This pretty much up sums up what articles recently posted on the Stop the War Coalition (STW) website have to say about Russia’s war against Ukraine and the prospect of peace negotiations.

According to an article by veteran Stalinist Andrew Murray which the STW published in early February:

“STW would welcome any ceasefire. In supporting a ceasefire, it must be recognised that this can only be on the basis of existing military lines, with perhaps minor adjustments. No other position is realistic.”

A fortnight later another article by Murray urged the British labour movement to rally behind Trump’s “peace plan”:

“Labour must not block this peace plan. Raising entirely unrealistic slogans is no help to Ukraine and damaging to the interests of British workers. Rather, the labour movement should unite in demanding that the government assist in getting negotiations going or at least get out of the way.”

“Undoubtedly,” Murray wrote, “there are serious issues around the treatment of minorities in Ukraine, as there are regarding Putin’s attitude towards an independent Ukrainian state of any description. Both have been factors underlying the war.”

But Murray’s reference to the supposed issue of “the treatment of minorities in Ukraine” was just an echo of Putin’s spurious justification for invading Ukraine – to save ethnic Russians from a non-existent genocide.

And his reference to “Putin’s attitude towards an independent Ukrainian state of any description” is a mealy-mouthed semi-acknowledgement of Putin’s denial of a Ukrainian nation and Ukraine’s right to exist – which makes a mockery of any supposed peace deal.

“STW will continue to reject any extension of NATO to Ukraine,” explained Murray, but “it would be wrong to go further than that in our demands.” The peace deal was something for “the parties concerned to negotiate.”

But “the parties concerned” did not necessarily include Ukraine. A spectacularly incoherent article by Dianne Abbott MP posted later the same month explained that the absence of Ukraine and European governments from peace talks was really a non-issue:

“Cutting Ukraine or European powers out of the negotiations becomes far less scandalous when repeated Ukrainian opinion polls show a large majority want to end the war and begin immediate negotiations. On the vital matter of war and peace, it is the governments in Kiev, Paris and London which are acting against the will of the Ukrainian people.”

By that logic, insofar as the word can be applied to an article by Abbott, it is Trump and Putin who are acting in line with the will of the Ukrainian people.

Following on from Murray’s article and a motion passed at the STW 2025 Annual General Meeting (“Conference resolves to focus on lobbying the UK government to do everything possible to use its influence in NATO to stop any further expansion”) Abbott rejected Ukrainian membership of NATO:

“Arguing that Ukraine has the sovereign right to join Nato is a double standard. Cuba too is a sovereign country, but it was not allowed to station Russian missiles, under threat of World War III. No country’s sovereignty is absolute.”

For STW, Ukraine’s sovereignty is certainly very non-absolute. Not only does it have no right to join NATO, it also has no right to territorial integrity (Russia can keep 20% of the country) and no right to participate in peace talks about its own future.

Abbott also rejected the idea of a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine:

“The British and French governments have tried to insist on putting boots on the ground in a ‘peacekeeping’ role. It would be highly unusual for one or more of the belligerents to be granted a peacekeeping role at the end of a conflict. That is usually a privilege reserved for the victors.”

(Readers added context: Neither Britain nor France is a belligerent in the Russia-Ukraine war. Do you find this helpful?)

Abbott concluded her piece with an attack on Starmer: “Starmer calls on the US to act as a ‘backstop’ for the plan, presumably with its own troops on the ground, which would really be the current status quo.”

Leaving aside the fact that a status quo must, by definition, be “current”, there are no American troops on the ground in Ukraine. The unlikely scenario of US troops in Ukraine would therefore be anything but “the current status quo”.

Trump’s decision to stop providing Ukraine with weapons received little attention from STW.

This is surprising given that an end to all arms supplies to Ukraine is a longstanding demand of STW. Throughout 2024 it was in fact the STW’s central campaigning demand. And the STW 2025 AGM unanimously reaffirmed support for the policy: “Stop all provision of arms to regions of conflict, including Ukraine.”

On the other hand, it is not in the least surprising. Trump’s implementation of STW policy shows up what is wrong with it: It has undermined Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian aggression, including Russian attacks on civilian targets.

An article published by STW in late February tried to argue that the withdrawal of American military support was proof that the conflict was really a proxy war between America and Russia:

“Donald Trump’s rhetoric – mocking Ukraine’s president Zelensky, announcing an end to US funding of the war effort, goading European leaders – demonstrates what some of us have always said. Ukraine’s war depends upon the US: Withdraw American involvement and money and it crumbles.”

This is as factually and politically illiterate as Trump’s claim that Ukraine invaded Russia.

Ukraine’s ability to defend itself is certainly heavily dependent on American arms supplies – around 50% of arms supplies overall. But it is not “Ukraine’s war”. Russia invaded Ukraine, not vice versa. It is Russia’s war. And cutting arms supplies to Ukraine is an obvious boost for the aggressor.

Most abysmal of all was an article posted by STW about the Zelenskyy-Trump-Vance meeting at the end of February. The most common response to the meeting – worldwide – was one of revulsion and solidarity with Ukraine. But the STW article, while critical of Trump, put a different spin on the meeting:

“Zelensky was the more foolish participant, because he is the one in the weak position. He does not seem to have understood the very different character of the Trump administration from that of Biden or the European governments. It says little for his Ukrainian advisers that he went into this meeting so terribly briefed.

“Zelensky’s illusions needed to be dispelled by some clear and firm US words. If Ukraine continues to oppose a deal and Trump withdraws US support, Ukrainian forces will face huge difficulties in holding their present positions and warding off a catastrophic defeat.
”
This incident raises profound questions about Zelensky’s political future. … Challengers to Zelensky may emerge and lead to calls for presidential elections.”

The article was written by Anatol Lieven and George Beebe, right-wing advocates of US foreign policy realism and members of the Quincey Institute for Responsible Statecraft. §

---

Dale Street

Click here to subscribe to ESSF newsletters in English and or French.