Martin Suchanek
The “intensive” talks on a 30 day-ceasefire between Russia, the US and Ukraine, which began on 23 March, have resulted thus far in only a limited agreement – not to attack energy infrastructure or maritime traffic in the Black Sea. But Russia immediately clarified that even this ceasefire would only come into force after sanctions against its food and fertiliser trade were lifted.
In return, Zelensky has accused the Kremlin of manipulating the ceasefire terms. The US, however, continues to withhold any criticism of Russia and it is unclear what the outcome of the deal will be. The Kremlin and the White House, however, appear to be satisfied. „We talked about everything, it was an intensive dialogue – not easy, but very useful for us and the Americans“, said Russian negotiator Grigory Karasin, who also promised the publication of a joint statement with the US.
Assessments
For Russia, the positive assessment of the talks thus far is easy to understand. After all, the change of course by the US administration opened up the prospect of a „peace“ for Putin and his cabinet, which in fact amounts to the recognition of Russia’s war gains and a more or less humiliating
surrender by Ukraine. These gains include:
- Recognition of Russian conquests and the ceding of around 20% of Ukrainian territory to Russia.
- No NATO membership for Ukraine, even if unspecified „security guarantees“ were promised.
- Lifting of sanctions against Russia.
For the US, the war had to be ended quickly, they said, because it was not of strategic interest to the US. Rather, it was devouring resources that were actually lacking when it came to concentrating on the main enemy, China. Vance and other Trumpists have been saying this for a long time. The strategy papers of the Heritage Foundation (especially Project 2025) also contained this orientation. Even if all this does not yet constitute official government policy, Trump’s course of action is by no means a surprise or a sudden adoption of a „Putin narrative“. What is now being presented as a „peace plan“ was already his strategy in 2024 in its essential features.
Added to this is the division of Ukraine’s natural resources between the USA, Russia and Western Europe. However, the planned agreements between the USA and Russia do mark a significant change in the relationship between imperialist powers. First, Russia is being recognised by the US as a great power whose „security interests“, i.e. control over its claimed (semi-)colonial sphere of influence, must be recognised. In this way, the US also hopes to be able to loosen Russia’s close political and economic ties to China, at least to some extent, or at least to prevent an even stronger dependency. US imperialism has therefore fundamentally changed its goals in the Ukraine war.
However, that has also meant a change in the relationship between the USA and the EU, above all to its leading imperialist powers. The agreement embodies not only a deep shock, but also a rupture of the previous „transatlantic partnership“, not so much because of its content, but mainly because of the way it was negotiated and the snubbing of any substantial role for not only Ukraine, but also the EU. The USA and the EU powers are no longer allies, but open rivals.
Lasting Peace?
Whether the European states will ultimately subordinate themselves completely to the USA, as hoped by the Trump government, is by no means certain. They may just as well regroup and try to remodel the EU, or a core Europe organised around Germany and France, into a block capable of acting as a world power.
Whatever a possible truce or even a „long-term peace“ might look like, neither would lead to a lasting peace for two reasons. Firstly, it would be accompanied by intensified national oppression in Ukraine. Part of Ukraine would become a Russian colony, while the greater part would be completely dependent economically on the USA and Western Europe. Secondly, whether as a deployment area for European armies or as a buffer zone, it would in any case be at the centre of a massive build-up of arms between Russia and Western Europe and along an armed front thousands of kilometres long.
Prospects in Ukraine
The current peace negotiations also make clear that the war over Ukraine was never a proxy war, defence of Ukraine, despite the international context, had, and still has, a legitimate character. Zelensky and the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, however, have led the country’s workers and peasants into the trap of political, military and economic dependence on the West, subordinating their interests to those of their allies. To this day, Zelensky plays down the differences with the USA, puts a good face on a bad game, and sells rare earths and other ores (titanium) to the USA in violation of the Ukrainian constitution.
He has been pursuing this policy not only in the most recent negotiations, but throughout the entire war, for example, by banning opposition parties and organisations or undermining trade union rights. All this has contributed to Ukraine being in an extremely difficult situation and being unable to do much to counter a peace dictated by Russia and the USA.
In this context, the factor of justified national defence against Russian imperialist attacks is once again coming to the fore, as is the reactionary character of Zelensky’s regime and the Ukrainian bourgeoisie. They are willing to sell off the country to US and EU corporations in exchange for Western „guarantees“. The debts to these „allies“ and to the international financial institutions will also further bleed the country „peacefully“.
As long as the war continues, the self-defence of semi-colonial Ukraine is therefore justified. At the same time, revolutionaries must warn against any false hopes in their Western allies, not only against Trump’s whitewashing, but also against any illusions in Germany, Britain and the EU.
Above all, however, the struggle in Ukraine must be linked to the fight against the sell-out of the country and for the expropriation of all privatised and sold-off companies, for the cancellation of the debt and for reconstruction under workers‘ control. All anti-worker and anti-union laws must be fought, as must all restrictions of democratic rights by the Zelensky government, especially against opposition parties and Russian-speaking minorities. In short, the working class must act as an independent force, build a new revolutionary party and give its support to neither Zelensky nor any other bourgeois force.
In the Russian-occupied territories, the fight for the reunification of Ukraine must be waged as part of the fight against the Putin government, Russian imperialism and for a new Russian workers‘ revolution that recognises the right of national self-determination (including the right to secession).
In the West, we must, on the one hand, defend Ukraine’s right to self-determination, but on the other, we must reject any re-arming of the national armies and NATO. In the event of a ceasefire, revolutionaries must reject any deployment of Western troops in Ukraine, whether under their own flag or under that of NATO or the UN. These would not only serve as a pawn in a possible future war with Russia. They would also be used to defend the incorporation of Ukraine into Western capitalism against possible unrest by the working class and peasants against exploitation by their corporations.
The right of national self-determination of Ukraine will ultimately be realised neither by the West nor by the Ukrainian bourgeoisie. Rather, this will require the joint struggle of the Ukrainian, Russian and Western European working classes against their bourgeoisies and the imperialist order, and for workers‘ governments and a socialist Europe.