You can read the contribution made by Ukranian activist Oleksandr here. You can also see the resolution agreed by the Congress on Ukraine reworked after these interventions here, as well as the position of the minority against which Felix was arguing.

I am representing here at the Congress not only the former Russian Socialist Movement but also the section of the Russian anti-war left who continue supporting the Ukrainian right to resistance. To be honest, I am a little disappointed, to say the least, that Russian imperialism and Putin’s regime have received scarce attention in the programme documents of the Congress and in today’s discussion as if they do not present an acute problem, worthy of scrupulous analysis, for the International Left. Following our Ukrainian comrades, who demand to take into account their perspective on war and their country, we have a modest demand to consider the voice of the Russian left on Putin’s regime and its imperialistic aggression in Ukraine.

 There is a general tendency in the manifesto to underestimate complex relationships between international and domestic causes of the wars and between economy and politics. It is necessary to understand that the establishment of the reactionary regime in Russia dictated the path of Russian imperialism, not vice versa. The invasion of Ukraine is not only an attempt to reassert the role of Russia in the capitalist competition, but also a deliberate attempt to enhance control over Russian society and to crush all dissent. Since the 2010s, Putin and his oligarchic clique have been establishing brutal authoritarian neoliberal dictatorship and cracking down on opposition. The engagement in a full-scale war has provided the Russian ruling class with tremendous opportunities to resolve the structural crisis of the regime and to tighten its grip on power. Putin’s regime used the so-called “special military operation” to silence all the opposition, proclaiming any form of dissidence as national treason, persecuting people and organizations with anti-war and oppositional stances, and forcing thousands of people into exile, and therefore curtailing the potential of the Russian protest movement. In current circumstances, political struggle, including for democratization and wealth redistribution, is outlawed in Russia.

The rise of Putin’s dictatorship also has to be situated in the context of the rise of the far right. Like other far-right governments, Russia suppresses gender and sexual dissent, promotes anti-migrant and anti-abortion policies and ethnic discrimination. Thus, Putin’s victory in Ukraine strengthens his authoritarian dictatorship, enhances the political power of Russian bourgeosie and its Western allies, and empowers the far-right.

The Left has contributed significantly to the studies of ideology. However, vulgar search for material interests behind the Russian invasion is prevailing nowadays at the expense of analyzing the ideological rationale behind Kremlin’s aggressive policy. It is true that Putin’s regime has failed to create a coherent ideology, meaning the set of ideas, but it is, nonetheless, a terrible mistake to dismiss the remarks of Putin, Russian politicians and pro-military media as bold-faced lies lacking any relation to the ‘real’ goals of the Russian ruling class.  Russian imperialist ideology is not only characterized by Great Russian chauvinism and expansionism, but by a specific vision of the international relations. According to it, the relations between the countries are defined by the rule of the strongest. Only the superpowers are invested with sovereignty and exclusive right to extend their zone of influence by different means including aggression. We must be clear it is the far-right project of the international relations. It reinforces the right of the strongest nations to do whatever they want being not deterred by any international institutions. In this sense Putin’s, Trump’s and Netanyahu’s vision converge. This ideology legitimizes a new era of imperialist redistribution with the struggle for territories between the strongest military powers and its satellites. It paves the way for further wars of annexation on even a greater scale. Russian-American negotiations on Ukraine without regard for Ukraine, with the representatives of superpowers calmly discussing the division of another country’s territory and its natural wealth, embody this vision of the international order. It is high time the Left came up with its own vision of the international relations. We think that the fight for international solidarity requires not only abolition of all military blocs, but an absolutely new system of international relations based on equality of all nations, democratic control from below, open diplomacy and opposition to all forms of imperialist and nationalist aggression.

Campism and Western-centered mindset of the left

There is a misconception that a ceasefire in Ukraine will bring about peace in Europe for, at least, a certain period. However, the Russian sphere of influence is not restricted to Ukraine. The manifesto failed to mention Russian imperialist policy in South Caucasus (Georgia and Armenia) and Kazakhstan. The survival of Putin’s regime becomes inseparably tied to the war, so appeasement of Putin’s regime would mean the continuation of wars of annexation, with the Baltic States, Poland, and Moldova as the next targets of the aggression. The Left continues adhering to traditional dogmas with regard to the rearmament of Europe. However, I would like to warn you that disarmament can only be mutual. In this context, I am wondering who will make Putin disarm, with the Russian opposition defeated. The increase of military spending in Russia, the highest since the Cold War, implies that Russia is prepared for a long military conflict. I am quite skeptical that Putin will decide to demobilize 600,000 soldiers, whose return home may be a serious threat to the regime, and stop the militarization of the Russian economy. In this case, I would like to highlight that the resolution on Ukraine overlooks the important condition of sustainable peace—dismantling of Putin’s dictatorship, whose existence undermines any peace prospects in the region.

I am quite frustrated at the agenda of the debate on Ukraine. It has not changed since 2022. We are still discussing whether the Left has to sympathize with Ukraine. I consider it odd that some comrades prioritize geopolitical orientation and immediate benefits one can reap from struggle with one’s national government over internationalist solidarity. The support of Ukraine is considered problematic because, as one comrade has said here, it makes the Left indistinguishable from the national mainstream. Such a position disguised under left slogans is petty-bourgeois and immature. It undermines internationalism since the political struggle is reduced to the struggle with one’s national government. In fact, neutrality kills the prospects of the Left more than any form of participation in the support of Ukraine. It is high time the Left promoted their agenda, which would enable them to preserve their political subjectivity. By opposing arms transfer to Ukraine, the comrades do not propose anything concrete to the Ukrainians and anti-war Left Russians on how to end the war. Driven by self-interest, our opponents leave Ukrainians fighting Russian invasion and Russians fighting brutal dictatorship to their own devices. At the end of the day, this position is boiled down to the advice to the Ukrainians to surrender.  I would like to warn you again that Putin’s victory will not bring socialism either in Ukraine or in Russia. It will be a huge victory for the Russian bourgeoisie and the Western capitalists, who will give their eyeteeth to return to business as usual with Russia. In the situation when Trump abandons Ukraine, and when the world is moving to a new age of imperialist redistribution, it is twice as important to support its resistance to imperialist aggression.

Western-centered discourse dominates the debate on Ukraine. It reduces “anti-imperialism” to struggling with American imperialism and NATO expansion and deprives resistance to peripheral imperialisms of political significance. No, comrades, it can no longer work this way. No one argues here with the predatory nature of Western imperialism, but please hear the voices of those suffering from peripheral imperialisms. I consider the situation strange when the Ukrainian and Russians left, who have experienced directly the effects of the invasion and brutal dictatorship, are spin-doctored by other comrades on how to interpret the conflict. In order to adopt a consistent anti-imperialist position, the Left has to develop the capacity to decentralize their views and empathy. From this perspective, it is impossible not to solidarize with the people of Ukraine. The oppressed, not only in Ukraine and Russia but worldwide, require horizontal solidarity and empathy rather than rigid geopolitical thinking and campism

Featured Image dominated by large hand written signs saying Stop Putin Stop war. One protestor visible but their face is not.