constantinople, but, instead, faced military collapse and revolution. Following the workers of the Russian Empire, millions of citizens of other countries engaged in war turned their anger against their own governments. It took another century for this lesson to be completely erased from the minds of the ruling elites, who are once again obsessed with the idea of imperial expansion.
The “peace talks” that are now taking place between Putin and Trump will bring nothing but new wars to the world. Imperialism never stops halfway — it only takes the acquisition of desired territories as an invitation to further aggression. The fate of tormented Ukrainians today may soon become the image of the future for humanity, but humanity always has the chance to say “Enough!” to this imperialist madness.
Ukraine solidarity under the Trump administration (Plus video: Ukraine’s fight for self-determination: Three years of resistance against Russian imperialism)
Now the Trump administration is posturing as a “neutral” broker between Russia and Ukraine, as if the aggressor and its victim are equally at fault. But in practice, the Trump administration is publicly supporting Russian demands and rejecting Ukrainian demands. Trump’s calls for U.S. “ownership” of Gaza in Palestine and for U.S. annexation of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal are as brazenly imperialist as Putin’s attempt to annex Ukraine.
USN opposes any attempt by the Trump administration to make a deal with Putin over the heads of the Ukrainians and to try to force it on Ukraine by threatening to withdraw humanitarian, economic, and military support for Ukraine. We further condemn the Trump administration’s demands for effective control of Ukraine’s mineral resources and other economic assets. The Trump administration has already frozen billions of dollars in humanitarian and economic aid that supports millions of Ukrainians, including:
- Millions of displaced war refugees inside Ukraine and abroad
- Tens of thousands of disabled veterans
- More than 100,000 HIV/AIDS patients
- Firewood for people without power due to Russia’s war crime of bombarding civilian energy infrastructure
- Repair and reconstruction of power plants and distribution grids
- Grants to small farmers for seeds, fertilizer, and the replacement and repair of war-damaged farm equipment, grain storage silos, and ports for food exports
- Independent media and civic organizations
- Budget support for social services and public utilities
The Trump administration has also disbanded the Department of Justice task force charged with enforcing sanctions and anti-corruption laws against Russia’s wealthy political elites and oligarchs.
As the Russian war against Ukraine enters its fourth year, USN will continue to work for Ukraine’s victory over the Russian invaders, criminal accountability for their war crimes, and their payment of reparations to fund reconstruction.
- We support the armed and unarmed resistance of Ukrainians against the Russian occupying power.
- We support economic sanctions against Russia’s war machinery, including its political, military, and economic elite, its access to the international financial system, its imports of weapons-related technology, and its exports of fossil fuels.*
- We demand that all Russians incarcerated for war resistance and political dissent be freed and that war resisters and political dissidents seeking refuge abroad be granted asylum.
- We demand that the tens of thousands of Ukrainian children kidnapped to Russia and Belarus be returned to Ukraine.
- We demand that the tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians from Russian-occupied territories incarcerated for opposition to the occupation be released and returned to Ukraine.
- We support asylum in the U.S. for Ukrainians, Russians, Belorussians, Haitians, Venezuelans, Afghans and all people seeking refuge from political repression and war.
- We demand the cancellation of all of Ukraine’s illegitimate and unjust foreign debts.
- We demand the confiscation of Russian assets abroad to be used to support Ukraine’s military self-defense, social services, and post-war reconstruction.
- We oppose the U.S. policy of imposing a neoliberal economic agenda on Ukraine today and for its post-war reconstruction.
The Ukrainians’ struggle for self-determination, democracy and social justice will continue. We support the political struggles of Ukrainian trade unions, women’s organizations, environmental initiatives, and progressive political organizations to reverse the neoliberal anti-labor and anti-social policies of the Ukrainian government, to expand social, labor, and democratic rights, and to implement a just and ecological reconstruction of Ukraine. We will continue to build material aid and public education campaigns linking trade unions, civic organizations, and progressive political organizations in the U.S. with their counterparts in Ukraine. We urge all opponents of imperialism to join us.
- *
The question of sanctions is complicated and controversial among activists committed to Ukraine’s struggle. It’s especially important in the USA that we do not accommodate to the predatory politics of the imperialist U.S. state. The Ukraine Solidarity Network will be discussing these issues as the betrayal of Ukraine unfolds in collaboration with our Ukrainian comrades whose lives and national freedom are on the line.
Spain: From opposing US imperialism to defending the Putin-Trump pact
Izquierda Unida (United Left, IU) and its main component party, the Partido Comunista de España (Communist Party of Spain, PCE) have always presented themselves as the firmest opponents of US imperialism and NATO. As the Sandinista song goes, for them “the yankee [is] the enemy of humanity”, and is always on the wrong side of any conflict.
That was until last week when, suddenly, the old yankee “enemy of humanity” became a potential friend of humanity. According to IU, the first round of Russia-US talks held in Saudi Arabia — without Ukraine or the European Union — “between the US and Russian presidents has paved a solid path for ending a bellicose conflict in the heart of Europe.”
Some political twists and turns might seem implausible. But they can happen — and quickly. Such is the case with IU, which has gone from defending Putin’s Russia in its war of aggression against Ukraine to now defending Trump’s United States and its “peacemaker” role. A magical synchronicity has been produced given that what Trump now says about responsibility for the Ukraine-Russia conflict coincides with IU’s views.
In a shameful statement on the eve of the third anniversary of this large-scale war, this party that calls itself “of the lefts” has made a 180-degree U-turn — one as big as that of US imperialism itself. Until now, IU had repeatedly said that the main obstacle to ending the war was the fact that the US had provoked the Maidan “coup”, had tried to incorporate Ukraine into NATO (by force, apparently), and had converted Ukraine and [president Volodymyr] Zelensky into mere puppets of US imperialism. How is it then that, suddenly, the worst enemy, with its most ultra-right-wing president ever, has become a force for peace and “paved a solid path for ending a bellicose conflict in the heart of Europe”?
In reality, these negotiations will not bring about peace. If anything, as the Ukrainians say, it will be a ceasefire imposed only until Putin is in a position to resume his goal of completely crushing Ukraine's resistance and sovereign state, as he has sought since occupying Crimea in 2014.
The statement says: “the only beneficiaries [of the war] have been arms manufacturers”. But they are not the only ones. Oil and gas oligarchs — whether Russians, Americans or Arabs — as well as many other sectors, including banking, have also benefited. This is true. But, so what? Will the US and Russia now stop selling arms and fuelling dozens of active wars across the world in pursuit of their imperialist interests?
IU clarifies: “From the beginning of the conflict we have opposed sending arms.” But its statement does not say that they only opposed sending arms to one side. They have only opposed sending them to the victim, to the weaker side, to the side defending itself against aggression: Ukraine. They have never raised an outcry against the indiscriminate and criminal use of Russian weapons against civilians, hospitals, nuclear power stations or infrastructure that is critical to people’s lives, such as dams. Instead, according to them, peace was being held back because Ukraine insisted on defending itself and asking for weapons to expel Russian troops from its territory.
The statement says: “The European Union (EU) has from the outset adopted an irresponsible position of subordination to NATO”. What they mean is subordination to the US. I am no fan of NATO. I have fought against it and believe it should be dissolved when there are guarantees for stable and lasting peace and security, just like any other military alliance. But this cannot hide the fact that the real driver of NATO expansion in the past three years has precisely been Russia's aggression and invasion of Ukraine. What else explains Finland and Sweden, countries that have hitherto been considered neutral, joining NATO?
But now that Trump wants to make a deal with Putin — and Ukraine and the whole of Europe has been marginalised — IU accepts these Russia-US negotiations without any European presence. So who is subordinated to whom? Why does IU call for “the fundamental involvement of the United Nations and the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe]” but see no role for Ukraine — the main stakeholder — or the European Union in negotiations?
Curiously, after criticising the EU for its subservience to and military alliance with the US, they claim that “the same EU neoliberal parties that are now calling for more ‘strategic autonomy’ because of Trump’s announcement that the US will impose tariffs on their products should recognise their mistake and be self-critical”. Seriously? The European Union is an imperialist project, but are we saying that Trump’s policy of tariffs is better than the neoliberalism in place until now?
When it comes to defending democracy in Europe, IU has a very peculiar way of only seeing one side. It says: “Peace talks should not only be about rebuilding the infrastructure of a shattered country, but also about restoring democracy and political pluralism in Ukraine”. IU here is repeating Trump’s lies, who now accuses Zelensky of being a “dictator” with no more than 4% support, and demands he hold elections. For Ukrainian society, immediate elections are not seen as essential and the Constitution states they cannot be held in times of war.
But what about Russia? Is everything fine in Russia when it comes to democracy? Are elections in which Putin wins with 90% support and no opposition is allowed to participate (among other reasons because opposition leaders die of “natural causes” in prisons) an example of “democracy”? What kind of pluralism exists in Russia, where exhibiting any opposition to the war (sorry, I mean “special military operation”) leads to prison? What about in the occupied territories where you cannot even speak Ukrainian?
If we include Russia within Europe, which is totally legitimate and should be natural, the question is: which European values are we defending? The Europe that Trump and Putin want? Clearly, Putin and Trump have their own “models” of the Europe they want. To Putin’s support for far-right governments (such as those in Hungary, Slovakia and Italy) and phantom candidates promoted via social media (such as in Romania), we can now add Trump and [Elon] Musk’s support for the far right in Germany, France, Spain, England...
When talking about values, the statement only refers to the supposed situation inside Ukraine: “IU calls for the legalisation of the 11 trade unions and left-wing and nationalist formations banned in an authoritarian manner by Volodymyr Zelensky at the start of the war, followed by the imprisonment of opposition leaders on purely political grounds. We have been the only political force to denounce the Ukrainian government's repression of these parties, which include the Socialist Party and the Communist Party.”
Indeed, freedoms are an essential part of our values. In Spain, where we lived under a fascist dictatorship for forty years, we still remember how important they are: freedom of expression, of assembly, of demonstration. But you do not fight for freedom by repeating Putin’s lies. Ukraine is at war, not because it wanted to start one, but because it had to defend itself in order to avoid being destroyed or dismembered. And war brings limitations on freedoms. Limitations that Ukrainian trade unions, society and civil rights organisations have accepted as a lesser evil.
Moreover, it is a lie that trade unions are illegal. And although the neoliberal Ukrainian government has passed numerous anti-union laws, freedom of speech and even the right to limited protests still exist. Against the Zelensky government, we support the demand for the right to strike coming from unions such as the FPU [Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine], KVPU [Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine] and [nurses’ union] Be Like Nina, in order to confront bosses’ abuses. But there is much less opposition within society to the banning of “defeatist” parties that, influenced or paid by the Kremlin, defend Putin’s lies and provoke demoralisation among the population. Instead, there is strong indignation against these puppet parties. And what about Russia? Why does IU say nothing about the thousands of opponents, defectors or Ukrainian children that have been kidnapped or imprisoned?
The end of the statement says: “IU calls on Spanish and European society to mobilise for peace in Ukraine, to help build a Europe and world based on international law, cooperation, multilateralism and peace between peoples. The stability and future of Europe are at stake in these peace negotiations.”
Curiously, they call for a Europe based on international law while at the same time saying nothing about the country that tramples on it every day: Russia. Russia is now being supported by the world’s biggest imperialist power, the US, which also tramples on international law and is willing to steal whatever it wants: Greenland, Panama, Canada, Gaza… The “multilateralism” of IU — and other leftists that have turned their backs on Ukraine — is based on the naive idea of a global equilibrium resting on a status quo between great powers. For these leftists, there is only one imperialism: US imperialism. But now multilateralism means ... deals between the two most aggressive imperialisms in the world, between Trump and Putin!
We do not know how this attempt at negotiations between the Trump and Putin governments will end. But we do know their intentions: against Ukraine and against Europe. To once again divide up “spheres of influence” (that is, carve up countries between them they can each steal from and do whatever they want to). For Putin, this means the part of Europe he views as part of the “Russian World” ... and perhaps a few more. For the US, this means Ukraine’s rare earth reserves, as well as a free hand to do whatever it wants — even build “resorts” — in other parts of the world, such as those mentioned above, so that, in the medium term, it can take on China.
But even the most powerful imperialists forget at their own risk that oppressed peoples and nations exist, and that they have a life of their own and struggle, irrespective of any external military and economic support. The capitalist, imperialist, colonial system never learns the lessons of its defeats: Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba, Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan... But the left, which claims to fight against capitalism, should.
Ukraine has not yet had its last word, far from it. Instead of supporting the courageous and heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people in their struggle against the aggression and invasion of Russian imperialism, IU preferred to side with Putin and demand that no arms be sent to Ukraine. Now it complements this shameful support for Putin with its no less shameful support for a pact being prepared by Trump and Putin against Ukraine and, indeed, Europe. Ukraine will rise up one day, but such a left will be of no use for confronting what lies ahead.
Finally, the real left, the trade unions, feminists, environmentalists, should not only demand and pressure European governments to defend Ukraine, the current spearhead in the fight against the fascism of our times. They should also find ways to independently organise their own networks and forces in the face of all imperialisms: Russian, US, European, Chinese… The economic crisis and world order that has fostered this situation of increasingly violent imperialisms hurtling further towards fascism also provides them with opportunities.
The international conference in Solidarity with Ukraine on March 26-27 in Brussels, which is being hosted by Nordic MEPs and where Ukrainian and European trade unionists, feminists, students and environmentalists will come together to weave a European-wide network that can advance concrete proposals and actions for the new situation, will be very useful in this regard.
Alfons Bech is the trade union coordinator of the European Network in Solidarity with Ukraine.
The Ukraine war and Trump
First published at Arguing for Socialism.
1. The Ukraine war was actively and persistently prepared by the West. The work began years before Ukraine became independent in 1991 following the breakup of the Soviet Union, dating from the point where it became possible for Western NGOs to operate on Soviet territory under perestroika. Key US operative Victoria Nuland notoriously boasted in 2013 that the sums spent were of the order of $5 billion.
This process took a huge step forward with the Maidan events in 2014 and the coming to power of anti-Russian chauvinist and far right forces (many ideologically inspired by World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera), determined to crush the ethnic Russian population and “Ukrainise” the whole country. They began a civil war against the Donbas.
2. The West armed Ukraine and built up its military with the aim of an eventual war against Russia. The 2014 and 2015 Minsk accords aimed at establishing autonomy for the Donbas. Neither Ukraine nor the West intended them to work but rather to gain time for Ukraine’s rearmament.
3. Seriously alarmed by the West’s evident intentions, Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Moscow’s aims have always been clear: a neutral, de-militarised, non-NATO Ukraine and the purging of the far-right Nazi elements, especially from the “power ministries”. As for feverish Western propaganda claims that Russia wants to occupy the whole country, Russia has never shown any appetite for taking over more of Ukraine than Crimea, the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, which linguistically and culturally are heavily Russian.
4. Claims that Ukraine is fighting for self-determination and national independence are far-fetched. Its ruling circles gave those away in 2014 when they signed up for the West’s anti-Russian campaign. Ukraine has been used as the West’s creature: Western “advisers” are everywhere, in the military and in the government departments. It is heavy indebted to the US for arms supplies; Western companies now own large swathes of the economy.
5. Despite all the Western deceptions and media lies, it has long been clear that Russia is winning. The West’s sanctions have largely been overcome, Russia has built up its armed forces and its military economy, and Russia’s military has learnt from its setbacks and developed a formidable capacity. Despite the substantial human toll, the regime has retained strong popular support. People broadly accept that the country is under a real threat from the West.
6. The war is a proxy one in which Ukraine supplies the cannon fodder and the West supplies military equipment, advisers, specialists and “volunteers”. Ukraine’s welfare is of no real concern to the US-NATO bloc.
Ukraine has paid an absolutely appalling price for its role as the West’s proxy. Hundreds of thousands are dead and maimed, and there is huge material destruction and extreme population decline (due to loss of territory in the south and millions fleeing both to Western Europe and Russia).
7. Despite a vast amount of military assistance, the West has been unable to reverse the continual erosion of Ukraine’s situation on the battlefield. The missile and drone strikes deeper and deeper into Russia (carried out with Western weapons and dependent on Western specialists and intelligence) cannot stop the endless defeats on the ground but do risk touching off World War III. (Russian early warning systems now have to distinguish between Ukraine’s conventional missiles and drones and an actual US-NATO sneak nuclear attack.)
8. Europe, especially Germany, has also paid a heavy price for backing Washington in its anti-Russia crusade. With cheap energy supplies from Russia cut, Germany has been forced into more dependence on the US and its high-priced natural gas. Germany’s competitive position has sharply deteriorated. Popular living standards are falling as businesses cut back, close or relocate and military expenditures gobble up more and more government funds. One big reason for the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is its opposition to the war in Ukraine and its call for normal trade relations with Russia.
9. In Ukraine the war is becoming increasingly unpopular. In a relentless hunt for more cannon fodder to replace heavy losses at the front, conscription efforts have been steadily ramped up. But the military conscription gangs face actual physical attacks from the public: numerous military recruitment vehicles have been burned and, in at least one case, a recruitment centre was set on fire. A good deal of the anger relates to the notorious corruption of the recruitment process. Busloads full of 16-year olds regularly cross the borders into Hungary, Romania and Slovakia (men aged 17 and over are forbidden to leave the country).
10. Donald Trump is undoubtedly many bad things (in a recent Workers Weekly article Jack Conrad described him well as a “revolutionary counterrevolutionary”) but he has realised that the war in Ukraine is lost and wants to get it off the table. Pro-war journalists and politicians in the West are frothing at his blunt but accurate comments: Russia was right to be alarmed at NATO’s relentless eastwards expansion; the war should never have happened; a peace deal should have been made long ago; Zelensky has no legitimacy.
11. In fact, a very reasonable peace deal was close to being endorsed in March-April of 2022, just a month after the invasion started. But the West pressured Zelensky to junk it and promised Ukraine Western backing to keep fighting in order to weaken Russia. But that was then and now it is clearly different.
12. Trump’s 90-day suspension of USAID expenditures may well have caused some serious public health issues in many countries. But USAID’s primary function has always been to achieve US goals through bankrolling media, NGOs and pro-US political actors across the world. In Ukraine the “independent” (anti-Russia, pro-war) media has been revealed to have been utterly dependent on Washington’s subsidies. This sector is now in crisis as the “grant eaters” scramble for money in an attempt to survive without USAID funds.
13. What now? Talks will proceed between the US and Russia. At the end of the day Ukraine will have no choice but to accept what is offered. Without Western military and financial aid it cannot resist for very long.
After all that has happened, Russia will surely not settle for less than its original aims. It also wants to keep the territories it has occupied. The only realistic “security guarantees” for Ukraine lie in good relations with Russia. Russia will not settle for any deal which holds open the prospect of Ukraine rearming and preparing for round two.
The end would seem to be in sight for Washington’s bloody proxy war against Russia. Hopefully, the veritable tsunami of Western media lies and obfuscation that has accompanied it and assailed our senses for the last three years will also recede somewhat.
Ukraine, unfortunately, is likely to take a lot longer to recover from its deadly embrace of the West.
Fascism
Trump, Putin and the war in Ukraine: Europe’s painful awakening to the rise of global Fascism
Thursday 27 February 2025, by Hanna Perekhoda
For the past few weeks, and even more so in recent days, a state of paralysis seems to have gripped the European political landscape. Yet, Trump, Putin, and other far-right leaders have never hidden their ambitions. They have openly stated them for years, without pretense. It must be said plainly: their project is a fascist one.
A fascist regime is taking hold in the United States. In Russia, it has already been in place for three years – a reality that many preferred to deny, clinging to the illusion of a smooth return to normalcy, to a status quo that was seen as only temporarily disrupted by Russia’s war against Ukraine.
The same status quo that allowed the European Union – Germany above all – to continue importing cheap Russian hydrocarbons while exporting high-end products to China and the United States. A world so comfortable that the Ukrainians, in their stubborn resistance, became nothing more than a nuisance. If only they had accepted to live under the occupation of a regime that rapes, kills, and tortures on a massive scale, perhaps we could have continued to prosper indefinitely... An illusion as naïve as it was cynical.
While Western Europe set aside its investments in defense, Russia, on the other hand, used its energy revenues to modernise its military apparatus. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its numerous influence operations across Europe – including crimes and assassinations – have gone virtually unpunished. In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the European system of prosperity and stability, built on moral corruption, collapsed.
Yet, European leaders clung to this illusion, limiting their ability to impose swift and effective sanctions against Russia and delaying aid to Ukraine at a critical moment – when it had the best chance to shift the balance of power on the battlefield. This hesitation allowed Russia to seize territory and strengthen its positions, making Ukraine’s counter offensives significantly more costly.
Having focused all our efforts on shutting our eyes to reality, we now find ourselves stunned by a situation where all our reference points have collapsed within a matter of weeks. J.D. Vance’s speech in Munich is a striking example of this.
J.D. Vance made it abundantly clear: his enemy is not Vladimir Putin, with whom the incoming U.S. administration shares many ideological affinities. His real enemy is in Europe – it is all those who resist the order he seeks to impose. The same man who advocates building walls to keep out migrants also wants to ban "barriers" against the far-right in Europe. As The Guardian aptly described, it was a call to arms for populist right-wing forces to seize power across Europe, with the promise that the "new sheriff in town" would help them do so. Nothing must stand in their triumphant march.
The statements emphasising the urgent need for European countries to radically and rapidly increase their military spending are, unfortunately, correct
Yet, barriers against this assault on Europe do exist. The first line of defense is European civil society, its democratic institutions. But there is another bulwark: the effort of millions of Ukrainians who, for the past three years, have been fighting to halt the rise of Russian fascism.
This barrier could collapse at any moment, while Europe continues to watch, nodding in passive acknowledgment, failing to see that the same murky waters are already seeping in from within.
The crackdown on migrants, the institutionalisation of misogyny and homophobia, the denial of climate change, the ruthless exploitation of both people and nature, the liquidation of Ukraine, the deportation of Palestinians – these are the pillars of the emerging new order, already taking shape. By now, this should be as clear as day: abandoning the victims of military aggression – just as we have done with the Palestinians and are now preparing to do with the Ukrainians – amounts to giving autocrats free rein to impose their rule through brute force.
This is a simple equation that any rational person should be able to grasp. It is all the more perplexing, then, that Donald Trump’s actions and those of his administration have apparently shocked Europeans. After all, he has repeatedly made it clear that this is exactly how he intends to act. What is truly surprising is not Trump himself, but rather the Europeans’ lack of preparation and strategic foresight.
The statements emphasizing the urgent need for European countries to radically and rapidly increase their military spending are, unfortunately, correct. According to The Financial Times, Russia’s military spending has now surpassed the combined defense budgets of all European countries. By 2025, Moscow will allocate even more funds to the war – 7.5% of its GDP, amounting to nearly 40% of the national budget.
This is one of the advantages authoritarian regimes hold over democracies: they can rapidly mobilise human and economic resources for war, imposing coercive measures without fear of mass opposition. An authoritarian state, whose population has been steeped in a late-capitalist ideology of cynicism and individualism – as is the case in Russia – can take this logic even further. Yet Europe seems blind to another fundamental reality of authoritarian regimes: once an autocrat embarks on a war of expansion, he cannot simply stop. The survival of his regime becomes inseparably tied to the war, which eventually consumes the entire structure of power.
European leaders, exemplified by Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz, who now speak of the very real need to strengthen Europe’s defense, are the same ones who paved the way for this crisis. They condemn abuses of power on the international stage while tolerating Darwinian logic within their own societies – sustaining a system where the most powerful continue to dominate the most vulnerable. This contradiction weakens their credibility and fuels growing distrust toward democratic institutions. Such inconsistency creates fertile ground for the rise of fascist movements, which capitalize on these fractures to mobilize a disillusioned electorate.
Widening inequalities, a growing sense of injustice, and the perception of a political elite disconnected from reality weaken their legitimacy. A society that feels abandoned or ignored will struggle to support international commitments, even when they uphold fundamental principles such as the defense of rights and sovereignty.
The crackdown on migrants, the institutionalisation of misogyny and homophobia, the denial of climate change, the ruthless exploitation of both people and nature, the liquidation of Ukraine, the deportation of Palestinians – these are the pillars of the emerging new order, already taking shape
Populists exploit this discontent by fueling the notion that governments are sacrificing national interests in favor of supposedly distant causes, such as supporting Ukraine. Political figures like Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France and Sahra Wagenknecht in Germany denounce social injustice while embracing the law of the strongest on the international stage, justifying the violations committed by authoritarian regimes such as Russia. Their opportunistic positioning, driven by electoral calculations, strips their rhetoric of any credibility. Yet, it is impossible to separate domestic social justice from a country’s international policies. A society that tolerates or even encourages cynicism and domination on the global stage will inevitably normalize these same dynamics in its internal social relations – and vice versa.
A more just and cohesive society is better equipped to support international commitments and defense budgets – whose necessity is now undeniable. Effective and urgent redistribution policies are essential to restoring citizens’ trust. Thus, the assistance that European countries can provide to Ukraine is not limited to military or economic aid; it also hinges on resolving their own internal crisis of legitimacy. However, it must be repeated again and again: the aid that truly matters for every Ukrainian is military aid. It is the single most crucial condition for Ukraine’s survival as a society, as well as for each of its people.
Many, particularly in Germany, express concerns about the influence of the far-right in Ukraine. Yet, nothing fuels extremism more than an unjust "peace agreement" imposed on a victim of aggression against its will. No situation is more radicalizing than military occupation paired with systematic and brutal oppression. If Ukraine is forced to accept a peace dictated by Russia, the accumulated frustration and injustice will serve as fuel for radical movements, which will thrive at the expense of moderate and progressive forces. History is filled with examples of imposed peace agreements that have given rise to monsters – terrorist organisations born from despair and resentment.
Trump openly declares his willingness to negotiate without regard for the Ukrainian government or its people. In doing so, he aligns himself entirely with the Kremlin’s agenda and retroactively legitimises Russian aggression. Worse still, by refusing to call this invasion what it truly is – an illegal war of aggression, accompanied by egregious violations of international law and documented war crimes – he sends a deeply dangerous message. He reinforces the idea that such expansionist policies can not only be tolerated but even rewarded. Taiwan, the Philippines, the Baltic states, Moldova, and Armenia must now prepare to be next on the list. In this context, it is imperative to take a firm and unequivocal stance: no negotiations can take place at the expense of the Ukrainian people, and even less so without their consent.
The time for lamentations is over. The moment to act is now. For one day, when the dust settles and the fog lifts, we will inevitably ask ourselves in horror: how could we have been so passive, so blind, so indifferent in the face of this impending disaster?
voxeurop 23 February 2025
Attached documentstrump-putin-and-the-war-in-ukraine-europe-s-painful_a8872-2.pdf (PDF - 921.3 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8872]
Hanna Perekhoda
Hanna Perekhoda, a native of Donetsk, is a student at the University of Lausanne
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