OFCOM has taken the decision to withdraw the licence of Russia Today to broadcast in Britain. 

The regulator’s view is that it is a conduit for pro-Putin propaganda in respect of Ukraine, but it can be argued that the BBC functions at least partly as a pro-Nato broadcaster. 

Between the two there is little space for those who oppose imperialist wars, whether launched and organised by East or West.

Those who do oppose the calls of modern day Dr Strangeloves for a no-fly zone in Ukraine, in reality a recipe for the US shooting down Russian planes and starting a nuclear war, are often vilified as supporters of Putin, or at least not willing to back the fight of Ukraine to remain independent.

In every imperialist war effort in recent decades there have been examples of previously anti-war figures finding reasons to support the US. 

Ukraine is no different, with George Monbiot attacking Stop the War in the Guardian, while still professing to be opposed to wars in general.

The reality is that it’s easy to oppose wars launched by other countries — in the current case Russia — but often difficult to stand against the role that your own ruling class plays, not least because of pro-war propaganda and the impact this can have on public sentiment.

World War I is the classic modern example. Even if we accept a history that suggests German imperial ambitions were behind the war, Britain too was a full participant. 

Anti-German propaganda and sentiment — just as anti-Russian views now — was widespread and those who called out and opposed the slaughter from a British standpoint had to struggle to get their voices heard.

Ken Weller’s study of the north London anti-war movement in the first world war underlines the point. The North London Herald League took a firm stance against the war and held meetings and protests in Finsbury Park. 

On one occasion in 1916 at a meeting where Sylvia Pankhurst was a speaker, the press had urged “patriotic” readers to oppose it and “put the case for Britain.” 

The result was a hostile and violent crowd of jingos. Fighting broke out but despite a warning by the park ranger that safety could not be guaranteed, Pankhurst still spoke until the mass of pro-war types overran the meeting.

The year before, in May 1915, there had been anti-German riots in Islington, with 51 shops owned by Germans, or which the mob thought were German, ransacked. 

By 1916 the Anti-German League was organising attacks on anti-war meetings and protests. Police were rarely in attendance and arrests even rarer.

The Suez war in 1956 saw a return of jingoism in the press and some racist sentiment against Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. But it was capped by mass opposition to what was an illegal war, an early echo in some ways of Iraq in 2003.

The Falklands war in 1982 was different again — a minor conflict between the imperial occupier Britain and Argentina who rightly believed the Falklands were part of that country. 

Aside from a huge number of penguins, oil was involved, as so often in modern wars. Thatcher labelled the Argentinian military dictatorship “fascist” and Labour leader Michael Foot, who had a lifelong reputation as a peace campaigner, backed her. 

The room for opposition to the war was officially limited, arguably in the same way as Ukraine now, but there were still significant anti-war protests.

The B52 liberals in the commentariat now contemplate a nuclear war and condemn any and all anti-war sentiment. The bigger and broader movement against Putin and Nato aggression and for peace that can be built, the less effective such jingoism with its unpleasant echoes of the past will be.

Keith Flett is a socialist historian.