In a recent article published by theOST1, a group from the city of La Plata formed from the most recent split of Nuevo Mas, polemicizes with the definitions and policy of our International Socialist League (ISL) regarding the war in Ukraine, but does so in a dishonest way resorting to falsehoods and biases Are we facing a “new” organization that repeats old vices in the left? Below, we share our position.
By Leonel Acosta
The aforementioned article sought to take stock of the meeting in Paris between groups and parties of the internationalist left on May 16, 17 and 18. In developing the polemics on the war in Ukraine, the Platense group wrote an accurate criticism against the Italian Lotta Comunista party which, supported by its definition of global capitalist uniformity, mistakenly promotes revolutionary defeatism, ignoring the semi-colonial character of Ukraine in particular and the existence of oppressed countries in general2.
But in referring to the position of the LIS, he abandons intellectual honesty and resorts to falsification, partial cutting and makes superficial statements. We confine our criticism to three elements of his article:
a)The character of the war in Ukraine and the policy of the revolutionaries.
b) On the resistance of the Ukrainian people and the national question.
c) The real controversy between the STO and the LIS: the shipment of arms and financial aid to Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine: the struggle for self-determination in the midst of inter-imperialist disputes
In its article the STO begins with a falsehood by stating that “…as an opposite symmetrical and unilateral error there are currents like the LIS (MST-Argentina) and the PCL of Italy that only see the war focused on the occupation of the territories by Russia and therefore it would only be a war of national oppression, which detaches as main task the task of boosting the Ukrainian resistance against the occupation even welcoming all kinds of international support in relation to money and weapons”.
To then falsely define ours as “a position that does not recognize what the previous position [referring to the Communist Lotta position] places as the only confrontation: the overwhelming presence of NATO and the US in the political, economic and military command inside the Ukrainian state”.
But what is the true characterization and policy of the LIS?
In the paper presented at that event from the LIS we affirmed: “The ongoing negotiation on Ukraine unmasks both NATO and Russia, revealing the purely imperialist interests of both. It also exposes Zelensky and the cowardly Ukrainian bourgeoisie, ready to surrender country and people to negotiate part of their wealth. It reveals that the only friends of the Ukrainian working people are the revolutionaries and the peoples of the world who supported from the beginning the Ukrainian people and their resistance against the Russian invasion and the interference of all imperialism “3.
As the honest reader will note, in April 2025, the LIS affirmed the existence of imperialist interests – of Western imperialism as well as Russia – over Ukraine. Moreover, our characterization recognizes that “…the war combines two processes. On the one hand, the invasion of an imperialist power into a semi-colonial or intermediate country which it has historically oppressed, and the just resistance of the Ukrainian people in defense of their self-determination and sovereignty. On the other hand, a concentrated intensification of the inter-imperialist struggle between NATO and Russia, which seek to promote their respective imperialist interests at the cost of the lives of Ukrainian and Russian workers.” This quote can be found in the joint declaration on the second anniversary of the war, signed by the LIS, the International Trotskyist Opposition and the League for the Fifth International (L5I). In the same text our policy is clearly mentioned: “…to defend a just and democratic solution to the war: Russia out of Ukraine, NATO out of Eastern Europe and the right to self-determination of Crimea and the Donbas regions. This must be linked to the long-term perspective of an independent socialist Ukraine, as no other way out would bring a just and lasting peace.”
Likewise, comrade Oleg Vernik, president of the Independent Trade Union of Ukraine Zakhist Pratsi and leader of the Socialist League of Ukraine (LSU) summarized in these slogans the intervention of the section of the LIS in that country: “No to the inter-imperialist ‘negotiations’ between the USA and Russia behind Ukraine’s back! No trust in the Western imperialist countries and their blocs, which in this war pursue exclusively their own interests, Long live the resistance of the Ukrainian people to the Russian imperialist aggression, Long live the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination and their own independent development, Long live the international solidarity of the workers!”.
If the STO is ready to seriously polemicize on the character of the war in Ukraine and the policy of the revolutionaries in it, frankly that polemic is not against the LIS, since we have clear positions and, to a certain extent, convergent with those of this group of La Plata. However, the tenacious search for contradictions where they do not exist shows that there does exist a polemic, although an underhanded one -not on the character of the war, but on the sending of arms to Ukraine-, an aspect which we will develop further on.
On the resistance of the Ukrainian people and the national question.
The STO writes that: “Some approaches object to our position because they say that “there is no workers’ and popular resistance” in Ukraine (…) But in this objection are mixed determinations of an objective character, such as the relation of national oppression, with determinations of a subjective character, such as the present state of political consciousness, disposition to the class struggle and the confrontation with the military invasion. And one ends up discarding a structural element because of the absence of a subjective development, which is evidently an error of political analysis of importance” (the bold letters are ours).
We recognize that this organization approaches this aspect from a correct theoretical position, but it makes light and mistaken affirmations based on ignorance of the currents acting in Ukraine. The OST affirms that there is no workers and popular resistance to the Russian invasion in Ukraine, ignoring that thousands of workers have voluntarily enlisted to fight on the front and that clandestine or semi-clandestine organizations -due to the conditions imposed by the Zelensky regime- act on the working class, as is the case of our LSU.
You may also be interested in: International Solidarity Campaign: Voices from Ukraine
The lack of knowledge and distance revealed by the STO in its slight assertions about the absence of a Ukrainian workers’ and popular resistance explains the lack of seriousness with which it Googles the political positions on the war and rehearses a totally abstract or naive way out of the war. For this organization it is a matter of supporting Ukraine but opposing the sending of money or arms! Let the Ukrainian working class apologize to the STO for pretending to defend itself from the second military power of the world, which has been invading it for three years, with more than statements written from La Plata.
The real controversy of the STO is against Trotsky.
As we saw, in the characterizations of the war in Ukraine the comrades of the STO do not present real polemics; the affirmation of that organization on the absence of workers’ and popular resistance in Ukraine is superficial and was denied; it remains now to address the real existing polemic: the position of our organizations regarding the sending of armament or economic aid to Ukraine. This is what the STO wrote:
●“…they only see the war focused on the occupation of the territories by Russia and therefore it would only be a war of national oppression, which detaches as the main task to boost the Ukrainian resistance against the occupation even welcoming all kinds of international support in relation to money and weapons…”.
●“…As one of the postulators of this position [referring to the LIS position]pointed out during the confederation : “you cannot be in favor of the independence of Ukraine and reject the shipment of US arms”, being, in practice, on the side of the policy of military rearmament of the capitalist states of all Europe.” (The bold in both quotations are ours).
This is an underhanded polemic, as your article never clearly states where you stand on sending arms or economic aid to Ukraine. Those who subscribe to your article wander through different topics but never get to the point. Does the STO agree or disagree with sending arms to Ukraine? How do you intend to support the Ukrainian resistance by opposing the sending of armaments and economic aid?
We regret to inform the STO that, if this is your real political confrontation with the LIS, you are choosing as your adversary the very legacy of Trotsky, for it was he who, after the invasion of the Japanese empire of China in 1937, with strong influence of US imperialism in favor of China, did not hesitate in what policy the revolutionaries should have:
“…In my statement to the bourgeois press I said that all the Chinese workers’ organizations have the duty to participate actively in the front line in the war against Japan, without abandoning for an instant their independent program and activity (…) ChiangKai-shek4 is the executioner of the Chinese workers and peasants . But today he is forced, against his will, to fight against Japan for what remains of Chinese independence. Tomorrow he may betray again. It is possible. It is probable. It is even inevitable. But today he is fighting. Only cowards, total imbeciles or scoundrels, can refuse to take part in that struggle (…) But can Chiang Kai-shek guarantee victory? I don’t think so. However, he started the war and he is leading it today. To replace him it is necessary to win a decisive influence in the proletariat and the army, and for that it is necessary not to remain suspended in the air, but to get into the struggle. We must win prestige and influence in the military struggle against the foreign invasion and in the political struggle against internal weaknesses, deficiencies and treachery” (emphasis added).
In the same letter the Ukrainian revolutionary wrote about the policy during the Chinese revolution of 1925-1927 and stated: “We never denied the need for a military bloc of the Communist Party and the Kuomintang. On the contrary, we were the first to propose it. We demanded, however, that the Communist Party maintain its political and organizational independence, that is, that both in the civil war against the local agents of imperialism and in the national war against imperialism, the working class, while remaining at the front of the military struggle, prepare the political overthrow of the bourgeoisie.”
Finally, he sentences his epistolary exchange by shooting: “The Eiffelist5 imbeciles try to joke with this ‘reserve’. The Trotskyists [say] they want to serve Chiang Kai-shek in action and the proletariat in words’ (…) By participating in the military struggle under the orders of Chiang Kai-shek, since unfortunately he has the command of the war for independence, we prepare ourselves politically for the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek, that is the only revolutionary policy “6.
Likewise, Trotsky bequeathed us the following in his famous Learn to Think7:
“…Let us suppose that tomorrow a rebellion breaks out in the French colony of Algeria under the banner of national independence and that the Italian government, motivated by its own imperialist interests, prepares to send arms to the rebels. What should be the attitude of the Italian workers in this case? I have intentionally taken an example of rebellion against a democratic imperialism with the intervention in favor of the rebels of a fascist imperialism. Should the Italian workers avoid sending arms to the Algerians? Let the ultra-leftists dare to answer this question in the affirmative. Any revolutionary, together with the Italian workers and the Algerian rebels, would repudiate such an answer with indignation. Even if at the same time a general maritime strike were to break out in Fascist Italy, the strikers should make an exception in favor of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in rebellion; otherwise they would be nothing but vile syndicalists, not proletarian revolutionaries” (the bold letters are ours).
In our analysis in the face of the Russian imperialist aggression we take the learnings bequeathed by Trotsky, who in the Sino-Japanese war mentioned above proposed a policy of struggle of the Chinese masses against the Japanese imperialist invasion, without renouncing their political program and their class organizational independence. He knew that the Western imperialist forces were fully involved in this conflict and at different times gave financial, military, political and diplomatic aid to the Chinese nationalists against Japan. Among them were the United States, Britain and Australia.
As we have previously indicated, “…from the LIS we have never joined in the request for arms to Western imperialism and we oppose the arms race that has been unleashed in the world, but neither have we supported the actions of boycott to the shipment of arms to Ukraine promoted by Putin’s friends (…) From the beginning we have supported the right of the Ukrainian people to defend themselves from the invasion of their territory with all the means at their disposal. We have demanded the unconditional withdrawal of the Russian army, the dissolution of NATO and the withdrawal of Western imperialism from the whole of Eastern Europe. And on the ground we have raised a policy independent of Zelensky and warned against the colonialist intentions of NATO forces “8.
To the comrades of the OST we say: a polemic exchange is always welcome, which many times allows to clarify positions, invites to reflection and self-criticism. But we humbly recommend that you build it on the basis of the true positions expressed by the organizations you choose to engage in it. Otherwise, as in this case, they run the risk of falling into a delimitation without solid bases, perhaps reflecting the search for their own political identity still in process.
- “Paris Conference: stocktaking and debates of a world in crisis”, published on the OST website, 08 June 2025.
↩︎ - It is not the purpose of this article to engage in a polemic with the definitions of Lotta Comunista, for which we refer the reader to the website of the Italian section of the LIS.
↩︎ - “New world order or more disorder?” posted 04/04/25 at www.lis-isl.org
↩︎ - Chinese bourgeois military and leader of the Kuomintang party. He headed the repression against the Chinese revolution of 1925-1927, then the defense after the Japanese imperialist invasion. After the triumph of the Chinese revolution of 1949 he fled and became the dictator of Taiwan until his death.
↩︎ - The term Eiffelists is in reference to the followers of Paul Eiffel, leader of a small group that supported bilateral defeatism for the Spanish Civil War and for Japan’s imperialist war against semi-colonial China. ↩︎
- “The Sino-Japanese War,” Leon Trotsky, October 27, 1937.
↩︎ - “Learn to think,” Leon Trotsky, May 22, 1938.
↩︎ - 2nd LIS Congress: World Situation Paper ↩︎
