On August 15, Trump and Putin met in Alaska, with the American president announcing: “We are on the right track, I will push NATO and Zelensky to reach an agreement.” A little over a month later, at the UN General Assembly, Trump himself declared: “I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and regain all of Ukraine in its original form. With time, patience, and financial support from Europe and, in particular, NATO, a return to the original borders from which this war began is a very real option.”

The president who boasts of having ended seven wars, aspiring to the Nobel Peace Prize, who wanted to resolve the war in Ukraine first in 24 hours, then in 100 days, shows with these contortions the only truth that the Party has always affirmed, namely that all “great men,” including the presidents of the most powerful states in the world, are nothing more than ‘poor puppets’ moved by powerful economic and social forces, and that their boundless egos, fed by hordes of hacks and sycophants, can do nothing in the face of the upheavals caused by the crises of the capitalist mode of production, let alone the convulsions of class conflict.

The various rounds of waltzes performed by the leaders of the bourgeois states, such as the one in Alaska between Putin and Trump, must not therefore deceive the international proletariat about the possibility of agreements that will put an end to the ongoing wars: despite the handshakes, the prospect is not one of a reduction in inter-imperialist conflicts, but rather their aggravation, leading to general war.

At the root of the wars of capital is the need for massive destruction of surplus goods, means of production and proletarians in order to overcome economic crises, which are always caused by overproduction that finds no outlet in markets that are now saturated. Only in this way can capitalism begin a new cycle of plunder and exploitation, based on a new balance of power and a new distribution of access to energy sources, raw materials, and world markets. The current trade war is nothing more than an expression of this need.

Therefore, the political color with which the leaders of any capitalist state cloak themselves is irrelevant, as their ideologies are only the necessary propaganda to push the proletariat to shed their blood for purely bourgeois interests.

In the age of imperialism, every state presents itself on the world stage as a bandit ready to rob or defend its booty, its sole interest being the division of world markets in a way that is as favorable as possible to the interests of its capitalists. But, given that each state is characterized by a different economic weight, and therefore political and military weight, and that the size of each contender is directly linked to different stages of development of the various national economies, it is inevitable that the old capitalist powers are being pressed by the new ones, which demand a more “equitable” division of markets and spheres of influence.

In this way, the old capitalist powers, often referred to as the West, corresponding to the area of Central and Western Europe and North America, together with a few other countries in the rest of the world, such as Japan, have been joined by new emerging capitalist countries that have seen their economies develop in recent decades, most recently identified in the so-called Global South. In this context, the main antagonism on the world stage is between American and Chinese imperialism, between an old capitalism that maintains its global privileges by virtue of a dominant position conquered through the wars of the last century and a rampant capitalism that demands a new configuration of the world order, with other minor powers attempting to carve out their own space for maneuver based on their economic, political, and military weight.

The prospect of a clash between the United States and China is the general context in which the events of the conflict in Ukraine are also taking place. Among the causes that led to that war, we must consider the attitude of the US towards Russia, with American imperialism attempting to weaken it by supporting Ukraine’s armed struggle and hitting Russia with ever-increasing economic sanctions, in order to significantly reduce the weight of Russian imperialism in anticipation of its future involvement in the global conflict; without ruling out the possibility of a real collapse of the current Kremlin regime, with the replacement of a leadership more inclined to comply with Washington’s dictates. With the danger of Russian intervention eliminated, or its potential greatly reduced, the US could have better dealt with its number one enemy: China.

With the attempt to defeat Russian imperialism militarily having failed on the ground and no decisive results having been achieved on the economic war front, the need not to divert important resources from the Pacific front, which will be the main theater of the coming war, seems to be pushing the US to change course in the Ukrainian affair.

“Trump’s War”

The attempt to reach an agreement with Russia, or at least to establish a dialogue between the two imperialisms, clearly expressed in the recent meeting in Alaska in August, is therefore the result of an imperialist dispute involving the whole world.

The difficulty in reaching an agreement lies in the involvement of other actors who are moving in the opposite direction to ending the war on terms that, given the current state of the conflict, are favorable to Russia.

First of all, Ukraine’s position must be considered. Since the beginning of the war, we have rejected the false claims of Ukrainian nationalism, according to which this was a defensive war against Russian aggression for national freedom and independence. Instead, it was an imperialist war on both sides, in which the Ukrainian bourgeoisie sold its proletariat to the Western bourgeoisie to use as cannon fodder in the ongoing war against Russia. The fact that, despite the Russians’ territorial gains and a disastrous situation in the army, there has not yet been a clear Ukrainian defeat on the ground is due to the fact that it can still count on the support of most European states, which are opposed to the cessation of hostilities.

This has led to a hardening of the negotiating position of the Ukrainian political leadership, which, in the event of a Russian-American agreement, would be forced to accept conditions similar to an outright surrender, a surrender that the battlefields, at least for the moment, have not yet decreed.
Furthermore, despite their different nuances, European states have ended up complying with Washington’s demands and supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia, with tens of billions in arms supplies and economic aid. In addition, American pressure to break the energy link with Russia and resell its own energy products at much higher prices has caused European countries to lose the advantageous economic relationship they enjoyed due to the low cost of Russian energy products and has caused European industry to collapse due to rising energy prices, with no prospect of compensation, since the banquet around the semi-destroyed Ukraine, with a possible division of its resources, would mainly benefit the Americans and Russians.

A possible agreement between Russia and the United States could steer the war towards its end, given the latter’s economic disengagement, while Ukraine may find itself unable to continue the war on its own, and with European countries unable to sustain military and economic support for the war itself. But the war remains a big business for the bourgeoisie, which can make huge profits through the arms industry. The continuation of the war in Ukraine is therefore moving towards a reduction in American economic commitment, but with the costs of the war being largely offloaded onto the Europeans, according to a scheme that would see Europe buying weapons from the Americans to continue the war against Russia via Ukraine.

This is the so-called PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List), the new mechanism recently developed within NATO to provide Ukraine with the military equipment it needs. Essentially, this mechanism involves NATO allies, i.e. European countries, paying for American weapons, which are then delivered to Ukraine.

In a nutshell, the Ukrainians make the list, the Americans supply everything, and the Europeans pay for it all—a real bargain for Washington.

The continuation of the war in Ukraine will therefore be paid for almost entirely by Europeans and, not surprisingly, discussions have resumed on using Russian reserves frozen by Western countries after the invasion of Ukraine, estimated at over €200 billion in Europe, in favor of Kiev, which needs over €60 billion a year for military needs alone.

But it is not only American interests that are flooding Europe with weapons; the continuation of the war is also excellent business for the American economy from an energy perspective, with the possibility of increasing Europe’s dependence on the United States. The agreement between the US and the EU on tariffs had already led to an agreement on the sale of American energy products, oil and gas, with the United States requiring EU countries to purchase $750 billion worth of these products over three years. In early September, at the meeting of the so-called “willing,” President Trump warned Europeans to stop buying Russian oil, a position he reiterated in his speech to the UN. Thus, after severing its energy ties with its Russian neighbor, Europe finds itself forced to accept American energy products, which are more expensive than those previously purchased from Russia.

Furthermore, in addition to being forced to accept harsh conditions in negotiations on the issue of tariffs, Europeans must face the prospect that the possible evolution of the US trade war could consist of forcing Europe to join the trade war against China in exchange for support for sanctions against Russia.

Placed at a clear disadvantage, Europeans are suffering the blows of their overseas “ally,” which is interested in bringing down an economic and commercial competitor. On the other hand, for American imperialism, the war in Ukraine has been aimed not only at Russia but also at Europe from the outset.
With “Biden’s war,” as Trump has always called the Ukrainian conflict, having failed to break Russia on the battlefield, and with sanctions in place, continuing the war is still good business for the Americans. It is ‘Trump’s war’, which retains all its imperialist character of plunder, with only a few changes to the previous script: the Ukrainians continue to provide the cannon fodder, the Europeans bear the costs of the war, and the Americans cash in.

Only the proletariat can stop the ongoing massacres

However, the continuation of the war will inevitably reshuffle the cards for the actors involved, most likely in an even more unfavorable way for Ukraine and its supporters, as the situation on the ground remains disastrous for Ukraine, confirming Russia’s advance and the relentless destruction of the Ukrainian army. News coming from the war fronts and from Ukrainian towns and villages means that we cannot rule out the possibility of an internal collapse of the Ukrainian army, which must withstand the impact of the Russian advance despite a shortage of military personnel due to the enormous losses suffered in combat and the difficulty of replacing those losses because of widespread opposition to recruitment, i.e., to serve as cannon fodder, which is increasingly taking on the appearance of a real internal conflict, with the Ukrainian military structures having to use brutal methods to force men to enlist in the army. Unfortunately, resistance to the violence of the Ukrainian state apparatus remains confined to purely individual acts, although there is no shortage of more or less organized episodes of opposition to forced mobilization. The data provided by the bourgeois press itself is nevertheless consistent: according to the State Prosecutor General’s Office in Kiev, the numbers of soldiers who left their units without authorization and those who deserted in 2022 were 6,900 and 3,500, respectively; in 2023, 17,600 and 7,800; in 2024, 67,800 and 23,300, while in the first seven months of this year, already 110,500 and 15,300, most of whom were mobilized in recent months.

This situation is certainly taken into account by the Americans and contributes to the new US administration’s stance on the ongoing war, while in Europe some heads of state are not averse to the idea of sending their own troops to Ukraine, and in the meantime everyone is preparing rearmament plans.

The increase in arms spending inevitably brings with it a change in the policy adopted so far in some European countries on the issue of military conscription. This is the case, for example, in Germany, which began reviewing its military recruitment policy in late August. The reform of conscription in Germany stipulates that, starting next year, all new adults will receive a letter from the army, requiring them to indicate their interest in a period of service and undergo a medical examination. Those who choose to enlist will have to stay for at least six months, with the possibility of extending their service in exchange for bonuses. Once their service is over, they will remain available as reservists.

For now, a compromise has been reached between those who would like to maintain voluntary service and those who support compulsory conscription.

In the meantime, however, preparations are underway, including medical examinations and financial incentives to encourage enlistment. The goal is to increase the German armed forces from the current 182,000 to 260,000 (plus 200,000 reservists) by the end of the decade.

No less important are the plans to increase the armed forces of other European countries, such as Poland, which is aiming for an army of half a million men, including professionals and reservists.

As the Ukrainian conflict has shown, there is a need for mass armies.
In such a context, there can be no illusions about the fate of the European proletariat, or indeed of the proletariat throughout the rest of the world, who will be sacrificed by their own bourgeoisies in a war that is currently being prepared.

The only way to avoid ending up as cannon fodder, as indicated by the massacres of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers, is for the proletarians in uniform to fraternize with the proletarians on the other side of the front and turn their weapons against their own bourgeoisie and its state.