By Oleg Vernyk, Ukrainian Socialist League
I am writing this text after having received information about David North’s trip to Turkey and the creation of a Turkish section of the ICFI. This, in many ways, clarified for me the general context of the situation around the discussion with the Turkish comrades, which, however, remains extremely important and fundamental for the development of the ISL.
1- The most significant and fundamental contribution to the discussion on the nature of the Russian imperialist aggression against Ukraine is undoubtedly the text by comrade Alejandro Bodart, “A contribution on the war and the debates on the left.” In my opinion, it was this text that determined the ISL’s fundamental approach to the analysis of the Russo-Ukrainian war, which is absolutely unique in the milieu of the world Trotskyist movement. Alejandro Bodart, at the beginning of his text, clearly and unequivocally indicates that the war in Ukraine combines two parallel processes. On the one hand, Ukraine’s just defense of its sovereignty, and on the other, the intensification of inter-imperialist tensions between the NATO powers and the emerging Russian and Chinese imperialisms. Furthermore, comrade Bodart points out that the separation of one process from another in the analysis, as well as the exaggeration of only one of the processes, clearly leads us to an incorrect orientation of the Marxist forces and to an incorrect understanding of the current situation. These processes must be analyzed in their dialectical unity and contradictions. They must be systematically analyzed. Neither of these two processes is primary or secondary, both fundamentally affect the dynamics of the development of the situation.
Based on the analysis of the first process, Comrade Alejandro Bodart reaches an unequivocal conclusion about the need to protect the sovereignty of non-imperialist Ukraine (35 million people) in a situation of imperialist aggression against it by the Russian Federation (140 million people), until the imposition of a military defeat of the aggressor.
Based on the analysis of the second process, related to the inter-imperialist confrontation between Russian and Western imperialism, comrade Bodart clearly holds the idea that the ISL should not give support to any of the imperialisms fighting on Ukrainian territory and should condemn both Russian imperialism and NATO and Western imperialism.
Alejandro Bodart also rightly writes that the misunderstanding of this duality of war, its rhythms and the most probable perspective, is the basis of the confusion that prevails among much of the left. Unfortunately, our comrade Volkan, the leader of the Turkish SEP (ISL) party, does not escape this confusion. In fact, denying the just struggle of the Ukrainian people for self-determination and for the very existence of the Ukrainian state as a result of this self-determination of the Ukrainian people, comrade Volkan consciously takes the position of supporting Russian imperialist capital and its armed aggression.
2- In a different situation, and following his logic, I could ridicule if, in the event of a hypothetical aggression by Western imperialism against the Republic of Turkey, the Ukrainian comrades resolutely called on all the countries of the world to refuse to help the nationalist and chauvinist regime of Erdogan with the supply of weapons, so that there is no way to protect Turkey’s sovereignty from imperialist aggression. And the Ukrainian comrades could resolutely call on the Turkish army to give up resistance to the Western imperialists due to the fact that Erdogan’s authoritarian regime has numerous signs of fascism, and that would lead to the strengthening of extreme nationalist manifestations of it. However, now is not the time to catch opponents using “double standards” and logical-formal contradictions in their position. Especially in this situation, with the sounds of air raids sounding from my window, as I write these lines near Kyiv. Ukraine is likely to be joined by dozens of victims of Russian rocket attacks at this time. Please forgive my comrades for my slight digression just at the time of writing this material.
3- Categorically reluctant to recognize the national liberation nature of the Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression and the validity of comrade Alejandro’s arguments in terms of the correctness of his historical analogies, Comrade Volkan uses a rather strange argument. In particular, he claims that the US aggression against Iraq in 2003 is “completely different” from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. It is interesting to note that in Alejandro Bodart’s work there are no arguments regarding this 2003 war, but comrade Volkán decided to preemptively point to this war as an argument in this debate. He writes: “It is obvious that the situation of Ukraine, which is supported by the world’s most powerful imperialists, is not similar to Iraq.” But comrade Volkán does not give any argument in favor of this “dissimilarity.”
And I will provide those facts about which comrade Volkan prefers to keep a timid silent. The total value of contracts for the supply of weapons from the USSR to Iraq, made between 1958 and 1990, amounted to 30.5 billion dollars. Military-technical cooperation between Russia and Iraq was officially carried out until 1993, and unofficial deliveries of a large number of various Russian weapons continued through intermediaries until 2003. That is, as we can see, Putin had been in power for more than 3 years. The Turkish comrades themselves in their earlier materials rightly pointed to a long, but quite transparent process of the formation of Russian Imperialism. So in reality we have: a) Ukraine is subject to the aggression of Russian imperialism (2022), and Western imperialism, not directly participating in the war, provides support to Ukraine with the supply of weapons. b) Iraq is subject to aggression by US imperialism (2003), and Russian imperialism, which is not directly involved in the war, is supporting Iraq with arms supplies. Of course, Comrade Volkan can argue for a long time about the “dissimilarity” of the two situations. However, in our opinion, it is necessary to seek universal methodological approaches for the analysis of certain regional phenomena, and not abandon the search for that universality, hiding behind some of their “otherness.” In the phenomenal world there is never an absolute identity. However, our thinking can always classify certain phenomena and form groups from them according to one or another of their identical key features. At the same time, we must also remember that before Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Kuwait in 1990, US imperialism itself was one of the main suppliers of weapons to the Saddam Hussein regime.
4- Comrade Volkan criticizes comrade Alejandro for his call to all revolutionaries to work with all their forces to defeat Russia in its imperialist aggression against Ukraine. I have not the slightest desire in this material to observe any kind of political correctness in relation to the Turkish supporters of Russian imperialism. This is, of course, a discussion between comrades, but comrade Volkan, with his open support for Russian imperialist aggression, is deliberately provoking both his Ukrainian comrades and the basic principles of revolutionary Marxism. Comrade Volkan argues in his document that calling for the defeat of Russia in its imperialist aggression against Ukraine would mean for Marxists all over the world the manifestation of “becoming partners with our own imperialist ruling class.” A perfect manifestation of the obvious “double standard.”
But the point here is not comrade Volkan’s obvious contradictions and priorities. Everything is obvious here. In fact, this debate brings us to the level of a deeper understanding of the fact that now, in every point of the globe where a national liberation struggle is taking place, there are competing imperialist interests. However, their presence does not give us reasons to refuse to support the right of the peoples who are fighting for their national independence. We just need to present simultaneous packages and demands to support the right of peoples to self-determination and national independence + calls to cleanse these territories of imperialist interests and influences. As an example: “Long live the self-determination of the people of Donbass! Russian imperialism out of Donbass!”
5- It is important to note that, in his document, comrade Volkan mentions “Ukrainian nationalism” and “Ukrainian nationalists” more than 10 times. Of course, he does not say a word about Russian nationalists fighting in the ranks of the occupying Russian army. It is clear that this is extremely unprofitable for him, because his argument, which coincides with Putin’s argument to justify imperialist aggression, would be completely destroyed. Comrade Volkan does not even attempt to give at least some definition of “nationalism” in his document. It is much easier for him to juggle this term as some kind of metaphysical “horror story,” as a kind of universal semantic vacuum. But this emptiness of meaning is very dangerous. It allows the content of the “nationalism/nationalist” categories to be filled with any type of manipulative content. Putin understands the category of “Ukrainian nationalist” as any person who fights for Ukraine’s independence and who does not recognize its dependence on Russian imperialism. What comrade Volkan means by this category formally remains a mystery to us, but in fact it is quite obvious. Poor me.
6- Several times in his text, Volkan emphasizes that “the US and NATO see this war as their own.” Obviously, he really wants to ignore the fact that the US and NATO categorically refuse to enter the war directly, limiting themselves to supplying weapons to Ukraine. In addition, all advanced Western weapons are now supplied to Ukraine with a limited range of their use and a mandatory delivery condition – not to use them on Russian territory. Such an obvious concern of Western imperialism for Russian imperialism is, of course, very moving. An amusing irony even emerges from the fantasy of the supply of American weapons to Stalin in 1942 under the Lend-Lease regime with some mandatory condition that these weapons not be used in any way on the territory of Nazi Germany.
Of course, in the event that NATO countries go to war against Russia, the ISL analysis would be heavily modified and updated. The second process, which comrade Alejandro Bodart rightly spoke about, that is, the inter-imperialist clash on Ukrainian territory, would become to a great extent more relevant and influential than the first process: Ukraine’s struggle for its national independence. For us, this is obvious. But so far we see no such trends. Comrade Volkan does not see them either, but tries to falsely identify them with the same arms supplies to Ukraine, which resists the aggressor.
7- Some of Comrade Volkán’s expressions are truly surprising. After a long apology for the justice of the causes that gave rise to the Russian aggression against Ukraine and his public refusal to call for the defeat of the aggressor, he suddenly unexpectedly writes: “We have to oppose the occupation of Russia.” Quite a strange statement. Probably the Turkish comrades oppose the Russian occupation by participating in rallies against the supply of Turkish weapons to Ukraine. We do not know for sure, but we salute our Turkish comrades and comrade Volkan. It is important that this sentence, though carefully hidden, is still present in his multi-page text. Although this is only the last vestige of political correctness and has absolutely no practical meaning for the Turkish comrades, I am very glad that it still exists.
8- Also unexpectedly for me, in comrade Volkan’s text there is an idea that I strongly support. Though, of course, I don’t support it in an “irrational” sense at all. He writes: “we must defend the right to self-determination of predominantly Russian-speaking eastern and southern Ukraine, including Crimea.” The war in Ukraine, which takes place exclusively in the Russian-speaking regions, clearly demonstrated that the hopes of Russian imperialism to use the slogan of protecting the Russian-speaking population for its aggression did not work out. The Russian-speaking population of Ukraine does not perceive the Russian occupation and is fighting against it. The English language of the American population was also not a decisive factor in the American struggle for independence from the English crown in the 18th century. But the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination is important to Marxists.
According to the principles of even quite bourgeois international law, referendums of the inhabitants of a territory are not recognized in a situation of occupation. In the situation of the Russian military occupation of Crimea and Donbass, it is very difficult to speak of the free will of its inhabitants. In Crimea, in 2014, the Russian army first appeared, and only then a fake “referendum on joining Russia” was held under its control. It is clear that in order to hold actual referendums on the self-determination of Crimea and Donbass, a number of preliminary steps must be taken. First:
- The withdrawal of the Russian occupation army.
- The return to these territories of all refugees since 2014 (now there are more than 1 million of them in Ukraine alone).
- The participation as observers to control the organization and holding of referendums of different independent international organizations.
Of course, this model is quite far from the realities of the current time period. But it does provide some kind of democratic solution to this situation. In addition to immediately eliminating a whole block of arguments at the hands of supporters of Russian imperialism. Of course, comrade Volkan will be surprised at my strong support for his demand for self-determination of Crimea and Donbass, but here we turn out to be completely like-minded. On the other hand, this already appears in the public declarations of the ISL that we have voted for unanimously.
9- Extremely indicative for us in comrade Volkan’s document is his bloc dedicated to the national liberation movements of the oppressed peoples of Iran. The logic of finding this block in this document is not entirely clear. This is especially surprising in the context of the complete absence of the problem of the struggle of the oppressed peoples within Turkey itself. There is a strong feeling that this topic is absolutely taboo for comrade Volkan. He is ready to spend much of his precious time studying the history of the Ukrainian national liberation struggle and even Ukrainian nationalism on the personal Facebook pages of Ukrainian ISL comrades, but in some strange way he doesn’t care about the problems of the national liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples within Turkey. In any case, in his document there is not a single reference, not even indirect, to the problems of Turkish nationalism and its dangers.
In the online debate of the International Executive Committee of the ISL, I pointed out the specific phenomenon of many leftists from those countries whose peoples have never been in a situation of national oppression and the absence of their own State, and also have the historical legacy of belonging to empires that oppressed many conquered peoples. The British Empire, the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire… Sometimes it is very difficult and with great problems, for many British leftists to listen to the voice of the Irish left, for the Russian left to listen to the voice of the Ukrainian and Belarusian left, that the Spanish left listen to the voice of the Catalan and Basque left, that the Turkish left listen to the voice of the left of the national minorities in Turkey, under the repression of the Turkish military and Turkish fascist groups.
However, let us return to the analysis of the situation with the national liberation movement of the oppressed peoples of Iran. In particular, Comrade Volkan informs us that the national liberation movement of Kurds in Iran is “historically left-wing,” while the national liberation movement of Azerbaijanis in Iran is “historically right-wing and ultra-right-wing.” Neither an explanation of the reasons for this different “historicity” nor its Marxist analysis can be found in the document. However, we find a call to revolutionaries to be very careful with Azerbaijani nationalists in Iran. Obviously, we have before us another manifestation of some kind of metaphysical “historicity” in the total absence of historical analysis itself in its complexity and dialectical diversity.
Surely comrade Volkan knows that in 1945 an insurrection began in Iranian Azerbaijan with the aim of separating South Azerbaijan from Iran. The rebels were supported by the Stalinist USSR and, at the time, these uprisings were led by the Azerbaijani left, which was led by Stalin. However, the Stalinist leadership of the USSR had little interest in the national liberation struggle of the Azerbaijanis in Iran. Stalin wanted to obtain an oil concession for the USSR in Iran from the official Tehran. And after official Tehran promised to provide this to the Soviet Union, Stalin immediately stopped helping the rebels with weapons and withdrew Soviet troops from this rebellious region. Stalin cynically used the Azerbaijani communist rebels in Iranian Azerbaijan for purposes far removed from the triumph of the ideals of socialism in this region and, of course, betrayed them by handing them over to the Iranian military.
But what about this notorious metaphysical “historical far right” of the national liberation movement of Iranian Azerbaijanis, which comrade Volkan points out? No way. But it is extremely unprofitable for comrade Volkan to reveal to his comrades the whole historical truth, since after his disclosure, the harmonious, yet baseless concept of “historically far-right Iranian Azerbaijanis” completely crumbles.
10- Comrade Volkan reproaches comrade Alejandro that “The presence of a certain sympathy for Ukrainian nationalism is clearly perceived” in his programmatic article on the Russo-Ukrainian war. Comrade Volkan’s accusation seems extremely strange and baseless. Comrade Alejandro, on the contrary, points out in his article the need for the Ukrainian revolutionaries to develop an independent internationalist political position, which should be completely independent of the interests of the ruling bourgeois regime of Zelensky and of those so dear to comrade Volkan, but often quite abstract “Ukrainian nationalists”.
But let us leave these contradictory theses of Volkan for the moment and consider a deeper and more important aspect of our problem: the question of the independence of revolutionary politics in a situation of imperialist aggression against a non-imperialist state.
Let me remind that the same comrade Volkan, in the ISL debate on the Ukrainian question, raised a rhetorical question: can Ukrainian revolutionaries now be in the same trench with people of nationalist views? And he gave a personalized answer: they cannot. In this text, comrade Volkan also denies the possibility that “sane” Afghan revolutionaries in the situation of US imperialist aggression “stand with the Taliban” in the same trench. Of course, for the sake of objectivity, he writes that “If the Afghan revolutionaries had been stronger, they would have created their own independent resistance organizations.” He extends the same idea to Ukrainian revolutionaries in a hypothetical situation “if only they were stronger.”
However, based on the fact that, unfortunately, “they are not stronger,” what exactly does comrade Volkan propose the Afghan or Ukrainian revolutionaries to do? And comrade Volkán does not have a clear answer to this question. Just emptiness. But this emptiness is very indicative and very dangerous. Because, in fact, this is a call to the Afghan and Ukrainian revolutionaries to abandon the only form of anti-imperialist resistance that is often really available to them: to join the ranks of the active army, protecting a non-imperialist state from imperialist aggression.
Let me remind that even for the Bolsheviks in the First World War, at the service of their defeatist policy against imperialist war, the question was summed up as follows: fight with your party’s activists in the army of the Russian empire or not fight. There are not many options in the mobilization of the army. The Bolsheviks actively used the presence of their activists in the army to organize massive revolutionary propaganda among the mobilized soldiers.
Now, the bulk of the military personnel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which have been recruited from the population, is made up precisely of the people who have been mobilized since the beginning of the Russian military aggression. According to comrade Volkan’s methodology, a Ukrainian revolutionary mobilized in the army, who finds himself in the same war trench with non-revolutionaries, should from the very beginning ask all his comrades-in-arms in resistance to Russian imperialist aggression about their political views. And if one of them suddenly turns out to be a soldier professing nationalist views, the Ukrainian revolutionary must leave this trench with his head held high in protest and find another trench, where, after another sociological survey of the political views of his defenders, a decision will have to be made, whether this new trench suits him or whether he will continue his sociological study in the following trench. In a different situation, I would consider such a situation complete nonsense or a joke, but in the context of my opposition to comrade Volkan’s pro-Russian views, it seems to me that the real situation here is far from humorous.
11- It is important to note that most of comrade Volkan’s text is devoted to describing the recent history of Ukraine. It is the part that least interests us for analysis, both from a substantive and applied point of view. Another trite, banal and extremely simplified pro-Russian interpretation of the events of the history of Ukraine in the 20th and 21st centuries. Literally, in every sentence by comrade Volkan about the recent history of Ukraine, there is false information, absolute errors or reckless interpretations of known events. I will dwell only on some of them, which I have repeatedly publicly denied at ISL events.
Comrade Volkan writes: “Far-right groups formed their own paramilitary groups and occupied important and sensitive positions,” they have gained more power “as an official state line.”
This is false. Comrade Volkán is wrong. Alejandro Bodart’s material makes it clear that after Maidan 2014, the accumulated vote for the extreme right in the Ukrainian parliament does not exceed 2% of voters. Zelensky, a Jew, was elected president of Ukraine, there is not a single representative of far-right parties in the Ukrainian government, and there is only 1 (!) representative of far-right parties out of 450 deputies in the Ukrainian Parliament. Does comrade Volkan know this? Of course he knows it, but he prefers to hide it and echo the false campaign of Russian propaganda about “the domination of the Nazis in the Ukraine.” The funny thing is that he cites as evidence of the strength of the far right in Ukraine the best result in the history of the far right for the far right Svoboda party in 2012 (!) – 10.4%. This result, 10 years ago, allowed this party to obtain 37 of the 450 seats in Parliament. Furthermore, it is important to note that these elections in 2012 were held under the presidency of the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych, and that after Maidan 2014, the right-wing parties have never been able to repeat this result.
Comrade Volkan writes that “the pro-Russian parties, which received half of the total votes in Ukraine, could not participate in the elections after 2014.” This is false and any ISL militant can verify and refute it. According to the results of the early elections to the Ukrainian Parliament in October 2014, the pro-Russian “Opposition Bloc” received 9.43% of the votes and 29 seats in the Ukrainian Parliament. And in the 2019 parliamentary elections, the pro-Russian Opposition Platform “For Life” received 13.05% of the vote and 43 seats in the Ukrainian Parliament.
In his document, comrade Volkán piles one false fact on top of another. In particular, his statement that the 2012 parliamentary elections were “the last free elections held in Ukraine.” All Ukrainians who know at least a little about the authoritarian-police nature of the pro-Russian regime of Viktor Yanukovych, who ruled until 2014, and have come across it, will consider this thesis by comrade Volkan a simple provocation to common sense.
Personally, I was left with a bad taste after reading comrade Volkan’s document. It is one thing when it is class enemies who pour out a torrent of false anti-Ukrainian and Russian chauvinist propaganda. It is quite another for a comrade in the party of the world socialist revolution to do so, almost word for word. It is very important for me and my comrades in the Ukrainian Socialist League to express our full political support for comrade Alejandro Bodart’s analysis and methodology. We are convinced that any attempt to abandon the ISL’s strategic line and transform our analysis to serve the interests of Russian imperialist capital is doomed to failure from the start.