National Liberation Wars Becoming Imperialist Wars — The RCIT's Dialectical Method Leaves Much to be Desired
With Emphasis on The Character of the Ukraine-Russia War
Interest in writing a contribution on this topic originated from the clash between the RCIT[1] and the ICL that was part of the process of the 2026 Meeting of Internationalist Forces. Our first input was a piece titled, Are China and Russia Imperialist Powers? The RCIT and ICL Clash,[2] which was promptly shared with the comrades of the RCIT. This submission dealt with the Russia-Ukraine war amongst other issues, but did not reference or react to the positions of the RCIT. Comrade Pröbsting, International Secretary of the RCIT, responded with his Letter to Etienne Landman.[3] We replied with an initial letter on other issues mentioned and added that we will deal separately with the Russia-Ukraine war, as it is a matter deserving special and detailed attention.[4] This contribution is in fulfilment of that promise. In addition, though there are various places where our views converge with those of the RCIT, this article outlines areas of serious disagreement and avers that the biggest failure of the RCIT position on the Russia-Ukraine war and the national question generally, is its inconsistent application of the dialectical method. At times the comrades, in their writings, move in the correct direction, only to pull back at the decisive moment.
I. Outline of the RCIT position on the Ukraine War
The RCIT as a serious revolutionary organisation, writes and publishes prolifically on numerous issues, including on the Russia-Ukraine war. The key points that outline how the comrades' see the nature of the Ukraine war, can be put together from three documents. In their Letter to Etienne Landman, they state that, "Ukraine wages a just war of national defence against Putin's invasion, and we take their side without lending political support for the bourgeois Zelensky regime." They acknowledge the conflict between NATO and Russia "(sanctions, etc.)" and clarify that they "take a dual defeatist position". In their Manifesto on the Ukraine War, dated 1 March 2022,[5] they state that, "The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the result of the imperialist character of Russia as well as the escalation of tensions between the Great Powers in East and West. Therefore, the resistance of the Ukrainian people is a just war of defense against an imperialist attack. At the same time, the Western imperialist powers try to utilize this war for their own interests. The ruling class in the European Union and the US exploit the war as a pretext to accelerate militarism and armament. They try to utilize Zelensky – a willing lackey of US and EU imperialism – in order to transform the just struggle of the Ukrainian people into a proxy war". They confirm support for the "legitimate resistance against the Russian invasion", and they warn against the "treacherous Zelensky government which is a lackey of NATO imperialism". They continue that, "Zelensky wants to transform the Ukraine into a colony of NATO and the EU. Socialists fight against such an orientation and warn against the political interference of the Western powers. They oppose membership of the Ukraine in imperialist alliances like NATO or the EU". We will deal with their position throughout this contribution and in doing so, we will also refer to other documents they wrote, especially Comrade Pröbsting's article on Lenin's arguments regarding the Serbo-Austrian war of 1914-16.
II. The National Element Versus the Imperialist Character of Wars: Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky and the RCIT
National Wars Are Impossible: Lenin Repudiates Rosa Luxemburg's Ultra-left Position
Luxemburg's position is a good starting point because it is at the extreme left of the Marxist movement. In her Junius Pamphlet, she repeats, as highlighted by Lenin,[6],[7] "In the epoch (era) of this unbridled imperialism, there can be no more national wars. National interests serve only as an instrument of deception, to deliver the masses of the toiling people into the service of their mortal enemy, imperialism....". This is very radical-sounding and for sure Luxemburg and her comrades in the Internationale Group no doubt believed that this was the correct application of Marxist theory. But Lenin, always demanding exactness of thought and tactics, showed that this position was based on false premises. Lenin dealt with this issue in great detail and explained that the character of a war is determined by the conditions within which it occurs and these conditions can vary greatly; it is undialectical to equalise all conditions that may exist in the future with zero. Lenin continued that wars can also be transformed from a war for national liberation into an imperialist war and vice versa, as a result of possible combinations of conditions. There is no need for us here to deal with this particular sub-topic in depth, because this position has not been argued in current debates; its value lies essentially in its historical pedigree and the fact that it provides a firm starting point from which to launch into this huge and significant subject. We will acknowledge here that the RCIT has expressed in many places their understanding that wars can become transformed as outlined by Lenin.
Rendering Lenin More Profound
In an article published in 2024, the RCIT states, "We shall point out that one cannot exclude the possibility that the character of the Ukraine War could undergo a qualitative change in the future and be transformed from what is primarily a national liberation war into a war where Ukraine becomes a proxy of Western imperialism, and therefore equally [our italics] reactionary on both sides. As we analysed in several documents, such a transformation could take place if NATO troops directly intervene in the war, if Ukraine becomes a member of NATO or the EU or if similar developments take place. However, while such a course is currently advocated by some minority sectors of the Western political and military elite, it has not taken place until now - hence there has been no such transformation of the war's character."[8]
In Lenin's critique that we cited above (and in other writings), he dealt thoroughly with this concept of the transformation of a war, a glimpse of which we quoted above. Comrade Pröbsting is trying to apply this concept here, but in the process he renders Lenin more profound. In this article, the comrade has his hands full trying to rebuff criticisms that the RCIT position on Ukraine is diametrically opposed to Lenin's analysis of the case of the Serbo-Austrian war of 1915,[9] where Lenin rejected support for Serbia on account of the broader war being an imperialist one. Furthermore, in order for the comrade to accept the change in the nature of the Ukraine war, according to the above passage, Ukraine has to become a 'proxy of Western imperialism'. This is fully acceptable to any Marxist and a concise application of Lenin's analysis if the comrade stopped there; but what he writes next, practically negates the revolutionary content of his statement. Lenin did not set any conditions such as Comrade Pröbsting does, his (Lenin's) analysis was based on the movement of real forces, namely the relationship between the gathering European-wide imperialist war and the national character of Serbia's defense. Serbia did not join the closest equivalent of NATO (the Triple Entente) or the EU, nor did Entente powers send supporting troops into Serbia; yet, such specific acts did not determine the character of the war for Lenin. These conditions set by Comrade Pröbsting can only be regarded as undialectical, an attempt to base an analysis and tasks of revolutionaries exclusively on possible final steps (fixed categories) of a historical development, as opposed to looking at the underlying processes (Lenin's conditions) that brought about these surface events. For argument's sake, even if none of the criteria outlined by the comrade come to fruition, it will not affect the characterisation of the war one iota. We call this a case of rendering Lenin more profound.
What did Lenin actually write and what was his approach? Interestingly, in their Manifesto on the Ukraine war dated 1 March 2022, the comrades made an unassailable statement as follows, "This combined and contradictory character of the war in the Ukraine and the global tensions between the Great Powers can provoke a change in the nature of the war. It can transform its character from a just war of national defense into an inter-imperialist proxy war. If such a transformation would take place, revolutionaries would be obliged to change their tactics and to stand for the defeat of Russian imperialism as well as of the pro-Western imperialist proxy in Kyiv. But this is only a possibility in the future and revolutionaries base their strategy on the facts of today and not on speculations about tomorrow." As stated, unassailable, unfortunately the comrades could not maintain this position consistently and when the time came to apply this understanding, they failed.
Lenin on the Secondary Nature of the National Element of the Serbo-Austrian War
In his, The Collapse of the Second International,[10] Lenin outlines the Marxist approach to the national character of the Serbo-Austrian war of 1915. We apologise for the length of the quoted passage, but it is necessary for a thorough understanding of the issue.
"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. However it is this conclusion that the sophist Kautsky, who is now in the service of the Austrian bourgeoisie, clericals and militarists, has failed to draw." Lenin continued, "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. If Germany wins, she will throttle Belgium, one more part of Poland, perhaps part of France, etc. If Russia wins, she will throttle Galicia, one more part of Poland, Armenia, etc. If the war ends in a 'draw', the old national oppression will remain. 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."[11]
Lenin made it clear that if this was an isolated war, meaning between Serbia and Austria-Hungary instead of a skirmish between two imperialist camps, it would be a war of national liberation for Serbia. But there is a second component to this war, namely, the imperialist component. To what extent was this war not isolated? According to Lenin, it was "connected with the general European war, with the selfish and predatory aims of Britain, Russia, etc." He based his conclusion on the probable outcomes of the war; irrespective of which camp wins, Serbia's national oppression will not be lifted.[12] Imperialist nations, Lenin states, cannot free nations. Lenin made this point in slightly different ways in other places and it can only enhance our understanding of his point and his method if we bring them in conversation with our present discussion. Let us start with Lenin's reference to the Berne conference, which was a gathering of the RSDLP sections abroad.
The resolution on the war was drafted by Lenin, hence it has been included in his collected works.[13] Points in the resolution that make the matter clearer are as follows, "The present war is, in substance, a struggle between Britain, France and Germany for the partition of colonies and for the plunder of rival countries; on the part of tsarism and the ruling classes of Russia, it is an attempt to seize Persia, Mongolia, Turkey in Asia, Constantinople, Galicia, etc. The national element in the Austro-Serbian war is an entirely secondary consideration and does not affect the general imperialist character of the war. The entire economic and diplomatic history of the last few decades shows that both groups of belligerent nations were systematically preparing the very kind of war such as the present. The question of which group dealt the first military blow or first declared war is immaterial in any determination of the tactics of socialists. Both sides' phrases on the defence of the fatherland, resistance to enemy invasion, a war of defence, etc., are nothing but deception of the people."
This passage is more specific regarding the aims of both imperialist camps - 'the partition of colonies and for the plunder of rival countries', which further clarifies the imperialist connection that Lenin wrote of. But the last two sentences are of utmost importance for this discussion, for here also the RCIT's position goes against the express clarification made by Lenin. We have already quoted passages above that show that for the RCIT comrades the question of the 'resistance to enemy invasion' is a very important matter indeed. Lenin warned us that this term, amongst others, is used by the imperialists for the 'deception of the people'. It is easy for revolutionaries to become victims of this deception if they do not apply dialectics consistently, as in the case of the RCIT that we expand on at length later on.
Lenin also addressed the issue of the Serbo-Austrian war in a letter to Kollontai in which he restates his position, but a worthwhile passage from the letter is the succinct statement that, "The essence of the thing today is the struggle between the Great Powers for the redivision of the colonies and the subjugation of the smaller powers."[14]
These arguments and explanations by Lenin exhibit a profound difference in approach to the RCIT's method. For Lenin the 'essence' of the matter is the underlying forces steering the situation, as it has been building up over time; it is the rivalry between imperialist groups, who always relegate but exploit and employ national struggles for their own purposes, not least of which is to bamboozle the masses. For the RCIT the essence is a single event or outcome such as boots on the ground, joining NATO or the EU, that exists in a vacuum. The nub of the difference is the RCIT's weakness when it comes to the consistent application of the dialectical method.
Lenin understood that in analysing the struggle for national liberation in real situations, the hardest task facing revolutionaries is the consistent application of the dialectical method, therefore it is imperative to deal with it in more detail. Marx defined the dialectic as that which "regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence… and is in its essence critical and revolutionary".[15] Engels stated that objects of investigation are not "fixed, rigid, given once for all", and that dialectics "comprehends things… in their essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin and ending".[16]
Lenin applied this very precisely to the character of war as follows in his Junius Pamphlet, "We, however, remain dialecticians and combat sophistry, not by a sweeping denial of the possibility of transformation in general, but by concretely analysing a given phenomenon in the circumstances that surround it and in its development". This is the exact same point made by Marx and Engels, but applied to a real situation. Engels' 'objects of investigation' in the context of this discussion, translates into Comrade Pröbsting's national character, World War III (which we clarify below), NATO troops, NATO membership, EU membership, which are handled by the comrade as 'fixed, rigid, given once for all'. Lenin used the word 'isolation' in a dual sense; firstly as isolation from a broader development, and one-sidedness in cognition. Here is what he stated against Kautsky in, The Collapse of the Second International, "Marxist dialectics… excludes any isolated examination of an object," arguing once again against "a one-sidedness of human cognition, which cannot embrace an object in all its totality and complexity".
Almost two decades after Lenin, Trotsky felt compelled to revisit this very issue and he did not divert one iota from the greatest three Marxist minds in history when he stated that vulgar thought treats concepts "as fixed abstractions", while the dialectician approaches "all problems as processes and not as motionless categories".[17] There is one more case, very different from the Serbo-Austrian example, where Lenin disproves the RCIT approach from another angle, which at the same time exposes the comrades' inconsistent dialectical approach. We turn to it now.
Lenin on the American War of Independence Defeats an Important Leg of the RCIT Argument
In his critique of Luxemburg's Junius Pamphlet, Lenin brings up the above war of national liberation in a manner that sharply adds more context to the Serbian (and by default Ukrainian) case. "Several years later the North American States started a war for national liberation against England alone. Out of enmity towards England, i.e., in conformity with their own imperialist interests, France and Spain, which still held parts of what are now the United States, concluded friendly treaties with the states that had risen against England. The French forces together with the American defeated the English. Here we have a war for national liberation in which imperialist rivalry is a contributory element of no great importance, which is the opposite of what we have in the war of 1914–16 (in which the national element in the Austro-Serbian war is of no great importance compared with the all determining imperialist rivalry). This shows how absurd it would be to employ the term imperialism in a stereotypical fashion by deducing from it that national wars are 'impossible.'"
Although no one is arguing that national wars are no longer possible, as Luxemburg did, imperialism is still being readily invoked in a stereotypical manner when national liberation wars are discussed. For the RCIT, imperialist boots on the ground (to use one example) is evidence that the war has been transformed into an imperialist war. For Lenin it was not necessarily so, but depended on the overall conditions that exist; to use Engels' wording, the "essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin and ending". Look at the American example, not only full support from two of the biggest imperialist powers of the day, but imperialist boots on the ground. So what makes the difference from one case to the next? What is the key factor that is so elusive to the comrades in the RCIT? It is the control over the war - its ownership. The American war was controlled by its own government in formation for their own aims, and they had exploited inter-imperialist rivalry to weaken their enemy. The Serbian war, on the other hand, was subsumed under the control of the Triple Entente Powers, who made secret deals with Italy (even without Serbia) that cut across Serbia's nationalist interests.
We can bring in Iran here as a modern and latest example. It has been receiving lots of help from both China and Russia, but maintained its independence in deciding its war aims. If Chinese boots enter the battlefield, that alone will not change the character of the war, but the RCIT comrades would disagree with this due to their default position. But if, and only if Iran becomes a proxy in the clutches of China to achieve aims that are not mainly in the national interest of Iran but mainly in the imperialist interest of China, then the war would have undergone a qualitative transformation.
Auxiliary or determining, the entire question lies between those two words, and it cannot be settled by pointing to the existence of boots on the ground or membership to this or that imperialist body - only by locating the ownership of the war. With regards to Ukraine, Putin and Trump repeatedly phone each other (or arrange meetings) to discuss settling the Russia-Ukraine war - ownership is not in dispute here, it has been paid for and the money spent on destroying the Ukrainian population, the destruction of Ukraine itself, and bribing Zelensky and his corrupt clique. Such is the dialectical method, such is the Marxist rendition.
Can a War be for National Liberation Despite Imperialist Powers Providing Weapons?
Comrade Pröbsting states, as we already referenced, that because Ukraine's war is a 'just' war according to them, it has the 'right' to accept weapons from NATO or any other imperialist country. The 'right' only means that if they do so, they are still the good guys in all of this. This issue of arms from imperialist powers has been thoroughly covered in Lenin's American example, where he explained under which circumstances this would rob a war of its national element and under which it would not. Our disagreement with the RCIT position here is only their contention that the Ukraine war is 'just', a contention we take up in detail in Section V.
Trotsky wrote very useful arguments on this topic (one was an interview) in which he made examples of Algeria and Brazil. It will serve no purpose here to go into much detail, suffice it to state that Trotsky gave examples where he underscored that it does not matter how obnoxious the government is that fights a war of national liberation, and that receiving weapons from imperialist countries does not change the character of the war to an imperialist one and Marxist revolutionaries are duty-bound to support these wars of national liberation.[18] The interesting thing about Trotsky's examples of Algeria and Brazil is that they are quite straightforward and very mild in comparison to the real case of the American War of Independence and, much more so, of the Russia-Ukraine war.
III. The Third World War Becomes the Paramount Criterion
Comrade Pröbsting then applies his general principles as understood from the Serbian case, to Ukraine. In the same article (Lenin on Serbia's Role…) he states, "The above-quoted centrists all 'ignore', or better pretend not to be aware of, the gigantic difference between the Austro-Serbian war in 1914-18 and the current Ukraine War: the former case was part of a World War involving all Great Powers and resulting in about 15-22 million deaths while the latter is an isolated war without an ongoing world war. The centrists' analogy with Lenin's position on the subordinated role of the Austro-Serbian war would only be appropriate if the current Ukraine War was part of World War III. However, as far as we know, such a colossal event has not begun yet." And also, "When Lenin discussed the possibility of an Austro-Serbian war in isolation - without the context of WWI - he had in mind a situation as it existed before 1914." This then, is the paramount criterion used by the comrade to determine the character of Ukraine's war against Russia.
We have already dealt with this issue comprehensively, but we note that in this passage, the RCIT has progressed in their criteria from boots on the ground or NATO/EU membership, to a full scale world war (one that will, by the way, be waged with nuclear weapons), setting the bar quite high. To give them the benefit of the doubt, we shall equate boots on the ground as implicitly meaning World War III, as that would definitely be the result of NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. For this progression, Comrade Pröbsting gets his inspiration from the following qualification by Lenin which we need to recall here for ease of reference, "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., …". As we have already dealt with this issue, we will confine us here to the World War III progression. Hanging an entire argument on a phrase, is to negate the complexities of the argument as a whole. Of course Lenin would mention the European war because it was a real thing and the most significant development at the time, something that gave the greatest concreteness to the struggle of the Great Powers. In other words, not mentioning the war in a discussion on this topic in 1915, would be to ignore the elephant in the room. Yet, in the structure of his passage, Lenin gives equal importance to both the European war and the 'selfish and predatory aims'. We have to ask the question, what links these two features of Lenin's connectedness? It is that they both are reflections of the struggle between the great powers - this is where our focus should lie and not one outcome of such a struggle. Thus, Lenin gives two examples of the connectedness he is dealing with (actually more with his 'etc.'), but Comrade Pröbsting refers only to one, the one that he believes suits his argument. Furthermore, why ignore Lenin's qualification in the same text where he pointed to the 'essence' of the matter being the 'struggle between the Great Powers'? Here he clarifies again that the essence is not a world war in full swing.
Below we give another quotation by Lenin in which he incidentally, in parentheses actually, presents the counterposition in a slightly different, but clear manner, "the national element in the Austro-Serbian war is of no great importance compared with the all determining imperialist rivalry". Not the all-determining world war, but it is the imperialist rivalry that determines 'all'. A European war is the most significant sign of this struggle, but if the war does not break out, does it negate the 'struggle between the Great Powers'? Does it negate the 'selfish and predatory aims'? Certainly not. Lenin, having been thoroughly schooled in the philosophy of dialectical materialism would not make such a mistake of reifying a final outcome such as a world war into a fixed category and ignore, or minimise, the complex processes that gave rise to it.
IV. A Major Contradiction in the RCIT Argument: Sauce for the Goose but not for the Gander
It is also noted that the comrades apply the world war criterion very selectively, to the benefit solely of their Ukraine war characterisation. For, in the Letter to Etienne Landman, they state, "As we also explain in several documents, we do not consider the national issue of the Russophile minorities in Ukraine as a case of national oppression but rather view them in the context of the historic oppression of the Ukrainian people by Russia. However, we oppose any discrimination of Russian language or culture by the Ukrainian state." So, when it comes to de-emphasising the nationalist struggle of the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, no world war is needed! Their national struggle can be dismissed without much ado as something to do with Russia's historical oppression of Ukraine - what does this even mean concretely? But when it comes to Ukraine, the bar must be pushed as high as possible. This method of picking and choosing based on what is suitable for the moment, is not a Marxist method; it is not consistent and it is not principled.
We leave aside one other contradiction for the moment, that attacks on their language and culture are not regarded as nationalist in nature; also, why do the comrades not add to their list the violence against, shelling and murdering of civilians in the Donbas since 2014? This method leaves the RCIT comrades diminishing the fight for their very survival of the Donbas people. This is the sort of conundrum that an undialectical approach can tie one up in.
V. How Western Imperialism Imprinted and Stamped Itself all Over the Ukraine War: Quantity Transformed into Quality
The evidence that the war in Ukraine is owned and directed from the imperialist centres, rather than fought on Kyiv's terms, is something so obvious that even the blind can see it. The evidence is not secret at all and can be accessed on the internet in minutes. It is proven by the conduct of the Western powers themselves, and from the words of their own state officials and spokespersons. We set out the principal elements below.
1. The most elementary fact of the war's political economy is that it is financed from abroad. Between February 2022 and early 2026, the Western powers principally committed on the order of $340–360 billion in combined support, to which the IMF added about 20 billion dollars and the World Bank added 90 billion more (these totals can be corroborated, but we believe the actual numbers are quite higher and that a lot is being hidden). This support fell into two great streams. The first was budgetary and financial assistance to keep the Ukrainian state itself solvent, paying its wages, pensions and some debts. The second stream was weapons, of which there has been unlimited supply. Valued at the market price of the equipment actually delivered, military aid to Ukraine from all donors reached roughly $174 billion (highly undercounted). Loans were an accounting trick because they do not expect any to be repaid.[19] So overall, the working total is well over half a trillion dollars over four years! Let us state clearly that these are conservative figures and that the totals change on a daily basis. Ukraine's GDP for the four years combined before 2022, came to about $700 billion. They have practically substituted for the country's entire economy! If imperialist countries buy a country like this in order to motivate it to continue a war for their specified aims, there cannot be any logical argument that the war does not belong to the imperialist countries. They own the very country! They own and pay the salaries of the army! They own the leadership! Ukraine is an insolvent zombie and fighting a war it cannot afford to continue. This is an imperialist war, prepared, armed and paid for by Western imperialism. They are holding up this zombie country with dollar bills, and shouting in its ears - Forward! March! Russians bad! Shoot to kill! This evidence is already conclusive that Ukraine's war is an imperialist war through and through. However, there is a lot more evidence that underlines this reality and makes it even more undeniable.
2. The direction of the war is not merely funded but institutionally centralised. The coordination of Western assistance runs through a NATO command established for the purpose and headquartered at a United States base in Germany, led by an American general; and the intelligence, satellite reconnaissance and targeting data without which the deep war cannot be fought are the property of the alliance, furnished without charge.[20] A year-long investigation by The New York Times found the partnership so intimate that a European intelligence chief described his NATO counterparts as being 'part of the kill chain', with targeting priorities set jointly and firing coordinates passed to Ukrainian forces. This is not the arm's-length support of an imperialist nation; it is a shared headquarters with the biggest imperialist bloc. The nerve-centre of the war sits outside Ukraine.
This is not as in Trotsky's cases a matter of the imperialist power 'sending' weapons, it is a matter of integration with NATO military and intelligence systems, of foreign ownership and control, with the Ukrainian government only too happy with the situation. The point was demonstrated in March 2025, when the United States briefly suspended both military aid and intelligence-sharing to bring pressure to bear on the Ukrainian president; within weeks this translated into rationed munitions and degraded targeting at the front.[21] Assistance offered on conditions, and withdrawn to compel a change of direction in the war, is not aid to a sovereign ally pursuing its own war. It is the leash of an owner. Revolutionaries never accept conditions attached to weapons. A war whose continuation can be switched off in another capital is, in the decisive respect, owned in that capital.
3. That the war is prolonged for reasons that are not Ukraine's own is suggested most sharply by the fate of the Istanbul negotiations of spring 2022. As Ukrainian and Russian negotiators appeared to approach the outline of a settlement - Ukrainian neutrality in exchange for security guarantees and a Russian withdrawal - the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, arrived unannounced in Kyiv on 9 April 2022. According to the reporting of Ukrainska Pravda (and numerous other outlets), citing sources in the president's circle, Johnson brought the message that Putin 'should be pressured, not negotiated with', and that the West was not prepared to support an agreement; a member of Ukraine's own negotiating team later recalled the message as, in substance, 'let us just fight'.[22] One of the Istanbul mediators has stated that the decisive matters were decided in Washington, and the negotiations collapsed within days of the visit. The West promised unlimited support to sustain the fight, and they delivered it at the precise moment a settlement was within reach.
4. The declared aim, in the words of the United States Secretary of Defense in Kyiv in April 2022, has been to see Russia 'weakened' and unable to recover quickly - an object that belongs to Washington's contest with a Great-Power rival, not to the defence of Ukrainian lives and territory.[23] But we know there is more to it. Western imperialism has for years been dreaming of breaking Russia up, known as the Brzezinsky scheme,[24] and this is their hoped for end-game with this present war. Ukraine is paying dearly for it. A country already suffering acute demographic decline has seen a generation of its child-bearing and fighting population killed, maimed, or driven into exile, even as Western spokesmen insist the war must be prosecuted to victory. One must ask the question plainly, how is the fighting of this war 'to the last Ukrainian' in the interest of Ukrainian national liberation? For this term, 'to the last Ukrainian' emanated from the mouths of their spokespersons without even as much as a blush. A policy that expends the very people whose nation it claims to defend serves an enemy, not an ally, and not Ukraine.
To survive this war as a viable nation, the deathgrip of its so-called allies must be terminated. How can this monstrous hurling of the Ukrainian army into the bullets and bombs of Russian imperialism be justified as an act of support? When it became clear that Russia was going to win this war, the US decreased its support to a significant extent, but Ukraine had to carry on, waiting for the next tranche of billions. Ukrainian soldiers are falling to such a great extent that they have been suffering a tremendous shortage of manpower for years now.
Instead of calling a halt and suing for peace before the situation deteriorates further, the West pushes for more war. When the Istanbul agreement was about to be signed, they paid Zelensky to continue it. Every time since then when things went so bad on the battlefield that demoralisation set in amongst the leaders of Ukraine, the West gave Zelensky more billions and more advanced weapons systems, like injecting drugs, just to give him a new high. In the meantime the Zelensky regime kidnaps men on the streets and bundles them into vehicles; these men would be hurried to the front without proper training and cast like cannon fodder into Russian steel and fire.
And as the military cemeteries grow exponentially, the West pushed Zelensky to lower the conscription age, which he did once already. For a while now the West wants him to enlist the children, 18-year olds! He has been resisting so far, afraid of a tremendous backlash, but this exposes the Western policy: the longer the war continues, the longer they will be able to weaken Russia (or so they think). In fact, the Europeans (according to their spokespersons) believe that they can defeat Russia in the long run, which is what they cherish most of all. So, if the current war will not achieve it, it is a step along that road. They are working at top speed to rebuild their militaries in preparation for a direct war with Russia; they do not hide this at all. If in the end Ukraine is just a rump of its former self, a failed state - which its future looks like at the moment - they do not really care because remember, the world has too many people in any case. The RCIT comrades lamentably skirt around these pertinent issues, because they do not factor them in their characterisation of the Ukraine war. It is lamentable for revolutionaries to call such a war 'just' and to support it.
5. It has since the EuroMaidan Coup in 2014, been undeniable to those who read situations objectively, that Russia had first been tricked by the West and then been provoked into this war; the confrontation was prepared over many years - it is this preparation and provocation that do not bother the RCIT comrades at all, which is the only conclusion we can make for it not being factored into their characterisation of the Ukraine war - except to stare themselves blind against the fact that it was Russia who invaded Ukraine. Commenting on EuroMaidan, Dr. Brovkin,[25] retired history professor, author and podcaster, stated that according to the February 2014 agreement made by the UK, Germany, France and Russia - that President Yanukovich would resign and that there would be new Ukraine elections by the end of the year - was not honoured by the West.[26] Instead, the Yanukovich government was overthrown the very next day by the Banderites. They seized power, immediately banned the Russian language and stated openly that they were going to join NATO. This violated the post-USSR arrangements, including signed treaties. Russia's immediate response was to overlook the betrayal (and not to learn a thing from it) and to contain the fallout of the coup, to get European powers to agree on a new process to manage the unfolding crisis. The result was the agreements called Minsk I (signed on 5/09/2014) and Minsk II (signed on 12/02/2015). Angela Merkel, principal architect of the Minsk process, stated in December 2022 that the 2014 agreement was a ruse to placate Putin in order to give Ukraine time to build up its military. In other words, the diplomacy of peace was, by the admission of the person who conducted it, an instrument of preparation for war. Ukrainian President Poroshenko, who signed Minsk II on behalf of Ukraine, has said the same; French President Hollande, the third signatory, conceded the accords gave Ukraine time to strengthen even as he denied that was their intent.[27] And in parallel with the diplomatic fake track ran the very real covert one - from 2014 the CIA built what former officials of both intelligence services describe as an unprecedented partnership with Ukrainian intelligence, funding and training its officers and establishing a chain of forward bases along the Russian border, which is actually an act of war.[28]
We do not adduce this to argue that Russia was provoked and is therefore absolved, not at all. Russia was provoked, which to us is but a reflection of inter-imperialist rivalry - our task is to exploit it and not to take a moral stance in a vacuum. Inter-imperialist rivalry has the potential of pulling the working classes of both Russia and Ukraine into determined struggles. Russia has decided to go the capitalist route, which led it down the imperialist path. It made its bed now it must sleep in it. Revolutionaries make no concession to any imperialist power. Provocation neither condemns nor excuses, it is immaterial to the character of either side's war. We are always mindful of Lenin's dictum that it does not matter how the war started or who started it, that does not determine its character. What Merkel and the CIA partnership establish is continuity of imperialist politics. They show that this war continues, on the Western side, as a project of imperialist preparation eight years in the making, and for what? To fight a war with Russia, irrespective of who fires the first shot.
Russia's invasion was made in provocation heaven - a godsend - that they could milk endlessly to rally the public behind Ukraine, which they had in their deep pockets. They prepared the Banderite fascists in Ukraine as their battering ram. Kyiv's war is the politics of the Atlantic bloc pursued by other means, prepared under the cover of the Minsk peace that its own guarantors have confessed was a delaying tactic. Thus, the peace was part of the war, and Russia was unaware of this as Putin was wined and dined by Merkel and company (he gave her such beautiful gifts) who made sure they had enough wool to pull over his eyes. Putin cherished his sweet and fond dream that Russia should be a touted part of the European family and that the EU and the US are his natural economic partners. He just needed to show them Russia's fine weaponry and military strategies. Was he shocked out of his wits when he realised that these people have a visceral hatred for all things Russian and that they are actually super serious about destroying Russia, even killing him personally and they had a drone with his name on it?
6. Imagine a decisive Ukrainian victory. Will Ukraine take its territory back, demand compensation, go on a campaign of complete reconstruction and say goodbye to NATO? Any revolutionary who thinks that would be all, is suffering from wilful blindness; think no evil and you will see no evil. The logic of the West's actions and statements in this war does not terminate in a Ukrainian peace; it presses onward, for the object was never a stable settlement but the weakening of a rival imperialist power. Ukraine will immediately join NATO. The Crimean naval docks will be chock-a-block with NATO warships. Ukraine will become a NATO forward garrison. NATO boots will follow as Russia would now be a defeated power. They will work towards their ultimate and infamous goal of breaking Russia up into several smaller states with pro-Western governments who will hand Russia's resources over to them. The Banderites would then have nothing to restrain them from pursuing their genocide in Donbas. Ukraine will then become the Big Israel of Eastern Europe and Asia as its leadership already offered.
7. What weight is added to a discussion on the character of the war by the avowed commitment of the Ukrainian government itself to be an instrument of Western imperialist aims in Ukraine and beyond? The weight should be enormous. In April 2022 Zelensky told Ukrainian media that Ukraine would abandon the hope of an 'absolutely liberal, European' future and become instead a 'big Israel' - a murderous and barbaric permanent security state, with armed forces stationed in the institutions, the supermarkets and the cinemas, and security 'the number-one issue for the next ten years'.[29] This means a garrison state on a permanent war footing, and if we connect his Israel-bait with his willingness to sell Ukraine as an instrument of Western imperialist foreign policy, he is tempting his allies with permanent genocidal aggression towards Russia, which he knows is an offer they cannot refuse. A forward bastion of the Western bloc on the frontier of Russia, at their beck-and-call, is too good an opportunity to pass on. And the RCIT comrades want us to believe that this is not an imperialist war until World War III breaks out?
The Ukrainian leadership has made it clear over and over that they accept the global aims of the Western powers as they stand today and even in the future - the weakening and ultimate destruction of Russia, the refusal of a negotiated neutrality, fighting imperialism's wars in Syria, the Gulf Countries, the Sahel, or wherever is needed by their masters. Ukraine's own government has internalised its master's objectives and made them its policy. Ukraine has been sold lock, stock, barrel plus the blood of its young men.
8. Last, but not least, the very latest NATO summit on 7-8 July 2026, was interesting with respect to Ukraine for a couple of reasons. The Summit Declaration,[30] in paragraph 4, states the following, "Ukraine contributes to transatlantic security, and Allies stand united in our unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its freedom, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. European Allies and Canada now finance the vast majority of security assistance to Ukraine through bilateral and multilateral means. Allies underscore that this support must be equitable, predictable, and sustainable in the long-term. For 2026, Allies pledge €70 billion in military equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine and affirm their sovereign commitments to sustaining at least equivalent levels in 2027. To this end, we welcome the European Union's decision to provide multi-year funding to Ukraine through the Ukraine Support Loan."
The first five words are of utmost importance. A transatlantic security issue is not a small or temporary matter, but a permanent one of huge significance. These words give the game away, as it is a renewed declaration that they will fight to the last Ukrainian. The rest of the paragraph shows how they are thinking of providing the finance to make that happen. And there is a flipside to this coin; in the very second paragraph they highlight that Russia is a "long-term threat" to "Euro-Atlantic security and stability" that has to be countered and list all the billions of dollars that they are currently throwing at this great project of theirs. Thus, this is a forever war, a preparation for World War III, which becomes much more apparent if we relate it to two other developments. The one is anti-Russian belligerent statements made by top European leaders (and formerly US leaders as well), the second is the current drone and missile strikes deep into Russia - enthusiastically praised at the summit, which have little military impact but seems to be calculated to cause an anti-European provocation that would give NATO an excuse to send armies to support Ukraine.
Concluding this section brings us back to the question of dialectics. By not factoring these real conditions of the war into their characterisation of the Russia-Ukraine war, the RCIT comrades are failing to apply the dialectical method once again. We covered before how Lenin warned against analysing phenomena in isolation, the RCIT comrades isolated their examination from the preponderance of salient and irrefutable facts that disprove their thesis holus bolus. This is why they cannot admit that the national interest of the Ukrainian people - the very survival of that people, the preservation of the nation, the maintaining of a viable state - is not being served by the current war in any manner. The only hope for Ukraine lies overwhelmingly in an urgent peace. The longer the war continues, the more Ukraine will lose territory and people to Russia and will be destroyed. Yet, peace is precisely what the imperialist sponsors of the war have not permitted. Even victory on the battlefield (not a possibility at the moment) will not help Ukraine, only a revolution can save it. The objective content of Ukraine's war is that it is an imperialist war - and it is why the position of revolutionaries cannot be the defence of Kyiv's war but the overthrow of the regime, and the turning of the guns, in both camps, against the masters at home.
VI. The Peculiarities of the Post-Soviet Russian Diaspora
When the USSR dissolved, a number of separate countries were born from the process. Roughly 25 million Russians[31] found themselves outside Russia overnight, spread across fourteen new countries, for instance Ukraine. From members of the dominant nationality in the region, they became minorities overnight. It was an instant diaspora. Some of these minorities were oppressed to different degrees according to the country they were in. It presented Russia with a dilemma of the welfare of its former citizens, which is real, but also a political asset it can use as an excuse to interfere in the affairs of other countries - a tricky situation, but a product of history. One of the ways the region dealt with this anomaly was to have visa-free border arrangements with Russia. Crimea was an even more peculiar case because of its history, which we do not need to go into here. These peculiarities help with understanding of the intricacies of the current war.
VII. Exploiting Inter-Imperialist Rivalries
The biggest problem faced by humanity is the dictatorship of imperialism imposed on it, with its claws around the necks of the poor, its military machines spilling blood all around the globe and always at the ready to impose 'mutually assured destruction', and its proxies ready to commit genocide and terrorism when the phone provided by Washington or Brussels rings. Given its sheer power and control over human civilisation, any serious crisis suffered by it, has the potential to create fissures in the system through which the working masses can burst onto the scene of history, ready to settle scores with their class enemy. In other words, it can contribute to a revolutionary situation. Marxists know that inter-imperialist rivalries will always intensify and use these rivalries to advance the interests of the working class. How is this to be done? Let us take the sealed train phenomenon of April 1917[32] as a starting point. When the February revolution occurred in Russia, many key Russian revolutionaries were stuck abroad and realised that the hour had struck for their final return home. The Entente Powers opposed their passage to Russia, because it realised that a successful revolution would take Russia out of World War I. For example, the British navy accosted the ship that Trotsky and his family was on and they were detained in Canada.[33] Germany had its hands full with the Entente Powers and would have benefitted greatly from stopping the war in the east. The sealed train deal was a remarkable achievement for the Bolsheviks and a result of the Bolsheviks playing one imperialist camp against the other. This is what exploiting imperialist rivalries mean - to advance the revolutionary movement concretely in ways that would not have been possible without such rivalries. The Brest-Litovsk peace deal was another example. The Bolsheviks needed peace to consolidate the revolution and support revolutions elsewhere, for example in Germany, and they got it because the Germans needed to focus on the Western front.
We have already covered other examples where inner-imperialist rivalries led to opportunities for acquiring weapons and other forms of support. The question in front of us is, how do revolutionaries build on this tradition in the current Russia-Ukraine war? Certainly not by supporting the acceptance of NATO weapons (and other support). Every opportunity, as it arises, should be used to the advantage of the working class in both countries. For the moment, this lies mainly in the realm of agitation and propaganda, in the spirit of what is meant in Are China and Russia Imperialist Powers? The RCIT and ICL Clash, which placed the emphasis on the independent action of the workers and their allies, rather than enlisting behind one robber baron against another. The section below concretises this point more.
VIII. What are the Tasks of Revolutionaries in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War?
When it comes to the tasks of revolutionaries in the Russia-Ukraine war, our ideas converge with those of the RCIT in many respects, but of course not all and also not unconditionally. We agree with the RCIT position of revolutionary defeatism with respect to the imperialist blocs - the main enemy is at home! This means that revolutionaries fight against mobilisation, against annexations, for the defeat of their own government as the lesser evil, for fraternisation across the front, for the transformation of the war into a war against the imperialist bourgeoisie, against arms deliveries and war credits, against the sanctions war, against the rearmament of Europe, against NATO root and branch. But the agreement is limited, for the RCIT's practice cancels its principle. In calling for military support and aid to Ukraine and endorsing the acceptance of Western weapons, the RCIT has inadvertently strayed, whatever its intentions, into the Western camp. For the workers, farmers and soldiers of Ukraine, whose position is the most tragic, implacable class opposition to the government in Kyiv as the local administrator of a war that does not care if any of them survive it, is an utmost necessity. The RCIT's own programme for Ukraine in 2015 concluded with the demand for an independent workers' republic, aligned neither with Brussels nor with Moscow.[34] This programme deserves the fullest support.
The tasks of revolutionaries follow from the character of the war. We have shown that the war in Ukraine, whatever the genuine national grievance at its root, has been transformed into one of the most cynical and vicious proxy wars of Western imperialism since the collapse of the USSR. It is no answer to invoke Trotsky's rule that an oppressed nation may take arms wherever it can find them, and that the Algerian rebel forfeits nothing by accepting Italian rifles. That rule holds where the nation retains ownership of its war – where the arms alter its opportunities but not its aims. It does not hold in Ukraine for the multitude of reasons we elaborated. One cannot accept the weapons and wave away the circumstances in which they are given. Here the arms are not the instrument of an independent struggle; they are the very mechanism of the capture of a nation. To support Ukraine's war on these terms is to support Western imperialism - and that we refuse, as we refuse any support to Moscow.
Revolutionaries in Ukraine should agitate for a programme to save the working people and what remains of the country from annihilation. Ukraine has reached its Brest-Litovsk moment. Against the advocates of a ruinous 'revolutionary war', Lenin accepted a punishing peace to save the exhausted masses and the revolution itself.[35] In like fashion, the salvation of the Ukrainian people now demands an end to the slaughter, not its prolongation in the service of a foreign strategy, not turning it into the big Israel.
A revolutionary programme for Ukraine Must Include
Stop the war! For an immediate peace. Zelensky and the West want to fight to the last Ukrainian, leading the country into the abyss; only peace can save the people and what is left of the nation.
For popular militias to save and defend Ukraine.
For Revolutionary Workers, Farmers, and Soldiers Committees.
NATO out! An uncompromising break with every tie to the Western powers, whose 'friendship' is the leash by which Ukraine is led to its destruction.
Zelensky out! For a Revolutionary Workers and Farmers Government - the only power capable of ending the war and saving the country.
Reparations from the West for the destruction of Ukraine it has caused.
Reparations from Russia for the devastation of its invasion.
Full accountability for the crimes, corruption and war-profiteering of the Zelensky gang.
Fresh, genuine referenda in the contested territories – conducted neither by annexation decree nor by plebiscite under occupation, but under the joint supervision of a committee of the new Ukrainian government and Russia, so that the populations decide their own fate freely.
Equal rights for, treatment of and full protection for all national minorities – their safety, languages, their cultures, their rights – against every form of harassment and forced assimilation.
The uprooting of Banderism and every fascist vestige – the working class settling its own accounts with the fascism in its midst. This is not the 'denazification' pretext of an invader, but the internationalist duty of the Ukrainian workers themselves.
The uprooting of Russophobia and anti-Russian chauvinism in every form - for a war on chauvinism and all forms of racism.
A Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution for a free and sovereign Ukraine.
A Revolutionary Programme for Russia
Revolutionaries in Russia carry the same principle to the other trench. Their enemy is not the Ukrainian across the front but the regime that drives them both to the slaughter. A revolutionary Russian programme should include:
Stop the war – peace now! No to militarism.
For fraternisation across the front, and the common struggle of the Russian and Ukrainian toilers against their own masters.
Down with the capitalist regime that leads ordinary Russians to the slaughterhouse of war.
For a Revolutionary Workers and Farmers Government.
Not one acre of Ukrainian land to imperialist robbery. Against all annexations.
Fresh, genuine referenda in the contested territories, under the joint supervision of a committee of Russia and Ukraine.
Reparations to Ukraine for the damages done by the invasion.
Free Felix Eliseev! Free all political prisoners.
In the Imperialist West: Turn the War Against the Warmongers
Revolutionaries in the Western countries should continue to agitate and mobilise against both the war as an imperialist war, and against their own ruling class as the chief author of it:
The main enemy is at home. Build the anti-war movement. Expose the war for what it is – an imperialist war to break up Russia and steal its oil and gas – and drive the point home in every workplace and every street.
Against the warmongers! Stop your wars.
No to militarisation. Dismantle NATO!
No profiteering from war! Nationalise all military industries.
Tear away the patriotic veil. Generalise the crisis of imperialism into a single picture. Connect the war to the whole constellation of the ruling class's crises - the destabilisation of nations, the defeat in the war on Iran, the genocide in Gaza, the Epstein high crimes and their cover-up, the assault on Lebanon, the escalating attacks on free speech.
Organise against austerity. The war is wielded as a distraction from the mounting miseries the ruling class has heaped upon the masses at home - cost-of-living increases, low-paying jobs, and growing unemployment (open and hidden). There is never money for housing, health, wages or schools – but there is limitless money for destruction. War commands unlimited funds; the masses are given austerity.
Build the fighting organisations on the ground through which alone slogans become a material force.
Link every one of these struggles to its conclusion – only revolution can now save humanity.
IX. Conclusion
Every thread of this contribution runs back to a single question, and it is not the question the RCIT comrades keep answering. The question is not whether Ukraine suffered an imperialist invasion – it did, and we condemn it without reservation. The question is not whether a genuine national element existed at the root of Ukraine's resistance – it did, and should not be denied. The question is whether that national element remains the determining factor in the war, or whether it has been transformed, in Lenin's phrase on Serbia, to a secondary consideration within a struggle whose essence is the rivalry of the Great Powers. That question is settled neither by the fact of invasion, nor by sympathy for the invaded, nor by the courage of those who resist. It is settled by one criterion only - whose aims direct the war.
This criterion is not ours; it belongs to the classical tradition. Lenin distinguished the American War of Independence from the Serbian defence of 1915 not by counting imperialist rifles or imperialist boots – America had both, in abundance – but by asking who commanded the war's aims, who could conclude it, and whose politics it continued. Trotsky's rule on Algerian rebels and Italian rifles rests on the same foundation - arms from an imperialist quarter do not alter a war's character so long as the nation retains possession of its struggle. Auxiliary or determining – the whole question lies between those two words, and it can be answered only by concrete analysis of the war as it actually exists, in its connections, motion, origin and direction.
Measured by this criterion, the Ukrainian case answers itself resoundingly as we have proved without any doubt. It is a war whose one real approach to peace, at Istanbul in the spring of 2022, was strangled by the arrival of a British prime minister bearing the message that there must be no agreement; and whose government proclaims its future as a garrison state, a big Israel on the frontier of Russia – such a war is not owned in Kyiv, but sold by it. Quantity has passed into quality. The national element that was real in 2022 has been absorbed, subordinated and consumed by the inter-imperialist struggle of which this war is now the principal battlefield. The Ankara Declaration of July 2026 states the matter with a candour the RCIT comrades decline to match, Ukraine contributes to transatlantic security. The masters have named whose war it is; only its socialist defenders still hesitate.
The RCIT's error is not one of intention but of method, and that is precisely why it matters. The comrades possess every element of the correct position. They recognise Russia and China as imperialist; they recognise the dual character of the war; they wrote, in March 2022, that its transformation into an inter-imperialist proxy war would oblige revolutionaries to stand for the defeat of both camps and treat Ukraine as a proxy. But having stated the dialectical premise, they refuse the dialectical conclusion. In place of Lenin's living criterion – the movement of the underlying forces, the essence of the struggle between the Great Powers – they erect a series of juridical thresholds: NATO boots, NATO accession, EU membership, and finally a third world war itself, as though the character of a war were a matter for a notary rather than a materialist. This is to treat concepts as fixed and given once for all, the very procedure against which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky polemicised in identical terms. And the comrades apply even these thresholds selectively - for the national movement of the Donbas, which arose against the guns of the Banderite coup regime in 2014, no world war was required before its claims could be dismissed. For Kyiv's war, no accumulation of evidence short of nuclear catastrophe is permitted to register. That is not the concrete analysis of a concrete situation. It is the defence of a conclusion against the facts.
From the character of the war, the tasks follow with iron necessity, for war is the continuation of politics and cannot be supported militarily while its politics are disavowed. The formula of military support without political support is a wall of paper between a war and the state that wages it, and the tragedy of comrade Eliseev[36] – whose courage we salute even as we contest the line for which he suffers – shows what that wall is worth in practice. Our position is revolutionary defeatism on both sides as well as against the Kyiv regime.
We thank the RCIT for the opportunity to discuss this matter with them. Debate of this kind, conducted between revolutionaries on a non-sectarian basis as the Meetings of Internationalist Forces is encouraging, is the instrument by which our movement sharpens its theory, corrects its errors and overcomes the sectarian disease that has cost it so dearly in the past. The stakes are not academic. Upon the correct characterisation of this war depends whether the workers of Russia, Ukraine and the West are led against their true enemy – or delivered, under revolutionary colours, into the camps of the rival barbarians who are driving humanity towards the abyss.
Notes
Revolutionary Communist International Tendency, a Trotskyist international organisation with sections in Argentina, Brazil, Israel/Occupied Palestine, Russia, Ukraine, Nigeria, South Korea, and Austria.
Landman, E. (6/2026). Are China and Russia Imperialist Powers? The RCIT and ICL Clash.
Pröbsting, M. (6/2026). Letter to Etienne Landman.
Landman, E. (2/07/26). First Reply to Comrade Pröbsting's Letter to Etienne Landman.
This is the title/heading of the manifesto, "Ukraine War: A Turning Point of World Historical Significance" (Boldface and italics in the original). It can be accessed here: https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/manifesto-ukraine-war-a-turning-point-of-world-historic-significance/
Luxemburg, R. (1915). The Junius Pamphlet - The Crisis of German Social-Democracy. Marxists.org. Retrieved 7/06/2026, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/
Lenin, V.I. (1916). The Junius Pamphlet. Marxists.org. Retrieved 7/06/2026, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/junius-pamphlet.htm
Pröbsting, M. (16/08/24). Lenin on Serbia's role in World War I: A useful analogy for the current Ukraine war? LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal. Retrieved 3/07/26, from https://links.org.au/lenin-serbias-role-world-war-i-useful-analogy-current-ukraine-war
The war was the curtain-opener of World War I. Austria-Hungary declared war against Serbia on 28 July 1914 and proceeded to invade Serbia. We will use Lenin's dating of 1915, to prevent confusion.
Lenin, V.I. (1915). The Collapse of the Second International. Marxists.org. Retrieved 03/07/26, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/vi.htm
Lenin is referring to the Treaty of London of 1915 by Britain, France, Russia and Italy that promised Italy the Slav Adriatic coast in return for attacking Austria-Hungary. Serbia was not even invited. Italy gleefully declared war against Austria-Hungary roughly a month later. The actual exchange of territory was made at the end of the war and the Slavs so annexed, became objects of severe repression in Fascist Italy.
The Russian Revolution intervened in the further development of the war and afterwards Serbia became a Great Serbian monarchy that oppressed other Slav nations.
Lenin, V.I. (1915). On the Character of the War [Resolution adopted at the Berne Conference of the RSDLP in 1915]. Marxists.org. Retrieved 3/07/26, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/feb/19.htm
Lenin, V.I. (1915). To: Alexandra Kollontai [Letter]. Marxists.org. Retrieved 3/07/26, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/00ak.htm
Marx, K. (1873). Afterword. In Capital (Second German Edition, Volume I). Marxists.org. Retrieved 5/07/26, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm
Engels, F. (1880). Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Marxists.org. Retrieved 5/07/26, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch02.htm
Trotsky, L. (1939). A Petty Bourgeois Opposition in the Socialist Workers Party. In In Defence of Marxism. Marxists.org. Retrieved 6/07/26, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/09-pbopp.htm
Trotsky, L. (22/05/1938). Learn to Think: A Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra-Leftists. The New International, Vol. IV, No. 7. Retrieved 4/07/26, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm. Also, Trotsky, L. (23/09/1938). Anti-Imperialist Struggle Is Key to Liberation: An Interview with Mateo Fossa. Retrieved 4/07/26, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm
Figures compiled from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Ukraine Support Tracker (kielinstitut.de) — https://www.kielinstitut.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ and the websites of the mentioned governments and institutions. Figures span February 2022 to early 2026, and combine grants and loans; totals vary by source according to what is counted and the currency and date of conversion.
On the coordination of Western assistance through NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU), headquartered at Clay Kaserne, Wiesbaden, and its predecessor the Security Assistance Group–Ukraine (SAG-U), see NATO/SHAPE briefings and the Congressional Research Service. On the intelligence and targeting partnership, see Adam Entous, "The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine", The New York Times, 30 March 2025.
On the conditioning of U.S. assistance and the brief March 2025 suspension of aid and intelligence-sharing, see The New York Times reports: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/03/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html and https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html (under a paywall).
Romaniuk, R. (5/05/2022). From Zelenskyy's "Surrender" to Putin's Surrender: How the Negotiations with Russia are Going. In Ukrainska Pravda. Retrieved 6/07/2026, from https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2022/05/05/7344096/
On statements of declared Western war aims, see Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, remarks in Kyiv, 25 April 2022, which was widely reported in the media. Access a typical report here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/russia-weakedend-lloyd-austin-ukraine
Zbigniew Brzezinsky (1928–2017) was National Security Adviser under Carter (1977–81), architect of the strategy of arming the Taliban and Al Qaeda to bleed the USSR, and afterwards one of the most influential US imperial geostrategists. In his, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997), together with his companion Foreign Affairs article "A Geostrategy for Eurasia" (September/October 1997), he promoted the break up of Russia divided into three entities (a European Russia, a Siberian republic, and a Far Eastern republic). In this he saw an independent Ukraine as crucial to chopping off most of Russia's European credentials.
Dr. Brovkin. (30/06/26). History and Politics with Dr. Brovkin [Podcast]. YouTube. Retrieved 6/07/26, from https://youtu.be/jUROORwQNI8
Note that Ukraine was not part of this meeting.
The Angela Merkel statement can be read here: https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-russia-may-have-make-ukraine-deal-one-day-partners-cheated-past-2022-12-09/; Petro Poroshenko's statement can be read here: https://kyivindependent.com/what-were-the-minsk-agreements-and-why-did-they-fail-to-bring-peace-in-ukraine/; François Hollande's statement can be read here: https://global.espreso.tv/minsk-agreements-gave-ukraine-time-to-strengthen-army-and-destroyed-putins-plans-in-2022-francois-hollande
Reevell, P. (17/01/25). How the CIA and Ukrainian Intelligence Secretly Forged a Deep Partnership. ABC News. Retrieved 2/07/26, from https://abcnews.com/International/cia-helped-rebuild-ukraine-intelligence-russia-invasion/story
Zelensky's statement is posted on his presidential website (the last paragraph) and can be read here: https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/dlya-ukrayinskoyi-derzhavi-pitannya-bezpeki-maye-buti-na-per-74113
NATO. (9/07/26). The Ankara Summit Declaration. Retrieved 9/07/26, from https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2026/07/08/the-ankara-summit-declaration
According to the 1989 census, some 25.3 million ethnic Russians resided in Soviet republics outside the RSFSR, the largest concentrations being in Ukraine (c. 11.4 million) and Kazakhstan (c. 6.2 million). The information can be accessed here: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/migration-dilemmas-haunt-post-soviet-russia
John Riddell Marxist Essays and Commentary [Website]. (16/04/2017). Retrieved 8/07/26, from https://johnriddell.com/2017/04/16/april-1917-lenins-arrival-in-russia/
Trotsky, L. (1917). In British Captivity [Letter to the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs]. Marxists.org. Retrieved 6/07/26, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1917/xx/captivity.htm
Pröbsting, M. (20/02/2015). The Minsk Agreement and the Civil War in the Ukraine. RCIT. Retrieved 2/07/26, from https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/minsk-agreement
The reference is to the peace of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918), which Lenin urged the party to accept – against the 'Left Communists' who demanded a revolutionary war – in order to save the exhausted country and the revolution from destruction.
Comrade Felix Eliseev, a member of the RCIT in Russia, was sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment for his opposition to the war and his support for Ukraine – a fact that commands respect, and that we register even as we differ with the RCIT's line on the character of the war. You can read about his case here: https://www.thecommunists.net/rcit/felix-eliseev-a-revolutionary-communist-in-russian-prison/
Comments