27th May 2023
The devastating impact of NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine
The propaganda war of the Western media in relation to Ukraine is now in full swing behind the much talked about Ukrainian counter-offensive to expel Russian troops. Reporting across the BBC in particular on the prospects for the counter offensive has been confusing in many respects. While the general tenor is one of support for the ‘plucky’ Ukrainians against the ‘land grabbing’ Russians, there is also a certain amount of hedging about the prospects.
A Ukrainian government official, speaking on condition of anonymity to the BBC, said the leaders in Ukraine “understood that they needed to be successful” but that the offensive should not be seen as a “silver bullet”. The BBC has also simultaneously reported that Russian forces are demoralised but also resolute, fortifying their defences along the 900 mile long frontline. At the same time BBC correspondent in Kyiv, Hugo Bachega, reports that,
“The expected attack could be decisive in the war, redrawing frontlines that, for months have remained unchanged.”
Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, Oleksiy Danilov, is currently predicting that the assault to retake territory could begin “tomorrow, the day after tomorrow or in a week.”
Given the extent of Russian defences it seems unlikely that any land offensive by the Ukrainians could make major gains without significant support from the air. In this respect the decision of the British government to supply Storm Shadow cruise missiles, with a range of over 155 miles and adapted to be compatible with Ukraine’s existing aircraft, may be designed to provide that cover.
The NATO powers and their associated military industrial complex of arms suppliers are heavily invested in the war in Ukraine. Whatever the outcome of the counter offensive it is a potential win-win for military hawks in the West. Any failure will be used as justification for pouring more weapons into sustaining the Ukrainian position. Any success will be heralded as justification of the strategy so far, the effectiveness of NATO weaponry and the need for ongoing support for Ukraine.
There can be no clearer example of the mantra that those who want war send weapons, those who seek peace send diplomats.
In a recent news conference with US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, the British Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, was quite explicit about the position taken by the British government with regard to Ukraine, stating,
“We need to continue to support them, irrespective of whether this forthcoming offensive generates huge gains on the battlefield, because until this conflict is resolved and resolved properly, it is not over.”
Secretary of State Blinken, as well as meeting the British Foreign Secretary, also met with his counterpart from Spain this week to shore up commitments to military aid to Ukraine, sending a message that battlefield gains are the priority.
In spite of the resistance of the West, China continues to play its part in offering to mediate a negotiated solution to the conflict, a proposal rejected out of hand by the US on the grounds that Beijing does not publicly condemn Russia as the aggressor in the war.
However, there are even differences within US circles as the position indicated by Blinken is not echoed by Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has argued for the need for Ukraine and Russia to consider negotiations, suggesting that a prolonged war would result in many more casualties.
The position of Gen. Milley is reinforced by 15 former diplomats and military figures who took out a full page advert in the New York Times on 16th May, stating,
“The immediate cause of this disastrous war in Ukraine is Russia’s invasion. Yet the plans and actions to expand NATO to Russia’s borders served to provoke Russian fears. And Russian leaders made this point for 30 years. A failure of diplomacy led to war. Now diplomacy is urgently needed to end the Russia-Ukraine war before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.”
In Britain, momentum in opposition to the war continues to be mobilised at a grass roots level, with the Stop the War Coalition holding public meetings in Glasgow, Leeds and Liverpool this week to argue the case for peace talks.
However, the official Labour Movement positions need to be continually challenged. The Kier Starmer led front bench of the Labour Party has fallen into line with the Tory position of sending more weapons to Ukraine, while maintaining support for NATO. The TUC recently reversed its long standing objection to raising military budgets and passed a motion agreeing to higher military spending. Opinion at a local level is still divided and heavily influenced by the blanket pro-Ukraine positions taken by the media.
The class interests driving the war in Ukraine are not those of the working class of Russia or Ukraine, they are not those of the working class in the US, Britain or elsewhere in Europe. The US autocracy remains fixed on its desire to have a unipolar world in which it is the strongest military power and can police across the globe. Britain, with its current Global Britain policy and delusions of grandeur through its nuclear status, continues to hang onto US foreign policy coattails. The EU continues to heavily back NATO membership and EU neoliberal economic influence in countries right up to Russia’s borders.
The ruling class across the US, NATO and EU blocs are only beneficiaries of the conflict being protracted if it does not slip over the edge into nuclear conflagration. As things stand, given their belligerence, that is a possibility. The failure to address a diplomatic solution to the immediate conflict could turn out to be a failure for us all, unless war preparations in the West are turned down and steps towards peace negotiations turned up.
Avanti Populo 