Why we have left ISL?

Why we have left ISL?

Below, we publish the full text of the SEP Central Committee letter sent to the ISL member organizations:

Hello Comrade

As you know, important differences of opinion arose between the SEP and the ISL Executive Committee (IEC) on the issues related to the Ukrainian War. The ISL declarations, published in the first months after Russia invaded Ukraine, had a balanced content to comprise the differences. On the one hand, the declarations had opposed the invasion of Russia, on the other hand, put a "real" distance between themselves and the NATOist perspective.[1]

However, within months, MST comrades unilaterally shifted ISL policy to a line crystallized in the slogan "Struggle for the defeat of Russia". As this strategy is also NATO's strategy, we (SEP) were greatly disturbed by the change in ISL's policy. In this context, our serious warnings regarding both the Ukrainian policy and the Ukrainian section were ignored. On the contrary, new articles added to the website and video conferences made the policy change clearer. In the face of this one-sided attitude that ignores differences, we had to publish an article on the ISL website that criticizes the current line within the bounds of the culture of comradeship.[2] On the other hand, MST not only removed our article from the site hastily but also, in a sense, made a coup within ISL by changing the passwords of the website and social media accounts, that is, by disabling SEP. To justify its coup, the MST accused us of non-compliance with the ISL statute. However, the MST had already unilaterally pushed the ISL policy to an extreme line, even though they knew that we had different views on this extremely important issue. This policy shift without finalizing the discussions and seeking a balance is itself an anti-democratic attitude that does not recognize any organizational rules. The fact that our article was removed from the ISL website under the pretext of “statute” and our access to ISL accounts was not due to a sensitivity about the statute but to the need to prevent a real discussion.


You have all read the document called ISL “Discussion Bulletin”. The SEP article in the document was our article that MST removed from the ISL site and was not written for the discussion bulletin. Four articles were written in response to this article. In this case, we should have at least one more right to answer. After the deletion of our article and the change of the passwords, it has become clear to us that there is no ground for discussion with the current IEC (International Executive Committee).


This article you will read aims to explain the reasons for SEP's separation from ISL as well as a general response to the discussion bulletin. Some comrades would ask: Couldn't we stay in the ISL and fight to fix some mistakes? First of all, it should be known that the grounds on which these discussions will be conducted openly have been removed by the MST. As a basis for discussion, the idea of an extraordinary congress of the ISL was first put forward, and then it was immediately abandoned. Instead, it was decided to hold an expanded IEC meeting where all sections would participate at the leadership level. Then this decision was not implemented. When we asked the Pakistani section (The Struggle) if there was any development on this issue, we did not even get an answer to our question. Pakistani section, which is the only section with weight in ISL sections, apart from Argentina and Turkey, refrained from even expressing their opinion on the Ukraine War, including the “Discussion Bulletin” and unfortunately adapted itself completely to the MST position.


In addition, despite all the striking criticism and information we brought, the 100% unanimity of the rest of the members of the IEC and the prevention of a real discussion showed that the ISL is a typical leader party organization (“mother party” international), contrary to what it wanted to show itself. The composition of the IEC consists of the Argentines, except for Pakistan, the very young and small Chilean section, and the Ukrainian section, which we sharply blame. The orders of the MST are implemented without question. The same egocentric and ignoring attitude that MST followed in France was also decisive in the liquidation of the French section, La Commune.


Apart from the basic organizational problems of international construction, the political orientation that MST insistently defends on Ukraine has great deviations. The fact that the Morenist family (UIT, LIT, etc.) including the MST took very similar erroneous attitudes in the Ukraine War and other critical international developments (Syria, Libya, Venezuela, etc.) is of course not a coincidence and shows us that the problem has deep theoretical roots.


Imperialist wars have served as the litmus test for socialists throughout history. It has always been a necessity to separate from those who could not pass the test. Today, we are faced with such a crossroads. While we hate the morbid divisions and sectarianism within the revolutionary Marxist organisations, we cannot simply ignore the red lines that revolutionaries should have. The idea of ​​an international organization embodying partial differences has not lost its validity. But the issue of attitude towards the imperialist war far exceeds the category of "partial difference". These differences become even more important at a time when the crisis of the imperialist capitalist system is deepening and, in parallel, imperialist wars are spreading. In short, separations over very critical issues such as war and revolution are not unnecessary at all, they are even more necessary for the development of the revolutionary struggle. In this context, the gap in terms of principle and method between the current position of MST-led ISL and the SEP is not going to be closed.


From now on, the SEP will continue its efforts for an international organization with comrades in Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Germany, apart from Turkey. Our work in this direction and our perspective on current issues will be published on socialistmiddleeast.com. On the other hand, we will continue to look for opportunities to unite our forces with other revolutionary Marxist organizations from different traditions.

We will examine the chain of errors of the ISL on the Ukraine War under the following headings:

  • The character of the war was misidentified. NATO's role in initiating and leading the war was denied. Thus, an independent position could not be displayed while opposing the invasion of Russia.
  • The Western working class was advised to take practically the same position as their imperialist states. (The struggle for the defeat of Russia)
  • The claim that the defeat of Russia will lead to progressive consequences, became the basis for the current policy.
  • Ukraine was portrayed as Palestine or occupied Iraq, not as a country receiving almost unlimited arms and financial support from NATO.
  • The nature of the imperialist hierarchy and the strategy of maintaining and consolidating the world hegemony of the USA, which is still the superpower of world imperialism, could not be understood.
  • The Morenist orientation, which defends democratic revolutions in countries with dictatorships, practically resembles the false dichotomy of "democracy versus dictatorship" used by the USA. Naturally democratic stageism brings with it the tendency to cooperate with bourgeois forces. 
  • Since the Maidan Coup in 2014, it has been overlooked that the regime in Ukraine has far-right characteristics and is completely under the control of the USA. Some basic facts were ignored, such as the fact that the parliament in Kyiv declared genocider Stepan Bandera's birthday as a national day of commemoration.
    • MST is so sloppy and reckless that they could organize a protest with the slogan "Slava Ukraini" which is the symbol of extreme right for long decades. So the tendency to adapt to what is popular is very clear.
    • It has been ignored that the Ukrainian section, from past to present, has such a nationalist perspective that it even flirts with far-right forms of Ukrainian nationalism.


Brief explanations for these points:


 The Character of the War and the Propaganda of Russia's Defeat


At the heart of the differences is the ISL's determination of its central position as the "defeat of Russia”. This motto is also the main strategy of NATO. We cannot take seriously those who deny this fact. It is quite distressing to reduce the war as the expansionism of the Putin regime and to be in a position parallel to the US expansionism at the most important breaking point in recent history. Seeing such parallelism as normal is also dangerous. Symbolically spoken anti-NATO remarks cannot obscure this parallelism and cannot be taken seriously.


Recent developments have shown strikingly how dangerous wrong attitudes can be. Other than Eastern Europe the US/NATO continues its encirclement policy in the Far East too against China and has accelerated its efforts in this regard in economic, political, and military terms. As a product of this expansionist strategy, US imperialism presents Taiwan as a pawn to be sacrificed. We are familiar with this situation in Ukraine.

When we take into account Serbia-Kosovo, Armenia-Azerbaijan and Iran-Saudi Arabia, which are so close to war, we see that the possibility of expanding imperialist wars rises along the same lines. In other words, bending the stick towards the US axis while opposing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, may cause chain mistakes. If we are not careful about the aggressive encirclement policies of the USA, which is still at the top of world imperialism, we will make ourselves supporters of the USA/NATO strategy. It's all about misrepresenting the character of war.


Although MST comrades talk about the dual character of the war, in reality, the ISL policy is one-sided. As we have mentioned before, the character of the war is on the one hand national due to the occupation of Ukraine, and on the other hand, international due to the proxy war organized by NATO against Russia. However, the current policy of the ISL, contrary to this duality, defines the Ukraine War as imperialist Russia's invasion of colonial Ukraine, and accordingly, makes the policy of “defeat of Russia” its chief strategy. Thus, this reactionary proxy war is promoted to the category of "just war". Again, to mask the NATO parallelism, “military support, not political”, is mentioned for the regime in Ukraine. As if the political and the military could be separated from each other. To speak of such a distinction is to fail to understand the nature of imperialism because, in the era of imperialism, the economic, military, and geopolitical fields are intertwined.


In the current policy of the ISL, the Ukraine policy of US imperialism for many years and its interventions in the ongoing war are covered up. In addition, since 2014, the current regime in Kyiv became an extreme right-wing state structure, systematically oppressed minorities, and turned Ukraine into a vassal state of the USA. All that aside, it is a great contradiction that the Morenist currents, who raised the roof for Ukraine's independence, are ardent defenders of the Maidan colored revolution in 2014, which made Ukraine a vassal state of the USA.


The expansion and encirclement strategy implemented by NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the internal conflicts in the recent history of Ukraine was deliberately overlooked. The current leadership of ISL is turning a blind eye to these realities of recent history, as it does not suit them. In this sense, we have to determine that the Ukrainian War is not a "just war" but a "proxy war" between imperialists.

For the United States, the context of the Ukraine War is the expansion of NATO, the encirclement of its strengthening rivals, then its military and economic collapse, and eventual disintegration. In other words, the "defeat of Russia" policy is also an expression of the strategic determination of NATO/USA. Then, it is collaborative to try to mobilize the working class in Western countries around the slogan of the "defeat of Russia". ISL must urgently correct this historic error. We will not be a party to this mistake.


Isn’t NATO at War?


NATO is already doing its best to implement the slogan "the defeat of Russia" put forward by Comrade Alejandro. As it is known that NATO provides unlimited vital weapons, money, and intelligence support to the Ukrainian state. Apart from this, NATO's military expertise, logistics, and training support are directly influential on the course of the war. Otherwise, the achievements of the Ukrainian army so far cannot be explained with mere Ukrainian nationalism and national defense motivation.


We are told that NATO soldiers are not fighting on the battlefield directly, so this war does not have an imperialist character. Firstly, the US soldiers may not be actively fighting in the field as an infantry force, but they are in the war itself with much more important methods and tools in modern wars. Thanks to satellite and drone support, the NATO operations room informs the Ukrainian army of the location of Russian troops, command posts, supply routes, and ammunition depots. Then the HIMARS missiles, which make pinpoint firing at these targets, come into play. So, does the Ukrainian army have the ability to use these newly arrived missile systems without NATO experts? Of course not. Apart from this, not only in Britain or the USA but also on the Ukrainian frontline, NATO units are giving military training and participating in conflicts. You can come across a lot of news about these in Western media.[3] In short, since the USA does not want to join a nuclear war, it may not directly participate in the war, but in other ways, USA and its allies are at the heart of the war. The effort to collapse the Russian economy is another aspect of these efforts. So the Ukraine War is also the proxy war of the USA. Those who deny this fact deliberately mislead people.


Russia's advance in Donbas came to a halt as of July, as NATO countries increasingly supplied more effective weapons to Ukraine. Then the counterattacks of Kyiv began, and the Russian army suffered heavy defeats in almost every region. As a matter of fact, throughout September, the possibility of a collapse of the Russian army on all fronts appeared. We watch the Russian army, deliberately exaggerated as the world's second most powerful army in ISL policy, falling apart in a NATO-backed war. So much so that the Russian army is relying on weapons from Iran to resist the Ukrainian army’s counterattack.


On the other hand, we cannot understand Ukraine without understanding how NATO took over the administration in Kyiv. We explained this in detail in our previous article. After 2014, a new form of state was created in Kyiv under the command of the USA, placing far-right elements in key positions and crushing the left opposition and oppressing the Russian-speaking minority. That's why we call it “the Kyiv regime”. If MST comrades are to talk about the colonization of Ukraine, they should start with the regime change in 2014. We examined the recent history of Ukraine with striking examples and evidence in our previous article. However, in the four articles produced as responses, no explanation was given for these basic facts about recent history.[4] As Clausewitz used by Lenin, emphasized in his famous statement, war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means. Therefore, to understand the nature of the ongoing war today, it is necessary to look not only at February 2022, when the war began but also, for example, the Ukrainian civil war and the Euro Maiden coup. Only superficial and impressionistic conclusions can be drawn without understanding these dynamics and processes.

The obvious truth is that NATO/USA finally took over the administration of Ukraine starting in 2014 and dragged the country into war. The Ukrainian bourgeoisie, consisting of Eastern and Western oligarchs, invited the imperialist forces (USA and Russia) to their internal conflicts, failed to follow an independent and balanced foreign policy, and the country was dragged into civil war with the push of the USA. This aspect of the war cannot be skipped while opposing Russian aggression and occupation.


What Message ISL Give to the Western Working Class?


ISL's current Ukraine policy is bound to have confusing and regressive consequences. It is necessary to consider the destructive effect that the emphasis on the "defeat of Russia" will have on the consciousness of the Western working class. Coming together with their imperialist ruling class on the same policy (the defeat of Russia) means that the working class is under the control of the imperialist bourgeoisie. This policy will leave the working class defenseless against imperialist lies and war propaganda. Currently, the ruling classes in the West are conducting a very active campaign against Russia. The Ukrainian flag flies on government buildings in imperialist centers; anti-Russian propaganda is perpetuated in the media, in the city squares and streets.


If the working class in the West adopts a common spirit with its imperialist ruling class through the lies of democracy and freedom, it will be defeated from the beginning. The working classes that do not understand the role of their ruling classes in the war and do not oppose it will pay the price of the economic crisis and war. After all, Russia will be responsible for unbearably increasing food, heating, and fuel costs. The Western imperialist bourgeoisie argues that this price must be paid for the “free world”, to defend Ukraine, and invites the workers to sacrifice. In other words, the USA/NATO demands sacrifices from the workers for the "defeat of Russia", which is the central motto of the ISL. While the economic crisis, aggravated by the effects of the war, impoverished the workers rapidly, the worst slogan to be raised by the ISL is the slogan of the defeat of Russia. Fortunately, strikes and protests are rising across Europe, and the broad masses are rejecting their own ruling classes' role in the Ukraine War.


If the socialists in the imperialist centers are to stand in line with their imperialist ruling classes, this socialism will be a Kautsky type of socialism. The logical consequence of the current perspective of the ISL is that the working people will demand greater involvement of their imperialist states in the war for Ukraine's victory. With this logic, ardent Ukraine defenders such as Biden and Boris Johnson, who pursued hawkish policies against Russia, will gain public approval. In this case, the critical attitude can only be made from an even more right-wing place. "Why don't you send more weapons to Ukraine?"


A Ukrainian volunteer, who was mentioned as an ISL member in an interview on the ISL website, asks his comrades in other countries to put pressure on their states to send more weapons to Ukraine.[5] So with this logic, we as SEP will ask Erdogan to send Ukraine more Bayraktar drones! The fact of the matter is that the AKP government has already “proudly” sent a large amount of Bayraktar to Ukraine, even some of it for free. If we had listened to this Ukrainian volunteer and asked Erdogan to send more weapons to Ukraine, it would have been the end of us as revolutionaries. That is the position of the MST-led ISL.


Some Morenist parties have already adopted the aforementioned warmonger position. They do not only criticize NATO for sending insufficient weapons to Ukraine, they argue that the economic sanctions against Russia should be further tightened. In other words, they have a situation where they want the USA to be more hawkish. Their position in practice is the incitement of world war. These people call themselves socialists! However, the revolutionary Marxist tradition developed with Karl Liebknecht's motto "The Real Enemy Is Inside" and paid the price for it. Revolutionaries try to lead the actions and consciousness of the working class in this revolutionary direction.


MST may bring up its empathy rhetoric against NATO as a defense. But a worker who agrees with the perspective of Russia's defeat will immediately object to this defense: "If the main issue is Ukraine's victory, why do you want NATO to withdraw from Eastern Europe?" At this point, the emptiness of the symbolic discourses used by the ISL against NATO emerges. Confused masses will of course object: “Can't you see that without NATO, the 'defeat of Russia' is not possible and other eastern European countries will be invaded too!” If the main issue is Russia's defeat, why not ask NATO to send even more effective weapons to Ukraine, as the USFI did? If the main issue is Russia's defeat, opposing NATO will seem to the masses completely pointless and indeed harmful. Because, without these, it would not be possible to defeat Russia.


This great inconsistency does not seem to go unnoticed. The MST's critique of NATO serves to cover the MST's convergence with NATO on the Ukraine War. A couple of words which are just symbolic against NATO have no practical meaning. The social patriotism of those like Bernie Sanders, who want strong military support for Ukraine without wasting time, will be much more consistent with the masses. This consistency is the unfailing pro-state position of Kautskyism. So to tell socialists in the West to fight for Russia's defeat is a murderous policy. Socialists in the western bloc must lead the masses to struggle against the expansionist policy of their ruling class. The working class cannot be revolutionary without such an attitude. And currently without such opposition the USA/NATO, which gets what it wants in Ukraine, will easily continue its provocations against China.


Therefore, the slogan of defeating Russia, presented as the official position of the ISL, is a slogan that will regress the consciousness of the working class. The natural consequence of this policy is that in practice the workers support their imperialist state policy. We did not receive a response to the criticisms we brought on this issue, in the 4 articles written against us in the discussion bulletin. The only comment on this issue is Ruben Tzanoff's bewilderment questioning how an international organization can take contradictory stances in different countries. This astonishment reveals how deep the lack of revolutionary perspective is. First of all, an organization that claims to be a world organization must have a clear attitude towards the world's greatest imperialist power and the workers living in the countries under its rule. This clarity can be shaped by the perspective of the real enemy inside. On the other hand, sections of a world organization in different countries may have different tactics, and it may be necessary for revolutionaries in different countries to bend the stick in opposite directions. For example, the slogan "The defeat of Russia", which is a revolutionary slogan in Russia, is collaborative in the West. This apparent contradiction is related to the nature of the structure of the imperialist world system divided into nation-states and the irreconcilable antagonism between working class and the bourgeoisie. The revolutionary working class has to oppose the policies of its bourgeoisie inside and outside. In other words, the policy we propose is not contradictory; on the contrary, it has a complementary character. Railroaders and airline workers in Greece and Italy blocked NATO weapons going to Ukraine. The railway workers in Belarus did the same to stop Russian cargo. Workers trying to defy the imperialist policies of their ruling classes are the hope of the future.

Contradictions between the national and international character of the war required the ISL to apply different tactics in different countries. Unfortunately, ISL has failed at this point. The main criterion here is the development of the consciousness, organization, and struggle of the working class.

As SEP, we have defended the following stance from the very beginning:

  • The revolutionaries in Russia are to organize, propagandize and lead actions for the defeat of Russia in the war.
  • The revolutionaries in Ukraine took an independent stance from the Kyiv regime, forming underground organizations, and calling out to Ukrainian and Russian workers and soldiers against the oligarchs of both sides while opposing the Russian occupation and ethnic war.
  • Demanding that the revolutionaries in the West prioritize the struggle against their imperialist states in the anti-war movement, oppose the arms shipments and demand the lifting of economic sanctions.


If Russia Is Defeated at the End of the War


MST leader Alejandro Bodart claims that Russia's loss of the war will not mean the victory of NATO. And to support this weak claim, he argues that the real strength of NATO is none other than Putin, who invaded Ukraine. Okay, the despot in the Kremlin and the oligarchic structure around him showed that they could not analyze Ukraine and the world situation. As a result of not being aware of their corruption and incapabilities, they messed up what they had intended to do. The mistakes they made will be studied as a lesson in the history of wars. But that's not our point! Our topic is whether the defeat of Russia will lead to the strengthening of the United States or not. This is the question Bodart is trying to avoid, and the answer is obvious to any serious person. The past, present, and future of this war belong to NATO. And of course, if Russia loses, the USA at the top of the imperialist hierarchy will have achieved a tremendous breakthrough. And they will want to continue these successes with their dominant and aggressive attitudes in different countries. The success or failure of the United States in Ukraine is also decisive for its policy to the encirclement of China and to gather a broad anti-Chinese front in the Asia Pacific under the leadership of the United States.


According to another claim of Bodart and other comrades, if Russia is defeated, the Putin dictatorship will be overthrown and oppressed nations in Russia will regain their "freedom"! For revolutionaries in the West, these hypothetical results cannot be an excuse to back up their own state's imperialist policies. Everyone must first reckon with their ruling class. This principle is the most basic starting point for revolutionary tactics. It is not a job to adapt to the policy of its ruling class in case there is a revolution in another country. Is it conceivable that world socialists would defend Argentina's defeat in the Anglo-Argentine War by saying "Let Argentina be defeated so that the fascist junta in Argentina will be overthrown"!


But is it not possible to overthrow Putin, accompanied by anti-war actions and strikes, thanks to Russia's defeat? Of course, apart from other bad and more probable possibilities (history has shown that ultra-nationalist administrations can also emerge from defeats), this possibility cannot be excluded, but an international revolutionary organization does not produce policy in this way. That's the main issue. It is one thing for the revolutionaries in Russia to challenge the Putin dictatorship in an internationalist way, it is another thing to back up the socialists in the West to their ruling class in case the dictatorship will be overthrown in Russia. The revolutionaries and the anti-war public opinion in Russia have been one of the few forces on the world left that has taken the right stance from the very beginning by having the courage to oppose Putin. But many leftist groups in the West have become instruments of NATO's crimes and propaganda by participating in the anti-Russian imperialist engagement.


Let's come to the claim that the defeat of Russia in the war will bring "freedom" to the oppressed nations. The disintegration of Russia is also the US plan for Russia. So you have to be very cautious about it. From Chechnya to the Uyghur region in China, separatist fanatic Islamists have been supported by US intelligence from past to present. In short, the fragmentation of Russia by ethnic and religious strife is not progressive in itself! It cannot be expected that any "liberations" which do not contain progressive subjects, will serve the oppressed peoples, the working class, and the cause of the revolution. So we must carefully consider the issue of the national question.


Ukraine as a National Issue


The war in Ukraine cannot simply be defined as the resistance of the oppressed peoples. For example, the current situation in Ukraine should not be confused with the situation in Western Sahara. Ukraine has a state with a certain military capacity, where right-wing extremism has been elevated to the level of official ideology. This state has suppressed minorities, crushed the left opposition, and has the support of the world's most powerful imperialists. In short, the example we have is neither like the stateless Palestinians, Kurds, Catalans, etc. nor does it resemble Saddam's lonely Iraq nor Gaddafi's lonely Libya under the attack of a superpower. The leader of the ISL’s Ukrainian section, Oleg Vernyk, told stories about Russia's aid to Saddam Hussein during the Gulf Wars in the Discussion Bulletin. We have plenty of examples of such demagogy, which is told just to flap his jaws, often incompatible with the facts and revealing that the issue is not understood at all. There is no need to waste time with such comments comparing the situation of Iraq in the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars and the so-called Russian aid to Iraq, with the situation of Ukraine and the NATO aid today.


The ISL should have tried to organize an anti-war movement on the grounds of Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine, the end of NATO intervention and expansion, and the right of self-determination for the Donbas. But while doing this, the Kyiv regime should never be supported, and NATO propaganda and projects should not be backed up. But that didn't happen! ISL now gives unconditional support to the Kyiv regime.


Yes, Ukraine is not Palestine or Iraq that was attacked by the US in 1990-91. But it is also clear that a national war is being organized against Russia in Ukraine. Let's forget for a moment that the war is also an international proxy war and that in the Donbas there is another national question arising from the pressures of Ukrainian nationalism. As a result of this assumption, we have only a national resistance movement led by the right or the extreme right forces. So, what should be the principled attitude in such a situation? There are examples in other countries where national resistances are led by the right and extreme right. For example, the jihadists in Chechnya, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the Uyghur movement in China. Now will ISL announce these resistances as glorious resistances to the workers of the world? Or will we say that the political and the military fields are separated, and encourage our supporters in these countries to fight under the military leadership of these national resistances, as we did in Ukraine? So, should we say to our few comrades in Afghanistan, join the Taliban ranks? We asked this question in our previous article. But in response, we could only read Vernyk's irrelevant demagogy.

In the past, we have seen those who misunderstood the imperialism and the national question applaud the Taliban or ISIS. The campers, who greeted the last victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan as a victory for the world working class, of course, were horribly ridiculous. But the problem is not just limited to the Islamist extremists! As in the case of Azeri nationalism in Iran, the secular right/far right is equally our enemy. It is one thing to protest the war and oppression of the USA in Afghanistan, Iran in southern Azerbaijan, and Russia in Chechnya; It is quite another thing to cooperate with far-right national leaderships, to portray them as progressive, or even to propagate war under their military command. From these examples we can deduce the principles regarding the situation in Ukraine. But ISL's current position converges with NATO strategy and completely destroys the independent class positions. As a contrasting example, we in Turkey defend the right of Kurds to self-determination, while at the same time collaborating with the Kurdish national movement, which has a left characteristic, in the practical struggle. We have to understand this distinction.


So, how should we behave in cases where national movements have a right-wing/far-right character, as in Ukraine? For example, revolutionaries in Russia and China have to struggle against the oppression of their states in Chechnya and Uyghur. They cannot be revolutionary otherwise. Defending the right of oppressed nations to self-determination in these countries is a breaking point for the internationalist consciousness of the working class of Russia and China. On the other hand, of course, cooperation with right-wing national movements is unthinkable, which will lead to regressions in the consciousness of the masses and the right-wing degeneration of the revolutionary vanguard. Other revolutionaries in the rest of the world should raise their voices against the oppression in Chechnya or the Uyghur, but not ally with right-wing national movements. Conversely in the examples of Palestine, Kurdistan, Western Sahara, Catalonia, etc. national movements are left wing and revolutionary Marxists must be in certain relations of solidarity and alliance with these national movements. The boundaries and scope of these alliances will be determined by the concrete situation of the struggle.

ISL's support for the regime in Kyiv is justified under the pretext of self-determination. Here, too, is told that "we give military support, not political support and we criticize". What military support can ISL provide to Ukraine at this stage? We don't have any solid evidence other than one interview whose authenticity is highly questionable, but the political support is obvious. It is clear enough to repeat the one-sided propaganda in Kyiv and to set the slogan of the defeat of Russia as the chief strategy. Even the Ukrainian section's “critics” towards the Kyiv regime, which is only limited to neoliberalism, is an attitude to protect the regime. After all, even the social democratic governments all over the world are actually neoliberals. Covering up the policies implemented by Kyiv since 2014 and being content with the criticism of neoliberalism is the most unionist and fickle type of criticism ever possible.


So, can ISL's support for the Kyiv regime be explained by the right to self-determination? If the attitude on this issue does not serve the cause of revolution, if it regresses the consciousness and organization capability of the working class, it means that Lenin's principle is being distorted. This would be a Wilsonian interpretation of the Leninist principle. Lenin openly warned that: “the programme [of the right to self-determination] merely demands that a genuinely socialist party shall not corrupt proletarian class-consciousness, or slur over the class struggle, or lure working class with bourgeois-democratic phrases, or break the unity of the proletariat’s present-day political struggle. This reservation is the crux of the matter, for only with this reservation do we recognise self-determination.”[6]


If we are going to put our supporters on the tails of the right-wingers saying "it is the choice of the masses", then let's also defend Ukraine's right to become a member of NATO. Just as USFI did, this proved its social democratization. Indeed, a nation's choice to become a member of NATO can also be presented as a part of the "self-determination" right. Once you get caught in this “democratism disease”, it means that you are under the control of the USA, the leader of the “democracy camp”. In the world socialist movement, the deviation of democratism, which is inclined to the democracy camp of the USA, positions itself as the opposite of the deviation that sees Russia and China as progressive. Democratism deviation refers to the adaptation to liberal democratic values in general, the explanation of freedom by individual or group interests, the adoption of identity politics, and the reduction of revolutionary struggle to lobbying and pressure groups. Tailism towards the mass movements without considering their content, leadership, and direction around the slogan of "democracy against dictators", which is also the ideological discourse of the US foreign policy, is another aspect of the deviation of democratism.


Balance of Power Between the Imperialists


Imperialism contains not only the oppression of weak nations and states by the stronger ones but also inter-imperialist strife and conflicts. This approach tells us that we should not look at the Ukrainian War only within the framework of Ukraine's right to self-determination. The Ukrainian War cannot be detached from its international context. In this context, the revolutionary world organization has to present correct policies by understanding how the relations between the imperialists have transformed over time. In this context, where should we bend the stick, taking into account the conflicting national and international dynamics regarding the Ukraine War? The issue is mainly about that. For this, it is necessary to understand the imperialist hierarchy and the dynamics of social struggle correctly.


How can we summarize the fight for ranks within the current imperialist hierarchy? When the second World War was over, the bipolar superpower rivalry between the USA and the USSR divided the world into two and started the era known as the Cold War. Wars could not be hot because a nuclear war would mean an apocalypse for both parties. Instead, the Super Powers sought to weaken each other with proxy wars. In this period, while the former colonies gained their independence, albeit, in form, the economic term of colonialism had already expired. It was replaced by open markets dominated by the US industry. This is how the imperialist new world order would work. Over time, Western Europe and Japan made their industrial breakthroughs under US leadership. During this period, underdeveloped countries such as Israel, South Korea, India, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia emerged as sub-imperialist powers by accumulating significant amounts of capital.


When the USSR collapsed in 1991, an almost-unipolar pax-Americana era began. Post-USSR Russia, on the other hand, was simply exhausted. Guided by Western consultants, Yeltsin and his team left the people starving with their sharp and authoritarian policies of marketization called “shock therapy”. The industry collapsed, and production stopped. From 1986 to 1999, oil barrel prices fluctuated at the level of 10-20 dollars. The Kremlin had run out of money and corruption was rampant. The oligarchs, who got rich quickly in the plundering environment of this period, mocked tens of millions of people who were struggling with hunger.


Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and even Putin in the first place wanted to move Russia to the Western Bloc by becoming a member of the EU. But the USA and Britain, the Trojan horse of the USA in the EU, were trying to prevent Russia from ever standing up again, let alone joining the EU. Starting from Chechnya, it was desired to break up Russia and intensify ethnic and religious conflicts. The fact that NATO was based on the Russian border was a product of this policy. It was a common idea in those years that the disintegration of Russia was inevitable.


Thanks to oil prices, which rose again during the period when Putin came to power, the Russian economy began to rise from the bottom where it was sinking rapidly. First, after the separatists in Chechnya were crushed brutally, Russia's disintegration dynamics withered. Then Russia tried to establish its patronage in the former USSR lands. But the Baltic states, for example, were already included in NATO. On the other hand, the interventions in Georgia and Ukraine and participation in the Syrian civil war as an overseas operation proved that Russia has advanced again in the imperialist hierarchy. The Kremlin treasury had enough power to afford these operations. Between 1999 and 2008, Russia's GDP grew by 94% and per capita income doubled. As Russia became economically stronger, it tended to modernize its military technology, diversify its economic activities and consolidate its influence in the former USSR countries.

On the other hand, Russia's intervention in Syria and the operations it carried out in Libya caused Russia's capacity to appear more than it actually is. First of all, if the US wanted to, they could easily overthrow Assad. But it was clear that it could not replace Assad with anything but a bunch of jihadist gangs ready to commit genocide against minorities. After it became clear that the US army would not interfere directly, Putin was able to intervene in Syria. However, Russia did not fight on the ground in Syria; air support, diplomacy, and military advice certainly made a difference, but this was only possible because the jihadists had not got sophisticated weapons. Since the United States and other states could not provide air defense systems to the jihadists (because they knew that these weapons would fall into the hands of organizations such as ISIS and backfire), Russian planes and helicopters were able to easily attack in the Syrian airspace and became effective. Despite this, it had been seen in the Syrian civil war that the air strike capability of Russian planes cannot be compared with that of the United States.


In short, there was a time when Russia's military capabilities appeared to be much greater than they actually were. It is clear from his catastrophic mistakes in Ukraine that Putin and the sycophants around him were fascinated by this exaggerated impression.

It has emerged in this war that the Russian army could not achieve technological renewal, its electronic warfare capacity is weak, drone technology is missed, its professional troops and special forces are insufficient in number, command-control organizations are unsuccessful, logistics capabilities are low, and the army bureaucracy is entangled in corruption. On the other hand, it is seen that the Ukrainian army, which is considered to be technologically backward and weak, has become quite strong with the sophisticated weapons of NATO. The advance of the Russian army in the field has stopped and the Ukrainian army, which is at the stage of organizing a counterattack, became the advanced party. For example, why did Russia fail to seize air superiority? Because it was seen that the use of guided missiles by Russian warplanes was limited and they tried to hit their targets by diving. But the Ukrainian army has plenty of Stinger and similar missiles they bought from NATO and the diving planes are hunted with these missiles. In other words, the same scenario as in the Afghanistan War, which started in 1979, is experienced this time in Ukraine in 2022. And the Russian army in general is no more advanced than the Chechen war of the 1990s. The Russian army has lost more soldiers in the first 7 months of the Ukraine War than the overall casualties in the 9-year occupation of Afghanistan.


Imperialist wars are also a process in which the forces of imperialist powers are tested. Using the method used by Lenin in his theory of imperialism, we emphasized that Russia is only an imperialist power in the 3rd category. Our interlocutors in the IEC did not object to this. So, the revolutionary world organization must still carefully follow the policies of our strongest enemy at the top of the world imperialist hierarchy and design its policies accordingly. That is the essence of the debate.


The United States today has ardent allies in Eastern Europe and has greatly consolidated its leadership over Western Europe. With its historical decision, which is a return to its militarist historical heritage, Germany, the leading country of the EU, has decided to have a real warrior army and make huge increases in armament expenditures. The rebirth of old militarisms from Germany to Japan takes place under the US leadership. In the anti-Chinese alliance in Asia-Pacific, powers such as Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, etc. gathered under the leadership of the USA. We have to consider the Ukraine and Taiwan issues by this historical and international background.


The USA, whose self-confidence has increased in Ukraine, has deliberately escalated the tension with China by provoking Taiwan. The Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, accompanied by warplanes, made a provocative visit to Taiwan just as the Ukraine War was raging. The preparations for war in Taiwan, which have strengthened its army for many years, are in progress at full speed. The United States is provoking World War III. Now will socialists in the US and other Western countries emphasize Taiwan's self-determination or will they attack the US warmonger? No one should doubt that those who choose the first option are toys of US imperialism.

We can compare the current situation with the world's strongest bully beating smaller bullies who try to rival him with his gang. Against the USA, China is still only a regional imperialist power. Although China has economic, political, and military efforts to become a global power, there is still a long way to go in this regard. The United States and its partners are ready to do whatever they can to prevent this. This includes starting a war.

We said that Russia can only be a third-degree power in the imperialist hierarchy. Ruben Tzanoff, who is at the ISL IEC on behalf of the Spanish section, objected to this by stating that Russia is a superpower in its region. Clearly, Tzanoff forgets NATO's presence in the region and it has become a neighbor to Russia while at the same time undermining that the regime in Kyiv is a vassal of the United States. Also, when the real superpower (USA) intervened, the real capacity and weakness of the regional power Russia were revealed.




Campism can be described as all the regimes that had conflict with the USA during the Cold War, seen as allies by the USSR front. Campism was like a summary of the foreign policy of the bureaucratic elite in the USSR. The bureaucratic regime in the USSR saw the radicalism of the working class and youth in the world as a danger to itself, while its main strategy was gaining the regimes that conflicted with the USA in one way or another, to Soviet friendship. For example, the odious Cuban dictator Batista had the support of the USSR and the Cuban Communist Party. Or, in Iran, Islamists led by anti-US Khomeini were supported, not leftists and socialists. Striking examples could be extended. Hugo Chavez's entanglement with capitalist mullahs in Iran and the support of this policy by a significant part of the world left, especially those in Latin America, is another recent example.


There is still a strong tendency on the left that sees anti-imperialism as merely opposing the US foreign policy and therefore defines the China-Russia-Iran-Venezuela-Nicaragua-N. Korea axis as progressive. The main bearers of this trend are the Stalinists, who think that the USSR still lives in Russia. For example, some Stalinists went so far as to support the suppression of the workers' revolt in Kazakhstan by the troops sent by Putin. We have also witnessed the so-called Trotskyists who were thrown into such an extreme form of campism as to describe the US abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban as a victory for the oppressed peoples and ultimately the working class.


On the other hand, we need to distinguish between campism and taking a principled stance against US imperialism. Of course, all kinds of anti-US elements cannot be our friends, but US imperialism is still the biggest monster in the world. Naturally, the revolutionaries never support this monster to smash its opponents. But unfortunately, some provoke it. A socialist organization that claims to be a world organization must be very sensitive to the US and its partners, which have economic, political, military, and ideological superiority in most parts of the world. This sensitivity has nothing to do with being a campist.


Of course, we are not surprised that those who, broadcast one-sided propaganda and are not even mentioning the Ukrainian army's bombing of civilians in Donbas, constantly repeating NATO propaganda, accuse us of being campist in the Discussion Bulletin. As a party that has been advocating that Russia is an imperialist power for a long time, our stance on the Russian camp leaves no room for discussion[7]. But we must not forget that one wing of the campism is the Russian-Chinese front and the other wing is the USA/NATO front. So, campism does not mean having a standard pro-Russian attitude but also it means having standard pro-US attitude too. Indeed, we have long known the international circles that follow pro-US policies every time they are at crossroads. Weren't there socialists who supported Syrian, Libyan, Venezuelan, and Ukrainian “revolutions” and declared right-wing/far-right vanguards as revolutionaries fighting against the dictators! Aren't these a part of campism too! ISL must decide on this.

How should we stand in the Euro-Maiden coup, which is dominated by the far right and took place under the auspices of the USA? Or have we forgotten the groups that hail Islamist fanatics against Assad and the FSA gangs led by the Turkish state as revolutionaries? What about those who hailed the Islamist gangs that lynched Gaddafi with the US bombardment as revolutionaries? In all these examples, two socialist traditions come to the fore: the first is the USFI, the champion of democracy who gets along very well with its imperialist ruling class, and the other is the international Morenist tradition. Coincidentally, MST, which has a common history with Morenist organizations such as UIT-CI and LIT-CI, had observer status at USFI before the ISL project. It is obvious that the emphasis on an independent class attitude, which was put forward during the establishment of the ISL, did not bind the Morenist tradition. There is a good saying: old habits die hard!




Sadly, the ISL is positioning itself on the other side of campism in the Ukraine War. We, the SEP, did our best to change the current policy of the ISL, but it has become clear that the root of ideological problems is deep.


The defense of "democratic revolution" against dictators in Morenism is quite compatible with the foreign policy of US imperialism, which bases its ideological hegemony on the discourse of a "democratic world against dictators". Moreover, once you define the strategy as the democratic revolution, the theoretical basis for cooperating with various bourgeois currents is set. Thus, it became possible for the Morenists to declare the Free Syrian Army revolutionary against the dictator. It is overlooked that the FSA consists of Islamist gangs led by the intelligence agencies of Turkey and other states, and the masses were deceived. Or the Euro-Maiden movement in Ukraine, which is right-wing or far-right with its content, demands, and leaders, is hailed as a revolution.

Our strong reaction to the Venezuelan section of the ISL cooperating with the right-wing Guaido against Maduro [8] has led to a reversal from this terrible policy, but it seems that some errors cannot be corrected. Because the theoretical roots of the problem are deep and do not stem from partial tactical errors, but from very important strategic and programmatic deviations.


So how was this return of a Trotskyist tradition to stageism possible? Nahuel Moreno had this shift after the collapse of the military regime in Argentina in 1983. According to Moreno, the military regime had been overthrown by the “democratic revolution”, and this created a new bourgeois regime that was much more favorable as a step toward a socialist revolution. It was this false inference that allowed stageism to be theorized. In reality, the military regime in Argentina was devastated by its collapse, but what ultimately happened was a bourgeois restoration of the system. As a result of the failure of the socialist revolution, bourgeois "democratic" institutions were re-established. As a matter of fact, the next years of Argentina would be marked by Menemism, the champion of neoliberalism, and the socialist left would weaken while the working class was rapidly impoverished. Soon, the Morenists would enthusiastically launch the fall of the Berlin Wall as a democratic revolution. Impressionist superficiality brought with it a return to stageism and its poisonous fruits.


It should be noted here that the democratic revolution in Moreno was even more reactionary than the Menshevik and Stalinist forms. Because, in the traditional defense of the democratic revolution, there is a claim to solve the property problems, even if it will never be realized: the land problem, the national problem, the dependence on imperialism... But in Moreno's democratic revolution, only a program for the replacement of dictatorships with bourgeois constitutional functioning is put forward. With these ideas, Moreno polemicizes with Trotsky: “Trotsky concretely did not understand the need for a democratic revolution that would liquidate the fascist totalitarian regime as part or as the first step of the socialist revolution. This left the serious theoretical problem unsolved.[9] Actually, there was nothing that Trotsky left unsolved. If the working class cannot evolve the struggle into a socialist revolution during the overthrow of the bourgeois military dictatorships, as in many countries such as Spain, Portugal, and Argentina, imperialist capitalism will take the initiative and ensure bourgeois normalization. And of course, this is not called the democratic revolution.

The stageist line, in which Moreno agrees, means cooperation with various elements of the bourgeoisie who oppose the dictatorship, as did the Stalinists in the past. Moreover, in international politics, the Morenist conception of democratic revolution fits well with the US perspective of democratic revolution against dictators.


Revolutionary development is experienced in leaps, not in stages. It is the level of radicalism of the working class and the existence of the revolutionary vanguard that determines the outcome. The era of the democratic revolution is over and no fundamental problem of society can be solved in this way. Recent examples such as Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, and Tunisia, where dictators were overthrown as a result of popular movements, once again justified Trotsky and the theory of permanent revolution. Real social transformations are only possible through the permanent revolution that links democratic demands with socialist measures. That is, the line where Morenism broke off is exactly the line of permanent revolution.


The Roots of Ukrainian Nationalism


Right in the middle of the war, we are discussing the character of the Kyiv regime and the character of Ukrainian nationalism. ISL and others say these are Russian propaganda and get away with it. What about the facts? And why are these facts so important? These are important because the relationship to be established with national movements requires clarity. Apart from the proxy character of the war, the far-right content of the pro-US regime in Kyiv is also binding for the ISL and the Ukrainian section.

Bodart and other comrades were quite annoyed when the far-right character of the Kyiv regime and the Neo-Nazi origins of Ukrainian nationalism was mentioned. In an interview with Sergio Garcia, one of the MST leaders, Bodart accuses Stalinism of the reactionary historical character of Ukrainian nationalism and is spinning out of control in the pages of history: "Nazism in Eastern Europe is Stalinism"[10]. It is very difficult to explain such a big deviation with carelessness. Long before the victory of Stalinism in the USSR, the Ukrainian nationalists were already far-right. In the civil war that broke out after the October Revolution, Ukrainian nationalism fought against the Reds until it was crushed by the Red Army led by Trotsky. The OUN's predecessor UVO had a fascist orientation from the 1920s onwards and was dedicated to violent anticommunism and ethnic cleansing. In other words, there is no point in justifying the far-right character of Ukrainian nationalism or blindly using Stalinism as an excuse. Of course, we are aware of Stalin's murders, but statements to equate Stalinism with Nazism show that there is no perspective to be taken seriously. Sergio Garcia, as the interviewer, cannot make even the slightest objection at this point. This indiscriminate use of terms is one thing, and it's another thing to ignore the tens of millions of people the Nazis massacred in Eastern Europe and say, "Nazism in eastern Europe is Stalinism." But if Bodart is the case, he seems to know Eastern Europe best. In addition, a level of Stalinophobia to equate Stalinism and Nazism would naturally mean sailing to the camp of democratic imperialism. We know this from Schatman and Burnham, whom Trotskyism had dismissed from its ranks in the past.


Apart from that, it is very interesting that Holocaust criminals like Stepan Bandera are not even mentioned, both in what Oleg Vernyk wrote and said, as well as in what Bodart and his comrades wrote and said, in which the history of Ukraine is mentioned at length. For stating all these facts, we are accused of making Russian propaganda. However, we have to reveal the facts, whatever they are. In post-2014 Ukraine, figures like Bandera became part of official state propaganda. Genocidal people like Stetko and Bandera were declared heroes, their statues were erected everywhere. We have given detailed information about this in our previous article. Moreover, even the right-wing Polish state today expresses its discomfort with the promotion of Bandera as a national hero by the Ukrainian state. Or first lady Olena Zelenska met with the commanders of the neo-Nazi Azov Brigade in Turkey, who survived captivity and called them heroes. By denying such facts, ISL only misleads its followers. On the other hand, Vernyk himself stated that even if the Ukrainian side won the war, an extreme right-wing atmosphere would become very strong in Ukraine.[11] All these are very important information related to the mission of the revolutionaries in Ukraine.


The Tasks of the Ukrainian Revolutionaries


We argue that the revolutionaries in Ukraine should continue their organization in an independent class position. The line to be followed for this is through an irreconcilable attitude towards the Kyiv regime, calling out to the Russian and Ukrainian soldiers against the occupation and war, and establishing an internationalist revolutionary underground organization against both oligarchic regimes and ethnic strife on both sides. It is clear that the Ukrainian revolutionaries have to adapt themselves to the new conditions.


The revolutionary method is to make a concrete analysis of the concrete situation. In Ukraine, the doors of all critical left organizations are locked. The fact is that since 2014 the Ukrainian left has been crushed. It is very dangerous to defend left and opposition ideas today. The Ukrainian section of the ISL is once again unanimous with the regime in Kyiv, blaming the shutdown left parties as agents of Russia.[12] This is an open complicity. In reality, many socialist activists were forced into exile in Europe after the regime change of 2014, long before the current war.


The Kyiv regime allows you to live only if you have a nationalist stance. This is the bare truth. A revolutionary Marxist Ukrainian organization has to organize under these conditions. Nevertheless, it is a given situation that in Ukraine real communists remain in the propaganda stage and have to remain in secrecy.


The work of raising revolutionary cadres and forming the backbone of a revolutionary party is a historical task. And this backbone can only be formed around revolutionary principles. If it is desired to make rapid progress by joining the nationalist winds, and this kind of policy is promoted in the name of revolutionism, sorry but it's called charlatanism.

The Discussion Bulletin talks about the strength of the national defense winds blowing in Ukraine, but what does it mean? It is offered that we should not leave the war arena to the right-wing elements and that to show that we are not cowards, on the contrary, we are the best warriors!! In other words, we will compete and enter into a competition with right-wing and extreme right-wingers in nationalism. What an opportunism! Here is the result. The majority of the ISL unconditionally argues that the Kyiv regime should be supported militarily. At the center of the criticisms directed at us is the claim that we are “purely propagandists”. But how different is what the Ukrainian section and the ISL are doing today from pure propaganda! Only our propaganda is based on an independent class attitude, while the propaganda of the ISL and USL includes support of the military operations of the Kyiv regime. How big military support that the USL, which is already a very small organization, will give to Kyiv apart from war propaganda! What is there beyond propaganda? If we are to be told that the Zakhsti Prasti union is directing the workers to go to the front, we must pause at this point. What ideas and under what leaders will these union members fight in a fiercely anti-communist military body, where the anthems of "Our Father, Stepan Bandera" are sung? It is clear that the Zakhsti Prasti union and their leader, Oleg Vernyk, are also confused on this issue. Because we know that there are posts on the union's Facebook page aimed at clearing the OUN, the fascist Ukrainian nationalist organization of the past.[13] We were able to see the flirty relationship from the past with the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists when we search.[14] [15] We do not think that it is a coincidence that the Zakhsti Prasti union chose the red and black colors used by the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and Bandera as symbols. And yet, what exactly is ISL doing in Ukraine? We all need to ask this.


SEP Central Committee


[1] The ISL declarations in the first period of the war are as follows:

  1. No to Russian imperialist aggression against Ukraine! NATO and the US out of Eastern Europe! No more wars in the interests of the imperialists!, January 29, 2022,   https://lis-isl.org/en/2022/01/29/declaracion-de-la-lis-no-a-la-agresion-del-imperialismo-ruso-a-ucrania-fuera-la-otan-y-ee-uu-del-este-europeobasta-de-guerras-al-servicio-de-los-imperialistas/


  1. Russian imperialism out of Ukraine! Solidarity with the Ukrainian workers and people! No more wars promoted by the imperialists!,February 24,2022, https://lis-isl.org/en/2022/02/24/decla/


  1. Statement on Ukraine, April 14, 2022, https://lis-isl.org/en/2022/04/14/firma-declaracion-sobre-ucrania/


[2] V.U. Arslan, How to Position in the Ukrainian War? Some Mistakes, July 20, 2022, http://socialistmiddleeast.com/how-to-position-in-the-ukrainian-war-some-mistakes-v-u-arslan


[3]New York Times, Dave Philipps, In Ukraine US Veterans Step In Where the Military Will not, July 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/american-combat-volunteers-ukraine.html

[4] Oleg Vernyk, the leader of the Ukrainian section, who does not respond to what we say about Ukraine's recent history, the Orange Revolution or Euro-maiden, objects to the election results. He expects us to skip all the pre-2014 election results and what they showed, and to see the elections held after the 2014 Euro-maiden as free elections. In other words, the Party of Regions, the main party of eastern and southern Ukraine, was closed and its leader was kidnapped; He overlooks that the other left parties are also completely crushed. Vernyk again points out that Svoboda's votes fell in the next elections, but he tries to hide that the far-right line is contained by the Kyiv regime. No answer has been given to the examples we have given on this subject.

[5] Ukraine: Interview with comrade Sergey from the frontline, October2, 2022, https://lis-isl.org/en/2022/10/02/ucrania-entrevista-al-camarada-serguei-desde-el-frente-de-combate/

[6] Lenin, The National Question in Our Programme, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1903/jul/15.htm


[7] Gunes Gumus, SEP Leader, What is Imperialism? Are China and Russia Imperialist?, http://socialistmiddleeast.com/what-is-imperialism-are-china-and-russia-imperialist


[8] “Socialists and Fight for Democracy in Venezuela”, interview with Gonzalo Gomez, International viewpoint, https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5938

[9] N. Moreno, Revoluciones del Siglo XX, Cuaderno de Formación number 3, Editorial Antídoto, Buenos Aires, 1986, page 53.


[10]  The war in debate. Interview with Alejandro Bodart on Ukraine, July 11,2022, https://lis-isl.org/en/2022/07/11/la-guerra-en-debate-intercambio-con-alejandro-bodart-sobre-ucrania/

[12] Ukraine: Interview with comrade Sergey from the frontline, October 2,22,  https://lis-isl.org/en/2022/10/02/ucrania-entrevista-al-camarada-serguei-desde-el-frente-de-combate/

[13] Facebook post "KPZU and OUN are us, these are our people of the 20s, 30s. What we have grown to is what we have created" https://www.facebook.com/zpratsy/posts/pfbid02C2UD6HFbLSXKXbk1nRZLvouw8qfUe3ZotLxn27HNQKV4UPLtwU8ZqGy1wvSEvUZLl

Another post in unions’ facebook group with a “like of Oleg Vernyk”: WE, UKRAINIAN REVOLUTIONARIES AND REBELS...”



[14] Volodymyr Ischenko, The Ukranian Left Durimg and After the Maiden Protests, Freie Universitat Berlin, s.20, https://www.academia.edu/20445056/The_Ukrainian_Left_during_and_after_the_Maidan_Protests

[15] Oleg Vernyk, attended a YouTube programme of a Ukranian fascist Oles Vakhniy who is known his attack to Lenin’s statue. July 2022,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4OlQQmOAPk