The IMT leadership officially released a statement yesterday on behalf of the entire organisation staking out its position on the Ukrainian war against Russian imperialism. They repeated the same old cliches about how it is an ‘inter-imperialist struggle’ and that Marxists should be ‘neutral’ (presumably including Ukrainian Marxists, who should do nothing as Russian tanks enter the cities and seek to kill their friends and family). Be warned, there is nothing ‘neutral’ about the IMT’s position. This organisation is objectively pro-Russia. It has been since 2014, when it came out against Maidan, denouncing it as a ‘fascist coup’. Louis Proyect, an independent-minded Marxist blogger, made many criticisms of this absurd position that was taken by many people on the far-left. Alas, Alan Woods and his lackeys very much took the line coming out of Russia Today and other such ‘news outlets’/’alternative media’ about a Western-backed takeover in Ukraine. These people glorify the Bolshevik ‘Revolution’ of 1917, in which a mere handful of soldiers and rag-tag militias participated, an event which can legitimately be described as a coup, yet slander an event that saw hundreds of thousands come out onto the streets as a ‘fascist coup’! You can’t make it up.
Let us see just how ‘neutral’ the IMT’s position on Ukraine was. Back in 2014, the IMT published this ‘Theses on Ukraine’ which was republished on the organisation’s website a couple of weeks ago. Clearly, they stand 100% behind everything they were saying eight years ago. Here is what they say about the Maidan movement:
It was mainly composed of petty bourgeois liberal intelligentsia, lumpen elements, the ruined middle layers and was stronger in the rural regions in the West of the country. Its stated aim was the signing of an association treaty with the EU which necessarily had to come with strings attached in the form of an “austerity programme” which would mean that the working class would be made to pay for the crisis of capitalism. Finally, the opposition bourgeois liberal parties were dominant in the mobilisation and far right and neo-Nazi forces provided the shock troops.
…We cannot in any way support the deposed Yanukovich government, but the new government installed was, if possible, even more reactionary. This was a government of the pro-Western bourgeois parties, which included ministers from the far-right Svoboda party (which also got the State Prosecutor position) and invited members of the neo-Nazi Right Sector to be part of it (though they refused).
One does not expect avowed Marxists to rush to declare their support for a pro-EU movement. But to smear the whole of the movement by association, because a tiny number of far-right loons tied themselves to it, is quite something, and straight out of the far-left playbook on Ukraine. Ironically, the Ukrainian far-right are against EU accession because of their general opposition to liberal democracy. The uneasy coalition between the far-right and centrist parties collapsed very soon after 2014. The thuggery of the Svoboda party and its allies repulsed Ukrainians so much that in the 2014 legislative elections, they fell short of the 5% threshold needed to gain seats on the nationwide list in Parliament. Their reward was a measly 6 constituency seats. They withdrew from the government and in the 2019 elections, gained a mere 2% of the vote. Whereas the far-right in other countries has grown in influence, the Ukrainian far-right has collapsed, even as Russia has become more threatening. Disgusting as the Ukrainian far-right are, they did not play a dominant role in Maidan, nor have they since – their influence has atrophied, if anything. The IMT, to its credit, does mention this fact later on in the article:
The fact that in the fraudulent presidential elections a majority of the people voted for the candidate who was outside of the government coalition and appeared to be the least nationalistic and said he wanted to bring the ATO [anti-terrorist operations conducted by the government against the separatists in Eastern Ukraine] to a quick end is also significant. In that election the openly neo-Nazi Right Sector and the far right Svoboda barely got 2% of the vote between them (though Lyashko’s Radical Party which is now working closely together with the Right Sector SNUA and spent the presidential campaign dressed in black military fatigues in the ATO frontlines got over 8%).
The IMT describes Ukraine’s move towards relations with the West as a ‘provocation’ that justified Russian action:
This complete twist in the alignment of Ukraine was a clear provocation for the Russian ruling clique, which was not going to allow another former Soviet Union country to join or associate itself to NATO, particularly not one which had a key strategic naval base of the Russian Fleet in Sevastopol, and a large Russian speaking minority.
They go on to describe the ‘anti-Maidan’ movement in glowing terms:
Thus an anti-Maidan movement for national, democratic and social rights in the East and South started. There is no doubt that elements from the Party of Regions, and probably Russian agents, played a part in fomenting it for their own purposes. However, the movement had deep social roots and reflected the widespread opposition of the working class against the Kiev “acting government” which was rightly seen as a government of the oligarchs which was trampling upon their national, democratic and social rights.
For weeks there were anti-government demonstrations in Kharkov, Odessa, Luhansk, Donetsk, etc. This movement involved different elements. There was an element of Russian nationalism and Russian flags were waved at the protests. Even this should not be interpreted only from a national point of view. An opinion poll showed that the thing which attracted people in these regions to Russia was the fact that industrial workers had higher wages.
There was also an element of Soviet nostalgia, the looking back to a time where there was full employment, education and health care for all, and when the situation was not one where millions are forced to emigrate in search of a livelihood and there is an epidemic of drug addiction, alcohol abuse and despair.
Anti-fascism played an important role as well. Millions of Ukrainians were part of the Red Army in the struggle against Nazi Germany. Therefore, many were rightly repelled by the right-wing reactionary Ukrainian nationalists claiming the legacy of WWII Nazi collaborators and anti-communist fighters like Stephan Bandera, the SS Galicia division, etc.
Here too, the national question plays an important role. Stalinist purges, forced collectivisation, mass deportations, etc. ended up associating a strand of Ukrainian nationalism with rabid anti-Communism and reactionary ideas, particularly in the West of the country.
Finally, there were also reactionary pro-Russian and pro-Russian monarchist elements in the anti-Maidan movement as well. In those places where left-wing organisations were stronger, reactionary elements became weaker and left-wing ideas and symbols more dominant (like in Odessa and Kharkov).
Above all, however, the movement had deep social and economic roots in the working class in the South and the East and could not be explained as the work of Russian agents, agitators and paid mercenaries.
To their credit, they confess to the existence of reactionary sentiments among the ‘anti-Maidan’ protest movement, but seek to play them down and emphasise its ‘progressive’ aspects. Some research I’ve been doing in the last few days has proven quite the eye-opener as to just how ‘progressive’ this movement is. Anton Shekhovtsov, a Ukrainian academic, has shed quite a bit of light on this:
In March, during the post-Yanukovych Anti-Maidan demonstrations in Luhansk, anti-Semitism even played a mobilising role in inciting people to turn against the interim government in Kyiv. On one particular occasion, an activist speaking at an Anti-Maidan meeting declared: ‘Yes, a nationalist coup has taken place in the state, but we need to understand what nation is behind it. Let’s look at those who have come to power. Tymoshenko-Kapitelman, Tyahnybok-Frontman, Yatsenyuk – a Jew. This is a Zionist coup, all [go] to Kyiv!’ The crowd started to yell ‘Kikes!’ At the same time, this Anti-Maidan meeting was presented as ‘anti-fascist.’ This is hardly a paradox: the anti-semitic narrative of some elements of Anti-Maidan implies that Jews are ‘fascists’, so anti-Semitism is interpreted as anti-fascism. Numerous ‘demotivational’ posters associating the Jews with Ukrainian ultra-nationalists are flooding the web-sites of Anti-Maidan activists.
Being loyal to the territorial integrity of Ukraine and its interim government, Kolomoysky fell victim to this sinister amalgamation of anti-Semitism and hatred of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism. A few days ago, a monument to the victims of Holocaust was defaced in Dnipropetrovsk oblast, and vandals attacked Kolomoysky personally, concluding with the phrase ‘Death to Kike-Bandera’ offensively referring to Kolomoysky’s ethnic background and simultaneously linking him to Ukrainian fascist Stepan Bandera (1909-1959).
Ideological mishmash is common to Anti-Maidan movements in Southern oblasts too. For example, Anti-Maidan in Odessa in general has been – as one commentator put it – a combination of ‘worshippers of Stalin and admirers of Father the Tsar, Russian Nazis and mock Cossacks, Orthodox fanatics and elderly women, nostalgic about Leonid Brezhnev, fighters against juvenile justice, same-sex marriages and influenza vaccines.’ The openly extremist part of Odessa’s Anti-Maidan represented by such organisations as the ‘Slavic Unity’ and ‘Odessa Militia’ (Druzhina) embraces anti-Semitism. After the tragic events in Odessa a few days ago, the administrator of the ‘Odessa Militia’ Vkontakte group castigated those who did not support Anti-Maidan militants during their clashes with Maidan activists, and concluded: ‘Odessa is a hero-city! And only heroes, and not kikes and money-grubbers, deserve to live in this city!’
Anti-Semitic posters were also used in Luhansk to mobilise people against the interim government. One poster featured a picture of Kyiv-based TV host Savik Shuster and said that ‘Jew Shuster would explain why Ukrainians must defend the interests of Jew Yatsenyuk and Jewish oligarchs.’
It doesn’t get much better. Based on some rudimentary reading I did on Wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt), I found yet more evidence of the far-right nature of at least certain elements within the anti-Maidan movement, if not most of them. The anti-Maidan rallies were much smaller than the pro-Maidan ones, with evidence that many people were bribed to attend. Here are some choice quotes from the page in question:
According to the Kyiv Post, demonstrators held anti-EU and homophobic banners.[4]
…Prime Minister Mykola Azarov spoke at the rally and told attendants that Ukraine did not decline its goal of integrating to the EU: “We’re allegedly betray Ukraine and sign [the agreement on joining] the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. I strongly deny these speculations”.[47] He referred to statements that Ukrainian authorities where planning to join this Customs Union as “profiteering“.[47] Azarov also urged, “Don’t divide Ukraine, don’t build barricades”.[48] Azarov also said the EU had insisted on ‘unacceptable conditions’ sign the AA, including the introduction of gay marriage and laws protecting sexual minorities. “The opposition leaders are telling fables when they say that we only have to sign the [association] agreement [with the EU] to start traveling to Europe visa-free the next day. Nothing of the sort. We have yet to comply with a whole set of preconditions: we have to legalise same-sex marriages, we have to adopt legislation on equality of sexual minorities, and so on. Is our society ready for this?” Azarov said.[49] Azarov has subsequently decamped to Vienna, where he maintains a palatial home.
On 25 November in Sevastopol the Russian Bloc and the Communist Party of Ukraine organised an “antimaidan”.[62] The meeting was conducted in support of joining the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia.[62] Previous rallies by the Russian Bloc in the weeks prior included EU flag burning and anti-government, and anti-Ukrainian rhetoric,[63][nb 1] On 26 November, another antimaidan protest was organised in Donetsk, attracting only 30 student protesters. Organisers stated that the European Union had ruined the economies of new members, and that joining would bring corruption and gay marriage.[65] The protest was counter to the pro-EU EuroMaidan protest 200 meters away, which attracted no more than 50 protesters. The next day, a small antimaidan rally was held by the Russian Bloc and Communists in Mykolaiv.[66] At a 25 November rally in Luhansk, protesters were met with resistance from a group of Don Cossacks, who were against EU membership and referred to pro-EU protesters as fascists.[67]
A 1 December Communist rally in Donetsk gathered about 200 mostly elderly supporters who chanted: “The union of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus is inevitable”.[68] The following day, Communist Party of Ukraine MP Antonina Khromova made statements at the Donetsk regional council, approving the use of force to remove protesters in Kyiv, which was met with applause. She continued by saying that Ukraine does not need European values, namely, “same-sex marriage” and “African panhandlers”.[69]
Remember how the IMT article told us that the ‘reactionary’ elements in the anti-Maidan coalition were weaker in Odessa, and ‘left-wing’ slogans predominated? It turns out it’s close to impossible to meaningfully distinguish the two, since Communist Party MPs like Khromova were only too happy to speak at anti-Maidan rallies at which they spouted the most disgusting reactionary trash about gay people and claimed that the EU was going to force gay marriage and racial diversity upon their beleaguered country. I have not read of any far-left, anti-Maidan Ukrainian politician condemning this sort of rhetoric. The Ukrainian Communist Party, like its counterpart in Russia, has a bizarre mixture of far-left and far-right views, and is led by ageing Stalinists and supported by the more elderly, more backward and more nostalgic elements of the population. They are the people who look back with fondness at the USSR. They are also viciously xenophobic and bigoted on issues like LGBT rights. Yet these people are regarded by the IMT as the ‘vanguard’ of a heroic working-class movement against the evil fascist putschists in Kiev. Just imagine that you are a young, middle-class professional living in Ukraine, who happens to be LGBT, and who supported Maidan. You are being denounced by this organisation as ‘fascist’ for wanting a free country which has close ties with other European democracies and where racial and sexual minorities enjoy the same rights as others, whilst people who don’t want you to exist are praised as noble revolutionaries, when in fact they are gargoyles seeking to hold back progress. I’m not saying that the Maidan was primarily a great struggle for gay rights – indeed, LGBT people complain of discrimination in Ukraine even after the revolution. But the idea that the Stalino-fascist, religious fundamentalist, USSR-worshipping pensioners in the East were some vanguard of heroic class struggle is hilarious. No doubt there were genuine social grievances mixed in with a lot of bigotry. However, the IMT prefers to play down the reactionary aspects of this movement for the benefit of its followers and justify giving it ‘critical support’, since, after all, it has a ‘seed’ of progressive potential.
After all the propaganda about how all the fascism and anti-Semitism is on the pro-Maidan side, we have here clear evidence that there was plenty of fascism on the other side as well. If anything, the fascists on their side are worse (and more numerous, and more powerful) than the fascists supporting Maidan. These are the people the IMT chose to support, and whom Alan Woods and his disciples chose to stand in solidarity with in 2014. Woods went as far as to criticise Putin for not intervening enough!
In fairness, they do acknowledge the reactionary leadership of the breakaway republics supported by Russia:
The tasks of Marxists in this complicated situation are clear. First of all we stand against the Kiev government, a reactionary government, including far right elements, which is relying on fascist thugs in the state apparatus and wages an assault on democratic rights, and we stand in solidarity with those labour movement and left forces fighting against it and which are suffering all kinds of repression, pogroms, murders, the ATO attacks and other savagery. This does not mean that we are obliged to give any support to the reactionary, Russian nationalist and confused elements which happen to be in the leadership of the Donbas republics. On the contrary, it is our duty to point out that only a class based internationalist policy, firmly based on the expropriation of the oligarchs could guarantee their victory against Kiev.
Of course, we should not be fooled by this perfunctory criticism of ‘reactionary, Russian nationalist and confused elements’, which is far less harsh than its criticism of the Kiev government that happens to be supported by the West. An irony in that article is that whilst it acknowledges the ascendancy of ‘reactionary’ forces in Eastern Ukraine, backed up by Russia, it also acknowledges the collapse of the far-right vote. However, it does not draw the logical conclusion from this – that far-right nationalism is not as influential among the Maidan coalition as it believed, whilst far-right nationalism is an integral part of the Russian separatist movement. By giving a left cover to these people, the IMT is defending something which I would call Great Russian social-chauvinism.
Even now, the IMT continues with its lies and slanders about all Ukrainians being fascists. Jorge Martin’s latest slander on Twitter is that the war-cry ‘Glory to Ukraine – to the heroes glory!’ being used by Ukrainians to motivate themselves in battle is a fascist slogan invented by Bandera. This is only half-true. It has its origins in the pre-Bandera Ukrainian nationalist movement, and Bandera’s movement merely adapted it by adding a response to the original ‘Glory to Ukraine’ battle-cry. Over the decades it has lost any associations it might have had with the far-right and become a general slogan used by Ukrainian patriots on all sides of the political spectrum, but Martin would have you believe that every Ukrainian soldier or civilian that utters this slogan is a Nazi, which would make every Ukrainian a fascist and worthy of death at the hands of Russian forces. This is a funny sort of ‘neutrality’ which is exclusively pro-Russian and promotes pro-Russian propaganda liberally on social media. I can tell you that at our national events, we would regularly break out into strains of ‘Bella Ciao’ and ‘Bandiera Rossa’, beloved of the Italian Stalinists. I guess the IMT should stop singing songs associated with bloodthirsty murderers and apologists for the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR. I was at a pro-Ukraine protest last Sunday at which I joined in heartily with the chants of ‘Slava Ukraini – Heroiam Slava!’. I guess the IMT can add me to the list of fascists and Nazis to be expunged from the planet.
The official IMT statement, published yesterday, begins by attacking Western hypocrisy over the Ukraine crisis. It’s clear that the main aim of the article is to attack ‘Western imperialism’, not to show solidarity with the people of Ukraine. They accuse the imperialists of using them as ‘pawns’, yet they themselves see the Ukrainians as pawns in their demented ‘class struggle’ against capitalism. In other words, they are projecting onto Western countries their own dehumanising political project. In another mask-off moment, of many over the past eight years in its Ukraine coverage, the IMT openly justifies the Russian invasion by claiming that the Ukrainians provoked it!
A fatal role was played by the heightened provocations coming from the Zelensky government. After the 2014 overthrow of Yanukovitch, the Ukrainian government had been pushing the questions of NATO and EU membership. This was then enshrined in the Constitution in 2020. Zelensky, the comedian-turned-president, had been elected in 2019 on the strength of being an outsider, someone who was going to clean up politics, deal with the oligarchs and at the same time make peace with Russia.
However, under pressure from the far right, and egged on by Washington, he pursued the opposite policies.
The issue of NATO membership was again placed high on the agenda and was being forcefully pushed. Russia rightly sees this as a threat. One could say that this is not so, and that other countries that share a border with Russia are already part of NATO. But this misses the point entirely. The present situation is precisely the result of decades of western imperialism pushing to encircle Russia, which is now pushing back.
Utterly disgusting, abysmal slander of an innocent country from these so-called internationalists and revolutionary socialists. Their first reaction to an imperialist invasion of a colonial country is to denounce that country’s government for provoking the invasion! I thought Marxists are always meant to show solidarity with an oppressed nation attacking by a stronger power. Not so in this case. Instead, the Ukrainians are told that they have brought it upon themselves, just like a wife-beating degenerate of a husband tells his battered wife that she made him abuse her. Sick, evil, repulsive – and perfectly compatible with their brand of revolutionary socialism. Even on the basis of their own doctrine, their position is the height of idiocy. I don’t think even Lenin and Trotsky would have agreed with their position. Note how they also make a Jewish President seem like the pawn of ‘far-right’ elements. Sick anti-Semitism.
They repeat bullshit about ‘NATO encirclement’. They haven’t gotten it into their head that NATO is a defensive alliance, one which Russia’s neighbours want to join precisely because Russia has a history of invading, bullying and threatening them. Moreover, this ‘encirclement’ only comprises 6% of Russia’s land borders. Some encirclement! They imagine that this is the 1930s all over again, with the USSR surrounded by hostile powers. They are repeating garbage straight from Putin’s mouthpieces at Russia Today.
Just a few weeks ago, the IMT was denying that there would be any Russian invasion at all, dismissing it as imperialist propaganda. Now Russia is in fact invading, but they justify it anyway. They claim that his invasion was the inevitable response to being denied his rightful demands by the perfidious West:
Things have their own dynamic. When Putin did not get the anticipated concessions, he was left with no alternative but to act. The time for playing games was over.
What was the reason for the stubborn refusal of US imperialism to make any concessions? They could not be seen as giving in to threats. That would have further undermined the authority of US imperialism on a world scale. But the same was true from Putin’s point of view.
The obstinate refusal of the West to even consider Russia’s demands placed him in a position of either acting on his threats or having to climb down. That determined the subsequent course of events.
Why the West should have agreed to hand over the sovereignty of a fellow liberal democracy to Putin and his fascist thugs in the Kremlin is unclear. After several paragraphs analysing the role of ‘Russian imperialism’, we are given the following prescription for the crisis:
The task of fighting against the reactionary gang in the Kremlin is the task of the Russian workers alone. The task of revolutionaries in the West is to fight against their own bourgeoisie, against NATO, and against American imperialism – the most counterrevolutionary force on the planet.
We cannot support either side in this war, because it is a reactionary war on both sides. In the final analysis, it is a conflict between two groups of imperialists. We do not support either of them. The people of poor, bleeding Ukraine are the victims in this conflict, which they did not create and do not desire.
The only alternative to the carnival of reaction and the suffering of war for the Ukrainian workers and youth is a policy of class unity against the Ukrainian oligarchs, as well as against US and Russian imperialism. The national question in Ukraine is extremely complicated and any attempt to rule the country on the basis of nationalism (be that Ukrainian or pro-Russian), will inevitably result in the breakup of the country, ethnic cleansing and civil war, as we have already seen.
So it’s clear. Even when Russian imperialism invades a faraway nation, bombs its cities, kills its civilians and threatens to subjugate its people, Western imperialism is always the main enemy. Both sides are ‘reactionary’, including the Ukrainian workers who are heroically fighting to be free from Russian domination. The solution is for the Ukrainian workers to launch a revolution against their own government, in the middle of a warzone, and this will bring peace somehow. There is no expression of revolutionary solidarity with the oppressed and starving Ukrainian masses. There is no word about the proletarian solidarity the Ukrainians have received around the world, such that people are even going over to the country to fight on the Ukrainian side. Ukrainian workers and youth are busy fighting for their lives, but they are told that they need to follow the IMT’s prescriptions and read all the articles on their website about Ukraine in order to find out how to save their country.
Ultimately, capitalism, in its epoch of senile decline, means war and economic crisis. The only way to put an end to its horrors is through the working class taking power, in one country after another, and sweeping away this rotten system. For that, a revolutionary leadership is needed – one which is firmly based on the principles of socialist internationalism. The most urgent task of the day is therefore, the patient work of building the forces of Marxism, of building the International Marxist Tendency.
So much for ‘neutrality’. That article regurgitated pro-Russian propaganda from start to finish. Even when critiquing Russian imperialism, it was clear who the main target was. The most appalling bit in the article is when they claim that it is a ‘reactionary war on both sides’. As if there is a ‘both sides’ when a liberal democracy which has been historically oppressed by its bigger, imperialist neighbour is invaded by it and its people are subjected to bombardment and slaughter.
In a recent article that he wrote on the topic, Alan Woods gloats in the face of the West’s actions to aid Ukraine, and pushes yet more pro-Russia talking points. He denies the efficacy of sanctions:
The much-vaunted sanctions will fail, firstly because sanctions have never succeeded in the past and Putin has already introduced a series of measures specifically designed to reduce Russia’s dependence on trade and financial transactions with the West. In any case, the effects of economic sanctions will take time to work – months, if not years – by which time the Ukrainian conflict will have been long settled.
Unfortunately for Woods, the sanctions Russia is facing now are unprecedented. His friends in the Kremlin will be seriously affected, despite the measures Putin has taken to try to shield Russia from future sanctions. At least half of Russia’s war chest of reserves will no longer be available to it, frozen in foreign banks. Already the Russian economy is in free-fall, as Russia is poised to join its autarchic neighbour North Korea in becoming a totalitarian basket-case.
Let us look at Woods’ overview of the war effort. Does this sound like a man who is eager for a Russian defeat, or of someone who, in his heart of hearts, feels a strange sense of joy at Putin’s triumphal procession through Ukrainian towns and villages?
The imperialist propaganda machine insists that Putin has failed in his objective, and that the Russian army’s advance has been halted by the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian army. Given the lack of any firm information, it is difficult to verify the facts. But such statements cannot be taken at face value.
The first fact to note is that only a minority of the 190,000 troops that were stationed on the borders of Ukraine have so far been deployed. The relatively slow pace can be explained by the need to bring up supplies of fuel, ammunition, food etc., and to prevent the supply lines with Russia being stretched to a dangerous level. Ukraine, after all, is a very big country.
It should also be noted that, at each stage when the army has halted, Putin has offered to negotiate. This appears to have been a deliberate strategy. He was clearly hoping that the fact of an invasion would be sufficient to force the Ukrainians to the negotiating table, where his demands could be addressed. There were certain indications that this strategy was, in fact, succeeding.
On Friday night, there were clear indications that Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky was prepared to negotiate. He was clearly in a state of panic. However, the combined pressure of the extreme right-wing elements, and of NATO and the Americans, were sufficient to make him change mind. He subsequently adopted a defiant attitude. That meant that the war would continue.
It is, of course, entirely possible that the Russian army has suffered some reverses, that at least part of the Ukrainian army has recovered from the initial shock and rallied to the extent that it is putting up a more-effective resistance.
That is perfectly probable. The equation of war is extremely complicated, defeats can be swiftly followed by further advances, and vice versa. But it is not sufficient to quote individual instances as proof that the overall campaign is moving in one direction or another. Ultimately, it is the balance of forces that will determine the outcome. And that is overwhelmingly in favour of Russia.
Far from retreating, everything points to the Russian army advancing uninterruptedly by stages, capturing one key point after another. Russian forces are surrounding the capital Kiev from different sides and have also surrounded the second city, Kharkiv. They are advancing from Crimea to the North and North-west, reaching Mykolaiv, and also towards the North-east, along the coast of the Azov Sea, where they have taken over Melitopol and Berdiansk, and have nearly managed to close off the key city of Mariupol, thus linking up with the forces coming south from Donetsk.
Yet at the same time, the Russians are still pressing for negotiations. That was clearly part of a plan. It was no accident that the Ukrainians rejected the offer of a meeting in Minsk, protesting that Belarus is an ally of Russia and is assisting in the invasion. Subsequently, both Israel and Azerbaijan have offered their services, which Putin was quick to accept. Sooner or later, the negotiations must start. The question is, can they succeed?
The real reason for Zelensky’s reluctance to go to the negotiating table is obvious. Given the situation on the ground, any negotiations would place the Ukrainian government at an extreme disadvantage. The first question which must be asked is: what has Zelensky got to negotiate with? He will be like a gambler who sits down at the table with no cards to play. From that point of view, negotiations will very much resemble a prelude to capitulation. However, egged on by Washington and Berlin, Zelensky seems in no mood to capitulate.
The result of the negotiations will therefore be complete failure. The issue will be decided – as was clear from the outset – not by negotiations, but on the field of battle. And there, Ukrainians will find themselves hopelessly outgunned. A few shipments of arms from Berlin will make very little difference.
It seems to me that Woods is rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of Russian conquest. He ignores all the evidence of heroic resistance from ordinary Ukrainians, who are blockading roads, trying to push back Russian tanks with their bare hands, and signing up to join the army in droves. Even in Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine, the Russians, to their dismay, are not being greeted as liberators. Their offensive is proceeding much slower than they thought. Even if they manage to occupy all of the major Ukrainian cities thanks to their overwhelming use of firepower and massacring of civilians, they will never be able to hold the country, a seething cauldron of 40 million souls who have come to loathe their murderous neighbour more than ever before. There will be an insurgency to rival that seen in Iraq or Northern Ireland. Thousands of Russians have already died and will continue to be killed over the weeks, months and years to come. The country will be totally ruined, but Putin will never conquer the Ukrainian people. Meanwhile, the rest of the free world will continue to pour arms into Ukraine to support the heroic resistance to Russian imperialism, and Russia, sanctioned and isolated, will find it harder and harder to sustain the war. It will have trouble getting parts to upgrade its equipment. It will have trouble paying its soldiers, who are already demoralised as it is, many of them confessing to their Ukrainian captors that they had no idea they were being sent into Ukraine. Some are even walking back to Russia on foot. Woods ignores all of this, because he wants to paint a picture of Ukrainians being unwilling to fight for their country. Despite attempts to portray Putin’s actions as somehow being rational, it is not clear what Russian capitalism has to gain from all this carnage and economic devastation. For what? To satsify Putin’s desire to become a new Tsar?
As if this article is not depraved enough, Woods goes on to blame the Ukrainians for upsetting the Russian population so much that they feel they have no choice but to support Putin!
It is difficult to assess the psychology of the Russian masses at this moment. But the overwhelming majority of Russian people must detest the idea of fighting against their brothers and sisters in Ukraine, which has always occupied a special place in their hearts. They understand that NATO and US imperialism are their enemies and would be prepared to fight them. But they do not see the people of the Ukraine in the same way, and that is a correct and healthy instinct.
If they accept Putin’s war (and many do not) it is reluctantly, because of the despicable conduct of the Kiev government, its collaboration with reactionary fascists and followers of wartime Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, their oppression of the Russian speaking people in Donbas, and other corrupt and oppressive acts. And behind the Kiev government, they see the bloody hand of imperialism.
Woods leaves unmentioned the role of Putin’s own fascist tendencies, and the fascist militias like the Wagner Group that fight alongside his forces in Eastern Ukraine. Apparently, all the fascism is on one side – Ukraine’s. This is the language used by Russian state television to demonise and dehumanise the Ukrainian people by smearing them all as Nazis. Woods repeats it unthinkingly. The names Aleksandr Dugin and Ivan Ilyin don’t ring a bell to these people. They are the names of Russian fascist thinkers that have influenced Putin’s worldview and encouraged him in this war of imperial reconquest. Despite endless proclamations of ‘neutrality’, the IMT makes sure to place most of the blame on one side, whilst slandering the victims of imperialist aggression as ‘fascist’! Of course, the real reason most Russians probably support Putin and his narrative is the steady stream of propaganda from state television and other sources (obediently parroted by the useful idiots of the IMT) about how this is an operation to liberate Ukraine from ‘fascists’. The ageing cohort of chauvinists that make up the bulk of those who vote for Putin’s United Russia and the controlled opposition, the Communist Party, are largely in thrall to Kremlin propaganda, and the spell is unlikely to be broken any time soon. What will an appeal from the Ukrainian working-class do to touch the hearts of a population that has been so brainwashed? Probably not much, at least not at this early stage. Instead of this pie-in-the-sky nonsense, Woods and the IMT should be encouraging proletarian resistance to imperialist aggression from the Ukrainian people, and calling upon the workers of the world to send them arms, ammunition, money and aid of other kinds. Instead, they reduce themselves to the ridiculous position of denouncing both sides as enemies of the working-class and launch their abstract appeals for revolution and for the building of an IMT section in Ukraine, which no one bothers to listen to.
Woods’ nauseating apologia for Great-Russian national chauvinism is enough to make me sick. Still, it’s good to have these mask-off moments so we know what we are dealing with – an organisation which is happy spouting pro-Russian talking points whilst pretending that they are ‘neutral’!