Peace at the Expense of Freedom: Western Anti-Imperialism on Ukraine.

By Chad Nickson

Some time ago, I joined a pro-Palestine demonstration and marched down past Downing Street to Parliament Square. As we marched, blue and yellow flags came into view; a small congregation stood in front of Downing Street on the weekly solidarity demonstration for Ukraine. I remember thinking to myself how beautiful it was to see causes against oppression uniting on the streets of my city, but as we drew closer my optimism dropped. The Palestine demonstration sliced directly through the Ukrainian one and short of complete blindness to each other, the only interaction or acknowledgement I picked up on (and I prayed my ears were wrong) was both groups chanting louder, as if trying to drown out the other. Competing for their spot in the cacophony of London’s Wednesday evening; the atmosphere between the two groups seemed hostile.

In Parliament Square, I approached a ‘Stop the War Coalition’ stand and expressed my concern about their pamphlet ‘Lies, Propaganda, and the West’s War Ukraine’ written by founder Chris Nineham. The title of this pamphlet alone betrays its political stance, and I challenged the rep at the stall on elements in it which fed directly into Russian propaganda. Nineham’s pamphlet presents repeatedly disproved pro-Russian arguments that the invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified by NATO expansion. Nineham quotes Russian scholar Anatol Lieven that the US knew that “moves toward NATO membership for Ukraine would be regarded by Russians as a catastrophe of epochal proportions” without apparently consider that Ukraine desires NATO membership because of centuries of Russian aggression. Nineham also falsely describes the 2014-2022 war in the Donbas, and the annexation of Crimea, as purely a civil war between separatists and the government when it was largely a Russian occupation. After I laid out my arguments, I was patronisingly told to ‘agree to disagree’ with a handshake. When I refused, I was told to ‘f*** off’.

I was furious and heartbroken. Here I was, standing at a demonstration for freedom with people I would call friends or comrades, and yet having to defend the basic ‘left-wing’ lines of solidarity with the oppressed, that ‘none are free until all are free’ and that, quite simply, invading another country is bad. I left. On my way home, I returned to lend my solidarity to the Ukrainian demonstration. If no other pro-Palestine campaigners would, at least I would. I stood there, Keffiyeh around my neck and Ukrainian pin on my lapel and listened to the speaker defend US and Western imperialism because “nobody is perfect” ... Needless to say, I left that demonstration in a state of fury as well.

2 year anniversary demonstration of the full scale Ukrainian invasion, Feb. 2024

The simplistic narrative of ‘Stop the War’ is not a fringe ideology. In June 2023, Glasgow UCU passed a ‘Stop the War’ motion which characterised the war as a “battleground for Russian and US imperialism” and individuals speaking in support of the motion explicitly accused NATO of “warmongering”. It is a staggering feat of mental gymnastics to accuse the US of the same crime as Russia in this war, but it is one taken again and again. Take a look at the replies to any Instagram post on Ukraine by ‘Al Jazeera’ and you will see the vitriol there is for the Ukrainian struggle: a post about Zelenskyy’s ‘Victory Plan’ proposal on the 11th October 2024 prompted comments that “the only reason for this war is Russia don’t want nato weapons”, and accusations regarding Zelenskyy “finessing” NATO for money. Instagram comments may not be the most reliable source of news, but it is an indication of an ideological pattern, one which justifies Russian Imperialism. A pattern of Russian flags being flown during the coups in former French colonies such as Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad. A pattern which includes President Lula of Brazil accusing NATO of starting the war, and of the great anti-imperialist Noam Chomsky describing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as ‘more humane’ than the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 despite the over 100,000 potential Russian war crimes documented so far. The US-led invasion of Iraq was a horrific crime, that is undeniable. Comparing illegal invasion with illegal invasion is a pointless and destructive task, this too is undeniable (Chomsky’s arguments were passionately dismantled an “Open Letter to Noam Chomsky (and Other Like-Minded Intellectuals) on the Russia-Ukraine War”, written by Bohdan Kukharskyy, Anastassia Fedyk, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Ilona Sologoub). This pattern is described by Ukrainian lecturer Yuliya Yurchenko from the University of Greenwich as “the anti-imperialism of amoral idiots”. It seems that those who oppose Western (the US, Britain, and Western Europe) Imperialism are susceptible to the simplistic narrative that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ which leads them to justify the Russian invasion.

Yurchenko’s diagnosis bears semblance to the “Anti-Imperialism of Fools” that academic Fred Halliday identified amongst left-wing groups who supported the 1979 Iranian revolution, despite the obviously repressive politics of its leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. The uncritical identification with Khomeini as an ‘anti-Western’ figure, as historian David Graeson notes in, “distorted the views of those who would ordinarily have opposed his regime on class grounds”. A similar misreading can be found in modern views of Russia, where Putin’s ‘anti-Western’ appearance distorts the views of those who would (and should) oppose his regime on the grounds of its extreme repression. Graeson writes that the failure of left-wing groups in 1979 to accurately assess the situation led to disillusionment with left wing ideologies and groups fracturing. The same fractures are apparent today, where pro-Palestine and pro-Ukraine rallies chant against each other, rather than uniting in solidarity.

March for Palestine

Anti-imperialists who are primarily focused on the imperial and neo-imperial projects of the ‘West’ (the US, Britain, and Western Europe) are typified in this country by hard left groups like ‘Stop the War’. The movement was founded in 2001 shortly after 9/11 in opposition to the so-called ‘War on Terror’ and in its early years fought against the horrors unleashed by US-led forces against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. Before ‘Stop the War’, and since then, there have been others who have fought the wrong associated with Western imperial heritages, by campaigning for colonial reparations, challenging institutional racism, or opposing military intervention. These campaigns, which have cut their teeth opposing Western power and intervention, seem to find themselves in a moral quagmire around the politics of Ukraine. On the one hand, solidarity is one of the most defining features of anti-Imperial politics (demonstrated admirably by the huge support for Palestine) and standing in solidarity with Ukraine is an anti-imperialist position, this is clear. It is, in historian Timothy Snyder’s words “a situation of unusual moral simplicity” in which a sovereign nation was attacked in clear violation of international law by a dictatorship and is now defending itself and asking for help. On the other hand, Ukraine (by necessity, it should be added) is in bed with the imperial ‘West’. In an ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ logic, to stand in solidarity with Ukraine means to betray the belief that Western military intervention is always bad. The situation is made more challenging by the USA’s ‘ironclad’ support for Israel as it commits genocide in Gaza. It is the same military aid bill that provides defence to Ukraine which gives Israel the means to bomb Palestinian children. This is, obviously, unconscionable. Tying Ukraine and Israel together in this way leads many who are less knowledgeable of the 300 years of Russian oppression of Ukrainians to reject Ukraine alongside Israel.

There are two paradoxes at play here. The first is of US support for Ukraine and Israel. Morally and practically the difference is staggering. In the case of Ukraine, weapons a supplied for full scale land warfare against a much more powerful invading enemy. In Israel, weapons are supplied to a colonising power with one of the best militaries in the world, against a tiny strip of land which has no official army and is one of the most densely populated places on earth. The US rhetoric which aligns the two as similar struggles is frankly absurd, but the paradox is easily explained through cold strategy - it is geopolitically useful for America to support them both. In this sense, leftist commentators have it right that the US is not morally engaged in the war. But this is where the second paradox emerges: ‘solidarity for the oppressed’ and ‘condemnation of the West’ seem incompatible on the occasion that the West supports the oppressed. Dishearteningly, it seems that many prioritise the latter at the expense of solidarity. Those that don’t, find themselves in the uncomfortable position of seeming to defend the US military. This paradox is fuelled by simplistic political narratives. In a world of larger-than-life heroes and scheming villains, in which every story must have a protagonist and an antagonist, politics takes on a ‘sloganized’, cynical tone in which political strife must be condensed into nothing more than a sentence. ‘Stop the War’; ‘Make America Great Again’; ‘Get Brexit Done’; ‘Education, Education, Education’. These slogans, which define so much of our politics distil complex political ideology and struggle into unrealistically simple single-issue campaigns which become blind to context. The problem with ‘Stop the War’ is not simply that it is wrong about Ukraine but that it is a simplistic single-issue campaign. The group's line is entirely predictable because it is true that the quickest way to stop the war is for Ukraine to stop defending itself. Unfortunately, that would mean defeat. Once the ‘war is stopped’ and Ukraine is defeated, what remains? Oppression and occupation, proven to be brutal by survivors of the occupied regions, and a victorious dictator with an explicit desire to destabilise and invade other neighbours, such as Georgia, of which Russia already occupies a fifth. In short, to ‘Stop the War’ is to freeze the war – to mutate the violence from defence to occupation. It is a privileged position to prioritise peace over freedom.

The lack of support for Ukraine from often hard-left spokespeople in this country is a betrayal, and one with serious repercussions. These spokespeople are not only alienating moderates but also those who prioritise anti-imperialism above all. What may be overlooked is another anti-imperialist stance, one which rejects all imperialism, be it Western, or Russia’s imperialism in Ukraine. The agency of Ukrainians, Georgians, and all others who share a tense border with Russia and do not have the comfort of distance is also sidelined. As Ukrainian journalist Oleksandra Povoroznyk pointed out, “a lot of people in the West are denying Ukraine any sort of agency by claiming we’re constantly being manipulated by NATO or saying it’s a US proxy war and the West is forcing us to fight. None of these people are actually paying attention to what we’re [Ukrainians] actually saying”.

So, what is to be done? 

First, we must reflect. The ‘West’: Britain, Western Europe, and the US, is removed from war. We have the privilege of peace and freedom; we have not had them taken from us against our will. We have the space to debate and discuss, to write. The wars our country has fought have taken place far away. Modern Britain has been an invader, but it does not know anymore what it means to be invaded. In this environment, simplistic narratives fit onto a placard with much less of a headache.

Unfortunately, the reality of war is much more complicated, so we must listen to those who are not removed. As Oleksandra Povoroznyk has said, to understand what the Ukrainian people want requires one to listen to Ukrainians. That is the first step to acknowledging agency. Through listening we will hear that many Ukrainians, for a very long time, have desired stronger defence against Russia and a closer relationship to Europe. We will see that they had an entire revolution to this effect in 2014 (which was not a “US backed coup” as some narratives suggest). We will see that the simplistic narrative of Ukraine as a puppet of the ‘warmongering’ West assumes no Ukrainian agency. 

We may then begin to challenge the simplistic narratives of our politics. The arguments I am challenging here boil down to the simplistic worldview that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend: that the imperial ‘West’ is the enemy, and so its enemy Russia may be a friend, or at the very least not as ‘bad’. This is a slippery slope into ruthless geo-political chess and a black and white binary of ‘friend and foe’, ‘goodie and baddie’, as though we live in a Marvel movie. The reality is messier. Russia, the US, and many other political powers are motivated by self-interest: trade, access to natural resources, money, defence. It is cold strategy which leads the US to support Ukraine and Israel, just as it is cold strategy that allows Russia to condemn Israel while invading Ukraine. Stopping at the ‘cold strategy’ in our analysis of conflict is playing the game of the great powers and betraying the reality of those suffering. By doing away with simplistic narratives and platforming the voices of those most affected, it is possible to both condemn the West and its role in destruction whilst also acknowledging that its military support for Ukraine is currently the only option in their self- defence against imperialism.

 I began this article with the voices on the ground of London. Voices which should unite against imperialism and invasion, but which instead divide because of simplistic views of global power. To conclude, I turn, as I urge us all to do, to the voices on the ground in Ukraine. Shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion, two letters were written to Noam Chomsky. Artem Chapeye, a previous translator of Noam Chomsky’s works penned a letter to “some Left-Wing Intellectuals”. Specifically, he addressed Chomsky, and his claims that Ukraine was “dragged into the war” by the US and NATO. In the letter, he begged: “listen to the local voices here on the ground, not some sages sitting at the centre of global power. Please start your analysis with the suffering of millions of people, rather than geopolitical chess moves. Start with the columns of refugees …”. Chapeye, a self-proclaimed pacifist, became a soldier after the full-scale invasion, declaring that the option - the privilege - of pacifism was lost to him on the day that Putin’s missiles began to fall.