I am one of the members of the commission preparing the demonstration for peace and in solidarity with Ukraine on its first anniversary of war. This commission, Catalonia for Peace, includes today many pacifist organizations, unions, NGOs and parties. I am going as a spokesperson for La Aurora (a Marxist organization) and also as a member of the European Network of Solidarity with Ukraine (ENSU).

Since the beginning of the “Let’s Stop the War” platform, the first platform formed around the Iraq war and other war conflicts, there have been debates, some of them very passionate, around these mobilizations. Today, too. I remember, for example, how at that time we had to debate a lot with a sector that was opposed to the Socialist Party being able to sign the manifesto and participate in the call for the demonstration. The argument was that the PSC-PSOE was NATOnist, and if it did not renounce NATO membership, it could not be in favor of peace.

As we finally managed to convince the leftist comrades (most of whom were men), the PSC joined in and called the demonstration. This did not change the pro-NATO and pro-armament policy of the PSOE. But, as we all know, this was a huge demonstration of the one million people that US President George Bush referred to, saying that he would not give in to pressure from the streets like the one in Barcelona. The success of that demonstration was followed up in politics: Zapatero won the elections against Aznar’s PP, which had taken the photo of the “Azores trio” with Bush and Blair. And shortly thereafter, Spanish troops were leaving Iraq.

This anti-NATOnist sector that puts its fight against the United States and NATO above the facts and the concrete policy of making real peace continues to exist. And it continues to try to condition unity and consensus with its demands. He does this by considering all those who are not in his position as NATO supporters, which is an aberration. Today he argues that we should be “neutral” between Ukraine and Russia. That is, between the attacked and the aggressor. Denying the evidence of who attacked and invaded another country, he insists on the conformist narrative that “in reality” it is a war “between Russia and NATO.”

There are other arguments that they use mainly as a supposed demonstration that there is no other position than the one they advocate, which is “stop the war by any means” and “against sending weapons to Ukraine.” The first of these is that “Russia cannot lose the war.” Although we have seen in the last year that Russia has lost positions and had to withdraw from the territory it occupied, this argument comes on top of the argument of fear: “Russia, before losing the war, would start a nuclear war.”

That is why the Ukrainian right, the fate of the Ukrainian people, does not matter to these peace-loving people “at any price.” Although they often repeat and repeat that the Ukrainian people are victims, that they are the ones who “lay the dead and the wreckage” and that this would be the main reason for their concern in stopping the war, they don’t care what the people are doing there, why they are still fighting and dying. Deep down, this argument is hypocritical because what matters is safeguarding Western integrity and security. Some of them blatantly admit it: “If we were Ukrainians, we would certainly fight like them, but we are not. In our peaceful Europe on the Mediterranean coast, we don’t want any nuclear missiles to reach us or any repercussions of the war that has already started many thousands of kilometers away?

Another argument, which came up at the last committee meeting, is that we must choose between solidarity and peace. “We are a committee for peace, not for solidarity with Ukraine.” Some of us could not help but react to such an outrage. Should we choose a “peace” that is not in solidarity with the people of Ukraine? A peace that is “at the expense of Ukraine”? Would such a “peace” be that Ukraine capitulates, gives up occupied territory and the partition of the country, Russia’s control of the sea outlet, no payment for the crimes and no financial compensation for the destruction? This is the peace of the cemeteries.

This kind of “neutrality” that some advocate is very similar to what the Spanish Republic suffered from the Western democratic powers in the face of Franco’s fascist troops and the bombing by the Nazis and Italian fascists. Fascism was preparing for war throughout Europe. The Spanish revolution was in the middle of these plans and the Western bourgeois preferred a fascist Spain to a revolutionary Spain. Then came the invasions of Austria and Poland…. This policy of neutrality on the part of the imperialist powers allowed Hitler to prepare for the invasion of a large part of Europe.

Finally, there is the argument that sending arms to Ukraine is to encourage warmongering, divert social spending to military spending, and the subjugation of Ukrainians to the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany…. This is a common argument in many different groups and sectors, pacifist or leftist. I am radically against increasing military budgets, but why couldn’t a democratic, leftist government leave NATO and at the same time send weapons to defend the Ukrainians? Spain has Leopard tanks and missiles that are rusting in warehouses, why don’t they deliver them to Ukraine? They are not needed here!

Now another kind of fascism is trying to forcibly impose its conditions throughout Europe and the world. Putin’s dictatorial regime has not only reneged on Lenin and the right to self-determination, but is trying to remake the Russian empire under today’s globalized world. That is why it denies Ukraine’s existence as a nation and a state of its own. The denial of human rights and international law stems from this first denial. Putin’s allies are many of the fascist parties in Europe, including Vox. The struggle of the Ukrainian people today is the spearhead against a new kind of fascism.

Anyone who does not understand that Russia’s occupation of part of Ukraine could be the beginning of a military escalation and invasions around the world by existing imperialisms is blind. I was in Ukraine twice during this war, in May and September last year, and met with the leaders of the two main unions to ask their opinion and what they needed. Both the FPU and KVPU leaders agreed that they had to fight the Russian occupier and drive him out of their territory. They thanked the Western unions for their support against the passage of anti-worker laws by parliament and the Zelensky government, but they want them to understand the reality of the struggle they are leading, at the front and in the companies, “It is one thing to fight here with laws and policies that are neoliberal and we don’t want, but under Putin’s regime we would have no rights and no freedom.”

So justifying oneself in the neoliberal policies of the government or the fascist Azov battalion (both true) for not supporting the attacked nation is just another element of this hypocritical or blind neutrality.

Now those of us who are organizing solidarity with Ukraine, along with other platform associations, are trying not to repeat the mistake of the first demonstration in March last year, in which the Ukrainian community was offended, and actually expelled, by a manifesto and slogans that talked about stopping wars in general, but did not talk about Ukraine. Since then, Ukrainians and Catalans have gone their separate ways. This mistake must not be repeated. A united and peaceful Europe starts by supporting the weak and attacked side and looking for the best way out of this war. Peace with justice and respect for international law and human rights. I think the best thing would be to hold a single demonstration. If possible on February 24th, the anniversary of the war and the invasion. I hope we will succeed.

---