A Reckoning with US Meddling 

A Focus on the Role of NATO is not a Thoughtless “Anti-Americanism” 

By Grayson Lanza

Grayson Lanza is a member of Orlando DSA and a rank and file member of DSA’s International Committee.

The war in Ukraine, which escalated significantly with the shocking invasion by Russia in February, has drawn out significant conflict among socialists regarding how to approach the conflict. DSA was quickly drawn into the thick of this debate due to the negative attention it gained from not only liberal media outlets headed by ostensible progressives, but also from federal legislators and the White House. DSA’s position, which condemned the Russian invasion unequivocally while recognizing the significant antagonizing role in escalating the conflict played by NATO, was met with a barrage of external and internal criticism. 

Amongst much of the progressive media chattering class, discussion of NATO’s role was deemed a faux pas. However true it may be that NATO set the stage for war, it was now inappropriate to discuss. Internal DSA critics of the organization’s position found it unsatisfyingly supportive of Ukraine, with the Bread and Roses caucus coming out in favor of sanctioning Russia and discussion amongst others in the organization about the need for military support for Ukraine. These positions are understandable to a certain extent; however as socialists, we should be analyzing the context of situations as dramatic as war with a far more discerning eye. 

US and NATO Meddling in Ukraine

The position that many on the left have taken, which is a focus on the role of NATO in the conflict in Ukraine, is not one that was developed from reductive, thoughtless “anti-Americanism.” It is, instead, a thorough reckoning with the extent of the meddling the US and NATO have had in Ukraine, starting with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rush of Western liberal economists and capitalists to help set up shock-therapy privatization regimes in the post-Soviet bloc. 

The fall of the Soviet Union was an economic and social catastrophe across the former constituent republics of the Soviet Union. Ukraine was particularly hard-hit economically and, like Russia, had American investors and advisors flooding the country to propagate the “shock therapy” economic regime. Ukraine integrated into the global neoliberal trade system through IMF membership and today is the fourth largest borrower from the IMF after first receiving loans in 1998 with the condition of mass privatization of the economy. 

In 2013 the IMF proposed a loan package for potential ascension to the European Union for Ukraine that required an increase of 40 percent in natural-gas bills for Ukrainian households, a deal so bad that the Ukrainian government turned it down, resulting in the Euromaidan protests. Ukraine’s economy has remained exceptionally weak and unstable, but the liberalizing of its economy allowed for Western interests to gain a foothold of influence in the country. The USSR’s collapse and the ensuing economic destabilization also triggered a resurgence of nationalist elements in all of the post-Soviet world, facilitating the most intensive conflicts in the Caucasus and Central Asia. While an outright war did not break out in the European portion of the USSR, tensions have steadily risen in the multi-ethnic Ukraine. 

Ukrainian Nationalists after the 2014 Euromaidan

After decades of Western meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs, a right-wing ethno-nationalist movement that had long lingered on the fringes of Ukrainian society was reignited into a powerful political force. Following the 2014 Euromaidan, it began to cohere into a large, organized force within Ukrainian domestic politics. Ukrainian nationalists took advantage of the unrest within the country during Maidan, asserting themselves not only in the streets of Kyiv but also in putting down unrest in the southern and eastern parts of the country. What would become the Azov battalion initially started as right-wing soccer hooligans, transforming into an enforcement force against protests by Russian speakers throughout regions with significant Russian-speaking populations. 

The new, Western-backed Ukrainian government formed post-Maidan decided to respond with military force to the unrest in the southern and eastern parts of the country that ignited in response to the coup. 

Military operations against what would become the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics initially went relatively poorly. The Ukrainian military, at the time, was internally divided. Many soldiers and their commanders felt sympathetic to Ukrainians whom they were now supposed to fight. 

Concurrently, right-wing gangs had now transformed into fully equipped paramilitary forces and were gaining notoriety for their abilities. Their willingness to fight brought them to the front, and soon the Azov Battalion became an official component of the Ukrainian National Guard. US military supplies and money aided their rapid ascension, as Western military advisors recognized the necessity for willing combatants for Ukraine’s military operations to be successful. Their politics were not a concern in this calculation and it has become evident over the years that unchecked Western military support for the Ukrainian right-wing has given them a privileged and powerful position within the country. 

Ukraine’s current president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was elected on a platform of implementing peace. In the 2018 election, he received overwhelming support from across the country, defeating the conflict-hardliner incumbent Petro Poroshenko. For some irony, there were concerns throughout the West that Zelesnkyy was actually going to be too friendly to Russia. These concerns never bore fruit. Despite having a democratic mandate, Zelesnkyy was never able to implement the Minsk II peace plan that was agreed upon by all respective parties in the conflict in 2015. 

The Ukrainian military, which by 2019 had spent several years fighting in the east and bombarding Donetsk, refused to put their arms down in what was called the “Campaign Against Capitulation.” After years of direct US support, the Ukrainian military no longer had a reason to obey the civilian government. US control over Ukraine was effectively complete with its influence over the Ukrainian military despite that control being channeled through a political position that was widely unpopular with the average Ukrainian. 

Recognizing the Dynamics Created by the US

The question remains: What should socialists, particularly those in the US, do about the Russian invasion of Ukraine? The point of the previous paragraphs was to lay down to some extent the significance of US meddling in the region. To try and analyze this war without understanding the role US foreign policy has played in facilitating the conditions for it, is like only reading the last half of a chapter of a book. The world system we all live under was created, and now is maintained, by the US. It is the world of our country’s making, and all state relations are done on the basis of it. Ukraine’s current government, installed after the Euromaidan coup, was directly put into power through US machinations. There’s little doubt to be had that this new government’s creation of a constitution calling for ascension to NATO could not have been made without private US assurances. 

At the same time, the right-wing government of Russia is also a monster of the US’s creation. Boris Yeltsin’s dismantling of the USSR was done under the guidance of the US, and Vladimir Putin’s rise to power also happened with US approval. There was little contention between the post-Soviet Russian government and the US neoliberal regime outside of the redline of NATO expansion into Ukraine. Yet, despite the newly formed Russian state being a more than willing participant in the neoliberal capitalist order, the US still insisted on antagonizing it militarily. 

US socialists must recognize and understand the dynamics created by the state we exist within. We have looked on as the US has expanded its military presence in Europe eastward for no reason other than the growth of markets for weapons sales. The failure to develop an anti-war movement grounded in a materialist analysis of the US states’ role as the imperial hegemon has been disastrous for the rest of the globe. 

For eight whole years, the US has funded, trained, and supplied weapons to Ukrainian forces to carry on the conflict in the Donbas. US politicians have traveled to the frontlines to call for escalation of war. The US refused to help Ukraine abide by the Minsk 2 peace agreement that was agreed upon seven years before the Russian invasion. 

Perhaps if socialists had organized as an effective anti-imperialist force domestically, the extent of US involvement in escalating toward an even more violent and disastrous war could have been made known to the American public. That is why DSA must demand an immediate cessation of all US involvement in the war, diplomatic negotiations mediated by a neutral third party, and Russian withdrawal, all while still calling for the US to withdraw from NATO. 

These are practical and effective demands combined with a call to highlight the inherently violent nature of the US dictated military alliance. For the sake of the working people of the world, from Ukraine to Afghanistan to Colombia to Iraq, we cannot continue to perpetuate these failures by calling for further US state intervention through sanctions and weapon sales in this conflict.