No petit-bourgeois pacifisme and the "no to..and no to..." position of the Left in the West. The clear position of the people of the South.

1. 1
For a just peace in Ukraine!
Replacement of the current regime in Ukraine by an anti-imperialist and anti-
fascist government. Dissolution of NATO!
Support for Russia's special operation to obtain her just demands.
Frans De Maegd 22/03/22
On Sunday 27 March, the peace movement and the trade unions as well as many
civil society organisations and some political parties are organising a Peace
Demonstration in Brussels in their appeal states:
"We are taking to the streets to express our outrage at the Russian invasion of
Ukraine. We denounce the horror of the war. We call for a ceasefire and de-
escalation. Stop the war now!"
The central first demand is: Russia out of Ukraine!
"We want the war in Ukraine to stop, now. We strongly condemn the Russian
invasion of Ukraine and demand an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of
Russian troops. We base ourselves on the principles of international law and the
United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force, disregard for sovereignty
and the violation of the borders of nations”.
And further: (...).
"Active peace diplomacy: we call for all possible diplomatic efforts to achieve de-
escalation, security and peace in Europe through dialogue and negotiations. (...)
It is always the powerful who declare war, and the ordinary people who pay the
price”.
I thoroughly disagree with these demands because the peace movement is
completely mistaking the most important enemy (the most important; NATO is not

2. 2
mentioned, by the way). The peace movement ignores the bellicose and repressive
nature of the current regime in Ukraine.
In this way, the demonstration serves, unintentionally but objectively, the interests of
Western imperialism - with NATO as its main instrument.
Russia's just war, after 8 years of negotiations and 30 years of capitulation, is
condemned, while Russia's demands are completely correct and are the key to
peace in Ukraine: for a neutral, anti-imperialist and anti-fascist Ukraine, for
recognition of the Donbass Republics and the reattachment of Crimea to Russia.
The "theory" - attached by some organisations and parties to this call and demands -
that this war would be "an interim imperialist war" is absurd and further isolates the
peace movement, the anti-imperialists and anti-fascists from most countries and
peoples of the South.
The will for peace of the people is reduced to (clay) bourgeois pacifism.
That makes only "a moral assessment" of war and peace instead of a political one.
That makes no distinction between just and unjust wars and just and unjust peace.
I explain why
No solidarity with the current Ukraine!
We should not support the platform and
"the poster" of this demonstration at all.
On the contrary, we should fight it in a
clever and convincing way.
The current platform OBJECTIVELY supports Western imperialism because it is the
only force that fights USA and EU imperialism', despite all kinds of nice 'demands
and wishes' in connection with a 'peaceful Europe' (sic).
The (implicit) solidarity with present-day Ukraine - as shown by the poster - is
scandalous. It is a plea for the survival for the current Ukraine that I would like to
describe with the following words: Maidan, Odessa, Donbass, terror, Azov, Bandera,
NATO.... What the "left" wants to go back to (as Botenga demanded in a PVDA-PTB
(Workers Party of Belgium) statement) is the return to the Minsk 2 agreement that the
Maidan regime accepted in exchange for promises never kept in exchange for "more
autonomy for Donbass" (which was only 1/3 liberated). The map of Ukraine on "the
poster" is also clear: Donbass remains a part of present-day Ukraine.
The demand "withdrawal of Russian troops" from Ukraine is criminal

3. 3
What would happen if Russia capitulated and
withdrew with the vague promises of, for
example, the EU (at best) to ease tensions in
the region?
It would mean the triumph of the fascist forces
in Ukraine, the government of the puppet
Zelinksi would be completely in the grip of the
fascists and NATO could continue its policy
(perhaps more covertly) towards Moscow to
destroy Russia.
Under the present circumstances, the demands of Russia (nicknamed "Putin") are
the only correct ones: a neutral Ukraine (away from NATO), a recognition of the
Donbass, accepting Crimea as part of Russia and cleansing Ukraine of all fascist
forces (all those who have committed crimes for 8 years must be brought to justice
and sentenced). If these requirements are met, then peace in Ukraine is assured. Not
in the rest for Europe and the EU as long as NATO and the imperialist EU (led by
France and Germany) continue to exist.
Against (petty) bourgeois pacifism
"No war! Peace!". "In a war, ordinary people are the first victims...", "Never did war
bring peace", etc... are slogans that we get thrown at us every day, every hour. It is
bourgeois pacifism.
Recently the PVDA-PTB wrote after the beginning of Russia's invasion of Ukraine:
"The PVDA-PTB is a pacifist party and has always opposed war. Nothing is more
important than peace."i
No distinction is made between just and unjust wars, just as no distinction is made
between just and unjust peace". Communists, revolutionaries and people who want
real peace, democracy and welfare, we support just peace and we fight unjust peace.
The FNL in Algeria fought the "French peace in Algeria" and waged a hard but just
war of liberation", "the Second World War against fascism in the West and the East
was badly accomplished by the Allies' war against those who provoked it". All the
above-mentioned forces are campaigning for a just peace. During the struggle of the
peoples of Indochina, they did not shout "Peace in Vietnam" like the revisionists, but
supported the liberation struggle in Indochina in order to drive out imperialism and
install a peaceful peace (that this did not happen immediately is another matter). The
anti-war activists of the time shouted "Vietcong: si, Yankee: no...!".

4. 4
Mao said that (in general) "one fights the war with the war" i.e. a just war against an
unjust war. He also said: "War is politics with weapons, politics is war without
weapons". With this he clarified Clausewitz's analysis that: "War is politics by other
means".
The slogan "Peace, not war" makes no sense in itself, because every war has peace
as its goal! The key question is which war, which peace?
Of course, all possible forces must be mobilised for real and just peace and to
prevent or defeat unjust wars. But this commitment must not be confused with
pacifism. It is the task of the above-mentioned forces to convince the honest pacifists
that their idealism is the expression of their powerlessness and their personal fears
that ignore the fundamental contradictions in the world which inevitably lead to wars.
Instead of burying their heads in the sand, they must choose a camp and not allow
themselves to be paralysed by opportunism and traitors who "preach peace" so as
not to have to choose a camp in the hope of "being left alone".
The communists are for just wars against unjust peace.
But the time when Che's words "Che two, three, four... several Vietnams" were
applauded is far behind us. Every "Vietnam" makes the left perish with fear.
Inter-imperialist war or defensive war?
Which side to choose?
When Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, a Congolese comrade told me that
people were dancing in Kinshasa. I also heard and read that in many African
countries and countries of South and Central America the masses approved of the
counter-attack and thumbed their thumbs for the Russians. "The International
Community" which "condemned the aggression shrank more than ever. Countries
that know what they are talking about, such as North Korea and Eritrea, expressed
their support; countries that have been victims of imperialist aggressions,
interventions and sanctions for years showed more "than understanding for Russia's
decision". The vast majority of countries of the South (including many who have
traditionally behaved as servants of the US and the EU) refused to condemn the
attack. The VR China is, as always, somewhat ambiguous (it can hardly approve the
independence of Donbass for the sake of Taiwan) but knows that Russia is currently
pulling the strings because, in the end, China is the main enemy of the US and
Russia is "only its ally" for US imperialism. China advocates peace and solving
problems through dialogue.

5. 5
In any case, the majority of the
OTHER, the real international
community, does not support the
Western international community.
A unique and promising fact in recent
history
(Illustration: “this is the international
community” of het West.
It is then more than surprising that the majority of the Communist Parties (still worthy
of the name) have called the war in Ukraine from now on (the invasion by the
Russians) an "interim imperialist war. The communist parties belonging to the former
"Pro-Moscow" camp such as the KKE as well as the former "Pro-Peking" communists
such as the MLPD do this. Is it out of dogmatism? When it comes to war between
capitalist countries, they go back to Lenin's analysis of "interim imperialist war" during
World War I when the two camps - which were evenly matched, but one was
somewhat behind the other... - redistributed the world (especially Europe and Africa)
through war. However, there are other wars described by Marx and Engels, among
others, such as the first modern French-German war of 18701871. To summarise:
when Napoleon III organised a war of aggression against Prussia in August 1870, the
First International, led by Marx, called on the Germans to defend their country and on
the French to rise up against Napoleon III. After the revolution in France in
September and the proclamation of the Third French Revolution, the character of the
war changed. Germany invaded France and surrounded Paris. The International
urged the Germans to turn their weapons against Bismarck and the French to defend
their fatherland (Marx advised Blanqui and the other revolutionaries against
launching a new - socialist - revolution because the forces of revolution were too
weak (this changed with the outbreak of the Paris Commune in March 1871 after the
capitulation of France).
Both countries - France and Germany - were capitalist countries (with strong pre-
imperialist) ambitions. Yet Marx and Engels knew how to distinguish who was the
main enemy in each case.
In any war, it is necessary to make a thorough concrete analysis of the concrete
situation on the basis of historical materialism and the experience of the communist
movement. Professor Joma Sison founder of the New Communist Party of the
Philippines who defends that Russia and China are also engaged in a global
imperialist struggle for the domination of a part of the world. Sison is clear Russia is
an imperialist country but its intervention should be judged cautiously and in its
In a remarkable interview with Bayan, he states:

6. 6
JMS: "The US and NATO want to ensure that Russia fears being overrun and
crushed by a world war or a nuclear war. This strategic line is stupid because Russia
has become monopoly capitalist and is very fortunate to be a member of the Council
of Europe and to receive investment. It has also allowed the entry of foreign
investment and trade from the West into Russia itself and Western capital has
become dominant in Kazakhstan, especially in the extractive industries.
If you point a dagger at Russia's neck, there will come a time when it will be furious.
But the Russian oligarchs and also Putin were happy as long as you give money or
make investments. Russia did not immediately oppose NATO expansion strongly
because it was weakened by the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s. But eventually
the situation improved and stabilised under Putin's leadership due to the increase in
oil revenues and better food production'.
(...)
"The oligarchy that rules Russia and is led by Putin is monopoly capitalist or
imperialist according to Lenin's teaching on the five characteristics of modern
imperialism. But let us examine and evaluate the conflicts and clashes between the
imperialist powers, the concrete circumstances and the issues from one situation to
another. Recall that the monopoly bourgeoisie of Russia and the USA and Western
Europe colluded in the destruction of socialism and capitalist restoration in Russia,
Now the two imperialist powers are in conflict. We must determine which side of the
inter-imperialist conflict is most responsible for the series of armed conflicts that have
occurred in Ukraine and other events such as NATO expansion that have threatened
Russia."
(...)
"The word invasion has connotations, such as unjust war of aggression or
occupation. But NATO expansion and the fascist barbarities against Ukrainian
Russians preceded Russia's special military operation. From the very beginning on
21 February, Putin stated that the purpose of the special military operation was the
destruction of Ukraine's military capabilities that threatened Russia's security, the
support of the Russian pre-recognised people's republics in the Donbass, and the
avoidance of attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructures"
(End of JMS - take over text BAYAN)
It is possible that the parties such as MLPD and KKE that condemn Russia are also
motivated by the fact that Russia has flouted International Law. This is indeed a fact.
The anti-imperialist movement attaches great importance to International Law
because it is supposed to protect, or rather should protect, independent countries
fighting imperialism. This law has been and is being systematically flouted by
imperialism since the Second World War, first in the fight against communism and
later and to this day in the name of 'human rights'.
International law, however, is not a law established by heaven or by "eternal
morality"; it is the reflection of a balance of forces between the peoples of the world,

7. 7
especially within the UN. But necessity is a law. There are historical examples
including that of the war between the USSR and Finland.
In the winter of 1939-40, the Soviet
Union was also forced to flout
"international law" when it attacked
Finland. Finland - an ally of Hitler's
Germany - refused an exchange of
territory with Russia.
Finland was only a few dozen kilometres
from Leningrad.
The entire West - although 'at war' with Nazi Germany - was in solidarity with 'poor
Finland'. Anti-Communist hysteria (which was already high after the Molotov-
Ribbentrop agreement) grew enormously. The majority of Communists, however,
stood their ground. International law' is not sacred. Necessity abolishes law. Imagine
if Russia had not fought and won that war against Finland. The Nazis would have
invaded Leningrad immediately.
So here, too, one must make a concrete judgement as to whether Russia is not right
to stop the spiral of violence, terror and war in Ukraine by trying to break the
offensive of NATO and the fascist forces.
The opportunists also choose the thesis of "an interim imperialist war".
Some Communist Parties and "Marxist Parties" also call the current war
interimperialist. But they do so only for opportunistic reasons.
They do not want to get their hands dirty or burn themselves by taking a stand only
against US imperialism and NATO which are responsible for the conflict from A to Z. I
know best the case of the PVDA-PTB. First, they chose the position 'neither Russia
nor US' and wanted to 'choose only the camp of peace'.
Mohamed Hassan said on 2 March: "Not choosing sides" does not make any
difference. You lose twice! On the one hand, the peace movement and the
communists are demonised for not supporting NATO and the peace activists are
depicted as irresponsible Putin supporters".
Indeed.
When tensions rose in Ukraine, Raoul Hedebouw of the PVDA-PTB branded the US
and NATO as the biggest warmongers and criminals. When Russia attacked, Nabil
Boukili in the federal parliament first somewhat formally condemned the invasion but
then blamed the US and NATO for the current war. Then the storm broke loose in

8. 8
parliament and the media and the PVDA-PTB had to "answer and prove that they are
not Putin supporters what happened.
Which did happen.
In its latest articles, Solidair.org (PVDA-PTB) explains how much they were and are
against Putin. Today, the Party defends words of order of the "peace movement":
"Russia out of Ukraine, Solidarity the EEC, no to war, negotiations...". No or hardly
any criticism against NATO, the US, the EU in the mass communication. Not a word
more about the war against the Donbass, let alone about the independence of
Donbass.
We will come back to the ideological and political basis of this position at the end of
our contribution
It is a war of defence, not an inter-imperialist war
Taking sides with Russia
While in the South, the communists, the anti-imperialists and a large part of the
masses choose Russia, those who dare to do so in the West are rare. As far as I
know, the German Communist Party (DKP), the Communist Party of Hungary and
some French ML organisations take that position, along with the Communist Party
ML of Great Britain (CPMLGB). It is no coincidence that the historical leader of that
party is an Indian. Harpal Brar and his are defending Russia's intervention without
hesitation and in a militant manner. They do not care at all about the lightning that
comes their way.
"The Russian intervention in Ukraine, derisively portrayed by Boris Johnson as an
unprovoked attack on a democratic country, is in fact the very belated response to a
slowly unfolding aggression against Russia that has been going on for more than
three decades. The military challenge to this long-standing erosion of Russian
security is long overdue and welcome." (Lalkar)ii
Those who welcome Russia's invasion and counter-offensive against NATO do so in
a historical context.
Already in 1996 the historical chairman of the PVDA-PTB Ludo Martens warns in his
article published in Marxist Studies 32/1996 (more on Ukraine as an instrument of the
West against Russia in "The USSR, the peaceful counter-revolution" (all other
contributions and books by Ludo Martens removed from the internet by the
liquidators of the PVDA-PTB (2.0)
NATO: Preparations for war against Russia:
"Imperialism's aim is not only to destroy what remains of socialism in the Soviet
Union. Imperialism, which has turned the so-called "independent" republics into its
neo-colonies, has also sought to reduce Russia to a state of dependent capitalism,
directly controlled by the West.
Imperialism attacked not only the deep aspirations of the people of the Soviet Union
towards socialism, but also Soviet patriotism, the pride in belonging to a great
independent and sovereign socialist country. The break-up of the Soviet Union was

9. 9
an illegal act, against the will of the vast majority of the Soviet people. This illegal act
was carried out by the Yeltsin clique, after his coup d'état in August 1991, at the
instigation of US imperialism. This split weakened Russia and the other
"independent" republics and all these countries fell under US and German control.
Even much of the new bourgeoisie in Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan has an interest in reuniting with Russia. The collapse of the former Soviet
Union is by no means the 'end of history'.
However, the two most aggressive imperialists, the
USA and Germany, want to "guarantee" the
continuation of this disintegration by extending
NATO to Ukraine.
The enlargement of NATO is an adventurist policy
which will drastically increase the risk of war in
Europe'. (Ludo Martens, 1996)
It is clear; the US desire to conquer Ukraine in order to destroy the Russian
Federation already happened at the time of the destruction of the Soviet Union itself,
when Russia was monkey-wrestling. Today's war was already going on then. So the
current escalation of the war has nothing to do with an interim imperialist struggle in
which the US and Russia are fighting each other for control of Europe and part of the
rest of the world.
In an October 2015 conference almost two years after the fascist coup in Maidan and
a few months after imperialism's offensive in Syria, internationalist and former
Ethiopian Mohamed Hassan diplomat is clear:
"Russia must defend itself and its friends".
"Together with Russia, Iran saved the regime in Syria!
“Iran had every interest in supporting Syria because Israel and the US would once
again be on its borders.
Russia came to Syria's aid in self-defence. Both countries have great historical ties
with each other and the Russian fleet can only dock in the Mediterranean Sea in the
Syrian port: Latakia.
Some leftists claim that Russia is imperialist because it annexed Crimea, crushed the
counter-revolution in Georgia and saved the regime in Syria. This is nonsense.
Russia's interventions were self-defence. It has nothing to do with imperialism."
In a recent interview, Mohamed compared Russia's current intervention to Russia's
justified invasion of Georgia in August 2008, when it was not only suppressing

10. 10
Russians in the country but mainly for the sake of Georgia joining NATO and seeking
rapprochement with the US and EU.
At last, Russia is defending itself against the prolonged offensive.
Those who defend Russia in its current counter-offensive are not at all fanatical and
blind "Putin" defenders. On the contrary.
The current offensive and the clear and correct demands "from Putin" put an end to
the years of betrayal and capitulation of the Kremlin rulers.
First the traitors Gorbachev and Yeltsin
wanted to believe the promises that the
US and NATO would not advance any
further towards the borders of Russia
(at the same time they destroyed the
Soviet Union against the will of the
majority of the Soviet republics
including Ukraine but Yeltsin violently
eliminated the parliamentary opposition
in 1993).
Putin comes from the clique that
destroyed the Soviet Union.
It is only gradually that he eliminated the compradore bourgeoisie in favour of a
reluctant national bourgeoisie, very eager to sit at the G8 table of International big
business. When the Maidan counter-revolution was being prepared and carried out,
Putin did not defend the legitimately elected "pro-Russia" President Viktor
Yanukovych, but urged him and the people to calm down and let it happen. The
President could easily have asked for Russia's help to eliminate the Maidan scum
and their US supporters. Putin signed the Minsk 2 agreement recognising the Maidan
counter-revolution, took Crimea at the last minute and gave some support to the
Donbass insurgents. During the following 8 years, "negotiations", the Donbass region
destroyed a failed counter-revolution (also from Ukraine) organised in Belarus. While
NATO openly installed itself in various forms and guises in the country.
On 15 February 2022, the Duma decided to recognise the independence of Donbass
a few days later. At Donbass' request, the Russian army invaded on 24 February to
make a new Ukrainian offensive against Donbass impossible and to push back
NATO. The rest is not yet history.
But if Russia succeeds in achieving its objectives (for the most part), it will be a major
blow to the fascists, NATO and Western imperialism. It will not give the Russian
people a new confidence, nor the peoples of the world who are suffering under
imperialism.

11. 11
Those who claim that this is an inter-imperialist conflict do not understand, in my
opinion, that this is not just the latest attempt by the USA to completely overthrow the
Russian Federation, but also to maintain its hold over the EU (and especially
Germany). If the US can take out Russia and keep the EU in NATO, it can more
easily embark on its final chunk: China. But it will not succeed. The counter-offensive
has begun.
Also, it is really ridiculous to present the struggle between Russia and the US (NATO)
as an interim imperialist war, not only in the historical context outlined above of the
advance of Western imperialism but also when comparing the balance of power
between the US and Russia.
The GDP of Russia is the same as that of the Benelux countries, the GDP of the US
is TWICE as much, the military capacity of the US is equal to that of all the others in
the world combined, NATO bases surround Russia (and China) on all sides.
Supporting Russia to achieve these goals is necessary
Most Russian communist parties and organisations do so, although some are
hesitantiii like Nina Andeeva's Pan Russian Communist Party, and some are outright
opposed like Tyulkin's Russian Communist Workers' Party of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union (RCWP-CPSU)iv. I understand them a little: Putin and his
government belong to the class that has allowed imperialism to advance so far and to
exploit and oppress the Russian working class. The right-wing sympathies and hatred
of communism of the past and his clique are well known. But now temporary unity is
needed in which the Communists must show the most initiative and courage. There
have been tragic circumstances in history when communists have had to form a
united front with the class enemy. Think of the agreement of Mao and Chiang Kai-
shek in 1937 to defeat the Japanese occupiers together. The Kwomintang had
murdered hundreds of thousands of communists, workers and poor peasants since
1927. Vigilance is still required because it is not impossible that Putin is making a
deal with imperialism to limit the West's enmity and the damage that the war and
sanctions are doing to the Russian economy.
What do Western communists and anti-racists have to fear from supporting Russia
now? A wave of censorship and hatred, increased repression ...
So what? Ludo Martens' PVDA-PTB was already somewhat common in the 1990s
and early this century. It supported Iraq in two wars of aggression, like Yugoslavia-
Serbia in two aggressions. That tradition of internationalism has been lost by the lack
of solidarity (to put it mildly) during the aggression against Libya and Syria. With what
result except defecting to imperialism and gaining some parliamentary seats. The
PVDA-PTB lost about 1/3 of its best militants - including almost all comrades from
"the Third World". Today the PVDA-PTB is being discredited by the countries of the
South and Russia.
It will be difficult but Russia can achieve its objectives.
This will also be to the advantage of Ukraine. The mutual friendship between those
historical brother peoples (especially in western Ukraine) can be restored.

12. 12
It is not the people of Ukraine who
wanted to break the Soviet Union and its
ties with Soviet Russia.
This is shown by the results of the
referendum held in 1991 on whether or
not to remain in the Soviet Union. That
will was not respected!
The left is afraid of the world changing
It is blatant here that the position of the most anti-imperialists from the South and
those from the North differ greatly. Why is that? I think it is because most leftists and
communists in the West cannot or do not want to change the world and their
traditional anti-imperialist stance.
Since the fall of the socialist countries in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and
the decline of the communist movement in the West, we have lived and struggled in
an UNIPOLAR imperialist world where the US and EU (its servant) Western
imperialism dominated most of the world until about 7-5 years ago. The anti-
imperialists in the West have, sometimes courageously, sometimes not (cfr Libya,
Syria), challenged and criticised Western imperialism and NATO. Usually this did not
cost that much (at most the loss of votes during the elections). The Western anti-
imperialists thought that they were doing a fantastic service to the anti-imperialists
from the South, more so that they (the Westerners) were the vanguard and that the
peoples of the world should just follow their good advice (e.g. no more armed
struggle).

13. 13
This often conditional support has not
brought about much when we look at
the wars, aggressions, sanctions of the
last 20, 30 years or so. The situation
was different when the Soviet Union still
existed.
After the fall of socialism in part of the
world, the countries and peoples of the
South learned to rely on their own
strengths and to support each other
Economically, the BRICSv gained in importance. But also many countries in the East
like Indonesia, in Africa like Nigeria and in Latin America like Venezuela (under
Chavez) became economically more important.
Despite a certain mistrust, they entered into contracts with the weak imperialist
Russia and the emerging imperialist China on the basis of a win-win reasoning.
Politically, China and Russia became more self-confident. They allowed the West's
aggression against Libya to continue in 2011 but not in 2015. In countries in Latin
America, left-wing parties won elections even in countries that suffered heavily from
imperialism and were threatened such as Nicaragua and Venezuela.
In Africa, the countries of the Horn are shaking off the grip of the West. The same
trend is evident in West Africa (in Mali and Burkina Faso).
Countries like Syria and Central Africa can count on Russia's military help against
terrorism and the US's manipulation of the terrorists.
I repeat: in the West, the countries of the South could not count on much support. Not
even from the Left. Often quite the contrary. The Gaddafi regime was condemned, as
was that of Assad. Cuba ("a democratic deficit"), Venezuela ("Maduro is not Chavez")
and Nicaragua ("the Ortega clique controls the country")vi.
The icing on the cake (sic) was certainly the indifference to the war against Donbass,
the criticism of the reconquest of Donbass and of course today's Russian counter-
offensive.
It is also noteworthy how much the Left goes along with the criticism of China
because of "the crushing of the democratic opposition in Hong Kong" and "the ethnic
persecution of the Uighurs".

14. 14
In any case, these are all rearguard actions in word and deed by Western
imperialism, which can still make its people believe that it is fighting a just battle for
'democracy and human rights in the world'.
How weak imperialism has become was shown in a phenomenal way in the defeat of
the US and its puppet government: a reactionary liberation movement defeated the
greatest power in the world. But we noticed that in the West it was not the liberation
of the country but the (justified) concern for women's rights in Afghanistan. In the
minds of Westerners, those rights can only be secured by enlightened minds from
"civilisation".
The economic and social consequences of the rise of the South and the decline of
the West are becoming increasingly clear. It frightens many people. The Left can no
longer wet its breast and set itself up as the defender and ultimate judge of good and
evil in the South but is also threatened socially. The Left must choose. The
"neither...nor..." position is impotent and unacceptable. Most left-wing forces
therefore openly or covertly choose Western imperialism. Syriza, Podemos and today
Die Linke support NATO against Russia. Who will follow?
Every organisation, every individual who does not choose for the South will be
severely condemned by the South.
Yet it could be different. We Westerners live in the belly of the monster. It is warm
and there is enough food for the majority, but it is dark and it stinks more and more.
The beast is wounded and becomes more restless because of the attacks against it.
Those who live in the belly of the Monster can play a major role by attacking it from
within and helping to kill it. It will be hard, difficult and painful but necessary and
glorious.
War and Peace, Revolution and Socialism (1.0)
The defenders that this present conflict is an inter-imperialist war where they want to
choose only "the revolutionary class struggle and not to support either of the
imperialist camps" They mean well but these statements are mostly literature and
romanticism. What revolution is "ahead" within the imperialist countries without a
radical weakening of Western imperialism?
The young revolutionary and the new generation of communists after "May 68" swore
to carry out the socialist revolution in the countries of Western Europe.
It was not to be. Could it have been otherwise? Probably not.
As long as Western imperialism was able to achieve a certain prosperity and well-
being in the West by further plundering, sucking and murdering the countries of the
South in various wars and aggressions and especially after the West had a new
breath after the fall of socialism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. After WW II,
the West ensured "peace in Western Europe" (the war in Yugoslavia was considered
a local "tribal war" "settled" by the West). That period is now coming to an end.
Tensions and wars will also reach Western Europe. The ruling class will resort to
fascism (if they can) to control the social outbursts.

15. 15
Under these conditions - rising tensions and wars - the revolutionaries will have a
chance to take the lead in the struggle. It is tragic: but the wars and uprisings in the
West only offer the chance to advance in the revolutionary struggle, to defeat
capitalism and imperialism and to establish socialism.
Those who plead for "a peaceful Europe" are actually unwittingly longing for a return
of the dominance of Western imperialism with its wars.
Proletarians of all countries, oppressed peoples and nations unite.
My comrades from the South say and write to me (in brief):
"You anti-imperialists and anti-fascists in the North, why don't you support Russia
at the time when Russia is finally launching an offensive against imperialism and
fascism?
We in the South have taken our side, as always.
We know what we are talking about and are not afraid to get our hands dirty'.
We must take this position seriously. Not to do so shows, at the very least, a lack of
respect for those who have been on the front line for more than 75 years.
i Solidair.org (PVDA-PTB) "There is nothing positive about Putin. Not at home, not abroad. That has
been our position for 20 years. Internationally, Putin acts as an imperialist, who first and foremost
wants to control Russia's immediate neighbourhood. From the dirty and extremely violent war in
Chechnya to the military invasion of Ukraine”.
https://www.pvda.be/waarom_de_pvda_al_meer_dan_20_jaar_tegen_poetin_is
ii http://www.lalkar.org/article/3904/defend-russias-right-to-counter-nato-aggression-by-any-means-
necessary
iii Pan Russian Communist Party, the heirs of Nina Andreeva's Party.
This Communist Party - very hostile to the bourgeois Putin - states in this text: "On February 15, 2022,
the Russian State Duma adopted a resolution recognizing the DNR and the LNR, and on February 21,
the President of the Russian Federation announced that Russia recognizes the independence and
sovereignty of the DNR and the LNR and signed the relevant documents, including treaties of
friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance, military assistance in the event of aggression and
protection of the borders of the DNR and LNR, non-participation in hostile military blocks, free access
to Russian territory, Russian citizenship, guarantee of the rights of the Russian people.
The All-Russian Communist Party supports this decision of the Russian leadership."
http://www.vkpb-andreeva.ru/.../948-net-vojne-ruki-proch...
iv Tyulkin's Party does not want to support the current offensive because "it has no guarantee that
Putin will remain faithful to the objectives he claims he wants to achieve".
It will never get that guarantee because the national bourgeoisie is always prepared to betray if it can
profit from it. But I find the Party's refusal to go on the offensive a bit cowardly.
Lenin said that sometimes one must support the movements of one's enemy, support his enemy very
critically like "the noose supports the hanged one" (see Lenin in "The Left Movement, an Infantile
Disease of Communism"). The communists must be at the forefront of the struggle against imperialism

16. 16
and fascism in Ukraine and continue to push the national bourgeoisie forward (with a knife in their
back). https://rkrp-rpk.ru/2022/03/16/%d0%b2%d0%be%d0%bf%d1%80%d0%be%d1%81%d1%8b-
%d0%be-
%d1%81%d0%bf%d0%b5%d1%86%d0%be%d0%bf%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b0%d1%86%d0%b8%d
0%b8-%d0%bd%d0%b0-%d1%83%d0%ba%d1%80%d0%b0%d0%b8%d0%bd%d0%b5/
v https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS
vi Higher statements are those of the former chairman of the PVDA-PTB Peter Mertens in the media.