Ukrainian socialist Denys Pilash, interviewed by Federico Fuentes
March 13, 2025
Denys Pilash is a political scientist, member of the Ukrainian democratic socialist organisation Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement) and editor of the left-wing journal Сommons. In this broad-ranging interview with Federico Fuentes for LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, Pilash discusses the reaction in Ukraine to the recent meeting between United States President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the implications for Ukraine and the world of the shift in US policy towards Russia. He also outlines the threat posed by the rising global axis of extreme reaction being spearheaded by the US, Israel and Russia, and argues why the left must defend a renewed internationalism that opposes all oppressors.
The interview is followed with a statement by Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement) Ukraine.
The reaction was predictably one of outrage. The consensus is that Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance tried to humiliate not just Zelensky but Ukraine and its people. They showed zero respect for Ukraine and cynically blamed the victim. They proved themselves to be bullies taking the side of another bully waging war on Ukraine. From what I have heard from people, including in the army, they are angry at the current US administration. They feel Ukraine is being blackmailed into a very disadvantageous “deal”, which will hand over our resources in return for nothing: no security guarantees, no gains, nothing. The deal is simply one where Ukraine is made to pay for everything, not the aggressor.
That is the opposite to what our organisation, Social Movement, and the broader Ukrainian left has been campaigning for. We have demanded that Ukraine’s foreign debt be cancelled. We have said Ukraine’s reconstruction should be funded using the wealth Russian and Ukrainian oligarchies looted in the post-Soviet space and now stored in the West and tax havens. Some of these assets have been frozen by European governments and should be used to reconstruct Ukraine. But right now the opposite is occurring.
So, there is a lot of discontent against Trump. Only a very small minority continue holding some delusions about Trump. They believe Zelensky should have been more obedient and nodded along, because supposedly if you appease Trump’s huge ego he will listen to you. But the way many world leaders have tried to make deals with Trump is not just despicable, it has only reinforced Trump, Vance and [Elon] Musk’s belief that they face no strong resistance, domestically or internationally, and can get away with anything.
Perhaps the one optimistic thing to come out of this is that
people are losing their illusions, not just in Trump but in his brand of
hard-right conservative politics. Prior to Trump taking office, when he was
making preposterous claims about ending the war in 24 hours, there was a lot of
hope for Trump in Ukraine. Hopes were high that, somehow, Trump’s
unpredictability would help change the course of events and that maybe,
magically, he could create a favourable end to the war. Now almost everyone
hates Trump. And they see a direct link between Trump’s and Putin’s hard right
politics. They see Trump and Putin as ultimately the same: they are two rulers
of two great powers who want to impose the rule of force on the world, where
the strongest dictate the terms.
Various explanations have been given to explain the US’s 180 degree turn in policy towards Ukraine. How do you explain it?
Many explanations have been given, for example that it is part of some profound strategy to tear Russia from China. But it is hard to see any particularly coherent vision when it comes to Trump’s foreign policy. What we can see, however, is a very clear ideological message. Trump, Vance and Musk are essentially saying to the world, and in particular Europe: “We declare war on you.” They are saying: “We want to bring far-right and neo-fascist forces to power everywhere, and we will only work with these fascistic, authoritarian leaders.”
It is quite telling that the only people now greeted and respected by the White House are war criminals wanted by the ICC [International Criminal Court]. Just look at how [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu was greeted when he visited recently. Or how the Trump administration talks about Putin; Trump always avoids blaming Putin for the war or calling him a dictator, preferring instead to talk about his strong leadership. Others they are more than happy to greet are those associated with what we can now call the “Elon salute”: the Alternative for Germany, [Argentine President Javier] Milei, and other parties and political leaders from the far right that promote the values of ultraconservatism, market fundamentalism and neo-fascism.
A new axis is clearly emerging, bringing together Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, the far right in Europe, and various authoritarian regimes from around the world. You could see this in action in the UN General Assembly vote on the draft resolution [condemning Russia’s war] presented by Ukraine and about 50 co-sponsors [on the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion]. Those who voted against included Russia, of course, but also the US, Israel, [Viktor] Orban’s Hungary, the military juntas in the coup belt in Western Africa, North Korea, etc. Even Milei’s Argentina, which previously promoted itself as ultra pro-Ukrainian, abstained; Milei could not bring himself to criticise daddy Trump.
When it comes to the US, Russia and Israel, there is a clear aligning of interests with their vision for the world. It is a vision that Putin espoused for a long time, and which he has framed as “multipolarity”. In this vision, Russia, for instance, is free to do what it wants in the post-Soviet space, while the US is free to do what it wants in the Western hemisphere. Of course, the US has enacted imperialist policies in that region for many years. But what we are seeing now — with Trump making expansionist claims over Greenland, Canada, Panama, and pressuring Latin American states, starting with Mexico — is that they are no longer even trying to hide this fact.
In that sense, we have something similar to the imperialism of more than a century ago. Many on the campist left [who see the world as divided into a pro-US imperialism camp and an anti-US imperialism camp] fell into the trap of thinking it would be inherently better to have lots of centres of power throughout the world; that this would somehow automatically be more egalitarian, more democratic. In fact, the opposite has turned out to be true: this brand of “multipolarity” was not about democratising the world, but partitioning it into spheres of influence, where a handful of great powers — and only these great powers — have agency.
Within this scenario, it is true that the only great power Trump sees as real competition is China, so they want Russia on their side. But Trump’s alliance with Putin cannot simply be explained by geopolitics. Resorting to purely geopolitical thinking, while abandoning class analysis, is the Achilles’ heel of much of the contemporary left. Trump and Putin are role models for the global far right. They share a vision for a conservative order that seeks to dismantle the legacy of enlightenment, and they want to replicate this nationalistic, chauvinistic, exclusionary vision across the globe. That is what explains this alliance.
And this alliance has to do with class. The most reactionary sections of the ruling class in the West are grabbing the chance to dismantle the remnants of the welfare state and rollback concessions won by labour and social movements during the 20th century. We see this with the assault being waged in the US by Musk — the world’s wealthiest capitalist — on social security, education, public health, on everything. They want to implement what some call technofeudalism, but what I call ultracapitalism on steroids. Here again Trump and Putin have a shared vision: the billionaire US president is envious of Russia’s oligarchic system, where political leaders allow the ultra-rich to continue looting as long as the oligarchs do not interfere in political decisions. This oligarchic system, based on unchecked supreme power, is something Trump and the far right would like to replicate in the West.
So, all this is part of their shared vision for reshaping the world order into one where smaller nations and their own people are deprived of any agency. They want to impose hardcore authoritarian hierarchies in every country. Their deliberate attempt to humiliate Ukraine was a clear manifestation of how this axis of extreme reaction believes the world should function.
Where does Trump’s proposed deal leave not just Ukraine but the Global South?
The first thing to say regarding the rare earth minerals deal is that we still do not know what exactly is in it. In fact, we do not even know if there is a finalised deal. Second, even if they proceed with the deal, it is currently based on estimates from explorations carried out in Soviet times. So, there is no guarantee Ukraine has enough rare earth minerals to fulfill the supposed US$500 billion deal. What happens if they find out there are not enough minerals or that extraction will be too expensive? The deal seems to imply that Ukraine would have to compensate the US by handing over other resources, and other sectors of its economy, especially infrastructure.
Clearly, this deal is about imposing economic colonialism. It can only entrench Ukraine’s role as a dependent and exploited country, and sets a dangerous precedent for the Global South.
What about the proposed Russia-US peace talks? What is their significance?
On the negotiations between Moscow and Washington to partition Ukraine over the heads of Ukrainians: if this deal goes ahead it should serve as an important lesson to the people of the world, especially in the Global South. The situation is very clear. Ukraine, as a peripheral country, has been treated badly by neighbouring Russian imperialism. On top of that, it is now being sold out by US imperialism. These two imperialisms are colluding on a shady deal at Ukraine’s expense. The scenario could not be clearer. It is as if a very unsubtle Marxist screenwriter wrote the script: you have an administration of billionaires, co-run by a clownish president and the richest person in the world, acting in a brazen and openly imperialist manner, and clearly stating that they are working with Putin’s Russia.
Of course, we on the political left had no illusions in the US. Ukrainians understood, just like the Kurds in Syria, that you need to use any opportunities to obtain the support needed to withstand an aggressor. But we also criticised our ruling class who failed to understand that this was not a dialogue of equals, and that great powers can turn on you at any time if it suits their interests. This new situation, however, leaves no excuses for those who think Putin’s Russia represents some kind of counterbalance to Western and US imperialism. The campist way of thinking believes imperialisms will remain in permanent opposition and that the enemy of my enemy is somehow my friend. This has clearly been shown not to work. Our current situation should also dispel the simplistic argument that this was all just a proxy war. If that is the case, on whose behalf is Ukraine now waging a proxy war? The US is clearly not on Ukraine’s side — it is converging with Russia. So, is Ukraine fighting a proxy war on behalf of Denmark? Latvia?
Unfortunately, we are often ignorant about the situation facing people in different parts of the world. That was why our journal, Commons, launched its project, “Dialogues of the Peripheries”, to help bring together people from Ukraine and Central Eastern Europe, with peoples from Latin America, Africa, Middle East and Asia to share experiences, histories, and legacies of colonialism, neocolonialism and imperialism. Our contexts are different, but the pattern of great powers conquering, colonising and subjugating smaller nations is very similar.
What would Ukrainians like to see come out of any negotiations?
The truth is no one in the world wants peace in Ukraine more than Ukrainians. Most people are naturally tired of the war. But that does not mean they want to capitulate to Russia and just hand over our land and people. They understand that if Ukraine is partitioned, the millions who are either in the occupied territories or have had to flee will have nowhere to return. They know that an outcome that hugely rewards the aggressor will only strengthen Putin’s authoritarian regime and mean even more repression, especially in the occupied territories. So, Ukrainians have two things in mind when thinking about any deal: the fate of the people in the occupied territories and how to prevent Russia from restarting the war.
Within this, there are possible areas for agreements. For example, the Ukrainian government has made it clear it will not recognise Russia’s illegal annexations, as this would set a dangerous precedent for Ukraine and the world. But it has said it could be willing to accept a temporary arrangement whereby, following a ceasefire, Ukraine retains at least some of the currently-occupied territories and negotiations are held regarding the fate of the rest.
Another important condition the Ukrainian government has raised is security guarantees. What guarantees will there be to ensure Russia does not use any ceasefire to simply accumulate more resources, human power and shells, and then restart the war? Trump says this will not happen because unlike previous “weak” US presidents, Putin respects him personally because he is “strong”. But Russia never stopped its hybrid war against Ukraine during Trump’s first administration. Trump’s words mean nothing. Increasingly more people (though still a minority) understand there is no prospect of NATO membership — let’s leave aside here all the implications of this and everything we as leftists know that is wrong with NATO. But some sort of security guarantees involving important players are needed to ensure Russia does not invade again.
One criticism often raised is that elections have not been held and therefore Zelensky has no legitimacy or mandate in terms of any possible negotiations. How do you respond to this?
It is funny because you have a guy who tried to overturn an election that he lost and another guy who has been in power for 25 years via completely sham elections, who kills his political opponents, and these two guys meet in Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by an unelected absolute monarchy, in order to criticise Ukraine because it has not held an election in the middle of a war.
The fact is that you cannot have proper elections in a war, because to hold elections you need to guarantee people’s security. And you cannot do this if your country is being constantly bombarded. Another issue is how do you involve the millions of people who have been forced to flee and are now either internally displaced persons or refugees living outside the country. And how do you ensure soldiers on the frontline or the people in the occupied regions can freely vote. All these problems make the practicalities of holding a fair election quite difficult. And that is before we even start talking about Ukraine’s constitution, which prohibits holding elections in times of war or martial law. But if Russia is so eager for Ukraine to have an election, then the best thing they could do is stop shelling Ukrainian cities.
As for the claim that Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate because Zelensky’s term has ended, the answer to that is the same — end the hostilities, then the Ukrainian people can vote for whoever they want in an election. But I would say this: despite the stark decline in his popularity, opinion polls show Zelensky still has more legitimacy in the eyes of Ukrainian people than some other governmental bodies — and is certainly seen by Ukrainians as much more legitimate than Trump and Putin. And if we compare his approval rating to that of any other politician in Ukraine, Zelensky wins hands down. His only real contender appears to be General [Valerii] Zaluzhnyi, who was Ukraine’s military commander and, naturally, is no friend of Russia. So, the implication that people would like to get rid of Zelensky and elect a president who is friendly to Trump and Putin runs contrary to every public survey. In reality, if Ukraine had an election right now, Zelensky would probably win with more ease in such a hastily-organised electoral process. In contrast, those politicians who act as Trump’s proxy, claiming they could negotiate a better deal than Zelensky, have a popularity of 4% or less.
What new challenges and opportunities does the current situation pose for the Ukrainian left?
All of this is a huge challenge, not just for the Ukrainian left but all Ukrainian people. If our future was unclear before, now it is even more precarious. But in terms of the left, the current situation has clearly shown that the emperor has no clothes — all these myths glorifying capitalists and entrepreneurs are being dismantled right in front of peoples’ eyes. The way Trump and Musk talk about Ukraine has alienated anyone who had Illusions in these false idols. The only people still cheering for them are those on the far right who want Trumpian reaction to triumph around the world.
This moment has to be seized to show people that the problem is not just the individuals but the capitalist system that creates such despicable people. We have to explain how the problem is capitalism, which is based on rewarding the owners of capital at the expense of society, and that if we continue down this path, this system will not only destroy Ukraine but the world. It is also an opportunity to provide our alternatives to neoliberal oligarchic capitalism.
This requires effectively campaigning around issues that benefit the Ukrainian working class, who have been made to pay the biggest price for this war. We need to empower workers and put forward proposals for reshaping Ukraine’s economy. Not just for the sake of peoples’ wellbeing but because this is necessary in times of war. If we are going to be able to defend ourselves properly, we need a properly functioning war economy, healthcare system, science and research department, etc — all these things are interconnected and vital if we want to develop the economy. We also need to make sure socially-oriented issues are prioritised in the reconstruction phase, not the interests of private capital. This requires reversing oligarchic privatisations and returning strategic sectors of the economy to public ownership.
It also means continuing to organise together with others on the left — with comrades from the different socialist and anarchist milieus, trade unionists, from progressive social movements — to support those whose lives have been torn apart by the war as well as those involved in the armed resistance, whether in the army or by providing essential services. We have to build upon these ties and structures to bring about political subjects that can pave the way for revolutionary changes.
Of course, this is not just a challenge for the Ukrainian left, but the left everywhere. We face a moment of extreme polarisation in which extremely reactionary forces have achieved a momentum not seen since World War II. We have Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Trump’s plans for Gaza reinforcing each other, and reinforcing reaction around the world. Trump and Putin plan to turn the world into an even worse hell. Unless they come up against some genuine and coordinated resistance, ultraconservative and fascist forces will continue to take power in country after country.
Our class enemies are uniting at a global level. So, we really need to start thinking about how we, as the left, unite internationally. Achieving this will require, among other things, consistent internationalism. That means no longer making excuses for withholding solidarity. We have to stop trying to determine which peoples are somehow more worthy of support than others, or not worthy of support at all because somehow they are oppressed by the wrong oppressor. We need to stand with all oppressed people around the world.
There are genuine progressives who view the new situation regarding Ukraine as positive (at least compared to what preceded it) because they believe it might help bring an end to the slaughter, or out of fear of the war escalating into a nuclear or world war. How would you respond to them?
The truth is that we have experienced enormous solidarity and support from comrades around the world. But we have also seen progressives not just refuse to take sides, but even refuse to listen to us. We understand the sources of this. In many cases it comes from a feeling of powerlessness. This ultimately leads people to resort to the idea that maybe if some other force can, in some way, challenge the existing system (or at least the major imperialism), it might somehow create some room for changes. But such thinking represents a clear break with leftist politics. Ultimately, it has more in common with cynical realpolitik or the “realist” vision of politics. It represents an abandonment of class politics and replaces the fight for an alternative to capitalism with simply rooting for any anti-Western regimes.
You can see how this kind of thinking ends up being very similar to the right-wing conservative mentality. Conservatives blamed the Cuban Revolution for bringing the world to the brink of nuclear conflict during the Cuban missile crisis. Back then, they said “Cuba is so selfish for wanting Soviet missiles that could endanger the US” and blamed “crazy Cubans” for not understanding the gravity of the situation. Today, you hear the same things, that Ukrainians are somehow “warmongers who are gambling with World War III,” only now you hear it not only from the far-right billionaire US president but also from some on the left. The people who really want World War III are the aggressors. It is Putin who is risking World War III and has no regard for human life, not even Russian lives. Yet you still hear people on the left blaming Ukrainians and accusing them of wanting to fight “until the last Ukrainian”.
In terms of avoiding war, the reality is that there is no historic example where rewarding or appeasing an aggressor has worked. But there are many examples of how it paved the road to World War II, such as when the international community essentially did nothing to prevent the fascists winning the Spanish Civil War. Even the Stalinist Soviet Union, which provided aid to the Republic, took Spain’s gold reserves in return — much like Trump wants to do with Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. Similarly, Britain and France simply ditched the Spanish Republicans under the guise of “non-intervention”. They also directly collaborated with Hitler to dismantle Czechoslovakia, arguably the most democratic country in the region, but that too did not stop World War II. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact [between the Soviet Union and Germany] also did not stop Germany from attacking the Soviet Union in World War II. So, the pattern has been repeated time and time again.
Ultimately, the problem with these progressives is that they have no real alternative to propose. They put forward nice pacifist and, in many cases, idealistic slogans, such as “we need to look outside the box”, “war is never the answer”, and “give diplomacy a chance”. But in the end, the solutions they adhere to is the same realpolitik advocated by great powers: let imperialists negotiate over how they partition smaller countries and divide up the world into spheres of influence. Those espousing such logic really need to place themselves in our boots and consider how this looks from our side. How would you feel if you were being occupied, tortured, murdered, but somehow others saw this as contributing to reshaping the world order for the better? The reality is that our current situation will only help reshape the world for the worse.
Those that cling to this rhetoric will increasingly find themselves aligned with the forces of extreme reaction that are part of the new fascist international being led by the US and Russia (and apparently Israel). Because, ultimately, if you are OK with their plans for Ukraine, you are OK with their plans for the Palestinian people, because you are OK with imperialist powers coming together to unilaterally decide what happens to smaller nations.
How can the international left best help the Ukrainian people, and Ukrainian left in particular, in these turbulent times?
The first thing I would say is that the left must not surrender the struggle in your own countries against your own ruling classes, against your own reactionary forces that are linking up with similar forces globally. To help the Ukrainian people, the first thing to do is continue your own struggles.
The second thing is to stand on an internationalist platform that opposes all aggressors, all oppressors, all imperialists. Today that means finding ways to help the people of Ukraine, rather than supporting the plans of sycophantic dictators and ultracapitalists. Ukraine is an important struggle for the left. Nice slogans, such as “the suffering has to end somehow”, “the war has to end somehow” are not enough to stop the suffering and war. Achieving this requires a just and sustainable peace. But these so-called “peace” negotiations between Putin and Trump are simply about rewarding the aggressor and inviting further aggressions.
So, against the realpolitik we see on the left today, we need a renewed internationalism to confront the Trump administration, which is leading a global far-right assault on what remains of progressive forces and social gains throughout the world. Every time Trump makes a statement demanding entire nations cease to exist and become US states, or threatens to annex parts of other countries, all you get is a very meek response from the international community. They are afraid. But we, as the left, can not be afraid, not even in the face of the worst capitalist nightmare. It is now or never. If we do not act now, there may be no tomorrow. We may instead all find ourselves living under the heel of extremely authoritarian, fascistic regimes seeking to reshape the world to their liking — a nice big playground for the world’s most brutal and richest people.
Denys Pilash
For a Ukraine without oligarchs and occupiers!
March 10, 2025, by Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement) Ukraine (Translation from International Viewpoint)
The predatory policies of the newly elected U.S. president make it impossible to establish a lasting peace for Ukrainians. Ukraine’s refusal to sign the mineral extraction agreement, designed to serve the interests of American capital, demonstrates the country’s determination to avoid colonial dependence. This opens the door to exploring a more equitable model of relations between Ukraine and the states of Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world under the banner of resistance to imperialist domination. However, if the current approach persists, Ukraine risks facing an imminent reduction or even a complete halt of military aid from the United States.
This aid has never been either timely or sufficient. However, its termination would be deeply felt.
If the Ukrainian state is determined to sustain the military effort until the liberation of its territories or the decisive defeat of the aggressor, it must adopt the appropriate methods. In our view, Ukraine’s defence could be strengthened by transitioning to a policy of “war socialism”, which would involve mobilising sufficient capital to serve the state through confiscation and abandoning market-based economic regulation. Such a policy, combined with wealth redistribution, would reduce the burden of war that falls disproportionately on the poorest segments of Ukrainian society.
Social Movement (Sotsialnyi Rukh) has long emphasised the necessity of these measures, but now they are critical to Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. The main obstacle to effectively mobilising resources is the neoliberal policy, which prioritises private property above all else, encourages profiteering, and allows wealth to be accumulated by private individuals. As long as Ukrainian cities remain occupied and the Russian aggressor retains offensive capabilities, all sectors of the economy must function in a coordinated manner, maximising their contribution to the defence effort.
Most financial resources should be concentrated in the hands of the state and invested in the defence sector, while private capital must be subject to progressive taxation to replenish the state budget. Strengthening defence is inseparable from large-scale investment in the social sphere: creating jobs (especially in critical infrastructure sectors), improving the care sector to enable more women to enter the workforce, and increasing access to the social services such as healthcare, temporary housing, and rehabilitation. These measures could also help attract citizens back from abroad.
Additionally, it is essential to improve social guarantees for the military service members, especially those defending Ukraine since 2022.
The uniqueness of Ukraine’s situation lies in the fact that the dismantling of oligarchic capitalism has become more possible than ever in the context of full-scale war and is justified by society. Firstly, a significant portion of essential public services, which determine Ukraine’s resilience, are already provided by state-owned enterprises (railways, postal services, healthcare, education, banks). Secondly, numerous enterprises (primarily those connected to Russian oligarchs) have been nationalised, and the share of GDP redistributed through the budget has increased. Thirdly, Ukrainian oligarchs have already lost part of their wealth and levers of control, increasingly submitting to the influence of state power.
Measures that should be taken
- Audit of natural resources and land to determine their owners and the public benefits derived from their use. Transparency in the control of national wealth is not needed for hasty trading of these resources, but to understand the foundation on which the growth of general prosperity is possible. This will motivate the people to fight more effectively for their homeland and its social prospects.
- Establishing state control over enterprises in strategic sectors of the economy and setting up mass production for the needs of those at the front-line. Industry must operate in the interests of defence, not chase after volatile market trends. Returning critical infrastructure objects to state ownership. Access to basic goods should not become a feeding trough for oligarchs or a means of siphoning state benefits into the pockets of monopolists. Keeping DTEK in the hands of Rinat Akhmetov or regional energy companies in the hands of Vadym Novynskyi is an unjustified act of state charity in favour of oligarchs.
- Revising the results of the plundering privatisation. Enterprises bought for a pittance should be returned to the state, or the difference between the purchase price and the actual market value should be compensated. First and foremost, under state control should be enterprises in the mining, machine-building, and chemical industries that are critical for ensuring defence. Enough scraping money from donations – let the oligarchs pay.
- Denouncing any agreements on double taxation avoidance with Cyprus, the Virgin Islands, and other offshore jurisdictions. The added value created using Ukrainian natural resources, infrastructure, and labour should be taxed here and only here.
- Introducing progressive taxation and a luxury tax. The defence of the country relies on the heroism and sacrifices of Ukrainian peasants, workers, and small business. To preserve the country, the wealthiest must sacrifice their fortunes, in proportion to the influence they had before the war – the top tax rate should reach 90% of income. Without fiscal activism, Ukraine will fall into an insurmountable debt trap (by 2025, the external debt may approach 100% of GDP).
- Establishing worker control in enterprises as an effective tool for internal auditing and a form of self-organised society. From the first days of the war to the present, the country has been accompanied by corruption scandals related to the misuse of funds. Continuous control by trade unions and workers’ councils is the key to greater transparency in leadership actions and preventing corruption. It may be possible to bribe individual people, but it is impossible to bribe an entire collective. Granting effective control powers to trade unions will serve as an incentive for the development of a genuine labour movement.
- Abandoning the previous practice of underfunding education and science. The high technological nature of modern warfare makes the role of engineers and skilled workers just as important as that of soldiers. It is only the educational inertia of the previous era, combined with the widespread technical literacy of the Ukrainian population, that has made possible the design, production, and mastery of numerous modern technical tools that give us an advantage on the battlefield. We can no longer rely on the inertia of past eras. Significant investments in education and science were needed yesterday. Without the development of the social sector, Ukraine faces mass emigration and a demographic crisis that will prevent replenishing human losses.
- State monopoly on exports. In 2024, the export of agricultural products reached a record $24.5 billion, although the profits continue to line private pockets.
- Resetting relations with Europe regarding the fate of Russian assets. Cleansing itself of the remnants of oligarchic influence, Ukraine will heal from corruption, making it possible to have a substantive discussion about transferring frozen Russian assets for Ukrainian needs. Currently, approximately $200 billion of the $300 billions of Russian-origin assets are held in European countries.
- Raising the social prestige of the military personnel. The replenishment of the state budget will allow for the payment of fair financial compensation to wounded soldiers who wish to return to service. It is essential to restore the practice of maintaining the average salary for mobilised workers, which will ensure the Armed Forces of Ukraine have the necessary personnel potential.
The implementation of these steps is impossible without a break between the country’s leadership, big business, and its agents of influence. If even some of these measures are implemented, they will increase public trust in the government. True guarantees of Ukraine’s security lie in strengthening internal societal ties. On the other hand, other countries will not help us until we demonstrate our willingness to prioritize defence interests over market interests. And in the 34th year of its independence, Ukraine will have to learn to live without oligarchs and capitalists. While Ukraine still has significant financial, industrial, and human resources, failing to move towards their socialisation would be a major mistake.
Now the Ukrainian government has a unique opportunity to show, in practice, what it is willing to sacrifice – the country or the oligarchs. If we put an end to the neoliberal chaos that deepens the gap between the rich and the poor, we will unite the people and become a unifying force of global stature! If we rebuild the economy on socially oriented principles, we will endure the struggle and lay a solid foundation for reconstruction!
Millions from the oligarchs – for welfare and defence! For Ukraine without oligarchs and occupiers!
Sotsialnyi Rukh
