By John Pickard
Any commentary on the Ukraine war has to be prefaced by a health warning. There is not the slightest reason why the British mainstream media – which lies on a daily basis about living standards, trade unions, the Labour left and most other things – would be telling us the unvarnished truth about Ukraine.
The same journalists and editors who created an avalanche of lies and distortions about Jeremy Corbyn, and who tell us how lucky we are to live in ‘Foodbank Britain’, cannot be relied upon to tell the truth about anything else. As regards Russia and Ukraine, they will tell us only what they want us to know, and we have to take the popular dailies and TV news with a dose of salt.
The same goes for a lot of social media. The following, for example, are a few quotations from the Facebook page of someone who is clearly pro-Russian, although apparently based in Kyiv:
“Zelensky said ‘The Russians just launched a nuclear strike and at the moment 5 nuclear bombs are flying at Kiev’…”
“…the west will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian…”
“Ultranationalists never liked him, considering him a clown. Even now their military units don’t listen to his orders. He is guarded by British special forces, as some our media suggested”.
“We see now a wave of kidnappings and arrests of known communists who still remained in Ukraine…”
“…we have heard of infighting between the Azov and the Ukrainian army.”
I am sure that if Ukrainian President Zelensky really did proclaim to the nation that they were under nuclear attack, it would have been to the advantage of the BBC to at least mention it…which they did not. As for Zelensky being guarded by British special forces? Mmm. On the other hand, some of the commentary, like “the West will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian” most definitely do ring true. Strangest of all, the BBC reports that there is even a trend on social media that is alleging that the whole war is a hoax, although as it was with Covid and other supposed hoaxes, there is no rationale put forward for who would carry it out or why.
Fake videos posted on social media
A few days ago, the BBC programme Outside Source carried a report of ‘news’, including video footage from social media, that was fake, like an alleged ‘explosion’ in Kyiv, which was actually film footage from China five years ago. Even video of the massive explosion in Beirut some years ago has been passed off as Ukrainian.
We can safely ignore the rabid propaganda rags like the Mail and the Sun. These are the same kind of newspapers that would have cheered on as shops with German-sounding names were smashed up when war broke out in 1914. The same yellow press that weeps crocodile tears over ‘plucky little Ukraine’ – as it did over ‘plucky little Belgium’ a century ago – cheered on the rape of Iraq nineteen years ago.
So what should we do? All we can do is take more notice of the serious capitalist press like the Financial Times, look as far as possible at multiple sources of information, read between the lines, and make some rational judgement on where the truth likely lies. It is possible, on that basis, to just about get a glimpse of what is going on.
After the first day of the Russian invasion, when there were bombing raids on Ukrainian facilities far to the West, it seemed that Russian superior air power had been established. But that now seems not be the case. The Financial Times correspondent reports “a senior European defence official” in these terms: “Both sides have taken losses to both aircraft and missile defence inventories…We assess that both sides still possess a majority of their air defence systems and capabilities.”
It would also appear that on the ground, especially around Kyiv, the Russians have met far greater resistance than they had anticipated, slowing their advance. The much-photographed 40-mile-long convoy of Russian military hardware seemed to make very little progress for days, but whether this was due to Ukrainian opposition or Russian logistical incompetence, or both, is not clear. Either way, the ‘shock and awe’ tactics haven’t worked as well as Putin had hoped.
The Financial Times quotes a recent poll, revealing that 82 per cent of Ukrainians “said they were confident in their ability to repel Russia’s offensive”, but there is still no getting away from the fact of Russian military superiority overall. Ukrainian resistance seems to have led to much more destructive military tactics by the Russians, using more heavy artillery and missiles against cities.
Russian forces are switching to a siege strategy
“We have been very impressed with the courage and the capability of the Ukrainian armed forces and the people, to be honest, and the extent to which they have, for more than a week now, halted what is a far superior military machine,” the European defence official is quoted as saying. But how long this can last is an open question. “Yet how long Ukrainians can resist is the big question”, the official told the Financial Times. “Russian forces are switching to a siege strategy that seeks to demolish civilian infrastructure, such as power stations, and punish Ukrainians for their defiance.”
Having met last Friday, the leaders of NATO have confirmed that they will not intervene in the conflict, at least not directly. According to the Financial Times, days after the invasion started, the USA even postponed a long-planned test of an intercontinental missile, in case the Russians “misconstrued” it.
It has been reported that Poland and the USA are discussing some arrangement for Poland to hand over its Russian-made jet fighters, familiar to Ukrainian pilots, to be then replaced by US fighters. But like the other military aid that has been promised by NATO states, it remains to be seen how effectively words will be translated into deeds, especially if the Russian air force gains mastery over the skies.
What may prove to be a greater headache for Putin, in the longer run, is holding those areas that his military has captured. It has been reported in the FT that Russia will be forced to use its own repressive state organs, like the FSB (the replacement for the KGB), to keep the civilian population in check. Against all odds, after the capture of the city of Kherson in the south of Ukraine, hundreds of local residents turned out in a spontaneous demonstration, waving Ukrainian flags. The video below, (with a still at top) does not seem to be made up and there are other similar videos of the same events on YouTube.
Apart from the protests in Ukrainian cities, there are reliable reports of activists in Russia demonstrating against the war in cities all over Russia and being arrested for their pains. Putin may increase his popularity in the short term, but longer term that will not be the case. The forces of the state have already arrested thousands of protesters and they will not be intimidated.
One thing that does not need to be exaggerated by the mainstream media is the plight of the millions of Ukrainian refugees on the move, inside and outside the country. As many as four million may have moved or been displaced. Socialists would be in favour of the free movement of all of these refugees, to whichever country they wish to travel to, and indeed, would support humanitarian aid and assistance in terms of transportation. But, disgracefully, the right-wing governments in Central Europe, notably Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria, have demonstrated the same appalling bias against black and Asian refugees as they have done in the past.
Opening the borders…to white refugees
When millions of Syrians and Iraqis were on the move to escape the war that was raging, the political leaders of Hungary and Poland were all for building a wall to keep them out. Now, they are opening their borders…so long as the refugees are white.
An article, in Middle East Eye quoted the Bulgarian President, Rumen Radev, blatantly linking his country’s ‘hospitality’ with the religious affiliation of the refugees. “These are not the refugees we are used to” he said, “these people [Ukrainians] are Europeans…These people are intelligent, they are educated people… This is not the refugee wave we have been used to, people we were not sure about their identity, people with unclear pasts, who could have been even terrorists.“
The BBC website has carried stories of African and Asian refugees – often students who had been at universities in Ukraine – finding it difficult to cross the borders. One report related that even Ukrainian officials demonstrated blatant racism in refusing places on a refugee bus to black escapees. “They said black people should walk,” the BBC report said.
Another report, this time on Al Jazeera, described the harassment of Roma refugees, bombed out of their homes and without paperwork, but nevertheless harassed and discriminated against by Ukrainian officials. One woman interviewed described being “chased out of their tents” by Ukrainian border authorities.
The British government, as ever, is being far more generous in words – more so than it ever was with Middle Eastern refugees – but is more circumspect in deeds. It took a complaint from the French government before Priti Patel agreed to open a consular office in Calais to process Ukrainian refugees. There is still a huge bureaucratic obstacle course facing any Ukrainian trying to get to the UK, even if they already have family here. That is deliberate policy…so the government can claim it is doing its utmost to help refugees, while in fact, it is hampering their movement to the UK.
Energy prices curving steeply upwards
We are not facing the utter destruction of our homes, flats and apartment blocks, as the Ukrainian workers are facing. But the expected economic fallout of the war will be extremely damaging to the working class everywhere. It will dramatically tighten the squeeze on living standards in the whole of Europe and in the USA.
Crude oil prices on the world market have surged to over $120 a barrel. Here in the UK, petrol prices have gone up to £1.55 a litre and there are dire warnings of £2 a litre. Household energy prices are expected to rise to an average of £3,000 a year by the end of 2022 – which will mean they will have more than doubled in twelve months. Millions are going to be driven into fuel poverty. Higher oil and gas prices will feed into general energy inflation.
Ukraine and Russia among the world’s biggest exporters of wheat and other grains. Those exports will now disappear and that, too, will drive up food prices. It will add enormously to the squeeze already being felt by working class people. And that is before the Tories begin to wave the Union Jack to justify increases in arms expenditure.
This war will be a turning point politically
The blowback from the war, politically, socially and economically will unfold over the coming months and years and will be as devastating as the economic crash of 2009 or the Covid pandemic, which caused a complete economic melt-down in 2020. In that sense, this war will be a turning point and will itself produce further political and economic convulsions.
The labour movement has to look to its own resources and its own values in its approach to the war. We judge these events from a class standpoint, from the effect they will have on the working class internationally. For us in Britain, our fight with a rotten political and economic system is not postponed or put on hold; it goes on unabated. There is no possibility of “equal sacrifices” in this society and socialists will redouble their fight to change society.
We will support demonstrations and workers’ protests and boycotts against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but we will not join in the anti-Russian hatred, exemplified by the ludicrous banning of the 1812 Overture, by Tchaikovsky, from the performance at the Royal Albert Hall last week. We will not join the flag-waving and tub-thumping for NATO, as the Labour leadership have done, but we will take our view from what is in the best interests of workers everywhere.
Post script March 9: As a postscript to the above comments on press and social media coverage of the war, the ProPublica website (March 8) has an article about fake ‘fact-checking’ that complicates the situation further.
And all the death and destruction and devastation could have been prevented had Biden and Co and NATO addressed Russia’s security concerns. The following is from a posting by John Pilger on Feb 17th:
Setting aside the manoeuvres and cynicism of geopolitics, whomever the players, this historical memory is the driving force behind Russia’s respect-seeking, self-protective security proposals, which were published in Moscow in the week the UN voted 130-2 to outlaw Nazism. They are:
– NATO guarantees that it will not deploy missiles in nations bordering Russia. (They are already in place from Slovenia to Romania, with Poland to follow)
– NATO to stop military and naval exercises in nations and seas bordering Russia.
– Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.
– the West and Russia to sign a binding East-West security pact.
– the landmark treaty between the US and Russia covering intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be restored. (The US abandoned it in 2019)
These amount to a comprehensive draft of a peace plan for all of post-war Europe and ought to be welcomed in the West.
And here’s a passages from an article on Counterpunch entitled ‘Russia Has Been Baited into a Repeat of the Afghan Trap’, posted on March 11th:
NATO’s expansion into the former Soviet ‘sphere of influence,’ beginning with Bill Clinton in 1997, has always been recklessly provocative, as widely noted even way back then. A widely circulated letter by fifty leading academics, diplomats and retired military officers called the move a “policy error of historic proportions” which will “unsettle European stability” and “ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included.” Even George Kennan, whose ‘long telegram’ in 1946 is viewed as a founding document of the post-WW2 strategy of Soviet containment, warned that NATO expansion eastwards would result in “a new Cold War, probably ending in a hot one.”
And in an interview on March 1st headlined ‘Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine’ John Mearsheimer said the following:
If there had been no decision to move NATO eastward to include Ukraine, Crimea and the Donbass would be part of Ukraine today, and there would be no war in Ukraine.
And Noam Chomsky said the following in a recent interview (re-posted on Jewish Voice for Labour website):
The flood of invective might be accurate, but perhaps other possibilities might be considered. Perhaps Putin meant what he and his associates have been saying loud and clear for years. It might be, for example, that, “Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.” The author of these words is former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, one of the few serious Russia specialists in the U.S. diplomatic corps, writing shortly before the invasion. He goes on to conclude that the crisis “can be easily resolved by the application of common sense…. By any common-sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict.
Needless to say, the West deliberately forced Putin’s hand so that they could then do what they are now doing to Russia, and they don’t give a damn about the thousands that are being killed and all the destruction etc, as long as they achieve their objective of getting rid of Putin and replacing him with a ‘friendly’ regime so that they can get their hands on the estimated $75 trillion of Russia’s natural resources. And then move on to China!