They will fight Putin to the last drop of Ukrainian blood.

I speak of Biden and Johnson principally, with the backing of the NATO states and Kier Starmer, as well as John Healey, Shadow Defence Secretary.

It used to be “My country, right or wrong.” In Keir Starmer’s Labour Party it is now “NATO can do no wrong and to say otherwise is tantamount to treason and reason to hound dissidents out of the Party. The once broad church has become a narrow pew.

Jeremy Corbyn has read the situation exactly right, as he did with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya and has therefore been drummed out.

Blair and Mandelson got it all wrong, but are clutched to the Leader’s bosom.

NATO is not blameless for the war in Ukraine, as Corbyn has rightly said

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1989, the United States has been baiting the Russian bear, using NATO as its tormentor.

 

Now, under its appalling despot, Putin, the bear is biting back and the cost, in death and destruction, is being borne by thousands of Russians and Ukrainians. The war is distorting the world economy and is depressing the standard of living of the people of Britain.

The 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the legal basis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was signed by 12 states as a security accord between countries on, or near, the Atlantic, with the possibility in mind of an attack by the Soviet Union.

Under Article 5 of the Treaty, an attack on one member will draw a response from all.

NATO has always been dominated by its one military super-power member, the USA. Successive UK governments have allowed their foreign policies to be dominated by the USA (that is what the “special relationship” means: the UK is a puppet on a string), the one major exception being Harold Wilson’s refusal to be drawn into the Vietnam war. After all, Vietnam is a long way from the Atlantic.

I hold no brief for Putin. He is a murderous despot, at the head of an appalling autocracy, but for decades, successive UK governments have courted the kleptocrats who support him and his anti-democratic regime. In the last 5 minutes the UK has awakened to the fact that the City of London, under successive governments, including Labour, has been the money-launderer of the world. London has handled the proceeds of the Russian kleptocrats’ egregious criminal activity. The London skyline is desecrated and dominated by the glass and steel monstrosities of the world’s crooked billionaires, particularly from the Middle East and Russia.  And every millionaires’ Row in north London has mansions bought by Putin’s Mafiosi mates.

In 1966, France withdrew from NATO due to its reluctance to have its armed forces, including nuclear weapons, under NATO’s collective control, but fully rejoined in 2009.

The original definition of NATO’s role has been stretched beyond its elastic limit at the behest of the USA. The mutual protection of the 12 Atlantic nations has somehow encompassed involvement in the wars in former Yugoslavia and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and through Saudi Arabia as a proxy, the war in Yemen.

Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, with the Russian invasion, Article 5 of the Treaty has been, in effect, invoked, by stretching it yet again.  On 25th February, the day after Russia invaded Ukraine, The EU, acting as if it were synonymous with NATO,  called on “all allies” to come to the aid of Ukraine.

 

NATO has become a military alliance available to be dragged into whatever dispute the USA is inclined to engage in.

At the time of German reunification, in 1990, assurances were given to Yeltsin and Gorbachov that there would be no eastward expansion of NATO beyond the eastern border of Germany.

These assurances were voiced, in a variety of contexts, by US  President Clinton, British Prime Minister, John Major, German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl and other western statesmen.

Of late we have heard it denied that any such undertakings were made, but the record is clear.

At first, when there were approaches from Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, in 1991, to join NATO, they were rebuffed. John Major said at the time, “Nothing of the sort will happen”.

Clinton then intervened and the rot set in. The NATO members are now the USA, UK, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, the Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Iceland, Portugal, Norway, Turkey, Romania and Greece. Now, the irony is that Putin’s military adventure in Ukraine has induced Sweden and Finland to consider applying to join NATO. Putin’s own action looks set to lead to NATO’s further enlargement. By seeking to extend his territory, Putin will enlarge NATO’s territory. What a brilliant strategist he is; fully deserving of Donald Trump’s admiration.

Regardless of the geopolitical impact, Sweden and Finland would, of course, be welcomed into the club.

 

Have the NATO states been so naïve as to think that this gradual encirclement of Russia’s western approaches could proceed without repercussions? They have been pathetic enough lamely to follow the USA up the path to confrontation with Russia.

When, in 1962, the Soviet Union planned to install missiles in Cuba, the USA and its allies brought the world close to nuclear war. The crisis was resolved only when it was agreed there would be no missile bases in Cuba if the NATO missile bases were removed from Turkey.

It is easy to predict how the USA would react if the countries of Central and  south America were to form a military pact for mutual protection from their  imperialist neighbour to the north, which has interfered so frequently in their affairs. If such a pact then courted a military relationship with Russia, Washington and NATO would be apoplectic.

Since 2014 there have been breakaway territories in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. Also in 2014, Russia took back Crimea, a region of Ukraine with a sizeable population of Russians and Tatars. It was the emergence of a more democratic and pro-western government in Kiev, eagerly courted by the US and EU, which brought the bear-baiting to a head and initiated the development of the present crisis.

Putin cares nothing about squandering Russian lives on his geopolitical ambitions and cares even less about Ukrainian losses.  Like the leaders of the Soviet Union, Putin takes the view that Russia, as the biggest country in the world, is unassailable and has such a large, docile population that it can afford to sacrifice thousands in the interests of the Motherland. Under Putin, as under Stalin, Russian lives come cheap. He wants the territory of Ukraine brought back within Russia and cares not that he risks inheriting a country bombarded back to the Middle Ages. Similarly, the USA is content to fight their battle at the expense of Ukrainian men, women and children. As Putin has complete control of Russian media, his public will know little about what is happening in Ukraine. It is therefore particularly impressive that so many thousands of Russians have been prepared to face police brutality and imprisonment protesting about the attack on Ukraine and the war crimes being committed there.

Putin talks about protecting the lives of Russians who live in Ukraine and de-Nazifying the country.

There are, indeed, powerful fascist organisations in Ukraine, an anomalous inheritance from WW2.

Stalin’s enforced collectivisation of agriculture in 1932-3 and his repression of the so-called kulaks, led to widespread famine, the Holodomor, the death of an estimated 4 million Ukrainians.

When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, many Ukrainians flocked to the invaders in preference to their Soviet tormenters. The passage of time has not expunged this legacy.

 

Just imagine NATO,dominated by the US, as it always has been, with Donald Trump again as President, which is a real possibility for 2024.  In other words, an amoral thug in the White House, controlling NATO and an amoral thug in the Kremlin, beyond the influence of the UN and unaccountable to the people of Russia.

It may not be possible to forestall that horror story.

Instead of ramping up military spending and sending yet more armaments to Ukraine, there should be talks between NATO, President Zelensky and Russia on how to bring about a speedy end to the war.

It is clear that Putin will not stop until he has something to show for the egregious loss of Russian blood, the damage to the Russian economy and the gigantic reparations bill he will receive (and presumably refuse to pay, so that the cost of his re-building Ukraine after his brainless destruction will fall to the EU and Britain).

Territory is what he wants, together with guarantees from NATO that there will be no further expansion eastward.

When Liz Truss declared that “we” are there for the long haul, in order to see Russia completely driven out of Ukraine, I assumed this did not necessarily represent the policy of NATO or the UK government, but was another self-publicising move in her campaign to win the Tory leadership. I now see that her reckless stance does conform to government policy, without it being debated in Parliament, and is also the policy of Keir Starmer and the Shadow Cabinet. Liz Truss ramps up war fever and Starmer joins the race, possibly tempted even to go one better.  War-mongering is an unwinnable competition and its only achievement is death and destruction.

Truss and Starmer are blatantly  war-mongering, the main sufferers being the people of Ukraine, especially those remaining in the country.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are already lost to Ukraine. Let peace talks recognise this as fact, otherwise Putin will continue fighting until he has dismembered the entire country. NATO should concede that there will be no further expansion, Sweden and Finland being asked to remain neutral, and the post-war Ukraine being non-aligned.

Let’s hope the countries outside NATO, especially those in the global south, will revive the organisation of non-aligned states of the world, originally drawn together by the Bandung Conference of 1955. Non-aligned countries already number two-thirds of UN members and half of the world’s population.

Putin claims to be fighting neo-nazism, but he is the one copying  the methods of the Nazis in WW2:  collective punishments, mass deportations, crimes against humanity, censorship and the dark arts of Goebbels.

 

 

Biden and Johnson compete with one another in rattling their sabres and proclaiming that NATO and Ukraine must win the war. If that remains their position, then there is no room for compromise and the war could roll on indefinitely, risking escalation to nuclear war engulfing all of Europe and beyond. One maniac in Moscow has already threatened the UK with a nuclear strike

The real interests of the people of Ukraine, those still in the country and the millions of refugees, are the last thing on the minds of Biden, Johnson, Putin and Starmer. They are preoccupied with ambitions matching those of Putin

The major arms manufacturers, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and BAE Systems are gleefully making a lot of money from the war. They and their lobbyists in Westminster and Washington have no wish to see serious peace talks.

War crimes are being committed on both sides, as in all wars.  There is portentous talk of  bringing the war criminals to account. That is just so much blah,blah.  The Afghanistan,  Iraq and Syrian wars illustrate that it is not the guilty politicians who are brought to trial. Blair, Brown  and Bush, although guilty as hell, go scot-free; it is the poor bloody squaddies who carry the can.

 

The sponsorship scheme for Ukrainian refugees is proving to be another great success for Priti Patel and the firm that had so much success in running the Covid test and trace scheme.  Michael Gove, the world-class problem solver, like Patel,  has miserably failed this test. The government chooses losers every time, but enriches them nevertheless.

The day the Homes for Ukrainians sponsorship scheme was announced, I filled in the on-line application, offering self-contained accommodation for a family of two or three. No response. I wrote again.  Again, no response. The money I would have spent as a host I am now giving to support a friend whose offer of accommodation was taken up, but who has yet to receive the government support grant. Somewhere in Poland or Ukraine there is a family living in stressful conditions, while my offer languishes, with thousands of other such offers, in Priti  Patel’s bottomless pit of bureaucracy.

The truth is that she has no wish to see thousands of refugees coming here, getting jobs and possibly seeking leave to remain, their children growing up and taking school places, jobs and housing. The ideology of the hostile environment for asylum-seekers has not been revoked. This prize bully, Patel, is the very last member of the government who should have been given this job. She has as much empathy as a corpse.

Public sympathy for the people of Ukraine is being exploited by the government and the media, being diverted into jingo-istic backing for war, just as was the case in 1914,for WW1, in 1982, for the Falklands war  and 2003 for the Iraq war.  It is so easy to win public support for war, wrapping yourself in the flag and singing Rule Britannia, but harder to explain the wiser course: negotiation for peace.

Keir Starmer is backing the war party, to his undying shame, when what he should be doing is demanding peace talks, with NATO concessions on the table, and defending the poor of Britain against the predations of this government of millionaires.