Two clashes in Ukraine

Image: Kristina Abelli Elander


Ukraine's real sovereignty will only come about with the departure of foreign gendarmes on both sides

In the first days of the military operation, the advance of the Russian army was overwhelming. It destroyed pre-established targets and crippled the infrastructure of an infinitely more fragile adversary. There is no point of comparison between the two sides, and if the final result depended on the outcome of the war, Russia's triumph would be assured.

But the confrontation has just begun and the big question is Moscow's immediate purpose: does it seek to occupy the country? Trying to force the fall of the government? Do you intend to impose your demands on a replacement president? With tanks surrounding Kiev, the passage of time plays against the operation.


Surprises, reactions and unforeseen events

The impotence of the West has been the most striking aspect of the scenario created by the Moscow offensive. Putin's decision paralyzed his opponents, who chose no course of action to rescue their protégé. President Zelensky openly verbalized this abandonment by his guardians (“they left us alone”).

Biden's disorientation is pathetic. He knew the Russian plan, which his spokesmen publicized well in advance, but he did not plan a response. He ruled out military escalation, as well as Putin's negotiating proposals, without considering other alternatives.

This bewilderment confirms that Washington's reflexes are still affected by the recent defeat in Afghanistan. The State Department faces serious limitations in engaging Marines in new operations, and the same resistance to the deployment of troops can be seen in Europe. Therefore, NATO limited itself to issuing vague pronouncements.

It is evident that economic sanctions will be irrelevant if Russia achieves political-military success. In practice, any financial or commercial blockade would be undone by this victory. Moscow prepared to weather the penalties. It accumulated large foreign exchange reserves and multiplied trade agreements to face isolation. But these precautions will only work if you get a short-term victory.

Russia perfected its import substitution policy to deal with sanctions and the impact of its removal from the international bank management system is very uncertain (Swift). If Putin negotiated with Xi Jinping a massive buy-sell of goods, it could make up for the Western boycott. But nobody knows what the effective convergence of the two giants that challenge the United States is.

Sanctions are a double-edged sword and could turn into a boomerang for the West if they affect the transatlantic airlines themselves. The sanctions established in London against the Russian oligarchs, for example, are already causing noise in other operations of the English financial paradise.

Commercial bellicosity against Moscow also raises fuel and food prices and erodes the post-pandemic economic recovery. Russia supplies much of the wheat traded in the world, supplies a third of the gas used by Europe and half of what is consumed by Germany. If Berlin dumps its main energy supplier, who will be most affected, the Russian seller or the German buyer?

Some analysts believe that Putin fell into a trap devised by Biden to push Russia into the same quagmire that drained the USSR's presence in Afghanistan.[I]. But Washington does not control the threads of the operation, and it is very unlikely that its babbling leader planned such an ambush. If the invasion, on the other hand, stalls, Moscow could repeat in Kiev the tomb it dug for itself in Kabul.

There are many sequences left to imagine what the outcome of the drama that Ukraine is experiencing will be. But, in any case, the diagnoses are secondary to the characterization of the conflict.


the main responsible

There is overwhelming evidence of US imperialism's primary responsibility for the tragedy in Ukraine. On numerous occasions, the Pentagon has tried to add Kiev to the missile network created by NATO's new partners in Eastern Europe. In 30 years, the Atlantic Alliance grew from 16 to 30 members.

The siege of Russia was initiated by Bill Clinton, violating all commitments that restricted the US military presence to the German border. This limit was shifted several times to reinforce an expansionist strategy, which Bush encouraged with the failed military incursion in Georgia (2008). His successors worked to convert Ukraine into another pawn of the Atlantic device.

Washington has tried multiple avenues to incorporate Kiev into NATO and came close to inducing a referendum to force membership. From the Maidan uprising (2013), governments opposed to Russia emerged and current President Zelensky made Ukraine a NATO “partner of enhanced opportunities” (2020).

Putin has repeatedly stressed that the presence of that body in Ukraine poses a threat to Russia's security. Ukraine borders its main European partners and shares coastlines with Turkey and the Caucasian states. While missiles placed in Poland or Romania can reach Moscow in 15 minutes, their counterparts in Ukraine would do so in just five minutes. Russia lacks any equivalent instrument close to US territory.

In recent years, Ukraine has received large arms supplies and the generalship has reformed the military ranks in line with NATO standards.[ii] The country ranked third in economic-military “aid” from Washington and recently acquired anti-aircraft missiles, designed to turn the Black Sea into a western command jurisdiction.

The Kremlin has questioned this bellicosity for years, and in the last six weeks Putin has provided an explicit brake on turning Ukraine into a catapult against Russia. He tried to negotiate a new status quo to protect his country from US warmongering, but did not get a response from NATO.

Moscow's proposals included the exclusion of Kiev from that body and a veto on the installation of missiles. It also promoted a status of neutrality for the country, similar to that maintained by Finland and Austria during the Cold War.

Putin also called for consensus on further global de-escalation measures. He invited Washington to reinstate a treaty annulled by Trump, which regulates the decommissioning of certain atomic devices (INF). The State Department responded with indifference, evasion, or insults to these peace overtures. He especially rejected Ukraine's neutrality, to avoid a precedent in the dismantling of missile batteries built by the Pentagon in Europe. This refusal intensified the conflict provoked by NATO's aggressive expansion.


Submit to Europe

Washington encourages warmongering in Ukraine to reinforce Europe's submission to its agenda. It repeats its old recipe of militarization to subordinate the Old Continent. A neoconservative State Department official (Victoria Nuland) has spearheaded this strategy since 2014.[iii]

The persecution against Russia has already disciplined Brussels, and in a few weeks the Pentagon imposed the mobilization of troops from Spain, Denmark, Italy and France. The Ukrainian crisis has also served to reinforce the UK's post-Brexit pro-Yankee alignment. Johnson unveils economic sanctions against Moscow ahead of Biden and lays out the way forward for his former mainland partners.

France lost authority due to the failed negotiation undertaken by Emmanuel Macron. He sought to create a framework for the negotiations away from the US veto, but did not consider the Kremlin's pacification proposals. On the main issues – Ukraine's neutrality and its separation from NATO – he maintained complete loyalty to the White House.

Germany has been a deliberate target of US warmongering. The State Department tried to block the opening of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would deliver Russian fuel through the Baltic Sea, bypassing the current transit through Ukraine. Washington created a rarefied climate across the region to prevent the Germans from receiving energy from Moscow.[iv]

The United States also takes into account the five-fold increase in the price of natural gas in the last year. It tries to displace Russia from the European market to offload its surplus liquefied gas, which it offers at higher prices than its Moscow competitor. It is even negotiating the construction of a port on the Old Continent to receive delicate shipments of this fuel. Its design openly rivals the Russian pipeline.[v]

German industrial machinery needs an external supply of energy, which is why Berlin tried to mitigate US war pressure. He eluded the mobilization of troops and suggested that he would veto the use of his airspace. But it never softened its blind alignment with Washington and finally put the pipeline on hold. The immediate effect of Putin's incursion was the consolidation of the Atlantic bloc under Washington's orders.


The climb from Kiev

Europe played a complementary role to the US in the project of transforming Ukraine into a NATO bastion. Both Washington and Brussels have promoted this belligerent dynamic since the Maidan uprising (2013) and the subsequent coup against President Yanukovych.

This leader negotiated external financial aid to ease the country's fiscal deficit on two fronts. In the end, his choice of Russian bailout over European aid triggered a backlash from pro-Western protesters, who took to the streets to precipitate the president's downfall and the arrival of a president bent on accelerating the move to NATO (Petro Porochekno). .

The State Department has driven this change by raising the tone of tensions with Russia and promoting a liberal attachment to the American dream among the population. Brussels profited, for its part, from the illusory expectation of transforming Ukraine into a developed economy by simply joining the European Union. He encouraged this belief to hide the brutal adjustment that he was imposing on Greece at that time. It took advantage of the enthusiasm in Kiev with the EU flags flying (when they were hated in Athens).

The Western euphoria propagated by the Ukrainian government repeated the norm of all recent political processes in Eastern Europe. But it added to this pattern an anti-Russian campaign and exacerbated nationalism, which resulted in armed provocations against the Russian-speaking population. Kiev established Ukrainian as the sole official language, affecting all non-Ukrainian residents. It also started a flurry of military actions against the sector close to Russia located in the East.

It is estimated that Ukraine's internal mini-war has resulted in 14.000 deaths and one and a half million people displaced over the last eight years.[vi] But the main theater of these confrontations has been the Russian-speaking Donbass region, as a result of the abuses perpetrated by envoys from Kiev.

These aggressions are led by the extreme right currents that emerged from the Maidan uprising. However, it is still debated whether this reactionary mark was present from the beginning of the movement or if it emerged from its later evolution. But, in both variants, the ultra-regressive result of this process has been unquestionable.

Ukraine finds itself in a dramatic economic crisis due to the adverse results of capitalist restoration. This transformation was completed with the same intensity as in Russia and with the same model of oligarchic appropriators coming from the old ruling leadership.

But the two economies followed very different trajectories. While Russia's natural riches made it possible to combine compromises between the elites with a certain political and social stability, Ukraine's productive decline exacerbated misunderstandings at the top and dissatisfaction at the bottom. In a context of stagnation, retraction of consumption, public debt and fiscal deterioration, per capita GDP is similar to the 90s, and economic management in Kiev is subject to strict control by the IMF.[vii]

This crisis deepened the previous division of the country's ruling classes between pro-Western sectors in the West and pro-Russian sectors in the East. The first group sought to integrate the country into the European Union, offering cheap labor, insourcing and unrestricted trade opening. They took on unpayable loans and committed themselves to unrealizable adjustments. Growing integration into Europe (without joining the EU) has increased financial dependence on Brussels and on remittances sent by emigrants.

In the East, the scenario is different. There prevailed the maintenance of factory production along with closer ties with Moscow. Government sectors resisted the demolition that membership in the European Union promised. They understood that factories in the region could never digest the standards of production, technology and prices demanded by Brussels. They also know that Ukrainian steel could not survive without Russian oil supplies.

Ukraine was unable to process these regional tensions, preserving its unity and the cohabitation of the two zones. Reactionary anti-Russian nationalism encouraged by the Pentagon destroyed this coexistence.


Moscow's reaction

The invasion of Ukraine was Vladimir Putin's response to the numerous rejections that his proposal to negotiate the neutrality of that country received. Some thinkers consider that he anticipated, with a preventive action, the admission of his neighbor to NATO.[viii] Russia has a terrible history of suffering from foreign invasions, and its population is very sensitive to any threat. After Hitler, border security is no less of an issue.

It is also evident that US imperialism only understands the language of force. It is enough to observe the recent contrast between Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya and North Korea, to confirm this predominance of war codes in relations with Washington.

After repeatedly threatening Pyongyang, no Yankee president has gone to the facts, for the obvious fear that an atomic response arouses. Russia is aware of this dynamic, and for that reason some analysts have suggested that Putin would respond to the deadlocked negotiations by deploying tactical nuclear missiles in Belarus.[ix]

But the Kremlin chief opted for an invasion, which he initially presented as an operation to protect the Russian-speaking population. In Donbass, the situation has deteriorated again in recent months, with new waves of right-wing attacks that have eroded the ceasefire and forced the evacuation of the civilian population.

Vladimir Putin exaggerates when he denounces the existence of a “genocide” in that region, but he alludes to the proven violence of reactionary militias. He refers to these sectors when he calls for the “denazification” of Ukraine. This appellation is not an empty figure of speech. Since 2014, far-right gangs have imposed a norm of violence on all Kiev governments.

These groups imposed a Communist Party ban, the eradication of the Russian language from the public sphere, and the purge of all vestiges of the Soviet era (“decommunization”). The rightists develop an intense activity in the streets and have created armed units with training centers, very similar to the fascist paramilitary model of the 1930s.[X]

At the forefront of these forces is the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, which uses SS emblems of the Third Reich. They claim the local formations that collaborated with Hitler against the Soviets (OUN [Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists] – UPA [Ukrainian Insurgent Army]) waiting for the concession of their own republic.[xi]

These fascist strands blocked all attempts to reach a negotiated solution, based on the format introduced in 2015 with the Minsk negotiations. They reject the reintegration of the East as an autonomous region, with recognized rights for the Russian-speaking population. As their main flag is national identity, they oppose any agreement that includes Donbass federalism.

Rightists see such a solution as an unacceptable capitulation. Therefore, they sabotaged all armistices to negotiate mutual amnesties and facilitate the free passage of civilians. In tune with this bellicosity, Volodymyr Zelensky closed three pro-Russian television channels and approved a large fascist training base.

But the big news in the new scenario is Putin's own decision to bury the Minsk accords, which he previously encouraged as the most appropriate framework for moving towards Ukraine's neutrality. Instead of preserving this context to reunify the country, he recognized the two autonomous republics of the East (Donetsk and Lugansk).

Nobody knows if this solution is preferred by both populations, since consultation on their national option is still pending. As in Crimea, Putin first defines the status of a region, and then supplements that condition with some electoral procedure.

But in this case, the leader of Moscow did not just make available the limited entry of troops to protect the Russian-speaking population. Such an action would be compatible with the continuation of the Minsk negotiations. It only reinforced these negotiations with guarantees for the security of the most vulnerable sector. He opted for a completely different course of a general invasion of Ukrainian territory, giving the Kremlin the right to overthrow an adverse government. This decision is unjustifiable and functional for western imperialism.


contempt for the people

The United States commands the aggressor side and Russia the field affected by the missile siege. But this asymmetry does not justify any response from the attacked, nor does it determine the invariably defensive character of Moscow's reactions. In the military field, the validity of each measure depends on its proportion. This parameter is essential to evaluate war conflicts.

Russia has the right to defend its territory from Pentagon intimidation, but it cannot exercise this attribute anyway. The logic of military confrontations includes certain guidelines. It is not permissible, for example, to exterminate a rival battalion for some minor violation of the truce between the parties.

It is true that the supply of arms to Kiev by the Pentagon has increased in the recent period, along with dangerous negotiations for the country to join NATO. But Ukraine has not taken that step, nor has it installed the missiles that frighten Moscow. Fascist militias continued their escalation, but without engaging in far-reaching aggression. The decision to invade Ukraine, surround its main cities, destroy its army and change its government has no justification as a defensive action by Russia.

Vladimir Putin has shown enormous contempt for all inhabitants of western Ukraine. It doesn't even register what the desires of this population are. Even if Volodymyr Zelensky ran the “drug government” he denounced, it would be up to his constituents to decide who should replace him. This decision is not a Kremlin assignment.

No population in Western Ukraine sympathizes with the gendarmes sent by Moscow. The hostility towards these troops is so evident that Putin has not even attempted the usual pantomime of presenting his incursion as an act requested by the citizens of the invaded country. His attack aroused panic and hatred towards the occupant. This same rejection of the Russian incursion is verified all over the world. Demonstrations of repudiation were held in numerous capitals, without opposing acts in support of the Moscow army.

Putin ignored the main aspiration of all those involved in the conflict for a peaceful solution. Before the invasion, the Kiev government itself faced a strong internal rejection of its warlike escalation. There was even evidence of strong opposition to NATO membership and the subsequent redefinition of the country's Declaration of Sovereignty (1990) and Constitution (1996).[xii]. These pacifist goals must now compete with the warmongering right, which demands active resistance against the Russian invasion.

For many years Washington, Brussels and Kiev sabotaged the negotiated exit, which is currently also trampled by Moscow. Putin has joined the warmongering bandwagon because he ignores the desires of the people involved in the conflict. He guides his action on the advice of the high bureaucracy, which governs in a conflicted relationship with Russian millionaires.

His invasion is also intended to rally the population of eastern Ukraine. Recognition of this autonomy took eight years, in contrast to the fulminant annexation of Crimea. It avoided the repetition of this precedent due to the initial protagonism of the radicalized movement of local militiamen that defeated the rightists.[xiii]

These fighters facilitated the creation of a “social republic” and acted very briefly under the command of a leader nicknamed Che Guevara of Lugansk. They raised leftist flags, claimed the Soviet world and resumed the Bolshevik tradition with recitations of the business.[xiv] To counteract this radicalism, Putin forced evictions of buildings and the abandonment of barricades, while monitoring the disarming of militias and the punishment of their leaders.[xv]

When he managed to impose his authority, he froze the status of the two republics (which maintained the symbolic designation of “popular”), waiting for a favorable result of the Minsk negotiations. He repeated the conduct of his predecessors, who always negotiated at the top, dismantling radical movements. After several years, he has now chosen a new course of action, as ill-considered as the last.

With the invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin favors all the myths of Western democracy, which had been disgraced by the failures accumulated by the Pentagon. Putin gave Washington what it needed to rebuild the ideological fallacies eroded by the devastation of Afghanistan or Iraq. His adventure makes it possible to revive the opposition between Western democracy and Russian autocracy. The Kremlin is once again taunted with idyllic exaltations of capitalism. The resurgence of this fiction is a direct result of the Russian incursion.

The invasion also gave an unforeseen external boost to Ukrainian nationalism. Putin fuels that sentiment, in a nation historically traumatized by the oppressive presence of the czars and disputes with Austro-Hungarian and Polish forces. Whatever the final geopolitical outcome of the invasion, its impact on popular struggles and popular consciousness is terribly negative. And this parameter is the main reference that socialists adopt to judge political events.


NATO's denouncement

Vladimir Putin's incursion has given rise to condemnations that omit NATO's complementary denouncement. Both approaches are present in many pronouncements from the left, but they are minority positions, given the unilateral rejection of the Russian army's action.

Just look at the slogans that prevail in street demonstrations to corroborate this climate. The media are the main architects of hiding US imperialism. Underlining this culpability is a priority at the moment. The speeches in vogue unload all the artillery against “Russian expansionism”, covering up the imperial domination of the capitalists. America's democracy, civilization and humanitarianism are extolled, omitting the fact that its troops pulverized Iraq and Afghanistan.

One need only compare the small number of casualties that prevailed so far in Ukraine with the immediate massacres consummated by the Pentagon's bombing of these countries, to measure the degree of savagery that accompanies NATO actions. That body also demolished Yugoslavia, turning it into seven balkanized republics.

France cannot boast better credentials after the bloodletting perpetrated in Algeria. And after its long history of killings in Asia and Africa, Britain has little authority to lift a finger.

The war in Ukraine is already convulsing Europe again in a traumatic scenario of refugees. To stop this tragedy, it is necessary to resume a path of peace, based on the dismantling of the continent's main war machinery.

No slack will last as long as NATO continues to shape Europe into a great fortress of military bases. The United States defines actions, carries out covert operations and administers war devices as if the Old Continent were part of its own territory. The end of this interference, the withdrawal of Marines and the dissolution of NATO are indispensable demands for all defenders of peace.

The servants of US imperialism silence these demands and use the rejection of the invasion of Ukraine to intensify their campaign against the “Russian conquerors”. In Latin America, they denounce the “infiltration” of Moscow with a script taken from the Cold War. The right in Washington is already pushing a new “hemispheric security” law to increase the Pentagon's presence south of the Rio Grande. They propose to secure Colombia's status as the main non-NATO ally.

All the fantasies spread by the White House about the overwhelming influence of Russia are groundless. Moscow's economic presence in Latin America is irrelevant when compared to the US dominator and its vigorous Chinese rival.

The few military missions of this power were insignificant compared to the usual exercises of the Marines with the armies of the region. Not even Russian arms sales in Latin America have reached the centrality they have in other peripheries of the planet. The impact of Moscow-related communicators is also negligible compared to Washington's colossal information dominance.

But the State Department intends to take advantage of the commotion created by the invasion of Ukraine to relaunch its offensive against governments that do not comply with its orders. It aspires to recompose the Lima Group, revive the OAS, neutralize the CELAC, reverse the electoral defeats of the right, counteract the discredit of the United States during the pandemic and resume the conspiracies against Venezuela and Cuba.

Immediately, Washington encouraged denunciations of the Russian incursion without any mention of NATO. Its diplomats work to obtain such pronouncements from Latin American foreign ministries. They have the warm support of right-wing governments (starting with Colombia, Uruguay and Ecuador), but they also seek the support of progressives who are more sensitive to their pressure. Boric's first statements are in line with the direction provided by the White House and contrast with the neutrality suggested by Lula and López Obrador.

Argentina is a special case. Alberto Fernández railed against the United States in his meeting with Putin, then adopted an equidistant position and finally joined in the condemnation of Russia without any mention of NATO. In just a few days, he adopted all imaginable positions, confirming that he lacks a compass and that he shapes his foreign policy to dealings with the IMF. For this subservience to the Fund, it is easy prey for Washington.


The conditions for self-determination

Criticism of Vladimir Putin's operation is inevitable in any pronouncement from the left. But this positioning must be preceded by a forceful denunciation of US imperialism, as the main responsible for the escalation of the war. This aggression does not justify the Kremlin's military response, which is very counterproductive to all emancipation projects. Support for this operation is self-defeating and conspires against the battle for democracy, equality and sovereignty of nations.

Putin didn't just justify his incursion as a defensive move against NATO. This argument is insufficient to explain the disproportionate invasion response, but it has some valid basis. The Kremlin chief went beyond this assessment and pointed out that Ukraine has no right to exist as a nation. Such a characterization puts its operation on another plane, even more unacceptable, that of challenging the right of a people to decide its destiny.

The leader of Moscow considers that Ukraine has never been a true nation separate from the Russian matrix. He claims that it assumed this artificial character through the work of the Bolsheviks, who, in 1917, granted it an evil right of separation. This attribute later took on a constitutional format of voluntary union of Soviet republics. Putin blames Lenin for this fractionation of Russian territory and believes that Stalin validated the same mistake by preserving a rule that tolerated Ukraine's federal autonomy.[xvi]

This approach by Putin contains an implicit vindication of the previous oppressive model of tsarism. This scheme was based on the domination exercised by Great Russia over a vast configuration of nations. Lenin fought against this “prison of peoples” that prevented many minorities from managing their resources, developing their culture, using their language and creating their national path.

Resistance against such oppression fueled the great battle that led to the rise of the Soviet Union. The right of oppressed nations to their own self-determination was a common demand, with the demands for peace, bread and land that triggered the Revolution of 1917. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was proclaimed as a free and sovereign convergence of these nations.

Now Putin rejects this tradition and ignores Ukraine's identity, which is the antipode of the ruse the Kremlin leader opposes. This country has a long and dramatic national trajectory, fueled by the tragedies experienced in the world wars and forced collectivization.

As in other parts of the world, the national self-determination discussed in Ukraine is not a sacred, supreme aspiration, nor is it more valid than social and popular demands. It is clearly used by the right to promote nationalism and clashes between peoples. But Putin is not opposed to this reactionary manipulation, but to the very right of a country to exist.

This posture portrays the most regressive facet of its military operation. It emphasizes that its incursion is not only determined by arm wrestling with NATO, nor does it obey solely to defensive or geopolitical motivations. It also derives from a despotic attribute, which Moscow attributes to itself, claiming that Ukraine belongs to its territorial radius.

West and East Ukrainians have the same right as any other people to decide their national future. But self-determination will only be a declamatory utterance as long as NATO-associated forces and Russian troops maintain their presence in the country.

The first condition for moving towards Ukraine's real sovereignty is the resumption of peace negotiations, agreement on the departure of foreign gendarmes on both sides and the subsequent demilitarization of the country, with an international status of neutrality. The left of many sides and countries is committed to this double battle against NATO and the Russian incursion.

*Claudio Katz is professor of economics at Universidad Buenos Aires. Author, among other books, of Neoliberalism, neodevelopmentalism, socialism (popular expression).

Translation: Fernando Lima das Neves



[I] Marcetic, Branko, “Basta ya de juegos peligrosos con Rusia”, 31/12/2021,

[ii] Tooze, Adam, “Putin's Challenge to Western Hegemony”, 29/01/2022,'s Challenge to Western Hegemony.

[iii] Rodríguez, Olga, “Fuck the European Union?”, 03/02/2022, html.

[iv] Hudson, Michael, “Ukraine: the United States wants to prevent Europe from trading with China and Russia”, 12/02/2022,

[v] Reed, Stanley, “Crisis con Ukraine: ¿qué pasa si Rusia cuts natural gas in Europe?”, 01/02/2022,

[vi] Montag, Santiago, “Ucrania en el tablero mundo”, 02/01/2022,

[vii] Kagarlitsky, Boris, “On Ukraine”, interviewed by Antoine Dolcerocca and Gokhan Terzioglu on May 24, 2015,

[viii] San Vicente, Iñaki Gil, “Es el primer coup de una politico russian defensive”, 24/02/2022, vicente-es-el-primer-golpe-de-una-politica-defensiva-rusa/.

[ix] Poch de Feliu, Rafael, “La invasión de Ucrania”, 22/01/2022,

[X] Ishchenko, Volodymyr, “Ukraine faces a crisis, but war is not inevitable”, 13/02/2022, minsk-war.

[xi] Burgos, Tino, “War Drums”, 08/02/2022,

[xii] Ishchenko, Volodymyr, “Ukrainians are far from unified on NATO: let them decide for themselves”, 1 Jan. 2022,

[xiii] -Kagarlitsky, Boris (2016), “Ukraine and Russia: Two States, One Crisis, International Critical Thought”, 6: 4, 513-533.

[xiv] Williams, Sam. “Is Russia Imperialist?”, Jun. 2014,

[xv] Kagarlitsky, Boris. “New Cold War. Ukraine and beyond”, April 13, 2014,…/boris-kagarlitsky.

[xvi] Putin, Vladimir, 23/02/2022,

See this link for all articles


  • About artificial ignoranceEugenio Bucci 15/06/2024 By EUGÊNIO BUCCI: Today, ignorance is not an uninhabited house, devoid of ideas, but a building full of disjointed nonsense, a goo of heavy density that occupies every space
  • Franz Kafka, libertarian spiritFranz Kafka, libertarian spirit 13/06/2024 By MICHAEL LÖWY: Notes on the occasion of the centenary of the death of the Czech writer
  • The society of dead historyclassroom similar to the one in usp history 16/06/2024 By ANTONIO SIMPLICIO DE ALMEIDA NETO: The subject of history was inserted into a generic area called Applied Human and Social Sciences and, finally, disappeared into the curricular drain
  • Strengthen PROIFESclassroom 54mf 15/06/2024 By GIL VICENTE REIS DE FIGUEIREDO: The attempt to cancel PROIFES and, at the same time, turn a blind eye to the errors of ANDES management is a disservice to the construction of a new representation scenario
  • Hélio Pellegrino, 100 years oldHelio Pellegrino 14/06/2024 By FERNANDA CANAVÊZ & FERNANDA PACHECO-FERREIRA: In the vast elaboration of the psychoanalyst and writer, there is still an aspect little explored: the class struggle in psychoanalysis
  • Volodymyr Zelensky's trapstar wars 15/06/2024 By HUGO DIONÍSIO: Whether Zelensky gets his glass full – the US entry into the war – or his glass half full – Europe’s entry into the war – either solution is devastating for our lives
  • Letter to the presidentSquid 59mk,g 18/06/2024 By FRANCISCO ALVES, JOÃO DOS REIS SILVA JÚNIOR & VALDEMAR SGUISSARDI: “We completely agree with Your Excellency. when he states and reaffirms that 'Education is an investment, not an expense'”
  • Introduction to “Capital” by Karl Marxred triangular culture 02/06/2024 By ELEUTÉRIO FS PRADO: Commentary on the book by Michael Heinrich
  • PEC-65: independence or patrimonialism in the Central Bank?Campos Neto Trojan Horse 17/06/2024 By PEDRO PAULO ZAHLUTH BASTOS: What Roberto Campos Neto proposes is the constitutional amendment of free lunch for the future elite of the Central Bank
  • The strike at federal Universities and Institutescorridor glazing 01/06/2024 By ROBERTO LEHER: The government disconnects from its effective social base by removing those who fought against Jair Bolsonaro from the political table