Having spent the whole of January and February dismissing the possibility of Russia invading Ukraine as western propaganda, driven by warmongers, the Morning Star performed a screeching u-turn on 25 February and declared in its editorial: “Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a catastrophe with horrific consequences in that country and beyond.”
But not everything had changed. Some favourite old themes remained. The same editorial claimed “Ukraine is not the ‘front line of democracy.’ Britain, like the US and EU, connived at the violent overthrow of its elected government in the Maidan coup of 2014.” It then went on to blame Nato for “stifling the Minsk peace process” and to call for a commitment (from whom?) that “Ukraine [doesn’t] join Nato, and to a dial-down of militaristic showboating by the world’s most powerful and dangerous military alliance, of which Britain is a part.”
You’d never guess, would you, that Nato had long made it clear that it would not intervene, or that it was actually Russia that had done the invading?
And for all the criticisms of the invasion, it’s been clear that the Morning Star really believes that Nato and “the West” are more to blame for it than Putin. An interview with two “peace activists” from the US “anti-war” group ANSWER on 3 March made the position clear: As Becker [one of the interviewees] explained, the true purpose of the Russian invasion is for Russia to signal to the US and Nato that “the era of appeasement has ended.. in terms of allowing Nato influence to inch close and closer to Russian territory” (we’re told Becker then goes on to “condemn” the invasion, but on the basis of what they’ve said, it’s difficult to work out why).
The editorial of 5-6 March makes the paper’s message to the people of Ukraine quite clear: surrender! It states: “The ‘arm Ukraine’ argument rather rests on making the Russian invasion so costly in terms of attrition that Putin retreats or is overthrown. But these are remote prospects and bleeding Russia to the point where its morale collapses is a plan modelled on the US experiences in Vietnam or Afghanistan — defeats that took decades and imposed an appalling cost in human life and destruction. Nobody genuinely concerned about Ukrainians can see this as a reasonable option, though it would be ideal from the point of view of arms firms profiting from weapons supply.”
So what is the answer, according to the Morning Star? “But the reality is that the West cannot intimidate Russia into backing down — it has, after all, been trying to intimidate Russia for years. Nor have sanctions generally proved effective in undermining hostile governments. Only through talking can we hope to end this nightmare.”
Of course, we should not condemn the Ukrainian government for negotiating, or even necessarily for making concessions under duress. But the MS’s line is like saying in a strike, or rather a lock-out: “this is causing disruption, and must be ended by negotiation”, without saying you support the workers.
And anyway, what the Morning Star advocates is not negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. It is negotiations between Ukraine and Nato and/or the EU and/or the USA, in which Ukraine may well be thrown under the bus.
Astonishingly, real solidarity is to be found in the paper — on the sports pages! An article by Layth Yousif (5-6 March) is headed “Why sport must do all it can to help Ukraine.” Layth writes:
“On Friday morning, Andriy, my new friend from Ukraine cursed Vladimir Putin. Explicitly, furiously, articulately.
“We had been exchanging messages for 48 hours after our love of sport brought us together. Prior to signing off he told me he was expecting refugees from Kharkiv to arrive at his home. ‘This war is awful. We will fight for Ukraine and freedom with our last breath. But you must also tell the world we need help’.”