FEATURED IMAGE(S):
Ukrainian demonstration in Helsinki at the statue of C.G.E. Mannerheim, 24 February 2022. Marshal Mannerheim was Commander-in-Chief of the Finnish Army during the Second World War and President of Finland from 1944–46. The situation in Ukraine has often been compared to the Finnish Winter War, to which this choice of location also refers. The Ukrainian procession later joined Finnish demonstrators in front of the Russian embassy. PHOTO: New History Association, CC BY-SA 2.0.
We have been following with interest and some confusion the debate within the western Left on the war in Ukraine and the nature of Russian imperialism. The links below are to the exchange of arguments between Anthony Barnett and Yanis Varoufakis.
Barnett’s latest article (“Down with Putin’s modern Czarism!”) summarises the debate well and is also otherwise a worthwhile contribution. We have translated it into Finnish and published it with the kind permission of the author. The following commentary by Heli Santavuori was published together with it.
Anthony Barnett is a co-founder of openDemocracy and a writer, journalist and activist.
Yanis Varoufakis is a member of the Greek Parliament, writer and co-founder of DiEM25.
Anthony Barnett published an article in January in which he reflected on the challenges and aims of a new kind of left and coined the term “definite Left”. At Barnett’s invitation, Pia Länsman and Heli Santavuori of the New History Association took part in the debate on the article.
In my view, the most pressing problems facing humanity cannot be answered on the basis of a left-right divide. This is also the position of the New History Association. In this respect, our general view differs from that of both Barnett and Varoufakis. The association’s programme deals with the change of the era and the current state of world history. It was written before the Russian invasion, but the vision it sets out remains essentially valid. (See: In which era are we living?)
In the controversy between Barnett and Varoufakis, I think Barnett is right. I believe that the entire membership of our association shares this view, although I alone am responsible for this comment. In general, Barnett represents a left that is open to discussion and in search of something new, which is of course to be welcomed. Both debaters deserve credit for a fair debate culture.
Russia’s brutal, unprovoked and self-destructive attack on Ukraine is the most important issue in world politics. Although the war is being fought in Europe, it poses a global threat to the whole of humanity, if only because of Russia’s irresponsible threat of nuclear weapons. It is therefore very regrettable and even dangerous that some of the world’s most respected left-wing intellectuals – Noam Chomsky, for example, in addition to Varoufakis – have taken a position on the war which shows that they do not quite understand the nature of Russian imperialism.
That is why Barnett’s response to Varoufakis is important. However, there are some points on which I cannot fully agree with him either, and these are set out below:
(1)
Barnett writes that Russia has the right to insist that Ukraine not join NATO. I beg to differ.
Barnett himself says in the opening of his post, “Russia was threatened by Ukraine’s emergent democracy.” In other words, the real reason for going to war was not the enlargement of NATO. There was no military threat to Russia in February 2022, nor had there been before that date. If this is understood, what is the justification for arguing that Ukraine should be denied NATO membership? I cannot think of anything other than left-wing preconceptions. However, they should not play a role in this context because Ukraine, as a sovereign state, has the right to make whatever security policy decisions it wants.
NATO membership would be a top priority for Ukraine because of the nuclear weapon protection it would provide. Nuclear weapons are the only military factor on which Russia can still compete with the West. It is only with the help of nuclear threats that it has been able to wage a war of even this duration. Without them, Russia’s efforts in Ukraine would have been cut short, and countless Ukrainian civilian casualties would have been avoided, not to mention the loss of men on both sides of the front.
(2)
Barnett suggests that there is a “war party” in the West that wants the conflict to continue and is urging Ukraine to conquer Crimea. In his view, these efforts must be resisted. Again, I have to disagree.
It is the Ukrainians’ own determined desire to regain Crimea, which was occupied and annexed by Russia in violation of international law. Ukraine has every right to that. It is not a case of instigation by the West. There is also a Tatar population in Crimea now living under the Kremlin’s persecution. It is questionable how legitimate a referendum there would be now, even if it were monitored, given how much Russia has moved its own people to live there. Nor has there been any freedom of expression in Crimea since 2014, which is a prerequisite for free and fair elections. And how could the human rights of the Crimean Tatars be guaranteed if they remained under Russian rule?
Crimea is also important for a real, lasting peace. Russia must lose properly, completely. Otherwise, it is unimaginable that Russia will have a leadership, a regime, whose signed agreements can be trusted.
(3)
Barnett warns that Western support for Ukraine would involve attempts at some kind of economic shock therapy once reconstruction begins, as happened in Russia in the 1990s. That is certainly a possibility. Barnett provides two interesting links in this regard. [1]
But the times are different now. The West has to learn from its mistakes. Now the wishes of the Ukrainians themselves must come first. The neoliberal dogma has gone bankrupt, and Western leaders are increasingly having to acknowledge this explicitly. Traditional imperialist aggressions by the Western superpowers, such as the war in Iraq, may no longer be possible. Both the United States and Europe swear by international law, one of the main principles of which is the inviolability of state borders. This trend needs to be strengthened. For example, a proper debate on the war in Iraq, including a legal process, should be demanded. The USA should join the International Criminal Court. Judicial control of speculative finance capital should be strengthened. The debate on the West’s mistakes regarding the privatisation of Russia’s national assets has already begun. Etc.
(4)
Barnett writes that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington has “crushed the 20th century left”.
First, socialism collapsed much earlier than the Soviet Union and understanding this fact is crucial to understanding 20th-century world history.
Second, Washington did not crush the left; it has crushed itself on its own. Socialism had a tremendous rise in the early 20th century but has since collapsed completely, in all its various forms – collapsed into its own impossibility.
The weakness of the left stems from the fact that no scientific, philosophical summary of this, perhaps the most important development of the past era, has been drawn up, a summary that would also offer a perspective for the future.
The subject has been discussed, for example, in this article: The rise and fall of socialism in terms of human nature.
It is very important to counter the blindness of Varoufakis, Chomsky and other Western left-wing intellectuals towards Russia. Although they are a small minority, they are a very influential minority, and they appeal to the people who are often the most active and concerned about the state of the world. So although I have some disagreements with Barnett, I think he has raised an important issue.
The attitude to Russian aggression is the key question in world politics at the moment. Its resolution will determine whether humanity is able to prepare for threats to the very existence of the human species, such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, nuclear weapons, pandemics, food and energy crises, and so on.
[1] Adam Tooze, Chartbook #163: Warfare without the state – New Keynesian shock therapy for Ukraine’s home front.; Thomas Rowley and Serhiy Guz, Ukraine uses Russian invasion to pass laws wrecking workers’ rights, openDemocracy, 20 July 2022.
