'NATO, The Left, and the Case for Peace in Eastern Europe' - Luke Hatch

'NATO, The Left, and the Case for Peace in Eastern Europe' - Luke Hatch

The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine can truly be described as a nightmare scenario, for Europe and indeed the world. A full-scale conflict between two large conventional forces on the European continent is something few expected, even as Russian troops were amassing for months on the Ukrainian border. The decision by Russian President Vladimir Putin to launch this invasion of Ukraine has rightly been condemned around the world as a reckless escalation of global tensions, that will undoubtedly cost the lives of countless innocent Ukrainians, a decision made under the painfully contrived pretext of the “demilitarisation and de-Nazification of Ukraine”. While the decision to begin this armed conflict is an atrocity that lies squarely with Putin, the state of tension between Russia and Ukraine that existed prior to the invasion is a much more complex affair, involving deep-seated issues of Russia-West relations going back decades. It is a tragic story of mistrust, arrogance, and perceived betrayal on both sides of the divide. There is a pressure now to forget all of this; some will call it irreverent to be discussing historical geopolitics at a time when a sovereign nation is being shelled by its neighbour. Yet such discussion is of vital importance if there is to be any hope of restoring peace to Europe, and it is the duty of peace-minded progressives to analyse these factors and seek a robust security environment going forward that is based on inclusivity and understanding, rather than eternal rivalry and paranoia.

In early February, Labour leader Keir Starmer penned an opinion piece in The Guardian with the strapline, “Under my leadership, Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakable”, laying out his reasons for backing the UK Conservative government in denouncing Russia and sending weapons and troops to Ukraine. Starmer makes pains to dress his support for NATO with progressive language to appeal to his party’s support base, but in truth the Labour leader’s support for the government’s particularly belligerent stance on the issue positions him decisively to the right, not only of progressive groups, but also of several centrist governments in Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron had repeatedly called for high-level diplomatic engagement that takes into account Russia’s legitimate security concerns, including a meaningful discussion of Europe’s post-Cold War security environment. To this end, Macron travelled alone to meet with Vladimir Putin in February to seek a diplomatic resolution.

The US and UK governments consistently took the most alarmist and belligerent positions against Russia; neither were ever seriously interested in discussing Russia’s security concerns, instead ramping up the transfer of troops and weapons to Ukraine and other countries on NATO’s eastern flank. Far from a vindication of the US and UK’s strategy, the fact that war eventually broke out raises the question whether this could have been avoided, had Biden and Johnson showed the same nuance and pragmatism as their European counterparts. As for the UK government’s approach, British progressives should call this out for what it is: a shameful and downright dangerous bluff to drum up nationalistic support at home, at a time when Johnson’s government finds itself increasingly scrutinized for its endemic corruption and incompetence. But rather than point this out to the electorate, Starmer has evidently discovered for himself the value of militarist fervour. Under Starmer, Labour has thrown its full behind the government’s strategy, even trying to out-hawk Johnson at times in a bid to appeal to nationalistic voters. As I will argue below, opportunistic attempts to outflank the Tories on foreign policy are not only morally bankrupt from a supposedly progressive party, but are completely irresponsible.

In his article, Keir Starmer openly and directly attacks anti-war groups, naming the Stop the War Coalition, accusing those calling for peace of of “actively giving succour to authoritarian leaders who directly threaten democracies”. The conflation of pacifism with support for a hostile external enemy is nothing new; it is a club that has been used to bash progressives for centuries, though it is somewhat jarring to hear it from a supposedly left-wing party. Take the example of the First World War, a tragic and ultimately pointless conflict that saw imperial powers send waves of working-class men to kill each other in droves on the fields of Europe, for no apparent gain. During the war leftists in all nations who called for the end to the conflict were derided and condemned as traitors. For the crime of opposing militarism from both sides of the conflict, activists, including Vladimir Lenin in Russia and Rosa Luxemburg in Germany, were labelled by their respective governments as saboteurs in the pay of the enemy. In this regard, nothing has changed. Today anti-war activists are regularly condemned as fifth-columnists by media commentators, government figures and opposition politicians alike.

Just as was the case during the First World War, the immediate cause of today’s Russo-Ukrainian conflict was the reckless ambition of one belligerent state, but longer-term causes include decades of sabre-rattling between arrogant imperialistic powers. It is perfectly valid to whole-heartedly condemn Putin’s actions and pledge full support to the Ukrainian people in their hour of need, while at in their hour of need, while at the same time recognizing that years of Western arrogance played a role in creating this mess. But in a time of war, such analysis is condemned as unpatriotic - anything less than blind support for one’s own government is equated with support for the enemy. We may expect such attitudes from traditional conservatives, but that the Labour leadership has jumped upon this militarist bandwagon truly is a disgrace.

As mentioned above, Starmer has repeatedly stressed Labour’s support for NATO, the organisation that has underpinned Western military cooperation since the beginning of the Cold War. Britain’s postwar Labour government, indeed, played a central role in the very creation of this alliance. However, some brief analysis of the nature of NATO itself will reveal it to be completely incompatible with progressive values. Following the defeat of the Axis powers at the end of the Second World War, the division of the post-war world between the Soviet-dominated East and US-dominated West was by no means inevitable. Many socialists in western Europe, including the Bevanite Left of the UK Labour Party, supported a united, socialist Europe, aligned with neither superpower of the Cold War. In Keir Starmer’s article, he points to a Cards on the Table, a 1947 pamphlet written by Denis Healey, then Labour’s International Secretary. According to Starmer, Healey “demolished the argument of those on the left that Britain could somehow be a third force, aligned neither with the Americans nor the Soviets”. Far from demolishing the arguments for non-alignment, such non-aligned nations sprang up all over the world during the Cold War, even formally establishing the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961, an organisation of 120 member states that exists to this day. The governments of Austria and Finland both signed agreements during the Cold War promising neutrality, and both nations have enjoyed decades of peace and sovereignty ever since; a possible Finland or Austria-style arrangement has been suggested to ensure Ukraine’s security in the future. Emmanuel Macron, too, has frequently called for increased European security cooperation, and less reliance on the US. While Macron is far from a progressive internationalist, it goes to show that European non-alignment, far from being “demolished”, survives to this day as a proposal shared by European politicians from across the political spectrum.

Defenders of NATO often claim the alliance is purely defensive in nature; Starmer characterizes NATO as a “defensive alliance that has never provoked conflict”. This is demonstrably untrue; Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, and Libya in 2011 are all cases in which the supposedly defensive alliance has attacked sovereign states, bombing innocent civilians in all instances. The other great claim often made in defence of NATO is that the alliance is purely voluntaryas Keir Starmer states, “no nation can be pressed into joining Nato, and no nation can be prevented from doing so by bullying and brinkmanship from others”. Again, this claim is blatantly false. Several NATO member states only joined the alliance after the US intervened early in the Cold War to prop up pro-American governments in the region; Italy, Turkey, and Greece come to mind, to name just a few. We are used to hearing stories of Soviet meddling after the Second World War in creating satellite states in Eastern Europe, but much less publicized is the CIA’s long, and by now mostly declassified, history of interference in Europe to ensure the creation of a pro-American postwar bloc. Interference in elections, and military support for reactionary regimes, were but some of the methods the US used to build the capitalist West that NATO would come to embody. Had the US not brazenly subjugated Western Europe (indeed, along with numerous other parts of the world) immediately following the Second World War, the Cold War, and human history as we know it, may well have gone very differently indeed. Far from a voluntary agreement of free states committed to defending peace, then, NATO can really be considered a coalition of pro-American puppets that does not hesitate to use military force to enact its will. There is very little about NATO that progressives can truly support in good faith. As much as we may like to idolize the genuinely radical postwar Labour government, the creation of NATO was, quite plainly, a mistake. Along with the procurement of nuclear weapons, participation in the brutal Korean War, and the suppression of the socalled ‘Malayan Emergency’, British membership of NATO was part of a fairly appalling foreign policy that left a blemish on Attlee’s genuinely progressive domestic agenda.

If NATO is not the way forward to guarding the peace, then what is the answer? For Britain, an independent, values-based foreign policy certainly seems the best way to avoid becoming embroiled in conflict. A decoupling from US foreign policy would help prevent the country becoming involved in atrocities such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq. At the same time, rather than maintaining ‘blocs’ or spheres of influence, based on mistrust and rivalry, security in Europe must be based on mutual dialogue and cooperation between all parties. The end of the Cold War in 1989, and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, should have provided a promising opportunity to end the global East-West divide that had split the world in decades prior. But instead of promoting peace and cooperation, US defense spending saw no dramatic cuts, and before long had begun to rise once again. Ensconced in arrogant triumphalism, the US used the opportunity instead to build a new empire, starting new wars all over the globe. The West broke repeated verbal, if not written, promises to Russia that NATO would expand no further East than the newly reunified Germany. Russia’s security concerns, raised repeatedly and subsequently ignored by the West for years, are legitimate.

Far from being the mad ravings of a bloodthirsty dictator, anxiety at NATO expansionism is a concern shared across all strata of Russian society; these concerns did not start with Putin, and they will not end with him either. To safeguard peace in Europe we must pursue an inclusive dialogue that takes the concerns of all nations into account. The Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), in which Russia participates, operates at nowhere near the budget of NATO, and receives very little praise for the immensely important work it has done for decades on issues such as arms control and human rights. Inclusive discussion through forums such as the OSCE, and an environment of mutual respect and cooperation on issues that affect us all, such as the threat of nuclear war and climate change, is surely a far more sustainable future for the world than endless sabre-rattling, militarisation, and constant attempts by one camp to gain the upper hand over another.

In his article, Keir Starmer claims that “Bevinite internationalism will guide Labour’s approach to Britain’s security”. ‘Internationalism’ is a noble-sounding word thrown around far too much by politicians who, at best, have no idea what it means, and, at worst, wilfully misconstrue the concept to justify their horrific designs. Atrocities such as the invasion of Iraq, drone strikes across the global South, and perpetual sabre rattling with Russia and China, have all been carried out under the guise of ‘internationalism’. But internationalism in its true sense means the belief that we as human beings are divided not by nationality, but by class, and that the struggle for justice, equality, and peace is universal, and unites ordinary people all over the world.

The current Russian invasion of Ukraine is a horrific atrocity, and Vladimir Putin deserves all the punishment coming to him for bringing war to the people of Ukraine. But the problem facing humanity is not just this war- it is war itself. To explain simply, war always means the deaths of innocent people, without exception. We must never give up the fight for a world where we decisively reject the use of military force to settle disputes. The Labour leader states “there is nothing progressive in showing solidarity with the aggressor when our allies need our solidarity”. Equally, there is nothing progressive about immediately turning to military force, to militaristic organisations such as NATO, whenever these issues arise, while accusing those seeking peaceful diplomacy of “weakness” and “naivety”.

Some will say now is the time for solidarity with Ukraine and nothing else; that to be discussing past injustices committed by the West, complex geopolitics, and abstract concepts such as militarism is irreverent. But as progressives we do not have the luxury to focus on one injustice and turn a blind eye to all others. We cannot pick and choose when to apply our morals and values; only consistent and unswerving commitment to peace, to equality, and in our stance against militarism everywhere, can future atrocities be avoided, and a lasting security established. To finish on a hopeful note, to everyone whose belief in the cause of internationalism and peace has been swayed by the current crisis, I would point to the thousands of ordinary Russians, young and old alike, who have risked imprisonment in turning out onto the streets of their cities to demand that their government put an end to the ruthless attacks on their Ukrainian neighbours.

[Luke Hatch is a second-year studying Chinese at Wadham College]