Ukraine: this war must end

Tom Unterrainer

This is an edited and expanded text of a speech given to an international meeting on the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine hosted by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Stop the War Coalition. A recording of the meeting is available on CND’s YouTube page.

The drivers and sparks for the war in Ukraine, including the role of NATO expansion and the war that was already taking place in the Eastern part of Ukraine – including Ukraine’s shelling of Russia-speaking majority areas – have been extensively discussed. We are aware of the role of Ukraine – and the larger ‘Eurasian’ corridor – in US strategy. NATO expansion, internal conflict in Ukraine (including ‘national questions’), long-standing US aims at influence – if they can get it, disruption is they cannot – in the ‘Eurasian’ corridor and US strategy towards Asia/China are some drivers of this conflict.

We understand that tectonic shifts are taking place on a geopolitical scale and we see many consequences. The world is no longer unipolar but the US and allies are still behaving as if it is. The US and allies seem prepared to continue taking risky and potentially deadly action in an ill-fated attempt reassert themselves on a global scale. Events in Ukraine have not progressed as Washington – and Moscow, for that matter – might have hoped. The situation in very dangerous indeed.

The global peace movement is clear – as it has been for the last two years – that the war in Ukraine must end. We are clear – as we have been from the word go – that we stand with all those who oppose this war: in the UK, across the world and we stand with those in Russia and Ukraine who have taken to the streets and made a stand against this senseless slaughter.

One of Bruce Kent’s last public acts on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was to deliver a letter to the Russian embassy, demanding the release of peace protestors, demanding an end to nuclear threats and demanding an end to the war. Part of the letter reads:

The movement for peace and against war is a global movement. From London and Washington to Saint Petersburg and Moscow, those who oppose war and strive for peace take to the streets to make their voices heard. The peace movement stands squarely with all those in Russia and beyond who have protested against the invasion of Ukraine over the past days. We defend their right to do so and insist that such a right is respected.

We demand the release of political prisoners including our friend, Boris Kagarlitsky, who has been imprisoned once again for his courageous actions. We demand the same for political prisoners everywhere: be they in Moscow or - as with Julian Assange - in Belmarsh Prison in London.

This war must end. It must end because the grinding misery of death and destruction cannot be allowed to continue. It must end because the people of Ukraine have suffered much, much more than enough. It must end because we must – we must – make every effort to reduce nuclear tensions. It must end before things escalate even further.

For the last two years, the board of experts at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have set the hands of their Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight. Midnight is a metaphor for the complete destruction of humanity. This is the closest to midnight that the clock has ever been set.

The Atomic Scientists make their determination based on a detailed survey of the deadly risks faced by the whole of humanity. These include climate catastrophe, pandemic, emerging technologies and – centrally – the risk of nuclear war.

They warn that “the war in Ukraine and the widespread and growing reliance on nuclear weapons increase the risk of nuclear escalation”.

The early weeks of Russia’s invasion saw repeated threats of nuclear use and signs of increased readiness for nuclear use. Putin’s comments explicitly shattered what is called the ‘nuclear taboo’ – the idea that leaders of nuclear states should never directly threaten to use such weapons. The fact that United States Presidents and US officials and British Prime Ministers and British official have repeatedly made similar threats in the past seems to have been forgotten by some.

Nevertheless, combined with the facts of nuclear-armed US and NATO intervention, Putin’s disgraceful nuclear threats raised widespread alarm – and rightly so. Since these initial threats, Putin seems to have put a lid on his own threats, with the former Russian Prime Minister and similar now repeating such things. Why might Putin have made these threats and why might they have stopped?

Without doubt, Putin invoked nuclear threats for the same reason that Western leaders invoke them. We’re supposed to believe that nuclear weapons function ‘silently’ as some magical deterrent system. But the myth of ‘deterrence’ was only cooked up as a public relations excuse for nuclear weapons possession. If you examine the historical record, then you will find any number of occasions when US Presidents have used nuclear weapons – not in the sense of detonation but as a means to achieve other ends. For example, in 2002 George W Bush threatened a nuclear strike on Iraq if Iraq used its ‘non-existent’ weapons of mass destruction on American troops.

By March 2022, Russian occupied just over 25% of the Ukraine. By April, this figure fell to just under 20% following a number of disastrous – for Russia, at least – military blunders. The amount of occupied territory held at around this level for a few more months, then dropped to a figure of around 15-17% by November 2022. This is not how Putin expected the war to proceed. Hence the threats.

What happened next is that billions upon billions of pounds and dollars of military equipment poured into Ukraine from the US and NATO allies. Russia may have been able to adjust some of its previous military mistakes but the drones, missiles, tanks and other armaments deployed on by Ukraine have resulted in a stale-mate.

From November 2022 to January 2024 there has been approximately zero shift in the amount of territory occupied by Russia. All the billions of armaments, all that technology, all the support have not shifted things.

So the question is this: if either Russia or Ukraine imagines it can ‘win’ a war, what will it take to ‘win’? Even more weaponry? Even more deadly weaponry? How many dead Ukrainians? How many slaughtered on the battlefield? How much more destruction? A massive – unprecedented – escalation would be needed. Why? Isn’t Russia on the brink of economic and social collapse after the massive sanctions campaign against it? Will that not sort the mess out? No. Just look at the Russian economy. Yes, some Western foodstuffs and products are not available. Yes, inflation is high. But the Russian economy and Russian imports and exports have not ground to a halt.

Sanctions such as those imposed on Russia do not work. They have not worked. Those who impose them know it, scholars who study sanctions know it, we know it.

According to a recent report from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Russia has adopted “an attrition strategy this is gradually exhausting Ukraine’s forces, draining American military stocks, and sapping the West’s political resolve.” They go on: “Sanctions have not crippled Russia’s war effort, and the West cannot fix Ukraine’s acute manpower problems absent direct intervention in the war.” Rather, for as long as this war continues Ukraine’s economic and social development will continue to stagnate to catastrophic levels. It will become more and more reliant on ‘aid’. The prospects for independence – political or economic – will diminish steadily over time.

Contrast Ukraine’s situation with Russia’s. Despite an enormous barrage of sanctions, Russia’s economy is – in fact – doing better than even the International Monetary Fund expected. Not just because it is still able to sell oil and has maintained economic relationships with enormous trading blocs such as China, but because it has been able to achieve a considerable internal economic reorganisation.

McDonald’s may have closed and Western European foodstuffs might have disappeared from the shelves, but the Russian cheese industry is thriving (to give just one example).

In a recent article re-published in Harpers magazine, the Italian journalist Marzio Mian quotes a Russian Sturgeon farmer, Sergeeva:

Sergeeva is well-travelled and known widely for her aquaculture expertise. She could get a job anywhere, it seemed to me, so why stay? “I was born here, I studied here, my husband is Russian, my son is Russian, I’m Russian,” she said. “I wouldn’t say I’m a patriot, and I don’t want to express my thoughts on Putin and the war. But I can assure you that my life hasn’t changed. Not in the least.” She blushed as she spoke, as if the subject were uncomfortable. “The Russians are reacting to the sanctions in an extraordinary way, even with a weak ruble and the inevitable inflation. The prices of essential goods have held steady. And now we’re consuming better and healthier products than before the war, even exceptional cheeses.”

As a consequence of these sanctions, the potential of non-Western dominated trade has been revealed. Sergeeva buys feed from Iran instead of the West. This is just the tip of the iceberg: similar stories emerge across the spectrum of the Russian economy. Is Ukraine’s economy and society developing in the same way? We can see the stark differences.

Much has been made of the decision to deploy Russian nuclear missiles to Belarus. Quite right too. We have warned against such a dangerous and potentially deadly proliferation of nuclear weapons.

We have also been campaigning and warning against the expansion of the US nuclear bootprint across Europe. This expansion includes plans to station US nuclear bombs at Lakenheath once more and the planned deployment of new F35 jets and new US nuclear bombs at sites across Europe.

Nuclear developments in Belarus and across Europe are similar in that plans for both pre-date the war in Ukraine. Belarus concluded a constitutional referendum removing its nuclear-free status two days before Russia’s invasion. Plans for Lakenheath, new nuclear-capable jets and new nuclear bombs have been in development for many years.

What is new is the intensity of these nuclear developments – including repeated calls to station US nuclear weapons in Poland and the latest, frankly ridiculous and dangerous, calls for a ‘Eurobomb’ by some German politicians. Add to the mix the fact that trillions of dollars are to be spent on not just upgrading but completely renewing US nuclear weapons systems. Every nuclear-armed state is rearming and upgrading. A new nuclear-arms race is in full swing.

In the middle of this, we have a war that could – for all the reasons outlined here and many others – escalate dramatically. This war, the war in Ukraine must end.

The only way out is diplomacy and negotiation. But this cannot be left to the US, UK or NATO member states. In fact, they should have nothing to do with such efforts. They should stand aside. Why? Because a nuclear-armed alliance with NATOs record has no credibility. What’s more, just take a look at how the UK, for instance, has been propping up and arming Israel’s genocide on Palestine. Look at the disgraceful shambles in the British Parliament. Look at the already-alarming dynamics of the upcoming US Presidential election. These people have zero credibility. They are not just unsuited and incapable. In fact, they are complicit. We know it. The non-nuclear world knows it. The global majority knows it.

But the non-Western global majority is not a bystander. Brazil has proposed negotiations. The BRICS countries have proposed similar. Countries from Latin America, across Africa and into Asia know that the very worst must be averted. They know that diplomacy and negotiation can end this war and remove the threats of nuclear escalation. We should give them our support.

All of which puts a special responsibility on the peace movements of Europe: we must explain the risks, explain the realities and combat propaganda aimed at undermining the efforts of those genuinely committed to a settlement in Ukraine.

We must resist the expanding nuclear bootprint and demand that our governments make way for a peaceful solution to the horrors in Ukraine, Palestine and elsewhere.