The RMT boss Ukraine pro-Russia chants controversy has resurfaced after images and video footage emerged from a 2015 visit to occupied eastern Ukraine involving Eddie Dempsey, now general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, raising fresh questions about his past conduct and the union’s position on the Ukraine conflict.
The material shows Mr Dempsey holding a Communist Party flag and standing among people chanting slogans widely regarded as pro-Russia during a visit to the Donbas region, reigniting debate about his political positions and the wider stance of the RMT on the Ukraine conflict.
Mr Dempsey travelled to eastern Ukraine in 2015, a year after Russia’s initial incursion into the region, at a time when fighting between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists was ongoing.
He has consistently described the visit as part of a humanitarian convoy, saying it was motivated by concerns over civilian suffering and specific events linked to political violence earlier that year.
However, footage from the trip shows scenes that critics argue sit uneasily alongside that explanation.
In the video, Mr Dempsey can be seen holding a red flag bearing Communist Party symbols while standing with a group chanting slogans in Russian, including phrases such as “United, we will never be defeated” and references to the Donbas as a supposed “tomb of fascism.”
He was also photographed posing in front of a statue of Vladimir Lenin, imagery that has been seized upon by opponents as evidence of sympathy for pro-Russia narratives in the region.
Further images from the visit show Mr Dempsey wearing a T-shirt featuring the coat of arms of Novorossiya, a historical term used to describe territories in southern and eastern Ukraine during the Russian Empire and later adopted by separatist movements seeking to legitimise territorial claims.
The symbolism of Novorossiya has become closely associated with Russian expansionist rhetoric since the outbreak of conflict in Ukraine, adding to the controversy surrounding the trip.
The visit itself was organised by an anti-fascist forum and reportedly included stops in areas controlled by pro-Russia separatist groups.
Mr Dempsey was said to have been invited to the town of Alchevsk by Aleksey Mozgovoy, a prominent separatist figure and founder of the Prizrak Brigade.
Mozgovoy was killed just weeks after the visit, a fact that has since drawn further attention to the nature of the contacts made during the trip.
Footage from the journey also captures moments where Mr Dempsey is seen filming Mozgovoy as he speaks critically of the Ukrainian government, accusing it of corruption and outlining ideas for collectivised agricultural projects.
These scenes have been cited by critics as evidence that the trip went beyond humanitarian observation and into political engagement with pro-Russia actors.
The resurfacing of these images comes against the backdrop of longstanding scrutiny of the RMT’s position on the war in Ukraine.
Under Mr Dempsey’s leadership, the union passed a controversial motion calling on the UK government to halt military aid to Ukraine, arguing that Britain was playing what it described as a belligerent role in international affairs.
That decision prompted criticism from politicians and commentators who accused the union of undermining Ukraine’s right to self-defence.
Supporters of Mr Dempsey and the RMT have pushed back strongly against such claims. A spokesperson for the union has insisted that Mr Dempsey has never supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and has consistently called for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
They argue that the 2015 trip must be understood in its historical context and as part of a broader anti-fascist outlook rather than as an endorsement of Russian actions.
According to the union, the humanitarian convoy was motivated by outrage over the House of Trade Unions fire in Odesa in 2014, in which dozens of people died during clashes between rival groups amid intense political unrest.
The RMT maintains that Mr Dempsey’s involvement stemmed from solidarity with victims of violence and a long-standing commitment to opposing far-right extremism, rather than support for separatist causes.
The spokesperson described Mr Dempsey as a lifelong anti-fascist with a record of campaigning against racism and authoritarianism both in Britain and internationally.
They stressed that participation in events organised by anti-fascist groups should not be conflated with backing for Russia’s military actions, particularly given that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine did not begin until years later.
Nevertheless, critics argue that the symbolism captured in the footage is difficult to separate from the broader geopolitical context.
Read also: Venezuela not afraid of diplomatic clash with US as Delcy Rodriguez charts tightrope leadership
They point out that pro-Russia chants and the display of Communist and Soviet-era imagery have been widely used by separatist movements to legitimise Russian influence in eastern Ukraine.
From this perspective, they say, the images raise legitimate questions about political judgement, even if they do not prove explicit support for invasion.
The controversy has also reopened wider debates about the role of trade unions in foreign policy discussions. While unions have historically taken positions on international issues, critics suggest that adopting stances perceived as favourable to Russia risks alienating members and undermining solidarity with Ukrainian workers and unions who have faced immense hardship since the war began.
Within the labour movement, reactions have been mixed. Some union members defend Mr Dempsey’s anti-war position as consistent with a broader pacifist tradition, arguing that opposing military escalation does not equate to supporting aggression.
Others, however, worry that the optics of the 2015 trip and subsequent policy motions damage the credibility of the union and distract from core industrial issues.
The renewed attention also reflects how past actions are being re-examined through the lens of the ongoing war. Activities that may have attracted limited scrutiny a decade ago are now judged more harshly amid heightened awareness of Russian disinformation, propaganda, and influence operations across Europe.
As a result, political figures and activists alike are finding their records subjected to fresh analysis.
For Mr Dempsey, the episode underscores the challenges of navigating complex international conflicts while maintaining clear messaging.
While the RMT insists its leader has consistently opposed war and called for peace, opponents argue that peace advocacy must be accompanied by unambiguous condemnation of aggression to avoid misinterpretation.
As the RMT boss Ukraine pro-Russia chants controversy continues to circulate, it is likely to remain a point of contention in debates about the union’s leadership and political direction.
Whether the renewed focus will have lasting consequences for Mr Dempsey or the RMT remains to be seen, but it has once again placed questions of symbolism, solidarity, and responsibility at the centre of Britain’s domestic discussion about the war in Ukraine.
