Recently, the Socialist Workers’ Party (PTS) of Argentina and its international organization, the Trotskyist Faction (FT), devoted a television program and an extensive article on their multimedia platform, Izquierda Diario, to analyzing Donald Trump’s proposal to Vladimir Putin to establish a “peace agreement” that would end the war between Ukraine and Russia. Their analysis focuses on the international consequences of the proposal and they propose an “anti-militarist and anti-war” orientation. In this article, we will challenge their analysis, characterizations, and the content of this political perspective.
By the Editorial Staff of the IWL
The television program is clearer and more direct, while Juan Chingo’s article is much more “convoluted” (it seems intended for a European audience). However, they both agree on the central concepts and conclusion regarding the perspective proposed by the PTS/FT to activists and the masses. Let’s look at a summary of their arguments.
The program analyzes a world situation determined by the confrontation between two imperialist poles: one led by the U.S. and the other made up of China and Russia.
Based on this analysis, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Ukrainian resistance are considered a “reactionary war,” or a mere reflection of the inter-imperialist dispute.
According to this view, the Ukrainian resistance is merely a tool of U.S. imperialism. In other words, it is a “war by proxy” (a legal term used when someone acts on behalf of another person). Based on this characterization, they raised the slogan “No to war in Ukraine,” meaning “We have no side in this war” and, more radically, they propose that the Ukrainian resistance lay down its arms and stop defending its country against the Russian invasion.
After that, Ukrainian ex-combatants are to limit themselves to waiting for the world socialist revolution that will solve all problems. This poltical current launched this proposal from the comfort of its offices, of course. They never attempted to go to Ukraine to implement it “on the ground.”
A war of liberation
At its last congress, the IWL characterized the world situation as one marked by confrontation between two imperialist poles. However, unlike the PTS/FT, the IWL understands the war initiated by the Russian invasion and the Ukrainian resistance according to the revolutionary criteria Lenin proposed in his article “Socialism and War” during World War I (1914–1918).
In that article, Lenin argues that, unlike the “moralism of the pacifists” who oppose all war, revolutionaries must characterize the political content of each war to determine their position: one side, neither, or both. He characterizes World War I as an inter-imperialist war and proposes “revolutionary defeatism” (“the lesser evil is the defeat of one’s own imperialism”) and, within each imperialist camp, to transform the war into a revolutionary class war (which he achieved in Russia in 1917). He contrasts this policy with the betrayal of the main parties of the Second International (the German and French), who supported their respective imperialisms.
At the same time, however, Lenin argues that there are also other types of conflicts in that context: wars of national resistance. “There are governments and/or bourgeois sectors that, in one way or another and often desperately, try to resist recolonization and, to this end, seek to rely on the mass movement. This confrontation between the masses of the dependent countries and imperialism—a confrontation in which bourgeois sectors of various kinds participate and often lead—is what lies behind this type of war.”
Lenin concludes that in the case of a dependent country under attack by imperialism, the answer is, “Yes, we have a homeland.” However, in characterizing the Russian-Ukrainian war and formulating its policy toward it, the PTS/FT has disregarded Lenin’s revolutionary criteria.
The IWL’s policy
The Russian-Ukrainian war began with the invasion ordered by the Putin regime, which claimed Ukraine’s territory by “historical right” and other fabrications. Russia has much greater military power than Ukraine. Putin believed it would be easy to reach Kyiv and take control of the capital. However, he encountered an unexpected obstacle: the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people. They stopped the Russian offensive at the gates of Kyiv and launched a counterattack, forcing Russian troops to retreat to eastern Ukraine near the Russian border.
This was an act of military aggression by a much stronger power against a dependent country with the aim of annexing it. The population of Ukraine heroically resisted this aggression, although the resistance’s leadership was bourgeois (the Zelensky government). In the face of this obvious reality, the IWL applied Lenin’s criteria and “had a homeland”: we support the Ukrainian resistance and oppose the Russian invasion (the only just peace in this case). We promoted independent action by workers and did not place any political trust in the Zelensky government or its policies against the working class.
As part of our support for Ukraine, CSP-Conlutas in Brazil organized a workers’ convoy with other trade union and political organizations in Europe to deliver medicine and supplies to the Ukrainian resistance. This was similar to the attempts of the Flotilla and the Global March to Gaza to deliver supplies to Palestinians in recent days. The convoy arrived in Ukraine and delivered its cargo to the resistance.
In addition to this activity, given that this is a war, the IWL summarized its policy in the slogan, “Arms for the Ukrainian resistance.” We believe that the Ukrainian resistance had every right to ask for arms from anyone willing to provide them, including European imperialist countries and the U.S. We fiercely debated with those who opposed this right, offering various arguments. We also debated with those who believed that supplying weapons, logistical support, and military training to the Ukrainian resistance would change the character of the war, turning it into an inter-imperialist conflict, or a “war by proxy,” as referred to by the PTS/FT. Despite this military aid from imperialist countries, we maintained that it remained a war of liberation for the Ukrainian people against the Russian aggressor. We based this conclusion on the criteria set out in a 1942 article by the U.S. SWP on the Sino-Japanese War in the context of World War II. This article was written in response to U.S. imperialist aid to the Chinese army.[9] It is worth noting that this party developed under the direct influence of Trotsky.
Thanks to this principled position and its activity with the workers’ convoy, the IWL established close relations with some of the best representatives of the Ukrainian workers’ resistance. These representatives include Yuri Petrovich Samoilov, president of the Independent Miners’ Union of Krivoy Rog in the Dniepropetrovsk region of Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the PTS/FT continued pontificating from its Buenos Aires offices about its misguided policy of “No to War in Ukraine” (“We take no side”), which urged Ukrainian workers not to fight. In the midst of a war, this position favors the stronger, more aggressive side: Putin and Russia.
The real policy of U.S. imperialism toward the war in Ukraine
The PTS/FT has consistently viewed the Russian-Ukrainian war as essentially a conflict between the U.S./NATO and the Putin regime, perceiving the resistance as merely a tool of the former. This characterization also causes this organization to fail to understand the real U.S. policy toward this war.
The reality is that a NATO/Russia war never existed. Since Putin’s regime came to power, the policy of U.S. imperialism, the European powers, and NATO has been one of “peaceful coexistence” with the regime, as well as doing substantial business with it, which is especially the case for German imperialism.
For instance, NATO countries “looked the other way” when Putin’s regime annexed part of Ukraine and occupied Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014. From the beginning of the Russian invasion, the NATO countries were willing to make a deal with Putin and divide the country with him. However, they were also taken aback by the strength of the heroic Ukrainian resistance, which stopped the Russian offensive and launched a powerful counteroffensive. This presented them with a much greater danger: a decisive Ukrainian victory would lead to Putin’s regime collapse. Combined with a workers’ and popular uprising in Russia, it could spark a permanent revolution throughout Eastern Europe.
To confront these dangers, they began sending military and financial support to the Zelensky government, supposedly to “defeat the Russian invasion.” However, this hardening of rhetoric was only partially expressed in deeds.
Although NATO countries are using the war in Ukraine as an excuse to rearm, the supply of weapons to the Ukrainian resistance and army has always been limited in quantity and destructive power. It was reduced to a minimum when the Ukrainian counteroffensive could have definitively defeated the Russian army and expelled it from the country. While the Ukrainian army received logistical support from the U.S. and Ukrainian officers received training in European countries, there were never any NATO soldiers fighting in Ukraine.
This tactic aimed to weaken Putin and bring him to the negotiating table in a “tame” state in order to divide the country. At the same time, they needed to control and slow down the development of the “people in arms” in Ukraine, which posed a major threat to capitalism once the war was over. In collaboration with the Zelensky government, they began building a traditional army to lay the groundwork for a post-war bourgeois state. This explains why they never supplied weapons directly to resistance militias but rather to the Zelensky government, the instrument of this policy.
U.S. imperialism and NATO’s policy was to extend the war as long as possible to wear down and bleed the Ukrainian people and advance the destruction of the country’s economy and infrastructure. Tired of war, the people would then accept a “peace agreement.” In other words, they would surrender and hand over the eastern region of the country to Putin. At the same time, they sought to leave Ukraine totally indebted and financially compromised. This would ensure that the “reconstruction” of the country would lead to its complete subjugation as a semi-colony of U.S. imperialism and the European powers [12].
Even before taking office, Trump proposed an agreement with Putin regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war in order to “achieve peace.” Several factors are forcing him to expedite the process. Trump is fighting for U.S. hegemony. Unlike Biden, however, he recognizes the current decline of the U.S. This explains his defensive stance in the “tariff war.” Trump also wants to reduce U.S. military spending on the war in Ukraine and transfer that responsibility to European imperialism.
Additionally, he is facing a wave of large demonstrations against his government centered in Los Angeles but spreading across the country. This movement is called “No Kings.”
In light of this internal situation, the Trump administration needs to extricate itself from external conflicts and has made the “peace” agreement with Putin an “urgent agenda” item. Beyond the reasons that led Trump to speed up the process, one thing is clear: this is a “peace” agreement against the Ukrainian people.
Some economic considerations
Following the restoration of capitalism in Russia, China, and the former Eastern European workers’ states, imperialist powers began to take advantage of the vast “business space” that had opened up. The U.S. focused on investments in China and Taiwan. England received its share as an intermediary in China thanks to its former influence in Hong Kong and from investments in India.
The other European powers, especially Germany, concentrated on business in Eastern Europe. Croatia, Slovenia, Poland, and the Baltic countries joined the EU, and several of them have become semi-colonies of Germany. This was the “business space” that U.S. imperialism left to the EU and Germany.
Germany established deep economic ties with Putin’s Russia. It has significant investments in major Russian energy companies, such as Gazprom, and would collapse without them.
At the same time, Germany is heavily dependent on Russian gas. This helps to explain why Germany has maintained a “peaceful coexistence” with Putin. In 2004, then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder claimed that Putin was not a dictator, but rather “an impeccable democrat.”[16]
Contradictions in the Face of the Russian-Ukrainian War
In this context, Putin invaded Ukraine, and the war against Ukrainian national resistance began. Putin broke the “peaceful coexistence” with NATO, leaving this political-military bloc to decide how to respond. This created contradictions within the bloc.
Everyone agreed that NATO would not intervene directly. However, the U.S. and Germany disagreed on other points. First, there was disagreement over the type and quantity of weapons to supply Ukraine. The central difference was over economic sanctions against Russia. The U.S. wanted to impose tougher sanctions to wear Russia down and weaken Putin, thus forcing him to negotiate. Among the proposed sanctions was preventing Russia from accessing the international banking system (SWIFT). However, Germany strongly opposed this because Putin would likely respond by cutting off gas supplies to the country. Ultimately, the sanction was not implemented. However, the EU and Germany adapted to U.S. policy and supplied arms to Ukraine. Germany provided a location where the U.S. trained Ukrainian military personnel.
As we have seen, the war has continued to this day, wearing down the Ukrainian people. Meanwhile, U.S. imperialism and the European powers had a strategic objective: to colonize Ukraine after the war. The supposed “financial aid” they provided to Ukraine was actually “mortgage loans” to be repaid after the war. These loans were guaranteed by total U.S. and European control over Ukraine’s “reconstruction” and natural resources.
Until now, the United States and European powers had been working together to colonize Ukraine after the war. Trump’s proposed “peace agreement” with Putin changes this situation. On the one hand, it excludes the European powers from the agreement. On the other hand, it also excludes them from the business of appropriating natural resources, such as the strategic minerals known as “rare earths,” which will now be exclusively for U.S. imperialism.
This is the underlying reason for the European powers’ anger with Trump’s proposal: it leaves them out of business in Ukraine entirely. Germany considers Ukraine to be part of its “natural business space,” as happened with the other countries of Eastern Europe. However, Trump’s proposal does not invite Germany to “the party.”
What does the PTS say about Trump’s proposal?
The central point of this debate is Trump’s proposal to Putin to end the war and agree to “peace.” The IWL has taken a clear position on this proposal: we denounce it as a peace that goes against the Ukrainian people. This peace would divide Ukraine by handing one part over to Putin and the other to the colonial plunder of U.S. imperialism and the European powers. We call on the Ukrainian working class to continue fighting for their country’s independence against this agreement. We continue to call on workers and peoples worldwide to support the Ukrainian resistance and guarantee the supply of weapons necessary for this fight.
We are fully aware that the long and hard war of liberation has caused fatigue and demoralization among many Ukrainian workers, which could lead them to accept this agreement to end the war. This would be equivalent to a defeated combative strike because its forces are almost exhausted.
In that case, we would have a full understanding of the situation and would continue to support and stand in solidarity with Ukrainian workers and citizens.
We would never tell them that this agreement is good. If they retreat, we would suggest they do so in the most orderly manner possible. They should regain their strength and draw conclusions about the reasons for this defeat. Based on this, we would encourage them to prepare to resume the struggle to reclaim the part of their country stolen by Putin and confront the colonial plunder of U.S. imperialism and the European powers.
Conversely, a sector of the left with roots in Stalinism, which supported the Russian invasion ordered by Putin, called for support of Trump’s proposal because they consider this “peace” agreement an acknowledgment by U.S. imperialism of its defeat in the war. Brazilian journalist Breno Altman is an example of this. He equates this agreement with the one Richard Nixon was forced to sign in 1975 after the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War. We have debated this position at length, which has the merit of being very clear.²²
What is the PTS/FT’s position on Trump’s proposal? We have read and reread Juan Chingo’s article and watched the television program again, but we cannot find it. His extensive analysis concludes that revolutionaries must promote mobilizations with an “anti-militarist and anti-war policy.” In other words, “for peace,” without defining what “peace” means. It’s the same policy they’ve had since the beginning of the war: “We are not on either side.”
Logically, this approach would lead them to support the “peace agreement” between Trump and Putin because it would end the “reactionary war” in Ukraine and achieve “peace.” The PTS/FT knows it can’t say that.
Amid much analysis and an abstract call for a socialist revolution in the world, it looks the other way and tries to hide the fact that it has no concrete position on this proposal. In other words, it’s a “thanks, but no thanks” that capitulates to both Trump and Putin, who are now allies.
We believe that the only true peace in Ukraine will come from the Ukrainian resistance’s victory over the Russian invasion. This peace must continue in the struggle against the plundering of US imperialism and the European powers. For that struggle, as in every war, weapons are needed, not empty calls for “peace.”
References
[1] https://www.laizquierdadiario.com/Trump-Ucrania-y-el-rearme-de-Europa
[3] https://www.marxists.org/espanol/lenin/obras/1910s/1915sogu.htm
[7] https://litci.org/es/armas-para-la-resistencia-ucraniana/?utm_source=copylink&utm_medium=browser
[9] See Wright, John G., “Why We Defend China,” at https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/wright/1942/04/china.htm.
[15] For more on this topic, read Russia’s External Debt: Dynamics, Structure, and Risks Under Western Economic Sanctions by Tatiana Sidorenko at https://www.redalyc.org/journal/599/59947016001/
[18] https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/video/ucrania-rusia-eeuu-sanciones-redaccion-buenos-aires
[19] “US begins training Ukrainian military in Germany” (Metropoles) and “US schedules meeting in Germany on Ukraine’s long-term security” (Estado de Minas).
[21] Putin and Trump: Hands Off Ukraine! – International Workers’ League
[22] Trump and Putin’s “Peace” Against the Ukrainian People — International Workers’ League
