I think we don’t even need to choose between Serbia and Ireland. If we draw an analogy with Serbia correctly, the conclusion will be quite different, as the circumstances are different. Lenin wrote in The Collapse of the Second International:
"In the present war the national element is represented only by Serbia's war against Austria (which, by the way, was noted in the resolution of our Party's Berne Conference).[1] It is only in Serbia and among the Serbs that we can find a national-liberation movement of long standing, embracing millions, "the masses of the people", a movement of which the present war of Serbia against Austria is a "continuation". If this war were an isolated one, i.e., if it were not connected with the general European war, with the selfish and predatory aims of Britain, Russia, etc., it would have been the duty of all socialists to desire the success of the Serbian bourgeoisieas this is the only correct and absolutely inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the national element in the present war." https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/vi.htm
Unlike in 1914, the US and the EU have not declared war on Russia, so we can apply his solution for this hypothetical situation to Ukraine
By the way, regarding the "proxy war" argument, I recently remembered another example:
Toussaint Louverture was promoted to general in the Spanish army, and for the Spain, the Black rebels were "proxies" they wanted to use against the French Revolution.
A better analogy than either Serbia or Ireland is Belgium, invaded by the German army in 1914. This was undoubtedly an infringement of sovereignty that Belgium had a right to resist. But analysis cannot end there.
Lloyd George and other members of the Liberal cabinet used this to justify Britain's declaration of war on Germany. Lenin and other left socialists rejected such pretexts for imperialist war without endorsing aggression.
Similarly today, socialists should resist NATO’s proxy war on Russia without condoning the invasion of Ukraine.
Isn't there a clear difference between what Ukraine is doing, targeted defensive strikes against the supply chain for the Russian invasion, and a generalised war against Russia? That's not comparable to the invasion of Belgium, not the least because Russia is not at war with a NATO power.
The fundamental issue is Ukraine's right to oppose Russia's aggression, occupation and annexation. This was not fully understood in relation to Serbia at the outset of WWI. I think Lenin's thinking in the case of Ireland in 1916, which you cite, might have inclined him to reconsider what he initially said about Serbia in 1914. The quotation cited by Taras Bilous above adds weight to this. The revolutionary Marxists defended imperialist Belgium after its occupation by Germany even though Belgium was aligned from the outset with the Entente powers. I discussed some of these issues with John Riddell, who opposed defense of Ukraine, with arguments set out in the following post: https://lifeonleft.blogspot.com/2023/01/our-key-antiwar-target-kremlin-or-nato_23.html. Note in particular my article cited in the footnote, on "poor little Belgium."
‘Russia is not at war with a NATO power’ strikes me as sophistry, given how much support is being given by NATO powers (arms, finance, intelligence, technical advice) to Ukraine. The escalatory spiral is not only destroying Ukraine but threatening to spread still further.
This is not to defend Russian imperialism nor to deny a Ukrainian right of self-defence. It is about the stance socialists should take in our own countries towards increasing militarisation directed against Russia. Lenin or Lloyd George?
Sorry but in what way is that statement sophistry? When the largest power in NATO sat in Anchorage recently with Putin to carve up Ukraine. If nothing else this totally undermines the proxy war thesis . Whose proxy is Ukraine now?
The US has approved around $200bn to Ukraine since the Russian invasion. Trump seems to want to limit the commitment (and has other problems to deal with) but continues to supply intelligence and armaments (some paid for by European countries).
The concept of a proxy war does not mean that Ukraine has no agency in the war, simply that NATO powers (with the Europeans now the most determined) are supporting Ukraine as a means of weakening Russia.
I haven’t argued that Ukraine is a proxy of NATO. Ukraine does indeed have its own agency but, as Mandel argues in ‘The meaning of WW2’, a major war can be a combination of conflicts. The war in Ukraine is simultaneously a war of national defence, a civil war, and a proxy war by NATO.
Both sides have escalated. That’s the nature of a spiral. The original escalation was the advance of NATO’s eastern borders and the threat to incorporate Ukraine and Georgia to cut off Russia from the Black Sea, an objective that goes back to Palmerstone.
It is quite possible to oppose miliarisation in Western Europe while supporting Ukraine. War is hard for Ukraine. The White House plan for anbunjust peace that returns Ukraine to Kremlin supervision would be harder. The choice should be made by Ukrainians, not us.
The financing and supply of arms to Ukraine is an inherent part of NATO militarisation. Do you support the increase in military expenditure by European countries to pay for that?
No country has an absolute right to join a military alliance that threatens another country. Do you reject NATO expansion or indeed existence? If so, then you have to support Ukrainian neutrality, which seems to be a pre-condition for any negotiated settlement.
As in 1914, the question for Britain is not about Ukraine’s choices but whether we should participate in the war. Lloyd George then said yes; Lenin said no.
Forensically & persuasively argued, an excellent article! Thanks
An excellent article. Thanks
I think we don’t even need to choose between Serbia and Ireland. If we draw an analogy with Serbia correctly, the conclusion will be quite different, as the circumstances are different. Lenin wrote in The Collapse of the Second International:
"In the present war the national element is represented only by Serbia's war against Austria (which, by the way, was noted in the resolution of our Party's Berne Conference).[1] It is only in Serbia and among the Serbs that we can find a national-liberation movement of long standing, embracing millions, "the masses of the people", a movement of which the present war of Serbia against Austria is a "continuation". If this war were an isolated one, i.e., if it were not connected with the general European war, with the selfish and predatory aims of Britain, Russia, etc., it would have been the duty of all socialists to desire the success of the Serbian bourgeoisieas this is the only correct and absolutely inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the national element in the present war." https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/vi.htm
Unlike in 1914, the US and the EU have not declared war on Russia, so we can apply his solution for this hypothetical situation to Ukraine
By the way, regarding the "proxy war" argument, I recently remembered another example:
Toussaint Louverture was promoted to general in the Spanish army, and for the Spain, the Black rebels were "proxies" they wanted to use against the French Revolution.
A better analogy than either Serbia or Ireland is Belgium, invaded by the German army in 1914. This was undoubtedly an infringement of sovereignty that Belgium had a right to resist. But analysis cannot end there.
Lloyd George and other members of the Liberal cabinet used this to justify Britain's declaration of war on Germany. Lenin and other left socialists rejected such pretexts for imperialist war without endorsing aggression.
Similarly today, socialists should resist NATO’s proxy war on Russia without condoning the invasion of Ukraine.
Isn't there a clear difference between what Ukraine is doing, targeted defensive strikes against the supply chain for the Russian invasion, and a generalised war against Russia? That's not comparable to the invasion of Belgium, not the least because Russia is not at war with a NATO power.
The fundamental issue is Ukraine's right to oppose Russia's aggression, occupation and annexation. This was not fully understood in relation to Serbia at the outset of WWI. I think Lenin's thinking in the case of Ireland in 1916, which you cite, might have inclined him to reconsider what he initially said about Serbia in 1914. The quotation cited by Taras Bilous above adds weight to this. The revolutionary Marxists defended imperialist Belgium after its occupation by Germany even though Belgium was aligned from the outset with the Entente powers. I discussed some of these issues with John Riddell, who opposed defense of Ukraine, with arguments set out in the following post: https://lifeonleft.blogspot.com/2023/01/our-key-antiwar-target-kremlin-or-nato_23.html. Note in particular my article cited in the footnote, on "poor little Belgium."
‘Russia is not at war with a NATO power’ strikes me as sophistry, given how much support is being given by NATO powers (arms, finance, intelligence, technical advice) to Ukraine. The escalatory spiral is not only destroying Ukraine but threatening to spread still further.
This is not to defend Russian imperialism nor to deny a Ukrainian right of self-defence. It is about the stance socialists should take in our own countries towards increasing militarisation directed against Russia. Lenin or Lloyd George?
Sorry but in what way is that statement sophistry? When the largest power in NATO sat in Anchorage recently with Putin to carve up Ukraine. If nothing else this totally undermines the proxy war thesis . Whose proxy is Ukraine now?
The US has approved around $200bn to Ukraine since the Russian invasion. Trump seems to want to limit the commitment (and has other problems to deal with) but continues to supply intelligence and armaments (some paid for by European countries).
The concept of a proxy war does not mean that Ukraine has no agency in the war, simply that NATO powers (with the Europeans now the most determined) are supporting Ukraine as a means of weakening Russia.
Every escalation is by Russia. When Ukraine adapts its defence, the NATO powers object. I discuss this at
https://redmole.org/i/210687233/10-ukraine-is-simply-a-proxy-of-the-united-states-and-nato-with-no-independent-agency
I haven’t argued that Ukraine is a proxy of NATO. Ukraine does indeed have its own agency but, as Mandel argues in ‘The meaning of WW2’, a major war can be a combination of conflicts. The war in Ukraine is simultaneously a war of national defence, a civil war, and a proxy war by NATO.
Both sides have escalated. That’s the nature of a spiral. The original escalation was the advance of NATO’s eastern borders and the threat to incorporate Ukraine and Georgia to cut off Russia from the Black Sea, an objective that goes back to Palmerstone.
It is quite possible to oppose miliarisation in Western Europe while supporting Ukraine. War is hard for Ukraine. The White House plan for anbunjust peace that returns Ukraine to Kremlin supervision would be harder. The choice should be made by Ukrainians, not us.
The financing and supply of arms to Ukraine is an inherent part of NATO militarisation. Do you support the increase in military expenditure by European countries to pay for that?
No country has an absolute right to join a military alliance that threatens another country. Do you reject NATO expansion or indeed existence? If so, then you have to support Ukrainian neutrality, which seems to be a pre-condition for any negotiated settlement.
As in 1914, the question for Britain is not about Ukraine’s choices but whether we should participate in the war. Lloyd George then said yes; Lenin said no.