Skip to content
My frustration with those on the left refusing active solidarity with the Ukrainian people.

Source >> anti*capitalist resistance

It should be no surprise to those who spend their time reading the output of some on the radical left, Russian aggression in Ukraine has them in a kerfuffle. One must be a contortionist to accept some of the positions being adopted. Theory can inform, but it should not be mangled to fit a narrative. However, this is not a piece to offer individual critique of all the wrongheadedness on show.

Instead, I want to concentrate on the reality the Ukrainian people find themselves in. What happened in previous conflicts cannot excuse Putin’s actions today. Once Russian artillery is used to shell civilian areas the ‘whataboutery’ ends. Is one really a warmonger in calling for the west to supply military equipment to those defending Ukraine? Military aid that can be used to preserve hospitals, schools, universities and homes? Infrastructure that has already been targeted and destroyed by Putin’s war machine. This is not fake news written up by the mainstream media, or a CIA wet dream of fire and brimstone to justify a new cold war. This is the now in Mariupol, Chernihiv, and Kyiv.

How many Ukrainian children must perish as western leftists debate the imperial nature of the conflict? We may find ourselves on the same side as one’s imperialists not because we support imperialism but because the alternative is not a hypothetical analysis of working-class revolution in Russia bringing the war to an end. The Ukrainians huddled in the basement of a bombed-out tower block probably do not care that, at this moment, they are governed by a bourgeois neoliberal government. They just want to live.

We must avoid ‘jam tomorrow’ and concentrate on the material aid we can give today. Food, water, medicines and yes, defensive armaments will far better serve the working-class of Ukraine than rhetoric. Therefore, the actuality of war should be at the forefront of the solidarity we offer. It is crucial we recognise the war that is being fought is not the one we want nor need to prove our theoretical positions correct. 

Where are your red lines? Is it 500 children dead? Or are the deaths of innocents’ mere agitprop?

Those standing in rubble do not look to the past. What has gone provides no reference point to the hell they now occupy. Some on the left hide in the past, seek comfort in the familiar touch of the theory that confirms their worldview. Unable to recognise the world has changed, they can no longer be seen as the vanguard. They are destined to be forgotten, apart from the tall tales they will recount about when, if only, it was almost so.

I do not mask myself with the stench of patriotic fervour, my country right or wrong. It is often wrong.

Find no glory in war.

Smart bombs are dumb.

There can be no more powerful a lie than ‘dulce et decorum est pro patria mori’. So please don’t lecture me with theory. Unless you can back words with action. If not, the theory you espouse remains lifeless on the page, bereft of form.


Artificial Intelligence Book Review Books Britain Capitalism China Class Climate Change Conservative Government Conspiracy Theories Creeping Fascism Crime and Punishment diary Donald J Trump Economics Elon Musk Europe Fascism Film France Gaza History Imperialism Iran Israel Keir Starmer Labour Government Labour Party Marxist Theory Migrants Nigel Farage Palestine Protest Reform UK Russia Suella Braverman tarrifs Television Trade Unionism Ukraine United States of America Verso Books War Work Working Class

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Share the Post:

Latest Posts

A vintage revolver mounted on a plain beige wooden wall, evoking the concept of Chekhov’s gun. The weapon is displayed in profile with a dark blued metal frame and a worn wooden grip, lit softly to highlight its aged, utilitarian design.
Alexander Dugin

The Gospel of World War Three: Alexander Dugin and the Death Cult of Civilisation

Alexander Dugin’s latest polemic is not political analysis but fascist sermon—an apocalyptic blueprint in which nuclear war is both inevitable and desirable. Cloaked in the language of sovereignty and tradition, it is a call to arms for a new ideology of holy Russian power. What begins with Fordow ends with the end of humanity. And for that reason alone, it demands scrutiny—not celebration. You listening, tech bros?

Read More »
A square-cropped image featuring the bold black text "THE SAMSON OPTION" in all capital letters on a cream background. The second "O" in "OPTION" is stylised with the upper half containing the Israeli flag and the lower half the American flag, symbolising the book’s geopolitical focus
Iran

The Bomb in the Basement, the Bomb in the Mountains: Israel, Iran, and the Nuclear Hypocrisy of the West

The next state to cross the nuclear threshold won’t be doing anything new. It’ll be following the path Israel already took—building the bomb in secret, shielded by silence and strategic utility. The real precedent was set decades ago in the Negev. That’s the hypocrisy at the heart of the so-called international order: one bomb is a threat to civilisation, the other a pillar of it. This isn’t about non-proliferation. It’s about who gets to own the apocalypse.

Read More »
A stylised, screen-printed poster shows the Spanish PM in a suit walking past large NATO emblems on bold, flat panels. The image is rendered in a 1968 protest aesthetic with a grainy texture and a limited palette of red, navy blue, and beige. The composition evokes vintage political posters, with stark contrast and minimal detail emphasising the symbolism of militarism and conformity.
Donald J Trump

Only Spain Has Got It Right

At The Hague summit, NATO committed to spending 5% of GDP on defence and security by 2035—a figure with no strategic rationale and every sign of submission to Donald Trump. Only Spain said no. Pedro Sánchez broke ranks, arguing that gutting public services to fund rearmament was neither economically justifiable nor politically defensible. In doing so, he exposed what the rest of Europe won’t admit: this isn’t about defence. It’s about deference. And someone had to refuse.

Read More »