Dear comrades,

It would be futile to discuss among communists about the war in Ukraine and its international repercussions without having in mind the important reactions, formulated by heavyweights of the international communist movement: I am thinking of the KKE, the Communist Party of Greece, and the KPRF, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the second largest force in the country since the end of the USSR. A divergence has indeed been expressed, fortunately in mutual respect, as shown by the KPRF’s answer of last May 16, entitled “In Ukraine, Russia fights neo-Nazism”, an implicit answer to the analysis of the Greek comrades about the operation led by Russia and qualified by them as “imperialist war”, in the sense that Lenin gave it.

Whether one finds the Russian intervention inconsiderate or not, the systemic danger incurred by the Russian Federation in the face of NATO’s bellicose expansion is rightly underlined by the KPRF. This party, contrary to its usual practice, did not mention China in its response; but the confrontation with NATO is also at this level and means a confrontation between two different economic systems, two different modes of production. The expansion of NATO, which in my opinion is not sufficiently described as perfectly “totalitarian” – a term that the West always uses to describe its adversaries – can lead to a nuclear confrontation. If it is a question, as the first rationalist historian of the West, Thucydides, of looking for the etiology, the deep causes of war, I do not see how the expansionism of NATO, and the maneuvers of the United States in 2014 in Maïdan, could be forgotten.

This military expansionism is opposed by an economic response, marked by a trend towards de-dollarization, the emergence of a petro-ruble or even a petro-yuan, i.e. the end of the Bretton Woods privilege, reinforced by the Jamaica Declaration which decoupled the dollar from gold once and for all, and which relied solely on the capacity of the United States to have other countries buy the paper money it printed. We can thus observe an international isolation of “the West” on the Ukrainian question. Perhaps this is the beginning of the “end of the Columbian era” (in the sense of the era of Christopher Columbus, marking the beginning of European colonial domination), described by the late philosopher Domenico Losurdo. The afternoon will be devoted to the situation in Asia, also very tense, but which cannot be dissociated. Asia is shaking off the imperialist yoke, the straitjacket imposed by the United States.

Of course, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, no more or less than any other capitalist country, is not immune to the tendencies described by Lenin and which are characteristic of this mode of production. But beyond these generalities, we must remember that it is not the same thing to be surrounded by 700 bases and to face a threat at one’s borders, and, as in the case of the United States, to claim a “manifest destiny” by bombing numerous countries and imposing numerous embargoes on them in defiance of international law when no threat, neither in Mexico nor in Canada, is pointing to its borders. It is misleading to present the Russian operation as a simple war of predation without mentioning this context. In this case, since the economy always plays “last resort”, it is not even certain that economic interests come first. And it is clear that it is also a question of the Russian government twisting the arm of the oligarchs. There is necessarily, in the Russian power, a double interest to organize a patriotic defense of the country and also to maintain itself in power at all costs.

In this tense context, it is not impossible that Putin will either turn against a part of the oligarchs or continue with his characteristic plebiscitary authoritarianism, this time against the communists. The situation is uncertain. What is certain is that we must, paschalically, obviously count on the communists and strengthen international solidarity.

In my opinion, the Putin phenomenon is a bonapartism, in the conceptual sense in which Gramsci studied it: a compromise between two forces, reactionaries on the whole line on one side and communists on the other. With the same limits and the same ambiguities. One can think what one wants about Bonapartism, everyone understands that Waterloo marked the end of the historical sequence opened by 1789 and the Europe of the prison of the peoples established by the Congress of Vienna.
The difference is that Bonapartist France had few allies, whereas Russia has mainly China. One can argue endlessly about the class nature of China. The fact is that 80% of the key sectors of its economy and 40% of the non-essential sectors remain nationalized. You are free to think that this is enough or not enough, but this has nothing to do with our country, where without control over our own currency, we are lagging behind the United States, or even Germany. China may not be our ideal model of communism, but it is giving us lessons in Jacobinism today. As the historian Bruno Drweski has noted, it is not impossible that Russia will strengthen planning, which is not in itself socialist, but is an important
element in getting there. The KPRF often emphasizes that the patriotic defense of the country will necessarily involve a transition to socialism.

It is also worth noting that the war in Ukraine has led to the spread of fascization and anti-communist repression, for which Ukraine, but also its Baltic and Polish neighbors, have played a role as a testing ground. Not to name fascization and Nazification by hiding behind the “neither nor”, the “all rotten” and the “all the same”, is to expose ourselves too. Not to walk in the propaganda of war that is imposed on us in the West is, in my opinion, a minimum. War propaganda that reminds us of the Algerian war, the scissors of Anastasia of the Great War. The recently published book, La Russie sans oelléres (Russia without blinkers), can contribute to this.

One can read the analysis of the great historian Annie Lacroix-Riz, who, I suppose, is unanimous among us for the integrity of her research and who shows the Western operation on Ukraine for more than a hundred years. Georges Gastaud also expresses himself, in a position that supports the anti-Ottoman presuppositions of the decision taken by the PRCF, which, it seems to me, has left its mark. But other analysts, like Jean-Pierre Page, former international leader of the CGT, are also present. This only underlines the need to regain awareness, within the CGT, of our international responsibilities.

Let us return to our Greek comrades. KKE left the hemicycle when Zelensky came, accompanied by fascist militants. KKE actively participates in the non-sending of arms. Greece, together with Italy, is in the vanguard of the refusal of the NATO war with very effective actions which we should take more as an example. I see many anti-NATO actions in Greece right now.

I believe that this is the main thing, and that it overrides the endless discussions about the causes of the current conflict. We will all agree that we must maintain the unity of the communist camp and contribute to de-escalation and peace.

The “neither nor” position is respectable on one condition: that it is understood that “the main enemy is in your own country”, as Karl Liebknecht said. Let everyone do his job against his own imperialism. It is indeed too easy to speak of the imperialism of the other in chorus with one’s own bourgeoisie, as the false left from Jadot to Hidalgo but sometimes, alas, also Mélenchon and Roussel do.

The French people, with their proverbial political acumen, expressed themselves massively in the last election against the va-t-en-guerre: Jadot, Pécresse and Hidalgo all failed to pass the fateful 5% mark. The French people understand that the 5 billion euros claimed by Victoria Nuland for Maïdan 2014 and the 40 billion euros for armaments are one less for public services: war outside means fascization.

It is necessary to maintain the unity of the communist camp, of communist action, not to cultivate for the sake of it what Freud called the “narcissism of small differences” and to pose the differences only when they arise and I thank the Korean comrades for giving us this opportunity, so useful, to debate publicly among ourselves. Soon the day will come when, in the general chaos, the communists and their iron organization, based on the living forces of the people and the whole nation, will be the only recourse to save our different countries. Unity must therefore be forged from now on.