SINN FEIN: WILL BEING IN GOVERNMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER UNITE IRELAND (ZOOM)

‘On 17 May 1649, three soldiers were executed on Oliver Cromwell’s orders in Burford churchyard, Oxfordshire. They belonged to a movement popularly known as the Levellers, with beliefs in civil rights and religious tolerance.

During the Civil War, the Levellers fought on Parliament’s side, they had at first seen Cromwell as a liberator, but now saw him as a dictator. They were prepared to fight against him for their ideals and he was determined to crush them. Over 300 of them were captured by Cromwell’s troops and locked up in Burford church. Three were led out into the churchyard to be shot as ringleaders.’

https://levellersday.wordpress.com/

The following is from the Socialist Standard, December 1961

The word “Leveller” was first heard in 1606 when a band of men roamed the Warwickshire countryside, uprooting or levelling fences and hedges enclosing the once-common lands. These detested barriers had been going up all over England for eighty years.

Enclosing the “waste-land” that from time immemorial had been common property brought increasing misery to the poor and greater .wealth to the rich. Large areas were turned into sheep walks to satisfy the growing demand abroad for superior English wool. In Thomas More’s Utopia we read, “ The sheep that were wont to be so meek and tame and so small eaters now as I heare say be become so great devourers and so wild, that they eat up and swallow down the very men themselves.” Fresh ideas on farming and improved methods of stock-breeding made squires land-greedy. Enclosing was the polite name for stealing; people were driven from their homes to give pasture to sheep. Their only hope of survival lay in the towns, where they were fleeced even more closely than their woolly competitors.

Inventions and the necessity for larger ships meant bigger outlay and brought a demand for more money in the form of capital. A rich, powerful merchant class came into being. The first bank—the Bank of England, 1694—came with it.

The land lost much of its aristocratic value; the traditional obligations to tenant and labourer tended to disappear. The old tyrant with titles was often superseded by a new tyrant with money. Farmworkers were tricked out of rights of tenure. Though freed from the old bondage they were enslaved in a new and often terrifying system.

Throughout these tremendous changes Charles I remained obstinately feudal in outlook. Something was bound to happen. By 1628 the House of Commons was three times richer than the House of Lords. This gave its members confidence to resist the king’s demands for money. So in 1629 he closed Parliament for eleven years, hoping to show his recalcitrant M.Ps. that he alone held power. But in 1639 a rebellion broke out in Scotland, and by 1640 he had been forced to recall Parliament to vote the necessary money to quell the rising. Here was the opportunity the Members had dreamed of. They knew that archaic notions of kingship must give way to a governmental system favourable to the merchants.

As a warm-up for their startling policy they executed the king’s chief minister, the Earl of Strafford, who had been raising an army in Ireland to crush Parliament. At the same time John Lilburne leader of a “left-wing” group—the Levellers—was released from prison, where he had resided two years for issuing anti-State Church pamphlets. Now free, he got an Army command.

With this widespread opposition came a taste for democratic expression. The popularity of Cromwell’s rising faction gave the Levellers a chance to speak out. How and where did they fit into the political ferment?

Parliament was divided. On the right were the Anglican Royalists, conservative and pro-Charles. On the left were the Independents, radical but not united. They were divided into a right-wing called Gentlemen Independents headed by Cromwell, Ireton, and Fairfax, and a left-wing known as the Levellers. The latter reflected the aspirations of small farmers, humbler-tradtsmen, work people and soldiers. They advocated greater political equality than the Independents and had a widespread popular support.

In addition to political demands the civilian arm of the movement (the Diggers) urged greater economic equality; and in recognising that all political organisations and freedoms spring from or are crushed by the particular mode of land-ownership, they earned for themselves the undying hatred of Cromwell.

At this stage the Levellers were welcomed by the Radicals. All through the struggle the Levellers did best in the army, perhaps because there they were better organised than the Diggers. Both issued a considerable mass of literature, the Levellers maintaining that economic freedom followed from political freedom, and the Diggers seeing it rather the other way.

Common-ownership of the land was the bed-rock of their philosophy. Stripped of its Biblical overtones it stated a view that is still a staggering novelty to millions today. “. . . the time will be when all men shall willingly come in and give up their lands and estates and submit to the community.” They added, “and of that for money there was no need of it” (if men led communal lives). In the letter to Lord Halifax, Winstanley asked, “I demand whether all wars, bloodshed and misery came not upon creation when one man endeavoured to be a lord over another.”

In an article in the Leveller paper, The Moderate in 1649, after some men were executed for cattle-stealing, a writer suggested private property was the cause of a great deal of crime committed by the poor, “ We find,” he wrote, “some of these felons to be very civil men, and say, that if. they could have had any reasonable subsistence by friends, or otherwise they should never have taken such necessitous courses for the support of their wives and families.” The paper was suppressed after September, 1649, by “democratic” Cromwell.

The Levellers just as clearly saw that religion with its mirage of a happy future life was the carrot that encouraged the poor donkey of a labourer to stagger on. Winstanley wrote, “. . . to know God beyond the creation or to know what he will do to a man after the man is dead, in any other wise than to scatter him into his essences of fire, water, earth and air of which he is compounded (a belief handed down by the ancient Greeks) is a knowledge beyond the line or capacity of man to attain to while he lives in his compounded body.” Richard Overton, too, wrote in Man’s Mortality that the idea of the soul was ridiculous.

The New Model Army (Roundheads) was Parliament’s striking force, its job to overthrow the king. But because its ranks were filled with many pro-Leveller men the Levellers saw in it a means of getting better conditions for the poor. On May 20th, 1647, “a great petition” was sent to the Commons demanding political reforms and the re-organisation of the Constitution. When the re-imprisoned Lilburne (he was in and out of gaol between 1646-1648 for various attacks on authority) heard that the common hangman had been instructed to burn it, he looked to the army for support. He declared the power of the land vested in the army, and at this point Cromwell agreed. Next, a manifesto, The Case of the Army Truly Stated, was presented to General Fairfax on October 15th, 1647, and later An Agreement of the People, which dealt more with civil matters.

Fearing the support gained by the Levellers, the Presbyterians compromised with Charles. Enraged, the Independents with the Levellers marched to London, entered the House and passed a measure to thwart any attempt to corrupt the army; the Presbyterians were crushed. Though Cromwell had been aided by the Levellers, he refused to free Lilburne. When we see what the Levellers were after, we can understand why! The Case of the Army Truly Stated listed thirteen points:

1.  New election for new parliament.

        2. House of Commons to be cleared of royalist sympathisers.

        3.Army’s supremacy to be made known officially.

4.Excise tax to be lifted from the poor, Better tax-laws.

5.Trials to be speeded up and improved conditions for prisoners.

6.Greater religious tolerance.

7.Abolition of tithes.

8.Oath of Supremacy to be abolished.

        9.No oaths from those with conscience scruples.

10.Law reform to enable laymen to understand legal matters.

11. Removal of privileges. All to be subject to same laws.

12.Enclosed land to be returned to common use.

13. Pensions for disabled soldiers, widows and children.

The stir that these programmes made, forced Fairfax, Cromwell and the others Grandees (as they were somewhat derisively called) to allow their discussion in a series of debates held in Putney. Cromwell reasoned that if these fiery demands could be proved too extreme or impractical. Leveller influence would diminish and the threat to his supremacy would disappear. The main point was that the vote was the birthright of all men, and to this Ireton replied, “…voting was a property right. Only those who owned a house worth 40s a year in rent or who had a freehold interest in land should vote. The protection of private property was of the utmost importance, now that freedom had been won. Everyone was free to make money, and to own property, and the law was there to protect them while they did it.” Rainbotough for the Levellers retorted that what was required in voting was reason not property. And Sexby added, “… as things are today unless a man has fixed property, he has no rights in England at all.”

Cromwell had the Case of the Army condemned in Parliament. Next, he set out to quell his army and persuade the least influenced to sign a pledge of loyalty at Corkbush Field, Ware, in Hertfordshire. There the Agreement of the People was presented to Fairfax. He accepted it, but told the men to go on signing and they did. But then up rode two dissenting regiments singing and wearing the Leveller colours. Immediately Cromwell drew his sword and rode angrily among them, tearing away their colours. His sudden action quietened them. The ringleaders were arrested; three were found guilty and one of these was shot.

It was a serious defeat for the Levellers. They tried resistance again, but were imprisoned and Lilburne remained in the Tower. At Carisbrooke Castle, Isle of Wight, Charles in 1648 launched another attack (the Second Civil War). All the contesting elements of Parliament sank their differences again in preparation for the fray. The artful Presbyterians released Lilburne, hoping he would stir the army to mutiny. But he supported Cromwell, presumably regarding him as the lesser of two evils.

After the royalist defeat more discussion on the Agreement of the People followed and it actually reached Parliament, but lay in abeyance while the king’s fate was decided. On January 30th, 1649, Charles, king by the grace of God, died by the grace of the merchants.

M. Brown.

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-levellers-1640-1649-1961.html

SINN FEIN: WILL BEING IN GOVERNMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER UNITE IRELAND (ZOOM)

Is there anyone in the ‘West’ who is conversant with the statement of the philosopher George Santayana, who wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” What can account for the amnesia of present day ‘leaders’ who seem determined to impose even worse mayhem upon the world from what has gone on before? Has the underlying foundation of capitalism to compete for advantage, whatever the consequences, so blinded so many with an interest in this exploitative system that they are compulsively driven to blindly pursue actions which can only result in havoc for humankind?

‘The European Union’s defence industry has partially switched to a war economy, European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton has said.

Kiev could face a “dangerous period” this year as the focus of Western politicians backing it has now turned to the European Parliament elections on June 6-9 and US presidential election on November 5, Breton explained in an interview with French broadcaster BFMTV.

Russia may well take advantage of this “uncertainty” and “move forward” on the front line, he said.

“Because of this, we in Europe have decided to significantly increase our subsidies in terms of weapons and ammunition” for Ukraine, the commissioner stressed.

According to Breton, the EU is now on track to be producing 2 million shells, including 155mm calibre, per year for Ukraine.

He said that it is fair to say the EU has “moved into a war economy” at least in terms of shell production.

“Now the challenge is for us to move into a war economy in all segments of the European defence industry,” the commissioner added.

In March, the European Commission approved the allocation of €500 million ($590 million) to boost the production of shells in the EU. According to Brussels, the bloc will be able to make 2 million shells annually by the end of 2025.

Last year, the EU vowed to supply Kiev with 1 million shells by March 2024. However, it later acknowledged that it would not be able to meet this goal. Ukrainian officials said that they received around a third of what had been promised.

In April, French President Emmanuel Macron insisted that the switch to a war economy was “necessary” as defence spending and military orders have been on the rise across the EU.

Russia has warned repeatedly that foreign weapons being sent to Kiev will not prevent Moscow from achieving its military goals, but will merely prolong the fighting and increases the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. According to officials in Moscow, the provision of arms, intelligence sharing, and the training of Ukrainian troops mean that Western nations have already become de-facto parties to the conflict.’

An editorial in the Socialist Standard, October 1915, explains how French capitalists in 1910 broke a national railway strike by a using the appeal of patriotism. As Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”



‘The Lobby correspondent of the London “Daily News’’ on Sept. 13th made the following significant statement:

French Strike of 1910. There are grounds for saying that some of the Ministers who are in favour of the compulsory organisation of the manhood of the country have been influenced by the history of the national railway strike in France in 1910. They believe that in case of a serious strike in this country imperilling the national safety, the power of calling up the men as soldiers would break the strike. This was what happened in France in 1910: By Oct 11 the national railway strike was general, the food supply of Paris was gravely threatened, and the whole of the country disorganised. On Oct. 13 the ringleaders were arrested under the Railway Traffic Law of 1845, and at the instance of M. Briand the Prime Minister, 130,000 of the railway servants were put under mobilisation orders for a period of three week’s training. The action of the French Government in calling out the railwaymen in their capacity of reservists had a double effect. It appealed to the sense of patriotism and of military discipline which animates the majority of Frenchmen, and it gave those men who returned as reservists to their work on the railway, an assurance of protection against the violence of strike pickets, and a sense of solidarity with their comrades of the active Army in full uniform who were guarding the railway stations, signals, and points. By these means the strike was broken, and on October 18 the railwaymen were ordered back to work by their own Strike Committee.

The matter of the French strike was dealt within the “Socialist Standard” at the time and the moral of the necessity for the rapture of political power by the workers was driven home, but in the present connection it is to be noted ; that the mobilisation order of 1910 was utilised to break a strike in time of peace. Clearly, then, the utility of compulsion to the ruling class is not confined to the period of war. It is as well, therefore, not to overlook the permanent consequences of conscription when analysing the motives behind the compulsory service “conspiracy.” It is, indeed, almost unthinkable that our rulers would let such a splendid opportunity as the present war slip by for making us more completely n nation of serfs.



Munition workers are already subjected to forced labour. Their work in accelerated to the point of exhaustion. .They are fined for losing a few hours. They are punished if they seek better terms and forbidden to change their employer without a certificate of permission. And they ore abused by “labour lenders,” by cabinet ministers and by journalists as slackers and worse, although they are the only portion of the nation who are actually doing the war work. The employers are not punished. The members of the idle class are not controlled or penalised. Not at all. The compulsion, the hardships, the punishments and the abuse are concentrated upon the working class who have nevertheless no share in the ordering of their industry.



The facts are so plain and the class nature of the governmental activities is so obvious that it is quite unnecessary to say more here under this particular head. Every workman who exercises his intelligence upon the statements of Ministers, of so-called labour leaders and of journalists, and ponders the findings of the munitions courts, can see a far more damning case against the ruling class in this matter than could be baldly stated. And after all is there not something of similar import in the whole history of the war?



We have long known the hollowness of much of the so-called Socialist movement in Germany, in France, and in this country; yet such as it was all the governments have been mortally afraid of it. A prominent German statesman once said that there was a certain cure for the Socialist movement, and that was war! Prominent men in other countries have said similar things. It is part of the creed of re-action. Undoubtedly the German democratic movement in particular was most imposing, and appeared truly formidable to its ruling class. The French movement also was growing and threatening. In Russia it could only be kept under by the most violent measures of repression. In this country it was sought to emasculate the proletarian menace by absorbing its pretended leaders into the governmental party. In France this policy hud been very thoroughly carried out as the Millerands, the Briands and the Vivanis still testify. And does not this obvious capitalist fear of the working class suggest a possible reason for war, supplementary to the ordinary one of direct commercial interest ?



In France, England and Germany the workers were swept off their feel in a wave of patriotism and became an easy prey to the intrigues of the capitalist class. Russia, seemingly, continued its brutal repression simply in order to obviate any violent break with the traditions of its government. In all the belligerent countries the workers are expected, nay, compelled, to sacrifice on the altar of their master’s country all the poor concessions which industrial necessity had enabled them to win. In this sea-girt isle tho hardly won rights of labour are being rapidly annulled. The soaring cost of living, the destruction of trade union conditions of labour, the speeding up of work, the forced labour and the menace of compulsory military service, all tend irresistibly to crush working class conditions of existence out of recognition, Even some patriotic workers are beginning to ask whether “victory” may not be too dearly bought if it is to be purchased only with the sacrifice of all the poor liberties for which their fathers fought, and at the cost of everything which to them had appeared to make working-class life barely tolerable now.



After the war the old conditions will be restored, they tell us; but who believes it? The so-called national necessities which are the pretext for the present measures will be obviously still more imperative after the war. Our masters are insistently urging the workers (with whom saving is too often a crime against the mind and body of themselves and their dependents) to put money by for the awful times that will inevitably follow the war. In view of these hard times to come what chance will there be for the restoration of pre-war conditions of labour? In any case is it not a foregone conclusion that capitalist greed and armed power will effectually bar the way ?



Although we may dimly perceive the golden gleams amidst the dark and thunderous clouds of the future, it would be folly to deny that the immediate prospect is gloomy indeed. Hemmed in by penalties and virtually gagged and bound, the free expression of opinion is rendered impossible for the present. But the seething discontent is not stilled, nor is it rendered innocuous by being denied an outlet. As they sow the wind they shall reap the whirlwind.



Many a man this day is troubled by a burning thought set alight in him by the flaming hoardings of murderous association. He sees the workers of the world being crushed to death or to worse than death between the exploitation and oppression of the ruling caste and the savage massacre of warfare. But what shall I say, he reflects, what must I say to my children years hence when they ask me, “What did you do, daddy, in the great war?” Shall I have to confess in sadness that during this great attack upon the toilers, that in this tragic episode in the class war I have failed to play a man’s part?’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-war-against-workers-1915.html

THE SOCIALIST PARTY AGAINST ALL WAR

It’s reported that the Executive Committee running Germany on behalf of German capitalists is looking at possible ways to increase the size of the German military. These include mandatory conscription.

‘The German Defence Ministry has prepared several conscription reform proposals to tackle a chronic personnel shortage in the Armed Forces, Die Welt newspaper reported. Minister Boris Pistorius is expected to choose one of them and officially present it in early June, the paper said.

“We have considered reintroducing compulsory military service,” the minister said at that time, while sharing few details on the plans. Germany abolished mandatory service in 2011.

The Defence Ministry allegedly presented three options for Pistorius to consider, Under the first plan, all young people reaching the age of 18 must to be registered with the military and receive promotional and information materials about service with the German Armed Forces, the Bundeswehr. They can then voluntarily fill out a questionnaire about their psychological and physical state and motivation for military service. Those willing to join the army would then go through consultation and assessment procedures.

The option is described as requiring only minor legal changes, while being “significant in terms of time, personnel and finances,” but potentially inadequate to meeting army recruitment needs, which amount to between “30,000 and 40,000” personnel a year, according to Die Welt.

The second option would make registering and filling out the form mandatory for all German males aged 18 or older. Women would also be contacted by the military but on a voluntary basis. The German military would then select the required number of conscripts in accordance with their needs and the recruits’ fitness requirements.

The third option would introduce a “gender-neutral” conscription model and make registration with the military and potential draft compulsory for both men and women. Later, “the introduction of a general compulsory service could be discussed” on the basis of this model, the military documents suggest. Additionally, alternative service with the medical services or fire departments would be introduced. Ministry officials described this model as “the most promising option in terms of meeting the needs” of the military.

The reform authors reportedly acknowledge that introducing such changes would be “not easy” because of the “clear scepticism” among the younger generation in particular.’

The ‘clear scepticism’ would seem to indicate the realisation amongst many that capitalism’s belief that the majority working class as exists not just to be exploited but to be cannon fodder in order to defend the interests of the asset owning minority is being challenged. The acknowledgment that Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, is a huge lie is permeating the consciousness of many is a step toward understanding that the abolition of capitalism is necessary for armed conflict of any kind to be erased from from global human society.

‘A survey conducted(in 2023) by the German market and opinion research institute, Forsa, reveals that many German citizens are hesitant to defend their country with lethal force in the event of potential foreign aggression. According to the poll commissioned by the Stern newspaper, 40% of respondents expressed that they would never take up arms, even in such circumstances.

Only 17% of Germans indicated they would “definitely” be prepared to defend their nation. An additional 19% stated they would “probably” do so in the event of an attack on Germany. Notably, older men demonstrated a higher level of potential readiness, with 39% of male respondents aged between 45 and 59 expressing willingness to join Germany’s defence forces in case of a foreign invasion.

Overall, 61% of Germans revealed they were either “probably” or “totally” unwilling to take up arms against a potential aggressor. The poll, conducted in mid-November, highlighted that the number of individuals categorically denying any possibility of doing so has doubled since May 2022. Additionally, it noted that people with middle and higher education were more reluctant to rush to their nation’s defence.

The German Armed Forces, known as the Bundeswehr, currently comprises around 180,000 personnel. Germany suspended compulsory conscription in 2011 as part of a military reform, contributing to a prolonged struggle to fill army ranks under the government’s austerity plan.

The nation has since been struggling to refill its army ranks for years. In 2018, then-Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen aimed to boost the number of German troops to 203,000 by 2025. Current Minister of Defence Boris Pistorius has pushed the deadline to 2031 while keeping the same target.

In mid-December, Germany’s Bild tabloid reported that the Bundeswehr was still losing staffing despite the government’s pledges to increase the army ranks. The number of armed forces personnel dropped from roughly 183,000 in the summer to 181,383 as of the end of October, with thousands of vacancies unfilled, the paper reported at that time, adding that only 0.4% of the total German population was in the military.

The report also highlighted challenges in Germany’s military hardware, citing a shortage of operational main battle tanks. In late November, German MP Dr. Johann Wadephul criticized the under-funding and under-equipped status of the Armed Forces, stating that some “critical” units would last no longer than two days in battle – a situation he deemed “catastrophic.”’

THE SOCIALIST PARTY AGAINST ALL WAR

From the Between The Lines column in the Socialist Standard, June 1985

‘I am only just recovering from the non-excitement of Norway winning the Eurovision Song Contest. Watching the show is like taking an overdose of valium – and then there was the frustration of going to the toilet and missing “our” song. All over Europe (and Israel – TV bosses aren’t too hot on geography) workers were sitting in front of their tellys and waiting for “our” song. What seems like bland light entertainment is doing its bit to encourage the sick sense of nationalism which the masters require of the wage slaves. It’s like watching international soccer – millions of workers are urged to think of “us” taking a penalty and “our” goal difference. All ideological preparation for “us” nuking Leningrad and “our” gains in central Russia. If you want to show us a football match or a boring song contest, let them tell us in advance that we’re in for a nationalist political broadcast. As for “our” song in the contest – fourth to Norway. Palmerston would never have stood for it. If I were Maggie I’d send a Task Force to Scandinavia.’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/07/between-lines-praise-marx.html

It’s reported that the International Monetary Fund is concerned that global capitalism is becoming ‘fragmented’ and threatens a ‘rules-based global trading system.’ Keynes forbid that anything should interfere with capitalism’s raison d’etre which is the exploitation of the majority labour power selling class.

‘Growing fragmentation into US-led Western and China-aligned economic blocs threatens trade cooperation and overall global growth, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned.

According to IMF Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath, events such as the pandemic and the Ukraine conflict have hindered world trade in ways not seen since the end of the Cold War.

“Increasingly, countries around the world are guided by economic security and national security concerns in determining who they trade with and invest in,” Gopinath stated, adding that this has resulted in countries increasingly picking sides between China and the US.

While strengthening economic resilience is “not necessarily bad,” the trend of fragmentation threatens a move away from a “rules-based global trading system” and a “significant reversal of the gains from economic integration,” Gopinath cautioned.

According to the IMF, the growing tension between the world’s two biggest economies has been reflected globally, with over 3,000 trade restrictions imposed by countries worldwide in 2022 and 2023, more than triple compared with 2019.

The impact of the economic fragmentation is expected to be much greater than during the Cold War era due to the global economy’s higher dependence on trade, according to Gopinath.

The IMF estimated that the economic cost to global GDP could be as high as 7% in an extreme fragmentation scenario. If things play out more mildly, the hit could be as low as 0.2%.

Low-income countries are likely to be hit the hardest due to their greater reliance on agricultural imports and foreign investment from more advanced economies, the IMF concluded.’

In other news, it is reported that the Wall Street Journal is pointing out to Ukraine that there’s no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism. Can we expect the bailiffs to be sent to Kiev very soon? Perhaps someone should tell Ukraine about The Socialist Party’s offers of a free three month subscription to the Socialist Standard? The transition to socialism would benefit everyone.

‘A group of foreign bondholders have taken steps to force Ukraine to begin repaying its debts as soon as next year, the Wall Street Journal reported. If they succeed, Kiev could haemorrhage $500 million every year on interest payments alone.

The group, which includes investment giants Blackrock and Pimco, granted Kiev a two-year debt holiday in 2022, gambling that the conflict with Russia would have concluded by now.

With no end to the fighting in sight, the lenders have now hired lawyers at Weil Gotshal & Manges and bankers from PJT Partners to meet with Ukrainian officials and strike a deal whereby Ukraine would resume making interest payments next year in exchange for having a significant chunk of its debt written off, anonymous sources told the Wall Street Journal.

The group holds around a fifth of Ukraine’s $20 billion in outstanding Eurobonds, the newspaper reported. While this figure represents a fraction of Ukraine’s total external debt of $161.5 billion, servicing the interest on these bonds would cost the country $500 million annually, the bondholders said.

Should the bondholders fail to strike a deal with Kiev by August, Ukraine could default. This would damage the country’s credit rating and restrict its ability to borrow even more money in the future.

According to the newspaper, Ukrainian officials are hoping that the US and other Western governments will take its side during talks with the bondholders. However, a group of these countries have already offered Ukraine a debt holiday on around $4 billion worth of loans until 2027, and are reportedly concerned that any deal with the bondholders would see private lenders being repaid before them.

Ukraine already relies on foreign aid to keep government departments open and state employees paid. The country’s military is almost entirely dependent on foreign funding; officials in Kiev and the West were predicting imminent defeat until the US Congress approved a foreign aid bill last month which included $61 billion for Ukraine and US government agencies involved in the conflict.

The bill provides almost $14 billion to Ukraine for the purchase of weapons, and includes $9 billion in new “forgivable loans.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, some bondholders have suggested that the US and EU could use frozen Russian assets to pay off Ukraine’s debts. While around $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian central bank have been frozen in American and European banks since 2022, the US only passed legislation allowing for their seizure last month, and no similar legal mechanism exists in Europe, where the vast majority of these assets are held.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB) have both urged governments not to steal this money, with ECB chief Christine Lagarde warning last month that doing so would risk “breaking the international order that you want to protect.”

Ukraine could go bankrupt as early as next year unless Western countries agree to write off or restructure its debts, an official from the World Bank told TASS on Saturday.

Kiev is reliant on financial aid from its Western backers but foreign support has dwindled in recent months, while a $60 billion US aid package remains stalled in Congress.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was commenting on the latest $1.5 billion tranche of funding which Kiev received last week under a World Bank program. According to the source, the World Bank’s division representing Russia voted against the loan, citing the organization’s charter.

The draft document on the allocation of the funds “openly” points to the “catastrophic” state of Ukraine’s public finances due to an economic downturn and a reduction in foreign aid, the official told the outlet.

“If in 2025 Western creditors refuse to write off Kiev’s debts, including the debts of private companies and banks, the country could face bankruptcy,” he warned.

The official added that the senior management of the Washington-based financial institution has acknowledged the “extremely high” risks of cooperating with Ukraine, and noted that as with previous transactions, it has not provided its own funds for Kiev. In the latest tranche, the World Bank “once again took advantage” of guarantees from two of Ukraine’s donors – Japan and the UK – the source said.

According to Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal, the loan will be spent on social and humanitarian needs as well as on reconstruction. The Ukrainian government expects a record budget deficit of $43.9 billion this year and plans to cover the bulk of it with financial aid from its Western backers.’