رفتن به محتوای اصلی

The War in Ukraine and its Aftermath

The War in Ukraine and its Aftermath
Statement of the Central Council of the Left Party of Iran (People's Fadaian)

More than two months have passed since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The war, which has claimed many lives from the Ukrainian people and the Russian military, has left a lot of ruins and part of Ukraine's infrastructure destroyed. The consequences of these destructions have now taken a continental and even transcontinental form, deeply affecting the political and economic equations in Europe, and accelerating the process of global changes. Efforts to end the war have not been enough and ineffective, bilateral talks have not yielded reliable results, and even the UN Secretary-General's visit to Russia has failed. The general tendency in the West, and in particular the US and British governments’ officials, is to turn this war into a proxy war against Russia and to encourage Ukraine's neighbors to escalate the war. In Russia itself, a roadmap to exit the stalemate of this war is not yet visible.

The Ukraine war has also led to differences in the way we look at global trends on all intellectual and political fronts, and has placed everyone, including governments, political parties, experts, and political activists, in a position to express themselves. At the very beginning of this war, our party also announced its positions in two statements, and now the Central Council of the Party, in its face-to-face meeting, considers it necessary to emphasize the same positions as before, a series of issues related to this war, and as well as its important backgrounds and consequences.

Ukraine War is Condemned

The war that Russia has waged against Ukraine is a blatant aggression against an independent state and, therefore, should be unequivocally condemned. Given the negative and provocative pre-war trends in NATO expansion and the development of the West and the United States in Eastern Europe, we believe that Russia's war decision was neither inevitable nor that NATO expansion justifies an attack on an independent state. From the point of view of international law, Russia had no right to dictate its intentions to the government of another country simply by claiming to feel insecure on its western borders. Russia could, in a political manner, take advantage of real gaps in the ranks of the "West" to secure minimum security guarantees.

Recognizing this war as aggression, we emphasize the cessation of it and the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of dialogue for peace and an agreement between the parties. We recognize the Putin administration as an aggressor, condemn the "West," especially the United States, for pursuing an expansionist policy and for maintaining and expanding NATO. We see the only way to peace is to end the war, establish an immediate ceasefire and start a dialogue.

 In our view, the denial of the existence of Ukraine as a state propagated by Putin and the ideologues of the Russian government is unjustifiable, and a war that lacks any explanation on the basis of international standards is illegitimate. No power has the right to attack another country from the ground and air and kill its people. This kind of argument is nothing but legitimizing military intervention in other countries and enforcing jungle law in international relations. In this regard, we consider Russia's aggression against Ukraine, despite any breach of promise and conspiracy against Russia, to be a gross violation of the rules of the global peace.

Regardless of judging the performance of the Ukrainian governing body, the undemocratic behavior of the Zelensky government towards its opponents and leftists, the presence of the far right in this government, and the extreme irresponsibility it has had in burning opportunities to prevent war, we consider the resistance of the Ukrainian people against the aggression of the Russian army to be natural and legitimate. At the same time, we consider the efforts of the West and NATO to turn this war into a proxy war against Russia in order to intensify the killings and destruction in Ukraine and contrary to the international efforts for peace and tranquility in this country.

The main task now is to establish peace in the country as soon as possible, and not to fan the flame of the war, which can take on a continental and transcontinental dimension. The occurrence of war and the emphasis on its aggressive nature can not overshadow the context leading to war. The responsibility of the aggressor government does not diminish the responsibility of the US government and other Western states in creating the conditions for war. In fact, what was not seen before the war or did not want to be seen from both sides, If the war is to end, now the direct and indirect sides of the war must consider it.

Peace will not be achieved by further encouraging war and refusing to negotiate, and by equipping the Ukrainian regime with advanced weapons to " take Russia down a peg." It is a bitter fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West not only insisted on the survival of NATO, but also on the continuation of producing fear of Russia and pursuing a policy of expanding its sphere of influence to the east. Over the past three decades, US governments have pursued NATO's development strategy in Eastern Europe and disrupted Western Europe's economic relations with Russia, particularly in the oil and gas sector, and have effectively helped bring about Russian nationalism in Putin's believes. Although the pragmatist part of the European Union has more or less tried to avoid US sovereign policies in this regard, but US governments, both Republican and Democrat, have been politically and economically incompatible not only with deepening and expanding interaction between Europe and Russia, rather, they have openly seen the atmosphere of tension between Russia and Europe as a prerequisite for supplying the arms market for their arms industries. In this strategy, Ukraine was the strategic point where the strategy of "containment of Russia" and, in practice, of course, its siege should be start. Tensions in Ukraine began long ago and peaked in 2014. The Minsk 2 agreements could have put an end to the outbreak of war, but a sabotage of the implementation of these agreements, including the massacre of the people of Donbas by the Ukrainian government and the right-wing neo-Nazis, had no other meaning than paving the way for another war.

This war must stop. The continuation of the war is nothing but giving in to mass destruction and common defeat. The occasional nuclear threat is more of a psychological war than a practical one, but even non-nuclear warfare so far has had catastrophic consequences for both sides. Russia, in any case, will not achieve anything more than it could have achieved without war in the face of the enormous political, economic, and moral damage it has already suffered. Contrary to what Putin had in mind and instilled, the independent existence of Ukraine did not come from a historical forgery, but this nation-state, in the context of resistance to aggression, took on a more national spirit and more than ever took the image of a unified nation. This war has strengthened NATO, led Europe to militarization and a dramatic increase in military budgets and to unite around NATO, reduced the relative gap between the EU and Britain and the United States, and paved the way for Sweden and Finland to join NATO. In contrast, Russophobia has spread to the West and Russia's isolation in Europe has stabilized to a point where there is no immediate prospect of repairing it.

We are the force of peace. We insist on the immediate cessation of this regional and global human tragedy. We consider NATO expansion in Eastern Europe contrary to peace and security on this continent and in the world, and we urgently emphasize the cessation of NATO borders. At the same time, we see the dissolution of NATO in the interests of world peace. We are advocate of replacing military alliances, including NATO, with more inclusive political and economic alliances, ending the climate of war and the massive production and sale of weapons in the world, and ending a climate that pours billions of dollars, Euros and Rubles at the expense of the people of different countries into the pockets of media-owned looting concerns. Humanity today, more than ever, needs the revival of the world peace movement.

The Quiddity of the Ukraine War and its Standing World-Wide

The Ukraine war, however, is a manifestation of the ongoing war over the share of global hegemonic power. This war is a milestone in the current turbulent process with the theme of the transition from the American dream of a unipolar world under American hegemony to a new situation. The US plan, as the hegemon of the post-Soviet world that sought to replace the Cold War-era bipolar, has failed. The US strategy, which went through phases of international human rights abuses in Serbia in the 1990s, the neoconservative wars of the early twentieth century in Afghanistan, Iraq, and shortly afterwards the invasion of Libya, finally proved to be a dead end in Afghanistan. The retreat consequent on defeat in Afghanistan was a sign of the bankruptcy of the doctrine of a unipolar world. What is at the center of the conflict now is the share that each superpower and any power want to get.

The world is witnessing the rise of China, which, with its tremendous economic strength, is showing off its booming and seeking its rightful share in world domination. A country that can become the world's top economic power in just ten years. Such an economy, which is based on domestic and foreign capitalist exploitation, cannot fail to seek a superior position in politics and, consequently, in the military sphere. It is no coincidence that the United States sees China as its first issue and, for fear of reviving Russia's power to build a counter bloc with China against the United States, seeks prevention.

 Ideological issues related to the explanation of the characterization of this war have been discussed extensively and globally, one of the most comprehensive of which is the explanation of this war with democracy and authoritarianism. While emphasizing the obvious and important difference between liberal and authoritarian regimes, we consider the explanation of this war to be inaccurate with the confrontation between democracy and authoritarianism, and even more so, even consciously or unconsciously, we consider it in the service of continuing the war and justifying fanning flame of the war. Regardless of the anti-democratic behavior of both sides and being overwhelmed in stubborn nationalism, on a global scale, the supporters of the Ukrainian government in the fields of media, propaganda, art, sports, etc. have shown their utmost lack of commitment to democracy. Also, some "democracies", including India, known as the world's largest democracy and America's security partner, have a different approach to this war. Moreover, if NATO is to be introduced as a symbol of the democracy front, that is the catastrophe. An important subject, such as democracy at this level, is the deviation from the struggle for democracy and its metamorphosis. Democracy is closely linked to peace and security and is the bedrock of justice. With war and incitement to war, democracy will not be established and developed.

The catastrophe is not limited to human casualties and economic damage to both sides of the war and Ukraine's infrastructure; the threat of grain shortages now threatens a large part of the African continent. Even in Europe, rising energy prices are affecting all items. The consequences of the war in Ukraine are borne by the people of a large part of the world.

Iran's Relationship with this Global Challenge

The stagnation of the Islamic Republic's nuclear talks with the P4 + 1 in Vienna is one of the immediate effects of this war. Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, all parties announced the agreement within a few days or weeks, but now for more than two months there is no sign of continued negotiations. There can be no doubt that the suspension of the negotiations is due to the differences between the main parties of the JCPOA. However, the Political alignments over the war in Ukraine have had an impact on this stagnation. The strategic considerations of the Islamic Republic have a special role in this regard. The one-sided policy of "looking east" of the Islamic Republic is a double catastrophe and the national interests of the country and the people of Iran will always suffer from the consequences. In the hostile view of the leaders of the Islamic Republic, the observance of the interests and expectations of others in the vital Vienna negotiations can easily replace the will of the people. It is clear that just as the tense foreign policy of the Islamic Republic under the banner of "neither West nor East" has broken Iran's back, so "looking to the East" today will further damage the national interests of the country. In the current changing world, the orientation of the Islamic Republic is in clear contradiction with global trends. Instead of establishing a balanced relationship with all countries of the world, our country is still facing the problem of the hostile policy of the Islamic Republic.

We are for a world of equality. Our desired world, apart from the different capabilities of nations, is a globalized world with equal legal rights and free from domination and force. But until we reach the ideal world, we consider it appropriate to deprive a country of its monopoly power.

We believe that the transition from a unipolar or bipolar world will make the conditions for sustainable growth and development more favorable for all countries, especially underdeveloped countries, and now, despite efforts to stop such a trend, this transformation can be an opportunity for all nations. Russia's war against Ukraine and its aftermath do not serve the purpose of this process. With this war, the US government is in a stronger position than it was at the time of the scandalous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Our party is opposed to any war or incitement to war by any country and under any title. We press on an immediate end to this war. In the wake of an immediate and lasting ceasefire, the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine is essential to define itself in peace with the theme of establishing common security. We believe that Ukraine should survive and stabilize as a country that takes the form of a bulkhead between Europe and Moscow, does not join NATO, implements democracy in a democratic federal structure by embracing pluralism and respect for freedoms, and establishes a balanced relationship with both the East and the West. Our party presses on the withdrawal of troops from Ukraine and the recognition of Ukraine's integrity by Russia. Just as we demarcate any justification for the inevitability of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, we not only oppose any emboldening Russia to continue the war, but we consider it utterly irresponsible. At the same time, we deem it necessary to raise the responsibility of the Western world in bringing about the ground for this war, and condemn its greed, sedition, and coercion in the three decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union and its policy of continuing the Ukraine war to punish Russia and its allies. At the same time, we emphasize the role of peace-loving governments and institutions, and in particular the United Nations, in playing an active role in ending the war.

We press on the humane, democratic, and worthy orientation of the left in the face of the war in Ukraine, the non-alignment of the war, and the stand for peace.

Central Council of the Left Party of Iran (People's Fadaian)

May 2, 2022

افزودن دیدگاه جدید

متن ساده

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • نشانی‌های وب و پست الکتونیکی به صورت خودکار به پیوند‌ها تبدیل می‌شوند.
کاراکترهای نمایش داده شده در تصویر را وارد کنید.
لطفا حروف را با خط فارسی و بدون فاصله وارد کنید