Sophie Johnson

Sophie Johnson

Quiet on the Home Front: How Left Support for the Ukraine War Collapsed

Reading Time: 4 minutes

The war in Ukraine has largely disappeared from the new cycle, and with it demands for ‘progressive’ arms transfers from NATO. But the real turning point has been Gaza, argues Sophie Johnson.

Over the past year or more, a considerable but quiet shift has taken place. The Ukrainian flag, once the ultimate badge of leftist virtue, has dropped away from social media profiles, and the Government’s #MakeNoiseForUkraine campaign — encouraging citizens to “clap or cheer…stomp your feet or ring a bell” for Ukrainian Independence Day — went largely unnoticed this August. Popular enthusiasm for the war in Ukraine has all but disappeared.

Well before Trump’s victory in the Presidential election, Western leaders had been reluctantly acknowledging that a negotiated peace was becoming unavoidable. This summer, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called for diplomacy, suggesting that Ukraine and Russia should pursue talks for a “swift path to peace.” This marked a significant shift away from claims that Putin’s “unique irrationality” rendered negotiation impossible. Last month, Christopher Chivvis of the Carnegie Endowment Programme critiqued Zelensky’s refusal to pursue a realistic ceasefire, noting the Ukrainian leader’s unworkable hope of reclaiming all lost territory by force. Such statements contrast sharply with earlier hawkish rhetoric, which demanded no concessions to Russia.

Whilst the immediate timeline for ending the war in Ukraine hinged on the outcome of the presidential election, the Pentagon has been warning about defence budget constraints for months. One reason for the shift in elite opinion is clear: Russia has been resolutely winning for some time, and NATO and its proxy, Ukraine, are staring at defeat. After more than a year of territorial gains for Russia, and the failures of Ukraine’s much-hyped counteroffensive of 2023 and the summer incursion into Russia, many Western leaders have been preparing for NATO’s retreat. And it is only now, as casualties reach close to a million, that the central demand of the antiwar movement since the start, for peace talks and de-escalation, may finally come to pass.

After NATO troops left Afghanistan, marking the end of the disastrous War on Terror, Russia’s invasion provided the US and its allies a chance to reassert dominance against the backdrop of increasing fears about the threat of China. In a new era of inter-imperial challenges, increased defence budgets across the West, new entrants to NATO and the end of Europe’s “addiction” to Russian gas, had helped integrate the west under NATO’s banner.  

In the UK, as elsewhere, we saw an ideological revival of Western foreign policy. A domestic propaganda push helped reignite support for British militarism, helping to paper-over the cracks of a Conservative government clinging on to power. Indeed, little opposition to the new foreign policy existed in either parliament or press and the emergence of a non-Western aggressor fueled a moralistic fervour for war, even among former anti-interventionists. Owen Jones’s 2022 article, Putin’s aggression makes clear the case for an antiwar movement was typical of this leftist shift, emphasising Russian aggression as the principle enemy of anti-imperialists, while endorsing Western weaponry as righteous when aimed at a suitably malevolent enemy.

However, for some time the costs of the war have begun to overshadow its initial attractions, many of which belong to a pre-October the 7th period. For one, the United State’s attention and resources have pivoted to the Middle East where it seeks to defend an increasingly erratic Israel wreaking havoc across the region. At the same time NATO’s proxy war against Russia no longer holds the same ideological weight. For many, the West’s moral credibility and Western government’s political legitimacy have been eviscerated as they have rushed to the aid of a terror state in the Middle East. Under the weight of these actions, war in Ukraine no longer serves the same unifying force. Unsurprisingly, many people have questioned why the same countries fueling war in Eastern Europe also back Israel’s brutal campaign in the Middle East. Indeed, Zelensky himself has offered unflinching support for Netanyahu’s response to the October the 7th attacks.

The Palestine solidarity movement has turned attention back on to our own state’s international interests. Britain’s new ruling party has been shaken by electoral losses tied to its pro-Israel stance, facing a legitimacy crisis as hundreds of thousands continue to march on Britain’s streets against arming Israel.

In Ukraine itself, staring down a third winter at war, the population and its military have been losing faith. On the front lines, morale is breaking, as soldiers endure unending artillery fire and the relentless grind of trench warfare. The government’s efforts to push more men into combat have escalated; it has lowered the draft age and begun recruiting prisoners, yet these measures only partially fill the ranks. Draft squads now scour cities, conscripting those who evade service, while an estimated 50,000 deserters this year alone face criminal charges.

This grim reality strains the West’s initial justification for pumping weapons into Ukraine. What began as support for “Ukrainian agency” now exposes a truth: the West’s escalation of the war was never in Ukrainian interests. As always, it has been the working class—close to a million Russian and Ukrainian men, mostly conscripts—who have paid the highest price in the ruthless game of imperial competition.

The war in Ukraine emerged as the first test for the left in the West during a new era of inter-imperial rivalry. Many, unfortunately, failed that test. If nothing else, the war in Ukraine has laid bare the shallowness of an “internationalism” that defers to the politics of the state instead of trying to establish an antagonistic class politics. Though Russian imperialism struck the first blow, Western imperialism has continued the bloodshed. As we now know, it has been in our leaders power to end the slaughter for years.

Trump’s victory means an expedited end to the war in Ukraine is possible. In reality, plans for a NATO pullback have been on the cards for some time. Nonetheless, some liberal politicians and commentators, reeling from the electoral defeat, will attempt to cast this as evidence of a switch from a moral foreign policy to a newly rotten one. This is a narrative the antiwar movement must vigorously reject.

An end to the conflict is long overdue, yet for much of the past three years, antiwar stances have faced considerable obstacles.There are more obstacles to come, and the pro-war lobby remains strong, not least in Trump’s administration, which includes powerful proponents of continuing the war. Times, however, are changing. The devastation in Gaza has shifted the public gaze toward the role of our own leaders, forcing new layers to confront the realities of Western imperialism.

Even if the war in Ukraine does soon conclude, the conditions that fed it are only beginning. As violence surges and spreads across the Middle East and beyond, we must harness the momentum of Palestine solidarity, building our arguments and expanding our reach to confront the forces driving an increasingly volatile world order.

Would you like to read more?
Support our work
Donate now