[Revised version of October 2024.]
What should be, in our view, a communist position on the current Russian-Ukrainian war? Answering this question necessarily raises another: what, in our view, is the nature of the current Russian-Ukrainian war?
To date, our organization has not explicitly presented its answers. We are aware that we are lagging behind on these burning issues. We are taking advantage of the imminent 2nd anniversary of the Russian offensive to make up for this shortcoming.
To determine the nature of the Russian-Ukrainian war, we must first determine the nature of Russia and Ukraine. While seemingly simple, this problem actually reveals the complexity of contemporary imperialism.
The first imperative is to avoid adhering to a metaphysical definition of what a dominated country or a dominant country is, that is, what imperialism and its economic domination are. There is no such thing as domination in the abstract (as an isolated quality); there is always only the domination of one market and one state over another market and another state. A country always exercises or undergoes domination only in its relationship with another country. On a global scale, relationships overlap and combine in such a way that a country’s role in the network of global relationships can only be determined by observing that country’s place in its relationships as a whole. Similarly, there is no imperialist domination without certain classes to dominate and be dominated. A country always exercises or suffers domination only according to its classes. Imperialist domination is always only the domination of an imperialist bourgeoisie of one country over certain classes of another country (comprador bourgeoisie, national bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasantry). In economics, dialectical materialism must never be forgotten.
The contradictions between imperialist countries and dominated countries are no longer as polarized as they were in the early days of imperialism, at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, when it was easy to distinguish between imperialist countries, colonies, and semi-colonies. Today, there are still hegemonic imperialisms that dominate the entire world economy: Western imperialisms (the United States, Canada, France, Germany, etc.) and Japanese imperialism. However, in the contemporary imperialist system, a country that is dominated in one relationship may be dominant in another. Some countries are thus dominated and dominant at the same time, as is the case, for example, with the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), among others.
However, the increasing complexity of the imperialist system has not eliminated the two opposing poles: the dominant—imperialist—countries and the dominated countries. However, these two categories and their political and economic relations have become more complex. To understand whether a country is dominant or dominated, it has therefore become essential to observe its place in the network of global economic relations as a whole, in order to study its general role (rather than in relation to a particular country or another, whose relationship may not reflect the true nature of the country in question).
Russia is a country dominated by more powerful imperialist countries, but it itself dominates other countries and seeks to extend its domination and emancipate itself from the domination of hegemonic imperialisms by growing its own empire. Like China, Russia is a challenger imperialism: its role in the world economy is that of a strong semi-periphery, struggling to become a new imperialist center. The socialist past and geographical characteristics of Russia and China have also endowed them with resources and strengths usually monopolized by imperialist centers: access to strategic natural resources, advanced technology, means of communication—including the media—and military power—including nuclear weapons. The relative weakness of China and Russia compared to the hegemonic imperialisms in the world does not detract from their imperialist character. China and Russia are states and markets seeking to perpetuate and extend their domination over other states and markets in order to increase and secure their imperialist superprofits. While China and Russia are still dominated by hegemonic imperialisms, they are themselves imperialisms.
The Russian and Chinese bourgeoisies are not comprador bourgeoisies, incapable of accumulating surplus profit by and for themselves. They are national and imperialist bourgeoisies, capable of accumulating surplus profits by and for themselves, and therefore struggling to extend and intensify their domination over the comprador bourgeoisie and the popular masses (the national bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletariat, and peasantry) of the oppressed nations. The Russian and Chinese bourgeoisies seek to secure and increase their surplus profits through political domination of states and economic domination of markets. Russia and China are relatively dominated countries, but they are not dominated countries; their imperialist bourgeoisie is relatively weak, but they are imperialist bourgeoisies.
All capitalist countries, including dominated countries, struggle to build an empire, but this does not mean that all countries are imperialist: only countries that actually succeed in building an empire from which they extract superprofits can be described as imperialist. A country can be imperialist and itself more exploited than exploiter, which does not change the fact that it is itself an exploiter, and therefore imperialist.
Whereas China and Russia are strong semi-peripheries representing challenging imperialisms, Ukraine is a weak semi-periphery, which does not have the economic capacity to build an imperialist empire. Ukraine is a country under the domination of hegemonic imperialisms and Russian imperialism. The Ukrainian bourgeoisie is comprador.
Western imperialisms and Russian imperialism have been vying for control of the Ukrainian market and Ukraine itself for more than 20 years now. The integration of Ukraine into two distinct and antagonistic imperialist spheres (Western and Russian) is felt throughout Ukrainian society and was notably at the root of the Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 and Russia’s annexation of Crimea that same year. Today, Zelensky represents the pro-Western comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie, which is linked to Western imperialist interests: while subservient to them, it seeks to build an empire with them.
Why did Russia invade Ukraine on February 24, 2022?
The primary cause of Russia’s outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war is the inter-imperialist contradiction between the hegemonic Western imperialisms and the challenging Russian imperialism. The imperialists of the Atlanticist alliance (NATO) and Russia are fighting for economic and political control of Ukraine, as part of a global struggle between the hegemonic imperialists, defending their hegemony, and the challenger imperialists, asserting their own ambitions.
Why did war break out in Ukraine, and not in another market that imperialists are fighting over to divide up the world?
This war is also a war for control of a geopolitical lock. It is essential to understand the vision of the imperialist countries involved in this war (in order to better unmask and combat it).
What is geopolitics, and why should we be interested in it in order to understand inter-imperialist contradictions? Geopolitics is a superstructure; it is the theory and ideology of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Geopolitics, as a science, is the bourgeois imperialist interpretation of the contradictions of imperialism. Geopolitical analyses cover part of the dialectical materialist reality of inter-imperialist contradictions, but this bourgeois science is limited by its political class role (it is integrated into the imperialist bourgeois state apparatus, politically and ideologically dominated by the imperialist bourgeoisie and at its service) and by its idealist methodology (neither materialist nor dialectical, which denies the primary and the secondary, particularly between the material base and the social superstructure and between internal and external causes).
Western imperialisms, particularly the United States of America, are still influenced by the Heartland theory, which was taught in all major American schools until the 2000s. That is to say, they are convinced that the Heartland (stretching from the Volga to the Yangtze, and from the Himalayas to the Arctic), for geographical reasons, has a strategic advantage over the rest of the world, an advantage that would make it virtually invincible if it also possessed the Rimland (the rest of Europe and Asia, with access to the sea). In their geopolitical vision, everything must therefore be done to control and dominate this space. This is why they are investing so much in areas close to Russia’s borders, particularly in Ukraine.
« Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island controls the world.1«
From Russia’s point of view, World War II highlighted the geopolitical necessity of pushing back its borders as far as possible and surrounding itself with allies (or at least neutral countries). This was one of the issues at stake in the negotiations following the collapse of the USSR, which lost a large part of its territory and economy. Russia perceives itself as besieged (a siege complex inherited from the Russian Empire and the socialist, then revisionist, USSR) and acting in legitimate defense against the aggressions of an expansionist West (where Cold War concepts of containment are still influential). Moreover, Putin has very little room for maneuver domestically. The consensus he has built around his power since the late 1990s, among the Russian bourgeoisie and people, is based on the desire to rebuild a strong and stable Russia—the creation of a new empire to rival the Western powers.
Geopolitically, it is clear that the Atlanticist alliance has pushed Russia into a corner, knowing full well the consequences for the Ukrainian people. It is equally clear that, placed in this position, it was Russia that made the unilateral choice to attack Ukraine militarily.
It is interesting to note that Western economic sanctions have not been supported by the dominated countries. Russia is far from being unwelcome on the international stage; it is even one of the privileged partners of African countries still under French domination (Mali, Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, etc.). We can rejoice in seeing these countries free themselves from the clutches of French imperialism, but not in seeing them fall into the clutches of another (perceived as an ally against hegemonic imperialisms). In any case, the world is becoming « multipolar. » Inter-imperialist contradictions can only increase, Europe is remilitarizing, and the struggle to redivide the world is gradually leading us toward a Third World War.
So what, in our view, is the nature of the Russian-Ukrainian war?
It is an inter-imperialist proxy war between the hegemonic imperialisms of the West and the challenging imperialism of Russia, that is, between the Atlanticist alliance, of which the Ukrainian state is merely a proxy, and Russia. The main contradiction in Ukraine is between two competing imperialist camps fighting for « the redivision of the world. » Russia’s war in Ukraine is therefore an unjust war.
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not Ukraine’s anti-imperialist war against Russia. The Ukrainian state depends heavily on the support of Western imperialisms for its war effort (logistics, supply of equipment and ammunition, finance, etc.), and Western imperialisms are using the Ukrainian state as a proxy to wage war against the challenging Russian imperialism. Zelensky and the pro-Western bureaucratic bourgeoisie he represents serve their ukrainian comprador capitalist interests by serving the interests of Western imperialism, both economically and geopolitically.
The Russian invasion, as well as the involvement of the Atlanticist alliance in Ukraine, is nothing more than « the continuation of politics by other means », in this case, competition for the exploitation of a market and control of a state, which has been taking place between two imperialist camps since the 2000s. Since the beginning of the war, Zelensky’s government has taken advantage of the exceptional situation to facilitate the movement of Western capital and intensify the exploitation of the Ukrainian proletariat: criminalization of trade unions, deregulation of labor law, deregulation of prices, and austerity policies dictated by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), among others. It is important to note, however, that these neoliberal policies have been largely imposed on the Ukrainian bourgeoisie by its Western « allies »: for example, under the guise of « anti-corruption » measures, as a requirement for membership in the European Union, or as a condition for obtaining a loan from the IMF (on which Ukraine has been increasingly dependent since 2014). The pro-Western bureaucratic comprador bourgeoisie in Ukraine is both dominated by Western imperialisms and engaged in a futile struggle to become imperialist alongside them: Ukraine is subject to them and is their extension.
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not an inter-imperialist war between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine is not imperialist itself. Indeed, Ukraine is part of an imperialist camp in that it is aligned with the Atlanticist alliance against Russia, but it is a country dominated by Russian imperialism (and Western imperialisms) that does not possess an imperialist empire (its own sphere of domination over markets). We cannot therefore speak of a « simple » inter-imperialist war (strictly speaking).
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not Russia’s anti-imperialist war against Western imperialism. Russia is itself imperialist. While it can be said that Russia is « resisting » hegemonic imperialism, it is incorrect to conclude that its war is anti-imperialist, because it is not a dominated country and its « resistance » is aimed precisely at expanding and consolidating Russian imperialism (against another imperialist camp, by overthrowing the pro-Western bourgeoisie in Ukraine).
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not Russia’s anti-fascist war against « Ukrainian Nazism. » Russia has no anti-fascist ambitions. By invoking the « denazification » of Ukraine, Putin has simply drawn on a casus belli from Russian national history: the Great Patriotic War against the IIIrd Reich. Nazism and anti-communism are deeply rooted in Ukrainian society, due to the rejection of the Soviet legacy and the construction of an anti-Russian national identity, leading to the glorification of the Ukrainian Waffen SS or collaborationist figures such as Stepan Bandera. The openly Nazi Azov Battalion, among others, has been formally incorporated into the regular Ukrainian army since the beginning of the war. However, Nazism is no less unapologetic within Russia’s Wagner Group, and Russia’s claim to part of the Soviet legacy is in no way an expression of socialist or even anti-fascist sympathy, but only of support for a strong—imperial—Russia.
What about the « national element » of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict?
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not a war of national liberation by the Ukrainian people against Russia. Ukraine already has a politically independent nation-state, and the Ukrainian nation is already as politically free as it can be as a nation integrated into the imperialist system. Ukrainian national resistance today is almost exclusively that of the Ukrainian bourgeois state, with the full support of Western imperialism, on which it depends. There is a popular aspect of national liberation in Ukraine, where Russia occupies Ukrainian territory, but this aspect is only very secondary in the conflict, and it exists only as an extension of the Ukrainian bourgeois state (in its continuity and integrated into it).
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not a war of national liberation for the Russian-speaking peoples of Donbass. This aspect is also only very secondary, and today exists only as an extension of the Russian imperialist bourgeois state. The national liberation struggle of the Russian-speaking people of Donbass is just, but it does not make Russia’s war in Ukraine just: it has completely dissolved into the unjust war of Russian imperialism.
In our view, it is very important to understand the real significance of the national liberation struggles in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, i.e., the place of national contradictions in the real order of contradictions (what determines and what is determined?). To this end, we can rely on a historical precedent: the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s war of aggression against Serbia, which consequently led to the outbreak of World War I.
The Serbian national liberation struggle was then a mass movement that carried the long-standing aspirations of a united Serbian nation within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Kingdom of Serbia itself was not an imperialist country, but a country still dominated by the imperialist powers. Why, then, did the internationalists (including the Bolsheviks) not support Serbia in its defensive national war against imperialist Austria-Hungary? Lenin wrote:
“In the present war the national element is represented only by Serbia’s war against Austria (which, by the way, was noted in the resolution of our Party’s Berne Conference). It is only in Serbia and among the Serbs that we can find a national-liberation movement of long standing, embracing millions, “the masses of the people”, a movement of which the present war of Serbia against Austria is a “continuation”. If this war were an isolated one, i.e., if it were not connected with the general European war, with the selfish and predatory aims of Britain, Russia, etc., it would have been the duty of all socialists to desire the success of the Serbian bourgeoisie as this is the only correct and absolutely inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the national element in the present war. […]
Further, Marxist dialectics, as the last word in the scientific-evolutionary method, excludes any isolated examination of an object, i.e., one that is one-sided and monstrously distorted. The national element in the Serbo-Austrian war is not, and cannot be, of any serious significance in the general European war. […] To Serbia, i.e., to perhaps one per cent or so of the participants in the present war, the war is a “continuation of the politics” of the bourgeois-liberation movement. To the other ninety-nine per cent, the war is a continuation of the politics of imperialism, i.e., of the decrepit bourgeoisie, which is capable only of raping nations, not freeing them. The Triple Entente, which is “liberating” Serbia, is selling the interests of Serbian liberty to Italian imperialism in return for the latter’s aid in robbing Austria.
[…] There are no “pure” phenomena, nor can there be, either in Nature or in society—that is what Marxist dialectics teaches us, for dialectics shows that the very concept of purity indicates a certain narrowness, a one-sidedness of human cognition, which cannot embrace an object in all its totality and complexity. There is no “pure” capitalism in the world, nor can there be; what we always find is admixtures either of feudalism, philistinism, or of something else. Therefore, if anyone recalls that the war is not “purely” imperialist, when we are discussing the flagrant deception of “the masses of the people” by the imperialists, who are deliberately concealing the aims of undisguised robbery with “national” phraseology, then such a person is either an infinitely stupid pedant, or a pettifogger and deceiver. […] Certainly, reality is infinitely varied. That is absolutely true! But it is equally indubitable that amidst this infinite variety there are two main and fundamental srains: the objective content of the war is a “continuation of the politics” of imperialism. i.e., the plunder of other nations by the decrepit bourgeoisie of the “Great Powers” (and their governments), whereas the prevailing “subjective” ideology consists of “national” phraseology which is being spread to fool the masses.2”
In our view, Lenin’s teachings on this subject are very clear. While acknowledging that the « national element » exists and is represented « in Serbia and among the Serbs, » he adds that it « is not, and cannot be, of any serious significance in the general European war. » The current Russian-Ukrainian conflict is, in our view, analogous.
Today in Ukraine, the national element also exists in various forms, on both the Ukrainian and Russian sides, but it does not allow us to understand the real nature of the conflict. In our view, it is undeniable that supporting Ukrainian « national liberation » today means supporting the Ukrainian state and the war effort of one imperialist camp against another. The same reasoning applies to the national liberation struggles of Donbass in the case of the Russian state and imperialism. In other words, supporting a war of national liberation, even though this conflict is an inter-imperialist war, means taking the side of one imperialism against another, and ultimately supporting inter-imperialist war.
Supporting the « national liberation » of Ukraine, under the current conditions, means nothing more than supporting the « defense of the homeland, » that is, compromising with the pro-Western Ukrainian comprador bourgeoisie and the imperialist bourgeoisies of the Atlanticist alliance.
To sum up, today in Ukraine, the main contradiction is the inter-imperialist contradiction. The contradiction between Ukraine and Russia, the contradiction between the dominated Russian-speaking population of Donbass and Ukraine, the contradiction between the Ukrainian nation and Russia, and the contradiction between Labor and Capital, are secondary contradictions in Ukraine today. The war in Ukraine is primarily an inter-imperialist war.
We do not rule out the possibility that in the short or medium term, the contradiction between Ukraine and Russia or between the Ukrainian nation and Russia may become primary, if the inter-imperialist contradiction becomes secondary (for example, with the abandonment of Ukraine by the imperialisms of the Atlanticist alliance). However, such a development is unpredictable at present, and a communist position cannot be developed or adopted on the basis of speculative thought experiments—but only in the face of a concrete situation.
So what is our position on the Russian-Ukrainian war?
The first political imperative of communists is to defend the political autonomy of the working class. The camp of communists in Russia, Ukraine, and the rest of the world is never that of one imperialist camp or another, including that of « lesser imperialism. »
“This war’s most important lesson for the policy of the proletariat is the unassailable fact that it cannot parrot the slogan Victory or Defeat, not in Germany or in France, not in England or in Russia. Only from the standpoint of imperialism does this slogan have any real content. For every Great Power it is identical to the question of gain or loss of political standing, of annexations, colonies, and military predominance. From the standpoint of class for the European proletariat as a whole the victory and defeat of any of the warring camps is equally disastrous. It is war as such, no matter how it ends militarily, that signifies the greatest defeat for Europe’s proletariat. It is only the overcoming of war and the speediest possible enforcement of peace by the international militancy of the proletariat that can bring victory to the workers’ cause.3”
In France, we consider that the priority of communists is to fight against « our » own imperialism: French imperialism, and therefore the alliance of Western imperialisms of which it is a part and in which it competes with Russian imperialism. To reverse the order of priorities, by fighting first against Russian imperialism, would be a serious political mistake: a compromise with « our » imperialism and our bourgeoisie. We cannot speak with one voice with our imperialism, that is, the imperialist camp to which France belongs. France is neither a neutral country nor a country dominated by American or German imperialism: France is an autonomous imperialist country and fights for its own imperialism with other imperialist countries against Russian imperialism. France must be denounced and fought as such, before any other imperialist country (ally or enemy of France).
Some in France have compared Putin to Hitler, to justify their social-chauvinist cowardice with absurd comparisons between Nazism and « Putinism »: those who defend such a position are no different from neoconservatives (defending imperialism under the banner of democracy and morality), and are in no way internationalists. This bellicose pro-imperialist rhetoric, camouflaged behind the denunciation of « Putinist fascism, » is not based on any serious analysis of either the Russian-Ukrainian conflict (in particular) or fascism (in general), and merely offers the « red » phraseology that the chauvinism of the left-wing petty bourgeoisie needs—to pretend to be something other than what it really is. What we are seeing in the French revolutionary left, more than a century after the First World War, is the resurrection of Kropotkin’s Manifesto of the Sixteen and the Second International of the « renegade Kautsky ».
We maintain that the Ukrainian people can find no salvation from « our » imperialism. If today the Ukrainian people are experiencing war on their soil and more ferocious exploitation, it is because they are torn apart by imperialism, including « ours »! There is no imperialism that is more « humane, » more « civilized, » or more « democratic » than another: imperialism is cynical and hypocritical barbarism. Today, the Ukrainian people are martyrs of imperialism: « Ukraine is dying for the greatness of empires. »
To emancipate the Russian and Ukrainian proletariat from imperialism and the dictatorship of « their » bourgeoisie, revolutionary defeatism is the communist strategy. The concrete application of this strategy—like all strategies—depends on the concrete conditions in which communists find themselves (which are very different today than they were at the time of the First World War). However, revolutionary defeatism remains today the only strategy that can prevent the proletariat from liquidating its political class autonomy in imperialist politics, and thus from sliding into social-chauvinist counterrevolution. The conscious and organized action of communists must work to transform the contradiction between Labor and Capital from a secondary contradiction into the principal contradiction: to put the communist revolution on the agenda.
“Indeed, the war is creating a revolutionary situation, is engendering revolutionary sentiments and unrest in the masses, is arousing in the finer part of the proletariat a realization of the perniciousness of opportunism, and is intensifying the struggle against it. The masses’ growing desire for peace expresses their disappointment, the defeat of the bourgeois lie regarding the defense of the fatherland, and the awakening of their revolutionary consciousness. In utilizing that temper for their revolutionary agitation, and not shying away in that agitation from considerations of the defeat of their “own” country, the socialists will not deceive the people with the hope that, without the revolutionary overthrow of the present-day governments, a possibility exists of a speedy democratic peace, which will be durable in some degree and will preclude any oppression of nations, a possibility of disarmament, etc. Only the social revolution of the proletariat opens the way towards peace and freedom for the nations.4”
We therefore maintain that, in inter-imperialist wars, the correct strategy is always to “develop the workers’ revolutionary consciousness, rally them in the international revolutionary struggle, promote and encourage any revolutionary action, and do everything possible to turn the imperialist war between the peoples into a civil war of the oppressed classes against their oppressors, a war for the expropriation of the class of capitalists, for the conquest of political power by the proletariat, and the realization of socialism.5”
1 H. J. Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, 1919.
2 V. I. Lenin, « Part VI », The Collapse of the Second International, 1915.
3 R. Luxemburg, « Chapter 8 », The Junius Pamphlet, 1915.
4 V. I. Lenin, The Draft Resolution of the Left Wing at Zimmerwald, 1915.
5 Ibidem.