The Ukraine debate

At the end of the Ukraine debate at ACR conference I said that I would resubmit some my key points in writing because I was having difficulty getting them across verbally. These are as follows:

• The old world order based on Atlanticism — US hegemony — which has existed since WW2, has collapsed — politically and economically. Despite regular spats between them Trump and Putin are now in the same camp in global politics. They share the same the same authoritarian and neofascist ideology.

• The Ukraine war is the most dangerous issue in world politics. Whilst Ukraine does not have the mass slaughter of Gaza its impact on world politics is equally profound, particularly in the short term.

• Putin is winning despite Ukraine having an armed forces that are fully capable of conducting the war successfully if it gets weapons and munitions it needs. If it does not it will lose. It cannot win against a fully militarised Russian economy without major help from major powers. Putin has just extended his destruction to the rail network.

• 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.

• A Putin victory would mobilise every dictator neofascist on the planet. It would legitimise Putin’s expansionist project and shift world politics sharply to the right.

• The US under Biden supplied 50 percent of all military aid to Ukraine. At the moment the supply of US aid to Ukraine is cut off and ‘restored’ on a regular basis, as Trump considers his tactical options for a very dirty deal. Trump’s latest proposal is that Nato buy US weapons on the open market and donated them to Ukraine, and if Putin doe not agree to that within 50 days he will face crippling sanctions. Such an arrangement is no substitute for planned long-term support and security guarantees.

• The peace negotiations (with the Ukrainians excluded) were 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.

• The war cannot be run this way. The name of the game is to have an alternative in place before Trump turns the weapons supply off completely.

• It is now time for the European powers, inside and outside the EU, to step up to the plate. European capital has relied on the USA for far too long and the chickens are coming home to roost with a vengeance.

• Trump rails against Putin because he won’t endorse his tactics over Ukraine. Everything Putin has done, however, has been consistent with his strategic objective — which is to defeat of the Ukrainians either on the battlefield itself or via a sell-out deal which destroys its national rights. To continue to see Trumps USA as the mainstay of resistance to the invasion is to hand victory to Putin.

• The principles are clear. Ukraine has the right to obtain arms from wherever and whoever it likes in order to defend itself against invasion — including from imperialist powers. If it was right to demand that the US — the biggest imperialist power — supply the arms necessary for Ukrainian to oppose Putin’s invasion, it must be right to demand the same from European Powers. The principal is identical.

• No one on the left wants to see military spending increased by imperialist powers of course, it is in our DNA to oppose it. No one, however, wants to be overrun by Putin either — and that means giving the Ukrainians whatever they need to win the war. A failure to invest in this now, moreover, could mean a bigger investment in the future.

• If we are to ask the European powers to be the main supporters of Ukrainian resistance, and I think we must, we have to accept that this cannot be done on existing defence budgets. That is the harsh reality. Britain, we are told, has no artillery pieces at all in reserve because they have all been sent to Ukraine.

• In any case the previous supply was not enough to win. We should therefore support those increases that are necessary to oppose Putin and arm Ukraine and oppose those designed to promote European imperialistic or colonial interests.

• We did it with the US. We demanded aid and more aid to Ukraine whilst opposing the massive supplies it was sending to Israel, for example. It’s not very difficult. Why can’t we do the same with the European powers? How can we demand that the European powers arm Ukraine If we oppose the expenditure needed to do it.

• Those who say that the European powers are simply using this as a cover for the imperialist, rearmament of Europe, are wrong. The need for a military victory in Ukraine coincides with the Europeans leaders defence of their own countries, and 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.

• Increased miliary spending, however, should not include nuclear weapons which have no role to play in the region or anywhere else. Even Putin has failed to play the nuclear card to any affect. It is time for the nuclear power plants in Ukraine to be decommissioned by the international authorities.

• Sweden and Finland have joined Nato not because Nato had some convincing arguments in a super recruitment drive — but because they were seeking any protection they could get against the rampaging of Trump and Putin. Canada, which is being threatened by trump with annexation, is a founder member of Nato.

• Whether Nato can offer such protection, however, is another matter. 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.

• 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. Every right-wing nationalist would be strengthened, and in this we are warned in advance and we should heed it.

• The threat from Putin is real and serious, and the left should not object to military spending that is designed to counter it. Nor should we oppose spending on military support to Ukraine to resist invasion. Whilst Putin is unlikely to invade another country while the current war is inconclusive, a Russian victory would dramatically change this.

• 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 and political support for far right and openly fascist parties and increasing cyber-attacks.

Alan Thornett July 15^th 2025