CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONFERENCE

Speaker: Vanya Vyhovsky (Progressive-Democrat Senator, Vermont) Theme: Closing public meeting

Speaker: Johan Sjöstedt (Left Party, Sweden) Theme: Challenges facing Ukraine

Speaker: Christopher Ford (Secretary, Ukraine Solidarity Campaign, England and Wales) Conference theme: A Trump-Putin deal?

Ukraine and The Trump - Putin Axis of Reaction (Based on talk to the conference)

The Trump–Putin Axis is having profound implications not only for Ukraine but for the global order as well. The fact that neither a ceasefire nor peace has been realized is hardly surprising. The primary objective here is not the safeguarding of Ukrainian lives but rather fostering a rapprochement between the United States and Russia.

This was illustrated on April 2, when President Trump imposed sweeping tariffs that impacted Ukraine and even targeted already sanctioned Syria—yet Russia and its supplier North Korea were conspicuously absent from the list. This new alignment, far from an sudden development, was foreshadowed even before Trump took office on January 20. Notably, during the summer of 2023, Republicans blocked a critical nine‐month aid package to Ukraine that lasted nine months.

The Ideological Underpinnings of the Axis The Trump’s team and the MAGA movement has long been permeated by figures who have done business with and are sympathetic to Russia. But this rapprochement of the rival oligarchies goes deeper, the US reactionary right considers key features of Putin’s Russia — national chauvinism, white supremacy, staunch Christian conservatism, and the fascistic theories of Alexander Dugin, which promote a view of sovereignty defined by dominance, as its own shared ideology.

There are historical precedents for such unlikely partnerships. China, for instance, curtailed and eventually ended its aid to North Vietnam to foster better relations with the United States, prolonging the Vietnam War. The closest antecedent is the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact—a non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union. Although Trump and Putin are not identical to the tyrants of that era—and we are not on the brink of another world war—the similar scale of the retrogression in global politics and ideological consequences is stark. In much the same way that the Communists and others on the left supported the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (blaming France and Britain as responsible for the war rather than Hitler), today sections of the labour movement—opponents of Ukraine’s struggle for freedom—find themselves now aligned with the MAGA Republicans.

Such convergence underscores a critical lesson: we cannot separate domestic anti-fascism from international anti-fascism. Ukraine’s fight for freedom is intrinsically linked to the global battle against reactionary forces —a connection underscored by the displays of support for Ukraine at anti-Trump protests in the United States.

Hypocritical Outrage and Ukraine’s Vulnerability After three years of war, Ukraine’s vulnerability is the product of both external and internal failures. Western powers—the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France—have faltered on multiple fronts. Their moral outrage over apparent American duplicity rings hollow when contrasted with their response to Europe’s worst conflict since World War II. As Russian troops gathered along Ukraine’s border, these powers did little to deter the looming full-scale invasion. They failed to impose significant sanctions on Russia and failed to provide Ukraine with critical military aid. Even the sanctions that were imposed—particularly on Russian oil exports—were insufficient, enabling billions of dollars per month in revenue to continue fuelling Putin’s war machine.

The strategy of supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” rather than equipping it with the means to decisively end the occupation, has only prolonged the conflict.

These are not the only causes for Ukraine’s current vulnerability. The Ukrainian government has failed to fully mobilize the economy for the war effort and ensure the welfare of the people—challenges made starker by a contrast with Russia’s transformation into a war economy with defence spending at levels unseen since the Cold War.

The obstruction to economic reform has been a combination of the self-interest of Ukrainian capitalists, free-market zealots in Ministries and the role of global capital.

There is an additional contributory factor to Ukraine’s current predicament, which is the response of the European (and North American) labour movement to the Russian invasion. Whilst most of the labour movement has formally opposed the invasion, there has been a restraint to the point of silence in advocacy for the necessary aid to defeat Russia.

In failing to recognise the evolution of Moscow’s oligarchy into a fascist dictatorship, and with an incipient fascist oligarchy in Washington, they have combined not only to the detriment of Ukraine but to threaten democracy more widely by fuelling fascist and authoritarian forces globally.

Ukraine is on the frontline of the battle for democracy but not only for the freedom of Ukrainians, their fate is intimately linked to fight against this new global reaction.

The Global Realignment The global realignment of USA we have seen a combination of accommodation, with Russia and increased deterrence as regards China. There are several possible outcomes of this process, a reproachment with Russia could continue without any viable peace in Ukraine, as historian Timothy Snyder has argued, ‘So far, it’s a war-mongering process. American policy under Trump has been thus far to make the war easier for Russia and harder for Ukraine.’

The axis began forming in earnest on February 12, when Trump called Putin to ‘reset’ relations and reopen dialogue on ‘topics of mutual interest.’ From the outset, Ukraine—and Europe—were relegated to the periphery of these strategic discussions, with Russia facing no equivalent pressure to concede anything beneficial Ukraine or even a suspension any hostilities.

Later, at a NATO meeting in Brussels on February 12, U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declared it ‘unrealistic’ to expect Ukraine to revert to its pre-2014 borders. With NATO membership effectively ruled out, Hegseth insisted that U.S. policy would prioritize American interests, as encapsulated by Trump’s unilateral decision-making. This was further evidenced at the Riyadh Summit on February 18, where U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov alongside Trump’s envoy Steven Witkoff and Russian sovereign wealth fund chief Kirill Dmitriev. Their agenda cantered on a return to business as usual—normalising diplomatic relations, beginning work on a Ukrainian peace settlement, and spanning the possibility of enhanced economic cooperation.

The Summit was followed sharply by Trump propagating disinformation—falsely claiming that Ukraine had initiated the war and refusing to label Russia the aggressor. On February 24 at the United Nations, the U.S. voted with Russia, China, and other allies against a resolution condemning the invasion. Soon after, the Trump administration disbanded task forces that combated Russian disinformation, tracked sanctions evasion by oligarchs, and investigated Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Offensive cyber operations against Russia were suspended, and U.S. forces in Poland, engaged in supplying aid to Ukraine, were reduced.

Coercing Ukraine: A Transactional Agenda Having set the scene for betrayal, Trump’s administration embarked on what it described as ‘dividing up certain assets.’ According to this transactional approach, Russia would retain its occupied Ukrainian territories, sanctions would eventually be lifted, and remaining unoccupied Ukraine would be relegated to a neo-colonial status. Under these conditions, Ukraine was compelled to repay $500 billion—four times the aid disbursed under the Biden administration—by surrendering 50% of its national resource proceeds (such as from mining). Moreover, Ukraine would have to repay twice the amount of any future U.S. aid, effectively imposing a 100% interest rate.

When Ukraine demanded security guarantees to shield itself from renewed Russian aggression, Trump dismissed these as Europe's responsibility. The White House made clear that, should Ukraine wish to meet with Trump on February 28, acceptance of the controversial mineral deal was mandatory. This pressure reached a climax when Trump and Vice President JD Vance launched an orchestrated attack on President Zelensky in the Oval Office—a confrontation that culminated in Zelensky being asked to leave the White House.

These actions demonstrate that Washington’s primary objective is reproachment with Russia —ending the current phase of the war is merely a means to that end. To compel Ukraine to accede to Trump’s conditions, Washington resorted to both coercion and delegitimization of Zelensky. On March 3, Trump suspended all military aid to Ukraine. Two days later, intelligence sharing—vital for early warning of enemy air attacks and battlefield operations—was also halted. Around the same time, Elon Musk threatened to suspend Ukraine’s Starlink satellite system. In response, Russia launched over 80 missiles and 1550 attack drones on Ukraine.

Concurrently, a campaign emerged to undermine President Zelensky’s legitimacy. Trump labelled him ‘a dictator without elections.’ Figures like Tulsi Gabbard and the Director of National Intelligence falsely claimed that Kyiv had cancelled elections and silenced its opposition, while Musk urged Zelensky to leave Ukraine to escape corruption charges. These narratives mirror Kremlin demands for regime change, even as senior members of Trump’s administration engaged in secret talks with Ukrainian political opponents like Yulia Tymoshenko and leaders from Petro Poroshenko’s party.

Directly, these U.S. actions helped Russia mount a counter-offensive that reversed Ukrainian gains in the Kursk region. Under intense pressure, Zelensky indicated that Ukraine was ready to sign a deal with the U.S. regarding its mineral deposits, and following talks in Saudi Arabia on March 11, Ukraine agreed to Trump’s ceasefire proposal.

Confident that Washington would not retaliate, after a March 18 call between Trump and Putin, the Kremlin did not reciprocate but agreed to refrain from attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Following further talks in Riyadh on March 25, the White House announced an agreement promising ‘safe navigation’ in the Black Sea—but only on the condition that sanctions on Russia financial institutions were lifted.

Throughout this period, Russia has maintained maximalist demands to secure Ukrainian territory and continued bombing Ukrainian civilian areas. On April 2, Putin signed a decree conscripting 160,000 new soldiers, clearly preparing for another offensive.

Meanwhile, Washington did nothing to pressure Moscow further— indeed just as Trump was imposing widescale trade tariffs, travel sanctions were lifted on Putin’s advisor and money man, Dmitriev to travel to Washington. On the agenda was the restor’ation of Russian-American relations, and to work to restore business relations. On April 10 in Istanbul, U.S.–Russia talks proceeded under the banner of ‘normalising broader relations, with Ukraine conspicuously absent from the agenda.

With no ceasefire in sight, Trump revised the terms of an agreement that would grant the U.S. dominance over Ukraine’s critical minerals and energy assets. The new terms, which resembled economic colonialism, required Ukraine to repay prior U.S. assistance at 4% interest, contribute royalties from its natural resources, and accept that the U.S. would retain majority control over the fund’s board while freely withdrawing profits—whereas Ukraine would have no such control. Trump further backed these draconian measures with explicit threats against any attempt by Ukraine to renegotiate the deal.

In essence, without any meaningful pressure imposed on Putin, this coercion has served primarily to tip the balance of power on the battlefield—effectively weakening Ukraine’s position between the two powers. Such conduct suggests that it is entirely feasible for Trump to eventually broker a deal with Russia that would neither bring about a genuine ceasefire nor lead to a sustainable peace—a prospect now openly discussed by some MAGA commentators.

The Dual Crisis of Capital and Labour

Trump’s reproachment with Russia—and the broader U.S. pivot toward the Asia–Pacific—has thrown Europe into uncertainty, upending long-held assumptions about the transatlantic alliance. European powers have reluctantly acquiesced to U.S. demands for increased defence spending. This deference is driven by both a desire to maintain U.S. oversight and a fear of abandonment of mutual defence commitments by Trump.

Europe now faces the dual challenge of a nominal ally in Washington that is simultaneously imposing tariffs and undermining liberal democracy alongside Moscow. With key MAGA Republicans openly supporting the far right in Europe.

Despite these challenges, Europe has not envisioned rallying to provide alternative providing an alternative to US aid to Ukraine. To counter Russian imperialism effectively, European aid would then need to increase from the current 44 billion euros per year to 82 billion euros—a modest sum compared to the over 800 billion euros allocated to the ReArm Europe Plan.

Instead of empowering Ukraine to have freedom of choice autonomously of Trump and Putin, initiatives from the UK and France have focused on forming an ethereal ‘coalition of the willing’ tasked with assembling a ‘reassurance force’ to be deployed far behind demarcation lines once any deal is imposed. Russia has already rejected such a force as ‘completely unacceptable,’ and President Zelensky has dismissed its projected numbers as ineffective. Rather than sabotaging a peace settlement, as some critics like Andrew Murray of Stop the War have claimed, these measures propose to underpin a Trump–Putin partition plan that would leave Russian occupation intact.

The Stakes for Democracy

The Ukrainian question is pivotal to global politics. If Trump and Putin succeed in undermining Ukraine’s struggle for freedom, the result will not be sustainable peace; rather, Russian imperialism will merely pause to recuperate and regroup before resuming its real objective of asserting dominance over Ukraine. Such an outcome would embolden reactionary forces worldwide, reshaping the global landscape into fragmented regional capitalist power blocs driven purely by naked self-interest.

To responsd with some form of radical abstentionism in the face of the Trump’s rapprochement with Putin is to become complicit in the betrayal of Ukraine and resistance to the incipient fascism in the USA.

For the labour movement—in Europe, the United States, and beyond—a de facto victory for Putin’s Russia at the behest of Trump would be disastrous. Yet, so far, neither the European nor US labour movement has yet to project its own independent an alternative to the what is being offered by the Trump-Putin Axis, this is an urgent necessity.

The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign has with allies has made a modest contribution, with our a Plan for an Alternative to Russian Occupation of viable measures to oppose the imposition of an unjust peace that cements Russia’s occupation of Ukraine, raising with renewed meaning for today the old slogan of Neither Washington nor Moscow, but a free, democratic and United Ukraine.

A PLAN FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TO RUSSIAN OCCUPATION The UK government, the labour and trade union movement, and wider civil society, must oppose the imposition of an unjust peace that cements Russia’s occupation of Ukraine. Ukraine’s natural resources must not be exploited for the benefit of Western corporations and oligarchs. Instead, deals must serve the interests of Ukrainian people and protect the environment under democratic oversight. A just and lasting peace must align with the Ukrainian people’s right to a free, democratic and united Ukraine.

Key Points:

1. Aid to Ukraine: Increase aid with critical weapons to restore frontline confidence, strengthening military capabilities, and rejecting any loss of sovereignty.
2. Economic Measures: Transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, cancel Ukraine’s international debt, and implement stronger sanctions against Putin’s regime and the oligarchs who support it.
3. International Support: Convene an emergency “Save Ukraine” summit of European and allied nations for necessary military and financial support, ensuring Ukraine can negotiate freely without coercion.
4. Justice for War Crimes: Establish international mechanisms for justice and accountability for Russia’s war crimes and the crime of aggression. The abducted Ukrainian children must be returned, and the perpetrators brought to justice.
5. Reconstruction of Ukraine: Support a progressive, socially just reconstruction with democratic participation that empowers Ukrainian trade unions and civil society. Withdraw the proposed Labour Code that restricts workers’ rights and unions.
6. Opposition to Trumpist Reaction: Recognise Trump’s alignment with Putin and his coercion of Ukraine, posing a threat to global democracy. The government should rescind its offer of a state visit and rally Europe to act independently.
7. Reverse Foreign Aid Cuts: Finance Ukraine’s defence by seizing Russian assets, imposing taxes on billionaires and corporations, and relaxing fiscal regulations. Cutting foreign aid is counterproductive and weakens support for Ukraine.

_______________________________________________________________

Speaker: Søren Søndergaard, MP in the Parliament of Denmark (Red-Green Aliance) Conference theme: ‘What peace?’

Prerequisite for a just peace – more support for Ukraine The latest developments, with Trump’s blatant betrayal, are putting enormous pressure on Ukraine. It will be forced to make very difficult choices with enormous consequences. But as friends of Ukraine, we must continue to insist that neither Trump, nor the EU leaders, nor indeed we, should decide the path forward for Ukraine.This choice can only be made by Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Because they are the ones who are under attack, who are losing lives and suffering every day in the war.

Our task is to do everything in our power to give Ukraine the best possible starting point for securing the fairest possible peace. This means putting pressure on our governments to give more aid to Ukraine. That is our main task.

We are not giving enough = ‘rearmament of the EU’? I have just returned from a security conference in Warsaw for representatives of the EU national parliaments and the European Parliament. Some speakers asked the following question: how is it that 500 [million] Europeans are begging 350 million Americans to stop 150 million Russians who are unable to win a war against 40 million Ukrainians?

I understand that some people are asking this question to argue in favour of a general militarisation of Europe. But the question itself contains an important point. If Putin’s Russia wins the war, it is not because Europe lacks the necessary resources. It is because of a lack of political will to support Ukraine.

Western countries have supported Ukraine sufficiently to enable it to continue the war, but not sufficiently to drive the invaders out of the occupied territories.

Instead, the war in Ukraine is now being used as an argument in favour of general rearmament throughout the EU. The European Commission’s grand plan – Rearm Europe – envisages spending 800 billion euros on strengthening military capabilities.

To sell it, the myth is being spread that the reason we have not been able to help Ukraine with the necessary military supplies is that the European arms industry is small and too weak.

But what is the reality? Let’s look at the top ten arms exporting countries. Half of these 10 countries are European and four of them are EU members: France is number 2, Germany number 5, Italy number 6, the United Kingdom number 7 and Spain number 9. In total, more than a quarter of global arms exports come from EU countries. If the UK is included, this represents almost a third of global arms exports. Europe has the capacity to produce and ship arms to Ukraine.

But the political will is lacking.

At one point, the EU promised to send a million artillery shells to Ukraine. Ukraine desperately needed them. When they came under attack on the front line from Russian artillery, they were not allowed to retaliate. But the EU did not keep its promise. By the agreed date, only half had been delivered. And the promise was only honoured after many months of delay. This situation cost the lives of many Ukrainian soldiers and resulted in the loss of Ukrainian territories.

The European arms industry prefers to sell its products to Israel, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes.

In words, European politicians promised to support Ukraine. But in practice, they refused to order the large European arms industry to produce to meet Ukraine’s needs.

The problem was not a lack of production capacity. The problem was that market forces were allowed to decide. The problem was the lack of planning and control.

Unfortunately, there are many examples of this kind.

It should be emphasised, for example, that EU countries buy gas from Russia for more money than they give in financial support to Ukraine.

When the war in Ukraine is used as an argument for gigantic investments in arms production and rearmament, there is something else at stake:

On the one hand, strengthening the military-industrial complex by giving big business a profit guaranteed by the state.

And on the other hand, finding arguments to explain why ordinary workers have to accept cuts and social degradation.

Instead, I will argue for increased aid to Ukraine by taking control of the financial and industrial resources used to produce weapons, developing state arms production and confiscating the above-normal profits of the private arms industry.

We also need to take a closer look at the EU’s demands of Ukraine.

It is not just the US that is using aid to Ukraine for its own benefit.

We have seen the US treating Ukraine as a business opportunity, trying to get its hands on Ukrainian minerals as a condition of its support.

While we should be highly critical of these opportunistic conditionalities, we should also be aware that the EU has presented its own conditionalities. These are less talked about than Trump’s demands, but they are nevertheless highly problematic. I am talking about the so-called ‘Plan for Ukraine 2024-2027’ that the EU has attached to the Facility for Ukraine.

The ‘Plan for Ukraine’ sets out the conditions that Ukraine must fulfil to benefit from EU grants and loans. It contains 69 reform proposals. Some of these push Ukraine towards increased commercialisation. History has shown that extensive neoliberal conditions for crisis financing prove detrimental to the recipient country. There is no reason for the EU to recycle elements of the Washington Consensus into a Brussels Consensus.

One of the 69 reform proposals is to ‘reduce state ownership in the banking sector’ and to take ‘measures towards privatisation’ (page 99). Assuming it is a brilliant idea, we should let Ukraine do what it wants. Moreover, the Ukrainian banking sector did in fact manage to maintain a relatively high level of basic services during the war, which makes the proposal look even worse. We should not be too reassured by the wording that privatisation will take place ‘in an orderly manner, avoiding a premature transfer of control on sub-optimal terms for the state’; although this sounds reassuring, privatising in the aftermath of a war is never a good deal for the state.

The Ukrainian plan also calls for the ‘liberalisation of the rail transport sector’ in order to create a ‘competitive market’ and to split ‘the infrastructure operator and the rail operators’ (page 229-230). Again, there is a policy there that we should leave to Ukraine to make its own decisions. Furthermore, the liberalisation of the railways has not proven to be a good idea. The UK is probably the most glaring example of this. The British liberalisations and privatisations, encouraged by EU rules in the 1990s, have left their railway system in a lamentable state.

If one takes the time to read the 300+ pages of the plan, one will find other examples from the neoliberal playbook. There is, for example, the implementation of a deregulation plan (page 162) and an effort to substantially privatise Ukraine’s public assets.

Finally, as you may know, Trump has announced that he is going to annex Greenland to the United States! Perhaps to gain free access to all of Greenland’s minerals. Perhaps to prevent other countries from using the new shipping routes that are appearing after the polar ice caps melt. Or maybe simply because if you add the territory of Canada and Greenland to that of the United States, the American territory will be larger than that of Russia and will constitute the largest country in the world. This gives a new meaning to the slogan ‘Make America Great Again’: ‘Make America “Great” Again’.

But the small and proud Greenlandic people have a saying: ‘Nothing about Greenland without Greenland’.

That is what is at stake.

And it is the same message that we must send to Putin and Trump, but also to the EU leaders: Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. Even after the war is over. ______________________________________________________________________________

Speaker: Mounir Satouri, French MEP (The Ecologists / The Greens in the European Parliament) Conference theme: ‘What peace?’

Language of intervention: French (original follows English translation—français ci-dessous)

On the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the only demand I have made, as as a humanist, is that support for Ukraine must be long-term.

As an environmental activist, I am proud of our commitment, and in particular, as a pacifist activist, I can say that I am proud of the support for Ukraine.

Indeed, I do not see any contradiction here. It is because I consider myself a pacifist that I can only support Ukraine. Pacifism is not surrender to the law of the strongest, but a commitment. Pacifism is not giving in to the aggressor. It is refusing the logic of weapons, in respect for international law, for the right of peoples to self-determination, within the framework of negotiations that must be real and fair.

What President Trump is doing today by withdrawing is not done in the name of pacifism or for peace, but because his agenda is quite different. He wants to transform the framework of international relations, end the confrontation with Russia and build a new world order based on brutality and force. That is what you/we are facing.

But I would like to emphasize that the American president does have one merit: he has broken with the logic of double standards. The same week that he ended assistance to Ukraine, he announced that he wanted to empty Gaza of its population to build skyscrapers there and to create the modern and new Côte d'Azur. He has abandoned double standards. That is his consistency... This is not the case for European decision-makers, my colleagues in the European Parliament and the leaders of the Member States of the European Union. And I regret that.

Double standards are destroying Europe's image...

It is in the name of multilateralism, of my principles and values, of my attachment to international law that I support Ukraine. And it is in exactly the same way that I support the civilian populations in Gaza, in the West Bank, in occupied Palestine.

With the same force, if I oppose the occupation of Ukraine by Putin and Russia, I oppose Israel's occupation of Palestine. All those who practise double standards weaken the law, weaken Ukraine. All those who negotiate universalism and trample on international law betray Ukraine... but they weaken themselves in reality.

I told you I came as a pacifist, but I am also here as Chairman of the DROI Committee of the European Parliament. The violations of international law and the atrocities committed in Ukraine no longer need to be proven. And those responsible must answer for their actions. There will be no just peace without justice. And it is in this sense that I support the International Criminal Court (ICC) and I would like to reiterate that the ongoing investigations must be allowed to run their course. To this end, it is our responsibility to do everything we can to maintain the ICC, the only legitimate body to do so.

I am appalled by the sanctions imposed and the mistrust shown for the sole reason that the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. How can anyone want to destroy the ICC? How can we let Mr. Trump impose extraterritorial sanctions that could prevent us, European States or other States Parties, from taking the legal measures that we want? As States signatories to the Rome Statute, the ICC is our Court. It is our tool in the fight against international injustices; it is one of the ways to bring justice to the victims. It would be as if Putin had condemned the Spanish Supreme Court or the French Court of Cassation without us reacting. On the contrary, we must use all the levers at our disposal to defend the ICC.

President Von der Leyen could decree a blocking statute tomorrow to counter Trump's decision. This European tool for legal protection exists, and it can offer protection and stability to the ICC... Instead, for the moment, she is not shouldering her responsibilities and is using the lack of unanimity in the Council as an excuse. This is a lie: on the contrary, only a qualified majority is needed to activate this “blocking statute”, and this would not be the first time: Europe has already activated it to counter US sanctions against Cuba and protect European companies from their extraterritorial effects.

I call on the President of the European Commission to assume her responsibilities and also protect the Ukrainian victims in the same way as all the victims of violations of international law!

I have also come here as an environmentalist and I have a message: it is up to us, as Europeans, to have effective policies. One example: energy efficiency. If we insulated our houses, we could insulate ourselves from Putin. As long as we buy gas and oil from Russia, we will continue to finance the bombings. It is time to build our energy autonomy, to break free from dependence. Putin is feeding his war with our dependence!

Finally, I am here as a Member of the European Parliament and as a simple citizen. What Ukraine has been suffering for the past three years has turned everything the European Union has achieved on its head. We believed in Europe's promise of peace. Not only is this peace fragile and being called into question by the Russian attack in Ukraine, but beyond that, European prosperity is also being directly disrupted, particularly with inflation, which is all the more suffered by the most vulnerable.

However, the cost of war or military effort cannot, must not be borne only by the weakest and most fragile. In France, the government wants to double annual investment in armaments without raising taxes, especially those of the wealthiest. But if there are proven needs for our strategic autonomy and for diplomatic influence, for rearmament and European emancipation, it cannot be based on the entire population, which is already largely suffering the economic and social consequences of this burden. The effort must be shared and fiscal fairness must be achieved if we want our populations to accept that we continue to support Ukraine. The burden must be shared by everyone, in Ukraine as in Europe.

Finally, I would like to make one last point: we need a European framework for the export and import of arms that respects human rights. We need to establish principles and values. A weapon is not and must never be a commodity like any other.

Mounir SATOURI Born in Morocco in 1975, human rights defender and ecologist. Committed to human rights from the age of 15, Mounir Satouri was imprisoned by the Moroccan regime for demonstrating. He arrived in France at the age of 16 in 1991, and became involved in student and community activism, particularly against nuclear power and for human rights.

Professionally involved in social issues, he held numerous positions of responsibility within the Green Party in France, until he became a Member of the European Parliament in 2019. As an MEP, he devoted his first term of office to the issue of rights, but also to the subject of defense, for example by openly fighting against nuclear proliferation.

Since 2024, Mounir Satouri has been the chair of the Human Rights Committee at the European Parliament. Rights in Palestine, Tunisia and Egypt are causes that are regularly raised, but also numerous cross-border ssues, such as the fight against forced labor, the protection of human rights defenders and social justice.

Intervention de Mounir Satouri, député européen français (Les Ecologistes /Les verts au PE), le 26 mars à la conférence de solidarité avec l’Ukraine du RESU/ENSU à Bruxelles, plénière « Quelle paix ? »

Sur le conflit qui oppose l'Ukraine à la Russie, la seule exigence que j'ai posée, en tant qu'humaniste, c'est que le soutien à l'Ukraine doit se faire sur la durée.

Je suis fier, en tant que militant écologiste, de notre engagement, et en particulier, en tant que militant pacifiste, je peux dire que je suis fier du soutien à l'Ukraine.

En effet, je considère qu'il n'y pas là de contradiction. C'est parce que je me considère comme pacifiste que je ne peux que soutenir l'Ukraine. Le pacifisme n'est pas une reddition face à la loi du plus fort, mais un engagement. Le pacifisme, ce n'est pas céder à l'agresseur. C'est refuser la logique des armes, dans le respect du droit international, du droit des peuples à l'autodétermination, dans le cadre d'une négociation qui doit être réelle et juste.

Ce que fait le président Trump aujourd'hui en se retirant, il ne le fait pas au nom du pacifisme ni pour la paix, mais parce que son agenda est tout autre. Il veut transformer le cadre des relations internationales, sortir de la confrontation à la Russie et construire un nouvel ordre mondial basé sur la brutalité et sur la force. C'est à ça que vous/nous faisons face.

Mais je tiens à souligner que le président américain a finalement un mérite : il est sorti de la logique du double standard. La semaine même où il a décrété la fin de l'assistance à l'Ukraine, il a annoncé vouloir vider Gaza de sa population pour y bâtir des gratte-ciels et pour y construire la Côte d'Azur moderne et nouvelle. Il est sorti du deux-poids deux-mesures. C'est sa cohérence à lui... Ce n'est pas le cas des décideurs européens, de mes collègues au Parlement européen et des dirigeants des États-Membres de l'Union Européenne. Et je le regrette.

Le deux-poids deux-mesures est en train de détruire l'image de l'Europe...

C'est au nom du multilatéralisme, de mes principes et de mes valeurs, de mon attachement au droit international que je soutiens l'Ukraine. Et c'est exactement de la même manière que je soutiens les populations civiles à Gaza, en Cisjordanie, en Palestine occupée.

Avec la même force, si je m'oppose à l'occupation de Poutine et de la Russie en Ukraine, je me dois de m'opposer à l'occupation de la Palestine par Israël. Toutes celles et ceux qui pratiquent le deux-poids deux-mesures fragilisent le droit, fragilisent l'Ukraine Toutes celles et ceux qui négocient l'universalisme et piétinent le droit international trahissent l'Ukraine... mais ils se fragilisent eux-mêmes en réalité.

Je vous disais venir en tant que pacifiste, mais je suis là aussi en tant que Président de la commission DROI du Parlement européen. Les violations du droit international, les exactions commises en Ukraine ne sont plus à prouver. Et leurs responsables doivent répondre de leurs actes. Il n'y aura pas de paix juste sans justice. Et c'est dans ce sens que je soutien la Cour Pénale Internationale (CPI) et que je rappelle que les enquêtes en cours doivent pouvoir être menées jusqu'au bout. Pour cela, il est de notre responsabilité de tout faire pour maintenir la CPI, seul organe légitime à le faire.

Je suis scandalisé par les sanctions imposées et les défiances brandies au seul motif que la CPI a lancé un mandat d'arrêt contre Netanyahou. Comment vouloir la destruction de la CPI ? Comment laisser Mr Trump imposer des sanctions extraterritoriales qui pourraient nous empêcher nous, États européens ou autres États parties, de prendre les mesures juridiques que nous voulons ? En tant qu'États signataires du Statut de Rome, la CPI est notre Cour. Elle est notre outil de lutte contre les injustices internationales, elle est l'une des manières de rendre justice aux victimes. C'est comme si Poutine avait condamné la Cour suprême espagnole ou la Cour de cassation française sans que cela nous fasse réagir. Au contraire, nous devons mettre en marche tous les leviers utiles pour défendre la CPI.

Madame la présidente Von der Leyen pourrait décréter demain un statut de blocage pour contrer la décision de Trump. Cet outil européen de protection juridique existe, et il peut offrir protection et stabilité à la CPI... Au lieu de cela, pour le moment, elle ne prend pas ses responsabilités et prétexte le manque d'unanimité au Conseil. C'est un mensonge : au contraire, il ne faut qu'une majorité qualifiée pour activer ce "statut de blocage", et ce ne serait d'ailleurs pas la première fois : l'Europe l'a déjà activé pour contrer les sanctions américaines contre Cuba et protéger les entreprises européennes de leurs effets extraterritoriaux.

J'appelle la Présidente de la Commission européenne à prendre ses responsabilités pour protéger aussi les victimes ukrainiennes au même titre que toutes les victimes des violations du droit international ! Je suis aussi venu ici aussi en tant qu'écologiste et j'ai un message : à nous, Européennes et Européens, d'avoir des politiques efficaces. Un exemple : l'efficacité énergétique. Si on isolait nos maisons, on pourrait isoler Poutine. Tant qu'on achètera du gaz et du pétrole à la Russie, nous continuerons à financer les bombardements. Il est temps de construire notre autonomie énergétique pour sortir de la dépendance. Poutine nourrit sa guerre avec notre dépendance ! Enfin, je suis ici en tant que député européen et en simple citoyen.

Ce que subi l'Ukraine depuis 3 ans est venu bouleverser tous les acquis de l'Union Européenne. Nous croyions à la promesse européenne de paix. Non seulement cette paix est fragile et remise en cause par l'attaque russe en Ukraine, mais au-delà, la prospérité européenne se voit aussi directement perturbée, notamment avec l'inflation, d'autant plus subie par les plus fragiles. Or le coût de la guerre ou de l'effort militaire ne peut, ne doit pas être supporté que par les plus faibles et les plus fragiles. En France, le gouvernement souhaite multiplier par deux l'investissement annuel dans l'armement sans augmenter les impôts, en particulier ceux des plus riches. Mais s'il y a des besoins avérés pour notre autonomie stratégique et pour le rapport de force diplomatique, pour le réarmement et une émancipation européenne, l'on ne peut la faire reposer sur l'ensemble de la population qui subit déjà largement les méfaits économiques et sociaux de la charge. L'effort doit être partagé et la justice fiscale doit être au rendez-d-vous si nous voulons que nos populations acceptent que nous continuions à soutenir l'Ukraine. La charge doit être partagée par toutes et tous, en, Ukraine comme en Europe. Enfin, j'insiste sur un dernier point : il nous faut un cadre européen sur l'exportation et l'importation des armes dans le respect des droits humains. Il faut poser les principes et les valeurs. Une arme n'est pas et ne doit jamais être une marchandise comme les autres.

Mounir SATOURI

Né au Maroc en 1975, défenseur des droits humains et écologiste. Engagé dès l'âge de 15 ans pour les droits humains, Mounir Satouri est emprisonné par le régime marocain pour avoir manifesté. Arrivé en France à 16 ans en 1991, il s'engage dans le syndicalisme étudiant et l'associatif, notamment contre le nucléaire et pour les droits humains.

Engagé professionnellement dans le social, il a eu de nombreuses responsabilités au sein du parti écologiste en France, jusqu'à devenir député européen en 2019.

En tant que député européen il a consacré son premier mandat à la question des droits, mais aussi au sujet de la défense, par exemple en luttant ouvertement contre la prolifération nucléaire... Depuis 2024, Mounir Satouri est président de la commission Droits humains au Parlement européen... Les droits en Palestine, Tunisie, Egypte sont des causes régulièrement soulevées, mais également de nombreux sujets transversaux, comme la lutte contre le travail forcé, la protection des défenseurs des droits ou encore la justice sociale.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Speaker: Simon Pirani (writer, historian and energy researcher) Conference theme: What peace?

Support Ukrainian resistance, not monstrous rearmament plans

“What peace?” is a wide question. To narrow it down, we can ask: what sort of peace is being discussed among Ukrainians?

In an interview about the Trump-Putin talks, and the prospects for any agreement, our comrade Denis Pilash, a member of Sotsialnyi Rukh, said that “Ukrainians have two things in mind when thinking about any deal: the fate of people in the occupied territories, and how to prevent Russia from restarting the war.”

These points could frame areas for agreements, he argued. He pointed to the Ukrainian government’s position that it will not recognise illegal annexations, but would accept a ceasefire followed by negotiations.

On security guarantees, Denis argued that NATO membership is not only problematic but also unlikely. But “some sort of security guarantees involving important players are needed, to ensure Russia does not invade again”.

This in turn raises questions about who can guarantee security for who, and how.

To answer these, we need to look at broader, contextual issues, I believe. Here are comments about four of these.

1. Authoritarianism versus democracy

For many Ukrainians, the war has forced the issue: live under Putin’s authoritarian rule, or in a democracy, albeit seriously flawed. The answer has been: stubborn resistance to the invasion by civil society.

But is it right to see this resistance as part of a wider international battle between authoritarianism and democracy? I think this is a problematic framing.

The western European powers, including the UK, which have now promised to support Ukraine after the reversal of US policy, are among the greatest enemies of democracy and democratic rights. Not because of their domestic political systems, in which valuable democratic rights and freedoms, won in past struggles, still persist. But because of their support for vile dictators who defend the interests of capital internationally.

They had, after all, hoped to continue to work with Putin’s regime before and after 2014 – despite Chechnya, despite Syria – and only revised their view in 2022.

The clearest reminder of these powers’ attitude to democracy and human rights is in Gaza. They continue to arm and support Israel, despite 15 months of relentless war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed daily in Gaza, and now the West Bank, by a government of extreme right-wingers and near-fascists.

Disproportionate targeting of civilians; deliberate blockading of food and medical supplies; bombing of civilian infrastructure; Israeli ministers’ explicit calls for ethnic cleansing – each of these are war crimes. But the western governments continue to supply weapons to Israel, and to witch-hunt their own citizens who protest.

Does this mean we should refuse the support given to Ukrainians resisting Russian aggression by the genocide facilitator Keir Starmer or the near fascist Georgia Meloni? No. But we should open our eyes to their motivations.

Their claims to be fighting authoritarianism are hypocritical lies. Leading Ukrainian politicians, too, are culpable: they have taken the opportunity provided by war to undermine democratic and labour rights.

Furthermore, we should challenge the European leaders’ idea of “security”. I believe that they mean, security for capital and its structures of power. The same “security” that underpins their murderous, racist policies targeting migrants. For us, security means, security for people. These are different, opposite, things. We need to define our collective stance on this.

The labour movement and social movements need an independent programme under which to mobilise in support of Ukraine.

Ours is not the first generation that has had to deal with the problems of making limited alliances with our class enemies. Collectively we should look at examples of resistance to Nazi occupation regimes during the second world war.

Many of these – in Greece, the Balkans, France and elsewhere – were organised predominantly through the workers’ movement, but worked alongside, and in constant tension with, the bourgeois states-in-exile who were supported by Britain and other western powers.

1. Rearmament

Following the reversal of US policy, the European powers have decided on long-term rearmament programmes, that is, substantial state investment in arms manufacture.

We must not become cheerleaders for these programmes. We are not required to endorse them, in order to support politically the provision to Ukraine by western European states of the weapons and ammunition it needs. We can support non-state actors in Ukraine – medical volunteers, civil society groups supporting the military, and so on – without endorsing the strategies of the ruling class.

In a recent article about rearmament, the socialist journalist Owen Jones argued that “defence spending must be scrutinised”. I agree.

Jones pointed out that “a significant amount” of the UK defence budget goes on Trident nuclear missiles, which have no relevance to the war in Ukraine; that billions have been spent on aircraft carriers and Ajax armoured vehicles that military specialists say are useless.

Furthermore, the UK government has predicated rearmament on massive cuts in other state spending.

This is a typical neoliberal false choice: support for Ukraine, or for public services. It is framed by the mainstream politicians, and supported by the Putinesque far right.

We need to challenge it. Let us win support for our demands to cancel Ukraine’s debt. Demand the seizure of frozen Russian financial assets, that the European authorities are likely to hand back this year. Demand an end to arms supplies to Israel. Tax the rich to fund public services.

2. The nature of the Russian threat

To develop our approach to these issues, we need also to characterise the nature of the Russian threat. For our friends in Ukraine, and the Baltic states, this threat is immediate. We need to seek their advice.

We also need to assess to what extent Europe faces a wider threat of Russian military action.

There is a strand of establishment opinion that compares the present moment to 1938, and warns that appeasement of Putin will lead to all-out war. This overlaps to some extent with rearmament policies.

I have doubts about this. Having concentrated its forces in Ukraine for three years, Russia has not only failed to capture Kyiv, but has captured only one fifth of Ukrainian territory, at huge cost – including the abandonment of its closest ally in the Middle East, Bashar al Assad.

Look, too, at the growth of social movements against some of eastern Europe’s Putinesque regimes, in Slovakia, Serbia and Hungary.

We need to ask not only whether the Kremlin, driven by deranged nationalism, might WANT to launch attacks more broadly to Russia’s west, but also: to what extent is it ABLE to do so. Perhaps it is more likely to use cyberwarfare, low-level sabotage and of course support for far-right parties in Europe.

I do not have answers to these questions. But if we do not discuss them, we will not put together meaningful strategies.

3. What can the labour movement and social movements effectively do?

I hope this conference will discuss not only what governments can or will do – over which our influence, the influence of civil society, is always limited – but also what we can do independently of governments.

Of course, we need to link support for Ukrainian resistance, and for a just peace, with wider fights for social justice, against anti-migrant policies, and for effective action on climate change. Everyone here is familiar with these arguments.

Beyond this, I will make just one point. Let us compare the demonstrations against support for Ukraine – attended in the UK by one or two hundred campists, Stalinists and cranks – with the demonstrations against Israeli genocide, regularly attended in the UK by hundreds of thousands of people.

When we go to those demonstrations with a banner stating “From Ukraine to Palestine, Occupation is a Crime”, there is enormous sympathy in the crowds.

These crowds are made up largely of young people who believe in a better future – free of war, of oppression and of the threat of climate disaster.

Making common cause with them is crucial, if we are to strengthen support in western Europe for Ukrainian resistance and for a just peace.

Version published on Simon Pirani’s blog, People and Nature

_______________________________________________________________

Speaker: Dimitrii Kovalev (Left for Peace without Annexations) Conference theme: Russian anti-war opposition

The Left for Peace without Annexations is a coalition of several organisations from different backgrounds (socialist, Trotskyist, Maoist, etc). I am a member of the Communist Tendency, the Russian section of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency, which is part of this coalition.

The coalition has activists within Russia, where they agitate for defeatism, while our supporters in exile provide support. We can count on support from a faction in the German party Die Linke (The Left). However, most of the European left remains eurocentric and even chauvinistic.

We stand for revolutionary defeatism: we want Russia to lose this war. In our opinion, true peace can only be achieved by going back to Ukraine’s original borders, without any annexations. If there is a need to modify these borders, then only the Ukrainian people can decide that.

We also stand for unconditional support for Ukraine. The resources of Ukraine belong to the Ukrainian people, not to Russian President Vladimir Putin nor to European imperialists and neither to US President Donald Trump.

Questions such as a possible ceasefire can only be decided by the Ukrainian people. We consider membership in NATO and EU as imperialist actions that go against the independence of Ukrainian people and therefore politically oppose this. But, again, any such membership is the sole decision of the Ukrainian people.

We believe military equipment should be delivered to Ukraine, without this needing a build-up of Europe’s militaries. Sanctions on Russia should serve Ukrainian interests, not European profits. To ensure this, sanctions should come from workers organisations, such as trade unions, not imperialist governments.

We stand for the destruction of the present Russian Federation. We recognise that most Russian citizens have a “centrist” opinion on the war: they are not exactly in favour, yet they do not express their opposition.

We need to understand that the Putin regime has destroyed all left-wing organisations and trade unions within Russia. It is only now — after three years of war — that we can see the beginnings of new organisations that seek to swim “against the current”.

Despite this, there are some organised people active on Russian soil. With them we strive to support political prisoners, while spreading information (which remains very difficult).

In exile, our main problem is the sectarian, eurocentric and chauvinistic left, which hinders our efforts at connecting with broader layers of the population. Nevertheless, we try to keep connecting, listening to Ukrainian people, and finding an audience in trade unions, among other actions.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Speaker: Bernard Dreano (RESU/ENSU France) Conference theme: Organising solidarity

Language of intervention: French (original follows English translation —français ci-dessous)

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Bernard Dreano and I am a member of a small French organisation, the Centre for International Solidarity Studies and Initiatives (CEDETIM), which has been in existence since the end of the 1960s . I am also one of the spokespersons for the French branch of ENSU-RESU, the European Network for Solidarity with Ukraine, which was created at the time of Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

I am also a member of another small organisation, the European Citizens' Assembly citizens (supported at its creation in 1990 by CEDETIM) in the continuity of the European solidarity and struggle movements for peace and democracy of the end of the 1980s and in the decades that followed. I recall this history because it is in this context that we have forged ties of association with partner movements in countries at war (the Balkans, the Caucasus), and also in Russia and Ukraine, at the time within the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly network. Quite naturally, from 2014, with the war in Donbass, we have supported, on our own small scale, organisations defending rights in Ukraine, including the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, which is here today, the Centre for Civil Liberties, Zmina and the Skhid SOS association, and also contributed, within a coalition called Civil M+, to initiatives for dialogue between Ukrainian and Russian civil associations and German or Dutch movements. At the same time, the more coherent and effective Ukraine Solidarity Campaign was developing in the United Kingdom, which is now a major player in this conference.

We formed RESU-ENSU, which has been active from the outset in several European countries – and now even beyond Europe. Committed to supporting Ukraine in the face of the large-scale aggression of 2022, with a clear program: support for the armed and unarmed resistance of the Ukrainian people, solidarity with progressive Ukrainian movements (political associations, trade unions, feminists, environmentalists, civil and human rights defenders, etc.) and with anti-war Russians.

What has been, and what is, the most concrete and effective form of this solidarity among counterparts, peer-to-peer cooperation in the English expression. Progressive, ecosocialist, social-democratic, anti-authoritarian and ecological organisations, from Europe and elsewhere, are cooperating with their Ukrainian partners, and we have a demonstration of this at this conference.

Members of important trade unions from the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Spain, etc., and international trade union organisations and networks are also participating in this conference, with Ukrainian trade unionists from the KVPU, the FPU, the health sector (Be Like Us), and we have a workshop with trade unionists from Belarus and Georgia. Worker solidarity is fundamental, and is exercised through meetings like this one, through concrete actions such as aid convoys organised in several countries and also through public declarations of solidarity, such as the recent one by almost all the French trade union confederations.

Cooperation also with their Ukrainian counterparts from human rights organisations, environmentalists, student movements, feminist groups, LGBTQ+ rights advocates, local communities, etc. So many initiatives and fields of action that may not be sufficiently represented in this conference, but they do exist in many countries.

However, we must not hide from ourselves the difficulties we encounter in implementing these practical forms of cooperation and affirming this solidarity; difficulties that vary according to social and professional sector and according to the specific situations in various regions and countries.

For example, the appeals of feminists in Ukraine – and Russia – have not been echoed by most of the feminist movements in our countries and international feminist networks. Very large European trade unions have limited their activities with regard to their Ukrainian counterparts, or have even completely ignored them. The same is true of large sections of left-wing parties of all persuasions in Europe and throughout the world.

We are confronted with two kinds of attitude that hinder any effective solidarity. First, a dynamic of avoidance, often cloaked in abstract pacifism, which, while recognising that the war is the result of Putin's aggression, consists at best in being content with humanitarian activities but avoids engaging with Ukrainians, as indeed with anti-war Russians, and responding to their demands.

Second, a logic that we call ‘campism’, which in the name of geopolitical considerations disconnected from today's reality, consists de facto in taking up all or part of Putin's self-justifying narrative, and abandoning, even fighting against, all solidarity with the people under attack and their organisations and movements.

Our solidarity does not mean adherence to the naratives or alignment with the proposals of the governments of our States. Our Ukrainian friends, all committed to the defence of their country, are nonetheless often critical of certain policies of the current Ukrainian government and we support them in their activities for the defence of social and democratic rights.

As requested by our Ukrainian and Russian anti-war partners, we support the rights of the Ukrainian people to self-determination and security within the integrity of their territory, respect for international law and sanctions against the aggressor. Showing solidarity also means rejecting any ‘negotiations’ that undermine the rights of those most affected, any Trump-Putin imperialist division between ‘great powers’ totally incompatible with a just and lasting peace.

Intervention de Bernard Dreano (RESU-ENSU France) Plénière : Organiser la solidarité

Permettez-moi quelques mots de présentation. Je m’appelle Bernard Dreano et je suis, membre d’une petite organisation française, le Centre d’études et d’initiatives de solidarité internationale CEDETIM qui existe depuis la fin des années 1960.... Je suis aussi l’un des porte-paroles de la branche français du RESU, le réseau européen de solidarité avec l’Ukraine crée au moment de l’invasion à grande échelle de l’Ukraine par la Russie en 2022.

Je suis également membre d’une autre petite organisation, l’Assemblée européenne des citoyens, (appuyée lors de sa création en 1990 par le CEDETIM) dans la continuité des mouvements de solidarité et de lutte européennes pour la paix et la démocratie de la fin des années 1980 et dans les décennies qui ont suivi. Je rappelle cette histoire parce que c’est dans ce contexte que nous avons noués des liens avec des partenaires associatifs des mouvements dans des pays en situation de guerre (Balkans, Caucase), et aussi en Russie et en Ukraine, au sein à l’époque du réseau Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly. Très naturellement, dès 2014, avec la guerre dans le Donbass, nous avons à notre petite échelle, soutenu des organisations de défense des droits en Ukraine, dont le Kharkiv Human Right Protection Group ici présent, le Centre des libertés civiles, Zmina ou l’association Skhid SOS, et contribué à des initiatives de dialogue entre associations civiles ukrainiennes, russes et des mouvements allemands ou néerlandais, au sein d’une coalition appelée Civil M+. A la même époque se développait, de manière plus cohérente et plus efficace, la Ukraine Solidarity Campaign au Royaume Uni, qui est aujourd’hui un acteur majeur de cette conférence.

Nous avons constitué le RESU/ENSU actif dès le départ dans plusieurs pays européens – et aujourd’hui même au-delà de l’Europe -. Engagé dans le soutien à l’Ukraine face l’agression à grande échelle de 2022 sur un programme clair : soutien à la résistance armée et non armée du peuple ukrainien, solidarité avec les mouvements progressistes ukrainiens (politiques, associatifs, syndicaux, féministes, écologistes, défenseurs des droits civiques et humains, etc.) et avec les Russes anti-guerre.

Quelle a été, et quelle est la forme la plus concrète et la plus efficace de cette solidarité ? La coopération entre homologues, peer to peer comme on fit en anglais.

Des organisations progressistes, écosocialistes, sociales-démocrates, anti-autoritaires, écologistes, d’Europe et d’ailleurs coopèrent avec leurs partenaires ukrainiens et nous en avons une démonstration dans cette conférence A cette conférence participent aussi des membres d’importants syndicats du Royaume Uni, d’Irlande, de France, de l’Etat espagnol..., et des organisations et réseaux syndicaux internationaux, avec des syndicalistes ukrainiens et ukrainiennes de la KVPU, de la FPU, de la santé (Sois comme nous) et nous avons un atelier avec des syndicalistes du Bélarus et de Géorgie. La solidarité des travailleurs est fondamentale, et s’exerce par les rencontres comme celle-ci, par les actions concrète de convois d’aide organisées dans plusieurs pays et aussi par des déclarations publiques de solidarité, comme récemment celle de presque toutes les confédérations syndicales françaises.

Coopération aussi avec leurs homologues ukrainiens des organisations de défense des droits humains, des environnementalistes, des mouvements étudiants, des groupes féministes, des défenseurs des droits des LGBTQ+, des communautés locales, etc. Autant d’initiatives et de champs d’actions peut être insuffisamment représentés dans cette conférence, mais qui existent dans de nombreux pays.

Cependant il ne faut pas nous cacher les difficultés que nous rencontrons pour mettre en œuvre ces coopérations pratiques et affirmer ces solidarités ; difficultés qui varient selon les secteurs sociaux et professionnel et selon les situations propres aux diverses régions et aux divers pays. Ainsi par exemple, les appels des féministes d’Ukraine – et de Russie, n’ont pas eu d’écho du côté de la plupart des mouvements féministes de nos pays et des réseaux féministes internationaux. De très grands syndicats européens ont limité leurs activités vis-à-vis de leurs homologues ukrainiens, voire les ont absolument ignorés. Il en est de même de larges fractions des partis de gauche de toutes tendances en Europe et dans le monde. Nous sommes confrontés à deux types d’attitude qui entravent toute solidarité effective. Une logique d’évitement, souvent drapées dans un pacifisme abstrait, qui, tout en reconnaissant que la guerre est le fruit d’une agression de Poutine, consiste au mieux à se contenter d’activités humanitaires mais évite de s’engager auprès des Ukrainiens et Ukrainiennes, comme d’ailleurs auprès des Russes antiguerre, et de répondre à leurs demandes. Une logique que l’on appelle le « campisme », qui au nom de considérations géopolitiques déconnectées de la réalité d’aujourd’hui, consiste de facto à reprendre tout ou partie du narratif auto-justificatif poutinien, et à abandonner, voire à combattre, toute solidarité avec le peuple agressé ses organisations et mouvements. Notre solidarité ne signifie pas adhésion aux discours et alignement sur des propositions de des gouvernements de nos Etats. Nos amis ukrainiens, tous engagés dans la défense de leurs pays, n’en sont pas moins souvent critiques vis-à-vis de certaines politiques du gouvernement ukrainien actuel et nous les soutenons dans leurs activités pour la défense des droits sociaux et démocratiques. Comme nous le demandent nos partenaires ukrainiens et russes anti-guerre, nous soutenons les droits du peuple ukrainien à l’autodétermination et à la sécurité dans l’intégrité de son territoire, le respect du droit international et les sanctions envers[T1] l’agresseur. Être solidaire signifie aussi refuser toute « négociations » à l’encontre des droits des premiers concernés, tout partage impérialiste Trumpo-Poutinien entre « grandes puissances » totalement incompatible avec une paix juste et durable.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Speaker: Sacha Ismail (Ukraine Solidarity Campaign Trade Union Liaison Officer) Conference theme: Labour solidarity

I’m going to speak mainly about Ukraine Solidarity Campaign’s work in the UK trade union movement. I’m a member of two trade unions – the general public sector union UNISON, in its London Fire Brigade branch, and the much smaller Fire Brigades Union. Both those unions will feature here as stories of difficulties and challenges for Ukraine solidarity but also significant progress.

USC, and our sister campaign in Scotland, have made significant success winning the UK workers’ movement to political support and practical solidarity for Ukraine and its workers’ movement. That is the result of determined focus on labour movement solidarity, running back to before the full-scale invasion, back to our founding in 2014 – but stepping up since 2022.

We do not wish to overstate our success, and there is huge amount more we can and hope to do, even within the current weak organisational and political state of the UK labour movement and left. We’re keen to learn more from comrades’ experience in the labour movements of other countries. We hope our experience will be of use to others.

I will discuss two broad areas, winning political support in the labour movement and organising practical solidarity and aid. Hopefully other UK comrades in the audience will add to what I say.

Before we get into details, a comment on the wider political approach informing labour solidarity. As socialists and anticapitalists, orientation to the working class and its organised movements are fundamental. That is of course not limited to trade unions, but unions are central – in our own countries and in Ukraine. This is not only about numbers and resources, though those things are important, but a more fundamental social and political orientation. To even seriously push back surging capitalist reaction and imperialism, and to help the working class and the oppressed defend themselves and take the offensive, we must strengthen and radicalise and mobilise workers’ movements.

Having said that: firstly, about political campaigning in unions.

Today we can say that the bulk of the UK trade union movement has stood fairly solidly with Ukraine. But when the full-scale invasion began, it was not obvious that would be so.

Many UK unions were, indeed still are, affiliated to the Stop the War Coalition, which is an engine for campist politics in our movement. Reinforcing this, the Communist Party of Britain still has influence in the bureaucracy of some unions, while the Socialist Workers Party has a relatively large number of activists.

Since 2013 pro-Russian propaganda and disinformation have been widespread on the UK left. There was an organised campaign in solidarity with the Russian nationalist forces in eastern Ukraine, called SARU. It was supported by the left-wing rail and transport union RMT, and even our national Trades Union Congress passed a motion leaning that way.

However the establishment of Ukraine Solidarity Campaign as a small but organised force, from 2014, made a difference. USC pushed back against the propaganda and educated a layer of people. Right at the start USC won support from two national unions, the National Union of Mineworkers and trade drivers’ union ASLEF, and from labour movement-connected politicians such as the Member of Parliament John McDonnell. It organised in union branches, winning affiliations. It focused, alongside opposition to Russian intervention and support for Ukrainian resistance, on solidarity with workers’ struggles in Ukraine, against employers of different national and political stripes. This message made it easier for UK trade unionists to understand and support.

In 2022, as USC expanded and became more active, we pushed to expand activity in the labour movement.

In April 2022, we organised a demonstration of hundreds of trade unionists in support of Ukraine. In our larger recent demonstrations, working closely with Ukrainian organisations, we have had some significant union presence too.

In 2022, our already existing base of union support, including ASLEF and NUM nationally, undoubtedly helped. So did existing networks of activists, for instance left-wing militant networks within unions as well as socialist organisations that support us. Such existing organisation was important in civil service union PCS, our first national union affiliation after the invasion, a much bigger union than the two previous. In PCS campaigning by left-wing activists working with us, also produced active support from the General Secretary, even though many of his factional allies disagreed. At their 2022 conference we won a good position and affiliation overwhelmingly, with this reaffirmed in 2023. It paved the way for a lot of practical aid work by the union.

Since then we have won decent policies in many unions, and national affiliations from three more – university and college union UCU; public sector union UNISON, which is the UK’s largest union; and just this week, the large general union GMB, which by the way is the union organising Amazon in the UK. We also expanded union branch affiliations, but there is a lot more to be done there. The nationally affiliated unions have representatives on our campaign’s steering committee.

The general pattern is that where union conferences have discussed and voted on Ukraine, they have taken pro-Ukraine positions. We push for the maximum debate and involvement in deciding policies. In contrast the campist and Stalinist left often try to prevent debate. In both my unions, UNISON and FBU, the left-wing national executives passed bad policies and then kept the issue off their conference agendas. In 2024, when we established an organised solidarity group in UNISON and had the luck to have two strong supporters elected to the national executive, then turning up new supporters and allies, we got the issue raised at the conference, and won by a large margin.

In the big teachers’ and school workers’ union NEU, so-called Stop the War motions were defeated twice, but the campists prevented votes on pro-Ukraine motions for three years – last year by appalling undemocratic tactics. NEU conference 2025 is in two weeks and this time we hope to win! Where there has been resistance or setbacks, we have persisted. UNISON is one example. Another is the university and college union UCU, the only UK union whose conference passed a Stop the War-type policy, in 2023. Comrades organised in the union, came back last year, overturned the policy and won affiliation to USC. That was a high profile struggle. This year we have a pro-Ukraine motion at the Fire Brigades Union conference for the first time.

In 2023 NEU activists set up a NEU Ukraine Solidarity Network to organise the fight in their union, as well links in Ukraine and practical solidarity. They held a successful conference last month, open to members of other unions. That model has spread: there are now organised solidarity groups in UCU, UNISON, and the biggest private-sector union, Unite. Comrades in some other unions are discussing similar. We recently agreed to ask groups whose union is not affiliated to send representatives to our committee, and the NEU network joined. They are the ones spearheading the fight at the NEU conference in April.

On the basis of this work, and through our national supporting unions, we won policy at the 2023 TUC Congress, the national conference representing almost all UK unions. It passed overwhelmingly, but again this was very far from a foregone conclusion. A fight had to be organised, and that helped develop the activity in various unions.

We’ve also tried to connect our work in the unions to work in the Labour Party; that is a different kind of fight. We have strong support from some left-wing, union-connected Labour Members of Parliament. This is important and I hope other UK comrades will say more about this too. We also work with trade unionists and socialists in the Green Party.

The strength of the policy won varies from union to union, chiefly in terms of how explicitly they advocate increased military aid. We have not shied away from these arguments, and have been able to win a strong overall level of policy, strongly opposing the Russian occupation and supporting Ukrainian resistance.

We organise at various levels of unions – national leaderships, regions, branches, and among members. At every level we have strived to work through democratic lay structures and representatives, not primarily through unions’ bureaucracies, as some campaigns do. We have not kept what we are doing secret or behind the scenes, but sought to gain the widest possible publicity among union members and workers. That follows from our socialist and democratic perspectives.

The second plank of our labour solidarity, practical work organising aid for the Ukrainian labour movement, is also a mechanism of political propaganda, in the labour movement itself and more widely. It also has crucial practical importance.

This work has perhaps four key elements.

Firstly, helping activists and leaders push for their unions to make donations to Ukrainian labour movement causes; collect and send equipment and materials; and make direct links with Ukrainian unions. Thus PCS, the civil service union, has donated significant money, including £10,000 for an appeal by the KVPU medical union. Ukrainian trade unionists have spoken remotely and in person at its meetings at various levels. The union nationally has sent two several delegations to Ukraine. Work has also been done, for instance public-sector UNISON in Scotland, connecting local union branches with counterpart branches in Ukraine, what we call twinning.

Secondly, we’ve run a series of centrally-organised aid appeals, promoting them throughout the labour movement and beyond, and encouraging activists to promote in their unions. Money has come from unions and union branches, from crowdfunded donations, and collections at meetings. We want to try workplace collections. Some appeals have supported parts of the Ukrainian armed forces with concentrations of trade unionists, in response to appeals from those soldiers through their unions. Others have supported essential workers saving and sustaining lives behind the lines, including medical workers, teachers, miners and rescue workers. Our recent appeal for rescue workers in Donetsk oblast, members of the KVPU mining union, has raised £27,000, as well as donations of vehicles, equipment and PPE worth tens of thousands more. Particular appeals can be focused on particular unions or industries. We worked hard to promote the rescue appeal in the Fire Brigades Union; and moreover this has begun to open up the political argument in that union for the first time a bit as well. We also support groups in unions to organise their own appeals: for instance, the NEU and UCU networks have collected funds and equipment for schools in Ukraine.

Thirdly: wherever possible we deliver aid through solidarity delegations to Ukraine. Since the full-scale invasion we have centrally organised six USC delegations. We also help unions to organise their own delegations. Special mention here to South Wales National Union of Mineworkers. Working with a member of the Welsh Parliament on our committee, they have organised numerous delegations. Our central USC appeals have produced aid worth many tens of thousands of pounds. South Wales NUM have produced aid worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds, perhaps a million.

Fourthly, we publicise and support struggles in Ukraine – including the unions’ resistance to the government’s neoliberal policies and attacks on workers’ rights. We’ve begun a campaign supporting their resistance to the new draft Labour Code undermining workers’ rights. There’s an open letter we encourage you to sign and circulate.

We may have some differences in our campaign about the balance between political campaigning in the unions and organising practical aid, but for the most part these two elements reinforce each other.

Thank you.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Speaker: Felix Le Roux (Union Syndicale Solidaires) Conference theme: Labour solidarity

Language of intervention: French (original follows English translation—français ci-dessous)

Since Vladimir Putin's Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago and since Donald Trump returned to the U.S. presidency in January 2025, the international situation has been unstable and fraught with threats to peoples, workers, and peace. Now more than ever, we must continue to support our fellow trade unionists in Ukraine alongside them, we are also connected with col·lectives of feminists and LGBTQI, civil rights, environmentalis and soldiers, among others. They have been fighting on two fronts, and now on a third one—against predatory American imperialism, now an ally of Vladimir Putin.

1. The first front is the military front, Ukrainian people resisting the imperialist aggression led by Russian troops in Ukraine. Trade unionism is fully involved. Vladimir Putin’s neo-colonial ambition to "reunite the Russian world" has met with Ukrainian resistance. Had this resistance received sufficient support over the past three years (particularly with military support), we might have avoided the alliance between Trump and Putin. A defeat for Vladimir Putin in his war of annexation—marked by child abductions, the destruction of infrastructure and houses—would have helped to weaken, or even overthrow, his regime. In reality, over the past three years, the support provided has fallen short of Ukraine's needs. And let’s not even mention those, especially on the far right but also within our own political camp, who have continuously equated the aggressor Russian state with the attacked Ukrainian people, calling for a so-called "peace" that would legitimise the military occupation that began in 2014 and has expanded since 2022.
2. Then there is a second front, a social and political one, where trade unionism plays a crucial role. We fully agree with the premise of this conference, which states that "the struggles of Ukrainian workers and their trade union organizations, as well as feminist, environmental, LGBTQI+, and human rights organizations, have been essential to the country's resistance—first against the Russian invasion, but also against the anti-social policies adopted by the Zelensky government. They are also the best guarantee that reconstruction will serve the interests of the majority of Ukraine." We want to highlight what our comrades from Be Like Us (formerly Be Like Nina) say about the challenges Ukrainian workers have to face. I quote : "We are convinced that we will rebuild a Ukraine, where trade union rights will be respected across all sectors, and where employees will receive decent wages and enjoy satisfactory working conditions. This will not be easy. But you have seen our strength and commitment during the war. The most effective way is to create independent unions that can understand the situation and oversee everything from within. After all, who knows a hospital's situation, capabilities, and administration better than its own employees? Managing and overseeing hospitals is possible if we start by electing the director by the staff itself." It is essential to emphasize that international trade union solidarity must continue in concrete ways. Since the beginning of the war, Solidaires, together with all French trade union organizations, has coordinated with Ukrainian unions to provide tangible and effective solidarity to Ukrainian workers. We have participated in joint solidarity convoys to deliver material aid to Ukraine, as well as convoys organized through the International Labour Network for Solidarity and Struggle in which we are involved. These actions have allowed us to witness firsthand the commitment of workers to defending both their territory and their rights against neoliberal reforms, corruption, and oligarchs, as well as in favor of healthcare, education, and fair wages. This has revealed a key reality: long before February 2022, workers and their unions, through their dynamism, were among the forces fighting for rights and democracy in Ukraine—something intolerable to the Russian regime. We are planning a new trade union delegation in the coming months to meet with all the unions and movements we have long been in contact with. Additionally, on February 23 and 24, we participated in demonstrations and gatherings in several cities across France. The Union Syndicale Solidaires is actively involved in the European Network for Solidarity with Ukraine and its French collective. From our point of view, trade union organizations in all countries must intensify their exchanges. The exchange of practices and ideas must continue. These interactions benefit both our organizations and all activists. We have indeed much to learn from our Ukrainian comrades fighting in wartime, just as we have much to contribute to these exchanges—internationalism in action remains essential.

Trade union organizations must continue to fight for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, which involves: • The withdrawal of Russian troops from the entire country • The return of abducted Ukrainian children • The release of prisoners of war and political prisoners detained in Russia • The prosecution of war criminals, starting with Vladimir Putin • The cancellation of Ukraine’s debt • Unconditional aid for the country’s reconstruction.

We also have much work to do within our own countries, always keeping in mind that these issues are interconnected. The role of the far right across Europe in spreading Kremlin propaganda is particularly concerning. The far right amplifies this disinformation, thereby strengthening the real threat that Vladimir Putin’s policies pose to Europe. Despite some attempts to downplay the Russian threat, Russia’s expansionist policies remain a serious danger to European stability and security. French trade union organizations call for action against disinformation and its purveyors. It is imperative that media outlets or public personnalities providing a plaƞorm for disinformation be held accountable.

More broadly, the fight against imperialism and fascism will require building a model of political, social, and ecological justice capable of serving as a pole of attraction, fostering an alternative vision to the unbridled power struggles promoted by reactionaries allied with capitalists. The challenge for our trade union organizations is therefore to influence the pursuit of peace—provided it is just and lasting.

Intervention de Felix Le Roux (Union Syndicales Solidaires) Thème : Solidarité du travail

Donald Trump à la présidence des États-Unis en janvier 2025, la situation internationale est instable et lourde de menaces pour les peuples, les travailleurs·euses et la paix . Plus que jamais, nous devons poursuivre le soutien à nos camarades syndicalistes en Ukraine ; avec eux et elles, nous sommes aussi en lien avec les collectifs féministes, LGBTQI, de citoyennes et citoyens, écologistes, de soldats, etc. Ils et elles se battent sur deux fronts, et désormais sur un troisième front celui contre l’impérialisme américain prédateur allié de Vladimir Poutine.

1. Il y a tout d’abord le front militaire face à l’agression impérialiste menée par les troupes russes en Ukraine. Le syndicalisme y est pleinement impliqué. La volonté néocoloniale de Poutine de « rassembler le monde russe » s’est heurtée à la résistance ukrainienne. Si cette résistance avait été suffisamment soutenue depuis trois ans (notamment militairement), nous aurions pu échapper à l’alliance entre Trump et Poutine. Une défaite de Poutine dans sa guerre d’annexion, de vol des enfants, de destruction des infrastructures et habitations, aurait d’ailleurs contribué à affaiblir, voire abattre, son régime. La réalité du soutien est demeurée en deçà des besoins ukrainiens. Ne parlons pas de celles et ceux, notamment à l’extrême-droite mais aussi au sein de notre propre camp politique, qui n’ont eu de cesse de renvoyer dos à dos l’État russe agresseur et le peuple ukrainien agressé, réclamant une « paix » entérinant l’occupation militaire entamée en 2014, élargie depuis 2022.
2. Et puis il y a un deuxième front, un front social et politique, dans lequel le syndicalisme a un rôle déterminant. Nous rejoignons pleinement la présentation de cette conférence affirmant que « les luttes des travailleurs ukrainiens et de leurs organisations syndicales, ainsi que des organisations féministes, environnementales, LGBTIQ+ et de défense des droits de l’homme, ont été indispensables à la résistance du pays, en premier lieu contre l’invasion russe, mais aussi contre les politiques antisociales adoptées par le gouvernement Zelensky. Elles sont également la meilleure garantie que la reconstruction sera dans l’intérêt de la majorité sociale de l’Ukraine ». Nous souhaitons mentionner ce que disent nos camarades de Soyez comme nous (ex Sois comme Nina), posant clairement les défis qu’affrontent les travailleurs ukrainiens. « Nous sommes convaincu·es que nous parviendrons à reconstruire l'Ukraine, où les droits syndicaux seront respectés dans tous les secteurs et où les employé·es recevront des salaires décents et auront des conditions de travail satisfaisantes. Ce ne sera pas facile. Mais vous avez vu notre force et notre engagement pendant la guerre. » Face aux difficultés, « le moyen le plus efficace est de créer des syndicats indépendants qui peuvent et pourront comprendre la situation et contrôler tout de l'intérieur. En effet, qui connaît mieux la situation de son hôpital, ses capacités, son administration que les employés eux-mêmes. Ainsi, gérer et contrôler les hôpitaux est possible si nous commençons par faire élire le directeur par le personnel lui-même. » Il est essentiel de rappeler que la solidarité syndicale internationale doit continuer à s’appliquer concrètement . Depuis le début de la guerre, Solidaires, avec l’ensemble des organisations syndicales françaises, se coordonne avec les syndicats ukrainiens pour assurer une solidarité effective et concrète avec les travailleurs·euses ukrainien·nes . Nous avons participé à des convois unitaires de solidarité afin d’acheminer en Ukraine de l’aide matérielle ainsi qu'à des convois organisés avec le Réseau syndical international de solidarité et de luttes dans lequel nous sommes impliqués. Ces actions nous ont permis de mesurer concrètement l'engagement des travailleur·euses dans la défense du territoire et dans la défense de leurs droits contre les réformes néolibérales, la corruption et les oligarques, pour la défense de la santé, l'éducation, les salaires. Cela a montré à nos yeux une réalité : bien avant février 2022, les travailleur·euses, les syndicats par leur dynamisme faisaient partie de ces forces vives se battant pour les droits et la démocratie en Ukraine, toutes choses insupportables pour le pouvoir russe. Nous envisageons une nouvelle délégation syndicale dans les mois qui viennent afin d’y rencontrer l’ensemble des syndicats et mouvements avec lesquels nous sommes en contact, contacts établis maintenant depuis longtemps et entretenus régulièrement. En outre, les 23 et 24 février, nous participions aux manifestations ou rassemblements dans plusieurs villes de France. L’Union syndicale Solidaires est impliqué dans le Réseau européen de solidarité avec l’Ukraine et son collectif français. Les organisations syndicales de tous les pays doivent, selon nous, intensifier leurs échanges. Les échanges de pratiques et d’idées doivent continuer. Ces échanges bénéficient à nos organisations et à l’ensemble des militant·e·s. D’un point de vue politique et syndical, nous avons beaucoup à apprendre de nos camarades ukrainien·nes qui luttent en temps de guerre, tout comme nous avons beaucoup à apporter dans ces échanges : l’internationalisme en action reste essentiel.

Les organisations syndicales doivent continuer le combat pour une paix juste et durable en Ukraine impliquant : le retrait des troupes russes de l’ensemble du pays ; le retour des enfants ukrainiens volé·es ; la libération des prisonnier·es de guerre et des prisonnier·es politiques détenu·es en Russie : le jugement des responsables de crimes de guerre – au premier chef d’entre eux, Poutine ; l’annulation de la dette ukrainienne et enfin l’aide inconditionnelle à la reconstruction du pays.

Nous avons aussi, en tant qu’organisations syndicales, beaucoup de travail à mener dans nos pays respectifs, en gardant toujours à l’esprit que ces problématiques sont communes. Le rôle de l’extrême droite, partout en Europe, dans la diffusion de la propagande du Kremlin est particulièrement préoccupant. L’extrême-droit relaie cette désinformation et l’amplifie renforçant ainsi la menace réelle que représente la politique de Poutine pour l’Europe. Malgré les tentatives de certains de minimiser la menace russe, la politique de Poutine et sa volonté d’expansion demeure un danger sérieux pour la stabilité et la sécurité de l’Europe.

Les organisations syndicales françaises appellent à agir contre la désinformation et ses relais. Il est impératif que les médias et les plateformes qui donnent une tribune à la désinformation soient tenus responsables. Plus globalement, la lutte contre les impérialismes et les fascismes passera par la construction d’un modèle politique et de justice sociale et écologique à même de constituer un pôle d’attraction suscitant un autre imaginaire que le rapport de force débridé prôné par les réactionnaires alliés des capitalistes. L’enjeu de notre syndicalisme est donc de parvenir à peser dans le sens de la paix à condition qu’elle soit juste et durable.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Speaker: Yvanna Vynna (Bilkis) Conference theme: Women’s role in reconstruction

If Russia has not yet fought you on the battlefield, it is doing so in the field of information, influencing elections in your country, spreading disinformation and promoting propaganda. It denies the existence of Ukrainians as members of a distinct nation and refuses to recognise imperialist policies as criminal. It destroys nations that aspire to decolonisation, threatens women with sexual violence (which has become its military strategy), kidnaps children and demonises homosexuals.

Even its so-called liberal voices serve only one purpose: to justify and normalise Russia. Ukraine is blamed: it is ‘to blame’, it has ‘provoked’, it ‘lets itself do too much’, along with other rhetoric often applied to those who suffer violence. So we must remember that the fault always lies with those who took up arms and crossed an internationally recognised border (including one they themselves recognised).

Right now, for us at Bilkis, it’s important to participate in the transformations of Ukraine by amplifying the voices of women and queer people, addressing violence and inequality, and promoting inclusion. We have made significant progress in these areas: the end of professions forbidden to women, the updating of spelling rules for the use of feminine forms, laws against hate crimes, sex education and the fight against gender-based violence. Ukraine is developing despite all the hardships of war.

Ukrainian society is becoming increasingly aware of gender issues and the need for decolonisation. This is the logical continuation of our cultural and intellectual tradition, which was interrupted by the Sovietoccupation. Our feminist movement was closely linked to the movement for independence from empires (at the time, the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires). However, resistance to Russian colonisation remained a question of survival, as it was for many countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Because if Ukraine does not resist, it will be the next victim. Russian propagandists talk openly about this on prime-time television.

As far as the activities of the Bilkis organisation are concerned, we are united by five fundamental values:

1. Feminism (the fight for women’s rights)
2. Horizontality (absence of hierarchies and domination, collective decision-making, open communication, equality of voices)
3. Social equality (we care about the rights of vulnerable groups, social justice and the development of tools for public influence)
4. Decolonisation (we oppose colonial policies and wars of aggression, and defend the independence and development of formerly colonised nations)
5. Intersectionality (we talk about discrimination, bearing in mind the multiplicity of inequalities and power relations that cause it).

We began our activities in 2019 by collecting and publishing accounts of violence against women. This annual tradition continues: we call on local illustrators and photographers to share publications on social networks and spread the stories of Ukrainian women in order to create a space for condemning violence and supporting each other.

In November 2024, we launched the ‘FemObjective’ film club, where we meet twice a month for feminist film screenings, talks and debates. Among the films we have screened are Le Journal d’une adolescente, Persepolis, Blink Twice, Disclosure and many others. On March 8 this year, we organised a screening of When the Trees Fall by Ukrainian director Marysia Nikitiuk, and the filmmaker herself gave a talk on female sexuality in film.

We also have a YouTube project, Dear Diary, which features video essays on society, film and popular culture through the lens of intersectional feminism. To date, eight episodes have been broadcast and our channel has over 5000 subscribers. Topics covered in the videos include compulsive heterosexuality, rape culture, toxic tolerance and many others.

Most of the participants in Bilkis are vegans. For us, it’s important to take care of the environment, resist reckless consumerism and offer everyone the chance to get rid of the superfluous and receive the necessary for free. In 2022, we launched our ‘Space of Things’ social project.

We also published two zines.The electronic versions are available in our Instagram profile description. The first, entitled ‘Activist’, tells the story of women activists who protect us on the front line, provide humanitarian aid or help Ukraine to survive in other ways. The second, self-published, ‘Les Autres sont comme nous’, is a collection of stories about the lives of homeless women. These are reflections on the female experience of homelessness and on ways of strengthening solidarity.

Of course, we also organise street actions. On March 8, we co-organised the ‘Demand justice, not women’ action in Lviv and put up posters against violence against women in Kyiv. A few days later (on March 30), we planned an action in Lviv for the Transgender Day of Visibility.

Our Instagram profile is a project in its own right. We regularly post information on the rights of women and LGBTQI+ people in Ukraine. This includes texts on misogyny in various fields (medicine, history, etc.), recommendations for feminist and queer books and films, announcements of events, and much more. Our Instagram page is viewed over 230,000 times a month. We currently have over 6500 followers, and these are just our numbers for our page.

We are currently looking for financial resources, as funding for gender equality programmes has been drastically reduced due to the shift to the right. We need funds to support our current projects and create new ones. For example, we want to start translating left-wing feminist literature into Ukrainian, as there is currently very little available. We would also like to create an interview project with women from various professions.

We would greatly appreciate any financial or informational support for our organisation!

We take part in international events to remind the world that the Russian-Ukrainian war is still going on. And that Russia is the aggressor, just as it was in Chechnya, Moldova and Georgia. It begins by forcibly Russifying, destroying local culture and intellectuals, and then claims that this is the way it has always been. Culture in the hands of an empire is a weapon of appropriation, devaluation and destruction. To counter this, and not just in Ukraine, we plan to focus more on defending international issues in the future. We find it very useful to look for points of connection, in our experiences and our cultures, with the countries that support us, in order to create common information projects and to mutually amplify our voices.