俄乌战争作为21世纪地缘政治冲突的典型样本，其本质是以美国为首的北约集团与俄罗斯垄断资产阶级统治集团之间，为争夺区域主导权与能源垄断权而发动的帝国主义战争。这场战争的伏笔早在苏联崩溃时便已埋下——红色帝国在东欧的前势力范围沦为俄罗斯和西方帝国主义重新划分势力范围的角斗场。
俄罗斯联邦虽然继承了苏联的主要政治遗产，但其官僚资本主义体制已蜕变为典型的垄断资本主义国家。通过掌控矿产资源、油气管道网络和能源出口命脉，俄罗斯垄断资产阶级构建起垄断帝国主义的经济基础，其向欧洲输送能源的“北溪”项目正是维系这一寄生性经济结构的生命线。而乌克兰自橙色革命以来的历次政权更迭，实质上是俄罗斯和西方资本集团在该国代理人势力的拉锯战，亲西方政权试图以加入北约换取安全保障，这直接威胁到俄罗斯能源资本的核心利益。这种结构性矛盾在2014年占领克里米亚事件中达到临界点，最终演变为今天的全面军事冲突。
在具体矛盾激化过程中，乌克兰对顿巴斯地区俄语居民的镇压、俄罗斯不断武装乌东民兵、占领克里米亚，已经长期存在乌克兰资产阶级民族主义政权和俄罗斯帝国主义的冲突。俄罗斯以“保护同胞”为名进行的“特别军事行动”，不过是利用工人阶级的民族情感掩饰其争夺黑海沿岸工业带与战略港口的真实意图，以及试图扶植一个俄罗斯能自由摆布的傀儡政权。民族主义的意识形态被统治阶级用作掩盖战争本质的烟雾弹。
值得注意的是美国统治集团内部的分化正在重塑战争格局，传统建制派延续“双线作战”策略：美国（拜登之前的政府）曾经担心欧洲的独立和强大脱离自己的控制，因为欧盟是最大的工业国家集团和消费市场，美国一直通过煽动乌克兰民族主义情绪制造俄欧对立，阻断欧俄经济整合进程，尤其是能源合作；同时希望借俄乌战争加大欧洲对美国的军事依赖，强化对欧洲工业国的军事控制，也试图拖垮俄罗斯的军事和经济、为自己的军工垄断资本创造超额利润。
而特朗普政权的上台，开始推行一系列不同于美国领导人传统新自由主义的战略，却受到了相当一部分美国资本集团的支持。他们认为，东方崛起的工业国——中国已经成为美国资本垄断利润的最大威胁，而在特朗普第一任期就开始的对华经济制裁无法阻止中国经济、科技、军事的发展，甚至起到了相反的作用。这让他们不得不寻求新的阻挠中国迅速崛起的方案。特朗普是其中的代表，他不担心欧洲脱离美国的控制，也不担心衰落的俄罗斯，但他们认为俄罗斯保有大量核武器，不可能彻底抹去俄罗斯的影响力，同时俄罗斯的经济依赖对欧洲的能源出口，对出口中国的依赖相对欧洲较小，为“联俄制华”策略提供了可能性。美国深知能源对发达工业国家的重要性——通过控制中东的油气资源，它能掌控欧洲、日本、韩国等第二世界国家的经济命脉。经济和科技制裁已经证明无法阻止中国的迅速发展，但是中国作为崛起的工业国，能源主要来自中东和俄罗斯，中东一直是美国的势力范围，尤其是在其扶持的看门犬“以色列”的看护下，一旦美国能与俄罗斯在某种程度上达成默契，能够随时提高国际能源价格，那么对于中国的威胁就大了。（本段观点来自 Fred Engst 教授）
欧洲的处境尤为矛盾。作为拥有独立工业体系和技术储备的经济体，欧盟本具备成为独立帝国主义中心的潜力，但其军事安全体系对美国的依附性成为致命软肋。北约框架下的集体防卫机制将欧洲绑上美国战车，使得德法主导的“战略自主”构想始终停留在纸面。近期欧盟国家在援乌问题上的摇摆，暴露出能源危机背景下资产阶级统治集团的短视性。如果美国许诺欧盟能够重新获得俄罗斯廉价能源，欧洲会放弃对乌克兰抵抗俄罗斯的执着支持吗？我们拭目以待。
在资本主义世界体系框架内，这样的帝国主义战争具有历史必然性。当前的军事冲突再次证明：资本主义的逻辑是：竞争—垄断—霸权—帝国主义战争。这场战争最残酷的真相在于，无论战线如何推移，真正的输家始终是乌克兰和俄罗斯的工人阶级。超过千万乌克兰人流离失所；顿巴斯平原上布满未爆弹药的农田；居民区的断壁残垣；黑海港口锈迹斑斑的起重机；普京和西方的统治者们安然坐在富丽堂皇的府邸，前线的士兵不断沦为帝国主义战争中的炮灰…… 历史反复验证着列宁的论断：帝国主义战争是垄断资本主义发展的必然产物，只要生产资料私有制和资产阶级民族国家体系没有被消灭，人类就难以摆脱战争幽灵的纠缠。
解救乌克兰人民唯一的出路是拥抱真正的共产主义，而不是寄希望于其他帝国主义介入。很可惜，当前乌克兰取缔共产主义活动的反动政策，以及俄罗斯主要的共产党沦为寡头政治附庸的现状，凸显了国际共运面临的严峻挑战。但正如1917年十月革命的炮声诞生于帝国主义战争的血火之中，今日东欧的焦土之下同样孕育着新生的希望。真正的解决方案在于重建无产阶级国际主义阵线，用社会主义公有制取代垄断资本的全球统治，将北溪管道变成连接欧洲人民的纽带而非剥削工具。当劳动者突破民族国家的虚幻帷幕，认识到切尔尼戈夫的矿工与鲁尔的钢铁工人本是阶级兄弟时，帝国主义战争的丧钟便将真正敲响。
战争的洗礼后，东欧人民是否意识到：只有通过推翻本国资产阶级专政的统治，在社会主义制度基础上实现各民族的平等自愿联合、或者建立独立的社会主义共和国，才能赢得独立、自由和发展的权利。
English Version
The Russia-Ukraine War, as a typical example of geopolitical conflict in the 21st century, is in essence an imperialist war launched by the US-led NATO bloc and Russia’s monopolistic bourgeois ruling group to compete for regional hegemony and control over energy monopolies. The foreshadowing of this war was already laid when the Soviet Union collapsed—the former sphere of influence of the Red Empire in Eastern Europe became an arena for Russia and Western imperialism to re-divide their spheres of influence.
Although the Russian Federation inherited the main political legacy of the Soviet Union, its bureaucratic capitalist system has degenerated into a typical monopolistic capitalist state. By controlling mineral resources, oil and gas pipeline networks, and the lifeline of energy exports, the Russian monopolistic bourgeoisie has built the economic foundation of monopolistic imperialism. Its “Nord Stream” project, which transports energy to Europe, is precisely the lifeline that maintains this parasitic economic structure. The successive regime changes in Ukraine since the Orange Revolution are, in essence, a tug-of-war between Russian and Western capital groups’ proxy forces in the country. The pro-Western regime attempts to join NATO in exchange for security guarantees, which directly threatens the core interests of Russian energy capital. This structural contradiction reached a critical point in the 2014 annexation of Crimea, eventually evolving into today’s full-scale military conflict.
In the process of intensifying specific contradictions, Ukraine’s suppression of Russian-speaking residents in the Donbas region, Russia’s continuous arming of militias in eastern Ukraine, and the annexation of Crimea, reflect the long-standing conflict between the Ukrainian bourgeois nationalist regime and Russian imperialism. Russia’s “special military operation,” carried out under the name of “protecting compatriots,” is nothing more than using the national sentiments of the working class to conceal its real intention of seizing the industrial belt and strategic ports along the Black Sea coast, as well as attempting to establish a puppet regime that Russia can freely manipulate. Nationalist ideology is used by the ruling class as a smokescreen to cover up the true nature of the war.
It is worth noting that the division within the US ruling group is reshaping the war landscape. The traditional establishment continues the “two-front war” strategy: The US (governments before Biden) once worried about Europe’s independence and strength breaking away from its control, because the EU is the largest group of industrial countries and consumer markets. The US has been inciting Ukrainian nationalist sentiments to create a confrontation between Russia and Europe, blocking the process of economic integration between Europe and Russia, especially energy cooperation. At the same time, it hopes to increase Europe’s military dependence on the US through the Russia-Ukraine war, strengthen military control over European industrial countries, and also try to cripple Russia’s military and economy, creating excess profits for its own military-industrial monopolies.
However, the Trump administration, when it came to power, began to implement a series of strategies different from the traditional neoliberal ones of US leaders, but received support from a considerable part of the US capital group. They believe that the rising industrial power in the East—China—has become the biggest threat to the monopoly profits of US capital, and the economic sanctions against China that began in Trump’s first term have failed to stop China’s economic, technological, and military development, and have even had the opposite effect. This forces them to seek new solutions to hinder China’s rapid rise. Trump is a representative of this. He is not worried about Europe breaking away from US control, nor is he worried about a declining Russia. However, they believe that Russia retains a large number of nuclear weapons, and it is impossible to completely eliminate Russia’s influence. At the same time, Russia’s economy relies on energy exports to Europe, and its dependence on exports to China is relatively small compared to Europe, which provides the possibility of a “unite with Russia to contain China” strategy. The US is well aware of the importance of energy to developed industrial countries—by controlling oil and gas resources in the Middle East, it can control the economic lifeline of second-world countries such as Europe, Japan, and South Korea. Economic and technological sanctions have proven unable to stop China’s rapid development, but as a rising industrial power, China’s energy mainly comes from the Middle East and Russia. The Middle East has always been the US’s sphere of influence, especially under the care of its supported watchdog “Israel”. Once the US can reach a certain degree of understanding with Russia, it can raise international energy prices at any time, which will pose a greater threat to China. (This paragraph’s viewpoint comes from Professor Fred Engst).
Europe’s situation is particularly contradictory. As an economy with an independent industrial system and technological reserves, the EU has the potential to become an independent imperialist center, but its dependence on the US for military security has become a fatal weakness. The collective defense mechanism under the NATO framework has tied Europe to the US war chariot, making the “strategic autonomy” concept led by Germany and France remain on paper. The recent wavering of EU countries on the issue of aid to Ukraine exposes the shortsightedness of the bourgeois ruling group in the context of the energy crisis. If the US promises that the EU can regain access to cheap Russian energy, will Europe abandon its unwavering support for Ukraine’s resistance against Russia? We will wait and see.
Within the framework of the capitalist world system, such imperialist wars are historically inevitable. The current military conflict proves once again that the logic of capitalism is: competition—monopoly—hegemony—imperialist war. The cruelest truth of this war is that no matter how the front lines shift, the real losers are always the working classes of Ukraine and Russia. Over ten million Ukrainians have been displaced; the Donbas plains are littered with unexploded ordnance; residential areas are in ruins; the cranes in the Black Sea ports are rusty; Putin and Western rulers sit comfortably in their magnificent mansions, while soldiers on the front lines continue to become cannon fodder in the imperialist war… History repeatedly verifies Lenin’s assertion: Imperialist war is an inevitable product of the development of monopolistic capitalism. As long as the private ownership of the means of production and the bourgeois nation-state system are not eliminated, humanity will be unable to escape the entanglement of the specter of war.
The only way to save the Ukrainian people is to embrace genuine communism, not to hope for intervention from other imperialist powers. Unfortunately, the current reactionary policies of banning communist activities in Ukraine, and the fact that the main communist parties in Russia have become appendages of oligarchic politics, highlight the severe challenges facing the international communist movement. But just as the sound of the October Revolution of 1917 was born in the blood and fire of the imperialist war, today’s scorched earth in Eastern Europe also breeds the hope of a new life. The real solution lies in rebuilding the proletarian internationalist front, replacing the global rule of monopoly capital with socialist public ownership, and turning the Nord Stream pipeline into a link connecting the European people rather than a tool of exploitation. When the workers break through the illusory veil of the nation-state and realize that the miners of Chernihiv and the steelworkers of the Ruhr are class brothers, the death knell of the imperialist war will truly sound.
After the baptism of war, will the people of Eastern Europe realize that only by overthrowing the rule of their own bourgeois dictatorship and realizing the equal and voluntary union of all ethnic groups on the basis of the socialist system, or establishing independent socialist republics, can they win the right to independence, freedom, and development?
v1.5.2