Skip to content

What was Lenins real position on the Ukrainian national question

Marxist Theory · 2022-02-22

Core Argument

This article argues that Lenin's position on the Ukrainian national question was fundamentally opposed to both Great-Russian chauvinism and petty-bourgeois nationalism, and that it cannot be reduced to either the Stalinist centralism that followed or the imperialist nationalism that Putin invokes today. The central thesis is that Lenin defended the unconditional right of nations to self-determination — including the right of Ukraine to separate statehood — not as an end in itself, but as a democratic demand that served the strategic unity of the international working class. The article claims that Putin's characterisation of Ukraine as "created by Lenin" is a deliberate distortion: the Bolsheviks liberated oppressed nationalities from the Tsarist "prison of nations" and built the Soviet Union as a voluntary federation, not a centralised empire. The argument is that Lenin's approach — patient, anti-chauvinist, and oriented toward winning the trust of formerly oppressed nations — stands in direct opposition to both the reactionary nationalism of the Kiev regime and the Great-Russian nationalism of Putin's project.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on Lenin's 1919 letter to the workers and peasants of Ukraine, which is itself a classic text of Marxist theory on the national question. The theoretical framework is rooted in:

  • The right of nations to self-determination as a democratic demand within the broader struggle for socialism — not as a bourgeois nationalist principle, but as a weapon against Great-Power chauvinism.
  • The distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations, which Lenin argued was fundamental to understanding national distrust and the need for the formerly dominant nation (Great Russia) to make concessions.
  • Proletarian internationalism as the overriding strategic orientation: the unity of workers across national lines is the goal, but it must be achieved through voluntary association, not coercion.
  • The critique of both Great-Russian chauvinism and petty-bourgeois nationalism as twin deviations that weaken the working class and play into the hands of the bourgeoisie.

The article situates itself within the Marxist tradition that rejects both the Stalinist distortion of the national question (which reduced self-determination to a formal right while imposing centralised control) and the opportunist capitulation to bourgeois nationalism. It aligns with the Bolshevik position that national frontiers are "a minor question" compared to the class struggle, but that this minor question must be handled with extreme care to overcome centuries of oppression.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was published on 22 February 2022 — the day after Putin's speech recognising the Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics" and launching the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The conjuncture is therefore the immediate prelude to the 2022 Russo-Ukrainian war. The article directly counters Putin's historical claim that "Ukraine was created by Lenin" — a narrative used to delegitimise Ukrainian statehood and justify Russian aggression.

The article names specific forces:

  • Putin's regime as the inheritor of Tsarist Great-Russian nationalism, not of Lenin's internationalism.
  • The Kiev government as a reactionary, imperialist-backed regime whose nationalism offers no solution to Ukrainian workers.
  • The Stalinist degeneration of the Soviet Union, which abandoned Lenin's voluntary federation for centralised bureaucratic rule — a degeneration that both Putin and Ukrainian nationalists exploit for their own ends.

The argument is that the current war is not a conflict between two nationalisms in which workers should choose sides, but a crisis of capitalism in which both camps serve the interests of their respective bourgeoisies. The task of Marxists is to defend the right of Ukrainians to self-determination while opposing all forms of national oppression — including the Great-Russian chauvinism driving Putin's invasion.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is a relatively short piece that republishes Lenin's letter with an introductory framing. It points explicitly to "notes on the Ukrainian national question" on the same site for a fuller treatment. The argument continues in:

  • Other IDOM articles on the Ukraine war, which develop the analysis of the Kiev regime's bourgeois nationalism, NATO's role, and the failure of both Russian and Ukrainian capitalism to offer a way forward for workers.
  • Against the Stream episodes covering the war, which likely expand on the conjuncture and the tasks of Marxists in the region.
  • Broader Marxist texts on the national question, including Lenin's The Right of Nations to Self-Determination (1914) and Stalin's Marxism and the National Question (1913) — the latter being a text that, while written under Lenin's guidance, was later used to justify the Stalinist distortion that the article implicitly critiques.

The article leaves underdeveloped the specific class character of the Kiev regime and the concrete tasks of Ukrainian Marxists in the current war — these are taken up in the linked notes and subsequent IDOM coverage.

Connections

  • Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination (1914) — the foundational text on the national question, distinguishing between the nationalism of oppressor and oppressed nations.
  • Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (1916) — further develops the argument in the context of imperialist war.
  • Stalin, Marxism and the National Question (1913) — written under Lenin's supervision but later distorted by Stalinist practice; useful for understanding the degeneration the article critiques.
  • Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (1936) — analysis of the Stalinist degeneration of the Soviet Union, including the national question.
  • IDOM, Ukraine: A Marxist Analysis (2022-2024) — the broader corpus of articles covering the war, the Kiev regime, and the tasks of revolutionaries.
  • Against the Stream episodes on Ukraine — for the ongoing development of the analysis in relation to events.

Key Quotes

  1. "The independence of the Ukraine has been recognised both by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee of the R.S.F.S.R. and by the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). It is therefore self-evident and generally recognised that only the Ukrainian workers and peasants themselves can and will decide at their All-Ukraine Congress of Soviets whether the Ukraine shall amalgamate with Russia, or whether she shall remain a separate and independent republic."

  2. "We want a voluntary union of nations—a union which precludes any coercion of one nation by another—a union founded on complete confidence, on a clear recognition of brotherly unity, on absolutely voluntary consent. Such a union cannot be effected at one stroke; we have to work towards it with the greatest patience and circumspection."

  3. "The question of the demarcation of frontiers now, for the time being—for we are striving towards the complete abolition of frontiers—is a minor one, it is not fundamental or important. In this matter we can afford to wait, and must wait, because the national distrust among the broad mass of peasants and small owners is often extremely tenacious, and haste might only intensify it."

  4. "We Great-Russian Communists must repress with the utmost severity the slightest manifestation in our midst of Great-Russian nationalism, for such manifestations, which are a betrayal of communism in general, cause the gravest harm by dividing us from our Ukrainian comrades and thus playing into the hands of Denikin and his regime."

  5. "He who undermines the unity and closest alliance between the Great-Russian and Ukrainian workers and peasants is helping the Kolchaks, the Denikins, the capitalist bandits of all countries."

  6. "Capital is an international force. To vanquish it, an international workers' alliance, an international workers' brotherhood, is needed."