Ukraine War: All Quiet on the Western Front?

DSA Congressmembers: Withdraw Support for Bidenʼs Ukraine Policy

By Stephan Kimmerle

The debate within DSA regarding the Ukraine war is intensifying due to an amendment submitted to the National Convention by members of the Reform & Revolution caucus and the Marxist Unity Group. The amendment puts forward a program for DSA, including:

1. Opposition to any budget that allows the Pentagon to maintain its global war machine and includes military aid to US client-states such as Ukraine and the apartheid state of Israel
2. Opposition to sending US weapons and military aid to the pro-NATO, capitalist, undemocratic, corrupt Ukrainian government.
3. Opposition to the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine, solidarity with the Russian anti-war movement, and for the right of self-determination of both the Ukrainian nation and the Russian speakers, as well as for minority rights in all of the regions.
4. US withdrawal from NATO, closing US foreign military bases, and bringing home all US troops.

It also calls on DSA’s elected officials in Congress to withdraw support for Biden’s war policies. You can find it in the latest convention compendium on page 50, under the title “Consensus Resolution Amendment D: Socialist Anti-Militarism and the War in Ukraine (Amendment to CR #4 (IC).” 

The primary argument against our amendment is that we must back Ukrainian self-defense in the struggle against Russian imperialism. However, advocating for the just cause of self-determination does not mean socialists must also endorse the imperialist NATO intervention led by the US. Nor are we obligated to support the Zelensky regime and its policies, neither politically nor militarily. Both – supporting NATO and endorsing Zelenskyʼs regime – only prolong war and suffering. In fact, they hinder the establishment of an international anti-war movement, including within Russia.

War of Attrition

During World War I, imperialist empires clashed, neglecting the legitimate national, democratic, economic, and social aspirations of the people. Countries were occupied by other nations to extend different geostrategic spheres of influence, gain access to markets, raw materials, and to weaken enemies. The prolonged trench warfare turned the war into an industrialized meat grinder, resulting in millions of casualties. However, the tide began to turn when the masses revolted, starting with Russia in 1917, which brought this destructive machinery to a temporary halt. 

Todayʼs war in Ukraine increasingly resembles this. “It’s not quite connected trench lines like World War I,” Mark Milley outlines, the highest ranking military officer in the US, “but it’s not dissimilar from that, either – lots of complex minefields, dragon’s teeth, barbed wire, trenches.”

At the time of writing, the Ukrainian offensive is stalling. The Russian offensive during early spring only managed to advance a few miles, although it did pave the way for some minor gains, like in Bakhmut, at the cost of a horrifying number of casualties on both sides. 

The claim of the superiority of advanced, modern technology provided by NATO to Ukraine, implying surgical strikes, is now at least partially being undermined by US President Bidenʼs move to simply supply more brutal force in the form of cluster bombs. Cluster bombs are among the most ruthless conventional warheads, inflicting indiscriminate casualties. Civilians, including children, typically bear the brunt of the destruction caused by these weapons, enduring the consequences for years and even decades.

The potential scenario of a collapse within the Russian armed forces was evident during the revolt of the Wagner group. There seemed to be no concrete plan for what their leader aimed to achieve with the power he sought to seize. The attempt lacked significant support from major segments of the Russian capitalist class or the political elites, making its chances of success quite limited from the outset. Nevertheless, the lack of resistance from the official Russian army and President Putinʼs inability to suppress the uprising exposed the fragility of the authoritarian regime in Russia. This, in turn, is likely to embolden and inspire future – and more serious – rebellions and social upheavals.

At the same time, it is noteworthy that the Ukrainian forces have been unable to capitalize on the situation to achieve any significant military gains.

With no radical political change in the opposing camps of the war, the most likely scenario now entails a prolonged and brutal war of attrition, imposing severe hardships on the Ukrainian population and drawing in more and more Russian soldiers, who are used as cannon fodder. The masses around the world on all sides are paying the price, as social spending is cut to finance new arms races. The conflict is also raising food prices and compounding inflationary pressures. 

US Imperialism Strengthened 

Like the period before World War I, tensions between imperialist powers have been mounting for decades. In 2014, Ukraine shifted its allegiance from the declining authoritarian Russia-led bloc to NATO and the West. This move was supported by many Ukrainians who aspired to transform their nation into a modern capitalist country. However, the realities of modern capitalism during times of global stagnation and crisis failed to deliver prosperity and democratic progress, instead fostering corporate greed, corruption, and military confrontations. 

While Ukraine gained national independence from Russia, it also fell under the dominance of Western corporations and powers. This was accompanied by the repression of the Russian ethnic minority within Ukraine. Unrest and resistance quickly emerged among the Russian people in Crimea and the Donbas region in the east of Ukraine. Russia supported, intervened, and armed this unrest from the beginning, with its own goals, aiming to restore its sphere of influence.

However, various Ukrainian governments, including the current Zelensky administration, responded by launching military attacks without guaranteeing minority rights, the right to self-determination for the Russian minority. On the contrary, the Ukrainian governments imposed multiple rounds of laws repressing the Russian minority within Ukraine – against Russian speaking media, the usage of Russian language, and Russian political parties.

In response to the perceived threat to its status as an empire and its own imperialist aspiration, the Russian regime retaliated with brute force and invaded its former quasi-colony.

The Ukrainian masses responded  with a fierce struggle to defend their democratic rights, their national liberation, and their autonomy.

However, this just war intersects with the inter-imperialist dimension of the conflict.

The strengthening of NATO and the expansion of the Western sphere of influence have a long history. In successive rounds of enlargement in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020, several Eastern European and Balkan countries became NATO members. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the NATO border has shifted 500 miles to the east. NATO battle groups are now permanently stationed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. In addition, an annual NATO operation called “Defender Europe” stationed 30,000 troops on the Russian border in 2021.

Since the onset of the Ukraine war, US hegemony within NATO has been renewed and strengthened. Both Finland and Sweden have now become members of the Western military alliance. Notably, significant concessions were made to Turkey to prevent it from blocking NATOʼs expansion. This situation is very hypocritical: While NATO expands in the name of promoting Ukraineʼs democratic right to self-determination, Turkey, as a NATO member, is offered incentives such as a path to new fighter jets and increased authority even as Turkey carries out airstrikes against Kurdish forces fighting for their democratic rights in Syria and Iraq. A strengthened NATO is not functioning as a force for democratic rights or the right of self-determination.

Against Russiaʼs Invasion, Against NATO

Socialists must adopt a clear position against both the Russian invasion and the reinforcement of NATO and US imperialism, including the expansion of the influence of the West and their allies, such as the Zelensky government in Ukraine.

On February 24 last year, Putin initiated a criminal, imperialist invasion against the Ukrainian people, which the Ukrainians have a right to resist. Nevertheless, under capitalism and imperialism, war is the continuation of politics by military means. This is a complex situation where a number of different socialist principles intersect. Socialists support democratic rights and self-determination for Ukraine on the one hand, and socialists must oppose NATO, imperialist interventions, and the Zelensky regime on the other. Anyone claiming that we have to choose a side, without a sober assessment of all the forces involved, reduces independent working-class politics to just picking one of the warring camps.  

Opposition to the Iraq War did not compel the anti-war movement to endorse Saddam Hussein. Similarly, resistance against the Afghanistan War was never intended to provide political or military support to far-right Islamic fundamentalist forces like the Taliban. 

Socialists canʼt oppose arming freedom fighters on principle, but we must carefully consider the nature of all the forces involved, their intentions, and the prevailing trends in the unfolding events.

US media relentlessly portrays Russia – and, behind it, China – as the most significant global threats, but the truth remains that NATO accounts for 56 percent of global military spending, whereas Russiaʼs share is merely 3 percent.

This is precisely why socialists should publicly adopt a clear position. This needs to begin with the most notable representatives of DSA, such as Congressmembers Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman, and Rashida Tlaib. 

Rather than supporting and voting for Bidenʼs war agenda, they should actively participate in building a socialist and progressive anti-war movement:

• Against the Russian invasion of Ukraine 
• Against the agenda of US imperialism in this conflict, which is contributing to a dangerous escalation, up to and including the catastrophic threat of a nuclear war
• For solidarity with the Ukrainian people and the Russian anti-war movement
• For US withdrawal from NATO, closing US foreign military bases, and bringing home all US troops abroad (including the 100,000 US troops deployed to Europe)
• For slashing the Pentagon budget to fund the Green New Deal and other social needs.

Support for the Ukrainian People – but How?

Many who generally consider themselves anti-war and would genuinely prefer peace may still be asking: how would these proposed anti-war measures benefit the Ukrainian people? If supporting NATO wonʼt protect their interests, what will? Isn’t this a zero-sum game where failing to support one side functionally supports the other?

Recent developments on the battlefield indicate that military strength will not be the determining factor in this war. It is becoming increasingly unlikely that one side will overpower the other on the military front and achieve a decisive victory. Instead, the conflict seems to be evolving into a prolonged war of attrition, resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives, with Russian soldiers being used as pawns on the chessboard, sacrificed on the battlefields. 

Wars are not solely resolved by military weapons, which do not usually serve as the decisive factor. If they did, US imperialism would have emerged victorious in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. Despite overwhelming military superiority, the US was defeated in all of these conflicts. The outcomes of wars are heavily influenced by the level of morale, public support, and power dynamics on all sides.

To put an end to the occupation of Ukraine by Russian forces, there must be a growing sense of discontent, resistance, and opposition among soldiers and working-class people within Russia. It is crucial that internal domestic forces either overthrow Putin and his regime or, at the very least, seriously challenge and immobilize them. This possibility seems more feasible now than at the outset of the conflict, partially due to the instability caused by Putinʼs own reckless war policy.

Nonetheless, NATOʼs role in propping up the Ukrainian regime aids Putin and his government in maintaining some level of public support within Russia, presenting an external Western threat which Putin can rally Russians to unite against. The Ukrainian governmentʼs policy of suppressing the Russian minority within Ukraine also plays into Putinʼs hands.

Furthermore, the presence of fascist elements in the Ukrainian military (particularly within the Asov regiment) instills fears in Russia that Putin can manipulate to his advantage. While there may be differing views on the extent of this fascist influence, it is evident that such forces exist, and it is crucial to acknowledge that far-right and fascist elements are present in the armed forces on both sides.

Zelensky is hailed by the West, but his regime in Ukraine has continued the war against Russian people in the eastern part of the country that started in 2014, resulting in the loss of 14,000 lives even before Putin invaded Ukraine (with no consideration for their right to self-determination). Zelenskyʼs government has actively suppressed the Russian language within Ukraine, banned pro-Russian parties, and undermined democracy, presiding over a very corrupt capitalist state. These policies, backed by US imperialism, are wrong, brutal, and undemocratic. They also ultimately play into Putinʼs hands. They aid in stabilizing the Putin regime and garnering support within Russia for Putinʼs war efforts by furnishing damning material for pro-war propagandists.

These policies are counterproductive to Ukraineʼs pursuit of self-determination and its war against Russian invasion. An independent, internationalist, and socialist stance must oppose all such measures and adopt a clear position.

We need a socialist movement that can challenge the remaining support for Putin and counter the efforts of Western imperialism to exploit this situation. 

Backing Bidenʼs proxy war and the collaboration between Biden and Zelensky with political, financial, or military assistance does not serve the best interests of working-class people globally nor is it even yielding positive outcomes for the working class in Ukraine.

The Costs of the War 

This war is being exploited to significantly increase military expenditures and it has triggered a global arms race. These costs are borne by massive cuts in social welfare for the masses, and even more so by countries directly facing imperialist aggression, like Afghanistan and Iraq in the recent past, and like Yemen, Somalia, and the Palestinian and Kurdish peoples today.

In the US, the latest Biden budget raised military spending above inflation, while all other areas including social spending experienced cuts in real dollars (adjusted for the rising cost of living). Three out of the four DSA members in Congress supported this budget. We must openly and loudly criticize this. 

We in the West cannot remain silent – not on domestic policy, not on foreign policy, and certainly not on matters where both are inextricably linked, such as military budgets.

Postscript

In the DSAʼs Socialist Forum, Chris Maisano published an article critiquing our amendment about the Ukraine War. Chris starts with the argument mentioned above, that supporting the legitimate self-defense of Ukrainian people – which we do – would force us to support US imperialism and arming the Zelensky government – which we do not. Chris believes we are therefore inconsistent. The article above deals with these questions: In our view, opposing the US imperialist war in Iraq did not imply support for Saddam Hussein, either politically or militarily. Why would we be automatically forced to pick sides this time in Ukraine? Why should opposing Russian imperialism require turning a blind eye to US imperialism?

Chris then goes on to argue that the path we propose is not realistic, due to opposition from DSAʼs own members of Congress. He cites an incident involving the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), which sent a letter to Biden on October 24, 2022, expressing strong approval of his policies towards Ukraine (“We write with appreciation for your commitment to Ukraineʼs legitimate struggle…”) but also urging Biden to pursue some limited peace negotiations. However, under pressure, CPC Chair Pramila Jaypal quickly backed down, retracted the letter, blamed her staff for its release, and apologized. Chris writes: 

If DSA members in Congress backed away from this fairly moderate letter just a few months ago, it seems there is little chance that they will go beyond it now by accepting the resolutionʼs demand to start voting against support for Ukraine on pain of a DSA “accountability” process. Nor are they likely to begin calling for a unilateral US withdrawal from NATO, the abolition of NATO, and the closure of all foreign US military bases. As such, this [Consensus Resolution Amendment D: Socialist Anti-Militarism and the War in Ukraine] all but guarantees a public confrontation with all of DSAʼs elected officials in Congress, and protracted internal conflict over whether they should be expelled. It will not convince those elected officials to adopt the positions advanced in the resolution, and it would disrupt everything else our organization is trying to do. It is all cost, no benefit, and should therefore be avoided.

First of all, our amendment does not call on anybody to be expelled. However, the fear of potentially losing our elected representatives in Congress is leading too many comrades to a reluctance to even criticize them or express DSAʼs expectations. Furthermore, Chrisʼs argument is circular and static – it attempts to prove that it is unrealistic for DSA members in Congress to take a principled stand on these issues by pointing to the fact that they have not already done so. By this logic, all proposals that do not already enjoy the Congressmembers’ support would be unrealistic. Nothing could ever change, and all attempts at membership control over our existing elected officials would be pointless. 

More importantly, if socialists had adopted the approach of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the past, socialists would not have been part of the anti-war movement after 9/11 or against the Iraq War. The recent incident where the CPC retracted their letter so quickly, even though it only mildly criticized Biden’s policy, should serve as a clear indication that socialists in Congress must distance themselves from such forces much more compared to their current stance. 

It was not a matter of being unrealistic to oppose the Afghanistan war or the Iraq War early on, or in this case, the war in Ukraine. It is a matter of defending the interests of the working class, which requires taking an independent position rather than going along with our ruling class and its proxy war. It is also a question of pushing back against the tremendous pressures on our elected officials which they are exposed to every day in the halls of power.