Victor Shapinov: Events in Ukraine are a model for imperialism’s crisis strategy

By Victor Shapinov


Speech given at the 7th International Anti-Imperialist Symposium in Istanbul, April 16, 2016.

Dear comrades!

I bring greetings to all the participants of the symposium on behalf of the communists of Ukraine and Donbass, which today has become one of the major fronts of the struggle against imperialism and fascism. And I take this opportunity to invite all the comrades to the International Anti-fascist Conference, which will be held on May 7 in the town of Krasnodon, Lugansk People’s Republic.

In February 2014, a coup d’etat took place in Ukraine, carried out with the direct involvement of the EU and U.S. imperialism. A bloc of ultra-neoliberal and fascist forces came to power. This coup launched a civil war that has lasted for more than two years.

In my speech, I would like to try to answer two questions related to the Ukrainian crisis.

First, why did imperialism need to carry out a coup in Ukraine and bring to power a regime that we characterize as a new type of fascism or 21st century fascism?

Second, what is this new fascism, in the case of Ukraine?

Victor Shapinov, coordinator of Union Borotba (Struggle).
Photo: Naya Serpen
The 2014 coup should be seen in the context of the global crisis which world capitalism entered in the second half of the first decade of the 21st century. I won’t dwell on the causes and course of the crisis. To understand the Ukrainian crisis, it’s important to understand that imperialism no longer wants and cannot share profits with the capitalist elites of the periphery, as it did in the years of growth.

Therefore, the previously relatively independent regimes in the countries of the periphery, even if they were fully dominated by the imperialist center, become an obstacle to imperialism’s strategy of passing the costs of the crisis on to the countries of the periphery.

In this case, the completely pro-U.S. and pro-Western regime of President Yanukovych in Ukraine had become a hindrance to U.S. imperialism’s plan to restructure the global economy during the crisis. This restructuring, as we know, includes the creation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), two systems of economic cooperation which will make the most economically developed areas in the periphery subordinate to the United States to an ever greater degree.

Here imperialism is faced with two major alternatives to its global restructuring strategy. First is the possibility of developing economic cooperation between the European Union and Russia. Second is the Chinese plan for a new “Silk Road.” The establishment of an extremely nationalistic regime in Ukraine, fully controlled by imperialism, and the beginning of the civil war became serious impediments to such alternative strategies.

The situation with Crimea and Donbass put an end to the possibility of a strategic association between Russia and the EU. The new regime in Kiev has stopped cooperation with China, which began during the reign of Yanukovych, and could have made Ukraine part of China’s plan for the “Silk Road.” Also, the severing of economic and political relations between Ukraine and Russia, carried out by the new Ukrainian regime, shattered hopes for the formation of an alternative model of economic integration in Eurasia.

To achieve these objectives, a completely dependent and politically weak puppet regime was required. It is this regime which appeared in Ukraine in February 2014.

What kind of regime is it, and why do we call it a new type of fascism?

By all indications, it certainly fits the classic definition of fascism as the open terrorist dictatorship of finance capital. Left and progressive organizations are banned, communist ideology is banned, prisons are filled with an estimated 2,000 to 4,000 political prisoners, extra-judicial executions are practiced using paramilitary forces and neo-Nazi groups.

At the same time, it does not look exactly like the fascism that existed in Europe in the 1930s. Formal democratic institutions remain, there is no mass fascist party, there’s no leader-Fuhrer.

However, the new fascism does not have to be the same as Germany or Italy in the 1930s.

“Classical fascism” of the 1930s was a response to the crisis of world capitalism. The essence of this crisis was the transition from monopoly to state-monopoly capitalism. Hence, the specific features of this form of fascism — the cult of the state. With the new fascism, which we face in Ukraine, the cult of the state is not the issue, because it’s no longer a question of the transition to state-monopoly capitalism. On the contrary, the function it performs is not state, as with the Nazis of the 20th century, but rather, the destruction of the nation-state in the interests of world imperialism head by the U.S. and neoliberalism.

Fascism is the crisis of political domination. Fascism of the 1930s was capital’s response to the political engagement of the masses, the emergence of mass parties. The form of fascist parties was largely copied from the mass workers’ parties (the Social Democrats and the Communists). Modern fascism, which we face in Ukraine, copies manipulated forms of self-organization. The direct instrument of terror becomes a network of paramilitary fascist groups, as well as law enforcement bodies and special forces. The new fascism does not create a mass party, such as the German NSDAP, but causes neoliberal politicians like Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, etc., to adopt ultra-nationalistic ideology.

As much as the fascist forces were prepared for the development of the Ukrainian crisis, so we among the resistance forces were unprepared. After the right-wing seizure of power in February 2014, a haphazard protest movement began to form, mainly in the Southeast of the country. At first its slogans were very modest, asking only for a certain amount of autonomy from the central authorities in Kiev, which took on an increasingly distinct fascist character. As soon as the regime in Kiev consolidated itself, it intensified the pressure on the Southeast through paramilitary attacks by neo-Nazi groups, and this radicalized the resistance. This resulted in a successful uprising in Donetsk and Lugansk, while the rebellion was defeated in Odessa and Kharkov.

Due to fragmentation of the resistance forces, the uprisings shared no clear ideology or common goal. However, the overall antifascist and anti-oligarchic thrust was healthy and clearly reflects the proletarian and semi-proletarian class composition of the resistance. Unfortunately, the left-wing forces of Ukraine were unable to stop the advance of the new fascism. We were focused on the long-term development of the crisis, while the political situation quickly turned to war. And if the right-wing forces, with the support and orchestration of imperialism, were ready for it, then the left-wing forces, unfortunately, were not.

I urge all comrades in the international anti-imperialist movement to learn from our experiences and mistakes, because the Ukrainian events are a model for implementing imperialism’s strategy in the crisis.

Translated by Greg Butterfield

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s