SEVERAL WARS appear to be taking place in Ukraine at present.

There is a war which does not involve Russia at all, as per two motions put to the Stop the War Coalition conference last month.

They spoke exclusively of Nato and did not mention, still less criticise, the Russian invasion. They were heavily defeated.

And there is a war in which Nato, the US and Britain play no part whatsoever.

That is the view of the government, the Labour leadership and some voices on the left.

For them, denouncing Russia and arming its opponents is all the situation requires.

Despite constituting a coalition stretching from top Tory Tom Tugendhat to tamed Trotskyist Paul Mason, their street mobilising capacity seems tiny.

Then there is the actual war, now brazenly a proxy conflict between the leading Nato powers and Russia, which seems to get more dangerous by the day.

The New York Times reports that “the fear in Washington and European capitals is that the conflict may soon escalate into a wider war” spreading to neighbouring states and eventually “a more direct conflict between Washington and Moscow.”

“Fear” is surely the wrong word there. Washington and London in particular have been marching boldly and loudly to the edge of the precipice.

Their ministers have explicitly stated that they want Russia “weakened” for years to come, that Ukraine must “win” the conflict, that Russia should be driven out of all the territory it holds and that it is fine for British arms to be used to attack targets in Russia itself.

Whether or not you regard some or all of those positions as defensible given the Russian aggression, it is certainly not a plan for de-escalating tension and bringing the conflict to a close.

Rather it is a high-risk game of seeing how far Russia can be pushed and provoked without all-out war starting.

Russia’s indifferent military performance has given Nato the opportunity to raise its war aims.

The possibility of a victory for the beleaguered unipolar world, payback for the Afghan fiasco, hangs enticingly.

Yet there is little sign that Ukraine’s military, however well-armed, is likely to dislodge the Russian army any time soon from any territory Moscow decides it wants to hang onto.

The price of testing this out in practice will be paid in Ukrainian blood for the most part. And the risk of the sort of miscalculation that could trigger a broader war will only grow the while.

United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres, by way of contrast, has said that “the sooner this war ends the better — for the sake of Ukraine, Russia and the world.” That is surely right.

And it is not utopian. The outlines of an agreement covering Ukrainian neutrality and sovereignty, and autonomy for Russian-speaking regions in Ukraine’s east, have long been visible. Continuing fighting will only harden attitudes.

Certainly, such a perspective is less utopian than waiting for a coup in the Kremlin, which is the only other way the war could speedily terminate. It does not feel like February 1917.

We need a mass movement for peace. Johnson’s government is playing a lamentable part. It is one of the most bellicose in the world. It is supported by the parody of an official opposition. Starmer is in turn backed by some of the left.

Much of the rest have fallen mute under pressure of sanctions from Chief Inspector Starmer.  

All this is more to do with expedient positioning than principle.

So there is little point in looking to a Parliament of posturing patriots who love their country so much they are prepared to see another one put to the sword to accommodate their political interests. They will be studying their polling figures as the sirens wail.

But the anti-war movement, working with trade unions and others, must now lead the push for peace. It is both vital and urgent.

Falling out of love with the middle class?

“Home-working is a middle class remainer cult” — claimed a headline in the Telegraph last week on a column by Camilla Tominey.

Forget the rote reference to “remain.” Set aside the substantive issue of home working. The key phrase here is “middle class.” It is being used in a pejorative sense. In the Telegraph.

Sometimes you have to stop and pinch yourself. When I was young there was more likelihood of Mick McGahey being criticised in this paper than there was of the middle class being condemned in the Telegraph.

The middle class read the Telegraph and the paper backs the middle class. They were, in Thatcher’s words, “our people.”

This was no faux pas by Ms Tominey, who has sniped at the middle class in other columns too. The paper channels the new populism that now shapes the Tories and is insouciant about its traditional base.

We hear a lot about the changing nature of the working class and the diminished articulation of its interests.

Yet changes in one class in society can only be changes in all of them. The end of the century-long romance of the Telegraph and the middle class is a signal indicator of the new landscape.

Independence for the British Virgin Islands

There is a conundrum taking shape about the British Virgin Islands. The Prime Minister of this small Caribbean territory has been arrested by US officials on charges relating to drug trafficking.

Prompted by this event, the British government rushed out a report into corruption on the islands, recommending that its democracy be suspended for two years in favour of direct British rule.

The island’s politicians have objected to this proposed return of unabashed colonialism. As Prince William discovered recently, British control does not evoke happy memories in those parts.

Surely the answer is complete independence for the British Virgin Islands and all such British-controlled territories, which can cut all links with Westminster and then form their own states as they will.  

And allied to that introduce tough international measures to outlaw all tax havens, some of which are already independent in any case. Neither colonialism nor corruption — simple. Why can’t capitalism deliver that?