Susan DuBois’ comments at the annual dinner November 2024

I didn’t have a written version of the presentation I did as part of the panel discussion at the November 10, 2024 Peace Action event, but here’s a summary of what I said, from my notes and recollection of the question-and-answer part of the meeting. The title of the panel discussion was “Which way forward for the peace movement?”
I introduced myself as being one of the three co-chairs of Ukraine Solidarity Capital District (USCD) but said that I would be speaking as an individual because it was likely I’d be talking about things on which USCD hasn’t taken a position or things that are my individual experiences and opinions.
Here’s the mission statement of USCD: “Through our words and actions, the members of Ukraine Solidarity Capital District stand for Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity, and its right as a sovereign and democratic state to pursue whatever national goals it thinks best. We condemn the Russian aggression, invasion, and occupation and demand that the Russian Federation immediately stop its war on Ukraine and completely withdraw its forces from Ukrainian territory.”
Ukraine Solidarity Capital District was started in late 2022 by persons who have been involved for a long time in the peace movement and/or the left but who were dismayed by the positions being taken by some major peace groups about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The positions of these groups would have led to Ukraine essentially surrendering and being overtaken by Russia. Since then, USCD has expanded to include members from a variety of political backgrounds.
We have been trying to focus attention on the Ukrainians, rather than just looking at geopolitics from a U.S.-centric perspective.
As the participants at the Peace Action meeting were aware, there have been conflicts within the peace movement about Ukraine both at the national level and locally. For basically all of our lives (and this was in the context of both the audience and the panel largely being members of the Baby Boom generation) the peace movement was about opposing wars started by the United States and opposing U.S. aggression. This included the war in Vietnam, the wars in Central America in the 1980s, the Gulf War and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In opposing these wars and other U.S. military interventions, there was more or less unified opposition to U.S. policy from people who had become involved in the peace movement for different reasons and often for more than one reason. These reasons included religious or ethical pacifism, support for non-violence as the primary and preferred means of resolving conflicts, humanitarian reasons involving prevention of suffering and oppression, personal connections with the countries being invaded (particularly in the case of the Central American wars), support for international law, leftist politics of various kinds including some that are authoritarian, and campist views that divide the world into the U.S. imperialist camp and an anti-imperialist camp.
With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the peace movement is dealing with an aggressive war and invasion started by another country, specifically Russia. The current Russian Federation is pursuing Russia’s historic imperialism against Ukraine that goes back to the tsars and then Stalin. A war in which Russia, rather than the U.S., is the imperialist invader poses an unfamiliar situation for the U.S. peace movement, one in which the varying motivations of U.S. peace activists have led them in various conflicting directions.
When confronted with a situation that doesn’t fit the past patterns, it can be difficult to change gears. Familiar approaches and familiar rhetoric might no longer be useful or accurate. Information sources that one relied on in the past might no longer be reliable. I find this to be particularly so with information from campist groups that see the U.S. as a uniquely destructive force and that are also hand-in-glove with the Russian or Chinese governments.
It is particularly troubling that the geopolitical view that sees the war in Ukraine only as a proxy war between NATO and Russia leaves out the people most directly affected, namely the Ukrainians. This view portrays the Ukrainians, to the extent that it mentions them, as pawns of the West or as hapless victims or as Nazis, rather than as a capable country fighting for its survival against its historic imperial master.
The Ukrainians have been showing in the most concrete ways possible that they do not want to be under Russian domination. In some ways, the Ukrainians’ struggle reminds me of that of the Nicaraguans in the 1980s, against the U.S.-supported Contras. Few peace activists in the 1980s insisted that the Nicaraguans should resist imperialism solely by non-violent civil disobedience and negotiation, without fighting.
Ukraine is a diverse country, in terms of politics, religion, nationality and regional history.
It has far-right groups, as do the United States and many other countries, although the far-right in Ukraine has much less influence in the Ukrainian government than the far-right has (and will soon have) in the U.S. government.
Ukraine also has leftist and labor groups. Leftists in the U.S. could probably learn a lot, to our advantage, by observing and interacting with the Ukrainian left. The Ukrainian labor, gay rights, feminist, and democratic socialist activists are dealing simultaneously with resisting the Russian invasion of their country and with contesting neoliberal economic policies of the Ukrainian government and socially conservative traditions. In the U.S., we are dealing with a far less intense version of this, resisting Trump and his Project 2025 while simultaneously contesting the neoliberal policies pushed by most Democrats. Peace activists and the left in the U.S. can also support initiatives of the Ukrainian labor movement.
[At the Peace Action event, I made available a flier with book titles, web links and other information about Ukraine and particularly the Ukrainian left, a copy of which is attached with the present document.]
What are the implications for the peace movement if Russia were to win its war? A Russian victory would be a blow against nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament efforts. In 1994, under an agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union when the USSR broke up, in return for assurances from Russia, the U.S. and the United Kingdom that they would respect Ukraine’s independence and its territorial integrity within its 1991 borders. Russia has blatantly violated this formal agreement. What other country would want to give up, or refrain from getting, nuclear weapons in exchange for assurances on paper, if Russia succeeds in defeating Ukraine?
A Russian victory against Ukraine would also strengthen what’s called the “red-brown alliance” between some far right and far-left forces, essentially making fascism ascendant. The affinity among Putin, Trump and Orban, plus far-right parties in other European countries, is part of this picture. The “multi-polar world” sought by Russia is a reversion to a 19th or early 20th century balance of empires, with the small and medium-sized countries dominated by the few imperialist countries. I think we should be trying to figure out how to bring about a “non-polar”world, in which the small and medium-sized countries can successfully resist domination – – not an easy project but an important one.
The panel discussion is titled “Which way forward for the peace movement?” I think that peace activists need to oppose aggression consistently, whether the aggression is being done by the U.S., by Russia, or by some other country. Some pro-Ukraine leftists in the U.S. are using the slogan “From Ukraine to Palestine, occupation is a crime.”
We also need to re flect on our reasons for being peace activists and think about how those apply in particular situations. We may come to different conclusions than others with whom we have worked in the past, or take different approaches even if we agree on a lot of things.
We need to question our assumptions, particularly in situations that are unlike ones we have dealt with in the past or where the circumstances have changed. In the past year, I have had to revisit some long-term assumptions I had about Israel. 
I also recommend looking for multiple sources of information about any particular issue, and looking at the motivations and affiliations of these information sources. The perspectives of the people most affected should carry particular weight, and those people might have a variety of perspectives. We should be seeking out the most factually-sound information we can get.
There are multiple ways to support the Ukrainians, some of which are consistent with pacifism including conflict resolution efforts that could be helpful for post-war Ukraine, or support of Russian anti-war activists large numbers of whom are in exile or in prison. There are also multiple ways of resisting the injustices and violence that Trump might inflict in this country. And there are conflicts in many countries that do not have visibility in the U.S.