In his February article, Ukraine’s defeat and the fall of the West, Owen Jones argued that “if we were always going to end up at a point where Russia was going to take land, and Western leaders thought that, but claimed otherwise and made promises to Ukraine to keep the war going to achieving what they believed to be unachievable – well, what that means in terms of countless wasted lives is truly hideous“; noting that this has been in pursuit of what the Washington Post described as “a sensible, cold-blooded strategy for the United States — to attrit an adversary at low cost to America, while Ukraine was paying the butcher’s bill”.

We are now getting to that point.

The way the war ends, or is spun out, is of enormous consequence to whether Europe will remain locked in an escalatory spiral towards the fever dream of a further, wider, deeper – and suicidal – pan European war that infects the minds of General Staffs and newspaper editorial boards; or whether there is an attempt to find a sustainable modus vivendi with Russia that enables de escalation, avoids mutually assured destruction and dislocates Europe from the US imperative to shore up its slipping global dominance with ever more adventurist wars.

The media here reflexively dismisses Russia’s bottom lines for ending the war as “maximalist”; by definition unreasonable, to be dismissed with no further thought or examination. This is of a piece with their usual tactic of obscuring reality with adjectival clouds of emotive association, so it is vital for even those sections of the Left that have cheered on the war, and are still doing it even as a majority of Ukrianians want peace, to get beyond the emotional red mists and look seriously at what the Russians are actually proposing.

A majority of Ukrainains want peace.

These are the key points from the published text of the draft “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees” that Russia presented to Biden in December 2021; and which the US/NATO dismissed out of hand and refused to discuss.

1. No further NATO expansion

• The US would commit to preventing further enlargement of NATO, specifically barring Ukraine and other former Soviet republics from joining the alliance.

• This also included a ban on NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.

2. No Deployment of US Forces or Weapons in Certain Countries

• The treaty would forbid the US from deploying military forces or weaponry in countries that joined NATO after May 1997 (such as Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and others).
• NATO infrastructure would have to be rolled back to pre-1997 locations.

3 Ban on Intermediate-Range Missiles

• Both Russia and the US would be prohibited from deploying ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in areas of their own territory where such missiles could strike the other’s territory.

4 Limit Military Maneuvers and Activities

• Limits on heavy bombers and surface warship deployments: Both sides would restrict the operation of heavy bombers and warships in areas from which they could strike targets on the other’s territory. (Note: In September 2020, Trump’s DOD authorized a B-52 to fly along the Ukrainian coast in the Black Sea.)

5 Nuclear Weapons Restrictions

• All nuclear weapons would be confined to each country’s own national territory. Neither side could deploy nuclear weapons outside its borders. (Note: US just sent a batch of nukes to England.)
• Withdrawal of all US nuclear weapons from Europe and elimination of existing infrastructure for their deployment abroad.

6 Mutual Security Pledge

• Each side would agree not to take any security measures that could undermine the core security interests of the other party.

7. Establishment of Consultation Mechanisms

• Proposals included the renewal or strengthening of direct consultation mechanisms, such as the NATO–Russia Council and the establishment of a crisis hotline.

8 Indivisibility of Security Principle

• Included a reaffirmation that the security of one state cannot come at the expense of the security of another, formalising Russia’s interpretation of the “indivisible security” concept.

The three questions that supporters of the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign should ask themselves is,

• which of of these proposals do you disagree with?
• Would an agreement on these lines be a viable way to end the war?
• Would an agreement on these lines have avoided it in the first place?

Trigger warning. This blog contains sycophancy in high places.

Those on the pro European Right like Timothy Garton Ash, and most other opinion columnists in the Guardian, even George Monbiot, who have argued that “Europe” should increase military spending to break with the US, and those on the Left who are arguing that there is now a fundamental rift between the US and its subordinate allies, should consider the following three quotes addressed to Donald Trump from former Dutch Prime Minsiter and NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte at the end of the NATO Summit.

“You are flying into another big success”

“Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran. That was truly extraordinary, and something no on else dared to do.”

“It was not easy, but we’ve got them all signed on to 5%! You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done. Europe is going to pay in a BIG way , as they should, and it will be your win. Safe travels, and see you at his Majesty’s dinner.”

“Daddy sometimes has to use strong language.”

And these from Trump describing the 5% target as “something that no one thought possible. And they said ‘you did it, sir, you did it’. Well I don’t know if I did it…but I think I did“ and “a monumental win for the United States” and “a big win for Europe and for actually Western Civilisation” because Europe would be “stepping up to take more responsibility.”

So, there you have it.

Increasing military spending is giving Trump exactly what he wants.

European NATO governmnets will now seek to impoverish their populations and stunt their own development to find the resources to double militray spending.

Europe tooling up for a future continent wide confrontation with Russia gives him a free hand, with his now $1 trillion”defence” budget to prepare for military confrontation with China.

And not only does none of this undermine Trump’s push to domestic authoritarianism; it requires it at home. Proscribing Palestine Action in the UK is part of a drive to a more militarised society in which our children are dragooned into cadet corps, non violent direct action is elided with “terrorism” and Yvette Cooper’s desire to “lower the threshold” for Prevent referrals to catch more “Islamists” is aimed clearly at the mass pro Palestinian movement in an attempt to define dissent of foreign policy as “pre terrorist ideology” that can be legally harassed and crushed even more than it already is.

And the end of the Tale, is the widow’s veil, that she got from the Russian steppes. Bertold Brecht from What was sent to the soldier’s wife?

Speaking today, the Prime Minster stated that the UK has to get into a position to fight a war with Russia. It is a premise of the “Defence” Review that such a threat exists.

However, last week’s Observer published a graphic that shows the actual balance of forces now in Europe, between the European NATO powers and Russia. This reflects a level of spending that is three and half times the Russian level.

This is it. Have a look at this and ask yourself, who is threatening who here?

Then consider that the proposed 10 fold increase in lethality of the UK armed forces is part of a Europe wide drive to get the imbalance of spending between Euro NATO and Russia up to 10 or 11 to 1. So, this is not about “defence”. It is about being in a position to launch a war. Our current crop of lightweight leaders don’t seem to have studied much History. Invasions of Russia do not go well. As Charles XII, or Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler found out.

Given that Russia is a nuclear power with a nuclear war doctrine that would use nuclear weapons in the face of an existential threat to the country, the suicidal futlity of this drive boggles the mind. Needless to say, NONE of the interveiwers on the Radio or TV today have posed any questions of this sort. In fact, the Veterans Minister told the BBC Interviewer on PM this evening that it would be part of his job to “tell the truth”, which he interpreted as telling a story that projects “the national interest”. So, don’t ask the awkward questions. Close them down. Like we have now, but more so.

Four short points.

1. The Review states that “you can’t defend on the goal line”. What they mean by this is that the UK armed forces would be fighting wars in other countries – as they have done regularly and consistently since WW2. Nothing new there. But there is a particular emphasis on Russia. How they envisage fighting even a conventional war with Russia without utter devastation for any country unfortunate enough to be on the front line, or within reach of even conventional missiles, isn’t elaborated on. We just get the old chestnut that to defend peace we have to be able to fight and win a war. That’s what everyone said in the run up to 1914, and look how well that turned out.
2. The Review envisages mobilising the whole population for war readiness. That means a huge propaganda effort directed at civil society and through the school curriculum, presumably boosting cadets corps as part of the process, and weeding out dissent, either through Prevent or something more bespoke. A robust resistance to this from educators in defence of peace and sanity will be essential. As the Minister on PM said, this will be what we did “in the Cold War”. Similar conscientious objection will be needed, as it was then, to attempts to impose a stifling conformity, and any of the rituals deployed to shore that up.
3. Complaints have been made in the press that the Armed Forces are losing people faster than they can recruit them, “even though the government has pledged to provide peacekeepers for Ukraine”. Has it not occured to them that this might be one of the reasons why more peopple are leaving than joining?
4. The government is keen to talk about “military Keynesianism” rebuilding the economy, and some unions will go along with that on a “British Bombs for British Workers” line. This is nonsense. Military investment is, hopefully, wasted. The weaponry produced doesn’t build anything. Quite the reverse if used. This is unlike investment in, say, Health or Green transition, both of which produce much greater returns in value added and job creation. Explored in depth here. So, this is a dead end, in both respects.

The bottom line is that this is a political and military posture of choice. Impoverishing our society to ramp up arms spending, some of which will be exported to allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia to pursue genocidal attacks on Gaza or Yemen, in pursuit of a confrontation with Russia that will kill all of us if it follows its own impetus to full scale war, is not inevitable, not an imperative. Seeking a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine war and an ongoing modus vivendi with Russia that cools off military confrontation across the whole of Eurasia is an alternative that the whole Left should fight for. Some of the framework for this is explored in the Alternative Defence Review produced by CND and the RMT.

Please note. My Blogs are banned of Facebook because they say they “look like spam”. This has somewhat reduced their reach. If you think the arguments are worth passing on, and want to help break the ideological blockade embodied in this sort of action, please pass it on to anyone who you think might find it interesting or useful.

“I don’t want anyone else to die,” Natalya says, crying. “Our little trooper is the youngest of all those who lie here.” “Here” is the military cemetary in Lviv. Her son was 18.

What follows are a series of quotes from an article in Meduza based on interviews with people across Ukraine. Meduza is a Latvian based English and Russian language news blog with an unofficial motto “make the Kremlin sad”.

Despite that. what is striking about this selection is how the views expressed differ from the limited range of Ukrainian voices we get to hear in the official media here; which is why I have highlighted them in concentrated form in this blog.

I want to stress that for each of these views in the full article – which is worth reading – there is another arguing for carrying on fighting until the 1991 borders are restored, “otherwise what have we been fighting for?”

In these arguments, the deaths of the future are sanctified in advance and made imperative by the deaths of the past. None of the people who put this view, however, argue that it is possible. It is posed more as as a moral imperative, a revulsion against sacrifice in a lost cause; thereby carrying within it the prospect of a backlash not only against any peace terms that Ukraine accepts, but also those who have conducted an ultimately futile war. So the question “WHAT have we been fighting for?” is inextricably entwined with,“WHO have we been fighting for?” especially as the Kyiv oligarchy’s US puppet masters measure up the country’s natural resources as compensation for defeat.

“This is a separatist city; there are many zhduny here,” he ( a young soldier in the Ukrainian army) says of Sloviansk (a city in Northern Donetsk, close to the front line now) using a Ukrainian term for people who are “waiting for Russia.” “Even the local grandmas look at me like they want me to drop dead.” 

According to Oleksandr, Sloviansk residents with pro-Russian views no longer speak openly “because they understand it will cause them grief.” But Lera says that in some local Telegram groups, they refer to the Russians as “ours,” and local taxi drivers and shopkeepers often use the word “ruble” instead of “hryvnia.” 

This confirms that pro-Russian views in eastern Ukraine are a reality, not a “Putin talking point”. In other parts of the country, sentiments like these are expressed.

“If I were [in the politicians’ place], I’d have come to an agreement already, to be honest. I just want the war to end.”

“Yes, we’d like the 1991 borders to be ours, but not [if we have to fight] to the last Ukrainian. If so, let everything remain as it is. Not at this price.”

Borys says he wishes “Zelensky would stop this.” He thinks that Ukraine’s occupied territories should receive neutral status or become part of Russia, so long as the majority of Ukrainians are left alive; joining NATO isn’t worth such losses, he says.

“I think we should start negotiations [with Russia] and then decide the fate of [the Donetsk and Luhansk] regions through an honest poll. So people can decide for themselves which country they want to be in,” chimes in his friend Ihor, 18. 

“Are we going to sacrifice a million [people] for Crimea? And then what will we get?” Valetov continues. “I’m going to say something [that sounds] bad, but the people in Donetsk and Luhansk are no longer ours — with the help of television and Telegram, you can flush everything [Ukrainian] out of people’s minds in 11 years.”

She worries that politicians have gradually turned the war “into a business,” and she doesn’t understand how the money sent to help Ukraine is spent. “I have a lot of friends at the front whose [relatives] equipped them,” she says. “[It’s like,] You want normal body armor and a good helmet? Get it yourself.” 

“I don’t understand why our boys are at the front, but guys from Donetsk come here in their big flashy cars and live it up,” she cries (Maryanivka is about 500 kilometers, or 310 miles, from the front line in Donbas). “Why don’t they go there and defend their territory?!”

Ukrainians are tired of the war for many reasons, including because many of them donate money to support the army only to hear about constant shortages of weapons and equipment. She’d like the war to end with Ukraine getting back its occupied territories, but “if it were going to happen, it would have happened long ago,”

“Do you know what a Pyrrhic victory is? I don’t want such a victory,” he says. “But if our territories are given to Russia, this would be a capitulation, which isn’t right either. Therefore, just freeze the conflict. But on one condition: our country introduces the death penalty for embezzlement today. I’m no supporter of the death penalty, but I think it’s time.”

“They’re stealing our boys!” cries Yevhenia (name changed). Her draft-age son “was taken right from the bus stop” to basic training, even though he should have received an exemption as his grandmother’s caregiver. Yevhenia says her son failed to submit his documents to the military enlistment office in time. “If I’d known that would happen I never would’ve let him go out!” she says, practically in tears.

“It feels like they just want to destroy us,” he explains. “Not just the Russians, but our command, as well. We’ve been sitting at the front endlessly. It’s as if they’re saying, ‘There’s no one to replace you, [so] you have to die here.’”

According to Stanislav, morale is low and soldiers are just trying to survive. “Anyone who talks about peremoha should grab a Kalashnikov and go for it,” he says, using the Ukrainian word for “victory.” “On the Zaporizhzhia front, the Russians are making concrete and fortifying their positions with it. How are we going to break through? I’m horrified at the thought of going on the attack there. We’ll just drown in blood.” 

Asked what to do about the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics,” Stanislav argues that the easiest solution is to “amputate” the Donbas region. Mentioning the fact that Ukrainians live there makes him roll his eyes. “Oh, for fuck’s sake,” he says with a sigh.

Questions in the YouGov daily chat are invariably manipulative, but today there was one that was ludicrous.

In the event of a wider war in Europe, involving the UK, how do you think you would cope? Well? Badly? Other?

My response was, as a wider war in Europe, involving the UK couldn’t help but go nuclear, we’d all be dead. FFS get real! I normally keep polite on these polls, but really!

We are now, of course, in an extraordinarily dangerous situation in which a drive towards war is being presented as an attempt to secure peace and all right thinking people across all mainstream parties and media are agreed on it.

Discussions in the media are framed within the presumption of a Russian threat. No one questions the premise, largely because its false and s doesn’t stand up under the remotest scrutiny.

The same programmes sometimes have military speakers like Lord Dannat who assert that “Russia’s military is on its last legs”, as a way to argue that sustaining the war, in the way that the US is no longer willing to do, would soon lead to a NATO win, presumably with one last heave.

The incompatibility of this wishful thinking with the otherwise dominant line that a peace deal in Ukraine would lead to the Russians steamrollering across Europe is never noticed. Its almost as if they are doing it on purpose.

Without making any false assumption of an impending Russian collapse, lets look at the actual balance of forces between Russia and the European NATO powers.

According to GFP – strength in numbers, the leading annual global defense review since 2005 (in their own words) the European members of NATO, excluding the USA and Canada, are spending $445.7 billion on their militaries this year,

Russia is spending $126 billion. So, the FT assertion that Russia is spending three times as much as “Europe” is the opposite of the truth.

That means that without the USA and Canada, European NATO countries are already outspending the Russians by 3.5 to 1 on their militaries.

Add Ukraines $54 billion and the ratio gets to 4 to 1. That looks like this.

Put teeth on this and it looks like Pacman.

Add the USA and Canada’s $936 billion and it gets to just over 11 to 1, but even without them, given this imbalance, it is patently ludicrous to argue that the Russians, already outspent on this scale, have any capacity to attack NATO countries in Europe, even if they wanted to, which they have repeatedly pointed out that they do not.

Therefore, if the aim is “peace” and “defence”, even assuming a continued hostile stance between the EU and Russia, with no attempts to reset the relationship, reduce tensions and find a mutually acceptable modus operandi that would ensure a lasting peace, rather than a pause to tool up for Round Two, there is no need for increased arms spending. The orthodox militray presumption is that a succesful military attack require the attackers to have a 4:1 superiority. That leaves aside the political issue that an attacking power would have to have some degree of popular support to sustain an occupation. As the US and its allies found out in Iraq, even a crushing technological and military superiority is not enough to sustain a grip on a country if the people you are occupying hate your guts and want you to leave.

The current balance in military material is shown by this graphic from Germany, which shows an upward trend in spending from 2014 onwards, and also the greater NATO force in every form of weaponry, even if the US is removed from the equation. The only area in which Russia has more material that European NATO is in satellites and, narrowly, short range rockets; in military personnel, artillery, tanks and other AFVs, ships, aircrafyt and combat helicopters, Euro NATO already has a very powerful advantage; with a million more soldiers, three times as much artillery and attack helicopters, five times as many tanks and six times as many ships.

So, the proposed increases in military spending are not about “defence”.

Particularly not the massive EU military spending pledge by Ursula Von Der Leyen today. 800 billion Euros. Thats $860 billion. Add that to the current spending and you get to $1360 billion.

Compare that to current Russian military spend and you get this.

This is not preparation for defence, it is preparation for war; a war that, with Russia prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend itself, would kill all of us if it were to be engaged in. With the current UK “defence review” arguing that we are in a “pre war situation”, we should take the insanity of those that rule us sufficiently seriously to oppose them.

Post script: the state of public opinion

A YouGov poll reported in the Guardian (7/3/25) shows that the propaganda is working, up to a point.

• 60% of respondents in the UK thought – falsely -that Russia would attack other European countries within the next ten years. The figures for France and Germany were more sceptical, Italy even more so. Rather important therefore for the reality of the actual balance of forces to be kept from them.
• Even with this view however, only 24% of respondents in the UK thought that the current level of military support to Ukraine (£3 billion) should be increased and, despite the avalanche of emotive coverage in the last week or two, fewer than half in the UK support an increase in “defence” spending; which will mean increasing resistance to doing so as the cuts needed to sustain it start to bite. Support for increases is also a minority view in France, Spain and, especially, Italy.
• Only between a quarter and a third in each country believe that the European powers can substitute for the US, which makes the other positions a Potemkin village of a posture with nothing behind it.
• There is now a lot of hostility to the US within European populations; with 58% -78% now considering it to be “a big or fairly big threat to peace and security in Europe”.