‘We Want Russia to Lose’ vs. ‘All Nationalism is Poison’

The Ukraine Debate Fracturing Socialist Organizations

A bitter divide over Ukraine has profoundly fractured the European Left, with Russian socialists demanding their own government's defeat while other revolutionary groups condemn specific factions as "enemies of our class". This is not an abstract theoretical debate but a live, unfolding organizational crisis: precisely the kind of contemporary struggle that defines the strategic challenges for socialist movements today. In an accompanying podcast (linked here: listen online) we outline the debate: in the article below, we delve deeper.

The recent positions articulated by Dmitrii Kovalev, in an interview published on 12 April 2025, following a "Solidarity with Ukraine" Conference in Brussels in late March, starkly contrast with the universal defeatism espoused by groups like Community of Fight and a dangerous misrepresentation of the Leninist position advanced by the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada. This ideological chasm is actively fracturing socialist organizations across the continent, from Die Linke in Germany to broader international networks, positioning itself as a defining strategic crisis for the contemporary left.

This immediate, ongoing conflict demands a re-evaluation of core principles in the face of imperialist aggression and national liberation struggles, highlighting the urgent need for clarity within revolutionary organizations.

The Immediate Crisis: Three Paths to Revolutionary Defeatism, Three Fatal Missteps?

At the heart of this organizational conflict lie three fundamentally opposed interpretations of revolutionary defeatism concerning the war in Ukraine. This division reflects deeper strategic questions about how revolutionary organizations should apply historical Marxist principles to contemporary conflicts.

The Russian Revolutionary Position: Selective Defeatism

Dmitrii Kovalev, representing the Left for Peace without Annexations, Russia, advocates for revolutionary defeatism specifically against his own government. His coalition, which includes various socialist, Trotskyist, and Maoist organizations, unequivocally declares: "we want Russia to lose this war". Their vision requires "going back to Ukraine's original borders, without any annexations," and they call for "the destruction of the present Russian Federation". This is concrete political practice: activists inside Russia "agitate for defeatism" while finding support from a faction within the German party Die Linke. The Russian Socialist Movement (RSM) echoes this, calling for the "military defeat of Putin's regime," viewing it as "reactionary authoritarian capitalism" and an "enemy of all forms of democracy".

Universal Defeatism: All Sides Are Imperialist

Groups like Community of Fight (aligned to the League of Internationalist Communists) reject any distinction between the warring parties. Their manifesto presents Revolutionary Defeatism as ‘The Only Alternative to Imperialist War’, and argues that the conflict involves a "greater number of states" in a "massacre of Ukrainian and Russian proletarians for the defense of their geopolitical interests". From this perspective, "all nationalism is poison," and "all defense of the national bourgeoisie implies the negation of class independence". They explicitly name Ukrainian anarchist militias like "RevDia, Black Flag or Black Headquarter" and support networks like "Solidarity Collectives" as "enemies of our class" for keeping Russian and Ukrainian proletarians killing each other for “bourgeois interests”.

Fake Leninist Defeatism: Inter-Imperialist Conflict

The Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada, part of the Revolutionary Communist International led by Alan Woods, presents what it claims as authentic Leninist defeatism. In a facebook video, they argue: "there are a lot of differences between the war in Ukraine and World War One, but they are both conflicts between rival imperialists. This war is both Russia versus NATO." They advocate the classical position: "turn your guns on the ruling class" and insist "our main enemy is at home." For Western socialists, this means fighting their own ruling class rather than supporting either side. Their analysis treats Ukraine's defense as equivalent to inter-imperialist warfare, concluding that Ukrainian workers should “fight their corrupt capitalist oligarchy" rather than the Russian invaders.

This represents a significant revision of Lenin's actual support for national liberation struggles of oppressed nations against imperialism. The RCP-Canada position equates Ukraine's just defense against Russia's imperialist colonial war with an inter-imperialist conflict. Can you imagine Lenin advising Irish revolution in 1916 not to fight the British, but to turn their guns on the frail Irish capitalist class rather than pursue the struggle for independence?

Organizational Fractures Across the International Left

These competing interpretations create significant fractures within European and international socialist organizations:

• Die Linke in Germany faces internal struggles, with a faction supporting Kovalev's line while the party congress adopted a complex resolution demanding Russian troop withdrawal and sanctions, yet notably failing to take a clear stand on Ukrainian self-defense. This reflects deep-seated pacifist traditions challenged by Russian aggression.

• The Revolutionary Communist International, as seen in its Canadian section, promotes the "fake Leninist" position that treats Ukraine as part of an inter-imperialist conflict. This ultra-left tendency's analysis fundamentally misapplies Lenin's WWI defeatism to a national liberation struggle, creating confusion within Trotskyist networks internationally.

• Other German Trotskyist currents, such as Arbeitermacht, align with the "No War but Class War: Neither Russia nor NATO!" position, viewing the conflict "solely as a proxy war between the two imperialist powers."

• The Fourth International actively champions "unconditional solidarity with Ukrainian resistance to Russian imperialism," viewing the war as an "imperialist attempt by the neo-fascist Putin regime to annexe Ukraine, while the people of Ukraine are fighting for national liberation, independence, and democracy."

Strategic Stakes: Theoretical Confusion and Organizational Crisis

This three-way split reveals more than tactical disagreements: it exposes fundamental confusion about applying Marxist anti-imperialist theory to contemporary conflicts. The choices made directly impact revolutionary organizations' capacity for effective solidarity work and strategic clarity.

The Revolutionary Communist International's position particularly demonstrates dangerous theoretical drift. By treating Ukraine's national liberation struggle as inter-imperialist warfare, they abandon Lenin's actual method of distinguishing between oppressor and oppressed nations. This "ultra-left" deviation leads to practical abstention from solidarity with the oppressed, masked as revolutionary purity.

The organizational consequences are severe. Groups claiming the same Leninist heritage reach contradictory strategic conclusions about basic solidarity work. Should revolutionaries support arms for Ukraine's defense? Should they organize material aid for Ukrainian resistance? The theoretical confusion translates into organizational paralysis and strategic incoherence.

Analytical Framework: Lenin's Defeatism and Contemporary Misapplications

Hal Draper's "The Myth of Lenin's 'Revolutionary Defeatism'" provides crucial analytical tools for understanding both the historical complexities of the concept and why its contemporary applications often miss the mark.

Lenin's original "defeatism" against Tsarism during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05) and World War I was based on viewing the defeat of Russia's particularly reactionary government as the "lesser evil" that could facilitate revolutionary change. However, this position "met with the widest opposition in the ranks of the Bolshevik party itself" due to its apparent contradiction: if Russian socialists wished for Russia's defeat, what distinguished them from German socialists wishing the same outcome?

Crucially, Lenin abandoned the defeat-slogan entirely in 1917 after the March Revolution overthrew Tsarism. He found it "incompatible with a living Marxist approach to the problem of the defense of the nation" and realized his previous approach had been "too abstract." The democratic revolution "erased the rock-bottom motive" for the "special Russian consideration" of Tsarism as the "unique menace."

More importantly for contemporary debates, Lenin himself made crucial distinctions that the Revolutionary Communist International ignores. Even during his most "defeatist" period, Lenin argued that Marxists would "wish the oppressed, dependent and unequal states victory over the oppressor, slaveholding and predatory 'Great' Powers." This principle directly contradicts treating Ukraine's anti-colonial struggle as inter-imperialist warfare.

The historical record shows Lenin supporting national liberation movements against imperial oppression, from Ireland against Britain to colonial peoples against their imperial masters. The RCP-Canada's position represents a mechanical application of WWI formulations that Lenin himself abandoned and that contradicts his broader method of analyzing oppressor-oppressed relationships.

Lessons for Today: Navigating National Liberation vs. Inter-Imperialist Conflict

The three-way organizational split over Ukraine reveals the urgent need for theoretical clarity about distinguishing between different types of conflicts:

1. Ukraine as National Liberation Struggle: Ukraine is not an imperialist power but an oppressed nation fighting for self-determination against Russian imperialism. Ukrainian socialists in Sotsialnyi Rukh explicitly resist the "imperialist attempt by the neo-fascist Putin regime to annex Ukraine." The reality of murder, rape, and torture under Russian occupation demonstrates the colonial character of Putin's war.

2. The Oppressor-Oppressed Distinction: Revolutionary internationalism demands unconditional solidarity with oppressed nations fighting for liberation. To argue for defeatism against Ukraine's struggle constitutes "passive complicity with the imperialist aggressor" and "objectively helps the stronger, oppressive side." This aligns with Lenin's actual method of supporting dependent states against predatory powers.

3. Rejecting Ultra-Left Abstention: The Revolutionary Communist International's position exemplifies dangerous ultra-left deviation that abandons concrete solidarity under the guise of revolutionary purity. Their mechanical application of WWI defeatism to Ukraine's anti-colonial struggle represents precisely the kind of abstract theorizing Lenin rejected after 1917.

4. The "Main Enemy at Home" Principle Applied Correctly: For Russian socialists, the main enemy is unequivocally Putin's regime, requiring active work for its defeat. For Western socialists, the main enemy includes their own governments' imperialism, but not by denying Ukraine's right to self-defense or necessary aid. The principle means opposing your own imperialism while supporting victims of other imperialisms.

5. Building Revolutionary Organizations: The task requires developing clear theoretical frameworks that distinguish between supporting national liberation struggles and opposing inter-imperialist wars. Revolutionary organizations need strategic clarity about when to apply defeatism (against your own imperialist state) and when to provide solidarity (with oppressed nations fighting for liberation).

The current organizational crisis over "revolutionary defeatism" in the European Left highlights the dangers of mechanical theoretical application divorced from concrete analysis. The Revolutionary Communist International's treatment of Ukraine's anti-colonial struggle as inter-imperialist conflict represents a significant theoretical regression that abandons Lenin's actual method. Russian socialists must advocate for their own state's defeat while international revolutionaries must unequivocally support Ukraine's national liberation struggle. Only through this dual approach can revolutionary organizations maintain both principled anti-imperialism and effective solidarity with the oppressed.