This is the text I submitted for the discussion launched by the European Network in Support of Ukraine on the direction that should be taken now that Tump had withdrawn the US from all forms of support for the war, both political and practical, and in terms of weapons and munitions.
For the ENSU discussion — by Alan Thornett
The world order
The old world order based on Atlanticism — US hegemony — which has existed since WW2, has collapsed — politically and economically.
Trump is now in Putin’s camp, despite spats between them from time to time. In the end Trump is with Putin. Many who were prepared to trust the USA are no longer prepared to do so. In the US itself bourgeois democracy is in freefall.
Trump and Putin share an authoritarian ideology which is semi-fascist. It includes climate denial, anti-wokism, misogyny, and opposition to civil rights, national rights and workers’ rights. Trump is totally erratic, whilst everything Putin has said done has been consistent with his strategic objective, which is wither the defeat of the Ukrainians or forcing them to accept a dirty deal which will destroy its right of self-determination.
Trump entertains neo-fascists like Nayib Bukele of El Salavador, Giorgia Meloni of Italy, and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, into the White House with red-carpet treatment. He will do the same with Marine Le Pen if she wins presidential office. He has nothing but praise for Javier Milei of Argentina, Victor Orbán the hard-right Prime Minister of Hungary, and Herbert Kickl of Austria. He is also a personal friend of Nigel Farage in the UK.
He has also doubled down on his outrageous proposition that Greenland, Panama, and Canada should be annexed by the USA — and Putin agrees with him. Nor has he ruled out military force as a means of achieving these objectives.
At the time of writing there are battles taking place in Los Angeles as undocumented people are arrested and deported under Trumps racist immigration policies.
Europe must step up to the plate
The end of Atlanticism raises the question of who will defend Europe against Putin, who will supply the arms needed for Ukraine to win the war, and who will provide the long-term guarantees that Ukraine needs against further aggression from Russia, now that the US has pulled out.
Ukraine has the capacity to win the war but only if it is supplied with the weapons and support it needs to do so. Until recently, however, 50 per cent of military aid to Ukraine came from the USA — including some of the most crucial items. Until an alternative is found Putin is going to remain a threat to Europe. Something which is unthinkable both in terms for the future of Europe and the future of world politics.
It is therefore time for European Powers — both inside and outside the EU — to step up to the plate on this. They have relied on the USA for far too long in this regard and the chickens are coming home to roost with a vengeance. There are also convincing reports that US armaments earmarked for Ukraine are being diverted to Israel.
The principles
The principles are clear. Ukraine has the right to obtain arms from wherever and whoever it likes in order to defend itself against such aggression, and it was right to demand that the US — as the preeminent imperialist power — supply the arms necessary for Ukrainian to oppose Putin’s invasion, it is now right to demand the same from European Powers.
No one on the left wants to see military spending increased, it is against our DNA, but no one wants to be overrun by Putin either — and we want to see victory for Ukraine. In fact refusing to spend additional money on defence now might well mean even bigger spending in the future.
Increased miliary spending, however, should not include nuclear weapons which have no role to play in the region. Each attempt by Putin to play the nuclear card has failed.
Even Putin has stopped using them to ramp up the threat since it had failed every time. It is time for the nuclear power plants if Ukraine to be decommissioned by mutual consent.
Although US military aid (including military intelligence) has been we are told
‘restored’ after being withdrawn following the humiliation of Zelensky in the White House, it can no longer form the basis for the Ukranian struggle for independence, since it depends on the whim of Trump and it faces the determination of Putin.
No European country safe
The threat from Putin is real and serious, and the left should not object to military spending designed to meet it. Nor should the left oppose spending designed to help Ukraine win the war. Whilst Putin will not invade any other country while the current war is inconclusive, a Russian victory whether delivered via by defeat of Ukraine on the battlefield or via a dirty deal engineered by Putin and/or Trump which challenges Ukraine’s right of self-determination, would dramatically change this.
It is inconceivable that Putin, given such a victory, would settle for the existing European borders. No European country would be safe. Some could face invasion — the Baltic states for example, and ex-Soviet Republics — others could face enhanced intimidation such as the manipulation of electoral systems, or the assassination of political leaders and/or financial support and political assistance for far right and openly fascist parties. All would suffer increasing cyber-
attacks.
Putin is motivated by nationalism and great Russian chauvinism. His strategic objective is to reassemble as much of the old Russian empire (or indeed of the Soviet empire) under the hegemony of the hard right and will continue to do so until he is stopped.
Having annexed Crimea in 2014 in February 2022 he sent his armies into a neighbouring independent country in a full-scale unprovoked, illegal, war. His rationale for the invasion is “Nato expansionism” and the scandalously so-called “de-Nazification” of the Ukranian leadership. Most of the far left, in the UK at least, agree with it — this includes the Stop the War Coalition which is entirely campist on Ukraine.
Although the initial Russian advance was halted on the outskirts of Kyiv, as Ukraine scrambled to mobilise, including handing out arms and ammunition to the population, Russia has regrouped, and is now making dangerous gains.
The role of Nato
Sweden and Finland have joined Nato not because Nato had some convincing arguments in a recruitment drive — but because they were seeking any protection they could get against the rampaging of Trump and Putin.
Whether Nato can offer such protection, however, is another matter, since it is also seriously compromised. A defensive alliance only works if the most powerful nation involved is prepared to defend any other member state that comes under attack — what Biden calls the “sacred pledge”. That Trump would not do so could hardly be more clear. He wouldn’t even consider it. Such alliances are historically determined and very difficult to reassemble once the myth exposed.
Canada, which is being threatened by trump with annexation, is a founder member of Nato.
Russia is winning the war
The reality is that Russia is winning the war. Whist Ukraine has a highly effective and battle hardened army — which is capable of spectacular initiatives such as operation spiders web, deep inside Russia — the Russian advances are real. Russia is deploying more missiles and drones (up to 500 a night including cruise missiles) than at any time since the invasion, and there is credible evidence that they are about to launch a summer offensive.
Recent months have seen stalemate in South (including in the Black Sea) but with small but real territorial gains by Russia in the North. It also has 12,000 North Korean troops on the battlefield and the political support (at least) of China. Russia also receive drones and missiles from Iran. In fact Iranian missiles have become a major factor in the on-going bombardment of Ukranian cities. 13) This has been offset until now — inadequately but crucially — by Western military aid, almost half of which was provided by the US under Biden.
This war has always been a one-sided. Russia has a population of 144 million, plus vast stocks of soviet era armaments — glide bombs for example — while Ukraine has a population of just 37 million and have to beg for arms from whoever would give them.
The so-called peace negotiations, from which the Ukrainians have been excluded, were and are entirely fraudulent. Everyone involved were appointees of Putin or Trump, and all were in favour of the dismemberment of Ukraine and its absorption into the Russian Federation. In the end there is no difference between Trump and Putin over the war, they both want to carve Ukraine up into a subordinate part of the Russian Federation.
The European response
Most of the European powers — on the face of it at least, and with the exception of the far-right minority — agree with this.
Germany has transformed its response under its new chancellor — Friedrich Merz — who stood on a conservative Christian Democrat ticket has radicalised to meet this threat. He has said of Trumps second term in office: “This is the beginning of a new, dangerous era in European security. It would be his “absolute priority immediately after victory for the CDU/CSU, to create unity in Europe as quickly as possible, so that, step by step, we can achieve independence from the US”. He has since committed to a big increase in arms to Ukraine including long-range missiles.
Macron and Starmer have put themselves forward as leaders of what they term a ‘coalition of the willing’. They backed Zelensky against Putin, and indeed pledged to replace the US as the main guarantor of the Ukranian struggle for independence and sovereignty. These meetings are continuing with about 30 countries participating — although what role it would play is not clear.
An emergency conference of the EU itself — i.e. the 27 member states — was held on March 4 for the EU to take a position on rearmament. Crucially, there was no talk of a US backstop, only of a shift in the responsibility of the EU in defence of the continent against Putin and the need for a big injection of military aid for Ukraine.
The President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that they were facing an extraordinary situation involving the necessity to ‘rearm Europe in order that the EU could support Ukrainian in the absence of the USA. She proposed an additional 800bn Euros to the EU defence fund, most of which would come from a loosening of the fiscal restraints currently on member states as far as military sending was concerned. It would boost the defences of EU member states and lessen the impact of US withdrawal.
Of course it could all be just words, if so, however, it will become clear very quickly since events are moving fast.
Putin, however, must be stopped. Were he to win the war — either outright on the ballfield or by (maybe along with Trump) forcing Ukraine into a deal which violate its national rights and assets — he will be immeasurably strengthened, along with every right-wing dictator and demagog around the world.
The future of the Ukraine war — and therefore of world politics — now rests on the ability and the willingness of the European powers to shoulder this responsibility and do so successfully.
Imperialist powers
Not everything imperialist powers say or do is necessarily reactionary. For example defending the national rights of a country under attack from another imperialist power.
If it was right to place demands on the USA —the leading imperialist power — on the defence of Ukraine, then it is right to demand that the European powers take over when the US pulls out. The principal is identical. Those who say that the European powers are simply using this as an opportunity for the reactionary, imperialist, rearmament of Europe, are wrong in my opinion, but it is a matter of political judgement.
There is self-interest involved, of course, there always is in such cases. The European position coincides, with the defence of their own countries, and the rest of Europe, for protection against Putin and Trump. It is a rational response to developments on the world stage and the implications of a Putin victory over Ukraine.
For Ukraine it is a matter of survival. The options it faces are a Putin victory, with all that entails in terms of the strengthening of the far-right. Or that other nations — mainly but not only European — supply Ukraine with enough arms and ammunition to win the war and give them the long-term guarantees they need against future invasions by Russia or anyone else.
Sanctions
For a successful struggle in defence of Ukraine sanctions against Russia must be increased sharply, in particular oil, alongside the full implementation of those already in place. This must also include the frozen Russian assets held in Belgium, which are variously estimated from €125 billion to €190 billion.
It would also be rash to conclude that Trumpism will end with Trump or that Putin will be overturned any time soon. We are in a battle against the hard right that we have to win. If Putin wins we could well face a prolonged period reactionary politics globally, during which the initiative will be with the hard right.
Alan Thornett June 10th 2025
