A RECENT article in this paper asked why there was no mass initiative to stop the war in Ukraine in Britain, comparable to the developing movement in Germany.

It is a reasonable question, to which there is a variety of partial answers.  

First, there is no element in the British bourgeoisie sympathetic, for trade or political grounds, to Russia as there is in Germany; nor is there an isolationist wing of the political establishment as there is in the United States.

Second, the wholesale support for the war by Keir Starmer, and his draconian prohibition of any parliamentary dissent, has silenced the Labour left in the House of Commons. This makes building a mass movement much more challenging.

Third, there is a broader lack of understanding as to the nature of the Ukraine conflict. As with many wars, it is multi-layered and complex. Indeed, it is really three wars in one.

First, it is a civil war within Ukraine, latent since the USSR broke up, or even earlier, and exploding in full view since the US-backed Maidan coup in 2014.  

This war pits Ukrainian nationalists against much of the Russian or Russian-speaking population and had already cost thousands of lives before February 2022.

This war finds its parallels in similar conflicts elsewhere in the erstwhile USSR.

Second, there is Ukraine’s war of defence against a cruel and illegal Russian attack, which was aimed at subjecting Ukraine to domination by its larger neighbour. 

Third, there is a great power war for hegemony — a conflict in which Ukraine’s government is subordinate to the US and Nato; and Russia is seen not only as a rival in its own right but as a proxy for China, whose rise Washington is determined to halt.

These three conflicts were never separate from each other and have now become inextricably entwined. A peace deal that seeks to last would have to address all of them.

Our mass media and our political leaders address solely the second war, which presents Ukraine as the good guys and Russia as the exclusive problem.

That is an environment in which winning a public hearing is difficult. Nevertheless, the ground is starting to shift. More and more people are turning out to listen to the arguments for peace.

These have urgency on their side. News that a British warplane was nearly downed by the Russians over the Black Sea, and that 50 British special forces are on the ground in Ukraine, highlight the dangers of the war spreading by design or accident.

China and Brazil are both pushing for peace and Beijing has launched a plan which has yet, however, to be discussed with the Kiev government.  

The global South as a whole has no interest in backing Washington over the war and clearly wants a negotiated end.

What still stands in the way? Peace talks are very hard to get going when one side or the other believes victory, or even significant advances, are possible on the battlefield.

So we are now waiting on the outcome of a long-heralded, Nato-planned and armed, offensive by Ukraine to try to retake some or all of its territory annexed by Russia and occupied by its armed forces.

Ukraine has indicated it may prefer to discuss the future of Crimea — Russian once more from 2014 — than fight over it. Forcing Russia back to its lines of February last year may be sufficient for it to declare victory.

That isn’t likely, however. The leaked Pentagon documents indicate that Washington, which is running the show, has low confidence in the Ukrainian military’s ability to secure significant and lasting advances. 

It is burning through equipment faster than it can be replaced. And Ukraine lacks the air superiority normally required to ensure a successful ground offensive.

A failure by Ukraine on that front would make it more likely that the US would look to cut its losses.

As for Russia, what it would consider a victory remains an enigma. Even the boss of the Wagner mercenary force, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has admitted he doesn’t know. He is now urging an end to the war, fretting that otherwise there could be a rerun of 1917. 

If only.

However, Vladimir Putin is likely at a minimum to want to secure control over all of Donetsk province, one half of the Donbass. At the moment, much of it remains under Ukrainian control.

That the Russian army has failed to take Bakhmut in eight months’ fighting, a conflict which both sides are treating, Verdun-style, as an opportunity to bleed the others’ military white, suggests that it too might not be capable of a war-winning strategic offensive.

So military stalemate may loom. Add to that the increasing discontent in the US on the fortune being spent on a war which does not seem to millions of Americans to constitute a vital interest with a presidential election getting closer, and there may be an opening for peace before long.

So it is time for the left to stop arguing about why the war started and focus on how it can be stopped.  

A ceasefire and peace talks now is the worldwide demand, and the left and beyond in Britain should unite around it.

Happy retirement to Pat Rafferty of Unite

IT IS good that the Star this week marked the impending retirement of Pat Rafferty, Unite the Union’s regional secretary in Scotland.

I had the privilege of being Pat’s manager when I was the union’s chief of staff. Leading a union in Scotland, with its devolved government and divisions over nationalism running right through the movement, is challenging and Pat did the job superbly.

Progressive in his outlook, an effective administrator and committed to the membership and the labour movement as a whole, Pat has made a signal contribution to life in Scotland.  

He has also been a warm and loyal friend, and I particularly value memories of our trip to China together in 2018.

I join with many in Scotland and across Unite in wishing Pat a very long and happy retirement.