“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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

□ Thanks to the European Network for Solidarity with Ukraine for inviting me to speak on the panel, on Wednesday 26 March.

□ About the photo: from the English-language web site of Solidarity Collectives, a Ukrainian anarchist group that provides soldiers at the front with “all the necessary equipment that can increase their safety and efficiency in resisting the imperial onslaught of the russians”.

Please read the article it comes from, “You are pro-war anarchists”, which states: “We would like to see all the ‘anti-war left’ who have spent so much time criticising the supply of weapons to Ukraine ‘for the sake of peace’ finally notice the other side of the conflict.”

The article comments: “The ceasefire conditions can hardly be called fair (20% of Ukrainian lands remain under occupation, about 16,000 prisoners of war are in Russian prisons, and postwar recovery will cost Ukraine 0.5 to 1 trillion euros). Despite this, Ukraine declares its readiness for a temporary ceasefire as the first step towards a long-term peace agreement. Russia, in contrast, demonstrates unwillingness to participate in this process.”

---

Simon Pirani

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