Thanks for your responses. I can address some of your concerns now. This is quite long. Not all of it is directed at you. Some is to address the wider question in the OP so please don’t think that I am putting words in your mouth and criticising you for them.

… Putin (and … the … Russian Government) is a far right wing ultranationalist, who operates in fascist ways, some straight out of 1984.

I understand the reference but be wary of relying on frameworks made by George Orwell. He was an anti-communist who snitched on marginalised people.

I do not agree with the war on Ukrane, not on the basis of defender the Ukranian Government, but on the basis that this war seems to be part of a bigger plan to extent the Russian current “empire” into Europe by force. And by doing this they are targeting civilian institutions, cities, hospitals, etc, among commuting many war crimes.

I won’t try to excuse any war crimes.

Russia is already in Europe. And although it seems as though Russia may have invaded merely to expand its landholdings, I’m less sure that the facts support that conclusion.

Following Lenin, every process must be considered in its historical context. This means looking wider than and before February 2022.

I’ll explain why that is problematic by referring to Lenin’s ‘The three sources and three component parts of Marxism’ (bold emphasis added), followed by short paragraphs to apply the theory to the current situation.

Marx[’s]… main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides use with a reflection of eternally developing matter.

The Ukraine war did not start in 2022. At the least, it began in 2014. Neither is it possible to isolate the Ukraine war from the development of capitalism (more on that, below).

Marx deepened and developed philosophical materialism to the full, and extended the cognition of nature to include the cognition of human society. His historical materialism was a great achievement in scientific thinking. The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics were replaced by a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops—how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.

Part of the reason that Marxism ‘harmonious[ly]’ explains so much is that it insists that all processes are internally related and contradictory. Everything is a process, including the Ukraine war.

While there are some remnants of feudal social relations, feudalist concepts don’t map well onto the modern world. This includes a concept of empire based on pre-capitalist empires or on pre-imperialist empires (because capitalism has developed into imperialism).

By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labor and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Production itself becomes more and more social—hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism—but the product of this collective labor is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified.

This ‘monopoly position’ is a brief way of describing Lenin’s concept of imperialism. Any move to annex parts of Ukraine cannot simply be ‘empire building’ but must (also) be imperialism.

If the Ukraine war is about the appropriation of Ukrainian resources by a handful of Russian capitalists, it is a mistake to characterise the invasion as Putin’s or the Russian government’s. It must be the expression of Russian capitalists as a class. If this is the claim, then it means Russian capitalists are ‘furious[ly] chas[ing] after’ Ukrainian markets. To this we can add (from Imperialism) Ukrainian resources and labour.

This aim must be considered in light of the history of Ukraine and of other strands of imperialism. All three are internally related processes. One does not make sense without the other(s). To separate these factors would be anti-dialectical and return us to the ‘chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics’. (The Soviet/Cold War history is also deeply entwined in all this, but let’s park that for now.)

When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people.

Lenin called that system imperialism, after it reached a certain stage of development around the turn of the twentieth century. Michael Hudson continued this work, e.g. in Super Imperialism. Hudson shows how the US dominates world markets through ‘dollar hegemony’ – not Russia. As Russia and the US are ‘bound together in a regular economic organism’ (to quote Lenin), any Russian action can only be understood in light of the fact that the US was already involved (long before 2014, at least since the Berlin Wall fell). That US involvement was in the form of imperialism.

Any Russian moves towards ‘empire’ must be seen not only as annexing Ukraine, but annexing land, resources, labour, and markets away from the US or before the US completes it’s plan to that end. Even if Russia succeeds, it would not affect the US’s monopoly over the global reserve currency, and therefore Russia could not be(come) imperialist (this claim is contentious but I’ll stand by it for now).

Im upset with some socialists people who defend Russia because they are falling for Russian propaganda and actively refuse to see the bigger picture of the conflict.

Three points. First, this depends on one’s definition of socialism. I can only give you one ML-socialist perspective: there is no question of falling for Russian propaganda but only of the ‘ruthless criticism of all that exists’ and the ‘concrete analysis of concrete conditions’. Failing to put the war into its historical and political economic context fails at these tasks and is likely to lead to accepting US-imperialist propaganda (I’m not saying this is you, btw) or to mischaracterise those who put the Russian war into that context as ‘pro-Russian’ or ‘pro-Putin’.

Second, Russian imperialism could only be one factor, if it is a factor. It is hard to see how two states could have a monopoly in the same realm. The US maintains its monopoly over the dollar. US sanctions have led parts of the world to pivot away from the US dollar, undermining its hegemony.

This result may seem to create space for Russia to be imperialist but this shock to US dollar hegemony was not because Russia has imposed the ruble on the world – it cannot, because the US still controls the relevant institutions, on behalf of western capital in general. This latter fact suggests that Russia could not become imperialist through a war in Ukraine.

Third, there are local events to consider between 2014 and the invasion. The UN reported on the horrors. Whatever Russia’s imperialist plans (Russian capitalists might have hoped it possible), this conflict is at the heart of the matter. The refusal of Ukraine to comply with Minsk. The shelling of ethnic Russian Ukrainians. Even if Russia was solely motivated by ‘empire’, the result is an intervention in that conflict. See: [my reply to a criticism of a Hudson article](https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/651663].

German and French officials have admitted that they never intended to use Minsk to end the conflict. It was only to buy time to prepare Ukraine for greater conflict. That fact, understandably to Russians who saw through the ploy, would make them feel as if Ukraine was going to become much more aggressive (compounded by the stated intent to join NATO).

A turning point of me was seeing some self described “socialist” supporting Russia by telling conspiracy theories agaisnt Ukraine that were too close to “The Jewish Question” and talking about Hunter Biden for some God damn reason. And this was not a casual talk, this was someone talking at a conference, a left wing conference in my country.

Needless to say but I’ll say it to be clear: fuck antisemites. If someone is antisemitic, they can call themselves socialist all they like but it doesn’t make it true. Unfortunately, this is and other shit-takes (liberal-aligned and ‘Western-Marxist) are commonplace. What kind of conference were you at? (Don’t dox yourself!)

And no, me opposing Russia does not mean I support American Imperialism. Some people cant believe that 2 things can be bad at the same time.

I hope my explanation above addresses this issue. Two things can be bad at the same time, I agree. In the Ukrainian context, the two bad things (US imperialism and the Russian invasion) and a third (neo-nazi militias1, 2, 3, 4, 5), however, are not separate. They are part of the same equation.

Also I dont like Russia in other aspects like surveilance, censorship, homophobia, lack of religious freedom (im an atheist but come on, Russia way is no good) and so on.