Labour’s Unwavering Support

The Labour Party’s stance in support of Ukraine is “unwavering”, but it raises critical questions. We must scrutinize the implications of funnelling our resources into a conflict that has already exacted an immense human toll. We must ask the question ‘When were the British people ever asked if they would rather spend billions on foreign conflict than our beleaguered NHS?”

The Financial Commitment

Labour pledges substantial aid to Ukraine, including a promise to provide £3 billion of military assistance annually if they come to power. However, this financial commitment warrants scrutiny. Is it truly in the best interest of the UK to allocate such significant resources to a foreign conflict? Especially when our own domestic needs—like the underfunded NHS—are pressing?

The Cost of War

On average, each taxpayer contributes around £500 annually toward the £35 billion budget for war and military preparations. That’s a significant amount diverted from domestic needs like healthcare, education, and social services. While the NHS struggles with underfunding, we’re allocating substantial resources to a conflict thousands of miles away.

A New Right to Conscientious Objection

In 1916, the UK granted its citizens the universal right of conscientious objection to war. If your conscience prevents you from killing another human being, the government won’t force you to do so. But today, with technological warfare replacing mass conscript armies, our money becomes our new conscription. We’re compelled to fight on the modern battlefield—financially.

Taxes for Peace

Ruth Cadbury MP proposed the “taxes for peace” bill, recognizing that conscientious objectors should also have the right to refuse paying for war. Redirecting the military portion of our taxes toward peaceful conflict resolution aligns with our moral convictions. After all, money is the new manpower in warfare.

Priorities and Accountability

As taxpayers, we must question our priorities. While supporting Ukraine is important, we shouldn’t neglect our domestic needs. Labour’s promise of more arms and more money from our coffers echoes the status quo. Perhaps it’s time to demand accountability and ensure that our resources align with our values and urgent requirements.

The Human Cost

The conflict in Ukraine has already claimed tens of thousands of lives. Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians alike have suffered immeasurably. Yet, the warmongers on both sides remain indifferent. The lost lives and mangled bodies are mere statistics to those who advocate for continued military engagement.

Earlier this year US officials put the number of Ukrainian soldiers killed at 70,000 and as many as 120,000 injured. These are underestimates. Estimates of the number of Russian soldiers killed range from 45,000 to more than 350,000. The new Russian offensive can only add to the toll.

Both Ukraine and Russia are losing the genetic potential of the future Europe. This damage will not be easily repaired and will weaken them for many years going forward.

Escalation Risks

By arming Ukraine, the UK risks further escalation. The push for more weapons from one side inevitably leads to a counter-response from the other. Russia’s war factories are working overtime, preparing for the next round of fighting. The cycle of violence continues, with devastating consequences for ordinary people caught in the crossfire.

The Illusion of Freedom

The once-idealized notion of Ukrainian “freedom” has faded. How can there be freedom when young people—on both sides—are forced to fight in a war they no longer want? The promise of liberation has given way to a grim reality of suffering and loss.

Last month, Ukraine’s parliament enacted a mobilization bill that significantly lowered the military conscription age from 27 to 25 years old. As a result, thousands more young men are now eligible to be deployed to the front lines. However, the law also includes severe penalties for those who refuse to fight in Ukraine’s increasingly demoralized army.

Among those who resist conscription are the draft dodgers—individuals who refuse to be mere cannon fodder in a conflict they did not choose. These young men grapple with the harsh reality of war, knowing that their lives hang in the balance. The fear of becoming another statistic—another casualty—drives some to desperate measures.

Zelenskyy’s party, Servant of the People, secured an absolute majority in the Ukrainian parliament (Rada) during the 2019 parliamentary elections. This victory allowed him to create a single-party government—a first in Ukrainian history. While a strong mandate can facilitate reforms, it also concentrates power and reduces checks and balances. Critics argue that such dominance undermines pluralism and democratic accountability.

Zelenskyy has faced accusations of controlling the country’s media outlets. Some claim that he effectively banned opposition voices, limiting the diversity of information available to the public. A healthy democracy requires a free press and space for dissenting views. If Zelenskyy’s administration suppresses opposition voices, it raises concerns about democratic norms.

During wartime, conducting elections becomes exceptionally complex. Security concerns, logistical challenges, and the risk of electoral manipulation all come into play.

Zelensky has stated that it is “not the time” for elections12. He argues that the country’s focus should be on defense and battling the Russian invasion.

By April 2022, Zelenskyy’s approval rating reached an impressive 91 percent.The surge in popularity was likely influenced by his handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where he demonstrated strong leadership.

February 2024 saw a significant drop in Zelenskyy’s approval ratings. His support fell to 63 percent. If the war goes badly for Ukraine it is likely to fall still further. Will he then use the war to argue for more delay in holding elections?

A Call for Neutrality

It’s time to reconsider our approach. Instead of arming any party in this conflict, the UK could adopt a position of armed neutrality outside of NATO. By refusing to fund or supply weapons to either side, we can avoid further entanglement in a war that seems unlikely to yield a decisive victory for either side.

Prioritizing Domestic Needs

As we debate resource allocation, let’s remember that our NHS is chronically underfunded. Every pound spent on foreign military aid could be better directed toward improving healthcare, education, and social services at home. It’s time to question whether our involvement in the Ukrainian conflict truly serves our national interest or perpetuates a cycle of violence with no clear end in sight.

By Patrick Harrington

Word count 1,269 words. Read time 6 minutes.