A Case of Stockholm Syndrome

Finally, the moment I have been waiting for so long has come. Those who have been silent have broken their silence. Today is the most appropriate day of the year for the publication of this article. Since today is a ''professional holiday'' for the people it is about. Today I would like to congratulate them from the bottom of my heart and present this article to them as a gift from our organization.

Today is the April Fools' Day.

As far back as winter of early 2022, when the Russian army was only preparing to mount their attack on Ukraine’s border, it had already been completely clear to us, that is the sacred duty of the WFU to dedicate some special efforts to the criticism of the relation of our pro-state “colleagues” within the Ukrainian leftist movement to the about-to-start and yet-to-end war. This effort has been relegated to me and I was already nearing its completion during December of 2022. After all, it was I who wrote the November posts in our #snide_comment section, that referenced the publications of pro-Ukraine social-chauvinists. However, as I undertook this task, I couldn’t refuse an opportunity for a ''warm-up'' of sorts. Alas, I was unable to finish my work back in 2022, as I had to put it on hold in favor of critique of social-pacifism, which came about as Andrey Rudoy invited us to his ''International''. (You can familiarize yourself with the relevant pieces: “War on Pacifism” and “Voice of the underground”) And only after when this discussion ended (with ''Vestnik Buri'' pulling out of it) could I return to the subject of current article.
Regardless, it turned out for the best that we, the WFU, did not hurry the matter, as throughout whole 2023 our opponents were speaking to their hearts’ content on the oh-so-hot topic of the Russo-Ukrainian war, and the more has been spoken, the more substantial of an answer can be formulated. Aside from that, the events that transpired during these 13 months have proven even more the righteousness of our stance and the obvious fallacy of the object of my critique.

And yet, some may come out with accusations of slowness of pace. Directed both at the WFU in general: “Why is it so late that we decide to make a concentrated attack against the leftist servants of Ukrainian state?”, and at me personally: “Why did I decide to leave this piece for the last, 3^rd part of the social-chauvinist trilogy, after the first, introductory, being “The Evil Twin”, and the second being “White, blue and red Reds”, instead of swapping this piece with the 2^nd article dissecting the leftist servants of the Russian regime?'' Because, for example, everyone heard about a certain Stremousov, who, until his death on 9^th of November, had been the deputy chairman of the occupational Civil-military administration of the Kherson oblast, but not so many people know of the fact that he used to be a member of the “Derzhava” political party before the war. It’s worthy of note that I, personally, am not informed of any “social-zelenskyists” that were to occupy a position of similar or even of somewhat lower importance in the Ukrainian administration (the meme that Arestovich is, in fact, a marxist, won’t be accepted as a counterargument). That’s the first point.

Unlike social-putinists (who, in their majority, are prone to lying cynically without even a slight blush, when calling themselves “red”, i. e. communists and using every possible “red” attribute – soviet symbols and phraseology that mimics Marxism), among the pro-Ukrainian social-chauvinists, as they follow the laws and the general ideological direction of the Bankova, almost none of them claim the title of a communist. That’s the second point.

That is why I decided to first strike at a somewhat large and, under certain circumstances, influential part of social-putinist, more so that they affiliated themselves (without any basis, that is) with the communist movement of Ukraine. All the more so because for a long time, it, unfortunately, was the flagship of the state propaganda movement, and even today the average Ukrainian citizen associates all local communists exclusively with pro-Kremlin personalities. Still, 2014 has handicapped the Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU) entirely, and for 9 years they, having demonstrated their own complete political impotence, had been unable to establish adequate operations that would match the demands of post-Maidan Ukraine. They finally dissolved completely after the start of the all-out war, and now what remains of them is a formless, amorphous, unorganized mass. During the writing of my previous article within the cycle, I had tried to find at least some written piece from them, in which their point of view in regards to transpiring events would’ve been formed into a position which is laid out thoroughly, clearly and concisely. And I could not find such a piece. Websites of parties of proponents of Russian imperialism under a leftist cover that were banned in spring of '22 were already down at that time and they remain down still. So I had to rely only on the “Borotba” organization, that, largely, supports its existence almost exclusively through reposts and opinion posts of some Ukrainian “Zommunists”. The perspectives of their activity, and of the entirety of this particular section of the leftist movement in general are not just lackluster, but altogether non-existent. Irrespective of the outcome of the conflict. Should the forces embodied by Zelenskiy win – CPU's descendants' existence shall be of the most marginalized and destroyed character. Even now they are already crushed by repressions. Should the forces embodied by Putin win – and they shall exist as a part of Communist Party of Russian Federation (CPRF) and other opportunistic misfits that are bound to flood Ukraine in this scenario, which would lead to their dissolution within these movements. Today, on the occupied territories, they already partake in ordinary collaboration and don’t even allow themselves a thought of going against the local administration that they, themselves, serve.

Those leftists who I shall talk about today, on the contrary, are gaining in significance. Of course, they are still far away in this regard from their pro-Russian brethren during their best years, but this is only for now. Of course, their growth isn’t guaranteed, but, notwithstanding, they at least have some perspective of development, if the existing regime in our country retains their ruling position. These pro-western social chauvinists typically call us “Rashists”, or make up some other name and write us off as second-grade leftists, which, by the way, they can never substantiate by facts. And also, they tend to claim that we are especially egregious stalinists, for some reason. And so I shall quote Trotsky from his article written in 1938 “Their Morals and Ours” just for them: “Compared to revolutionary Marxists, the social-democrats and centrists appear like morons, or a quack beside a physician: they do not think one problem through to the end, believe in the power of conjuration and cravenly avoid every difficulty, hoping for a miracle”. “Lewko”, as he is called by Ukrainian Socialist League (USL), made a great analogy here. As even today, aside from us, Ukrainian Marxists-Lenists, this is exactly how modern Ukrainian anarchists, social-democrats and, unsurprisingly, trotskyists come off.

Since we are talking about them.. Ukrainian Socialist League or Ukr. Soc. League or USL or “Vernik’s organized crime group” (OCG). Why OCG? Because Oleg Igorevich is famous not only in Ukraine, but also internationally, as an outstanding charlatan, (as saddening as it is, among the old leftists – charlatans are extremely abundant). Truly the “Ostap Bender” of modern Ukrainian socialist movement, responsible for great operations that involved scamming trotskyist internationals for money (search “Vernikgate” for more info). The damage this man has done to the world’s trotskyism is not far off from Ramon Mercader. In short, a true stalinist, undoubtedly an agent of the NKVD within enemy lines. And there’s no guarantee that his organization today, or, rather, another cult of another trotskyist international is anything more than just another combination of the aforementioned type. Vernik and his followers, whether acting consciously or being misled by him, are useful to us in such a way that they are a great example to be used in discussions with pro-Russia social-chauvinists when the latter use the argument that communists in Ukraine can’t function normally at all. But hey, they can. Oleg Vernik isn’t finding any particular difficulty living in Ukraine. And Vernik certainly isn’t running out of private pools to swim in. On the other hand, he is as much a communist as the backers of Russian imperialism under the cover of leftism. The difference is that Vernik is a national-trotskyist, who supports the regime of Western and Ukrainian oligarchy under the cover of trotskyism, similar to another mentioned category of provocateurs are predominantly national-stalinists, who are using Stalin for the same purpose of cover while supporting the regime of the Russian oligarchy. To their own rulers these individuals are not only harmless, but can even be of use, and as a result they don’t really suffer from excessive attention of government services, and are even allowed to act within certain limits. These bastards, while continuing to call themselves communists, shall find a place even under fascism. By the way, we once were on the receiving end USL’s attention, specifically of the critical article by the title of “The face of neo-Stalinism, or how the WFU falls into dogmatism” in August of last year. The preview of this article is especially noteworthy: a Polish propaganda poster, “Strike the Bolshevik”, made in 1920. It depicts two brave Polish uhlans with attached emblems of trotskyists, social democrats and anarchists, with the image of the barbaric Bolshevik having recieved the WFU emblem. Most flattering, is all we can say. And we are pleased that at least one of our opponent organizations understands what the roles are, and isn’t trying to shy away from directly identifying themselves and their friends with staunch enemies of socialism in the past, underlining themselves as their successors. Let’s move onto the next enemies of socialism (maybe they are just in favor of national-socialism?) during modern times, to social-democrats.

Next we have Sotsyalniy Rukh or Social Movement or Sots. Rukh. or S. Rukh. Or, simply SR. These are indeed SRs, and how you name the boat – so it will sail – suffer from broad-leftism with all its problems, to about the same extent as their fellow comrades from the early 20^th century – both in abbreviation and in petty-bourgeois mindset. Regarding the answer to the question that is of interest to us in the present article – the question of the attitude to the current war, there existed two factions within the SR organization until very recently: the Right and Left Socialists. If anyone expects real leftism from the latter, I hasten to disappoint: there have never been any internationalists or even social-pacifists in the SR. And for what reason no thoughts so bold would appear in an organization that was created strictly to work within the current legal framework and therefore, within the limits of pluralism of opinions established by the state authorities, in an organization that one can join exclusively on the basis of a passport, given that it is either already under the hood of “Izbushka” (Security Service of Ukraine – SSU) or will be at any moment. And with 99.9% certainty I can say that it is already so, because: on one hand, it has repeatedly organized all sorts of activities on its own behalf, and on the other hand, nationalists have repeatedly drawn attention to it with their denunciations, and without cooperation with the SSU in our country of “endless freedom” you can't last that long. (Es-eRs, please blink if you are being held hostage) All in all, everyone in the SR is a social chauvinist. Both factions within the organization are in agreement that it is necessary to stand firmly siding with the government of Ukraine in this war. The SR leftists are leftists only in comparison with the rightists. Rightists, who praise Ukrainian democracy in general and its decisions (like recognizing the independence of Ichkeria in particular). Who, with reservations, approve of de-rusification, de-sovietization and even of de-communization, measures that, according to them, are partly progressive in the aim to decolonize the country. Rightists, who are much more willing to put effort into convincing Western leftists to persuade their governments to send more weapons to Ukraine, as well as to collect donations and other aid for the army, than to organize workers to fight for their rights (strictly within the limits of economism, of course). The left wing has not yet completely lost its sense of shame, in virtue of which its members, though fallen to the lowest of lows, did not dare to follow their comrades in organization in sinking even deeper. Nor, however, did they have the resolve to take a serious stand against the right wing, that, unlike the left-wing opposition, had initially clustered at the very levers of power in the organization. The left-wingers preferred instead to tolerate the rule of the right wing and very sluggishly tried to challenge it. On top of that, last winter, many of the leftists simply left the SR, slamming the door. That's why, as mentioned earlier, there were only two factions in this organization until very recently. As it stands today, it is impossible to talk about the preservation of any significant force behind the Left-EseRs, but it is possible and necessary to say with full confidence that the SR has become the ultra-right (it had already been right before) cesspool of the Ukrainian leftist movement definitively and irrevocably. They exhibit a notable feature: instead of the term internationalism, the SRs in their materials prefer to use the term solidarity, which, in their execution, is pure solidarism. As V. Dudin (SR) said in an interview: "I am the head of the Social Rukh political organization, which defines itself as a socialist and democratic organization. And we do have a plan to become a Labor Party. But it is no easy task, as we are only on the way of transformation from a youth leftist organization into a political party, we need a lot of money, we also have to collect 10,000 signatures to create a political party".
Vitaly Nikolayevich does not enjoy the position of the head, or, rather, the director, or even more precisely, the dictator of his PO (Public Organization) for nothing. He sees into the very root of the matter. After all, his words can practically be interpreted as follows: pro-Russian opportunism is bankrupt and out of fashion, while pro-Western opportunism has every chance to become fashionable, hence, the SR as a whole (and Dudin in particular) have a chance to transform their PO into a party and get voted into the Parliament, where they would become a reinstalment of the CPU. The only difference being that their program will have the European Union as a focus instead of the Eurasian Union. They can expect foreign help in achieving this. They are already enjoying it. Birds of a feather flock together: all kinds of foundations under European opportunists, the most prominent being the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation under the Die Linke party, are generous with grants for the SRs, to the great joy of the latter’s leadership. And they, in return, don’t hesitate to use these funds (how much actually goes towards the cause and how much goes into their pockets, I do not know, I am not their treasurer) in fulfilling the goals for which the funding is allocated. Such as arranging events, for example (organized by Potemkin wing of SRs) aimed at citizen education. I had actually paid a visit to one such event. On October 21st, Dudin was giving a public lecture in Kharkov (SR’s base of operations, like that of the vast majority of all Ukrainian opportunists, is located in Kiev). WFUs whole local cell came to listen. Even though the audience was comprised entirely of leftists, to whom things like the following should be obvious, the head of the SR was explaining in a long and tedious manner that, as it turns out, the interests of employees and the interests of employers, ergo businessmen, are in fact fundamentally opposed. Who could’ve thought! And when it came to questions from the audience, at one point, one of us stood up from the seat and asked: "You referred in your speech to such revolutionary thinkers as Marx and Gramsci, but you stick to reformism, why is this so?" After these words, the social-democratic lecture erupted into a nightmarish debacle. Note how assiduously the SRs are catering to the Western left: at a quick glance, about a third of all their media publications are interviews with Western publications, appeals to Western socialists, reports on international meetings, and so on, and so forth. The SR has very firmly sucked up to the opportunists of Europe and is striving to indoctrinate the European socialist public as a whole into thinking of itself as the one and only socialist organization in Ukraine with the only correct point of view. And one should admit that they have achieved great success in this field, although we, of course, are also expanding our relations with foreign communists and through them we are trying to bring our voice, the voice of the Marxist-Leninists of Ukraine, to the world. And now consider this – you can even look through our media right now – materials directed to foreigners make up not a third, nor a quarter and not even one fifth of all our media content. Nine out of ten pieces we produce are designed primarily for Ukrainian marxists and/or Ukrainian workers. How can one keep up with the SR with their unconventional orientation towards Western leftists? Especially considering that they’re actively trying to portray themselves as almost nationalistic patriots of their Motherland and their people. This is all to say that some SRs unconsciously project their issues of allegiance onto us, saying that the target audience of the RFU consists mostly of Russian leftists. Needless to say, this is a brazen lie. It is a factual lie, because on all our channels in general and each one separately we get more than half of our views from Ukraine. As well it is a logical lie, as, naturally, analytics and journalism mainly on issues of current interest to Ukrainian society can be of interest to both Russian and non-Russian people. But mainly they should be of interest, as strange as it may seem (sic!), to Ukrainian citizens. And since we are talking about analytics and journalism, it would be a sin to forget the "Spilne" magazine ( i.e. “Commons”). We say SR – we mean Spilne, we say Spilne – we mean SR. The two structures are very closely intertwined. At the moment, the magazine has a mission on the scale of the entire leftist movement in Ukraine, the mission being that it is the only media trying to at least somewhat seriously substantiate pro-Ukrainian social chauvinism. It is the intellectual center of the latter. Indeed, their intellect isn’t their strongest part. There’s not much left to do; if you choose a role then you’ve got to play the part. And if you defend an idiotic position, you’re going to get the part of an idiot. The great might of thought of the "Spilne" magazine is up for judgment by the reader. As they tried to squirm, like a worm on a hook, in an impulse to deny the pro-bourgeois and pro-governmentalism of their view of the war, they once arrived, for example, to a truly mind-boggling conclusion. Come the article "10 Terrible Leftist Arguments Against Ukrainian Resistance": "It's pretty clear: this war has nothing to do with our shitty government (as in many other countries)." Personally, I think this phrase is worthy of being etched in stone. I don't know about you, dear reader, but I find it extremely amusing. There is only one thing that mortifies me. I, of course, know about the terrible degradation of Ukrainian humanitarian science, but still I dare to expect from its quasi-Marxist representatives results of a higher than average level, and certainly not this low. After all, the above quote belongs not just to some random nobody, but to a woman who has earned a PhD in sociology. Why, you ask, should anyone read this magazine when the members of the WFU – ordinary guys and gals, men and women without official academic regalia – usually write better, often surpassing the Spilne magazine both in terms of quality and quantity? Certainly, they occasionally produce some excellent pieces, just as we occasionally have some very bad ones. However, in my opinion, there is no reason to read Spilne – that is unless, of course, you take a specific liking for the ridiculous, ..as I do. Alright, enough has been said about social-democrats. Let's move on to anarchists.

Anarchists, fittingly, do not have a dominant, central organization among them, unlike Trotskyists or Social-Democrats. Only the Revolyutsiyna Diya can even remotely qualify for that role. Also known as Revolutionary Action or Rev. Diya or RD. But in general, Ukrainian anarchism is a set of smaller or larger groups, all in complex relations with each other and each with their own specificity. The only thing that unites them together is that they are statists. Yes, you heard that right. When the war started, the anarchists immediately, almost universally, with the exception of a handful of them, unbelievably fiercely stood up for the state sovereignty of Ukraine and started making all sorts of Solidarity Operations and Resistance Committees. What’s interesting, is that in July the Solidarity Collectives broke away from the Solidarity Operations, which may or may not have been influenced by a donations theft scandal. Ukrainian anarchism is dead. Idiocy ruined it. However, it is characteristic of this ideology by default. An intelligent anarchist is a Marxist or at least a Marxist in the making, on the other habd, a stupid anarchist is an anarchist who at key moments in history turns into a dog of the bourgeois regime. But then, maybe they simply decided to conduct a social experiment and try to prove the so-called horseshoe theory, which suggests that the ultra-right and the ultra-left are not quite the opposites, but in fact much closely related political currents? Be that as it may, Ukrainian anarchists now differ from Ukrainian fascists only via the fact that the former prefer a red-black flag with horizontal stripes, and the latter – with diagonal stripes, and if the former chant "Our Father is Bandera", the latter use "Our Father is Makhno" – but otherwise they are completely the same. It weren’t trotskyists or social democrats, but anarchists who became the initiators, the main participants and the driving force of one project that defies all logic. Its name is Anti-Authoritarian (sic!) Platoon. And how does this miracle of Ukrainian thought, this mixture of oil and water, this combination of anarchist liberty with the Internal Service Statute of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, this anarcho-statism work in reality? Where is the anti-authoritarianism of this “platoon”, except for the fact that its personnel consist of anarchists? The author of the article "4 Months in an Anti-Authoritarian Platoon in Ukraine" gladly gives us an answer: "Our structure does not correspond to the "standard" ideas of an anarchist unit, where all positions are elected and subordinate to the general assembly. One of the reasons is that not everyone in the platoon shares anarchist views. As such, assistant platoon leaders and squad leaders are appointed by the platoon command. However, some horizontal institutions have also been established. At the suggestion of an experienced comrade who arrived from Europe, they began to practice self-criticism sessions in squads that are called “takmil”. Deputy branch commanders were also chosen by us." In short, anarcho-statism doesn't work. Anarchist military personnel made big claims, but when it came to the test, they readily kissed the boot and went to fulfill the orders of the army authoritarianism. Election of deputy commanders of departments and the presence of sessions of criticism and self-criticism within the departments seem like a nice feature. And yet, no matter how you look at it, it is just the election of the most junior commanding position and mere discussion of the state of affairs among the soldiers, the decisions born in the course of which are not binding on the high-ranking commanders. If it is that fabled anti-authoritarianism that is featured even in the name of the platoon, then I am at a loss of words. Internal service regulations: anarchist liberty – 1:0.

Come to think of it, I wasn’t entirely correct in the previous paragraph. Anarcho-statism indeed works, undoubtedly. But! It works in favor of the state, not anarchy. It only uses its sons and daughters for the purposes of the state, which are dictated to it by big capital. As expected, big capital did not allow the same freedom of expression to the anarchist subculture as it allows to the nationalist subculture, i.e. to the Azov Regiment. The state was in an unstable position at the beginning of the war, and so it allowed the anarchists to organize, but as soon as the state regained composure, it disbanded their unit, which, by the way, never took part in combat operations. What resulted is that they got blended among the most ordinary military units. Apparently, the authorities were so amazed by the anarchists' insistence on serving them that they decided to take precautionary measures just in case. After all, traditional fascists look much more presentable from the point of view of obedience to the current socio-economic system and commitment to its preservation. So, here they are, the pro-Ukrainian social-chauvinists, in all their colors, left to right and top to bottom. A zoo, if anything, and our trip there is over. Now, let's move onto criticizing the position on the war of the residents of the said zoo. They all have the same position regarding the war with only minor differences in details – hence I will omit them. The main points of what I have been able to deduce during a month or so of reading, listening to, and watching almost all of the materials of the social-zelenskyists on this topic about their vision, I will convey here in an extremely concise manner – albeit in one sentence – and then, as in the previous article of the series, which is about the Social-Putinists, I will analyze them in a somewhat less concise but no less consistent manner. By the way, there were several amusing cases when fragments from the aforementioned article, in which I recounted the views of the Zommunists, were taken out of context and passed off as official views of the WFU by certain characters who belong to the social-chauvinists of the opposite camp. Well, it seems that now I'll end up giving the basis for such speculations to the pro-Russian social-chauvinists, can't help it.

And so it goes, according to above mentioned leftists, that “more or less democratic” state of Ukraine is actually waging (albeit with the help of Western imperialism in the sphere of foreign policy and with the help of neoliberalism and chauvinism in the sphere of domestic policy) a progressive and just, national-liberation people's war for its self-determination against the proto-fascist/parafascist/post-fascist (these are all terms from various articles in Spilne magazine, and personally I don't know what any of them mean, I can only vaguely guess) imperialist Russia. So, apparently, it is necessary to support the Ukrainian resistance with all our might and to convince everyone else of the necessity to do so. First and foremost the Western left, as together with them we can demand from the Western governments: on the one hand, the supply of arms to Ukraine, on the other hand, the cancellation of Ukraine's debts. Also, inside our country itself, we have to engage in very careful opposition against overly radical nationalism and the anti-social and anti-worker initiatives of the state and capital, and, at the same time, to develop concepts of left-wing post-war reconstruction of the country and a new system of European and even global security.

Usually I would give my final comments in the conclusion, near the end of the story, but in this article I will do so in the middle. There was a reason why I included the exact quote from Trotsky that I cited at the beginning. The main trick of the social-chauvinists is avoidance of clarity, both for pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian ones. They say A and don't say B, highlight facts favorable to themselves and hide the harmful ones, avoid issues dangerous for their picture of the world, i.e. war, and halfway down the road swerve into naivety and stupidity instead of continuing their reasoning to its logical end. And it is precisely here, in this vulnerability of socialist socialist stitch-ups, that one should strike. Let me show you how one would approach this task.

Whose regime is more lenient and whose regime is more hardline – this topic has been chewed and regurgitated over and over. I have no interest in bringing it up again, nor do I see any point in doing so. In my article against the red putinists I have already evaluated the arguments of the latter regarding their assertion about Nazism in Ukraine and the openness of all opportunities for the socialist movement in Russia, and the arguments of my current “clients” regarding their assertion about the complete range of democratic systems in Ukraine and totalitarianism in Russia. I reasoned there, that the authorities of both countries in their pre-war state were essentially about equally reactionary, even if that manifested in slightly different ways. They were heading in the same direction – towards fascism. So, as long as the socialists of all stripes are still absorbed in looking at the straws in the eyes of the enemy and not noticing the logs in their own eyes, they fail to see the Forest behind the Trees – with the beginning of the war the regimes considerably accelerated their march along the path of fascization. Now they are moving at a truly break-a-neck pace. Look around us: more and more direct influence on the state of affairs is being concentrated at the top of the presidential and executive authorities, which have firmly taken over the parliament; pluralism of opinions is proclaimed as “ill-timed”, since the parties and the entire civil society should only be concerned with strengthening faith in the military-political leadership and approaching victory; the police and security services are acting more and more brazenly. The notorious Ukrainian democracy is evaporating in the boiling kettle of war right before our eyes. The reaction of the authorities to the "PMC "Redan" incident (you can read my post about it) in particular is worthy of attention – as it is exactly that: a reaction. And when in 2023 our pro-government leftists in the midst of everything that is happening disingenuously appeal to the pre-war political system, they can only be answered as follows: no one will ever return to 2021. The state has entered a new era. It met the February of 2022 already being very right-leaning, and it will seek its probable victory ending up even further to the right. There is no reason to believe that after the end of the war the state structure will take the same, more or less democratic, shape that it had before the war, because there is every reason to assume that history is moving forwards, not backwards.

Even if we agree that in the next period of peacetime the previous order of things will definitely be resurrected, why should that default to the status quo at the moment just prior to the full-scale invasion, and not the status quo before the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in general, the status quo of pre-2014, the Yanukovych times? Here is where everything is cleared up: it is precisely from the great sympathy of our national-trotskyists, SRs and anarcho-statists for the Euromaidan, which can't but pass on, to varying degrees, onto the post-Maidan government, that the legs of their portrayal of Ukraine as the “progressive side” in this war grow. The side of freedom against the camp of dictatorship. Putin's dictatorship, which supports other dictatorships in the post-Soviet space and seeks to establish similar and submissive autocracies in the now free countries of the former Soviet Union. And that is precisely a popular story why Ukraine is fighting now to overthrow the tyrant. And that is why it's authorities see such fascists the Russian Volunteer Corps as the liberators of the Russian Federation from despotism (you can check out my post about the Sushano-Lyubechane incident). Freedom and progressivism are in the air, can't you feel them, dear reader? I find the truth in the fact that alongside the Russian regime, which is certainly a dictatorship carried out by Russian big capital in forms convenient for it, the Ukrainian regime is also a dictatorship – and here we are snipping at the Achilles' heel of the social-chauvinists' constructs.

It would be one thing if the Kiev regime was a dictatorship exercised by relatively independent Ukrainian big capital, in forms convenient for it. Such an oligarchy would be comparatively weak, it would not have grown into true imperialism of its own, but its government would remain relatively independent. Therefore, if it was at war with actual imperialist power intending to subjugate this country and turn it into a colony, then the question of supporting a truly national-liberation war would be not only posed, but even necessitated. And even then the answer to this question would not necessarily be to rush headlong into battle for this type of power, because in order to determine the proper degree and the right measures of support, it is necessary to consider a number of other important aspects of the situation. But it is quite a different matter when the Kiev regime is a dictatorship exercised mainly by Western big capital in convenient forms, to which the soon-to-be-bankrupt domestic oligarchy often adheres as a comprador bourgeoisie. And this is precisely our reality's case. Thus the conflict is a war between the competing imperialists for the redistribution of spheres of influence – which itself is a culmination of the struggle for Ukraine, which has been going on for more than 20 years.

Again, I do not want to repeat the reasons and background of the current war, which clearly shows its imperialist nature for both sides, nor do I intend to recount the abundance of examples that speak of the puppethood of the current government of our country in relation to the US, Great Britain and the EU leaders. On the first topic I recommend to read the article from March last year "Ukrainian Marxism and the Russian invasion", on the second topic I recommend to read weekly news releases from WFU over the last year and all those published henceforth. Or better yet, open the collection of our main materials (about the armed conflict) from February last year to February this year and study everything in its entirety. If you are of sound mind, you won’t have a shadow of a doubt that we are dealing with an imperialist war, that one cannot even think of raising the question of supporting any of its sides, that there is always a ready answer: No war but class war. "Everything is not so unambiguous," our opponents say with irony, rolling their eyes. But the thing is, everything is unambiguous for us: Both the EU and the EAEU mean the same thing for Ukraine.

The imperialists are not so unambiguous only for the lackeys of one of them. The sort of social-chauvinists considered in this article are still very fond of clinging to the fact that NATO did not enter the war directly. Why it is not particularly fundamental and does not make the imperialist war for Ukraine a national liberation war of Ukraine, I won't have to explain to them, because they themselves know it very well. I do not recall anyone of them recognizing the struggle of separatists against the central government as a national liberation war at the previous stage of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict on the grounds that the Russian Federation did not directly intervene in the war. In fact, it intervened directly and blatantly only last year. But I remember very well how throughout the 8 years of the war in Donbass, our pro-government leftists have been trying their best to prove that Moscow is backing Donetsk. Why do they show miracles of insight in one case, and in another case they play dumb? This question is rhetorical.

While rightly denying the war of the Russia-backed Luhansk and Donetsk People Republics (LPR and DPR) against Ukraine its national character, for some reason, social-solidarists attribute this national character to the war of the West-backed Ukraine against Russia. They say that our whole society suffers from war and participates in it, which means that the interests of the working class temporarily coincide with the interests of the capitalist class in defeating Russia. And hence, since the proletariat, the majority of the population, suffers and participates more than the bourgeoisie, the minority of the population, the Russian-Ukrainian war is first of all a war of the Ukrainian workers for their bright future, which is proved by the large-scale self-organization of the masses in support of the army and the victims of hostilities. The bourgeoisie and all sorts of bureaucrats are certainly staying on the sidelines. "It is absolutely clear: this war has nothing to do with our shitty government", – how can one not remember the platinum quote here. What a bunch of swindlers, what a bunch of sophists! Acoording to their logic: if the war involves broad layers of the country's society, including broad layers of workers, then the interests of the working class and the capitalist class coincide (i.e. any big war is a people's war). Splendid logic. Which doesn't correspond at all to reality. Let's start with the basics: the current hostilities have smoothly evolved from a hunt of different packs of business sharks for a piece of meat – the hunt for Ukraine. Consequently, the joint participation of its bourgeoisie (domestic and, above all, foreign, which has stretched its tentacles towards us) and the proletariat in the current war is based on the fact that the former made this mess and the latter is jumping headfirst into fire for the sake of satisfying the ambitions of its exploiter. Consequently, the Ukrainian exploited will not gain anything for themselves, except for reinforcement of exploitation. In sum, there is no common interest between the working class and the capitalist class in the imperialist war, even though the proletarians and even the alleged socialists may think otherwise – this means only that the bourgeoisie have so far succeeded in brainwashing people. And the self-organization of the masses in itself is nothing revolutionary, especially self-organization in support of the rule of the capital. The business of the real left is not to admire it, as the pseudo-left does, but to re-organize the workers for revolution.

But the pro-Ukraine social-chauvinists still have an ace up their sleeve – self-determination. However, they themselves treat it as a card of the least importance. Should some national movement that is actively backed from abroad, whether popular or marginal, declare a claim of any region to national self-determination up to secession from Russia – this is true self-determination, this is decolonization, this is admirable. If some national movement, popular or marginal, actively supported from abroad, declares a claim of some region to self-determination up to secession from Ukraine, this is not self-determination, but a violation of territorial integrity, this is unacceptable. I don't think anyone expected anything other than hypocrisy from my opponents. On the one hand, they speak loudly and repeatedly that Moscow rejects the right of Ukrainians to self-determination and that the latter are subjected to oppression (though its severity is often exaggerated) as a nation in the occupied territories. And one can't disagree here, as I wrote about it in the previous article of this cycle. On the other hand, they are extremely careful to point out, or even keep silent altogether, that Kiev also rejects the right of national minorities to self-determination and generally pursues a policy of depriving them of their rights (starting with the basic right to education in their native language). Everyone in general, but especially the Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Russians of Ukraine, are being affected with these policies. On the territories controlled by Ukraine, their culture is sought to be eradicated under the plausible pretext of fighting the Russian-imperial legacy. As for the uncontrolled territories, in case they are ever returned under control, there are no plans to hold even the most pitiful referendums on whether their inhabitants wish to return to Ukraine. For all those who do not want to do so, the answer has been prepared long ago and there is only one option: hastily grabbing one’s belongings and “off to Russia with you!”. Although no, not just one, there is also a Ukrainian prison as an option. In this regard, the question cannot but emerge: what name is better suited for the social-chauvinists who support such a government in the literal sense, and who, by doing so, actually move to the position of superiority of one nation over others, which is completely opposite to internationalism – the principle of normal socialists? Social nationalists? Or, perhaps, national socialists?

And for the cherry on top: defensive war. The dumbest argument, which has been debunked and refuted by Marxists 100 times already, because we encounter it when talking about virtually every war. But social-patriots from time to time fall for a cliché, namely that the victim of aggression is the one who is right, that defense against aggression is a holy fight by default. However, in the first place, usually all parties to the conflict want to turn this stereotype in their favor, and therefore everyone wants to make themselves look like peace-loving people generally, but in a particular situation simply forced to take up arms for the sake of protecting the Fatherland. Thus, my “clients” from this article will say that Russia attacked on 24.02 of last year. And my clients from the previous article of the trilogy will say that Russia did not attack anyone and only came to the aid of the rebellious Donbass, which was attacked by Ukraine, after the latter declared the ATO (Anti-Terrorist Operation) in 2014. Here the former leftists will reasonably point out that the transition to a active fight scenario was a response to the hybrid war unleashed by the Kremlin, which was expressed in the secession of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) with subsequent annexation and in the self-proclamation of the DPR, LPR and KPR (Kharkiv). The latter leftists will argue that the very power that Donbass has turned against and from which Crimea decided to return to its native harbor, became the power as a result of an anti-constitutional coup, the overthrow of the legitimate and lawful authorities at the instigation of the collective West. In short, the matter is as clearly murky as can be, and so, should one desire, it is possible to reach as far back as the Rurikovich dynasty in trying to decipher the one true aggressor, but we instead will move onto the second point. War is not a senseless and sudden fight of drunkards that erupts just because someone drank too much. It is an extremely serious undertaking, and it does not start out of the blue. It is preceded by a more or less prolonged conflict caused by certain contradictions, which turns into a state of armed conflict only at the highest level of escalation. As a consequence, steps towards the abyss are often taken by both sides, and wars break out, if not by mutual consent, then with a mutual understanding of where things are headed. While the historical fact of who fired the first shot is certainly important, it is certainly not what determines the nature of the war. Instead, it is the nature of the contradictions that led to it that play the deciding role. It may happen that the progressive side is at the same time an aggressor country, and the latter circumstance is no reason to stand up for its opponent, is it? There are times when the progressive side is at the same time on the defensive, yet it deserves support not because of this circumstance in itself, but because it is the progressive side. Sometimes there is no progressive side at all – as is our case today – and who is the aggressor, and who is the victim is basically of zero importance, as trying to figure it out won’t conjure a progressive side out of thin air.

Overall, one cannot call the Russo-Ukrainian war justified on the part of the current Ukrainian government and its allies, Ukraine's masters, considering a multitude of factors. But this is obvious to me, not to social chauvinists. Most likely, by supporting the Ukrainian resistance with all their might and convincing everyone else of the necessity of it, they are acting with the best of intentions, thinking that they are fighting for Ukraine in general, as a whole. But sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Whether each individual social-chauvinist realizes it or not, they support Ukraine in its concrete form, with its concrete position in the capitalist world, its concrete government. Ukrainian social-chauvinists are in a position like that of a wife with her drunken and abusive husband, whom she, instead of leaving, continues to love and hopes to correct, while he continues to abuse her.

Remember when I said at the very beginning of this article that 13 months of war only made the fallacies of the object of my criticism more apparent? That's me talking about how the current government completely ignores pleas to it from its leftist friends. Yes, precisely the pleas – in wartime conditions, those friends certainly don't go any further than sending petitions in a friendly manner. Which, for some reason, have 0 effect on the anti-social and anti-worker initiatives of state and capital. Persuasions to stop excessively radical nationalism also, for some reason, end up falling on deaf ears. If we look beyond the borders of our country, the campaign to cancel Ukraine's debts isn’t going all too well, surprisingly. But it is very important for the social chauvinists, because it is the first one of their strongest reasons to claim that they oppose both imperialisms, that the Western one must be defeated by getting it to give up its key lever of subjugating our country to its interests. But, curiously, their second strongest reason, that Russian imperialism must be defeated on the battlefield (you can clearly see which imperialism is favored here and which is disdained) by maximizing the supply of NATO arms to Ukraine, somehow doesn’t raise alarms. Weapons are pouring in, which a large part of the Western left welcomes – the work of our country's opportunists, among others. So, for some reason, they're backing only one team in this game. And its players have too many nuances to bring up, because it is easier for them to hide behind questions than to give answers. They are afraid of revealing the real interconnection of the above-mentioned moments because it will quickly destroy their flimsy position. I, on the other hand, have nothing to fear. In the initial stages of the war, the North Atlantic Alliance was in no hurry to arm Ukraine, weighing the risks, and subsequently began to actively help only because of the improved business climate created by the Ukrainian army's resilience. Moreover, any arms deliveries are not a goodwill gesture, but an investment, and one of the main guarantees of their payback is Ukraine's creditworthiness, enabling anything to be done with the country. This includes, among other things, ordering the introduction of neoliberal policies, which the local elites themselves are happy to implement. And in order for the people to not wake up, not to realize what was said in the previous three sentences and everything said in all articles of the WFU in general, their attention is diverted by spreading the wildest kind of chauvinism. This Gordian knot cannot be disentangled, it can only be severed. But, naturally, the opportunists' thought does not ascend to that of revolution, and it is not in their future plans. All their concepts of a leftist post-war reconstruction of the country and a new system of European or even global security are based on classical reformism, so classical in fact, that one could call it a regression back to the utopian socialism of the nineteenth century. They are characterized by their petite-bourgeoisie mentality, an attempt to propose something in-between the interest of the proletariat and the interest of the bourgeoisie. Just one question: why should these measures even be considered for introduction? Because Reasons, apparently..

There is one more thing that cannot be left out, before we conclude. My leftist opponents, in addition to serious arguments in defense of their position, also have some arguments that are not quite as serious. They bring them out when the serious ones are already beaten. And they are already beaten – I have beaten them. So now is the time for secret arguments. Time to accuse me of not sympathizing with the sufferings of the Ukrainian people, that I 100% simply did not feel them on my own skin and am staying abroad out of harm's way, and if I had been in the frontline hell, I would have assessed the situation differently, i.e. like the people criticized in this article. Well, firstly, even if I were really not in Ukraine, it would not diminish the value of my words against them even by 1 hryvnia, just as someone's presence somewhere does not automatically make the words of a person about the nature of the current war the ultimate truth. Secondly, in order to raise the value of my words in the eyes of those shallow people who still fall for this frivolous argument, I answer – this argument won’t work against me, because I was, am and will stay in Ukraine, and also lived for some time at the frontline area. Moreover, I was at the front line directly. By the will of fate I found myself there on the very first day of the invasion, and soon I ended up in the Territorial Defense Forces, thus becoming a participant in one of the main battles of the beginning of the war, albeit not at the forefront of it.

Furthermore, my comrades in the organization can confirm that, obviously, it was not for the notorious defense of the Fatherland that I signed up as a volunteer at that time, but simply, so to speak, to go on an extreme fishing trip – to catch fish in troubled waters, if you catch my drift, and as soon as the water began to rapidly clear, I immediately left the territorial defense, because behind the frontlines, according to the collective opinion, I was of more use to all of us. And while I managed to get into the TDF at the first try and disappear at the first try, the famous right-wing SR Taras Belous, famous for his exalted letters to Western leftists, written in an appealing character of a Ukrainian left-wing activist turned soldier, had been trying to join the militia for several weeks. You bet, because, as you know, people with bad eyesight are reluctantly accepted into the army (nowadays, however, they “accept” everyone). To be a socialist with good eyesight means to see obvious things that destroy the social-chauvinist position, and therefore to reject it. Personally, my eyesight is excellent, and I am fit for military service as well as for the Communist movement. I know perfectly well the horrors of the war with Russia – I have seen them myself. But I know just as well the horrors of the war against reason – I have seen them too, and I see them every day, and my opponents in this article are its ardent fighters. One should not shriek and drown in hysteria. One should think, think with one's head. In a Trojan horse of emotion-punching pitch, social chauvinists hypocritically convey the idea that it is necessary to side with one of the perpetrators of all the horrors of war, rather than with the side that eradicates horrors and wars. However, there is by no means necessarily a malicious intent here; they may well have been themselves deceived by the same Trojan horse of the ordinary chauvinists' agenda, or have come to their conclusions under the direct impression of all that is transpiring. However, these excuses really only justify the delusions of shocked philistines, not in any way the people who engage in politics. There is definitely no place for the faint-hearted in politics – especially in Ukrainian politics.

Our pro-government leftist “friends” like to invoke the alliance of the Communist Party of China and the Kuomintang against Japan in 1937-1946, but – I skip all other, including the most primary, comments to this analogy – what is the position of today's USL, SR, RD, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., and what was the position of the CPC back then? A bearded man once said back in the 19th century: "In politics, for the sake of a known goal, you can make an alliance even with the devil himself – you just have to be sure that you will lead the devil, and not be led by him.” Mao, by the time he made a compromise with Chiang Kai-shek, had some territory, army and strategy. The Great Helmsman was able to use the compromise with the Nationalists to defeat them later. And what about our morons? These knuckleheads managed to make a unilateral treaty with the devil, i.e. they went in his service and he didn't even notice that they did. They have no territory, no army, no strategy – they have nothing, and Satan will give them nothing. They didn't even sell out, they just gifted their souls to the devil. He continues to torture them, and they continue to say that he is good nonetheless. Is it so difficult for them to gather the remnants of honor and move to the platform of revolutionary Marxism? Apparently, it's impossibly hard. But, what we’re seeing here is more akin to some kind of perversion. It's a case of Stockholm Syndrome in full swing.