The 2nd anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has passed. Over the past year, the reactionary nature of this war on both sides has become increasingly clear. To prove this, we will use the theoretical framework we utilized in an article published on the last anniversary.
We considered “the Ukraine war” as four dialectically overlapping conflicts:
1) conflict between NATO and Russia over spheres of influence (reactionary from both sides),
2) the annexationist war of Russian imperialism against the Ukrainian people and its self-determination (reactionary from the Russian side),
3) Ukrainian government’s war against the Russophone people from the east of the country (especially in Donbas) and their right to self-determination (from 2014 onward; reactionary on the Kyiv side; critical support for the armed Donbas resistance),
4) conflict over Crimea (reactionary from the Ukrainian side for violating Crimean people’s self-determination; reactionary from the Russian side as a part of its expansionist-annexationist agenda).
We cannot forget that all parties to the conflict are capitalist states in which hostile social classes exist. We are therefore dealing not with conflicts of undifferentiated nations, but of national class societies that co-create the global capitalist society.
With all that in mind let’s consider what changed in each of the conflicts listed and make adjustments to our analysis where we have been imprecise.
Firstly, the conflict between Western and Russian imperialism threatens to turn into a direct, “hot” war. Finland and Sweden joined NATO, Switzerland joined the anti-Russia sanctions and five NATO countries – France, Canada, Lithuania, Poland and the Netherlands – have stated their willingness to send their troops to fight in Ukraine. Last April a leaked Pentagon document revealed that there are already NATO special forces in Ukraine (from the UK, Latvia, France, the US and the Netherlands). Recently the UK confirmed the presence of a “small number of personnel”.
The Western imperialist powers are also waging “economic war” against Russia in the form of sanctions. Sanctions are war by other means – they have military objectives: diminishing the military potential of a competing power by wrecking its economic and political infrastructure and so neutralizing it as a threat. Sanctions are always aimed at civilian population; the ones against Russia are no different. As one think-tank gleefully notes:
“The pharmaceuticals industry has also been significantly affected by the sanctions, with nearly 80 percent of domestic production dependent on imported raw materials. Throughout 2022, Russia consistently experienced shortages of different kinds of medical supplies, including some hormonal and cancer treatment medications and various types of prostheses. Prices for antibiotics and other vital medications have risen as pharmacies have struggled to substitute for lost imports. In several Russian regions, import-intensive surgeries, such as knee arthroplasty, have been removed from free assistance programs. Likewise, some public clinics stopped offering joint replacement surgeries. This problem is further exacerbated by younger and more established medical professionals fleeing the country.”
It’s worth noting that overwhelming majority of sanction regimes fail at their stated goal. It must be understood that current sanctions’ unstated goal is not to defend Ukrainian independence, but 1) to make an example of Russia for starting a war not approved by Western imperialists and 2) to undermine the military potential of an opponent in a future “hot” war.
Preparations for war also encompass internal changes in political regimes of capitalist states, i.e. throwing aside the veneer of “democracy”. Examples include: evermore frequent states of exceptions in NATO states, evermore repressive changes to law, intensifying repressions under the guise of “national security”.
All those war preparations (on both sides) for an imperialist war must fought against.
Secondly, Russia completely failed in its goal of annexing whole of Ukraine, and the front line stabilized in the East. The Ukrainian government no longer fights for independence, but for “territorial integrity”. This does not change the reactionary and imperialist character of the invasion. Those Russians who despite police state conditions oppose the war and sabotage the “military effort” deserve enormous credit.
Thirdly, Kyiv government didn’t cease in pursuit of its reactionary aim of exploiting and subjugating the Russian-speaking people of eastern Ukraine, however there was an important development on this front. Namely the organized Donbas resistance was eliminated as an independent force, not by Kyiv but – by Moscow. For most of the civil war since 2014, separatist forces have largely been recruited from the local population. Since the invasion (ostensibly undertaken to defend the people of Donbas), soldiers of the eastern republics have been used by the Russian imperialists as cannon fodder, literally bleeding the separatist forces dry. Having bled the Donbas and thus ensuring that no independent opposition force would emerge, Russian imperialism annexed the LPR and DPR under the conditions of occupation at the end of September 2022. The Russian imperialists instrumentally exploited and extinguished the Donbas national liberation movement (which constitute another proof for the reactionary nature of the invasion). Where for eight years (2014-2022) we had a conflict between an oppressive nationalism and nationalism of an oppressed national minority, now we have a reactionary conflict between two imperialisms.
That brings us to the fourth constitutive conflict in our analysis. For decade now, Ukrainian government claimed that it’s on the verge of “taking back” Crimea. This seems more and more unlikely and while Western leaders are unwavering in their commitment to “Ukrainian territorial integrity”, even they admit from time to time that Kyiv will probably have to come to terms with the loss of the peninsula. While Ukrainian forces shelled it for two years and committed acts of sabotage on it, they didn’t come any closer to setting foot on Crimea (which would run counter to the wishes of its inhabitants). If Ukraine is incapable of retaking Crimea, then the only case in which it changes hands is a NATO-Russian war.
We therefore have two overlapping reactionary conflicts: a NATO-Russian and a Russian-Ukrainian one, with the former being a necessary condition for the latter and the latter acting as a driving force for the former. This is the dialectic of this war.
What do we mean when we say that the NATO-Russian conflict is a necessary condition for the Russian-Ukrainian one? First, that the rationale for the Russian invasion was the NATO encirclement of Russia. Secondly, the fact that Ukraine is perceived by the West as a proxy for bleeding out a rival imperialist power and as a potential field for capital investment. Third, that Ukraine would not be able to wage war without Western military support.
The latter is so crucial that the types of arms supplies are determined more by the interests of Western arms companies than by Ukraine’s objective military needs. As Business Insider pointed out: “But those tanks — German-provided Leopards, UK-sent Challengers, and American-made Abrams — haven’t exactly been silver bullets so far (…). There’s also wasn’t much tank-on-tank fighting in the war, preventing Ukraine from employing its armor in a way in which it might be particularly useful.” Tanks are particularly ill-suited for the kind of fighting taking place in Ukraine: urban and suburban warfare with use of drones. Forbes recognizes that optimal performance of M1 Abrams tanks is contingent on their proper maintenance that is technically impossible in Ukraine (Kyiv is dependent on Poland in that regard). Newsweek acknowledges that “the small number of M1s sent to Ukraine are more symbolic than anything. Powerful but too difficult to employ with the resources and training available and too important to lose.” Their military value may be symbolic, but their material value is tangible.
Therefore western imperialists have incentives to prolong the war in Ukraine (we now know, for example, that mid-2022 peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia fell through solely because of UK intervention). However the war in turn sharpens the contradiction between competing imperialist blocs. To sustain the war against a stronger opponent and operate specialized equipment mentioned above it is necessary for the western states to send their personnel to Ukraine, which creates a risk of direct engagement with Russian forces and of an all-out NATO-Russian war. And among NATO capitalists there exist a constituency for such a war. Aside from arms companies and private military contractors who would literally “make a killing”, foreign capitalists who export their capital into Ukraine would demand that their governments to secure their investment. This is where the growing willingness of the West for confrontation comes from. Here lies the dangerous intersection of the two constitutive conflicts.
The responsibility to stop this dangerous development lies with the international working class. We already saw praiseworthy examples of proletarian anti-war activity; most noteworthy are those where workers exercise their position as workers, including dock workers blocking weapon shipments to Ukraine and refusing to unload Russian trade ships, or railway workers sabotaging troop transports in Russia and Belarus.
Even in Ukraine the pro-war mood is slowly eroding among the general public. Nominally the level of declared support for war generally remains high. That is expected in conditions of war and governmental “information management”. However support for war “to victory” slowly declines. As Gallup reported in October 2023:
“Three in five (60%) Ukrainians interviewed in July and August said they want Ukraine to keep fighting until it wins, twice as many as those who want Ukraine to negotiate to end the war as soon as possible (31%). Ukrainians’ commitment is slightly muted from what it was in September 2022, when 70% of Ukrainians said they wanted their country to keep fighting, but the majority still staunchly support the war.”
What is especially noteworthy is the geographical and demographic breakdown of public opinion. As far as regional differences are concerned Gallup notes:
“Regions Closest to the Front Line Most Likely to Favor a Quick Resolution: Although the majority of Ukrainians support fighting until victory, this sentiment is not shared equally across Ukraine. Residents in the North of Ukraine (72%) — including Kyiv — and the West (71%) are most supportive of continuing the fight even as they come under increasing attack from Russian shells. A clear majority in the Center (64%) of Ukraine also supports fighting to victory. In the South (45%) and East (52%) regions closest to the front line, support for continuing the fight is still lower than the rest of the country. As a result, the proportion who favor a negotiated end to the war as quickly as possible is also highest in the South (41%) and East (39%).” [Bold font in original source – poltrot1917]
Age and gender breakdown is even more revealing:
“More men than women have lost confidence in the national government over the past year. The magnitude of the latter decline is the largest among younger men (15 to 34), while such a decline is not seen among men and women 55 and older.”
| Gender by Age Group | 2022 | 2023 | Difference (pct. pts.) |
| Men, 15-34 | 66 | 34 | -32 |
| Women, 15-34 | 69 | 55 | -14 |
| Men, 35-54 | 56 | 36 | -20 |
| Women, 35-53 | 58 | 37 | -21 |
| Men, 55+ | 50 | 52 | 2 |
| Women, 55+ | 60 | 62 | 2 |
So the most anti-war and anti-government Ukrainians are military age males and people living closest to the front line, i.e. people most directly experiencing the war. The mood of former is especially important as the people on which the prosecution of war ultimately depends.
Mistrust of the Kyiv government is completely warranted. Earlier this year the Ministry of Defense was engulfed in a scandal, where about 40 mln USD were paid for 100 thousand mortar shells, which never materialized. This is merely tip of the iceberg: an especially egregious example, because shells were fictional. Even legitimate purchases must be sources of extra income for people with right connections. Weapon trade isn’t the only source of corruption and war profiteering. Last August Zelensky fired all the heads of Ukraine’s regional army recruitment centres amid a bribery scandal. The accused not only allowed those who payed to dodge the draft, but even transported them across the border despite a wartime ban on draft-eligible men leaving the country. At the same time NYT reports how “recruitment” looks like for ordinary Ukrainians:
“… army recruiters have become increasingly aggressive in their efforts to replenish the ranks, in some cases pulling men off the streets and whisking them to recruiting centers using intimidation and even physical force. Recruiters have confiscated passports, taken people from their jobs and, in at least one case, tried to send a mentally disabled person to military training, according to lawyers, activists and Ukrainian men who have been subject to coercive tactics. Videos of soldiers shoving people into cars and holding men against their will in recruiting centers are surfacing with increasing frequency on social media and in local news reports. The harsh tactics are being aimed not just at draft dodgers but at men who would ordinarily be exempt from service…“
Here we have the class character of this war shown in starkest colors: the rich make bank and payoff the recruiter, while the poor either die on the front or are subjected to militarist terror. This terror may soon intensify – the recently proposed mobilization bill, among other things, lowers the conscription age to 25 from 27 and limits deferments over minor disabilities.
Ukrainian women’s protests despite their limited demands (shorter military service terms) are important, because they’re signs of war fatigue expressed within narrow limits of officially allowed discourse. They are the seeds of necessary opposition against the comprador regime. As the bourgeois drive to war intensifies, anti-militarist struggle becomes the responsibility of global proletariat in general and of Russian and Ukrainian proletariat in particular (especially the former as the proletariat of a larger state). It must be emphasized however that opposition to this war is not enough, for in capitalism peace is merely a temporary pause in war. The struggle against war necessitates struggle against capitalism.
VOLLHANDFRÜHLING 