Russia invaded Ukraine with an army much smaller than that of Ukraine and could not hope to annex the country with this force, even when combined with pro-Russian Ukrainian forces in the separated Eastern states. It would have been stupid to attempt it, and although the Western media has been keen to present the Russians as stupid, and Putin as crazy, their conduct of the war demonstrates otherwise.
Russia has already proclaimed parts of Ukraine as now part of Russia but this in itself demonstrates the intention not to annex the whole country. Those parts that it claims have populations that reflect the previous deep division in the country, and many within them will support incorporation into Russia. Many will not and many of these will have fled to areas under control of Kyiv or to Western countries while many others have gone to Russia.
Some supporters of the Ukrainian state on the left started by endorsing the maximalist and unachievable objective of recovery of the Donbas and Crimea from Russian rule. In this they were promising a forever war and far from defending Ukrainians from any oppression were in reality promoting its continuation. Some have moved away from this maximalist position in acceptance of its impossibility but done so at the cost of greater incoherence. They now want only gains from the February 2022 invasion to be overturned, which still involves war but also must involve acceptance of what they consider oppression.
This oppression derives, it is claimed, from denial of Ukraine’s right to self-determination and only the free exercise of this right can put an end to this national oppression. I have done this argument to death in many posts but will briefly recap.
Ukraine was already independent when it chose to ally with Western imperialism against Russia. From that point it surrendered its freedom of manoeuvre, and its state committed its people to suffer the consequences of advancing NATO membership, which threatened Russia. If a capitalist state employs its independence to condemn its people to war and invasion it is not its lack of independence that is the problem but the use to which it has been put.
The regime in Kyiv pursued policies that irretrievably split its own people and undermined the basis of a united Ukraine. Its nationalist project could not satisfy the ultra-nationalists predominantly in the West of the country while making their demands acceptable to many of the Russian speaking Ukrainians in the East. The invasion has only radicalised Ukrainian nationalism and make it even less capable of peacefully encompassing both.
Criminally, some socialists in Ukraine and their supporters in the West have decided that some Ukrainians matter more than others and have supported the idea that what is needed is some sort of process of decolonisation from everything Russian. Unfortunately, such a process will create as much oppression as it purports to relieve. Ukrainian nationalism is not the solution to the oppression of the Ukrainian people.
The last thing to do then is defend the Ukrainian state but to point out its role in creating the oppressive conditions that stoked division in its people, and now is attempting to impose as the natural order a state oppressive of its pro-Russian minority.
So, if not all of Ukraine is going to be annexed to Russia and the country was already divided, does this exhaust the question?
Is the issue that parts of Ukraine have been annexed by force; is this is the problem and some other means would be valid and legitimate?
Lenin quotes a previous resolution of the socialist movement that ‘a protest against annexations is nothing but recognition of the right to Self-determination”. The concept of annexation usually includes: (1) the concept of force (joining by means of force); (2) the concept of oppression by another nation (the joining of “alien” regions, etc.), and, sometimes (3) the concept of violation of the status quo. We pointed this out in the theses and this did not meet with any criticism.’
On the question of force he goes on to say that ‘Can Social-Democrats be against the use of force in general, it may be asked? Obviously not. This means that we are against annexations not because they constitute force, but for some other reason. Nor can the Social-Democrats be for the status quo. However you may twist and turn, annexation is violation of the self-determination of a nation, it is the establishment of state frontiers contrary to the will of the population.’ (Lenin, The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up)
Lenin states in another article that ‘The right of nations to self-determination means only the right to independence in a political sense, the right to free, political secession from the oppressing nation. Concretely, this political, democratic demand implies complete freedom to carry on agitation in favour of secession, and freedom to settle the question of secession by means of a referendum of the nation that desires to secede’ (The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination)
The Russian state has held referenda in annexed regions, to the derision of the West, but the West has talked and acted as if Ukraine consists of only those who support the Kyiv regime. This regime rejected the Minsk agreements that promised autonomy for Russian controlled regions within Ukrainian sovereignty, which followed only after its initial ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’ to reclaim full control was stopped by Russian and pro-Russian forces. Since the Zelensky regime has run out of democratic legitimacy by banning opposition parties, censoring the media and cancelling Presidential elections, the various warring parties have no valid claim to be fighting for democracy even of the minimal bourgeois variety.
Ukraine can only occupy Crimea by force and Russia has already incorporated regions of Ukraine by force. Russia, however, has annexed much of the East of the country, and the question of self-determination, as repeatedly argued by Lenin, is about such annexation.
This is not to make a fetish of the current internationally ‘recognised’ boundaries of Ukraine, which are drawn from the administrative boundaries of the Soviet Union, but again this simply poses the question and does not answer it. So, we will have to pursue this question.
Back to part 3
Forward to part 5
Sráid Marx 
One assumption Lenin seems to share is that democracy in the form of a referendum resolves the national question.Of course it does only in some instances and not in others. Some referendum loosers decide that democracy does not work for them and invoke self determination to turn themselves into a fate nation, the ulster unionists did this. The only way to proceed after something like the above happening is apply force to change minds. To be guided by democratic norms in politics is best but does not necessarily work out well. Politics can be viewed from the optimistic side meaning democracy, rights and persuasion will make for a good out come. Politics can also be viewed from the tragic side , that force and fraud count for more that the optimist likes to think about. Recent events highlight the above description. Socialist and others are doing their best to be optimistic about Ukraine and Palestine, yet have been crashing into a brick wall.To quote that most tragic of authors Sam Beckett : No Exit.