The Russian invasion of Ukraine shows the true barbarism of the imperialist and capitalist world order and underscores the urgency of fighting for a socialist alternative that defends the interests of workers and the oppressed. From the International Socialist League, we defend the national and democratic rights of the Ukrainian people, we oppose the increase of imperialist tensions and the threat of a wider war. For these reasons we deploy a principled policy expressed in various statements and a campaign in solidarity with the Ukrainian independent trade unions.
We oppose the Russian imperialist invasion of Ukraine and demand the withdrawal of all Russian troops.
At the same time, we oppose the advance of the NATO military alliance in Eastern Europe and the massive arms buildup underway in all capitalist powers. We support the Ukrainian people’s resistance and their right to defend themselves against the brutal Russian aggression with all means at their disposal. And we stand in solidarity with the anti-capitalist forces in Ukraine who confront the invasion from a position independent of the conservative, anti-working-class Zelensky government, as do our comrades of the Ukrainian Socialist League (USL). We push for mobilization against the war worldwide and for solidarity between the Russian and Ukrainian working class and internationally. We do so by rejecting the lying campaigns that present the conflict as the dispute between “democracy and authoritarianism” or between “progressivism and Nazism,” and the calls for “national unity” under the leadership of any of the imperialisms that are competing in Ukraine.
The war has opened many debates, including what position to take with respect to military blocs such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). It is an important position since the arms race and the ongoing hostilities pose the danger of a third world war. From the ISL we demand the withdrawal of NATO troops from Eastern Europe and, as a basic position, their dissolution, as well as that of the CSTO.There are governments of different countries that speak of their desire for peace. However, they act in the opposite direction when they propose to join NATO, as is currently the case with Sweden and Finland.
In this regard, we received a contribution written from Sweden by Sergio Galarce and Alex Fuentes, which we reproduce below.
It smells of war
In 1948, France, Great Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands signed the so-called Brussels Pact, a “defense alliance” according to which arms aid was requested from the United States with the aim of stopping the specter of “communism”, although the specter was under the control and supremacy of U.S. power. According to John Foster Dulles, the Soviet Union was not in a position to use war as an instrument of its national policy because the USSR had no plans for conquest by open military attack, even though it had strengthened its position by incorporating satellite countries such as Czechoslovakia into its own sphere. It was the era of the Cold War.
Canada joined the Western imperialist powers and NATO was officially formed in April of 1949. However, the communist ghost appeared in China in October of 1949 and evidently shook the U.S. Conspiracy theories gained strength and during the McCarthyism era it was suspected that it could be a global revolution. However, the Stalinist counterrevolution had already dismantled the Third International and all attempts at national revolutions.
NATO was founded primarily so that the US could use nuclear weapons to prevent the USSR from occupying cities in the West. Nuclear weapons would force the USSR to accept Western conditions. The Russian bear would be isolated politically and economically and America would maintain its nuclear monopoly while surrounding the Soviet Union with hostile military bases. Nuclear energy proved to be an effective strategy, it would achieve an eternal advantage over the USSR with consequences for the entire globe.
The emergence of NATO was therefore a crucial initiative for an aggressive policy, especially in Europe. NATO was to become the most important tool for Western policy in the years to come. It was not until 1955 that with the USSR in the lead, the Warsaw Pact was formed as a counterbalancing measure.The division of Germany after World War II was used by Western imperialism to justify the presence of large American forces in Europe and, ultimately, to try to blow up the Soviet satellite states, disintegrating them from within.
The Soviets proposed the reunification of Germany with the aim of having Germany declare itself “neutral” in order to try to avoid joining NATO. The proposal was rejected and in 1955 West Germany joined NATO.
NATO being created as a peacekeeping organization was a blatant fabrication from the start, but in war, lies are ammunition and language is war.
An American general was appointed as NATO’s first commander-in-chief. In 1958, it was decided that offensive robots would be deployed in NATO countries.In the 1960s, it was estimated that the United States possessed a nuclear arsenal of 30,000 megatons and could deliver tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. It was also claimed to have more than a hundred intercontinental and medium-range robots, several thousand intercontinental bombers, hundreds of nuclear-armed planes on aircraft carriers and megaton warheads, and nearly 1,000 supersonic land-based warheads with nuclear warheads. U.S.-led imperialism thus created a nuclear capability of proportions. The Soviets had done exactly the opposite: they had built up a small retaliatory force as a minimum deterrent.
In 1962, the Russian nuclear force was estimated at only 50 intercontinental robots, 150 intercontinental bombers (compared to about 2,000 in the U.S.) and about 500 medium-range robots concentrated at U.S. bases within NATO. By the 1970s NATO had become a powerful offensive military power and during the 1980s and early 1990s was active with continuous nuclear armaments.
The Warsaw Pact dissolved in the early 1990s as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. NATO did not dissolve, although it pledged not to expand its war organization to the East. U.S. and NATO leadership expanded its belligerent forces to the countries of the East and membership has since doubled.
As the balance of power shifted increasingly in NATO’s favor, there was an unequivocal superiority in strategic weapons. Through Operation Deliberate Force NATO initiated in 1995 what is customarily called the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina, all NATO countries supported the war and 15 countries participated in it. This war has been called “Europe’s greatest disaster of modern times”. NATO’s American “peacekeeping” led to the bombing of the former Yugoslavia in 1999 in violation of the UN Charter and the subsequent construction of military bases in the region. The bombing of the Balkans led to the creation of Kosovo, a country that did not exist. Eastern countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary joined NATO in 1999. At the beginning of the 21st century, the same steps were taken. In 2001 the US invoked the right to “self-defense” and Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by several NATO countries. Afghanistan was under NATO control for twenty years and in 2021 these “aid” military forces were forced to leave the country with their tails between their legs.
NATO flexed its muscles again and 2003 saw the creation of Nato Response Force, NATO’s “strike force” consisting of 10,000 to 20,000 troops. In the same year Iraq was invaded by NATO, led by the United States and Great Britain, as well as by “allies” such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Australia, Hungary and Ukraine. Sweden contributed military personnel to the northern part of Iraq with the “reconnaissance” mission that contributed to the bombings. In 2004, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia became new NATO members and five years later Albania and Croatia joined. A few years passed and in 2011 a new NATO military intervention materialized, it was Libya’s turn. On that occasion NATO requested Sweden to make itself available with several JAS Gripen fighter jets for reconnaissance missions and Sweden complied.
This war helped, among other things, to ensure the availability of oil reserves for the major Western powers. In 2014 NATO assembled a “spearhead force” of 5,000 fighters. In the same year Ukraine was plunged into political chaos, the president was forced into exile and the Ukrainian regime openly showed a pro-NATO stance. According to Zelensky, the Ukrainian regime was offered to be included in NATO, the country was already a partner country (Partnership) in NATO along with countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Serbia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Finland and Sweden. In 2017 Montenegro joined. The protests and popular uprising against dictator Bashar al-Assad in Syria led to several years of war in Ukraine, which escalated with Russia’s military intervention in the country. Aleppo had already become an international concept. Then NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen had said that NATO would not intervene in Syria.
However, both Russia and NATO became involved in the conflict. In 2017, Trump’s United States, the strongest NATO member, fired Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria. The war in Syria has been described as “the worst humanitarian crisis of our time”. In recent times, the trend of NATO-orchestrated military supremacy has been openly manifested in Nordic countries such as Finland and Sweden. In recent years, NATO has conducted military exercises on Swedish territory and has also conducted Swedish military operations abroad, one example being Sweden’s military role in the French colony of Mali. In the book Folkfienden, Berndt A. Paulsson describes the participation of Swedish troops under NATO command: “In exercises they have gradually been forced to use NATO standards for equipment and in operations abroad from the soldiers to the commander-in-chief have sticked a NATO star on the Swedish uniform”. Sweden also took part in the military warfare exercises held at Trident Juncture in 2018, which involved all NATO countries with a little over 40,000 soldiers. It is a fact that US military exercises in our immediate area, targeting Russia, have intensified. Russia is no longer a “communist” threat, but the economic interests between the Russian oligarchs and the imperialists in the West have led, from a geopolitical point of view, to collision during the last 30 years. During the Cold War, Sweden’s propaganda swallowed that tale of a threat against Sweden, which has always been described as coming from Russia. Russian flight exercises around the Baltic Sea have always been seen by Sweden as provocative, while similar NATO exercises have been regarded as normal. NATO association (Partnership) is a prerequisite to be a member of NATO and Sweden has participated in this partnership since 1994 and has paid for several of its operations. Sweden has so far refused to sign the UN document against nuclear weapons, since NATO membership means that NATO can move nuclear weapons and place them in Sweden.
Subsequently, in 2014, Sweden signed Värdlandsavtalet (Host Country Agreement) and has thereby increased the possibility for NATO to directly control the Swedish Armed Forces, paving the way for NATO to establish military bases in northern Sweden and on the island of Gotland, Sweden’s largest Baltic Sea island. Sweden’s cooperation with NATO (Partnership) has been carried out in full view of the world, so all the talk about Sweden’s alleged neutrality is absurd. Sweden is already assisting the warlike NATO organization in its interventions.
For example, in the former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan and Libya when their military participation was called for. In these countries alone, Syria and Yemen, 11 million people have been massacred on the altar of war. According to Värdlandsavtalet, Sweden can already support NATO in case of war in the immediate area and build military bases for NATO, but these commitments are kept secret. That the agreement would give NATO the right to place nuclear weapons on Swedish territory without explicit permission from Sweden may end soon. It stands to reason, NATO countries are obliged to receive medium-range robots on their territories.
Värdlandsavtalet has been part of this general adaptation to NATO. The Swedish Social Democratic Party leadership is not interested in any public debate about the celebrated “alliansfrihet” (freedom of alliance) that has existed for 200 years now, and which it now wants to end with a quick decision. The leadership of the Social Democracy obeys superior orders outside the country. NATO membership is no guarantee that Sweden can improve the security policy situation in the country, but it can be forced to participate in the war. The fact that Russia has intervened militarily in the Ukraine came as a perfect fit for those seeking formal NATO membership. “Defensive or offensive weapons for Ukraine have no real meaning,” said Norwegian Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, on April 7 in Brussels.
The arms trade is profitable and as long as there is war in the world the arms industry will maintain an annihilation machine that will blow the population to bits. To oppose ordinary NATO membership is to oppose militarism, war and barbarism. On April 13 of this year, Finland’s Social Democratic Prime Minister Sanna Marin arrived in Stockholm where she and Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson held a press conference. Both heads of government found it difficult to hide the fact that the decision to apply for NATO membership has already been taken within four walls. Sanna Marin said she hoped that Sweden would join the decision that in practice has already been taken by Finland. Finland has in fact decided to join NATO and it is openly claimed that Sweden is being pressured to do the same. The Swedish Social Democratic leadership is now talking about “security dialogues” for interested parties within the Social Democratic Party.
In other words, a Swedish request would not have a positive impact on the current security situation, the head of state said. The Finnish government and other international decision-makers were completely taken aback and Magdalena Andersson was subjected to harsh international criticism and pressure. The leader of the Swedish conservative party, Ulf Kristersson, stated that a Swedish application for NATO membership would in no way be a destabilizing move, as the head of government claimed. Andersson is Putin’s pawn, Kristersson said. But Magdalena Andersson stood by her words and said that this was Sweden’s security policy: “The security policy line that Sweden has had for a long time has obviously benefited Sweden and has meant that we have not been involved in wars for a long, long, long time.” But we are in for a real whirlwind of events, because it was not long before the prime minister lost her balance, as she apparently did not have both feet on the ground and was forced to take a somersault. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that the EU elite gave her a slap on the wrist, because it didn’t take long for her to hasten to say that she did not rule out NATO membership at all. Suddenly a different narrative emerged; NATO membership was now a stabilizing factor, as the security policy map had been redrawn. First he had argued that NATO membership would “destabilize the situation in Europe” and soon after he changed his repertoire; NATO membership was transformed in less than a cock’s crow into “increasing stability” in Europe – is NATO membership destabilizing and stabilizing at the same time? What brought about this sudden conversion? One thing is clear, repentance is hardly a manifestation of political independence. So just “now” it is “better for Sweden’s security to be part of NATO”.
So that a simultaneous entry process is now being openly planned for Finland and Sweden, despite the “unpredictable” Russian responses to NATO membership. That Russia would respond to this risky social democratic proposal in the northern part of Europe came as a letter in the mail. The deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, thus warned Finland and Sweden, about an increased Russian military presence in the Baltic if Finland and Sweden decide to join NATO: “There can no longer be any nuclear weapons status for the Baltic Sea region – the balance must be restored.” It is also known that the deputy speaker of the Russian parliament, Pyotr Tolstoy, is reported to have said that, if Finland and Sweden join NATO, Russia will secure its border by placing robots on the border with Finland, Sweden, Poland and Kaliningrad. The implication of the warning is that Russia reserves the right to deploy nuclear weapons in the Baltic Sea region in order to protect its own border. The message is clear, in case of NATO membership Finland and Sweden may be considered “opponents”. Russia should have no say in whether Sweden wants to join NATO, says Ann Linde, the foreign minister. It is a truism that Russia’s rulers have a say in further expansion of an organization that, since 1949, has proven to be nothing but a warlike alliance. Ann Linde can say what she wants, but that does not change anything. The existing situation is very serious. Can Ann Linde have any opinion on whether Russia now wants to place nuclear weapons in the Baltic Sea region? Of course, because nuclear weapons can exterminate us all. But Ann Linde’s government has refused and still refuses to sign the UN Convention on Nuclear Disarmament. Lena Mellin, political analyst for the Swedish evening newspaper Aftonbladet, explains it in her own way: “The Social Democratic party leadership has already decided. They want Sweden to join NATO. The rest is smokescreens. Bullshit.” Ukraine is being used as a pretext for the NATO and US offensive to corner Moscow and it is turning the world into a powder keg, it smells of war.