Beyond Bambery's "Peace at Any Cost": Why US-Russia Talks on Ukraine are a Dangerous Fantasy

The former SWP leader collapses into campism

Chris Bambery's assertion that "US-Russia peace talks would be a good plan" and his dismissal of those who believe in a "pipedream of a Ukrainian victory" represent a perspective that many on the Left profoundly challenge. Far from being a path to peace, such negotiations, especially without Ukraine's full, uncompromised participation, are viewed as a "robber's peace" designed to serve imperial interests and set the stage for future conflicts.

Here's why Bambery's position is deeply problematic.

The Exclusion and Betrayal of Ukraine

Bambery’s argument hinges on the idea that Putin “is winning” and can dictate terms. And the practical conclusion of this “realism”? That the Ukrainian people should accept dismemberment because Chris Bambery has decided resistance is futile. This is not anti-imperialism. It is capitulation dressed in radical vocabulary.

The Fourth International’s Bureau has been unequivocal: proposals for US-Russia peace talks that exclude and humiliate the Ukrainian government and people cannot deliver genuine peace. Gilbert Achcar’s analysis in International Viewpoint demonstrates how Trump and Putin’s bilateral framework carves Ukraine up for their own imperialist interests, demanding significant portions of Ukrainian territory and resources without offering genuine security guarantees. The principle of “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” is paramount. Only the Ukrainian people, who are enduring the conflict, have the right to decide their path forward. Any “peace” imposed against their will would merely be a prelude to more occupation and violence.

Furthermore, Tariq Ali and others have documented how Western powers, including the US and UK, previously sabotaged peace talks that might have been more favourable to Ukraine, precisely because they aimed to prolong the war to weaken Russia. This demonstrates that external powers manipulate the conflict for their own geopolitical advantage rather than genuinely seeking a just resolution for Ukraine. Bambery’s proposal hands them another opportunity.

The War as a Just Struggle for National Self-Defence

Bambery’s framing of the conflict as merely a “meatgrinder of a war,” implying it is simply a proxy war for Western interests, denies the fundamental character of the conflict: a just struggle for national self-determination against an imperialist aggressor. The narrative that Ukraine is simply a proxy for US imperialism is Kremlin-influenced mythology, a hoax that the Fourth International and Ukrainian socialists like Sotsialnyi Rukh have repeatedly debunked.

Russia’s invasion is an imperialist attempt by the neo-fascist Putin regime to annex Ukraine, challenging international law and legitimate national existence. Ukrainian popular resistance and resilience have thwarted Russia’s initial plans for a three-day war. To deny Ukraine’s right to resist and receive necessary weapons, as some “pacifist” positions do, leads inexorably to acquiescence in the face of the Russian attack and appeasement of it.

The Pitfalls of False Pacifism and Campism

Bambery’s call for “peace talks” without conditions aligns with what the Fourth International’s 2023 World Congress resolution termed “false pacifism.”

This false pacifism is egocentric at its core: it prioritises opposing one’s own national government over genuine solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Worse, it refuses to recognise the imperialist character of Putin’s war, preferring instead to present it as a defensive response to NATO expansion. No wonder Ukrainian and Russian socialists themselves reject this framing. They understand what the Western “peace” left cannot bring itself to say: approving arms transfers to Ukraine is not warmongering. It is elementary solidarity.

Bambery’s perspective also falls into campism, the analytical framework that simplifies global conflicts into a binary opposition between “Western imperialism” led by the US and an “anti-imperialist” camp including Russia and China. This pseudo-anti-imperialism means turning a blind eye to Russian imperialism, its nationalist rhetoric, and its crimes. The concept of “the enemy is at home,” while historically relevant in inter-imperialist wars like 1914, cannot be crudely copied and pasted onto Ukraine’s war of national self-defence.

Russia’s Imperialist Ambitions and Brutal Reality

Bambery claims Putin “is winning” and implies Russia should be “brought in from the cold.” But what exactly would we be welcoming?

Putin’s regime is neo-fascist, employing nationalist, xenophobic, and genocidal rhetoric. Russia’s “denazification” claim is a propaganda tool to justify the war and annihilate Ukraine as an independent nation. Putin’s vision of “multipolarity” is not a progressive alternative but one where only a limited number of large states will have any voice in the international arena: competing capitalist authoritarianisms carving up spheres of influence.

The war has tightened control over Russian society and crushed all dissent. Anti-war activists, socialists, and feminists face severe repression. And the TUC’s response to solidarity appeals from Russian independent trade unionists? A press release.

A Principled Anti-Imperialist Stance

While vehemently condemning Bambery’s campist position, a principled Left stance also critically assesses the actions of Western powers. This means denouncing Western imperialism’s strategic goals and the militaristic conception of security. It means critiquing the hypocrisy of Western politicians who condemn Russian aggression but facilitate Israeli actions in Gaza.

But critique of Western hypocrisy cannot become an alibi for abandoning the Ukrainian people. The Fourth International’s position is clear: unconditional solidarity with Ukrainian resistance and their right to receive weapons for self-defence from any source, without endorsing the policies of their government or NATO. Opposition to the neoliberal agenda imposed on Ukraine by Western and EU institutions. And refusal to accept any “peace” that rewards Putin’s aggression with Ukrainian territory.

Chris Bambery offers a dangerous simplification that ignores the agency of the Ukrainian people, the imperialist nature of Russia’s aggression, and the complexities of global power dynamics. For socialists committed to liberation, the path to peace lies not in enabling a robber’s peace between imperial powers, but in unconditional solidarity with the oppressed, a consistent fight against all forms of imperialism, and the demand for a just peace rooted in self-determination and social justice for the Ukrainian people.

---

Postscript: the sections in italic have been added to clarify the discussion.