He suggests that pointing to two political tasks makes one secondary. I don’t agree.

Mike’s reply suggests that the issue of the Ukraine’s right to self-determination has been settled. He seems to believe it was resolved by the breakup of the USSR and the establishment of an independent Ukraine at that time. Putin’s annexation of the Crimea as well as his armed support to the “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk certainly put that conclusion into question. Leaving the events of 2014 aside, the current invasion of the Ukraine is brutal proof that the Ukraine’s right to self-determination is far from fully secured.

I would add that Lenin clearly believed even five years after the victorious proletarian revolution of 1917, the right to self-determination of the Ukraine and others in the former Tsarist prison house of nations had not yet been fully secured. That explains the political weight he gave to one of the final fights he waged before his death.

Putin certainly does not agree that the Ukraine has any such right. The invasion is intended to settle the matter and reestablish Russian control. I refer Mike and others to this post on World-Outlook.

“’Modern Ukraine was entirely and fully created by Russia, more specifically the Bolshevik, communist Russia,’ Putin said. ‘This process began practically immediately after the 1917 revolution, and moreover Lenin and his associates did it in the sloppiest way in relation to Russia—by dividing, tearing from her pieces of her own historical territory.’”

https://world-outlook.com/2022/04/05/why-lenin-bolsheviks-backed-independence-for-ukraine/

Mike poses the question: “Are there independent proletarian units battling the invaders?”

Does he believe Ukrainian workers and farmers should wait to resist because such units do not exist? And until such units do exist, that such resistance does not deserve support? That is a position far more comfortably taken from the sidelines than in the battle that is taking place today.

Again I encourage others to study the political method used by Trotsky in the article I posted earlier in this discussion. I also believe a thorough review of Lenin’s writings on self-determination is necessary. Lenin did not restrict his support for that right to colonial nations as Mike’s comment appears to argue. The debate in the Marxist movement – as Mike knows as well as I do – began concerning countries in Europe, not only the colonies.

I recommend these theses written by Lenin in 1916. The excerpts below should be read in the context of the entire document. The point is not to trade quotations, which is often a sterile exercise, but as with the article by Trotsky, to try to learn from the method being used.

The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination
Theses

“The fact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist power may, under certain circumstances, be utilized by another ‘Great’ Power in its equally imperialist interests should have no more weight in inducing Social Democracy to renounce its recognition of the right of nations to self-determination than the numerous case of the bourgeoisie utilizing republican slogans for the purpose of political deception and financial robbery, for example, in the Latin countries, have had in inducing them to renounce republicanism.

To transplant to the International the point of view of some of the small nations—particularly the point of view of the Polish Social-Democrats, who, in their struggle against the Polish bourgeoisie which is deceiving the people with nationalist slogans, were misled into repudiating self-determination—would be a theoretical error. It would be the substitution of Proudhonism for Marxism and, in practice, would result in rendering involuntary support to the most dangerous chauvinism and opportunism of the Great Power nations.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm

1. As I stated, my view is that the number-one task of socialists in the United States and other imperialist countries is to oppose the war moves of our own government. Geoff appears to make this the number-two task – the first being to oppose Russia’s attack on Ukrainian sovereignty and self-determination. When it comes to political line in a fast-moving world event, however, emphasis and tone can be decisive. That is even more so when it’s a case of a shooting war in which one’s own government is involved to one degree or another.

2. An accurate read of the class forces involved in the war is needed. Geoff states: “An actual war is being fought. Ukrainian working people – and others – are putting up fierce resistance to Putin’s army.”

I don’t dispute that many Ukrainian working people are doing what they can to fight the Russian army, in some cases heroically. But is the war really being fought primarily by Ukrainian working-class forces? Are there independent proletarian units battling the invaders? No, it’s being led and fought by a bourgeois government and a bourgeois army. Pointing this out is not meant as an insult; it’s simply a statement of fact.

One can certainly find examples where the world’s working class has had the obligation to support the military forces of a capitalist regime. The two most common type of examples are:

* Where an oppressed colonial or semicolonial nation is fighting an imperialist power seeking to impose its domination. During the 1930s, such was the case with Italy’s war on Ethiopia and with Japan’s invasion of China – then ruled by Chiang Kai-shek. Socialists supported Ethiopia and China in these wars. More recently, the US wars on Iraq in 1991 and 2003 imposed the need to defend Iraq, notwithstanding the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

* Where a reactionary capitalist force is seeking to topple a bourgeois regime in order to target and destroy the working-class movement. Such was the case in 1917 Russia, when the Bolsheviks gave military backing to the Provisional Government in opposition to the Kornilov coup. Or during the Spanish Civil War, when vanguard working-class forces backed the popular front government in its military struggle against Franco’s fascist forces.

Neither of these two situations holds in Ukraine today. It’s true that Ukraine was oppressed historically under tsarist, and later Stalinist, rule. During that time, revolutionary socialists called for its self-determination and independence, and continue to support these things against threats by the Putin regime. But it’s not irrelevant that Ukraine has been an independent capitalist state for thirty years.

In analyzing working-class tasks today, one can’t abstract the Ukraine-Russia war from the global picture. The US and NATO war moves (massive military support to Ukraine; sanctions against Russia; deployment of NATO troops close to the border, etc.) are real, and are a genuine threat to working-class interests around the world. One has only to look at the devastating effect on Cuba of the anti-Russia sanctions. The Russian invasion of Ukraine helped open the door to these moves, which is another reason it should be condemned.

But at a time when a massive and shrill propaganda campaign is being waged by politicians and the media throughout the world, it’s incumbent on all revolutionary and working-class forces to oppose – as their number-one task – to center their fire on their own rulers and oppose the imperialist war moves.

As for Marty’s comments: In his last point, the question is posed wrongly. It’s not a matter of “what we tell Ukrainians,” but rather what we demand of Washington (and other imperialist powers). And our demand should be along the lines of “US hands off.” Support should not be given to Washington’s war moves under any guise.

1. I do not believe Russia is an imperialist power. It is a capitalist state, just as are other Eastern European former workers states — including Ukraine. As far as I know, it does not need to export capital. The ruling sectors of its capitalist class, the oligarchy, rose on the basis of plunder of national property. Maybe we can call them “deformed capitalist states.” China is a different example. I have not seen a good analysis of it – one that is based on a thorough factual study.

2, Vis-à-vis Russia, Ukraine is an oppressed nation. This is due to its entire history. Crimea, the eastern districts, and Russian ethnics all fall into this framework. Revolutionaries should call for “Russia Out!” We should also oppose the U.S. and other imperialists moves to integrate Ukraine into the EU and especially NATO.

3. Of course, no historical event is a carbon copy of any other. But for historical analogy, we can turn to the 1930s and 40s. I believe there was a debate among French Trotskyists about national defense of imperialist France from imperialist Germany in 1940-45. Another example might be China vs. Japan in the 1937-45 war. Both Putin and Zelenskyy are capitalist politicians. That should not govern our analysis. We did not let Chaing Kai-shek’s character affect our support of China against Japan.

4. The tactical approach to military assistance is more of a problem. If there were a communist vanguard in Ukraine, its insights would be very important. Should we tell Ukranians that is more politically principled to fight the Russian military with their bare hands, or to accept arms from imperialist sources?

One excerpt:

“An irreconcilable attitude against bourgeois militarism does not signify at all that the proletariat in all cases enters into a struggle against its own ‘national’ army. At least the workers would not interfere with soldiers who are extinguishing a fire or rescuing drowning people during a flood; on the contrary, they would help side by side with the soldiers and fraternize with them. And the question is not exhausted merely by cases of elemental calamities. If the French fascists should make an attempt today at a coup d’etat and the Daladier government found itself forced to move troops against the fascists, the revolutionary workers, while maintaining their complete political independence, would fight against the fascists alongside of these troops. Thus in a number of cases the workers are forced not only to permit and tolerate, but actively to support the practical measures of the bourgeois government.

“In ninety cases out of a hundred the workers actually place a minus sign where the bourgeoisie places a plus sign. In ten cases however they are forced to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolutionary party must each time orient itself independently in the internal as well as the external situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond best to the interests of the proletariat. This rule applies just as much to the war period as to the period of peace.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm

“I oppose and condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and its violation of that country’s independence and sovereignty, which socialists should defend. Those socialists and antiwar activists who refuse to criticize Putin’s move weaken the fight against US and NATO war moves. The Russian antiwar movement should be supported.”

Mike also refers to:

“my statement that ‘socialists within the United States and other imperialist countries should see as their number-one task to oppose the war moves of their own government.'”

He continues, “In my opinion, there should be nothing controversial about what I said, whatever one’s analysis of the war itself. I believe this to be ABC for Leninists, completely in line with the traditions of our movement.”

I don’t disagree. However this is not the only “ABC” of Leninism. As Mike knows well Lenin waged a battle in the Second International to uphold the democratic right of nations to self-determination. The final political fight of his life was waged within the Communist Party and the Soviet state leadership, to insure that this right of nations such as the Ukraine — formerly part of the Tsarist prison house of nations — was upheld and that the USSR was a truly voluntary union. As we know that fight was ultimately not successful and the Stalinist counterrevolution reversed the Leninist position on self-determination.

The only reference I see in Mike’s comments above to the right to self determination is this:

“Prianikoff is also correct that the fight for national self-determination and sovereignty, while deserving of support, cannot be elevated over the worldwide interests of the working-class struggle in general.”

As a general statement there is nothing to disagree with. But as Mike knows well, general statements are not sufficient to analyze a specific development in the class struggle. Does support for the Ukraine’s fight today, for the right to self-determination against Putin’s invading army, undermine “the worldwide interests of the working-class struggle in general”? My answers is it does not.

I take Mike’s point in response to Aaron Ruby concerning the term, “war of national liberation.” Mike then refers to the policies of the current Ukrainian regime. But that does not exhaust the matter. An actual war is being fought. Ukrainian working people — and others — are putting up fierce resistance to Putin’s army. Does that deserve support and solidarity? I believe it does, without offering any political support to the Ukrainian regime.

I also notice that while Mike refers to the Ukraine (and Russia) as:

“…capitalist countries that emerged following the fall of the regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Former Stalinist bureaucrats and rising capitalists there have been engaged in bloody turf battles with each other over power and resources.”

Does Mike view the Maidan revolt of 2013-2014 as simply another example of such bloody turf battles? I do not and it seem to me the legacy of that massive popular struggle contributes to the fierce resistance of Ukrainian working people and youth to Putin’s army today.

All analogies have inherent weaknesses and I am not offering a full analogy here. But in WWII Bolshevik-Leninists (to use Trotsky’s term) offered unconditional defense of the Soviet Union without offering any political support to the Stalin regime.

My point is that neutrality in the actual shooting war taking place today — until such time as there is a revolutionary government in the Ukraine — is not possible for Ukrainian workers and farmers. Communists should support their resistance to the Russian invasion without offering any support for the Ukrainian regime. This by the way, is not a matter of offering “advice.” That resistance is taking place independent of any advice anyone might offer.

Both Mike and Richard Fidler refer to the example of Germany’s 1914 invasion of Belgium. Another example that deserves thought is the French and Belgian invasion of the German Ruhr valley in 1923 as well as the debates in the communist movement about what to do in response. However a discussion of any lessons of that experience would make this comment even longer.