There are many Marxists who look at the US/NATO war against Russia without historical materialism. They condemn Russia and the war in Ukraine as an “inter-imperialist war” between Russia and the US, but this is wrong mainly because they ignore the historical aggression movement of the “traditional” imperialist countries.
One such movement was the expansion of NATO, where the EU and the US were funding NATO and EU membership campaigns, especially in former socialist republics. They took advantage of nascent states and low institutional complexity to spread propaganda in these countries, initially through television and today through the Internet. They manipulate the public opinion of an entire nation, just to serve their interests.
And worse, NATO demands from these countries “political reforms” in order to enter NATO, which eventually resulted in extreme right-wing governments in these countries.
NATO has been expanding eastward into Russia, settling in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, then Estonia, Latvia, Romania, and Bulgaria, with Estonia and Latvia bordering Russia. Furthermore, NATO has already stated if I’m not mistaken since 2008 that it intended to host Ukraine and Georgia, and not only that, it has frequently held military exercises with these countries. Both Ukraine and Georgia border Russia, Ukraine being the country that has the longest border with Russia.
In Ukraine, a government has been in place since 2014 that has openly advocated neo-Nazism and incorporated Nazi militias into its army. It promoted the persecution of ethnic Russians within the country and for 8 years the Ukrainian army assaulted the population of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. School children were taught to hate Russians with children’s stories portraying the Russian nation and its people as barbarians, monsters, as every government does with its enemies.
And now, with the Russian invasion, Finland, which also has a long border with Russia, has joined NATO. We already know what the historical trend of this will be. In addition, NATO has an indirect presence in Asia, mainly in South Korea and Japan, due to the presence of US troops in these countries (more than 80,000 soldiers in all).
It is very clear that NATO has been expanding toward Russia since the late 1990s, setting up governments hostile to Russians in its member countries for the sole purpose of generating a conflict with the country. In this way, it becomes possible to fragment the whole of Russia, to facilitate the plundering of that country’s natural and human resources, and especially to prevent a competitive country from outgrowing the USA.
The idea that Russian aggression is part of an “inter-imperialist” conflict attempts to equate the US with Russia, as if both countries are waging war for similar reasons, or as if both are in the same position. The US/NATO has been hostile to Russia for decades, it’s decades of constant aggression. To any Russian, who has seen it up close all these years, the war was a surprise, but everyone knew it was inevitable.
Marxists who defend the thesis of “inter-imperialist war” to condemn Russia and the US on the same “level” ignore all this historical development, and on top of that they use the argument that in Russia there is a right-wing conservative party in power. Or worse, they say that Russia is a bourgeois state and therefore does not deserve support.
It is true. In many aspects the Russian government is anti-communist, even. But all over the world we have bourgeois dictatorships or conservative governments. To take only this criteria of support would result in condemning the “inter-imperialist” war between the U.S. and Iraq, equating aggressors and aggressed. Because both are bourgeois dictatorships, therefore they do not deserve special consideration.
In the case of the war in Ukraine the “aggressor-aggrieved” relation is more subtle, because in the immediate appearance Russia invaded Ukraine. The aggressor-aggrieved relationship is between Russia-Ukraine, right? That seems to be the view of our Marxists, apparently. Losing sight of the background of NATO’s actions, this war becomes a meaningless thing, as if Russia is wanting to take Ukraine for itself, to export its capital and control Ukraine’s markets. It is a very similar discourse to the one NATO reproduces, of the invader Russia.
So who does the “imperialist Russia” discourse serve? Exactly the NATO side. Exactly the usual imperialists, which we are sick of knowing, the imperialists of the North Atlantic, the US and Europe. This discourse is aimed at undermining support for Russia in other nations, and gradually manufacturing a consensus that justifies a war against Russia.
The two sides of the war are not equal, and they do not wage war for equal reasons. Russia is a bourgeois dictatorship, as in much of the world, but it is part of a positive movement regarding the world market, an alternative movement to the US hegemony that for decades has plagued the countries of the world with its political and economic interference. Russia’s partnership with China also adds strength to this alternative movement to the US-dominated institutions, the domination of the dollar, and the arbitrary interference in other countries.
You must log in or # to comment.
I’m not gonna make the point that it is inter-imperialistic, but imo while what you’re saying about the history of the conflict is correct, it only proves aggression and imperialistic drive by NATO, it doesn’t prove or disprove the “Russia is imperialist” side of the argument. NATO being the primary aggressor and being imperialist itself doesn’t mean Russia can’t also be imperialist, at least not if we talk about imperialism in a Marxist sense. Because in that sense imperialism isn’t when aggression or expansion, it is a stage of development and the way countries at the stage of monopoly capitalism relate to other countries. It’s fundamentally about surplus value extraction. Again, here I’m not making the argument that Russia is, I just don’t think you really made the argument why it isn’t.
I also don’t think categorizing the conflict as inter-imperialist would make a ‘both-sides equal’ argument, because, again, imperialism in the Marxist sense isn’t really a normative term and not derogatory, but a technical descriptor.
It also wouldn’t negate the possibly positive ramifications of this war. Those things can coexist.
I ultimately don’t think it really matters all that much either to communists outside of Ukraine and Russia. Communists in the US, Germany or wherever have to fight their domestic class antagonist. Liebknecht’s parole is applicable as ever - Der Hauptfeind steht im eigenen Land! The main enemy is at home!
If this debate at all distracts us from fighting that main enemy, it has fulfilled its purpose. Whether or not Russia is at the stage of development we call imperialism is immaterial to our day to day praxis in our communities.
it doesn’t prove or disprove the “Russia is imperialist” side of the argument.
The character of the Russian economy is irrelevant to the question of the character of the war. Irrespective of the imperialist features of the Russian economy, whether it was a socialist or a imperialist capitalist nation in the place of Russia, this war would be justified given the historical context.
Now, as soon as the war becomes a war of plunder, then we should definitely object to it. But as far as the interests of the Russian state, government and bourgeoisie goes, there is certainly interest from Russian imperialists involved, but they have not been the determinant force. There are Russian capitalists who have something to earn through this war. Irrespective of those, it’s also in the interests of the Russian people and the peoples of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts to stop aggression of NATO against Eastern Europe.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism is very important in delineating a form of capital accumulation and exploitation unknown at the time. But more than a hundred years ago these ideas were discussed. Both our collective knowledge of the new forms of imperialism has expanded as well as our collective ignorance about it. One important contribution was Wallerstein’s work about the world-system, how early capitalist accumulation began in early 1500’s through colonization, and a world-market was established since then. This was already the beginning of imperialism, it was just something we were unaware of in literature since Lenin (or more precisely since Hobson). This movement of imperialist extraction of surplus value from periphery countries through debts, control of shares, lobbying, and outright colonization and wars, was the historical background of North Atlantic countries, which the majority of countries in the world are themselves are victims of it.
Purely through Lenin’s definition of imperialism, you can be inclined to consider Brazil an imperialist nation. It has monopolies and banks playing a huge a part in economic life, a financial oligarchy, export of capital, and everything. These qualities do not help us consider the role Brazil plays in the world-market, as a dependent capitalist state with very low economic complexity and over-exploitation of workers, as well as subordination to an international division of labor which pressures the country in producing and exporting food and iron among other mineral resources. By looking at its economy in isolation, you might conclude Brazil is an imperialist country, which would help us understand some immediate aspects of our economy, but how does Brazil relate in the world-market becomes obscure.
The same goes for Russia, you might be inclined to conclude it is an imperialist country, and you’ll be right. However, this does not explain the peculiarities of Russia or ex-Soviet countries in general, neither is revealing of this war in my opinion. Ex-Soviet economies have a different historical background and their role in geopolitics is still very abstract, but Russia’s intervention, the subsequent abandonment of the dollar and the slow reorganization of world economies has been positive outcomes as a consequence of this war, at least in geopolitical aspects.
I also don’t think categorizing the conflict as inter-imperialist would make a ‘both-sides equal’ argument, because, again, imperialism in the Marxist sense isn’t really a normative term and not derogatory, but a technical descriptor.
I agree, you would be technically right, but it wouldn’t actually capture the essence of the war. “Inter-imperialist” conflict gives the idea both sides are fighting because they are imperialist and they are driven by an imperialist drive. But this is not the main motivation of the Russian state, even if a handful of bourgeois elements might directly benefit from this war. But is nothing compared to the bloodthirsty profits of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. This war is nothing like the WWI which Lenin described as inter-imperialist wars, the demands of the Russian state are extremely reasonable whether they are imperialist or not.
I ultimately don’t think it really matters all that much either to communists outside of Ukraine and Russia. Communists in the US, Germany or wherever have to fight their domestic class antagonist. Liebknecht’s parole is applicable as ever - Der Hauptfeind steht im eigenen Land! The main enemy is at home!
I couldn’t agree more, comrade! Thank you for that comment. It’s true, our true enemy is our internal bourgeoisie. It’s okay to discuss these subjects as long as it does not distract us from our immediate concrete struggles. But we should not close our eyes to the world, too. We should understand the external international relations between countries so that we know how to position ourselves in face of similar problems. In some cases, there is no contradiction between external affairs and internal enemies. If you live in the US, for instance, to promote awareness and try to influence public opinion on the role of US and NATO in the war on Ukraine, give them a more accurate picture, is to slowly undermine the moral for continuation of this war.
But again, I agree with you, we should focus on our internal problems as communists and focus on building our revolution. But since this is an instance with people from all over, I don’t think the majority of people would be interested, say, in the internal politics of Brazil. So we tend to discuss subjects on the international arena
holy shit, fantastic response. I wrote mine before I saw this, but I think you delivered your point beautifully. Man, i’m new to this instance, but you guys are all pretty eloquent around here.
This was a pretty fantastic write-up, and I agree with it for the most part upon initial reading. I’m happy I found this because I was wondering why many here support Russia in this conflict.
That being said, I understand that Russia feels it was forced to be in this position, and I definitely realize the increasingly aggressive moves that NATO has been making over the decades, but at the end of the day Russia is the aggressor against Ukraine, isn’t it? Like I don’t want to see Ukranian and Russian citizens to go through the destruction and devastation that war brings. You feel me?
but at the end of the day Russia is the aggressor against Ukraine, isn’t it?
Yes, the Russian side is the aggressor in the case of the invasion. In the case of war, which began in 2014, the US/NATO are the aggressors, there can be no doubt about it. They actively supported the rise of a neo-nazi government which was storing missiles in the border of Russia, building a puppet state controlled by nations which has been actively hostile towards Russia for decades. Russia could’ve not attacked in the name of its moral and it could have been later attacked by a much stronger Ukrainian army and the media would’ve portrayed Russia as an aggressor anyways. What would have been the point?
Like I don’t want to see Ukranian and Russian citizens to go through the destruction and devastation that war brings. You feel me?
No one likes war. Perhaps the arms industry like wars very much. But for us, war is a brutal and horrible thing. The amount of suffering caused by wars stays for generations, it’s a tragedy that should be avoided at all costs. In the face of an existential threat, what should a nation do? No one likes wars, but they have existed throughout all history. So what is left is to understand why wars happen. I also don’t want Russians and Ukrainians to fight in a war which is not in the interests of anyone, except US/NATO. Which is exactly why we should denounce the US/NATO side because they are the real causes of the war in Ukraine. So I channel my indignation towards the US/NATO side, not Russia, like some Western Marxists have been doing.
deleted by creator
A thought experiment: how do you think the US would react if China couped Mexico and supported a prolonged civil war near its border with Texas?
The reality and history is even starker in Ukraine, where fueling the civil war meant ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians by funding fascists and those adjascent to them. Also, it should be mentioned, significant fossil fuel resources were recently discovered in the area.
Consider how the US has responded to much less proximal and extreme situations and still gets rationalized as the leader of the democratic “free world”.
A final thought: sure, Russia is imperialist, as in how Lenin approached the term, but the difference in degree compared to US-centered global capital makes it have a qualitatively different position. The driving factors here do not make this simply imperialist vs. imperialist. A better (simplistic) phrasing would be imperialist vs. regional capitalist that undermines a unipolar world order, with the latter in a much weaker and comparatively defensive position.
And as always, no war but the class war. The common people of Ukraine are the primary victims of this war and the people in peripheral countries forced into precarity by the sanctions are a close second.
To back up your analysis and clarify the need for it, I would like to add a few quotes from Lenin.
In A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism (1916) Lenin says:
How, then, can we disclose and define the “substance” of a war? War is the continuation of policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the war.
And also:
For the philistine the important thing is where the armies stand, who is winning at the moment. For the Marxist the important thing is what issues are at stake in this war, during which first one, then the other army may be on top.
In Socialism and War (1915) he says:
For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just,” “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers.
Taking these principles into account it’s clear we have to consider the policies of the states involved in a war and not just decry the seeming aggressor. As you pointed out, NATO’s policy has been one of aggression and expansion, spreading into Ukraine. While Russia had been trying for years to abide by diplomatic treaties (particularly relating to the situation in Donbass) that the West has been systematically ignoring.
The fact that some people (mostly western leftists) think Russia’s encroachment towards Ukraine is part of an imperialist campaign seems crazy to me. EDIT: And the fact that the people who propagate these wild ideas cite Dugin’s unhinged writings as evidence makes it clear to me that they are grasping at straws.
This is just a propaganda buzzword. See also “Unprovoked”, “sovereign”, “ecocide”…there’s loads of these. This method of propaganda is very effective. Drum a word into people via various media and they like to repeat it and ignore everything else. Ask someone what sovereign means, they don’t know. They’ll prefer to repeat the word than question anything about the concept.
