The Ukrainian war, one year on

The first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has passed. Decades of interimperialist contradictions finally erupted, for which the Ukrainian people paid dearly. Last year was marked in the West by armaments and war fever. Again and again there was a threat of turning the Ukrainian war into a wider conflict.

After the fall of the shell in Przewodów, in which two Polish farmers were killed, war propaganda intensified. Although the Polish military knew immediately that the missile was Ukrainian, authorities suggested that Russia was to blame. It was only when the US (apparently uninterested in the spillover of the conflict) revealed the origin of the missile (the US plane had tracked the missile’s trajectory from the moment it was launched) did the Polish government have to admit that there had „probably” been an „unfortunate accident”. This did not prevent Polish politicians from talking about strengthening missile defenses and the need to purchase Patriots. It is true that these politicians admitted at the same time that the incident in Przewodów could not be prevented anyway, but then the „unfortunate accidents” would be caused by American, not Soviet equipment – and that means something!

The tragedy in Przewodów is another argument in favor of ending the conflict, the burden of which falls on the working classes.

“Left” case for war

What is the attitude of the official left in Poland? Subservient, escalation-mongering, completely trailing behind the Polish and Western bourgeoisie. It did not break out of the political and propaganda ranks. It happened that the general militaristic ferocity on the left took bizarre forms, e.g. a fundraiser for the purchase of a drone for the Ukrainian army from the Turkish defense industry (the supporters of the fundraiser acknowledged as valid fears that the money would go to support the Turkish military-industrial complex, which drives the genocidal anti-Kurdish policy, but de facto they decided that dead Kurds were a worthy price).

Theoretical justification for this policy can be found in the article „War in Ukraine: Does the left have an idea for international security?” by Tiras Bilous, published by Krytyka Polityczna. Bilous instructs us:

„In my opinion, we need to stop seeing them [military alliances] as absolute evil. For those accustomed to seeing NATO in this way, it may be helpful to compare it to its Russian counterpart, the CSTO, or Collective Security Treaty Organization.

First, such a view precludes the perception of NATO as a controversial phenomenon, which on the one hand serves as a cover for American imperialism, and on the other hand is a protective instrument for many smaller states. Just as the CSTO serves as a cover for Russian imperialism and was recently used to suppress a popular uprising in Kazakhstan, it also serves as protection for relatively democratic Armenia. Recognizing this fact does not make anyone a supporter of either American or Russian imperialism.

Secondly, it turned out that America did not need NATO for the invasion of Iraq – because of the opposition of France and Germany. It is also significant that Kazakhstan refused to send troops to Ukraine, although the invasion began a month and a half after the Kremlin helped suppress the uprising in Kazakhstan. (…) So we should not forget that the key issue in both cases is imperialism (US or Russian) and not NATO and the CSTO.

Thirdly, it is necessary to stop equating any military actions of member states of military alliances with those of these alliances. It is not NATO as an organization that is currently conducting a military operation in northern Syria – Turkey is doing it. And the problem here is Turkish imperialism, not NATO. (…) It is not the CSTO that is now fighting against Ukraine, but Russia with the help of Belarus. (…)

Fourth, while the United States and Russia can do without NATO and the CSTO and continue their imperialist policies, there is no better alternative for the states of Eastern Europe and Armenia. (…) Until we can offer a better alternative for countries that seek protection in this type of structure, we should not encourage them to give up this possibility.”

Thus, Bilous makes two distinctions: 1) between the actions of military alliances as a whole and those of their members, and 2) between the separate functions of these alliances – as „covers for imperialism” and as „protective instruments for smaller states.” On reflection, however, it turns out that these distinctions are meaningless.

Alliances are not separate entities existing independently of the their members. NATO and CSTO are only a formalized reflection of the commonality of interests between capitalist states. The fact that “it is not the CSTO that is now fighting against Ukraine, but Russia with the help of Belarus” did not prevent Ukraine’s supporters from welcoming the attack by Azerbaijan (Turkey’s ally) on Armenia, seeing it as an opportunity to weaken Russia. And it is possible that technically “it is not NATO as an organization that is currently conducting a military operation in northern Syria – Turkey is doing it”. And it is possible that formally „the problem here is Turkish imperialism, not NATO.” But the de facto condition for the future membership of Sweden and Finland in NATO is the acceptance of Turkish policy towards the Kurds.

It is equally wrong to contrast „imperialist” and „protective” functions of alliances. It is true that ” the United States and Russia can do without NATO and the CSTO”, but the reverse is not true: NATO and the CSTO cannot do without the US and Russia. Out of 10 active CSTO soldiers, 9 are Russian; out of 10 active NATO soldiers, 6 are soldiers of the great imperialist powers (USA, Great Britain, France, Germany), including 4 Americans.¹ Without the membership of the great powers, these alliances cannot function and their interests are paramount. Any other considerations (including „protection of smaller states”) are considered only if they are in the interests of the imperialists of the great powers. Meanwhile, small capitalist states joining alliances subordinate their politics to the interests of the superpowers, assuming the role of attack dogs of the superpowers and increasing the power of the latter. The imperialist, superpower policy of alliances is carried out via the”protection of smaller states”, not in spite of it.

It is appropriate here to quote Lenin’s rebuff to those „socialists” who during World War I called to fight on the side of the Entente, citing the need to defend small Belgium from Prussian imperialism:

„The favourite plea of the social-chauvinist triple (now quadruple) entente (in Russia, Plekhanov and Co.), is the example of Belgium. But this example goes against them. The German imperialists shamelessly violated the neutrality of Belgium, as belligerent states have done always and everywhere, trampling upon all treaties and obligations if necessary. Let us suppose that all the states interested in the observation of international treaties declared war on Germany with the demand for the liberation and indemnification of Belgium. In such a case, the sympathies of Socialists would, of course, be on the side of Germany’s enemies. But the whole point is that the “triple (and quadruple) entente” is waging war not over Belgium, this is perfectly well known, and only hypocrites conceal this. England is grabbing Germany’s colonies and Turkey; Russia is grabbing Galicia and Turkey, France wants Alsace-Lorraine and even the left bank of the Rhine; a treaty has been concluded with Italy for the division of the spoils (Albania, Asia Minor); bargaining is going on with Bulgaria and Rumania, also for the division of the spoils. In the present war waged by the present governments it is impossible to help Belgium without helping to strangle Austria or Turkey, etc.!”

Similarly in the conflict in Ukraine, Armenia or Rojava: the purpose of military alliances is not to defend Ukraine or other small countries, but to seek to divide the world in the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

This apologia for imperialist alliances is an extension of the revisionist apologia of bourgeois democracy. Social democrats will sometimes agree that there is of course class struggle and that the state serves the ruling class, but they will point to a supposedly autonomous sphere of „democracy” and „rule of law” that is said to be above class. But this distinction is as untenable as that between the „imperialist” and „defensive” functions of military alliances.

This is shown by the position of the Social Movement, the organization Bilous belongs to, on the anti-leftist repressions of Zelensky’s regime. In March 2022, the Defense and National Security Council outlawed 11 parties, including several left-wing ones, accusing them of unspecified “ties to Russia.” In its statement, the SM condemned this move due to… lack of legal basis. SM called for individual members to be prosecuted instead of banning entire organizations. Bilous himself reassured the western left on Twitter: “They were banned not because they were left-wing, but because they were pro-Putin. Left parties that are not pro-Russian have not been banned.” So Bilous supports the repression of left-wing parties that are “pro-Russian”. And, of course, the state decides who is „pro-Russian”.

So we see that the apologia of „classless” „democracy” and „rule of law” leads to ignoring the class nature of the bourgeois state and to taking its side. This means going over to the side of the bourgeoisie.

Meanwhile, the class nature of the government in Kiev is obvious. Claims that „when the war is over, politics in Ukraine will be more socially oriented than it has been so far” are groundless. The National Reconstruction Plan adopted in July provides for deregulation, privatization and economic integration with the EU. In August, Law No. 5371 came into force, which excluded approximately 70% of employees from the protection of the Labor Code (they will not be covered by collective agreements). At the last moment, under pressure from trade unions, the duration of the new regulations was limited to the period of martial law.

The regime in Kiev promises to strengthen the capitalist dictatorship. In April, Zelensky announced that the future Ukraine will not be “absolutely liberal, European” and will resemble “’big Israel’ with its own face”. He presented his vision for the future: „We will not be surprised if we have representatives of the Armed Forces or the National Guard in cinemas, supermarkets, and people with weapons. I am confident that the question of security will be the issue number one for the next 10 years. I am sure of it.” It is obvious that these measures would be aimed at potential internal enemies (the guardsmen are unlikely to find Russian soldiers in the cinema).

The Ukrainian president’s declaration was applauded by his Western allies. Daniel B. Shapiro, former US ambassador to Israel and member of the Atlantic Council, enthusiastically picked up Zelensky’s words and presented a plan of action that would lead to the transformation of Ukraine into a „second Israel”. Shapiro, in addition to “maintaining active defense partnerships” or “building an innovation ecosystem” (the term “military-industrial complex” would be more accurate), recommends to Zelensky: „A common purpose unites the citizenry, making them ready to endure shared sacrifice. Civilians recognize their responsibility to follow security protocols and contribute to the cause. (…) The widespread mobilization of Ukrainian society in collective defense suggests that the country has this potential.” It is worth remembering that this „common purpose” in the case of Israel is militant racist ethnonationalism.

Marxist analysis of the war

So it is obvious that any talk of the war in Ukraine as a fight between „democracy” and „dictatorship” can be dismissed as a fairy tale. But how should this conflict be dealt with? As Lenin wrote: „For the philistine the important thing is where the armies stand, who is winning at the moment. For the Marxist the important thing is what issues are at stake in this war, during which first one, then the other army may be on top. What is the present war being fought over?”

To answer this question, we need to analyze the overlapping conflicts within the war in Ukraine. Leon Trotsky and Ernest Mandel gave directions on this point. Regarding the Marxist position on World War II, Mandel explained: „Now if we look at the problem of World War II from that more dialectical, more correct Leninist point of view, we have to say that it was a very complicated business indeed. I would say, at the risk of putting it a bit too strongly, that the Second World War was in reality a combination of five different wars. That may seem an outrageous proposition at first sight, but I think closer examination will bear it out.”

Mandel listed the following overlapping conflicts in this context:

„First, there was an inter-imperialist war, a war between the Nazi, Italian, and Japanese imperialists on the one hand, and the Anglo-American-French imperialists on the other hand. That was a reactionary war, a war between different groups of imperialist powers. We had nothing to do with that war, we were totally against it.

Second, there was a just war of self-defence by the people of China, an oppressed semi-colonial country, against Japanese imperialism. At no moment was Chiang Kai-shek’s alliance with American imperialism a justification for any revolutionary to change their judgement on the nature of the Chinese war. It was a war of national liberation against a robber gang, the Japanese imperialists, who wanted to enslave the Chinese people. (…)

Third, there was a just war of national defence of the Soviet Union, a workers state, against an imperialist power. The fact that the Soviet leadership allied itself not only in a military way – which was absolutely justified – but also politically with the Western imperialists in no way changed the just nature of that war. (…) In that war we were 100 per cent for the victory of one camp, without any reservations or question marks. We were for absolute victory of the Soviet people against the murderous robbers of German imperialism.

Fourth, there was a just war of national liberation of the oppressed colonial peoples of Africa and Asia (in Latin America there was no such war), launched by the masses against British and French imperialism, sometimes against Japanese imperialism, and sometimes against both in succession, one after the other. Again, these were absolutely justified wars of national liberation, regardless of the particular character of the imperialist power. We were just as much for the victory of the Indian people’s uprising against British imperialism, and the small beginnings of the uprising in Ceylon, as we were in favour of the victory of the Burmese, Indochinese, and Indonesian guerrillas against Japanese, French, and Dutch imperialism successively. (…)

Now I come to the fifth war, which is the most complex. I would not say that it was going on in the whole of Europe occupied by Nazi imperialism, but more especially in two countries, Yugoslavia and Greece, to a great extent in Poland, and incipiently in France and Italy. That was a war of liberation by the oppressed workers, peasants, and urban petty bourgeoisie against the German Nazi imperialists and their stooges. (…) It is true that if the leadership of that mass resistance remained in the hands of bourgeois nationalists, of Stalinists or social democrats, it could eventually be sold out to the Western imperialists. It was the duty of the revolutionaries to prevent this from happening by trying to oust these fakers from the leadership of the movement. But it was impossible to prevent such a betrayal by abstaining from participating in that movement.

What lay behind that fifth war? It was the inhuman conditions which existed in the occupied countries. How can anyone doubt that? (…) People were fighting because they were hungry, because they were over-exploited, because there were mass deportations of slave labour to Germany, because there was mass slaughter, because there were concentration camps, because there was no right to strike, because unions were banned, because communists, socialists and trade unionists were being put in prison.”

The overlapping and separation of these conflicts resulted in differences in the tactics of the revolutionaries of individual countries, which changed as the relations between the warring parties changed. In early September 1939, when the war was limited to a conflict between the competing imperialist camps, Trotsky wrote:

„Diplomatic machinations, juggling with the formula: democracy versus fascism, sophism concerning the responsibility, can not make us forget that the struggle is going on between the imperialist slave-holders of different camps for a new division of the world. According to its ends and methods the present war is a direct prolongation of the past great war, only with much greater rottenness of the capitalist economy, and with much more terrible methods of destruction and extermination.”

In this war, Trotsky characterized the tasks of the revolutionaries as follows:

„The task of the authentic representatives of the working class and oppressed nations does not consist in helping one imperialist camp against the other, but in teaching the laboring masses of all countries to understand the reactionary meaning of the present war, to raise their own program – the world socialist federation of nations – and to prepare themselves to replace the regime of robbery by the regime of general cooperation.”

Trotsky did not live to see Operation Barbarossa and Soviet switching to the side of the Allies, but years before the outbreak of the war he foresaw such a possibility and proposed the following tactics:

„Remaining the determined and devoted defender of the workers’ state in the struggle with imperialism, the international proletariat will not, however, become an ally of the imperialist allies of the USSR. The proletariat of a capitalist country that finds itself in an alliance with the USSR must retain fully and completely its irreconcilable hostility to the imperialist government of its own country. In this sense, its policy will not differ from that of the proletariat in a country fighting against the USSR. But in the nature of practical actions, considerable differences may arise depending on the concrete war situation. For instance, it would be absurd and criminal in case of war between the USSR and Japan for the American proletariat to sabotage the sending of American munition to the USSR. But the proletariat of a country fighting against the USSR would be absolutely obliged to resort to actions of this sort – strikes, sabotage, etc.”

We see that the consistent application of class analysis results on the one hand in distinguishing between the struggle waged by the capitalist class and the war of the working masses (e.g. the distinction between the imperialist war between the French and German capitalists and the struggle of the French people against Hitlerite terror), and it points out the change of the nature of the war and the necessity to change the tactics (e.g. change of tasks of the revolutionaries in the imperialist states in the case of an alliance of the workers’ state with one of the camps). At the same time, this position is characterized by an unequivocal rejection of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie.

If we apply this method of analysis to the Ukrainian war, it turns out that it is a combination of several conflicts.

First, we have the conflict between NATO and Russia/CSTO. It is a conflict between two imperialist camps fighting for spheres of influence. Russian slogans about „fighting against fascists” are as meaningless as American propaganda about „spreading democracy.” Western imperialists are discussing a tribunal for Putin, while silently dismissing the judgment of the court in Hague, which found the troops of their anti-Afghan coalition guilty of war crimes. Both sides represent only the interests of big capitalists. Both alliances have aggressive, reactionary goals. The accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO or the purchase of „Patriots” by Poland will not reduce the risk of war with Russia (Russia turned out to be completely incapable of conquering a much smaller and poorer country, so it is doubtful that it would be able to conquer Europe, as some claim), the only effect will be acceptance of Ankara’s policy towards the Kurds or the enrichment of American weapon manufacturers. It is the duty of Marxists to oppose the escalation of armaments and incitement to war by „their” capitalists. It is also necessary to resist sanctions, which almost always target the popular masses in the hope that these, driven to despair, will influence the policy of those in power.

The second conflict is the annexationist war of Russian imperialism (with the military support of Belarus) against Ukraine. Russian policy tramples on the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination and must inevitably lead to oppression and terror. In this conflict, Russia and Belarus are the reactionary parties, and it falls to the proletariat of these countries to contribute to the defeat of their own governments. We have positive examples here in the form of Russian anti-mobilization protests and riots or the heroic attitude of Belarusian railway workers who sabotaged military transports.

The Western left should support accepting not only refugees from Ukraine, but also Russian deserters and conscription dodgers. The Western bourgeoisie does not pursue this policy because it fears the disintegration of the Russian armed forces and the collapse of the local capitalist oligarchy more than Russian aggression.

Does the condemnation of Russian chauvinism and militarism lead to support for the government in Kiev? No, because of the third conflict – the civil war that has been going on since 2014, in which the Ukrainian-chauvinist regime in Kiev seeks national oppression of the Russian-speaking minority, which constitutes 1/3 of the population in the territory including the regions that seceded.

Since the 2014 coup, the government has pursued a consistent Ukrainization policy. After the overthrow of Yanukovych, one of the new authorities’ first moves was an attempt to deprive the Russian language of its co-status of an official language (along with Ukrainian), which was abandoned due to the outburst of indignation and separatist tendencies in the east of the country. In 2018, the Constitutional Court stripped Russian of its official language status. In 2015, toponyms were Ukrainianized. In 2017, the use of a language other than Ukrainian in secondary education and above was banned. In 2018, Lviv authorities imposed a ban on Russian-language literature, music and films.

The Law on the Protection of the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language, passed in 2019, finally crowned the work of forced Ukrainization. The Law made the use of Ukrainian compulsory in the work of some public authorities, in the electoral procedures and political campaigning, in education, in scientific, cultural and sporting activities, in book publishing and book distribution, in mass media, at public events, in hospitals and nursing homes, and in the activities of political parties and other legal entities. The law requires every citizen to be proficient in Ukrainian and explicitly prevents access to state positions if their knowledge of Ukrainian is „insufficient”.

However, it did not end there. In 2022, the Ukrainian parliament began work on Law No. 7633, which prohibits the use in the academy of sources in Russian, published in Russia, or by a Russian author abroad. The project met with criticism from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, which the Kiev regime ignored.

This policy met with strong reaction of the Russian-speaking population, which started organizing separatist movements in the Donbas and Crimea. The predominantly indigenous character of these movements is recognized even by American analysts from RAND:

„The protesters portrayed their actions as spontaneous and self-initiated, driven by public anxiety about the future after the victory of the Maidan movement in the capital. The Ukrainian government dismissed the outbreak of protests as provocations organized by pro-Russian agitators and intelligence operators. Russian intelligence may have played a role in fomenting discontent, but the public agitation and outcry appeared genuine and not disconnected from the country’s political divisions. Some Russian citizens were allegedly paid to cross the border and participate in these events (professional agitators), and some Russians likely came to help the cause of their own accord, but most protesters were local Ukrainians.”

In 2019, at the request of the Center for East European and International Studies, a survey on the future of the region was conducted among the inhabitants of Donbas (both residents of the areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts controlled by Kiev, and citizens of DPR and LPR). In areas under the control of the central government, 64.7% of respondents wanted the entire region to be incorporated into Ukraine and return to the administrative status quo ante, while a significant minority (30.7%) wanted Donbas to have a special autonomous status within Ukraine. A microscopic minority expressed support for Russian annexation (2.3% each for with and without autonomous status). In the DPR and LPR, 23.5% of the inhabitants wanted a return to the status quo ante, 31% – autonomy within Ukraine, 27.2% – autonomy within the Russian Federation, and 18.3% – annexation to Russia without autonomy. If we take into account that before the last year’s invasion, 2,220,500 out of 4,165,900 inhabitants of the Donetsk region lived in the territory of DPR, and 1,485,300 out of 2,151,800 inhabitants of the Luhansk region lived in the territory LPR, then we obtain the following data for the entire Donbas: 40.53% support remaining part of Ukraine without autonomy, 30.88% becoming an autonomous part of Ukraine, 16.91% – an autonomous part of Russia, 11.96% – a part of Russia without autonomy.

Despite its shortcomings (no independence option for the future of Donbas, and no question about the preferred status of the Russian language), this poll shows that a significant part of the population is not satisfied with their former status. This population has a fundamental democratic right to national self-determination. Is the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian bourgeoisie going to respect it?

In August 2021, Zelensky made the matter clear: „People in the occupied territories of Donbas and Crimea should understand – and it’s not that someone is expelling someone, I want to be well understood (…): I believe that if you live today in the territory of Donbass, temporarily occupied, and you think that it is right and that we should be in Russia, we are Russians – then staying in Donbass is a big mistake.” And he added: „If you think that you love Russia and that you have lived in Ukraine all your life, thinking that this is Russia, then in my opinion such a person should understand: for the future of his children and grandchildren, you should leave and look for a place in Russia.” Although Zelensky makes it clear that he is not “expelling” anyone, it is difficult not to interpret these words as a threat of ethnic cleansing against those who do not leave voluntarily. The president, copying past imperialists and colonizers, added: „Without Ukraine, there will be no civilization in this territory.”

And this is not an isolated case. In January 2022, the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Oleksiy Danilov, commenting on the Minsk II agreement, which provided for the granting of autonomy to Russian-speaking areas, stated: „The fulfillment of the Minsk agreement means the country’s destruction„. This equating the right of national minorities to self-determination with „country’s destruction” clearly expresses Kiev’s official, chauvinist ideology.

How did the Ukrainian bourgeoisie implement this policy? The answer to this question is provided by the mass graves in the Donetsk region, torture chambers of the SBU, the unpunished terror of neo-Banderite paramilitaries or videos uploaded to the Internet by a Kiev parliamentarian showing kidnappings, tortures and other feats of his militia. All crimes currently committed by Putin’s henchmen were committed by the Kiev regime in Donbass and Crimea. According to UNHCR, by the beginning of August 2014, almost 730,000 refugees had fled from eastern Ukraine to Russia.

Above, we described the Kiev-NATO vision of the future Ukraine as a second Israel. There is no doubt who the „representatives of the Armed Forces or the National Guard in cinemas, supermarkets” will look out for, who will play the role of the second Palestinians. A nation that enslaves another nation cannot be free. Ukraine cannot be „democratic” or „free” as long as it violates the right of the people of Donbass to self-determination. Their struggle for self-determination against neo-Banderite chauvinism is progressive.

With the annexation of the DPR and the LPR by Russia in September, the conflict over the Donbass is transforming into a fight for the right to trample on the self-determination of the inhabitants of this region. Referendums held under occupation cannot be taken as reflecting the sincere mood of the population, and 98-99% of the „yes” votes with an over 90% turnout cannot be taken seriously. Through faked referendums and annexations, the Russian imperialist oligarchy violates the right of the inhabitants of Donbass to self-determination (at the same time, support for this right of the local population does not automatically mean support of the current political leadership of the DPR and LPR). Neither Kiev nor Moscow are “liberators” in Donbass.

The following words of Trotsky regarding the partition of Czechoslovakia apply to Ukraine:

„During the critical week in September [1938], we have been told, voices were heard even at the left flank of socialism maintaining that in case of “single combat” between Czechoslovakia and Germany, the proletariat should help Czechoslovakia and save its “national independence” even in alliance with Benes. (…) Even irrespective of its international ties Czechoslovakia constitutes a thoroughly imperialist state. Economically, monopoly capitalism reigns there. Politically, the Czech bourgeoisie dominates (perhaps soon we will have to say, dominated!) several oppressed nationalities. Such a war, even on the part of isolated Czechoslovakia would thus have been carried on not for national independence but for the maintenance and if possible the extension of the borders of imperialist exploitation.”

Closely related to the third conflict is the fourth, the potential (and increasingly likely) war over Crimea. While we as Marxists cannot support a great-power intervention or celebrate a referendum under imperialist bayonets, we must admit that the 2014 Crimean referendum, unlike the 2022 Donbas plebiscites, reflects to some extent the aspirations of the peninsula’s population.

According to a poll conducted shortly after the referendum by Gallup, 82.8% of Crimeans believed that the result reflected the views of the majority of residents. According to Pew Research Center, 88% of Crimeans wanted Kiev to recognize the results of the referendum. In a survey conducted a year after the plebiscite by the Ukrainian branch of the German polling firm GfK, 82% supported the incorporation of Crimea into Russia, and 51% said that their lives had improved since the annexation. Of course, Russia annexed not out of love for Crimeans or democracy, but for the base in Sevastopol.

The goals of both Ukraine and Russia towards Crimea are aggressive. Both countries would wage war „not for national independence but for the maintenance and if possible the extension of the borders of imperialist exploitation.” The aim of the Marxists of countries fighting in such a war would be the defeat of their own governments.

Currently, the second conflict is losing importance in favor of the third and fourth conflicts. This is reflected in the transition in the official Ukrainian-NATO narrative from ‚defending independence’ to ‚defending territorial integrity’. Therefore, especially now, the western Left should oppose sending arms to the Kiev regime.

Again, it is worth quoting Trotsky’s words regarding the partition of Czechoslovakia:

„What concrete roads further development of imperialist antagonisms will take we do not know. Complete destruction of Czechoslovakia is possible, of course. But it is also possible that before this destruction will have been accomplished a European war will break out and Czechoslovakia will find itself on the side of the victors and participate in a new dismemberment of Germany. Is the role of a revolutionary party then that of nurse of the “victimized” gangsters of imperialism?”

There are those who demanded the support of the Kiev government, even at the cost of NATO’s open war with Russia. To such people we quote the words of Lenin, who while defending the democratic right of small nations to self-determination, at the same time pointed out that, according to democratic logic, this right should be considered in a specific geopolitical context:

„But we cannot be in favour of a war between great nations, in favour of the slaughter of twenty million people for the sake of the problematical liberation of a small nation with a population of perhaps ten or twenty millions!” Of course not! And it does not mean that we throw complete national equality out of our Programme; it means that the democratic interests of one country must he subordinated to the democratic interests of several and all countries. (…) After all one must not forget the elementary logical difference between the general and the particular.”

In the era of imperialist capitalism, it is impossible to pose the question of independence of small states without taking into account international military alliances and the conquest policy of the great powers. As Trotsky wrote before World War II:

„Only a hopelessly dull bourgeois (…) can seriously think that the world war into which he is drawn is waged for the defence of Swiss independence. Just as the preceding war swept away the neutrality of Belgium, so the new war will leave no trace of Swiss independence. Whether after the war Switzerland will retain its entity as a state, even though without its independence, or whether it will be divided among Germany, France and Italy depends on a number of European and world factors among which the “national defence” of Switzerland will occupy an insignificant place.”

Besides, we do not have to refer to the classics of Marxism – Zelensky said as muchs during a meeting with the American National Association of State Chambers:

„It is already clear that this [rebuilding Ukraine] will be the largest economic project of our time in Europe. It is obvious that American business can become the locomotive that will once again push forward global economic growth.

We have already managed to attract attention and have cooperation with such giants of the international financial and investment world as Black Rock, J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs. Such American brands as Starlink or Westinghouse have already become part of our, Ukrainian, way. Your brilliant defense systems – such as HIMARS or Bradleys – are already uniting our history of freedom with your enterprises. We are waiting for Patriots. We are looking closely at Abrams.

Thousands of such examples are possible!

And everyone can become a big business by working with Ukraine. In all sectors – from weapons and defense to construction, from communications to agriculture, from transport to IT, from banks to medicine.”

The Ukrainian president admits that after a possible victory, in the most optimistic scenario, his country will become a colony of American capital. Already – as Zelensky pointed out – American capitalists are making great business on arming Kiev. The State Department said the US government approved $51.9 billion in potential arms sales in 2022, up from $34.8 billion in the previous year. Direct sales between governments and contractors rose to $153.7 billion in 2022 from $103 billion in 2021. The Pentagon is planning to boost its production of artillery ammunition by 500% over the next two years as the US is depleting its military stockpiles by sending millions of shells to Ukraine. It is the armaments capital that is the section of the Western ruling classes most interested in the continuation and escalation of the war.

Among and from the ashes

The great Polish Marxist economist Henryk Grossmann pointed to the war as one of the counter-tendencies counteracting the decline in the average rate of profit and delaying the final collapse of capitalism. The destruction of constant capital and the state’s demand for armaments increases the scope for capital accumulation. By unleashing the current war, Putin extended the life of the system and, contrary to his intentions, strengthened American hegemony.

At present, democratic progress is hampered by the interests of the great capitalist monopolists. Only an independent labor movement organized around the economic and political interests of the working masses is able to resolve the contradictions tearing society apart in the interests of the overwhelming majority of humanity.

The great Marxist historian Franz Mehring stated after the outbreak of World War I:

„War is the resolution of historical contradictions that have reached such a point that there is no other way to appease them, because class society lacks a tribunal before which issues decided in war by armed force can be discussed on legal and moral grounds.”

The fact of war thus proves the existence of unresolved contradictions within capitalism. Thus, it also proves the possibility of overcoming them by the only historical subject capable of this task – the proletariat.

Only the proletariat remains a progressive social force. The victory of none of the imperialist blocs will be „progressive”, „democratic” or „bringing freedom”. Once again, we will quote Mehring’s characterization of imperialist war:

“So war is a question of politics, not a question of law, morality, or even criminal justice. War is not waged to punish opponents for their alleged or actual sins, but to break down resistance that has arisen against self-interest. Nor is it a thing in itself that carries its own purpose, but an organic component of the policy to which its premises are attached and to whose needs it must adapt its successes.”

The victory of any of the great powers will not be a „just peace.” Only the proletariat of Ukraine is capable of waging in the current context a just war against the invader and its „own” reactionary government, just as only the global proletariat is capable of creating a just world order in the spirit of internationalism and solidarity. Therefore, it is necessary to recreate a workers’ movement capable of conducting its own class-independent politics. Only in it lies the potential to go beyond the rapidly sharpening contradictions of capitalism.

1International Institute for Strategic Studies „The Military Balance 2018”, London: Routledge.