VATAN POSTASI
Yaşamımızı Savunmak Üzere,Duygu,Düşünce ve Davranış Birliğini Gerçekleştirmek İçin Varız.

Imperialism – in Ukraine Particular

On the attitude of Marxist Leninists to Russian Invasion

 “In our time the legitimacy and justice of wars can be approached only from the standpoint of the proletariat and its liberation struggle…Marxists-Leninists adopt a concrete attitude to every war, depending on the class aims pursued by the belligerents. The champions of the pacifist ideology hold that the preaching of peace alone leads to an abolition of wars without struggle. Therefore, the pacifist ideology is not dangerous to the militarists, it can be used by the reactionary classes to blunt the vigilance of the masses.” Fyodorov

Originally this study and article started before the Russian invasion and was focused on the definition of imperialism, and on the difference in attitudes toward each, on each given situation with examples from WW1 and WW2 and quotes from Lenin and Stalin. With the current development, rather than filling the article with data and history that has no significant value other than a strive to “convince” with “appearance” in determining Marxist Leninist stand on the issue, I decided to shorten it as much as possible and focus on the core of the issues to determine Marxist Leninist stand on this specific. Article is a final product of long “brain storming” and discussions among a group of Marxist Leninists from various parts of the world.

**

It is quite expected from a professional journalist trying to be hasty in publishing a commentary on a current event. That is his livelihood. However, even a good journalist does research on the subject, on its history and development before completing his/her commentary. The less the time spent for the statement the more general it becomes and the more “balanced” it becomes in a way that blurs the difference between the guilty and innocent, just and unjust and tendency to be “politically correct” in the commentary will be. In case of Marxist Leninist writers, analyzers for ML newspapers, for statements etc., it falls into Lenin’s assessment of “A Fool’s Haste Is No Speed.” Hastiness results in being very general on the issue, not in specific. That brings about confusion and promotes sloganization of theories disregarding the specific issue and the realities of the issue. Marxist Leninists are not afraid of telling the truth, contrary, it is their duty and responsibility to tell the truth as it is without any tendency to be “balanced” and “politically correct” in bourgeois meaning. Doing otherwise will be the worst kind of liberalism, not Marxism Leninism.

Due to “hastiness” on one side and its inevitable results, and “prescriptive” approach on the other, what is missing in typical articles and statements related to “imperialism and Ukraine particular” is the Marxist Leninist principle for the approach to any event based on concrete facts, not based on the sloganized general principles of theories. What is correct in “general” may not be correct “in particular. That’s why Lenin always cautioned us not to act upon the principles of general theories but to keep one foot always on the realities of that specific condition and situation.

Based on the general principles of theory most articles are correct but almost all forget Lenin’s warnings.

We should not analyze a situation based on learned by rote general principles of theories, but we should analyze based on the concrete factual situation with the interests of the working class and of their struggle in mind.  It is not dialectical but mechanical to put all the imperialists in the same basket in every situation and every condition. In one case the chief enemy, the aggressor could be little imperialist Turkey, in another (actually in most cases) it could be US-GB-Israel axis, in another it could be China, or Russia, so on so forth. Each individual case should be studied objectively and determine the chief enemy at that given case. Let’s remember Lenin’s approach to WW1 and warning of not to do anything that will benefit the aggressor imperialist(s), and Stalin’s approach to WW2.

It is the responsibility of MLs to determine the warmongering aggressor, the chief imperialist enemy at any given situation in any given country. Stating the fact of “aggressiveness” does not relieve the other of being imperialist, does not mean taking a side with the other “imperialism”. This fear of being labeled as such has been forcing the ML analyzers and commentators to be more general and to put all in the same basket at any given specific.  Repeating sloganized general theories for every particular, is a betrayal to ML and to dialectics of Marxism.

Analyzing a concrete situation just to be “politically correct”, or to have a “balanced approach” is the worst kind of liberalism. Because any analysis to find out what is going on and who are the main belligerents involved have multiple points to proceed from but determination of our attitude for a specific case in a specific time without any exception, always have one fundamental point of proceeding: the interests of working class and of their struggles.

I will not go into the “definition” of imperialism which is being quoted so many times but as a “prescription” to all specific events without any distinction. In this given case, no one is disputing the fact that Russia is an imperialist country by definition. But does that explain everything and give us the full picture and data in order to determine our stand for that specific case with the interests of laboring people and of their struggle in mind, not only in Ukraine particular but in world general?  No it does not. Determining the “imperialists” by definition literally means nothing without the determination of chief enemy at that given situation for both in Ukraine particular and in world general. As in most cases, in this specific case, Marxist Leninists have to answer the questions of where the interest of the laboring people lies in Ukraine, In Donbass specific, and in world general. To do that we have to study the history of that given country, the history of belligerent imperialist countries, existing political system, and its dominant class nature of the country in which the imperialist countries playing war-game. We have to study objectively to determine which imperialist block is forcing war upon other(s). Although we do not determine the type of wars based on its possible outcome but its class essence and aims in that specific, the “outcome” in this specific is crucially important for the interests of laboring masses and of their interests both in Ukraine particular world general. That is why it has to be studied and considered in all analyses.

Let’s study the concrete situation mainly in these aspects in particular; 1) Neo Nazi political power and Neo Nazi militias including in the army and police in Ukraine, 2) Security and safety issues in Donetsk and Lugansk regions against the Nazi attacks that have never stopped and will never stop until the Nazi regime is destroyed.  And connected dialectically, the fundamental issues in general related to Ukraine; 1) Alignment of Ukraine with NATO – and installation of US military means and personal on the border of Russia, 2) Following Ukraine, alignment of other border countries with NATO- and installation of US military means and personal on the borders of Russia. Determination of stand of Marxist Leninists on the current issue, depends on the analysis of these issues in connection with the escalation, de-escalation of possibility of world war, the determination of where the interests of laboring peoples and of their struggle lie, and based on that what the attitude should be. Not based on learned by rote general principles of theories but based on the assessment of concrete situation with the fundamental interests in mind.

Ukraine Particular

Almost all the assessments overlook the fact that Ukraine has a Nazi-loving political power with Nazis in all institutions, Military, Police and has a Nazi militia. Her readiness to be a vassal for US-NATO warmongering aggressive imperialism is another aspect with which we deal later. That is why, the cry for “Peaceful Solution” in Ukraine in the face of Russian invasion is a reflection of liberal utopia that a peaceful solution can be reached with fascism especially with that of Nazi form- with or without the Russian invasion.  There is none and cannot be one “peaceful solution” with any Nazi political power. There is no example of that in history, there will not be one (at least for the Marxist Leninist point of view).

Unfortunately, though, almost all the assessment of the situation in Ukraine and abstract sloganization proceed from the assumption or deception that “Ukraine was a peaceful country” before the Russian imperialist invasion. The fact of the matter is that the war was going on in Ukraine for years and especially for the last 8 years in a bloody, ruthless form where the anti-fascists have been massacred, burned to death in mass. It was a civil war between the Nazis and anti-Fascists which changed its form after the anti-fascists established their autonomous regions. That did not stop the Nazis shelling, killing, massacring the anti-fascists.

Trying to portray as if there was a “peaceful situation” in Ukraine before the invasion and calling for “peaceful solution” is a deception on one side, and self-deception on the other. It is an illusion of liberals and those with liberal tendencies who believe there can be a “peaceful solution” to Ukraine’s problem, as they believe there can be with fascism. Any “peaceful solution” can be spoken only after the destruction of Nazi government and Nazi militia.

The interests of laboring masses and of their struggle is directly and vitally bound with the destruction of Nazi regime in Ukraine.

Donbass

Similarly, the interests of laboring masses and of their struggle in Donbass region is tied to the destruction of Nazi regime and annihilation of its militia. Without that result, there cannot be a peaceful solution not only in Donbass and in Ukraine, but in Europe and all the way to China and beyond.

Imperialism and war

War in Nazi-Ukraine backed by the warmongering aggressive imperialist US-NATO and invasion attempt by Russian imperialism is not a typical war defined and assessed by readymade prescriptions for all. As Lenin says it against the “prescription” assessments; “Wars are a supremely varied, diverse, complex thing. One cannot approach them with a general pattern“, there must be a concrete analysis of every war. (Lenin to Inessa Armand)

Fyodorov foresees and says, “the imperialists resort ever more frequently to local wars, which are limited as regards territory and the means of armed struggle applied. ” And he recalls and says that Lenin’s evaluation of “little” imperialist wars as “still relevant today.

This assessment of Lenin helps to understand their (little imperialist wars’) essence and the danger they constitute to social progress. A little imperialist war may grow into a world war which is not limited as regards its scale and the technical means of warfare involved. The “escalation” strategy—the intensification of aggressive military actions in a local war—which is an official doctrine of the US ruling circles, inevitably leads to an extension of military conflicts and aggravates the danger of a world war.”

No Marxist Leninists can claim that a world war is in the interests of laboring masses. The situation before the invasion and now should be studied with that interest in mind. What falls as a responsibility to the Marxist Leninists is to study and figure out in which case it would be playing a world war escalating factor or de-escalating factor.

Fyodorov states eloquently that, “the interests of the proletariat’s revolutionary movement and its struggle against capitalism have become the main criteria of all international events, including wars. In our time the legitimacy and justice of wars can be approached ONLY from the standpoint of the proletariat and its liberation struggle.”

US-NATO

It is no secret for Marxist Leninists that US-NATO is the main driving force for warmongering and military aggression. That is why it plays the “escalating” role for WW3, not only in one specific but all over the world with more military personal and bases abroad than it has in US.

In the case of Ukraine, it is very clear and indisputable fact that Ukraine’s alignment with NATO without any resistance from Russia not only would have encouraged US-NATO, but other Russian borders countries to align with neo-Nazi NATO.  Let’s not forget, it is not Russia who set up fascist state and training Nazi militias in Mexico or Canada at the border of US.  It is the US at the longest border of Russia on West.  It was not Russia in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and is not in Africa or even in Asia forcing the war upon the others. But it was the US-NATO. An alliance of NATO and the presence of US-NATO military bases and personal on all the borders of Russia could only play the role of Escalation, not de-escalation. At the current phase, one cannot think and consider of Russia without considering China, for her safety interests and military power is interlinked to that of Russia.  And that means the involvement of China- regardless of the provocations going on over Taiwan and South and East China Sea. And that in return means the “escalation”.

It is undisputable fact that Presence of NATO in Ukraine will play an escalating role for the world war. And thus, any attempt (regardless of the imperialist intentions) to prevent that aligns with the interests of laboring people and of their struggle in both- particular and in general.

On the face of German imperialist aggression, Izvestia on its March 18, 1938, article was calling other Imperialist Powers to take practical measures aiming at stopping further aggression and eliminating the increased danger of a new world butchery.”

On the Attitude

For a Marxist, clarifying the nature of the war is a necessary preliminary for deciding the question of his attitude to it. But for such a clarification it is essential, first and foremost, to establish the objective conditions and concrete circumstances of the war in question. It is necessary to consider the war in the historical environment in which it is taking place, only then can one determine one’s attitude to it. Otherwise, the resulting interpretation will be not materialist but eclectic.

Depending on the historical circumstances, the relationship of classes, etc., the attitude to war must be different at different times. (Lenin, Lecture on the Proletariat, and the War”)

Being in the defensive position in the competition and conflict between the imperialists, undeniable fact is that Russia did not and cannot have any prior intention for a war or escalating a war. The war has been “forced upon” Russian imperialists through war mongering, militarily aggressive imperialist US-NATO.

Here comes Lenin’s little wars assessment again, which states that little wars can easily open the door for larger wars. In this type of wars “quality” of the warring factions -small or large- as far as progressive or reactionary can easily change depending on the “side” each group takes in changing conditions. (Such as in Syrian example).  Lenin was clear on the attitude towards militarily aggressive imperialist(s) – “Socialist never do anything that will benefit the aggressive imperialists- or facilitate their aggressiveness.”, so was Stalin during the 2nd WW. And on top Stalin’s answer to Indian CP was very clear in ML attitude in a given situation- analyze the existing condition, determine the chief enemy.

The current chief enemy of the people of the world is neo-Nazi US-GB-Israel imperialist block. Its’ declining economically and politically is increasing its military aggressiveness and escalating a world war with the Russian-Chinese imperialist block. With the dialectic connection and critique of other imperialist powers in the face of German aggressive imperialism let’s look at the assessments.

In his report to the Eighteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1939, J. V. Stalin, analyzing the reasons for the growth of Hitlerite aggression, said:

 “The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly England and France, have rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to the aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position of neutrality.” J. V. Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU (B).

On the face of this aggression and provocation that feeds and strengthens a Nazi system in particular and Neo-Nazi US-NATO block in general, for Russia to be “neutral” was impossible for its own interests. Stalin, referring to the British and French imperialists was saying;

  “The policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving free rein to war, and consequently transforming the war into world war. The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work.” Stalin, Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU (B), Stenographic Report, 1939

Let’s not forget that Germany had 65 million population with military restrictions on them. I am not sure at the moment, but I believe it was limited to around 100 thousand military personnel and ban on the military industry. Yet with Nazis climbing the power restrictions were removed and with the help of other imperialist countries finance capital it was turned into a military might against the Soviet Russia with the aim of destroying it. Only when they witnessed that the Soviets were capable of beating Germany, thus, to stop Soviets they have participated in the anti-fascist alliance. Their imperialist nature and aims have not changed, but the economic, political, and social factors played the determining role in that given war having a “progressive” political content. At the same time, they have proven their imperialist nature by preventing completely eradicating fascism and impeded the development of the liberation movement of the peoples in the occupied small countries.

In this connection let’s remember Lenin’s assessment of wars and think over it, based on which Fyodor states:

“It is important to bear in mind that progressive wars waged by the pre-monopoly bourgeoisie have always exhibited also aggressive unjust tendencies; sometimes these became so important that they changed the social character of the war, transformed it from a war of liberation into an aggressive war. Even today the capitalist countries may in definite conditions conduct progressive wars, but the imperialist tendencies of bourgeois policies always assert themselves.

Relying on the “definition” of imperialism and claiming that they are all the same with the same expected results in each and every situation and condition is a betrayal to the soul of Marxism Leninism and to its dialectics. It is quite easy to base memorized “prescriptions” for the assessments without offering any alternatives and throwing abstract slogans. However, that cannot help the interests of laboring masses and of their struggle. One always has to study and determine where the interests of laboring people lie.

For Marxist Leninists, every assessment and stand should have the interests of laboring masses and of their struggle in mind and should derive from those interests.  Everything else, all the memorized slogans are secondary and dialectically connected to that.

Most assessments and stands available are based on abstract slogans and a general stand against imperialism. Looks like none has done a study to determine what the key issues in Ukraine particular and in world general. It is a habit of “left child disease” either isolating the issues in the particular from the general or isolating the general from the given particular. That is why none of them can see -even don’t strive to see- and offer a solution other than throwing memorized abstract slogans.

As Lenin puts it “The itch is a painful disease. And when people are seized by the itch of revolutionary phrase-making the mere sight of this disease causes intolerable suffering.”

It is important to quote Fyodorov here for the resemblance of “aggressor” accusations of today;

The British and French ruling circles, which went on abusing the USSR and calling it an aggressor for creating an “Eastern” front, evidently did not realize that the appearance of an “Eastern” front signified a radical turn in the development of the war – a turn against Hitlerite tyranny, a turn in favor of a victory for democracy.

Was the United States Government right when it landed its troops at Casablanca in spite of the protests of the Moroccans and of direct military counteraction on the part of the Petain Government of France whose authority extended to Morocco? Unquestionably it was right.

The question is not if Russia is imperialist or not. The question is if the action is and outcome will be for the interests of Ukrainian, Donbass region laboring masses and of their struggle or not.

On a comparable situation, Russia-Georgia war, Garbis Altinoglu had summarized the attitude of Marxist Leninist as following;

The revolutionary vanguard of the working class and consistent democrats and internationalists cannot in principle take sides in this inter-imperialist conflict for spheres of influence, raw materials, markets and military-political supremacy. They know that war is inherent in capitalism and imperialism, and that real and lasting peace can only be achieved by the world-wide victory of proletarian revolutions and the overthrow of the capitalist-imperialist system.

And they know that the crisis in the Caucasus can only be resolved with the progress and victory of a struggle to be waged under the leadership of the revolutionary parties of the working class and under the banner of proletarian internationalism.

On the other hand, they (Marxist Leninists) say that the USA and NATO, or to put it more clearly, the neo-fascist axis of the USA-Israel-Britain constitute the most aggressive bloc and that this bloc, which is the main enemy of the working class and peoples of the world, is the main instigator and executive of the wars of aggression. And therefore, they (Marxist Leninists) can never ignore the fact that it is the main task of the working class and the peoples to weaken, isolate and neutralize this axis.

Despite the reactionary and imperialist nature of their regimes, Russia and China are already on the defensive, and their attempts and counterattacks against the efforts of the US-NATO axis to encircle, regress and isolate them serve to preserve the current peace in today’s tactical phase and makes the outbreak of a new world war – in which nuclear weapons will also be used- difficult.

Therefore, the revolutionary vanguard of the working class and consistent democrats and internationalists, while condemning their imperialist and expansionist policies, they welcome Russia’s repelling of the attack by the US-Israel-Georgia axis.”

The war in Ukraine is nothing but an inevitable result of US-NATO military aggression which was consciously forced upon Russia. Considering the Ukraine’s Nazi structure, Nazi militia and aggressive policy toward Donetsk and Belorussia and desire to be the extension of US-NATO military on the border of Russia which escalates the possibility of world war; the latent functions of  Russian invasion of Ukraine is welcomed by Marxist Leninists.

Another extreme example of “political progressive content”

“Wars,” says Lenin, “are a supremely varied, diverse, complex thing. One cannot approach them with a general pattern.”

Fyodor explains that “The political content of war determines the historical role it plays in the life of society. Depending on their political content, wars can have a progressive or reactionary influence on the development of society. It is this division that makes Lenin’s principle of the political content of war so valuable in theoretical and practical respects.

The political content of wars and their division into just and unjust ones are organically interlinked. All moral appraisals of historical phenomena in antagonistic societies have a class-political sense. That is why the moral-political characteristic of a war expresses its class nature. The characteristic is not arbitrary, it reflects the objective role each war plays in concrete historical conditions. Just wars are distinguished from unjust ones by the progressive or reactionary, liberating or aggressive aims of the belligerents.”

We all know that the war in Syria was the results of US-NATO strategy in where they have unleashed ISIS – organized, fed, led, militarized, and trained by them- to create chaos and opened the door for them to invade and annex the oil rich regions. And we all know that its support to SDF is a part of its long-term strategy in the region.  The question is could the Rojava Revolution against ISIS be possible without the support of US-NATO. We all know the answer to be “NO”. Is the Rojava revolution progressive? Yes. I do not think any Marxist Leninist could answer to that question negative – despite the fact that followingly its character has changed as explained the possibility of change in Lenin’s “little imperialist wars.”

No Marxist Leninist would have gone against this support, even though they know it has insidious, aggressive aims. “Political progressive content” of the warmongering, militarily aggressive imperialist war brought about Rojava. Marxist Leninists welcomed Rojava without prettifying, minimizing the danger US-NATO militarily aggressor holds for the laboring people of the region in particular, and of world in general.

It is not surprising, due to their Bundist ideology for those who welcomes Rojava and call the US-NATO forces “Coalition partners”, yet comparable situation in Donbass, they cry “down with Russian imperialism and its invasion. Although this is not our subject it is important to show that most assessments and stands are either subjective or deriving from subjective approach -not objective and Marxist Leninist.

Let’s briefly touch on other related subjects

Peaceful Solution

The cry for “Peaceful Solution” is a reflection of liberal utopia that a peaceful solution can be reached with fascism especially with that of Nazi form.  Almost all the assessment of the situation in Ukraine and abstract sloganization proceed from the assumption or deception that “Ukraine was a peaceful country” before the Russian imperialist invasion. The fact of the matter is that the war was going on in Ukraine for years and especially for the last 8 years in a bloody, ruthless form where the communists and anti-fascists have been massacred, burned to death in mass. It was a civil war between the Nazis and anti-Fascists which changed its form after the anti-fascists established their autonomous regions. That did not stop the Nazis shelling, killing, massacring the communists and anti-fascists.

Trying to portray as if there was a “peaceful situation” in Ukraine before the invasion and calling for “peaceful solution” is a deception on one side, and self-deception on the other. It is an illusion of liberals and those with liberal tendencies who believe there can be a “peaceful solution” to Ukraine’s problem, as they believe there can be with fascism. Any “peaceful solution” can be spoken only after the destruction of Nazi government and Nazi militia.

Anti-War – Anti Russia demonstrations

Most demonstrations do look like a revival of cold-war era propaganda tactics where the fascists and fascist supporters were labeling communists and anti-fascists, as fascists. These well-organized demonstrations with perfectly written banners and slogans, obviously looks that these demonstrations are organized and supported by the ruling classes of those given countries.

As far as the statements and demonstrations are concerned;

For American and Great Britain Marxist Leninists, focusing on the “Russian Invasion” and “Russian imperialism” and condemning Russia and giving only “lip-service” to the condemnation of US-GB imperialism, is the indication of chauvinism. Demonstrations and statements as such is not considered progressive but reactionary for it conceals the chief enemies of the people of the world, and their warmongering, provocative, Nazi supporter actions in Ukraine.

For Russian Marxist Leninists, focusing on US-GB- Israel axis in this specific case, disregarding Russian Imperialism will be considered chauvinistic, and thus demonstrations as such will be reactionary not progressive. So far Russian communists and anti-fascists mostly displayed the correct attitude.

For European countries who are practically an extension of US-NATO, Marxist Leninists would focus on their chief enemy NATO and demand for the withdrawal from NATO and dissolution of NATO. Any demonstration focusing on Russia but excluding NATO would be reactionary not progressive.

Only for the Marxist Leninists of countries with no direct association to both sides may take upon the subject evenly. But never forgetting to stress the chief enemy of the people of the world and (at least currently) the warmongering, war escalating US-NATO imperialism. Nothing is stagnant, there may be, or will be a time when the others replace the current. But we act on and determine the attitude based on the conditions and situation now.

Demonstrations cannot be considered “progressive” just because they are against war– ML are not against wars but against certain types of war- or they are not considered progressive just because they are calling for “peace” – peace with whom? with NATO, with Nazi political power and Nazi militias in Ukraine? Same people were calling for “peace” with ISIS in Syria, and some still do.

Conclusion

Nothing in Marxism Leninism except the fundamental principles is black and white. Memorizing the definition of “imperialism”, and “imperialist war” and applying that to each and every situation is the indication of “itch” disease. For those who can apply the dialectic of Marxism, Lenin’s words, in A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism tells a lot on the issue of” black or white”; “Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism.”

As Fyodor puts it, “the imperialists resort ever more frequently to local wars, which are limited as regards territory and the means of armed struggle applied. By waging such wars, they attempt to strengthen their position in different parts of the world and to weaken the working people’s revolutionary-liberation movement.

Looking at the recent history, if not all most “local wars” have been instigated and carried out by US-NATO and without any significant resistance. They have ruined the infrastructure of those countries, forced brain-migration, and sent them economically and socially to Middle Ages- in the case of Libya – a country which was the most developed in economy and social welfare in the continent of Africa – to the slavery age. Other than its border countries, Syria was the first that Russia (and indirectly China) came to the scene to put a break on US-NATO free ride. This intervention was in no way for democracy or liberation but to prevent US-NATO military expansionism -through war, invasion, annexation, and plunder – to become a real threat to existence of both Russia and China. Any serious shift in the balance of power could not only endanger the existence of the weak one, but increases the possibility of nuclear war, so endangers the lives of millions of people. Although US imperialism is declining in the world arena, its economic and military power is intact, and thus aggressive.  Russia and China imperialist block is currently in defensive position. Their defensive position inevitably and latently plays the role of balancing against the world war, and against the aggression of US-NATO block.

The case of Ukraine is much closer to the Russian imperialists due to Russian population which almost exceeds to % 25 of the Ukrainian population and years of oppression and massacre of that population by the Nazi government and militias. This fact and the fact that the war has been “forced upon” them makes Russia’s invasion attempt “legitimate” and “justified” even in bourgeois sense of the words. However, that does not mean that Russia (and China) was not expecting that US will be “forcing war upon” her in Ukraine. They probably were aware and are aware this kind of provocations and aggression will be continuing in various parts of the world close to the -land and sea- borders of Russia and China.

Reiterating, rephrasing, and applying the assessment of Comrade Garbis; “Marxist Leninists say that the neo-fascist axis of the USA-Israel-Britain constitute the most aggressive bloc and that this bloc, which is the main enemy of the working class and peoples of the world, is the main instigator and executive of the wars of aggression. And therefore, Marxist Leninists can never ignore the fact that it is the main task of the working class and the peoples to weaken, isolate and neutralize this axis.

Despite the reactionary and imperialist nature of their regimes, Russia and China are already on the defensive, and their attempts and counterattacks against the efforts of the US-NATO axis to encircle, regress and isolate them serve to preserve the current peace in today’s tactical phase and makes the outbreak of a new world war – in which nuclear weapons will also be used- difficult.

Therefore, the revolutionary vanguard of the working class and consistent democrats and internationalists, while condemning their imperialist and expansionist policies, they welcome Russia’s repelling of the attacks and preventing the preparations of further attacks by the US-NATO axis in the region.”

Marxist Leninists of Europe where the memories of the devastation of 2nd WW still reigns, should focus on mobilizing the people against NATO in their countries and force their governments to remove the NATO bases and US soldiers from these countries. Because US is trying to extend NATO to the countries on the border of Russia which in turn will be “forcing upon” more wars that may end up with devastation of European people again.

Erdogan A
With the contribution of MLG
February-March 2022

Quotes from, “Marxism-Leninism on War and Army “, Fyodorov

On the plate next-
Imperialism – China general

Yorumlar