POLITICAL TECHNOLOGY AND COALITIONS’ INDISCRIMINATE TIES

We encourage you to continue this investigation on your own.

This material is written from the internal experience of participation in the left-wing anarchist movement in the russian federation, based on conversations with earlier participants of the scene and also with colleagues of the investigation. For more information, see the links and the schematic map for which this text is written. This schematic map is a working draft and does not claim to present complete knowledge. Through this process, the map will continue to change and be supplemented with new materials.

The text is compiled mainly from public-domain articles. You can verify the facts on your own.

We do not share all the positions and conclusions of the sources mentioned, but we refer to some materials using their investigative data (e.g., biographies of russian politicians).

The scheme above maps the main political dispositions, the russian federation’s nodes of influence, their parties and alliances, and their sub-infrastructures. We aim to show the coherence and entanglement of diametrically opposed political ideas and values; indiscriminate alliances, corrupt connections, facade oppositions affiliation to the security services, and direct cooperation with the presidential apparatus of the russian federation.

We focus our attention on the “leftist” scene, as it is where unreasonable hopes for political changes within the russian federation are often directed. The focus is on the organizations of the authoritarian left, but, as we can see from the interconnections, the party “left” has often overlapped with the non-systemic opposition and the anarchist scene, whereby the former has clearly lost out. We do distinguish the anarchist perspectives from the left-wing ones and insist on their ontological separation.

To understand why russian “leftist opposition” is still incapable of taking a critical look at itself and thus of disassociating itself from the crypto-fascists, the omnipresent Kremlin agents of the old scene, and the red-brown arguments of the Stalinists, we thought it necessary to begin by analyzing the popular ideas that dominate the leftist, feminist and anarchist scenes in russia and look at the conditions that led to their formation.

Like in all of the post-Soviet space, the anarchist movement in the RF (russian federation) has been repressed, stigmatized, and forced to emigrate or go into hiding. Alliances with left-wing movements, formed in order to spread ideas or defend short-term common goals, didn’t help the situation but have instead contributed to the overall degeneration of the movement and made its practices and values vaguer.

As a result, we see the absence of a critically functioning anarcho-community that can think of itself as a movement. This is not as much an issue of infrastructure as a discoursive and practical one.

The passivity of the movement’s participants, newcomers’ love for building unintelligible left unity, and the lack of transparency of the Central Committee’s fake left-wing parties allowed for the establishment of controlled protest movements. Structures are built vertically, with decisions lobbied by the Central Committee, rendering rights to influence party and movement dynamics available to other participants largely illusory and propagating an environment characterized by a safe and loyal to the Kremlin agenda.

Those who problematized red-brown logic, the infiltration of the scene (by security forces and presidential administration), and pro-government rhetoric were consistently pushed out by the movement as inconvenient and, unable to deal with internal tensions, leveled the issues they raised.

Some alliances emerged as blatant political technology projects, born under a masquerade of sickles and red rags (Borotba, Left Front), others formed out of a desire to build a party career, and some — to serve as a fashionable and elitist way of metropolitan leisure (groups of near-art activism with a Marxist aesthetic). These groups neither had an alternative political program to the imperial project at that time, nor do they today.

Exhibitions and receptions funded through European grants, meaningless self-representation conferences by the same circle of people from the capital cities. Carefully composed to seem as “oppositional”, but nevertheless pro-russian publications in the Western media, and empty, pathos-laden tribune speeches. For all that is good against all that is bad. Ridiculous messianic ideas and the prioritization of neoliberal academic expertise. Insensitivity to situational and local knowledge is produced horizontally in the process. Obvious reproduction of power dynamics sustained by the imbalance of symbolic capitals. Absence of critical discussions and distinction procedures to favor the outdated general dogmas of a leftist movement with myths of universal (abstract) “solidarity”.

This, both en masse and in a more granular view, performed the role of a dummy opposition, which existed to fuel the myths of “leftist” struggle in the West and to act as the controlled and harmless “alternative” within the country. Simultaneously, a sustained infrastructure of fascism and crypto–fascism, supported by the russian federation, was being formed. From the NBP (National Bolshevik Party) to Dugin’s EUM (Eurasian Youth Union) and their sub-groups, directly connected with the well-armed combat battalions in the Ukrainian territories. From the absurdist rallies of the Limonovites (so beloved by artists), the formation of interbrigades of the NBP fighting for the DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic) — is only a step away.

The tendency to avoid asking uncomfortable questions that clarify common goals led to forming of monstrous coalitions, aiming for mass appeal, populism, and at least somewhat significant media presence. This allowed for the flourishing of Kremlin-political-technological projects such as the Left Front (LF) and Borotba. The origins of these projects can easily be traced back to the main participants of IPROG, the Institute of Globalization Problems (a leftist think-tank whose history is closely intertwined with the early period of the Left Front), one of whose directors was Boris Kagarlitsky.

А. Glinchikova, D. Glinsky, S. Maigov, B. Kagarlitsky, I. Ponomarev, I. Budraitskis, G. Dzhemal, A. Surikov, A. Kondaurov, A. Baranov, M. Delyagin and others. Participants’ biographies are very diverse. A. Surikov was head of the Far West Ltd. based in Dubai, which was bringing together former and current employees of the soviet and russian security services with experience working in third-world countries. As stated by Surikov himself, the company provided, among other things, “consultancy services”. Surikov has been several times accused of organizing the supply of Soviet weapons from Ukraine and Belarus to Afghanistan, North Africa, and other regions in a state of civil conflict; participation in the wars in Ichkeria (recruiting Basayev), Georgia, and Abkhazia as well as protection of drug trafficking from Afghanistan to russia. It is noteworthy that when he was First Deputy Prime Minister (1998), Yury Maslyukov unsuccessfully lobbied for the appointment of Surikov as head of Rosvooruzhenie before A. Kondaurov (an FSB major general, head of the Yukos analytical department, formerly a considerable figure in the Fifth Directorate of the KGB, and a State Duma deputy from the Communist Party). The IPPROG provided funding for the LF (Left Front) while being co-funded by the Ebert and Rosa Luxemburg foundations.

The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation not only supported regional feminist projects in russia (through which it cemented its reputation as a leftist) but also supported the Prizrak Battalion (led by Mozgovoy, Voitsekhovsky) fighting for Novorossiya, Borotba, the LF, and sponsored russian nationalist gatherings, consistently maintaining old connections (KGB — STAZI) and forming a nazi conservative political landscape in post-soviet russia. All this happens with the acquiescence of the “new Left” and young participants in the movement who are not willing to ask questions.

A dangerous bridge between opposing ideologies was being built by Kremlin agents who had infiltrated the leftist scene (see the disclosed correspondence between Borotba and Surkov) and by promiscuous neophytes that supported popular myths (both “leftist” and radical rightist scenes were infiltrated consistently, see the BORN case (“Boyevaja Organizatsija Russkih Natsionalistov” – the Militant Organization of Russian Nationalists). Is it a coincidence that Baranovsky, a prominent figure in high-profile Nazi crimes, has now become the right-hand man of the “oppositional” Ilya Ponomarev? While there were no questions regarding United Russia (“Edinaja Rossija”) party’s symbolic absence, the СPRF and SR (“Spravedlivaja Rossija”) became a legitimate springboard to bring the “Left” into the central state apparatus. To get to the deputy positions, the “Left” didn’t hesitate to join even the obviously pro-Kremlin parties like SR (Ilya Ponomarev, one of the founders of the Left Front, who is currently incorporated into almost all “opposition” projects, voted “against” the annexation of Crimea in 2014, as a deputy of the SR). Now the face of the party, russian writer Zakhar Prilepin, who became actively involved in the Donbas conflict on the DPR and LPR (Luhansk People’s Republic) side, was made an adviser to Alexander Zakharchenko (head of the self-proclaimed republic of the DPR) and became deputy commander for work with personnel in one of the battalions. The deployments to the Donbas made a contribution to Prilepin’s rapid career (in 2018, Zakhar Prilepin was appointed deputy chief of the Gorky Moscow Art Theatre), and now he is developing a mushroom spawn — the SR headquarters throughout the russian federation territory.

The flirtations of the “left” with the red-brown CPRF (Communist Party of the russian federation) and Labor Russia has gradually cultivated loyalty to the parties among pro-opposition strata and young leftists, blurring the already fragile line between Marxists and Stalinists. For example, were there many actual discussions about this among the younger generations of the RSD (Russian Socialist Movement)? Spoiler: No). Meanwhile, the СPRF predictably zigged (“ziga” — russian idiom for the nazi salute; z — a symbol of russian invasion — translator’s note) as it did with the 2008 separation of Georgian territories into Abkhazia and South Ossetia and supported the russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, while retaining some of its long-established influence over the opposition. However, almost all the leaders of the Left Front have gone with the “z”: Sergey Udaltsov, Daria Mitina, and Leonid Razvozzhayev. The same people rolling over from one party to another hardly comes as a surprise. Let’s recall the old slogans of the NBP: “Glory to the Russian Arms”, “Russia is everything — the rest is nothing”, “Our MiGs will land in Riga”. The NBP, the red-brown (communist-fascist) youth organization AKM Udaltsov (under the wing of Workers’ Russia) — with a Kalashnikov on its logo, Mitina — who rallies for Gaddafi and is listed as a DPR (2014) foreign ministry official, Navalny — who approves of the annexation of Crimea while standing in front of Nazi flags at the Russian March, Ponomarev — who considers Crimea to be “native Russian land” and follows the flows of Russian oil, and Limonov’s interbrigades, fighting in Ukraine.

But this is not the most interesting part. We have finally discovered the overlap of their positions. Meanwhile, some of their colleagues are playing more sophisticated games, leading the “anti-war movement” tribunes, spreading dangerous narratives, and shaping opinion. They are the ones worth watching closely, dissecting propagation of the logic of political paralysis into younger opposition structures (Kagarlitsky – who promotes the ideas of Novorossia (directly from the Kremlin); Sakhnin — who supports the Borotba, combating in St. George’s ribbons and fueling myths about fighting fascism in Ukraine; Shulman — a stronghold of made-up democracy in the russian federation from a neoliberal academic environment; Yudin and the others).

Many of the people now widely represented in the media and at “anti-war conferences” in Europe have been consistent collaborators in the promotion of Kremlin policies and agents of Russian propaganda outside the russian federation. The absence of alternative political programs in the obviously bogus major parties of the russian federation (“CPRF”, “LDPR” (Liberal Democratic Party of russia), “Spravedlivaja Rossija”, etc.) extends to the whole scene of the “left-wing opposition”. The current situation of political impotence of the opposition and the imperial convulsions of the russian federation demonstrates this well. The scenes that formed for over 20 years are now inertly reproducing ideas that support the centralization of  power, defending the russian federation’s territorial integrity, insensitivity to regional separatist sentiments, pushing out the decolonial movement from within, and ignoring local agendas and the claims of indigenous peoples.

The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation has supported many left-wing projects in the russian federation, and some in Ukraine (Borotba). These choices of loyalty were not accidental and had, in every case, very clear common interests, which, surprisingly, coincided with the Kremlin’s support. And so, over the years, the controlled institutions of leftist thoughts and the pocket opposition were formed. The critical environment was manifested poorly, while ideas of controversial coalitions and murky alliances dominated.

We focused on these events in an attempt to clarify why, after the war between Russia and Ukraine started in 2014, most ties between the “opposition” movements in Ukraine and Russia were severed (except that RSD — Soz Rukh and the few arts/activist cooperatives). Why did political reflection in the russian federation push these circumstances out of memory, while movements inside russia withdrew into themselves, avoiding pressing issues and not looking for ways to interact? Without sharpening the knives of self-reflexivity. Some groups, alliances, and parties of this analysis have now become restructured or dissolved. However, their key actors — the co-founders — still do have influence in shaping the ideas and opinions circulating within the “leftist opposition”.

We aim to question why the russian “anti-war movements” continue to reproduce the same logic: ubiquitous anti-war conferences with the voices of the ‘good russians’, the overflow of budgets circulating in one pot that is meant for russia, grant motivation, self-indulgent parties, political careers, and competition for media success. Most importantly, why are these movements aimed at self-justification, the suppression of arising problems, insensitivity to experiences of vulnerability, self-promotion, and the promotion of ideas of building a “beautiful russia of the future“? Why is the assistance and justification of russian federation residents called an anti-war movement at all? Why do liberal European foundations support russian rallies rather than humanitarian projects aimed at supporting Ukraine or helping the Ukrainian army?

The illustrative materials are based on articles and interviews in the public domain. Most of the material sources are Ukrainian, but written from different experiences of socialization. (e.g.,  NIHILIST).

Away from an overview of the schematic map, we now offer a closer look at the links between the German Rosa Luxemburg Foundation (Die Linke party), the Russian organization Left Front, the Ukrainian organization Borotba (actively supporting the armed interbrigades of the NBP and others), and the structures and key participants in these groups associated with them.

Let’s start with the

Rosa Luxemburg Foundation

Meeting with Putin’s German left-wing friends

The fund is closely associated with the German Left Party, Die Linke, and its budget directly depends on the success of this political force in the Bundestag elections. Here’s how it works: the more seats the party obtains in parliament, the more money from the state budget flows into the affiliated fund. In other words, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation is effectively funded by German taxpayers, and the amount of financial support depends on the results of Die Linke’s political struggle.

Formally independent of political parties, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation is deeply corrupt and, although it contradicts both its charter and German laws, politically dependent on Die Linke. And today, pro-Russian forces confidently dominate there. Therefore, even those employees of the foundation who are not enthusiastic about pro-Kremlin Stalinists prefer to turn a blind eye and pretend that the problem doesn’t exist.

What party is this?

The Left Party is the largest opposition group in the German parliament and holds seats in the legislative assemblies of several states.

When talking about Die Linke and its relationship with Russia, one cannot forget about the significant portion of the party’s members with a background in the GDR (German Democratic Republic). It is no secret that the Stasi (Ministry for State Security) and the KGB had close cooperation in intelligence matters. The long-time leader and architect of the party, Gregor Gysi, twice became embroiled in a scandal regarding his collaboration with the GDR’s state security service. The first scandal took place back in 1998. Accusers claimed that Gysi operated under the pseudonyms “Gregor” and “Notary” and provided information about the regime’s opponents, including Gysi’s own clients and confidants as a lawyer. Although Gysi denied the allegations, the scandal had a severe impact on him, and he was forced to step down as the party’s leader. However, Gysi remained the leader of its parliamentary faction from 1998 to 2000.

As of today (2015), Die Linke is the only political force in Germany that demands an immediate withdrawal of German troops from foreign missions and the dissolution of NATO. Instead of the North Atlantic Alliance, Die Linke proposes creating a new system of collective security together with Russia. (Now, in 2023, the AfD has joined this position.)

Top party members ignore Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine and Syria while promoting the theses propagated by Russian propaganda about a “Nazi coup” and a “civil war” in Ukraine.

In 2014, Sarah Wagenknecht, the deputy chair of the party’s parliamentary faction, actively criticized German sanctions against Russia and claimed that “key positions in the Ukrainian government are held by Nazis.” At the annual conference named after Rosa Luxemburg in 2016 (the conference has no affiliation with the foundation of the same name), Sarah Wagenknecht, now as the leader of the parliamentary faction of Die Linke, presented the leader of the pro-Russian fighters from the “PRIZRAK” battalion, Alexei Markov, to the audience. He was unable to come to Berlin, so they communicated via video link. The conference greeted Markov’s speech with enthusiastic applause, including Sarah Wagenknecht. Alexei Dankwardt, a Leipzig city council member from Die Linke who was translating for him, emphasized the need to support the “Ghost” battalion in its fight against the “Kiev junta.”

In 2017, Wagenknecht called for a security alliance with Russia.

However, it’s not just about the scandalous statements of top Die Linke party members. In the European Parliament, party members voted against resolutions on human rights in Crimea and the provision of additional macro-financial assistance to Ukraine.

Is it true that representatives of Die Linke visited occupied Crimea and Donbass?

Yes, it is true. In March 2014, Hikmat Al-Sabti, Torsten Koplin, Petr Luchak, and Monika Merk participated in the “monitoring” of the illegal referendum in Crimea, which resulted in Russia annexing the Ukrainian peninsula. In February 2015, representatives of Die Linke, Wolfgang Gehrcke, and Andrej Hunko, illegally entered the temporarily uncontrolled territory of Donbass. They provided material assistance to pro-Russian militants.

Since 2016, party member Andreas Maurer has visited annexed Crimea multiple times, and in March 2018, he took part in “observing” the illegal Russian presidential elections on the Ukrainian peninsula. In February 2018, Maurer also illegally visited the Ukrainian territory occupied by the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic.”

Source: The Marker Group monitors far-right violence in Ukraine annually. There are questions about its funding and methodology – Zaborona has looked into them.

Let’s look at the foundation’s politics in 2014-15 and the ideas they propagated:

In mid-November, a significant gathering took place in Moscow with the support of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. It was called the International Round Table “Human Rights in Ukraine: Current Situation.” The main topics of the meeting were “Ukrainian fascism” and the persecution of communists by the evil Kiev regime. The invited stars of the event were the already familiar deputies from the Left Party in the Bundestag, Andrej Hunko and Wolfgang Gehrcke.

Hunko, who does not know neither Ukrainian nor Russian, is considered an outstanding specialist in Eastern policy within this political force. More information about Hunko can be found in a previously published leaflet distributed by anarchists at the event. Gehrcke has been the head of the international department of Die Linke for many years. He authored a press release on the “victory of Washington” in the elections on October 26 and has long been a fighter against the rearmament of the Georgian army.

In early 2015, Gehrcke traveled to the Donetsk People’s Republic together with Andrej Hunko during the war in eastern Ukraine to officially deliver medications that were previously purchased in Russia. They also met with the “head of state” of the internationally unrecognized People’s Republic, Alexander Vladimirovich Zakharchenko, which was seen as a propaganda success for pro-Russian separatists. The Ukrainian government then protested to the German Foreign Ministry in Berlin.

In practice, Die Linke’s “peacekeeping” statements amount to calls to leave the people of Ukraine alone against the overwhelming forces of the aggressor, disguising their invasion as “separatist” or even “anti-fascist” uprisings, but in reality, carried out under ultranationalist and clerical slogans for the protection and expansion of the “Russian World.” Hunko uses this quasi-pacifist rhetoric to cover up the economic goals of the German bourgeoisie, which is directly interested in conflict-free cooperation with Russia, access to its markets, and cheap raw materials. One of the results of Hunko’s deceitful agitation was the Left Party faction’s proposal to lift trade sanctions against Russia, whose leadership was at that very moment mobilizing military forces in occupied Donetsk.

These are the politicians who initiated the removal of sanctions against Russia. In 2022, their policy towards Russia has not changed much.

Gehrcke is a veteran of German politics, and to understand the peculiarities of his political position, it is necessary to know how it was formed. In the beginning, Gerke worked in the Komsomol of the German Communist Party, a pro-Soviet communist party in the FRG (West Germany), created after the official ban of the old Communist Party of Germany. If you study his official biography in the 70s and 80s, it becomes clear that he was a classic Bolshevik party worker. The party was small but VERY RICH.

Until the fall of the Soviet Union, money flowed from the Kremlin like a river. The Soviet Union did not skimp on ideology, and the party organizations themselves were supported by the external intelligence of the Kremlin since the 1920s. The party was persecuted by the government of the FRG. It could not operate legally, and its members could not enter government service.

And then, in the late 80s, the organization faced a crisis. A significant part of the party members genuinely believed in what they were being sold about the happy life of the working people in the USSR until August 1991. They were not all greedy scoundrels interested only in money. They did not believe that the peasants were forced into collective farms, that the workers lived in hunger and poverty until the 1960s, that the radio in the USSR was called a “liar.” They were traditional pro-Soviet Stalinists.

So their party continues to exist without external infusions. Nowadays, they have much smaller budgets, but they have not left politics. They even nominate candidates and win several municipal seats on the lists of “Die Linke” (The Left Party), as a junior partner.

The party also had “perestroika” supporters, that is, supporters of Mikhail Gorbachev, and a clear orientation towards every twist and turn of the CPSU line. Wolfgang Gerke was among them. It was clear to everyone that the collapse of the Soviet Union could seriously undermine the party’s position. Immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) emerged in German politics, a rebranding of the former ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED), consisting, if not entirely, then to a significant extent, of former employees and informers of the Stasi. Gerke quickly joined this party and made a dizzying career. Later, the “German Chekists Party” merged with a left-wing faction of the SPD, and the former gendarmes and spies whitewashed their reputation. Thus, the modern Left Party (Die Linke) emerged. This party is the one that “orders the music” for the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.

The German friends of Putin no longer deny the right-wing and neo-fascist nature of the “New Russia” republics (referring to the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics). It is now difficult for them to deny this fact. Accordingly, they cannot remain in the “left” niche of the supporters of the DNR and LNR and are adjusting their rhetoric. Now, their demagoguery includes more pacifism and German nationalist anti-Americanism. In other words, they are trying to capture the niche of the far-right in German politics, and they are doing it quite successfully.

The main beneficiaries of the foundation, apart from their desire to play real politics, are united by one thing: for some reason, the “junta” does not rush to persecute them. Like other “leftists.” Even the former propagandists close to “Borotba” and the Liv website, who were pro-DNR in the past, easily return to Kiev. In fact, among the leftists in forced emigration. Even those close to the Borotba movement and the Liva website, such as yesterday’s propagandists from the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Gubarev’s friends, have no problem returning to Kyiv. The only part of the “Borotba” movement left in forced exile consists of those who were heavily involved in anti-Maidan activities in Kharkiv and Odessa, advocating for Russian nationalist hordes in the “DPR” and “LPR,” and participating in pro-Russian collaborationist armed groups in Donbas.

Let’s take a closer look at the biography and political figure of the “victims of the Kyiv junta” who attended the round table:

Vitaliy Skorokhodov, a former activist of the pro-Russian organization “Ukrainian Choice” and now a political emigrant. He believes that Russians should lead Ukrainians since Ukrainians are incapable of state-building:

“Ukrainians only lived normally when they were part of the Russian Empire and the USSR. Ukrainians are not an imperial nation; they cannot build a state on their own without Russian leadership. Centuries of history have confirmed this.”

What is the “Ukrainian Choice”? The leader of this organization, Viktor Medvedchuk, is a personal friend of Putin. From 2002 to 2005, he served as the head of Leonid Kuchma’s presidential administration. Founded by Viktor Medvedchuk in 2012, the “Ukrainian Choice” organization promoted anti-European and homophobic views.

The former deputy of the Mykolaiv Oblast Council, Mashkin, who promised to greet Russian tanks in this seaside city with flowers, claimed that Crimea was not annexed and blamed the Maidan for the supply of Russian weapons and equipment to the “DPR” and “LPR.”

Professor Alexey Samoylov, is one of the ideologists of Russian nationalists in Ukraine. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) linked him to an armed Russian nationalist underground movement in Kharkiv. In 2013, he supported the peaceful dismemberment of Ukraine through maximum autonomy for the eastern regions and their subordination to Moscow. But he didn’t intend to stop there. His plans included the reunification of Belarus and Ukraine within the framework of Russia.

“We have already lost so much, and in this regard, I agree with Vladimir Putin that the collapse of the USSR was a terrible catastrophe. Certain adjustments could have been made to the ideology, and some principles could have been modified, but the country should not have been destroyed. Russia unequivocally needs to exist and will only exist as an empire, as the Russian civilization. ‘Russian’ here is not an ethnonym; it is the name of a civilization that includes all nationalities and ethnic groups historically living together for centuries, all territories that were once part of a unified empire. My political and human creed is that I am an Orthodox Soviet imperialist.“

“We need our own empire. We need to restore our empire. We need to revive the pan-Russian civilizational space and restore the territorial integrity of this space.”

Denis Denisov. This politician in 2014 headed the Board of Trustees of the Foundation “We are all Berkut”.

Another co-organizer of the round table is the Moscow Union of Journalists. This is a typical official “public organization” in Russia that unites loyal “ink sharks” serving the interests of the regime.

The organization actively participated in shaping public opinion regarding the annexation of Crimea. For example, on the website of the Union of Journalists, we can learn that the Russian nationalist Sergey Baburin has finally officially joined the ranks of Putin’s supporters:

“We have witnessed a great historical event – Crimea and Sevastopol have returned to Russia. This was achieved thanks to the persuasive expression of the will of Crimeans in the referendum and the firmness of the President of the Russian Federation. And I join the All-Russian People’s Front to assist Vladimir Putin in supporting his decisions to protect and reunite Crimea, in helping Southeastern Ukraine,” Baburin is quoted on the Union of Journalists’ website.

On another page of the resource, we see that loyalty to Lenin’s memory is not an empty sound for the members of this association. The preservation of his monuments is a symbol of the legitimacy of Russia’s territorial claims against its neighbors:

“The Ukrainians are Russophobes; when they destroy Lenin’s monuments, they prove to all of us that our Russian history is indivisible, united. Remove or tarnish one chapter, and the entire perception of the world collapses. In practice: no Lenin, no right for Russia to Crimea, Donbass, Novorossiya. Therefore, in my opinion, supporters of removing Lenin from the Mausoleum, if they are honest people, should join the Right Sector. Supporters of renaming Lenin’s streets and other Soviet ones, if they are consistent, should join the punitive battalions of Donbass.”

Among the speakers at the round table, the report of the foundation lists Georgy Fedorov, a member of the Public Chamber. Fedorov’s website serves different purposes, just like the organization itself, which aims to create the appearance of fair elections. Among the invitees associated with Fedorov’s association are representatives of the corrupt right-wing party “Forward, Italy.” This organization was once merged with Italian fascists from the traditional Mussolinist party led by Gianfranco Fini. They have now split, but members of this organization can only claim the title of “anti-fascist of the month” in Russia and if the jury consists of FSB employees.

It is also interesting to observe the surname of the Polish fascist Russophile Mateusz Piskorski in the reports of the association. It turns out that patented European fascists and anti-communists are partners of Fedorov, the “anti-fascist.”

Let us remind you that in Ukraine, gentlemen Herke and Gunko are hindered by anti-communism and fascism. So, for the ‘anti-fascist’ Fedorov, anti-communism or communism, fascism or ‘anti-fascism’ do not pose a hindrance to his partners. Herke and Gunko, it seems, accept this logic and do not protest against it. They themselves live like that. They are more interested in lifting sanctions and legalizing the occupation of Crimea than in consistency.

On November 16, 2014, they visited Ukraine and held a meeting with left-wing activists. The German guests did not deny the presence of right-wing and neo-fascist elements in the ‘Novorossiya’ republics, and they also knew about the direct interest of German capital in lifting sanctions against Russia.

‘Herke does not deny that the Eastern Committee of German Business, which advocates for lifting sanctions against Russia, ‘knocks on the door of the party office’ of Die Linke (Herke smirked self-satisfied while telling about it), but the struggle to lift sanctions against Russia is not related to the bribery of the left by the ‘weak and insignificant’ BASF and Bayer, but is dictated by the sincere conviction of post-Stalinists in the unnecessary nature of sanctions against Putin’s Russia. They never answered the question: ‘Should Ukrainians pay with their lives for German-Russian friendship?’ Nor did they answer the questions about the touching unity of German leftists and right-wing populists in the ‘Eastern question.’

The report on the meeting of Kiev leftists with members of Die Linke in Russian and German languages was published on the NIHILICT website.

It should be noted that their position has not changed over the year; it has even radicalized (2015). Gunko advocates for legalizing the annexation of Crimea, while Herke suggests lifting the sanctions.

Now (2015), the parliamentary group is headed by Mrs. Sarah Wagenknecht. She has already become famous for her emotional speeches, in which, for example, she places all responsibility for the rise of nationalism on Merkel and calls for friendship with Russia. If Gysi still criticized Putin’s policy of force, Sarah shifts all responsibility onto the United States. She calls the lack of willingness to capitulate a confrontation with Russia and blames Merkel and the EU for the economic decline in Ukraine.

Source: National Bolshevism on the bones of Rosa Luxembourg 

In 2022, their policy regarding Russia has not changed much: Gunko calls for cooperation with Russia, while Wagenknecht speaks about the harm of sanctions (Wagenknecht warns of a ‘nuclear hell’ in Europe, April 27, 2022 – stop aid to Ukraine, September 2022) and opposes the supply of weapons to Ukraine.

January 19, 2022, Die Linke once again blocked the supply of weapons to Ukraine.

All this is happening under the guise of Die Linke’s statement of regret, ‘We Were Wrong,’ and subsequent publications accusing Putin and expressing sympathy for Ukraine. If you take a closer look, the texts released after February 24, 2022, differ little from their previous logic. Firstly, the same individuals speak, and secondly, they continue to perpetuate popular myths, but now about Russian resistance. By fueling the illusion of party presence (see the text on the official website with a lonely photo of the RSD ‘No to War’: THE RUSSIAN LEFT AGAINST THE WAR), participation, and, of course, by not criticizing the movements and tactics they previously supported.

If we imagine, as an experiment, that the leaders of the party, the key figures of the foundation, and the leaders of the sponsored red opinions like Kagarlitsky-Yudin-Sakhnin would truly change their positions, why don’t we hear any criticism from them regarding their own consistent logic? Except for abstract statements like “No to War” or accusations against Putin. No, they fully maintain the Bolshevik tradition, slightly changing slogans and always adding a “BUT…” thereby completely altering the content of their appeal.

So, we see their traditionally formed Western left view of Ukraine as a random obstacle between the battle of the military superpowers, NATO and Russia. A perspective that ignores the colonial nature of the relationship between Ukraine and Russia and a very distant understanding of the local horror taking place in devastated Ukrainian cities. It’s a view from cozy European apartments, a little cooler at this time of year due to higher prices for Russian gas.

So, regarding cooperation with Rosa Luxemburg:

Foundations never give money for nothing. In exchange for financing projects (especially good and necessary ones), they gain reputation and political points. Sooner or later, the reputation earned with your direct participation in the Foundation will be used for the interests of the top leadership of Die Linke.

What is the Left Front?

Next, we propose that we take a close look at what is called “leftist politics” in Russia. In the diagram, we suggest that you focus your attention on the organization Left Front (non-systemic leftists), its key figures (Sakhnin – Kagarlitsky – Ponomarev – Udaltsov – Shapinov, etc.) and their friendly organizations and sub-structures. To clarify what logics the LF developed, we draw your attention to the ideologically close to the Ukrainian organization Borotba, its role in the events on Maidan, and its active participation in military events, today and support of the russian federation (2023). It is important to note that just as ~10 years ago, the same people (political technologists) circulate from one structure to another (this is now known about the formation of Medvedchuk’s new anti-Ukrainian party, following his extradition from SBU captivity), spreading the same ideas. As the case was then, many of them are still legitimate speakers in Russia and in the West. We see in this a significant problem for the possibility of forming alternative political opinions and the general myopia of the young opposition, which thinks of itself as anti-imperialist. In other words, it is impossible to talk about new ideas or the existence of a proper critique as long as the same characters from the spectacle of soviet resistance remain in demand and are allowed to speak out publicly in the field of “leftist” and “oppositional” thought.

The Left Front is a movement that unites supporters of socialist development in Russia and other countries of the former USSR. However, in reality, it is a Kremlin-backed political project that controls and manipulates the opposition.

In the Left Front’s statement in 2022, they declared: “Our main task, which no one else can accomplish today, is to utilize the current situation to implement radical socialist transformations in our country that correspond to the interests of the people, including the residents of Donbass!”

In 2005, the creation of the Left Front involved Boris Kagarlitsky, Anatoly Baranov, Maxim Shevchenko, and Darya Mitina. Darya Mitina’s father, who hails from Afghanistan, belonged to an influential clan and was the son of a prime minister. Among other founders were Alexei Prigarin, the founder of the Islamic Committee of Russia, and Geydar Dzhemal, an occult fascist who was a friend and teacher of Dugin, advocating radical Islamism. Dzhemal also came from an influential Soviet dynasty. His grandfather was one of the chiefs of the NKVD in Azerbaijan and later became the chairman of the Supreme Court of the republic, while his father was a prominent figure in the Communist Party.

Furthermore, according to Ilya Ponomarev, another leader and creator of the Left Front, Alexei Kondaurov, a former KGB general from the 5th Directorate of the KGB USSR, actively participated in the work and creation of the movement. However, he had limited interaction with the movement’s activists and primarily worked along the intellectual-ideological line. These clarifications highlight that ordinary and inexperienced left-wing activists were merely manipulated instruments in the games of influential individuals and clans.

It is also interesting to note that, in correspondence with journalist Egor Putilov, Ilya Ponomarev suddenly denies Anton Surikov’s involvement in the creation of the Left Front. Anton Surikov, a retired GRU colonel, was claimed by Putilov to have participated in the founding congress of the Left Front, made some proposals, and was a member of the Left Front Council until his unexpected death. Ponomarev attributes the alleged impossibility of Surikov’s collaboration with the Left Front to his excessive bourgeois nature, while Ponomarev does not seem bothered by his leadership in the organization “Farvest,” which unites former officials involved in serious political upheavals of the 1990s and 2000s. Based on what Putilov revealed, Surikov was accused of involvement in drug trafficking from Afghanistan, and he, in turn, accused officers of the Ministry of Defense of the same. All these details are remnants of significant political battles in which Surikov was involved.​​​​​​​

Let me remind you that according to Ilya Ponomariov, Kondaurov was “actively involved” in the Left Front, but “had very little interaction with the movement’s activists,” working “mainly on the intellectual and ideological line,” i.e., again, supervising and directing, as we can legitimately surmise.

If we assume that Yukos is the property of the KGB group represented by Kondaurov, then the appearance of Ilya Ponomarev in the “Left Front” becomes understandable. Ponomarev worked at Yukos from 1998 to 2001 and joined as the vice president, as mentioned earlier.​​​​​​​

At the first official meeting in 2008, Sergei Udaltsov becomes the coordinator of the movement. Sergei Udaltsov was born in Moscow in 1977 in the family of Stanislav Tyutyukin, a doctor of historical sciences. The opposition activist carries the surname of his great-grandfather, Ivan Udaltsov, a Bolshevik and the rector of Moscow State University. Udaltsov graduated from the law faculty of the Moscow State Academy of Water Transport. While still a student, he began his political and social activities by organizing and leading the movement “Avangard Krasnoi Molodezhi” (AKM), which became the youth wing of Viktor Anpilov’s party “Trudovaya Rossiya (Labor Russia).”​​​​​​​

Note that this is still sometimes referred to as the left-radical movement in Russia.

The funding for the Left Front, according to Ponomarev’s admission, came from the Institute of Globalization Problems (IPROG).

What is IPROG, who funds it, and what are the goals of this institute?

Prominent participants include Boris Kagarlitsky, Ilya Ponomarev, Mikhail Delyagin, Anton Surikov, Geidar Dzhemal, Ilya Budraitskis, Alexei Kondaurov (see the diagram for more details).

There is an obvious connection between IPROG and elements in the Russian political establishment. For this it is sufficient to take a look at the track record of 

Mikhail Delyagin – founder and until 2002 director of IPROG, current State Duma deputy from the SR since 2021, Member of the Scientific Council under the Russian Security Council, since 2017 a columnist for the far-right TV channel Tsargrad TV, on the EU sanctions list (2022) for voting to recognize the DPR and LPR, active state advisor of the Russian Federation 2nd class.

Alexei Kondaurov – part of the 5th Directorate of the KGB, a major general of the FSB, and the head of the “analytical direction” at Yukos.

Anton Surikov – a former GRU agent and the person who recruited Shamil Basayev. From 1984 to 1996, he worked on issues related to the military and defense industry and participated in the wars in Georgia/Abkhazia and Ichkeria.

In 1995, the Institute was founded by Dr. Mikhail Delyagin, who had worked as an economic analyst in the apparatus of the President and the Government of Russia for many years. Later, Delyagin returned to public service as an assistant to the Prime Minister of Russia, Mikhail Kasyanov, and handed over the leadership of IPROG to the well-known left-wing sociologist Boris Kagarlitsky. Since then, the staff of the institute has noticeably expanded, IPROG has participated in various international programs, and it has gained the prospect of becoming an influential left-wing intellectual center.​​​​​​​

Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to answer the first question due to the complete lack of information on this matter on the organization’s official website. It is evident that it is not an educational institution since there is no mention of students or academic routines. So, perhaps it is a scientific research institution? However, the Institute does not provide any information about its research programs or publications in refereed journals. There is no list of scientific departments, and, importantly, there is no clear presentation of the scientific degrees and achievements of its staff. Furthermore, some of them clearly have no relation to science. Moreover, the works published on the Institute’s website do not fall under the genre of scientific papers. Therefore, the question of the “genre” of this institute remains open.

Starting from 2003, Anton Surikov becomes a senior research fellow at the IPROG (Institute of the Present), heading its “Military Department.” He even held the position of Deputy Director of IPROG for some time, serving as the deputy to B. Kagarlitsky.

Here, too, appears a figure of Kagarlitsky, still handpicked by leftists.

Kagarlitsky was appointed as the director of IPROG at Surikov’s request.

According to Anton Surikov, the executive director of the Russian Association of Poultry Meat Market Operators and a GRU lieutenant colonel, it was he who, in 2002, “suggested [to Mikhail Delyagin] to consider the possibility of transferring the institute’s leadership to Mr. Kagarlitsky, as Mr. Kagarlitsky expressed his desire for it, as he told me.”

Surikov made this sensational information public in an open correspondence with Oleg Grechenievsky, a human rights activist from Leningrad, who was conducting a parallel investigation into the “Filin gang.” Below, we reproduce Surikov’s letter in its entirety as it was published on the For more details on the nature of the relationship between Kagarlitsky and Surikov, as well as to familiarize yourself with the bios of other notable figures of IPROG, you can refer to the provided diagram.

This is how we know the partial genealogy of the political interests behind the founding of the Left Front.

Let’s return to the political goals and positions of the Left Front.

The war in Ukraine (2014) vividly highlighted the contradictions and infiltration of the Russian political scene, especially its left wing. This, in turn, was largely a result of the artificial construction of political reality initiated during the Surkov administration. One of the most illustrative examples was the oppositional Left Front, whose frontman, Sergei Udaltsov, declared support for Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the emerging Novorossiya.

The Left Front, which actively participated in the protests on Bolotnaya Square in May 2012, is considered the left wing of the non-systemic opposition, contrasting with the servile Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) that is part of the Duma. In recent years, the Left Front has been known to the general public mainly in connection with the Bolotnaya case and the arrest of Udaltsov and Razvozzhaev. Another aspect of the leaders’ and founders’ activities, namely active work on the Ukrainian issue, targeting the left in the West, is significantly less noticeable. Despite this, it has led to significant results, such as the split of left-wing parliamentary parties in several European states regarding Ukraine and the emergence of political resistance to the regime of harsh sanctions against Russia. Obviously, the rhetoric of the Kremlin coming from the mouths of an opposition movement persecuted by the authorities sounds much more convincing, especially to European leftists. Although at the latest congress in August of this year, the Left Front got rid of the controversial Daria Mitina, who served as the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Donetsk People’s Republic in Moscow, Udaltsov still remains a member of the movement’s executive committee, holding the symbolic number one position. Interestingly, the supposed shadow leader of the Left Front, Ilya Ponomarev, modestly refers to himself as just an activist of the movement and does not hold any official positions within it.

The Left Front was established in 2005 as a broad coalition of left-wing political forces not affiliated with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF). According to a former participant of the Left Front who wishes to remain anonymous, the organization was initiated by the presidential administration through Konstantin Kostin, a PR specialist and political technologist who was the deputy chairman of the Central Election Commission of United Russia, and unofficially responsible for the party’s PR. After working in the presidential administration as the deputy chief of staff for internal policy, Kostin currently heads a structure within the Presidential Administration called the “Civil Society Development Fund,” which has a telling name. According to the source, the Left Front was created to “seal off” the left-wing political spectrum. On one side, it targeted the older generation loyal to the CPRF, and on the other side, it aimed to attract the dissatisfied youth and remnants who were discontented with the subservience of the CPRF, bringing them into a more active Left Front. The source’s words align with what is known about the backstage of Russia’s domestic politics during those years. At that time, the Presidential Administration was occupied with creating a Kremlin-controlled political landscape of “managed democracy” – a flourishing array of political forces catering to different tastes, all controlled from a single center, the presidential administration. According to the activist, special attention was given to forces on the extreme political flanks – the right-wing and left-wing radicals. The Left Front was created to control the latter.

Source: “Without the Right to Politics”

A few notes on  LF participants

LF coordinator Sergey Udaltsov: He supported the war in 2022, just as he supported the war and the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

9 April 2022 Udaltsov: “Special operations in Ukraine should be completed by the rebirth of the Soviet Union. So, based on the unlikely, but still theoretically possible, peaceful socialist transformation of the current political regime, we can immediately outline the best option for the future of denazified Ukraine.”

Leonid Razvozzhaev: A Russian activist, assistant to State Duma deputy Ilya Ponomarev, and a member of the Left Front council. He became widely known as a participant in the Bolotnaya Square case. He worked in the apparatus of the “Rodina” party and from 2005 to 2007 was the deputy head of the “For the Motherland!” Youth Union. Parallel to this, since 2004, he participated in the creation of the “Youth Left Front” and subsequently in the creation of the “Left Front.”

“SVO in Ukraine is not at all the seizure of foreign territories.”

Alexei Nezhivoy: A former colleague of Saknin in the Laboratory (Political and Social Technologies Laboratory in election campaigns, including for the direct political rival of the Left Front, United Russia) and co-founder of the Left Front. According to his own words (2015), Nezhivoy continues to “keep his finger on the pulse” of the organization while being a successful and in-demand political technologist.​​​​​​​ On the Laboratory’s website, you can learn about the services it offers, which include: “Conducting special events regulating the value scale of voter perception. Conducting of custom-made public events. Conducting regulatory PR campaigns in the field of social activism.” In particular, according to Nezhivoy, he helped LDPR deputy Maxim Shingarkin get elected to the Duma in 2011 and worked with him extensively.

Alexei is actively involved in election campaigns, helping not only left-leaning CPRF and Spravedlivaya Rossiya members, but also LDPR deputies and United Russia deputies. In an interview with Nezhivoy, however, he clarifies that the latter case concerns only Deputy Dmitry Sablin,through the “Combat Brotherhood”,an organization of veterans of local wars and military conflicts of Russia. Sablin is its vice-chairman, havingpreviously been a member, in his own words, in order to gain access to work with young people.

“Combat Brotherhood” is accused, among other veterans’ associations, of recruiting volunteers for the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR). According to “Novaya Gazeta,” at the organization’s meetings, members were encouraged to support Novorossiya and join the militia. According to former colleague Andrey Karelin, a political technologist from the Youth Left Front, Nezhivoy closely interacts with the president’s administration on projects in Ukraine and the Baltic states.

(http://kashin.guru/2014/10/31/putilov/) 

Ilya Ponomarev in the Youth Left Front: If we delve into Ilya Ponomarev’s biography, it becomes clear that he is not just a politician but a major businessman and lobbyist in the field of internet technologies, closely linked to the Russian oil industry. His opposition activity in Russia is nothing more than an extension of his business and is associated with the most “Russian” but still opposition-minded oligarchs, such as Konstantin Malofeev.

It is known that Malofeev is a controversial Russian oligarch and one of the financiers of the “white ribbon” protests. Moreover, Malofeev became one of the central figures in the conflict in Donbass, arming and financing a group of Russian mercenaries under the command of Igor Girkin in Slavyansk. This fact is an example that the war in Donbass is not only Putin’s initiative but a complex, multifaceted conflict. This explains Ilya Ponomarev’s peculiar position: speaking out against Putin, being a member of the CPRF, supporting the Russian left movement, and refusing to vote for the annexation of Crimea to Russia.

It’s worth recalling what Ponomarev voted for as a member of Spravedlivaya Rossiya (a completely pro-Kremlin party), and just two years earlier: “Addressing the Leftist faction deputies, Ilya Ponomarev noted that the Spravedlivaya Rossiya party will continue to strengthen its partnership with the German Leftist Party, which is ideologically close to the Russian ‘Esers'”.

Sponsor of the madness: Rosa Luxemburg Foundation 2012

Ponomarev comes from a dynasty of high-ranking Soviet bureaucrats. His relatives include, among others, Tikhon Yurkin, Stalin’s People’s Commissar of Agriculture and Kosygin’s advisor, and Boris Ponomarev, a member of the CPSU Central Committee and candidate member of the Politburo. A curious detail: in the 1970s, Boris Ponomarev, Ilya’s uncle, was in charge of the Political News Agency (APN) in the Central Committee’s International Department, which at the time was also headed by Sergey Udaltsov’s grandfather. Some observers believe that it was the position of his family that enabled Ponomarev to reach political heights. This theory seems plausible if we remember that Ilya’s grandfather, Nikolai Ponomarev, served as first secretary of the Soviet Embassy in Poland, a position traditionally held by the heads of KGB residencies. In this light, it no longer seems strange that Ilya was brought into the leftist movement by a retired KGB general with extensive experience in the 5th Directorate, and later by FSB Alexei Kondaurov, who introduced him to the Communist Party. The 5th Directorate of the KGB was engaged in countering “ideological sabotage.” In an interview with Meduza, Ponomarev confirms that Kondaurov was actively involved in the creation and work of the Left Front, working along “intellectual-ideological lines. It is worth noting that Kondaurov, along with Ponomariov, was also a member of the notorious IPROG.

Read more in Yegor Putilov’s interview http://kashin.guru/2014/11/04/kostin-potom-finansiroval-rabkor-ru-levy-e-otvechayut-na-obvineniya-v-karmannosti/2/

Ponomarev is not just an activist. He is one of the largest Russian entrepreneurs whose business is connected to the IT industry and oil extraction. He started his first company in 1991 at the age of 16. His companies have been used by major state-owned enterprises in Russia. During his time in the IT sector, his clients were mainly companies in the oil extraction sector, such as Yukos, oil companies from Venezuela, Algeria, and even British Petroleum in the UK.

Ilya Ponomarev is known as a lobbyist for a law proposed by his fellow party member from “A Just Russia,” Elena Mizulina, called “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development.” This law was associated with an attempt to ban Wikipedia in Russia and was followed by Ponomarev’s increased cooperation with state-owned companies in the field of Internet technologies. The Mizulina law, which was supported by Ponomarev, was beneficial to the company LLC Rostelecom, whose board of directors included Ilya’s father, Vladimir Ponomarev.

With such a biography, he was a member of the CPRF and only left it in 2007 due to accusations of attempting to create an alternative communist movement in Russia called the “Left Front.” However, Ponomarev’s loyal attitude towards the CPRF continued, as evidenced by his support for the “opposition’s unified candidate” for the position of mayor of Novosibirsk in 2014, who was a member of the CPRF. Prior to this, Ponomarev himself expressed a desire to participate in these elections but later had to leave Russia due to a fabricated case against him regarding the embezzlement of $750,000 from the Skolkovo Fund, which was initially allocated to the budget.

In addition to his involvement in the LF organization, Ponomarev’s interests and presence were obviously visible in the Ukrainian Borotba and Sots Rukh. (Phenomenon of leftist politics in Ukraine: the pro-Russian trail and Akhmetov https://bykvu.com/ua/mysli/30273-fenomen-levoj-politiki-v-ukraine-prorossijskij-sled-i-akhmetov/)

As one of the leaders of the left opposition movement in Russia, Ponomarev established cooperation with Ukrainian left-wing organizations, including the notorious “Borotba” (Struggle). This organization was formed by former members of the Communist Party of Ukraine (CPU) with the aim of becoming a political alternative to the latter. However, the events of Maidan and the subsequent events in eastern Ukraine, which escalated into a war, showed that despite the declared ideological differences between the “Trotskyist” Borotba and the outdated CPU, there was no real distinction between them. Members of both organizations participated in the confrontation on the separatist, pro-Russian side. Borotba activists actively attempted to proclaim “people’s republics” in Kharkiv and Odessa, and also assaulted pro-Ukrainian activists. Members of Borotba were involved in the conflict at the Kulikovo Field on May 2, 2014, and two of them died in the Odesa Trade Union Building.

An interesting detail on the move by Ponomarev’s colleague from the LF, Razvozzhayev:

Members of the Kiev-based “Borotba” assisted Razvozzhayev: they held a joint press conference in Ukraine, after which Razvozzhayev was secretly abducted by special services and taken to Russia, where he was involved in a high-profile court case. It became evident that Ponomarev considered “Borotba” as his political ally in Ukraine, as many political refugees from Russia successfully settled in Europe through Ukrainian left-wing activists. In turn, “Borotba” viewed Ponomarev as a tool for its own political PR, using Razvozzhayev’s persona to gain more publicity. The result was the easy capture of Razvozzhayev and his illegal transfer to Russia.

In the case of Razvozzhayev, there are facts that indicate Ponomarev’s interest in the arrest and conviction of his assistant, as he viewed him as an internal competitor for influence among Russian left-wing opposition members.

All of this bears a striking resemblance to the position of “Russian oppositionist” Ilya Ponomarev: conceding where no concession is required (refusing to vote on the Crimean issue); simultaneously cooperating with pro-government “leftists” (being a member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation) and presenting himself as a leader of street-based “new left” movements (heading the “Left Front”); supporting the separatists in Donbass (the example of the “people’s mayor” of Slavyansk and supporting Borotba activists during their appearances in Kharkiv in April 2014) and negotiating with the most fervent advocates of the country’s territorial integrity (Oleg Lyashko).

Source: The phenomenon of leftist politics in Ukraine: the pro-Russian trail and Akhmetov.

For 2022, during the Congress of People’s Deputies, Ponomariov’s right-hand man was Alexei Baranovsky, a figurehead of the BORN (militant organization of Russian nationalists) case about the murder of Baburova and Markelov.

Why is it important to remember and talk about all this? Because now, in 2023, Ponomarev is included in half of the “opposition” structures of the Russian Federation (Legion of Free Russia, February morning, Dagestan morning, media “After tomorrow”, Rospartizan, Congress of People’s Deputies, League of Free Nations, Forum of Free Russia etc.). It is important to understand the position from which he operates.

This text does not claim to reveal Ilya Ponomarev’s connections and intentions, we will only speak of him in the context of the LF-Fighting.

Let us return to the key figures of the LF:

Ponomarev’s protégé is also one of today’s official leaders of the LF, international relations coordinator Alexei Sakhnin. The Ponomarev-Sakhnin connection is key to understanding the current state of affairs in the Left Front. (2015)

Alexei Sakhnin is a Russian left-wing political activist, publicist, political scientist, historian, and journalist.

In 2022, he received political asylum in France.

After the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Sakhnin made statements about leaving the Left Front: “The alternative resolution I proposed, which categorically condemned the imperialist policy of the Russian government, received only 20% of the votes. After this, I cannot remain a member of the Left Front.”

But let this fact not mislead us.

Putylov found a sore spot: there is only one handshake between left-wing intellectuals from trendy hipster organizations and the killers from the bands of Mozgovoy and Strelkov. Sakhnin acts as a kind of connecting link. Few of the left-wing hipsters would willingly engage with Mozgovoy’s “communists”. It is unlikely that they would willingly come into contact with the office “Novorossiya” representatives, Darya Mitina or Kagarlitsky. Similar characters in the left-intellectual environment are generally viewed with caution and disgust, especially after the events of the past year. But Sakhnin is their guy. He was and remains one. And the fact that he is also “their guy” for the “left Novorossiya” has yet to be proven, and in general, there is no need to take extreme positions. After all, we equally condemn the two sides of the imperialist conflict and should not forget about the crimes of Ukrainian nationalism and the interests of the United States. Denying their role would be extreme political naivety. So, stop spreading your fascist slander here, didn’t you go to the Maidan?

“Tell me who your friend is.” A little about Alexei Sakhnin and his defenders.

This is how discussions with people attempting to defend Sakhnin usually ended. Without justifying his defenders, it must be acknowledged that, unlike most “leftists” who support Russia’s imperial interests, this political emigrant is cautious and even intelligent. In his interviews and social media posts, we will not see justifications for Russian military aggression in Ukraine, nor direct apologists for the DPR/LPR. In his conversation with Ilya Ponomarev, he distanced himself from the term “junta.” Every word and statement he makes is carefully crafted: he is not addressing mindless anti-imperialists. There is no point in fighting for them; they are already praying for their fantasies about an “anti-imperialist” Russia that is the successor to the USSR. Sakhnin speaks not with conspiracy theorists or enthusiasts of “geopolitics.” His target audience, including those in the West, consists of more or less “intellectual” leftists: Trotskyists, left liberals, social democrats, and even some anarchists. He feeds them beautiful stories about the “world,” about anti-fascism, and about class struggle in Ukraine. Sakhnin is a very cunning advocate of counter-revolution; he never directly justifies or defends it. Unlike anti-imperialists and Soviet fetishists, he will never explicitly express support for Kremlin interests. He neither justifies nor denies Russian crimes. His detached and allegedly critical approach, in the spirit of “Euroleftism,” is intended to agitate not conservatives hiding behind left rhetoric, but rather the leftists who may lack knowledge and are misled. For this reason, Sakhnin is a much more dangerous and harmful figure than obvious Kremlin creatures like Boris Kagarlitsky or Daria Mitina.

Sakhnin’s position on the Maidan has been expressed in various forms and languages and is not a secret. He refers to it as a “neoliberal” coup, carried out with the participation of fascists. However, Sakhnin continues to be cautious. His words carry weight, particularly as those of a “leader.” Enthusiastic Trotskyist newspapers have referred to him as a leader. When an internet scandal erupted over this, Alexey attempted to attribute the title to a media mistake.

In general, Sakhnin actively exploits the events of May 6 to spread lies about Ukraine and promote his friends from the organization Borotba, which we will discuss below. For example, his lectures on Russian political prisoners often turn into stories about the exploits of “Borotbists” and calls for solidarity with them. Thus, his correspondence with Gaskarov turned into a propaganda session aimed more at an external audience. The audience received it gratefully, and even the audience of “Sputnik and Pogrom” placed Sakhnin’s journalistic merits on par with those of Holmogorov. Very few left-wing journalists received such recognition.

This is how Sakhnin describes his unhindered trip to the “fascist” Ukraine (later, in his defense, he will claim that he never tried to portray Ukraine as fascist and that everything is just as bad in Russia, but read it all for yourself):

“We were deep in the rear. In Kiev, Odessa, Kharkiv. Lesha, I swear to you, what is happening there is a civil war. Without any intervention. An internal war. The worst is in Odessa.​​​​​​​”

***

“7 out of 10 “ordinary people,” that is, taxi drivers, elderly women renting rooms to visitors, waitresses, and bus passengers, use passwords like “hunta” and “fascists.​​​​​​​”

***

“The leaders of this anti-Maidan were hesitating to take radical measures, they were against seizing buildings, etc. This joker says, “the authorities should have prayed to them.” And they staged it for them on May 2. May 2 was prepared in advance. Perhaps no one planned for such casualties, but the directive to disperse the opposition camp came from above, and the operation was meticulously prepared​​​​​​​.​​​​​​​“

About taxi drivers and waitresses who, in the conditions of total horror, repression, and fascist terror, immediately start talking to a random stranger about the “junta and fascists” – you can imagine it yourself, let’s focus on the Anti-Maidan and the incident on May 2nd.

The Odessa Anti-Maidan was a union of ultranationalists and Stalinists, initially supported by the administrative resources. One of the leaders of this peculiar union of the sickle-hammer, red flag, knout, and swastika was Alexei Albu, a member of the organization “Borotba” (Struggle). The name “Borotba” will be mentioned more and more frequently in our text, as it largely determines Sahnin’s “Ukrainian” activity. At the moment, Sahnin could be considered more of an activist of “Borotba” than of the Left Front. The Anti-Maidan in Odessa began even before the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime. Its activities were aimed at protecting administrative buildings from an imaginary attack by the “Right Sector.” Then, immediately after the events in Crimea, regional council deputy Alexei Albu rushed to promote the topic of a referendum, although he couldn’t even explain its purpose to his party colleagues. In addition to the demands for a referendum, the Anti-Maidan, like its original Kiev prototype, engaged in violent actions against opponents. The Odessa Brigade was formed, consisting primarily of ultranationalists with Imperial flags. Among them were members of the right-conservative “Rodina” (Motherland) party and openly nazi Slavic Unity.

Slavic Unity runs an informative page on VKontakte, abundant with swastikas, but there are hardly any funny materials left there, mostly reposts from the DPR’s propaganda. However, their website is full of very juicy texts. They have now closed the website, but the cache preserves many pearls like “replacing Slavic peasants with African illegal immigrants.​​​​​​​

Members of “Borotba,” including the deceased Andrey Brazhevsky, were part of the “brigade.” It proved to be a profitable venture for their party comrades after his death. When it became clear in the spring that the balance of power was not in their favor, the Anti-Maidan shifted from offense to defense, only occasionally launching targeted attacks against opponents. Nevertheless, the tent camp remained in place until May 2nd. On May 2nd, when the local Euromaidan, together with football fans who had come to the city for a match, organized a march, the red-brown “antifascists” decided to stop them. Albu, reporting from the scene, posted triumphant accounts on the “Borotba” website about how the brave Odessa brigade with red armbands was stopping and would soon stop the fascists. Then he stopped writing. Subsequently, pleas for help began to appear on the website, followed by texts claiming that the “Right Sector” had cowardly killed peaceful protesters.

Sahnin’s support for the black-hundred “Soviet patriots” cannot be explained by ignorance or lack of information. He is too closely acquainted with this political force and its leaders to genuinely be mistaken about them. Sahnin is not a victim but a co-author of their propaganda. None of the publicly voiced accusations against “Borotba” have been refuted. In response to all the accusations, their spokespersons hide behind a barricade made up of the bodies of their comrades who were sent to their deaths. Conveniently positioned there, they shout that only they are the true “communists,” and everyone else is the “Right Sector.” Sahnin precisely copies this rhetoric. In addition to promoting “left friends of Russia,” he actively engages in defaming Ukrainian leftists whose activities hinder his allies from parasitizing on left-wing ideas and anti-fascism. Anarchists, in particular, bear the brunt of his attacks.

European leftists are presented with a completely different picture. They believe that the fascists burned down the Trade Unions House! European leftists immediately imagine the Trade Unions House as a refuge and the last stronghold of the leftists. They are told that members of the socialist organization “Borotba” and the Communist Party of Ukraine were killed! Sahnin conveniently omits the fact that “Borotba” is a sellout political project and the Communist Party is a clerical mob not alien to racism, having long lost the right to call themselves leftists even in quotation marks, and that other participants of the Anti-Maidan are various degrees of right-wing fascists. However, Sahnin is eager to point out that all the victims on the Maidan were from the “Right Sector”. The tragedy of the burned Trade Unions House in Kyiv, where the Maidan field hospital was located and where dozens of wounded died, is largely unknown to the average European leftist. But everyone knows about the “martyrs of Odessa,” who were retrospectively assigned the label of leftists and anti-fascists. Sahnin and his comrades have done nothing to debunk this myth. On the contrary, they have made maximum efforts to propagate it. With the involvement of Sahnin and Kirichuk, who has settled in Germany, characters like the ultra-right Oleg Muzik from the Rodina party come to Europe to tell the “truth about Odesa”.​​​​​​​

Sahnin carries all this “Borotba” propaganda to the Swedish audience and beyond. So, he bears a significant responsibility for the fact that foolish Stalinists from Spain go on safari to Donbass, where they fight hand in hand with fascists against the “Ukrainian invasion of Russia.” The value of Sahnin’s reasoning about the need for a “new Zimmerwald” and the “struggle for peace from a leftist position” is not high against this backdrop. The propaganda of war under the pretext of “fighting for peace” is an old invention. It is convenient to wage war while pretending to be neutral. There has already been one “Zimmerwald,” the Minsk one, with the participation of “Borotba” and “left-wing intellectuals” who played the role of useful idiots. As explained later by “Borotba” and the website Rabkor (Kagarlitsky), the essence of “peacekeeping” actually boils down to “recognizing the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics” and withdrawing Ukrainian troops from the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. In their alternative world, what is happening in Donbass is a “struggle against the reactionary oligarchic regime.”​​​​​​​

It is worth reminding that the propagandist bears no less responsibility than the war criminal inspired by their propaganda. Therefore, both the members of “Borotba” and Sahnin, even if they do not take up arms, deserve the same treatment as combatants.

But this line of reasoning is possible if one perceives politics as something real and genuinely important. If one seriously believes that convictions are worth dying or killing for. However, for many “leftists,” politics is a form of intellectual leisure: an opportunity to apply their knowledge in the field of social sciences and show off in front of an audience. It’s like a debating club that sometimes holds meetings in the open air.

The problem with left-wing “hipsters” and “intellectuals” is that they try to apply ethical norms suitable only for a game to real life. In the game, the worst thing that can happen is a split within the organization or, God forbid, the Internationale. But now, it’s a time when heads are being split, not organizations. And if someone thinks that it’s only happening in Donbass and the rest can continue living in their own little world, they are mistaken. If someone thinks that after it’s all over, we will return to the general leftist swamp and quack together, they are mistaken. That swamp is poisoned with blood. And anyone who is aware of this and consciously continues to wallow in it will hardly ever be able to wash themselves clean. (2015)

It is interesting that, despite the fact that after so many years, so much material about Borotba, and a clear consensus of the Ukrainian left on this, the Statement of the Left and anarchist organizations in Ukraine about the unification of Borotba – Sakhnin still (2021) gives an interview where he says the following: “The tragedy in Ukraine began. And there was our fraternal organization, which was called “Borotba”, which took a very critical stance towards Euromaidan and its leaders.”

If you google Alexey Sakhnin now, you can find more than a few occasions to cringe, for example, his promotion of tours to Sukhumi and practical advice to Muscovites on how to buy real estate in Russia-occupied Abkhazia. And, if Alexey suddenly left the LF because he disagreed with the LF’s support of the war in Ukraine, why do we not hear him criticize his brainchild Borotba, which is known to be actively fighting on the side of Russia and continues its propaganda activities? Sakhnin is now busy organizing rallies in Paris in support of political prisoners from labor unions, for example Kirill Ukraintsev and the Kurier union, who allegedly suffered from their “anti-war” position. Their main slogan is : “They were not silent!”. Russian unions have, indeed, not been silent since the beginning of the full-scale invasion:they quickly zigged out.

Kagarlitsky: On May 6, 2022, the Russian Ministry of Justice included the well-known pink Putinist Boris Kagarlitsky in the list of “foreign agents” among the media. This is an indulgence in the liberal public sphere, a marker of a “good Russian,” a sign of handshaking with the West.​​​​​​​

At the beginning of Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine, Kagarlitsky, either on the instructions of his Kremlin curators or due to a change in position by his main sponsor, the German Rosa Luxemburg Foundation (the reasons for this can be read here), made a series of statements against the war. The “Manifesto of the Coalition ‘Socialists Against War'” appeared on his website “Rabkor,” which was also signed by Kagarlitsky and republished by Revue Ballast.

This allowed Kagarlitsky to become a frequent guest on various liberal and anti-war platforms, mingle with Western left-wing intellectuals, and even position himself as an “opponent of the bloody Putin regime,” somewhere to the left of Navalny. Kagarlitsky was once again perceived in the context of the old (pre-2014) image of a “person who brought Marxism back to post-Soviet times.”

There is a very good article by Alexander Karpetz called “The Ukrainian (Counter-)Revolution and Renegade Kagarlitsky” that talks about when this image faded and was completely discarded by the left in Ukraine due to its toxicity.

It so happens that our Western pink ponies perceive anyone in Russia who expresses disagreement with the war against Ukraine as a pacifist hero. However, this does not apply to Kagarlitsky.

Let’s recall that in 2014, Kagarlitsky publicly declared his support for the “LPR” and the “Novorossiya” project. On April 22, 2014, Boris Kagarlitsky stated that “the successful uprising of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even millions of people in Eastern Ukraine, cannot be explained by any Russian intervention.” Although even back then, it was clear to any thinking person that this was Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine.

Observing the “anti-war tribunes in Europe” now, let’s remember the genealogy of Kagarlitsky, the IPRIG, the people he collaborated with, and the Left Front.

Kagarlitsky is known as an exposé of the “red-brown” essence of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF). Two years ago, in his widely circulated article about the Russian left, “The Russian Left Today” (see also the article “The Rally“), Kagarlitsky convinced Western society that the leadership of the CPRF was “fascist.” Now he has been appointed as the director of an institute by someone who is part of that leadership, and at the same time, he did not miss a spot in any of the governments of the “velvet genocide,” from the Gaidar to the Kasyanov era 2008).

After that, Kagarlitsky was expelled from the LF, and this is how Ponomarev explains it: “In 2006 we had a big fight with Kagarlitsky – he spoke out against the CPRF in an uncoordinated way, we had serious reasons to believe that he had taken money from the Surkov team for this, and we expelled him.”

Kagarlitsky’s affair with the Kremlin has been developing for a long time, and the stages of this path can be noted on the dotted line. This practice must be accompanied by scandals.

In 2005, Boris Yulievich authored a report on corruption in Russian politics. The conclusion was unexpected. The not yet fully tamed Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) became the most corrupt party. Surprisingly, neither the LDPR, whose deputies were being tried for involvement in organized crime, nor the ruling party, which liberal critics called a party of swindlers and thieves, received such assessments. Kagarlitsky lost a court case to the leader of the CPRF, Zyuganov.

In 2008, Kagarlitsky enthusiastically joined the war hysteria against Georgia. The mainstream press referred to representatives of this nation as “rodents,” and the government called them American puppets. Saakashvili’s adventurous policies and erroneous assessment of forces led to Georgia’s military defeat. Russia destroyed infrastructure objects, burned reserves, and carried out ethnic cleansing in several Georgian districts of South Ossetia, but for Mr. Kagarlitsky, it was Russia’s “anti-imperialist” war against the US. Just like in the case of Ukraine, the Russian national socialist talks a lot about the West and prefers to remain silent about Moscow’s imperialistic interests.

In 2009, a scandal erupted around the Rabkor.ru website. One of the project’s employees revealed that Mr. Gorshenin, associated with the President’s administration, had a direct connection to the website and even received a letter of gratitude from Sobyanin for contributing to Medvedev’s election as head of state. However, no one paid much attention to it. For Moscow and its political atmosphere, it was not a sensation. In the world of Byzantine intrigues and Jesuit unscrupulousness, receiving money from the government for “anti-capitalist” activities has long been the norm. Talk to Russian leftists about principles and ethics, and you will learn many new and interesting things. Most left-wing organizations have been corrupted directly or indirectly at different times. Those who try to diversify their sources of funding or show excessive principledness may end up in prison.

Lately, comments and speeches by Boris Kagarlitsky have appeared on the Internet regarding the so-called “Novorossiya,” which he persistently opposes to “Kiev’s Ukraine.” For those familiar with Boris Yulievich’s work and his characteristic depth of analysis, it is difficult to believe that the respected author and dissident could so easily forget his leftist ideals and principles and turn into a mouthpiece for the Kremlin. Obviously, there are only two possible explanations: either Boris Kagarlitsky or members of his family are openly threatened, and he is obliged to say and write what they tell him to; or the “cookies” offered by the Kremlin turned out to be too tempting. https://politcom.org.ua/silikonovaja-levizna-borisa-kagarlic (2014)

Another thesis that Boris Yulievich has been persistently promoting lately is the myth of the terrible “banderites” who have seized power in Ukraine and the representatives of the “Right Sector” – the “real Nazis” who not only oppose the “Moskals” but also call for Jewish pogroms. In many comments and interviews, for example, on February 21, 2014, (https://krasnoe.tv/node/20683) Boris Kagarlitsky complains about the fact that the “Right Sector” has de facto taken power in Ukraine. In the future, nothing could convince the pseudo-Marxist otherwise, not even the results of parliamentary and presidential elections in Ukraine, which showed negligible support for the Right Sector among the electorate.​​​​​​​

Such rhetoric is a typical example of Kiselyov-style propaganda. It turns out that by voicing and popularizing these and similar theses, the self-proclaimed neo-Marxist effectively becomes an accomplice of the Kremlin. Therefore, anti-globalism and anti-capitalism are nothing more than a smokescreen behind which Boris Kagarlitsky and his followers hide, effectively acting as a counter-revolutionary movement nourished by Moscow. Moscow, in turn, in the current situation, serves as a good example of state-monopoly capitalism (according to V.I. Lenin), which is in the stage of imperialism and aggressive wars.​​​​​​​ 

As we can see, for Kagarlitsky, the world will only begin after Kiev’s defeat is recognized. Under “equality,” as we understand it, Putin’s idea of federalizing Ukraine is implied. The right of one region, led by self-appointed adventurers, to impose its position on the absolute majority of Ukraine’s population, which is categorically opposed to closer ties with Russia. It is worth noting that at that time, the leadership of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) held Russian passports. In other words, Russian imperialists would have had the right of veto on foreign and domestic policy issues.

As we can see, the text not only repeats Kremlin ideological clichés but also calls for “support” from Russia. It should be noted that the “editorial board” of the website, led by Kagarlitsky, notes the fact of “self-organizing solidarity movement with Novorossiya.” And here the author reveals his true intentions.

The main organization behind the Russian war hysteria, the National Liberation Movement (NOD), is not just an ultra-right coalition of nationalists. This organization receives money from the Kremlin and is led by Yevgeny Fyodorov, a State Duma deputy from the ruling United Russia party.

In 2014, this loyal soldier of Putin gained fame by calling for a fight against the remaining liberal media. Even before the crisis in Ukraine began, he proposed removing the ban on state ideology and prioritizing international law over Russian law from the Russian Constitution, referring to the Constitution as a “colonial sheet of management.”

Fedorov’s assistant is a certain Andrey Kovalenko, who heads the Moscow branch of the ultranationalist organization Eurasian Union of Youth, which is part of the Eurasian Movement led by Alexander Dugin. Dugin gained notoriety for his statement “Ukrainians need to be killed, killed, and killed, I’m telling you this as a professor.” Kovalenko’s organization has long received substantial financial assistance from the Kremlin even before the start of the war. Instead of “self-organization,” we see a structure that brings together the “ideological neighbors” of Russian nationalists NOD (as assessed by the human rights center “Sova”) and Russian paleoconservatives under the wing of the Kremlin.

In the past year, Shekhovtsov also published a photo on his blog in which Alexey Belyaev-Gintovt (a prominent member of Alexander Dugin’s International Eurasian Movement), Yevgeny Zhilin (leader of the militarized ultranationalist group “Oplot“), Konstantin Krylov (a far-right political figure and one of the founders of the “Russian Public Movement – Russia“), right-wing conservative publicist Egor Kholmogorov, and Ukrainian journalist Alexander Chalenko are seen sitting at a table with Kagarlitsky in a drinking establishment. The latter currently resides in Moscow and calls for the complete occupation of Ukraine by Russia, convincing his Moscow interlocutors and readers that Ukrainians will not put up serious resistance and will quickly accept the policy of military force. The main thing is to quickly seize Kyiv.

Recently, the website Rabkor.ru, which is under Kagarlitsky’s control, has been publishing interviews and reports of meetings with monarchist and leader of Russian far-right movements Igor Strelkov-Girkin.

It would be useful for Western leftists to put on a wig and big black glasses, go to Russia, and listen to how Kagarlitsky confidently discusses the good position awaiting him in the Kremlin during gatherings with activists. However, this will not happen. Kagarlitsky, like other Eastern European “left intellectuals,” soothes the “anti-imperialist” soul of Western leftists who care about geopolitics and imperialist contradictions but deeply disregard the bloodshed of Syrians or Ukrainians if that blood is spilled not in line with their racist view of how the will of these people should be politically determined. All these Arab and Slavic barbarians are not worth their time, and Kagarlitsky, who translates Putin’s policies into “Marxist” language, and other deceitful “Eastern European left experts” help them reconcile with Europe’s racist indifference to the victims of “anti-imperialist” regimes and “understand” the Russian Emperor.

“He was seen by the FSB as their ‘man’ not only within the Russian left-wing community (which is not always loyal to the regime), but primarily within the European left-wing circles. Kagarlitsky served as a reliable liaison, facilitating the ‘transit of narratives’ from Moscow to the offices of pro-Russian left-wing political parties and movements.

This explains Kagarlitsky’s smooth drift in the Ukrainian question, from being a supporter of the genocide of Ukrainians and the ‘Russian world’ in 2014 to becoming an ‘anti-war activist.’ He needed to stay in line with the context. That is why he changed his position according to the latest memoranda of Die Linke and their Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.

As soon as the party removed Oscar Lafontaine, Putin’s puppet, and isolated his wife, Sarah Wagenknecht, along with the discredited Russian agents, Kagarlitsky immediately began talking about how the war against Ukraine was not entirely right and contradicted something there… No, Die Linke did not cease to be a pro-Russian entity after February 22, 2022. It remains the Kremlin’s ‘fifth column’ in Germany, just with slightly changed rhetoric. It became less red-brown compared to the Wagenknecht era.

After the leadership of Die Linke was unanimously forced to condemn Russian aggression, Boris Yulevich suddenly unleashed a whole anti-war manifesto.

Source Kagarlitsky, War and Political Corruption

BOROTBA

Under the ideological inspiration and sponsorship of Kagarlitsky, and with funds from Vladislav Surkov, the group ‘Borotba,’ led by Andrey Manchuk and Viktor Shapinov, took a collaborationist position and participated in military actions against Ukraine after the Maidan. You can read about this ‘Borotba’ here. (From petty fraudsters to killers: An essay on the political evolution of Stalinists using the example of the organization Borotba)

Borotba and Surkov: Documentary evidence of cooperation. On November 24, 2016, a group of Ukrainian hacktivists (possibly the Security Service of Ukraine) published Surkov’s email archive.

A breakdown of Surkov’s leaked correspondence

(What can the contents of the Kremlin’s “Grey Cardinal” mail tell us about the war in Donbass?)

https://bykvu.com/ua/mysli/47332-pochta-surkova-o-chem-govoritsya-v-perepiske-pomoshchnika-prezidenta-rf/
​​​​​​​https://bykvu.com/ua/bukvy/47156-gruppa-ukrainskikh-khakerov-vzlomala-pochtu-surkova/

Borotba welcomed the occupation of Crimea, openly called for support for two strongly right-wing extremist “people’s republics,” and invited Russian troops into other parts of Ukraine. [127] It was also no secret that Borotba engaged in the crudest of militarist propaganda.

During the Antimaidan, Borotba participated with other Russian nationalists in the seizure of administrative buildings, replacing Ukrainian flags with Russian ones. Borotba posted about this on his official website, also available in English translation.

“Anti-Fascism” or “nationalist-liberalism” are nothing more than tools of political manipulation for Borotba: they try at all costs to rally as large a crowd around them as possible, whose beliefs are of no importance to the parliamentary populists.

Borot’ba was founded by the faction of the “Organization of Marxists,” which was often characterized as Stalinist. Undoubtedly, they never walked around with portraits of Stalin and only call themselves Marxist-Leninists, and their love for the mustached leader can only be expressed in a drunken company. But any ideology is confirmed not by declarations but by political practice. Borot’ba’s leaders came from the Komsomol, and some of them actively participated in the Communist Party of Ukraine (CPU). This finds its reflection not only in nostalgia for the USSR, which they actively exploit in their agitation, not only in a positive assessment of the Soviet regime, but also in internal organizational culture, tactics, strategy, and goals.​​​​​​​

Borot’ba actively tried to parasitize on the activism of non-authoritarian leftists; they tried to use anarchists as a striking force. Ukrainian Stalinists tried to attribute the activity of the “Direct Action” student syndicalist union to themselves, “squatting” their actions. Unfortunately, for a long time, Direct Action, due to the lack of an ideological platform and unwillingness to take a firm position on political issues, was a pawn in the games of Stalinists, Trotskyists, liberals, and national democrats. When they couldn’t deceive and sway the anarchists to their side, political pressure was exerted on them, involving lies, intrigue, threats, and even open violence, which has now reached new proportions. During the clashes in Kharkiv, Borot’ba, together with Russian nationalists, stormed the captured Kharkiv regional administration and beat the people present there, including anarchists and anti-authoritarian leftists. In order to legitimize the violence, they accused all their victims of belonging to the “Right Sector” – similar to how the Stalinists in Spain labeled both anarchists and disloyal Marxists from POUM as “fascists.”

Leninism itself is a radical and authoritarian version of social democracy, and Stalinism is its even more authoritarian development. In modern conditions, Stalinists are indistinguishable from social democrats; on holidays, they talk about revolution but strive to participate in bourgeois politics. In the Ukrainian context, bourgeois politics equals populism. Borot’ba successfully adapts its rhetoric to its audience. This allows them to find common ground with Russian nationalists, naive Western leftists, and their not-so-scrupulous Ukrainian colleagues. When Sergey Kirichuk spoke in Germany before libertarians at the Congress of the “Hedonist International” (a congress of left-wing activists and artists, where he ended up by deceiving the organizers), he criticized the “ultra-right and monarchists” in Eastern republics and claimed that Borot’ba fights on two fronts, against “Ukrainian and Russian nationalists.” When speaking to less critical listeners like Die Linke or “anti-imperialists,” he called for support of the “antifascist people’s republics,” and Russian nationalists became “slightly misguided but ideologically and class-wise close antifascists” to him. Depending on the recipient of the message, Borot’ba transforms into either “fighters for peace” or “fighters against the illegitimate fascist junta in Kiev.”

Borot’ba actively engages in international activities, creating a reputation as a “persecuted” and “repressed” organization among Western leftists. They have sympathizers among many left-wing parties in Europe. In particular, the leader of “Borot’ba,” Sergey Kirichuk, obtained political asylum in Germany with the assistance of the party Die Linke.

In Moscow, Rosa-Luxemburg Foundation (FRL) supported emigrant separatist organizations. The “Borotbists” were among them, but were not influential because of their small numbers. In Kiev, the FRL branch was afraid to engage in anti-Ukrainian activities, so it did not cooperate with the remnants of “Borotba. But “Die Linke” supported them politically through the fugitive fighter Sergey Kirichuk, who is now (2016) in Germany. He supplied them with stories about the “bloody fascist junta”. Borotba members who fought in Mozgovoi’s Pryzrak brigade in Alchevsk helped set up funding for the paramilitary group from the Russian Federation: “Part of the ‘Prizrak’ positions itself as a communist movement (although there are Stalinists along with monarchists and Russian nationalists) – this allows taking money from the CPRF, for example”. At the Anti-Maidan rally in Odesa, Borotba could be seen in such company: the Soviet flag on the left, the Reich flag on the right, and three Borotba flags on the back. The Kolovrat (Slavic swastika) could be seen on the shoulder of a man in uniform (see the scheme).

Known participants :

Alexei Sakhnin, Alexei Albu, Viktor Shapinov, Kagarlitsky, Ponomarev, Evgeny Golyshkin, Sergey Kirichuk, Evgeny Wallenberg, Andrey Manchuk, Vasily Tereshchuk, Denis Levin

Sakhnin could be considered more of an activist for “Borotba” than an activist for the Left Front. The Anti-Maidan movement in Odessa started even before the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime. His activities revolved around protecting administrative buildings from an imaginary attack by the “Right Sector.” After the events in Crimea, Alexey Albu, a regional council deputy, began to push the issue of a referendum, but he couldn’t even explain its purpose to his party comrades. In addition to the demands for a referendum, the Anti-Maidan movement, like its initial prototype in Kiev, engaged in violent actions against its opponents. The Odessa Druzhina was formed, composed mainly of far-right individuals with imperial symbols. Among them were members of the right-conservative “Rodina” party and the openly Nazi “Slavic Unity.”

“Slavic Unity” maintains an informative page on VKontakte, filled with Kolovrat symbols, although there are hardly any funny materials left there, mostly reposts of the propaganda from the Donetsk People’s Republic. However, their website is filled with very provocative texts. Currently, their website is closed, but cached versions still contain numerous pearls such as “replacing Slavic peasants with African illegals.”

Albu remained one of the leaders of the organization. Several years after these statements, the activists of “Borotba” actively cooperate with Russian Nazis from “Slavic Unity” and ultra-conservatives from “Rodina.” Information about Albu is openly published on the party’s website. Alexey himself calls for Russian forces to move into Odesa.

It is well known that Alexey Albu had close relationships with law enforcement agencies, and he even took pride in it, no less than in his status as a deputy. From the hacked organization’s mailing, it became known that some protest actions by “Borotba” were supported by police officers who did not want to reveal their identities. A couple of Odessa police officers were members of the organization, as indicated by Albu’s own statements in the hacked mailing. In addition, Albu claimed to have connections with the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), and his party comrade Shapinov also directly mentioned contacts with law enforcement agencies. It is quite strange that a deputy, a person with contacts at different levels of law enforcement, did not receive advance information about the fact that his enemies, with the direct participation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD), were preparing such a large-scale and brutal provocation. It seems more likely that the provocation and collusion with the police did take place, but on the part of the Anti-Maidan movement. The Anti-Maidan movement has always been closely associated with various levels of the police (the cult of Berkut is an example). The shooting of the march allowed by the police was intended to provoke panic and mark the beginning of the triumphant advance of the “Russian World” on Odesa, following the Donetsk or Luhansk model.

Victor Shapinov, one of the main ideologists of “Borotba,” worked as a political technologist for various forces in addition to his own party projects. The story of the elections in the city of Guse-Khrustalny, where Shapinov worked for “United Russia,” became legendary in the post-Soviet left-wing community.

https://lj.rossia.org/users/left_unia/7344.html “Thanks to the patriotic assistance of an SBU officer, we have learned some details of an operation that Kiev’s rulers have been preparing to conduct against the “rebellious” regions. This is not the first time that a leak of information from Kiev has made it possible to foil the junta’s plans…”

Viktor Shapinov voiced the thesis: “There is no more Stalinism and Trotskyism, there is revolutionary Marxism and reformism. This “ecumenical” position became something of a meme among the left-wing scene and inspired numerous attempts to create “broad” organizations that aimed to revise old dogmas.

Viktor Shapinov was one of those who tried to modernize Stalinism.

However, “Shapinism” also had a flip side. It did not eliminate ideological disagreements but proposed a kind of multicultural consensus for the left: “We are different, but we have common goals. Let’s just forgive each other’s past sins and talk about what unites us.” It was taken as an axiom that the modern understanding of opportunism and revolutionary spirit is in no way connected to Stalinism, Trotskyism, or any other “ism.”

Following the Shapinov model, the Ukrainian Organization of Marxists, the Russian Left Front, several regional left coalitions, and partly the RSD (originally aimed at forming a “broad left” including post-Trotskyist and post-Stalinist currents) were shaped. However, it soon became apparent that, using Freudian terms, the suppressed Trotskyism and Stalinism were returning, but in a transformed form. https://www.nihilist.li/2014/03/23/protivostoyat-konservativnomu-drejfu/

Currently, “Borotba” continues to exist in the media space, actively supporting armed interbrigades such as the NBP (Limonov’s followers) and other armed groups fighting on the side of the RussiaCn Federation. Alexey Albu and other leaders of “Borotba” continue to exploit the “anti-fascist” theme, using international misconceptions to cover their own goals (while pursuing the Kremlin’s agenda).​​​​​​​

Links: 

Wie Teile der deutschen Linken Faschisten in der Ukraine unterstützen, Teil 1: Die »ukrainische« Kampagne der Roten Hilfe im Kontext
https://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/158919/index.html

The "Network" or "Penza case" - the case of an anarchist and anti-fascist organisation called the Network​​​​​​​
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дело_«Сети»

Review of the repression of 2017 and early 2018 from the Anarchist Black Cross​​​​​​​
https://avtonom.org/news/obzor-repressiy-2017-i-nachala-2018-goda-ot-anarhicheskogo-chernogo-kresta

pocket revolutionaries
EGOR PUTILOV ON THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL AND HOW THE LEFT IN RUSSIA HAS BECOME A STRONGHOLD OF THE REGIME
https://www.colta.ru/articles/society/4683-karmannye-revolyutsionery

From petty crooks to murderers. An essay on the political evolution of the Stalinists, using the example of the Borotba organisation
https://www.nihilist.li/2014/06/19/ot-melkih-moshennikov-do-ubijts-ocherk-o-politicheskoj-e-volyutsii-stalinistov-na-primere-organizatsii-borot-ba/

Raggedy
http://www.left.ru/2003/18/baumgarten94.html

Association "Borotba"
https://t.me/borotba

FOR THE RED ARMY, PEOPLE'S POWER AND SOCIALISM! LEFT-WING RALLIES WERE HELD ON 23 FEBRUARY IN MANY RUSSIAN CITIES
https://www.leftfront.org/?p=48454

Peter Alekseev Resistance Movement (DSPA)
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Движение_сопротивления_имени_Петра_Алексеева

Internal repression exhausted / Boris Kagarlitsky
https://yandex.ru/video/preview/3478532116283624194

The diseases of the neophyte left. "Unity."
https://www.shiitman.ninja/2013/10/26/bolezni-levogo-neofita-edinstvo/

Eurasian Youth Union
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Евразийский_союз_молодёжи

Slavic Unity
https://vk.com/slavedinstvo

Meet the Men's State - Russia's most disgusting 'hate group'
https://ru.bellingcat.com/novosti/russia/2021/10/21/meet-the-male-state-russias-nastiest-online-hate-group-ru

National Bolshevik Party
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Национал-большевистская_партия

The Cloud of Unknowing: Russian Worlds and the nationalist provocation of Aleksandr Dugin
https://www.madamasr.com/en/2022/03/29/opinion/politics/the-cloud-of-unknowing-russian-worlds-and-the-nationalist-provocation-of-aleksandr-dugin

Interbrigades 2022
https://vk.com/interbrigady2022

Without the right to politics
http://kashin.guru/2014/10/31/putilov/ 

"Left Front", "Borotba" and the Rosenkreuzers
https://rabkrin.org/levyiy-front-borotba-i-roznekreytseryi/

Borot'ba: rotlackierte Nationalisten und Militaristen umwerben die deutsche LINKE
https://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/117050/index.html

IPROG
https://web.archive.org/web/20070220130052/http://www.iprog.ru/staff

WHOSE AGENT IS KAGARLITSKY?
https://politcom.org.ua/chei-ahent-kaharlytskyi

Kagarlitsky was appointed director of IPOG at the request of CIA agent Surikov
https://zol-dol.livejournal.com/483999.html

Kagarlitsky Defends Himself Against Cover-Up Accusations
http://www.left.ru/2005/11/preskonf_eng.html 

KAGARLITSKY WAS APPOINTED DIRECTOR OF IPROG AT THE REQUEST OF SURIKOV
http://left.ru/2006/9/kag-sur143.phtml

Mikhail Delyagin: See you in Kiev!
https://svop.ru/main/12618/

The man who recruited Basayev
https://www.compromat.ru/page_12021.htm

"The military controls the Tajik drug business," says Anton Surikov, a State Duma staffer
https://flb.ru/infoprint/2449.html

THE SECRET OF TEAM MASLUKOV
https://www.mk.ru/editions/daily/article/1998/11/26/129909-tayna-komandyi-maslyukova.html

Alexei Kondaurov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Kondaurov

"Kostin then financed Rabkor.ru": Left responds to accusations of pocketing
http://kashin.guru/2014/11/04/kostin-potom-finansiroval-rabkor-ru-levy-e-otvechayut-na-obvineniya-v-karmannosti/2/

Alexej Markov: »Keine Diskussionsklubs«
https://www.jungewelt.de/blogs/rlk-2016/302211

DNR militants from the organization "Borotba" are financed by the Russian Communist Party
https://antikor.com.ua/articles/125764-boevikov_dnr_iz_organizatsii_borotjba_finansiruet_kompartija_rf/print

Ghost (brigade)
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Призрак_(бригада)

Wie Teile der deutschen Linken Faschisten in der Ukraine unterstützen, Teil 2: Über die Rote Hilfe, Brigade Prisrak und mehr
https://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/163651/index.html

Meeting with Putin's German leftist friends|Treffen mit den deutschen linken Freunden Putins
https://www.nihilist.li/2014/11/18/vstrecha-s-nemetskimi-levy-mi-druz-yami-putina/

Russland-Sanktionen: Links-Rechts-Allianz auf der Krim
https://web.archive.org/web/20180419153411/http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2018-04/russland-sanktionen-wirtschaftskonferenz-krim-afd-linke

Ubian Barkashovite Alexei Kochetkov and Belgian fascist Luc Michel teach Eastern Europe about democracy
https://www.compromat.ru/page_20454.htm

Borotba and Surkov: documentary evidence of cooperation
https://medium.com/@bidin/боротьба-и-сурков-документальные-подтверждения-сотрудничества-d4e1cafce7b6

Von Borot'ba vermittelte Nazi-Veranstaltung abgesagt - wann distanziert sich DIE LINKE?
https://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/117549

How Stas and Nastya were killed
The public execution of lawyer Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasia Baburova took place on 19 January 2009
https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2011/01/18/7259-kak-ubivali-stasa-i-nastyu

A rare Russian nationalism: Structures, ideas, faces
https://www.sova-center.ru/files/books/rb09-text.pdf

11 friends of BORN
https://zona.media/article/2015/01/19/11-druzey-born

Professional traitors: Ponomarev and Baranovsky.
https://ssmirnoff.livejournal.com/3942446.html

The phenomenon of left-wing politics in Ukraine: the pro-Russian trail and Akhmetov
https://bykvu.com/ua/mysli/30273-fenomen-levoj-politiki-v-ukraine-prorossijskij-sled-i-akhmetov

The New Chlestakov, or the extraordinary career of pioneer Ilya Ponomarev
http://left.ru/2005/7/burtsev124.html 

Left Front
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Левый_фронт_%28Россия%29

The Man with the Trident The story of Ilya Ponomarev, a former Russian opposition activist who is trying to become a Ukrainian oil tycoon
https://meduza.io/feature/2019/09/20/chelovek-s-trezubtsem

Alexander Zakharchenko
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Wladimirowitsch_Sachartschenko

Zakhar Prilepin: We don't know when SVO will end. But we know where - in Kyiv.
https://www.pnp.ru/politics/zakhar-prilepin-kogda-zakonchitsya-svo-neizvestno-zato-izvestno-gde-v-kieve.html

Zakhar Prilepin's headquarters
https://srzapravdu.org/shtab

Communist Party of the Russian Federation
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Коммунистическая_партия_Российской_Федерации

The emptiness of pacifism
https://rabkor.ru/columns/debates/2014/06/19/emptiness/

The Russian socialist movement
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Российское_социалистическое_движение

Polityka
MINSK ANTI-WAR CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
https://liva.com.ua/minsk-peace-conference.html

The special operation in Ukraine must end with the rebirth of the Soviet Union (Udaltsov)
https://svpressa.ru/blogs/article/329884

Ukraine's UWO is not about seizing foreign territory at all (Razvozjaev)
https://svpressa.ru/blogs/article/352488

"Tell me who your friend is". A little about Alexei Sakhnin and his defenders
https://www.nihilist.li/2015/03/19/skazhi-mne-kto-tvoj-drug-nemnogo-ob-aleksee-sahnine-i-ego-zashhitnikah/

Such spontaneous
https://www.shiitman.ninja/2014/11/17/takie-spontanny-e-2/

Correspondence between Alexei Sakhnin and Alexei Gaskarov
https://web.archive.org/web/20141001110631/rosuznik.org/letters/1736

"No vision for the future but Russianness"
https://doxa.team/articles/renaissance-school

Responding to Grigory Yudin. "Neoliberal capitalism" and the tragedy of February 24
http://smartpowerjournal.ru/210722/ 

The Liberal Democrat Party called the participants in Operation Z heroes: Look harder and chin higher!
https://life-ru.turbopages.org/life.ru/s/p/1475179

What to do after the victorious conclusion of the special operation in Ukraine?
https://spravedlivo.ru/12039010

Europe's Red Side
Events in Ukraine through the eyes of the European Left
https://inosmi.ru/20150428/227749095.html

THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE "PINK" PUTINISTS IS NOW OFFICIAL
https://site.ua/vitalii.kulik/bankrutstvo-rozevix-putinistiv-teper-vze-oficiino-i01jqq5

Against Russian Imperialism
https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article7597

The Marker Group monitors far-right violence in Ukraine annually. There are questions about its funding and methodology - Zabona has looked into them
https://zaborona.com/ru/gruppa-marker-ezhegodno-monitorit-ultrapravoe-nasilie-v-ukraine-est-voprosy-k-ee-finansirovaniyu-i-metodologii/

National Bolshevism on the bones of Rosa Luxemburg
https://www.nihilist.li/2015/12/28/natsional-bol-shevizm-na-kostyah-rozy-lyuksemburg/

Wagenknecht calls for security union with Russia
https://www.dw.com/en/german-opposition-leader-calls-for-security-union-with-russia-dissolution-of-nato/a-37154925

RADIO MOSKAU IM BUNDESTAG: AfD-Mann Petr Bystron greift in Panzer-Debatte Union und USA massiv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4xqceUaQgc

Political Parties and Organisations of Foreign Countries
Book The Right Door on the Left. The German Radical Left and the Revolution and War in Ukraine
https://www.yakaboo.ua/ua/pravi-dveri-zliva-nimec-ka-radikal-na-livicja-i-revoljucija-ta-vijna-v-ukraini-2013-2018-rr-1884116.html

Merkel rechnet mit Putin ab
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article134737882/Merkel-rechnet-mit-Putin-ab.html

European Parliament resolution of 4 February 2016 on the human rights situation in Crimea, in particular of the Crimean Tatars
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0043_EN.html?fbclid=IwAR1D49yjSCFmjQli53pFDp22ydFStiEOYVmkaiD822xoSsJMY9rFkOwGV40

REPORT on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council providing further macro-financial assistance to Ukraine
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0183_EN.html?fbclid=IwAR2N4hyFTPZtkBQ38Rp_po5-8w510P2C7yatevtF4lMNwACEcC50MaFyAts

International observers in Yalta: Everything is peaceful and democratic
https://www.3654.ru/news/495743/mezdunarodnye-nabludateli-v-alte-vse-prohodit-mirno-i-demokraticno

German Die Linke delegation visits right-wing terrorists in Eastern Ukraine
https://euromaidanpress.com/2015/02/19/german-die-linke-delegation-visits-right-wing-terrorists-eastern-ukraine/

Greek left-wing SYRIZA forms a coalition with the pro-Kremlin far right
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2015/01/greek-left-wing-syriza-forms-coalition.html 

Ukraine is run by "miserable" Jews, says rebel leader
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4622200,00.html

Pro-Russian network behind the anti-Ukrainian defamation campaign
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2014/02/pro-russian-network-behind-anti.html 

Andrey Gunko is an accomplice to the imperialist policies of the Kremlin and an enemy of the workers' movement
https://livasprava.livejournal.com/1087038.html

German MP who supported Crimea's annexation is on trial for election fraud
https://ru.krymr.com/a/29191535.html

"Human rights in Ukraine: the current situation"
28/11/2015

An international round table with this title was held at the Central House of Journalists in Moscow. It was organised by the Union of Political Emigrants and Political Prisoners of Ukraine and the Union of Journalists of Moscow with the support of the Moscow branch of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.
http://web.archive.org/web/20160806001042/www.rosalux.ru/ru/topical/item/114-prava-cheloveka-v-ukraine-sovremennoe-polozhenie.html 

Russisch-Ukrainischer Krieg
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russisch-Ukrainischer_Krieg

Auswärtiges Amt
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auswärtiges_Amt

Pressemitteilungen von Andrej Hunko
Forschungskooperation mit Russland in Arktis wiederaufnehmen!
https://andrej-hunko.de/en/press/5482-forschungskooperation-mit-russland-in-arktis-wiederaufnehmen

Andrey Hunko said it was necessary to find a way for Crimea to be officially recognised as part of Russian territory.
https://ria.ru/20150526/1066511415.html

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT
„Hilfsgelder für die Ukraine stoppen“
https://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/sahra-wagenknecht-marktloesung-und-ukraine-krise/9872782-5.html

Wagenknecht warnt vor „atomarem Inferno“ in Europa
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article238401683/Waffenlieferungen-Sahra-Wagenknecht-warnt-vor-atomarem-Inferno-in-Europa.html

Lieferung von Kampfpanzern an die Ukraine bleibt strittig
https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2023/kw03-de-ukraine-kampfpanzer-929556?enodia=eyJleHAiOjE2NzQ3NjUzNDQsImNvbnRlbnQiOnRydWUsImF1ZCI6ImF1dGgiLCJIb3N0Ijoid3d3LmJ1bmRlc3RhZy5kZSIsIlNvdXJjZUlQIjoiMzEuMTQ2LjY4LjU1IiwiQ29uZmlnSUQiOiI4ZGFkY2UxMjVmZDJjMzkzMmI5NDNiNTJlOWQyY2Q2NTA1NzU0ZTE2MjIxMmEyY2UxYmI1YWYxNWMwZDRiYmZlIn0=.QNvFXK6ZInlYRLA-SHYiBeKduSKVgO2WX-dykJ9HUEo=

The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation has admitted that its policy in Ukraine was wrong. What will happen next?
https://www.nihilist.li/2022/03/27/fond-rozi-ljuksemburg-viznav-pomilkovist-svoiei-politiki-v-ukraini-dali-bude/

We Were Wrong
https://www.rosalux.de/en/news/id/46118/we-were-wrong

Socialist change is the key to victory for the people of Russia! Resolution of the 8th Congress of the Left Front
https://leftpenza.ru/news/socialisticheskie_peremeny_zalog_pobedy_naroda_rossii_postanovlenie_viii_sezda_levogo_fronta/2022-12-25-3881

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
Tips from an occult Islamist in Novorossia
https://gurianov-pavel.livejournal.com/50763.html

The Ukrainian (counter)revolution and the renegade Kagarlitsky
https://fraza.com/analytics/195498-ukrainskaja_kontrrevoljutsija_i_renegat_kagarlitskij

Slavic unity
https://web.archive.org/web/20121220073047/http://www.slav-edinstvo.info:80

Wannabe zimmerwalds, tragedy and farce
https://www.nihilist.li/2014/06/11/wannabe-tsimmerval-dtsy-tragediya-i-fars/

Stop the war in Ukraine!
Resolution of the anti-war conference held 7-8 June near Minsk
https://scepsis.net/library/id_3584.html

Statement of the Left and Anarchist Organisations of Ukraine on the Borotba Association (Ukrainian, Russian)
http://avtonomia.net/2014/03/03/zayava-livih-i-anarhists-kih-organizatsij-ukrayini-z-privodu-obyednannya-borot-ba/ 

Once a member of the 'Coordinating Council of the Opposition', journalist, PhD in history Alexei Sakhnin visited Samara. We talked to him about the upcoming elections, political emigration, the CPRF's compromises and the main "culprit" of what will be remembered by Russians on January 23, 2021.
https://www.idelreal.org/a/31068013.html%C2%A0 

Full list of MEPs who voted against the resolution on political prisoners in Russia
https://www.tango-noir.com/2018/06/16/full-list-of-members-of-the-european-parliament-who-voted-against-the-resolution-on-political-prisoners-in-russia/

miting
http://www.left.ru/2001/22/baumgarten35.html 

Boris Kagarlitsky's silicon leftism
https://politcom.org.ua/silikonovaja-levizna-borisa-kagarlic
https://krasnoe.tv/node/20683

Kagarlitsky, war and political corruption
https://www.nihilist.li/2015/03/31/kagarlitskij-vojna-i-politicheskaya-korruptsiya/

From petty crooks to murderers. An essay on the political evolution of the Stalinists, using the example of the Borotba organisation
https://www.nihilist.li/2014/06/19/ot-melkih-moshennikov-do-ubijts-ocherk-o-politicheskoj-e-volyutsii-stalinistov-na-primere-organizatsii-borot-ba/

Parsing Surkov's leaked correspondence
https://ru.bellingcat.com/novosti/russia/2016/10/26/surkov-leaks-ru/?fbclid=IwAR3dw_MNUlT7jaJTqt8DVBHoTuJSI2-KQRKBlMMpcNRzyNSrOI0MAO759gA

Surkov's mail: what the Russian presidential aide's correspondence says
https://bykvu.com/ua/mysli/47332-pochta-surkova-o-chem-govoritsya-v-perepiske-pomoshchnika-prezidenta-rf

Wie Teile der deutschen Linken Faschisten in der Ukraine unterstützen, Teil 1: Die »ukrainische« Kampagne der Roten Hilfe im Kontext
https://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/158919/index.html#_ftnref33

Brand new life in "Novorossiya" and responsibility in the FRG
https://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/129014/index.html

Fascists in Russia's hybrid army
http://paulocanning.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-fascists-in-russias-hybrid-army.html?m=1 

Borotba 2014
https://nihilist.li/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/boba_harkov.jpg

Alexei Albu and the workers' children - And on you, like in the war
http://lj.rossia.org/users/left_unia/7145.html 

Thanks to the patriotic assistance of an SBU officer
http://lj.rossia.org/users/left_unia/7344.html?mode=reply 

Confronting conservative drift
https://www.nihilist.li/2014/03/23/protivostoyat-konservativnomu-drejfu/

How parts of the German left support fascists in Ukraine, Part 3: Comrade Mozgovoy and his "communist" ghost
https://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/164630/index.html

Fascism, esotericism, trolling. Is it fair to associate Dugin's ideas with Kremlin ideology
https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-62692348

The Other Russia by E.V. Limonov
https://www.instagram.com/drugoros/?hl=sk

9 September 2014
Boris Kagarlitsky, the Kremlin's mole in the left-wing movement (updated)
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2014/09/boris-kagarlitsky-kremlins-mole-in.html 

Navalny in an interview with Ekho Moskvy: Crimea is ours and will not become part of Ukraine
https://medialeaks.ru/navalnyjkrymnash

Two Russia vs Ukraine
https://graniru.org/opinion/m.287885.html

What is wrong with the concept of "new left-wing patriotism" in Russia​​​​​​​?
https://www.nihilist.li/2020/02/17/chto-ne-tak-s-koncepciej-novogo-levogo-patriotizma-v-rossii/

Russia activates pocket pacifists in Europe 
https://infonavigator.com.ua/analitika/rossiya-aktiviziruet-v-evrope-karmannyh-pacifistov/

ÖGB lädt Wiener Friedenstreffen unter Propagandaverdacht aus​​​​​​​
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000173561/wiener-friedenstreffen-steht-unter-propagandaverdacht?fbclid=IwAR1jL4w6o9MSD8a3rNaWVV2zevS6drs-0olJtNTP4ZHkuPc0kMvnS7OcvkI