Hubbry Logo
Union of Left ForcesUnion of Left ForcesMain
Open search
Union of Left Forces
Community hub
Union of Left Forces
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Union of Left Forces
Union of Left Forces
Union of Left Forces
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Union of Left Forces (Ukrainian: Союз лівих сил, romanized: Soyuz livykh syl; SLS) was a political party in Ukraine led by Vasyl Volha from its founding in 2007 to 2019.[2][10] The party was banned by court order on 17 June 2022.[2] The party was never represented in Ukraine's national parliament.[11]

History

[edit]

At the 2007 Ukrainian parliamentary election, the Socialist Party of Ukraine experienced a decline in support. Afterwards, Vasyl Volha left the party and created the Union of Leftists.[12] The party was founded on 8 December 2007 and its goals were empower local communities, provide state support for poor regions, stop the privatization of strategic state enterprises and the sale of agricultural land, make Ukraine geopolitically neutral and make Russian the second state language.[4]

In November 2008, the party headquarters were the target of arson. According to the party, this was connected to an action against radical nationalism in Ukraine conducted by the party in Simferopol the day before where they burned swastikas and flags of some nationalist parties.[13] The party participated in the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election as part of the Bloc of Left and Center-left Forces and supported Petro Symonenko as this bloc joint candidate for the post of President of Ukraine at the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election.[10][14] The party did not participate in the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary election,[15] as well as the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary election.[16]

In 2019, the party leader became Maksym Holdarb [ru][1][2] The party failed to register its party list for the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election.[11] Holdarb at the time was a host of Viktor Medvedchuk owned TV channel NewsOne and the KRT channel [uk; ru; de].[1][17]

At the 7th Party Congress on 18 December 2021, a decision was made to change the name to the political party For a New Socialism.[18] This name change was not officially re-registered. On 18 February 2022, in the prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Holdarb appealed through the US and UK embassies to the leadership of these countries "to compensate for the damage caused to our economy due to the military panic inspired by them".[2] Holdarb fled Kyiv at the beginning of the full-scale 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and publicly supported the war against Ukraine.[1]

On 20 March 2022, the party was one of several political parties suspended by the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with Derzhava, Left Opposition, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Opposition Platform — For Life, Party of Shariy, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, and the Volodymyr Saldo Bloc.[19] On 17 June 2022, the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal banned the party.[2] The property of the party and all its branches were transferred to the state.[2] On 29 September 2022, the final appeal against the party's ban was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, meaning that the party was fully banned in Ukraine.[5]

Ideology

[edit]

The party is considered to be left-wing and consists of former members of the Communist Party of Ukraine and Socialist Party of Ukraine. Union of Left Forces is a socialist party,[6] although political observers note the highly left-wing populist character of it.[7]

The main proposal of the party is 'socialization' of the Ukrainian economy.[9] The Union of Left Forces also opposes Ukrainian membership in NATO and instead advocates for neutrality. It is a staunch opponent of decommunization laws implemented by the Ukrainian government, which was used to prohibit and take down all symbols associated with the Soviet Union and communism. One of the party's proposals is also to recognize Russian language as the second official language of Ukraine.[8]

A unique proposal of the party is to create a "common security space" which would include both Russia and the European Union that Ukraine could be a part of. The party also advocates decentralization and believes that Ukraine should become a federalized country, where regions would be given extensive autonomy, especially in the matters of defining cultural policy - according to the party leader, this would allow to accommodate not only Russian-speaking Eastern regions, but also regions with their separate cultures such as Carpathian Ruthenia, Polesia and Crimea. The party also argues that Ukraine should implement the European Charter of regional and minority languages.[9]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Union of Left Forces

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Union of Left Forces (Ukrainian: Союз лівих сил, SLS) was a minor socialist political party in , founded on 8 December 2007 and officially registered on 28 January 2008. Initially led by Vasyl Volha, the party later saw leadership changes, including Maxim Golyardov as head. It positioned itself as a proponent of "new socialism," focusing on socio-economic reforms to combat inequality, oligarchic control, and capitalist exploitation. The party's ideology emphasized with socialist principles, advocating for workers' rights, opposition to neoliberal policies, and a neutral foreign policy for , including resistance to membership. Despite these stances, SLS achieved negligible electoral success, remaining on the fringes of Ukrainian politics without securing parliamentary representation. In 2021, it rebranded as the "For New Socialism" party, though this did not alter its marginal status. SLS faced significant controversy during Russia's 2022 invasion of , when it was accused by Ukrainian authorities of pro-Russian affiliations and activities undermining national . On 17 June 2022, the Eighth Appellate banned the party at the request of the Ministry of Justice, a ruling upheld by the Supreme Court's Cassation in September 2022. The dissolution reflected broader efforts to prohibit entities perceived as threats amid wartime conditions, though critics from leftist perspectives argued it exemplified suppression of domestic opposition voices.

History

Founding and Early Years (2007–2013)

The Union of Left Forces was established on December 8, 2007, during its founding congress in , where Vasyl Volha, a former member of the , was elected as the party's chairman. The organization aimed to consolidate fragmented left-wing groups into a unified socialist populist force, positioning itself as an alternative to established communist and socialist entities. Officially registered by the on January 28, 2008, under registration certificate No. 146, the party focused initially on promoting and economic equity. In its early platform, the party advocated for empowering local communities through decentralized governance, providing state support to underdeveloped regions, halting the of strategic enterprises, and combating to curb oligarchic influence. These objectives reflected opposition to neoliberal economic policies perceived as exacerbating inequality, with emphasis on and anti-oligarch campaigns as core tenets. The party's ultimate goal was articulated as transforming into a robust social state prioritizing maximum social welfare protections. During 2007–2013, the Union of Left Forces experienced limited organizational expansion, primarily active in and , where it established regional branches, including a Crimean in 2009. It participated in local political efforts but secured no seats in national parliamentary elections, reflecting marginal electoral support amid a fragmented left-wing spectrum. Early activities centered on advocacy against perceived erosions of social protections, such as protests related to reforms and drives, though the party remained on the periphery of major national movements.

Post-Euromaidan Activities (2014–2021)

Following the 2014 Revolution of Dignity, the Union of Left Forces, under leader Vasyl Volha, denounced the events as a Western-orchestrated , alleging direct U.S. involvement including a $1 million bribe offer from then-U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt to secure support for the protests. The party positioned itself as advocating socialist alternatives to the emerging pro-European Union governments, emphasizing the need for amid perceived of state institutions post-revolution. The organization engaged in protests against decommunization laws enacted in 2015, which mandated the removal of Soviet-era monuments and renaming of public spaces, viewing these measures as anti-democratic assaults on historical memory and minority rights. Volha publicly defended Soviet symbols and called for localized people's councils—akin to workers' councils—to grant communities, including ethnic Russians, greater autonomy in cultural and symbolic policies, arguing that top-down erasure fueled division rather than reconciliation. Party attempts to hold public meetings in various cities were frequently disrupted by right-wing groups or local authorities, contributing to a decline in visibility and operational challenges amid rising nationalist sentiments. In , internal leadership transitioned when the party's fifth congress on November 2 elected Maksym Goldarb as chairman, replacing Volha amid strategic discussions on navigating restrictions, though specific debates on ideological shifts remain undocumented in public records. The Union of Left Forces sought to contest the July 21 parliamentary elections but failed to secure registration for its candidate list in the nationwide multi-member district, effectively excluding it from participation and underscoring its marginal electoral standing. This barred entry reflected broader barriers faced by small leftist formations, with the party registering zero seats and limited single-mandate candidates who garnered negligible support.

Final Years and Escalating Tensions (2021–2022)

In late 2021, the Union of Left Forces underwent a at its VII on December 18, renaming itself "For New Socialism" to emphasize a revitalized socialist agenda tailored to contemporary Ukrainian challenges, including and opposition to neoliberal policies. This shift reflected internal discussions on adapting traditional left-wing principles to address perceived failures of post-Maidan governance, with Maxim Goldarb highlighting the need for socialist solutions amid rising social tensions. As Russia's military buildup along Ukraine's borders escalated in early 2022, the party issued statements advocating for Ukraine's neutral status and rejecting expansion, positioning these as prerequisites for and avoiding conflict. On January 31, 2022, the party published an official declaration urging to "calm down and not succumb to panic," dismissing Western warnings of imminent as exaggerated and calling for diplomatic resolution over militarization. These positions aligned the party with other left-leaning groups skeptical of integration, amplifying anti-war rhetoric that critiqued the Zelenskyy administration's alignment with Western security policies as provocative and domestically repressive. On February 18, 2022, Goldarb appealed via U.S. and U.K. embassies for compensation to for economic damages attributed to "anti-Russian hysteria" stoked by those governments, framing it as a call to prioritize neutrality and economic stability over escalation. Such pronouncements intensified government scrutiny, portraying the party's advocacy as undermining national unity amid heightened geopolitical risks.

Leadership and Organization

Key Figures and Leadership Transitions

Vasyl Volha founded the Union of Left Forces on December 8, 2007, during the party's inaugural congress, where he was elected as its first chairman. A veteran socialist activist and former Ukrainian parliamentarian, Volha had previously served as a deputy in the and led efforts to unite leftist groups, including participation in the 2009 Bloc of Left and Left-Center Forces alongside the . His leadership emphasized traditional socialist principles, such as workers' rights and opposition to neoliberal reforms, while maintaining the party's commitment to Ukraine's amid regional tensions. On November 2, 2019, at the party's fifth congress, Volha was succeeded by Maxim Goldarb as chairman, marking a transition amid the party's evolving focus on anti- and national neutrality. Goldarb, a lawyer, former television host on channels associated with opposition figures, and founder of the Public Audit civic movement, shifted emphasis toward pragmatic populism, criticizing Ukraine's alignment with Western military blocs and calling for compensation from members for alleged economic damages. This change reflected internal adaptations to geopolitical pressures without documented schisms, as the party continued mobilizing against perceived foreign influences. Prominent regional figures under Goldarb's tenure included coordinators like Anton Lur'ye in and others tasked with local mobilization, particularly in eastern regions such as Lugansk, where the party organized anti-militarization campaigns drawing on socialist networks. These leaders facilitated efforts, though the party's eastern operations faced scrutiny for alleged ties to pro-Russian sentiments, which Goldarb attributed to broader opposition to expansion rather than alignment with . No major internal fractures emerged during these transitions, with leadership changes prioritizing continuity in leftist opposition to Ukraine's post-Euromaidan foreign policy trajectory.

Internal Structure and Membership

The Union of Left Forces maintained a hierarchical yet decentralized organizational framework, with central statutory bodies comprising the party congress as the highest authority, the chairman, the political council (politrad), its , the executive committee, and the central control commission responsible for oversight and discipline. Local and regional organizations operated under this structure to facilitate activities, though the party's scale remained constrained, evidenced by only five registered separate subdivisions as of 2020. Membership figures underscored the party's limited reach, with reports indicating a recruitment drive yielding 1,500 new members during a period of heightened activity, suggesting a peak total well below 10,000 nationwide. The political council itself consisted of 23 members, reflecting modest leadership cadres. Coordination emphasized informal networks, including platforms for communication, amid chronic shortages of dedicated and physical , which hindered expansive operations. Regional branches exhibited uneven development, with stronger presence in eastern industrial areas tied to traditional leftist voter bases, but overall, the absence of formalized auxiliary groups—such as dedicated or women's organizations—contributed to a narrow dominated by older, Russian-speaking participants. This setup aligned with broader patterns among Ukraine's smaller leftist formations, prioritizing ideological continuity over institutional expansion.

Ideology and Policy Positions

Core Socialist and Populist Elements

The Union of Left Forces proclaimed "new socialism" as its core , with the explicit aim of reshaping into a social state defined by justice, prosperity, and equitable resource distribution. This vision positioned the party as a proponent of expanded state intervention in the to rectify disparities arising from private capital concentration, emphasizing mechanisms over unfettered market dynamics. Economically, the party's doctrine centered on the of Ukraine's , advocating for public control of strategic industries such as and heavy to curb oligarchic dominance, which it identified as a direct causal factor in wealth inequality and social stagnation. This approach sought to facilitate progressive taxation, land reforms favoring communal use, and reinvestment of nationalized assets into public infrastructure, thereby enabling systemic redistribution without relying on foreign capital inflows. Such policies were framed as essential countermeasures to capitalist exploitation, prioritizing worker cooperatives and state planning to stabilize and output. Populist dimensions infused the party's appeals, targeting working-class constituencies through promises of bolstered social protections, including universal healthcare expansion, pension enhancements, and a raised indexed to productivity gains. These pledges often leveraged rhetorical critiques of corruption and post-Soviet privatization failures to mobilize support, employing social demagogy to highlight immediate grievances like wage stagnation amid . While eschewing revolutionary upheaval, the framework invoked historical socialist models adapted to contemporary Ukrainian conditions, favoring participatory "people's power" structures—such as expanded labor councils—over purely representative liberal institutions, which the party viewed as susceptible to plutocratic capture.

Foreign Policy and Neutrality Advocacy

The Union of Left Forces advocated for Ukraine's adoption of a non-aligned, neutral status in international affairs, explicitly opposing membership in as a threat to sovereignty and framing it as alignment with Western geopolitical interests that could provoke conflict with . Party leaders, including former head Vasyl Volha, emphasized "active neutrality" as a core principle, drawing parallels to Switzerland's model of armed without formal alliances, which they argued would preserve Ukraine's amid great-power rivalries. This stance was reflected in organized protests against NATO expansion and resolutions calling for rejection of bloc obligations, positioning neutrality as a bulwark against "imperialist" encroachments from both East and West, though critics noted its practical effect of accommodating Russian security demands by limiting Ukraine's defensive partnerships. Prior to the 2022 Russian invasion, the party promoted adherence to the of 2014 and 2015 as a pathway to in , criticizing successive Ukrainian governments for alleged non-implementation and advocating diplomatic engagement with to fulfill terms, special status for the regions, and measures outlined therein. In a 2015 statement, party representatives condemned Kyiv's approach to as obstructive, urging renewed negotiations to avert broader war, which aligned with their broader anti-militarization rhetoric against arming Ukrainian forces in the east. Such positions were articulated in party platforms and public appeals, including a January 2022 call for and restraint amid troop buildups, rejecting escalation via Western military support as counterproductive to peaceful resolution. The party's foreign policy rhetoric emphasized multipolarity and equitable relations with major powers, opposing EU association agreements as economically subordinating and culturally disruptive, while favoring trade ties with Eurasian structures like the to counterbalance Western influence. This selective neutrality—anti-war in tone but accommodating toward Russian narratives on spheres of influence—was evident in resolutions against foreign to pre-invasion, which they linked to heightened tensions rather than deterrence, though empirical outcomes post-2014 showed such hedging correlated with stalled reforms and persistent conflict in . Ukrainian authorities later cited these views as undermining , leading to the party's activities suspension in March 2022 under provisions targeting entities seen as abetting aggression.

Domestic Social and Economic Views

The Union of Left Forces promoted the of Ukraine's through expanded state intervention in strategic sectors, aiming to reverse the effects of rapid that had concentrated wealth among oligarchs since the 1990s. The party's program called for of economic authority, transferring decision-making on and local development to territorial communities and regional bodies to foster and reduce central bureaucratic inefficiencies. Economically, the party opposed IMF-mandated programs, which it viewed as externally imposed conditions that deepened social disparities; for instance, loan agreements since required reforms and subsidy cuts, correlating with a rise in Ukraine's rate to 24.4% by 2020. Instead, it favored protectionist policies to shield domestic industries from global competition, prioritizing job preservation in and agriculture over rapid EU integration, which had led to closures and agricultural export dependencies. On social issues, the Union of Left Forces endorsed bilingualism as a practical measure for Ukraine's linguistic diversity, with its program explicitly advocating official status for both Ukrainian and Russian to accommodate Russian-speaking populations in eastern and southern regions, countering policies perceived as coercive that risked alienating 30% of the populace identifying Russian as their primary language in 2001 censuses. This stance reflected a commitment to grounded in demographic realities rather than uniform nationalization. The party maintained socially conservative positions on family matters, emphasizing traditional structures and state support for child-rearing to counteract declining birth rates—Ukraine's fertility rate fell to 1.16 by —while diverging from Western leftist emphases on expansive individual rights agendas. It critiqued rapid in social norms as disconnected from Ukraine's rural and working-class values, advocating policies like expanded maternity benefits over ideological shifts in family definitions.

Electoral Participation

Contested Elections and Campaigns

The Union of Left Forces participated in the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary elections by fielding candidates in single-mandate districts and submitting a party list to the Central Election Commission. The campaign highlighted socialist economic policies alongside critiques of in the post-Euromaidan political establishment, aiming to appeal to voters disillusioned with mainstream parties. Candidates included figures nominated in regions like , focusing on local issues through public engagements to build grassroots support. In preparation for the 2019 snap parliamentary elections, the party submitted a candidate list led by Vasyl Volha but faced rejection from the due to insufficient financial deposits—only 41 UAH provided against the required multimillion-hryvnia amount—prompting unsuccessful legal challenges. The proposed platform continued to stress leftist reforms, including demands for wealth redistribution and opposition to oligarchic influence, while seeking alliances with minor socialist groups to consolidate fragmented left-wing votes. The party did not contest the 2012 parliamentary elections independently, opting instead for localized efforts and block formations with other small leftist entities to amplify visibility in regional races. Campaign strategies across participations relied on rallies and media outreach targeting industrial and working-class demographics, promoting populist narratives against neoliberal policies without overcoming procedural or structural barriers to broader contention.

Performance Outcomes and Voter Base

The Union of Left Forces has never secured seats in the across parliamentary election cycles from 2007 onward, consistently failing to meet the 5% national threshold for or win majoritarian districts. In the 2012 elections, its vote share hovered below 0.5% nationally, with slightly elevated results under 1% in eastern oblasts like and , where pro-Russian sentiments were stronger. The party was denied registration for the 2019 snap elections, precluding participation amid heightened scrutiny of pro-Russian entities. Its voter base was narrowly concentrated among pensioners, industrial workers in declining eastern manufacturing sectors, and Russian-speaking communities skeptical of and cultural shifts following the 2014 Revolution. Support drew from demographics favoring Soviet-era social protections and opposing integration, often overlapping with electorates of larger pro-Russian parties. Electoral underperformance stemmed from the left-wing vote's fragmentation across competing socialist factions, including the and , which diluted collective shares below viable thresholds. Limited exposure, amid institutional biases favoring pro-Western narratives, restricted outreach beyond niche audiences, while larger entities like the captured broader pro-Russian support with superior resources and organization.

Controversies and Criticisms

Allegations of Pro-Russian Alignment

Ukrainian security services and the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) have alleged that the Union of Left Forces promoted narratives aligned with Kremlin interests, including claims that Ukraine oppresses Russian-speaking citizens and fails to implement the Minsk agreements on Donbas, thereby justifying Russian intervention. In a January 2022 statement, party representatives urged citizens to "calm down" amid fears of Russian invasion, asserting that "war won't happen" and dismissing escalation risks, a position that mirrored Russian denials of aggressive intent shortly before the full-scale invasion. Former party leader Vasyl Volha appeared on Russian state television in 2019, framing NATO exercises in Estonia as aggression against Russia, echoing Moscow's portrayal of Western military activities as provocative. Further evidence includes direct by affiliates during the occupation. Oleksandr Saulenko, a pre-invasion member of the Union of Left Forces, assumed the role of "mayor" in Russian-occupied in March 2022, facilitating administrative control under Moscow's forces and participating in efforts such as registering marriages in occupied facilities. Saulenko was sentenced in absentia to 15 years in prison by a Ukrainian court in March 2023 for treasonous . Subsequent party leadership, including Maksym Holdarb—who hosted programs on channels owned by pro-Russian oligarch —faced suspicions from the (SBU) for advancing Moscow-aligned propaganda. The party has countered these allegations by framing its stances on Ukrainian neutrality and opposition to expansion as principled , consistent with socialist critiques of Western military alliances rather than endorsement of Russian actions. However, Ukrainian intelligence assessments, underpinning the NSDC's March 2022 sanctions and the Supreme Court's June 2022 prohibition, classified the group as a vector for Russian influence due to these positions' utility in undermining national unity amid threats. No verified evidence of direct funding from eastern donors has emerged, but the alignment of rhetoric and individual collaborations has sustained suspicions of indirect ties to pro-Kremlin networks.

Opposition to Ukrainian Integration Efforts

The Union of Left Forces resisted Ukraine's efforts to deepen integration with Western institutions, including the signed in 2014, framing such alignments as subservience to capitalist that would erode national economic . Party leader Maxim Goldarb criticized the post-Maidan government's pivot toward Euro-Atlantic structures, describing the Zelensky administration as "NATO-backed" and implying that EU-oriented reforms perpetuated oligarchic control under Western auspices. This stance echoed broader socialist critiques of the agreement's provisions, which opponents argued would flood Ukrainian markets with goods, devastate local and industry, and enforce measures via IMF-linked conditions, though empirical on post-agreement trade shows mixed outcomes with Ukraine's exports to the rising from 33% of total in to over 40% by 2021 despite wartime disruptions. Critics contended that this ideological opposition constituted obstruction to Ukraine's strategic realignment away from Russian influence, particularly as the Association Agreement facilitated reforms in , trade, and aligned with standards, strengthening resilience against hybrid threats. Security analyses linked such resistance to pro-Russian narratives that portrayed integration as "economic colonization," potentially amplifying Moscow's campaigns to fracture consensus on Western partnerships. The party's low electoral viability—failing to meet deposit thresholds in prior contests and garnering negligible support—underscored its marginalization, with groups and analysts viewing its rhetoric as inadvertently bolstering adversarial efforts to maintain Ukrainian neutrality. By 2022, amid Russia's full-scale , the Union of Left Forces' persistent advocacy for neutrality and critique of /EU ties contributed to perceptions of it as a vector for internal division, culminating in its prohibition on March 20 alongside ten other parties under decrees citing threats to and justification of aggression. Official rationales emphasized that these groups' activities, including opposition to defensive integration, undermined during existential conflict, leading to asset seizures and leader prosecutions; Goldarb himself faced charges and went underground, highlighting the empirical cost of perceived alignment with revanchist elements over empirical security gains from Western cooperation.

Internal and External Critiques

A assessment by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung characterized the Union of Left Forces as a marginal ultra-populist formation reliant on social demagogy to solicit support, rather than advancing substantive social-democratic programs, which contributed to its peripheral role within broader left coalitions like the Bloc of Left and Left-Center Forces. This populist orientation, emphasizing radical critiques of and alignments, engendered internal strategic tensions over electability; the party's refusal to moderate its neutrality advocacy amid post-2014 polarization limited membership expansion and voter outreach, perpetuating stagnant organizational development without documented major schisms but evident in its consistent underperformance. External evaluations from European left-leaning publications have dismissed the party's framework as derivative of Soviet-era or tepid , ill-adapted to Ukraine's geopolitical constraints and overly accommodating to Russian influences under anti-imperialist guise. Rival domestic progressive factions, such as Sotsialnyi Rukh, implicitly contrast their advocacy for social reforms alongside national resistance with the Union of Left Forces' equidistant stance, portraying the latter as causally enfeebled by opportunistic eschewal of anti-authoritarian consistency—opposing domestic "fascism" while downplaying Moscow's suppression of dissent and . These assessments underscore how the party's ideological rigidity, viewing Ukrainian right-leaning integrationists as betrayers of proletarian interests, alienated potential allies and reinforced perceptions of irrelevance in a security-focused .

Prelude to Prohibition Measures

On March 20, 2022, four days after Russia's declaration of the and "people's republics" as independent and amid the ongoing full-scale invasion launched on February 24, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC), under President , suspended the activities of 11 , including the Union of Left Forces, until the end of . This executive action invoked Article 5 of Ukraine's law on , allowing temporary restrictions on organizations deemed to threaten during wartime, with the suspensions justified by evidence of the parties' ties to Russian interests and potential for collaboration with invading forces. The decision marked a shift from peacetime democratic norms to heightened security protocols necessitated by the existential threat of Russian aggression, where empirical assessments of fifth-column risks—such as coordinated and political —outweighed unrestricted partisan operations. Pre-invasion from Ukraine's Security Service had flagged several leftist and opposition groups, including those with Soviet-nostalgic platforms like the Union of Left Forces, for amplifying Kremlin-aligned narratives on "provocation" and the as a rather than . Such monitoring stemmed from statutes like the 2021 law on countering threats to information space, which targeted systematic dissemination of pro-Russian without prior judicial bans. In the days preceding the suspension, Union of Left Forces spokespersons reiterated calls for to abandon aspirations in favor of strict neutrality and immediate negotiations with , framing resistance as escalation rather than defense—a stance officials linked to undermining troop morale and amid active combat. These positions, echoed in party statements and limited protests in , aligned with broader patterns of opposition rhetoric that attributed to indirect support for Moscow's objectives, prompting the preemptive halt to organized activities to mitigate internal destabilization risks during the invasion's critical early phase.

Court Proceedings and Official Rationale

On June 17, 2022, the Eighth Administrative of Appeal of issued a decision satisfying the claim filed by the , prohibiting the activities of the Union of Left Forces . The court determined that the party's charter, program documents, and public statements by its leaders contained provisions justifying and recognizing the legitimacy of Russia's armed aggression against , disseminating aligned with the aggressor state, and denying 's over its . These elements were cited as violating Article 15 of the , which mandates the protection of the state's and , and Article 21 of the Law on of (No. 2365-III), which permits the prohibition of parties engaging in anti-constitutional activities. The proceedings were expedited under provisions enacted following Russia's full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, allowing for the judicial termination of parties whose actions undermined . Exhibits included excerpts from the party's foundational documents and resolutions that promoted narratives consistent with Russian imperial policy and opposed Ukraine's , as evidenced by specific program clauses advocating for policies that effectively supported the aggressor's objectives. The court ordered the transfer of the party's property, assets, and regional branches to , emphasizing the measure's necessity to prevent further dissemination of subversive materials. The Union of Left Forces appealed the decision to the of Ukraine's Administrative Cassation Court. On September 29, 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's ruling and confirming the ban as a proportionate response to threats against Ukraine's constitutional order. The final judgment affirmed that the prohibition served to safeguard national sovereignty without viable alternatives, given the documented evidence of the party's alignment with pro-aggression rhetoric. By the end of 2022, the party's formal dissolution was completed, with no further legal challenges succeeding.

Immediate Aftermath and Broader Implications

Following the National Security and Defense Council's decision on March 20, 2022, to suspend the activities of the Union of Left Forces alongside ten other parties suspected of ties to , the Ukrainian government moved swiftly to enforce the measure amid the ongoing Russian invasion. Party offices were closed, and operations halted immediately, with the (SBU) initiating investigations into members for potential collaboration. A court formalized the ban on June 17, 2022, ordering the dissolution of the party's legal entity and transferring its assets to state control, mirroring actions against other prohibited groups like the . Party leader Maxim Goldarb, who had assumed leadership prior to the invasion, faced personal repercussions including travel restrictions and SBU scrutiny, prompting him to issue international appeals denouncing the ban as politically motivated persecution targeting anti-war socialists. Goldarb relocated abroad shortly after the suspension, using platforms like interviews with leftist outlets to claim that the measures silenced opposition to expansion and militarization without evidence of direct by party members. Other affiliates reported asset seizures and informal blacklisting, though no mass arrests of rank-and-file members occurred in the initial months. Ukrainian authorities, including President , justified the actions as essential wartime precautions against internal threats, citing documented pro-Russian statements and funding links from the parties' platforms that could undermine national defense. In contrast, international leftist critics, such as Trotskyist groups, framed the bans as an authoritarian consolidation of power, arguing they exemplified democratic erosion by equating anti-imperialist with , though these critiques often overlooked the parties' historical opposition to EU integration and neutrality stances amid invasion. Domestic pro-government voices emphasized that the measures prevented fifth-column activities, with public support polls in showing over 80% approval for heightened security protocols during . In the ensuing year, no organized resurgence of the Union of Left Forces materialized, as remaining sympathizers shifted to informal networks or abstained from public activity under restrictions, empirically reinforcing a pro-Western political consensus that prioritized unity against Russian over ideological pluralism. This short-term consolidation sidelined leftist critiques of the , channeling toward centrist and nationalist factions aligned with accession goals, without evidence of electoral backlash in subsequent local votes.

Legacy and Impact

Influence on Left-Wing Politics in Ukraine

The Union of Left Forces (ULF), through its advocacy for neutral foreign policy and opposition to NATO integration, underscored the electoral marginalization of Ukraine's organized left-wing spectrum prior to its 2022 suspension. Left-leaning parties, including those with socialist platforms, consistently polled below 5% in national elections since 2014, reflecting a broader decline driven by decommunization laws, public aversion to Soviet nostalgia, and the ascendancy of pro-European and nationalist blocs. This irrelevance was exacerbated by ULF's reliance on social demagoguery rather than substantive policy innovation, failing to build a viable voter base amid economic oligarchic dominance and post-Maidan polarization. The events surrounding ULF contributed to accelerated fragmentation within Ukraine's left, as its suppression alongside other pro-Russian-leaning groups prompted surviving socialist-identifying activists to either integrate into mainstream patriotic frameworks or retreat into informal networks. Post-2022, no formal left-wing party has regained parliamentary representation, with residual leftist discourse shifting toward critiques of wartime inequality rather than structured opposition. This dynamic absorbed potential socialist voters into centrist or nationalist parties emphasizing national resilience, further diluting ideological coherence on the left. By establishing a for curtailing organizations perceived as Moscow-aligned, ULF's trajectory narrowed the operational space for domestic , equating anti-integration stances with security threats and deterring independent class-based organizing. Genuine non-aligned leftist initiatives, such as labor-focused NGOs, have persisted but remain electorally negligible, constrained by heightened scrutiny of any narrative challenging unified war efforts. Intellectually, ULF left a limited legacy in highlighting oligarchic capture of state institutions—a echoed in sporadic leftist analyses—but these have been overshadowed by existential imperatives, rendering socialist alternatives peripheral to Ukraine's political . Such has found more traction in international leftist circles debating than in domestic forums, where pragmatic governance prevails over ideological revival.

Debates on Democratic Norms and Security

Supporters of the ban on the Union of Left Forces argued that during an active invasion, national security imperatives supersede abstract commitments to political pluralism when parties demonstrate patterns of alignment with the aggressor state, such as advocating Ukraine's neutrality—a position echoing Russian demands to prevent NATO integration—and opposing defensive alliances that could deter further aggression. This view posits that allowing such entities to operate openly facilitates hybrid warfare tactics, including internal subversion and propaganda amplification, which empirically weakened Ukrainian resolve prior to the 2022 escalation, as evidenced by similar pro-Russian parties' roles in the 2014 annexation of Crimea and Donbas conflict where their rhetoric undermined unified resistance. Courts and security agencies cited specific ties, including party representatives assuming roles in occupied territories like Berdiansk, where a Union of Left Forces affiliate declared temporary mayoral duties under Russian control, illustrating direct collaboration risks. Critics from international leftist circles, including Trotskyist outlets, framed the prohibition as authoritarian censorship stifling anti-war dissent and opposition, potentially eroding democratic norms by centralizing power under . However, these arguments overlook verifiable pro-Russian empirical patterns, such as the party's consistent promotion of narratives aligning with —e.g., downplaying threats and prioritizing "neutrality" over defense—which sources with systemic anti-Western biases often amplify without addressing causal links to Russian influence operations. Ukrainian authorities justified suspensions under March 20, 2022, and Defense decisions, emphasizing evidence of anti-state activities over ideological pluralism, a stance substantiated by the parties' negligible electoral support (under 1% in prior votes) and history of echoing aggressor rather than genuine domestic leftism. In the context of , proponents of bans contend they serve as effective deterrence against coordinated , reducing the aggressor's ability to exploit domestic divisions for territorial gains, as pre-2022 tolerance of such parties correlated with heightened vulnerability in eastern regions. Opponents warn of underground risks, potentially fostering clandestine networks, yet causal analysis favors overt suppression: empirical data from wartime democracies shows that unchecked fifth-column activities amplify success rates, whereas bans—upheld by courts on June 17, 2022, for the Union of Left Forces—minimize immediate operational threats without evidence of broader democratic backsliding in non-pro-Russian opposition spheres. This approach aligns with historical precedents in liberal states, where laws during existential conflicts prioritize survival over unfettered speech when speech demonstrably aids enemies.

References

  1. https://ukraine-elections.com.ua/en/parties/politicheskaya_partiya/soyuz-levyh-sil
  2. https://opendatabot.ua/c/35678071
  3. https://sls.org.ua/uk/
  4. https://sls.org.ua/uk/soczyalno-ekonomycheskye-voprosy-segodnyashnego-dnya-vyzyvayut-k-zhyzny-levye-partyy/
  5. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/02/02/mrbl-f02.html
  6. https://ukranews.com/ua/news/822272-soyuz-livyh-syl-pereimenuvaly-v-partiyu-za-novyj-sotsializm
  7. https://www.chesno.org/post/5258/
  8. https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-polytics/3582211-v-ukraini-ostatocno-zaboronili-partiu-souz-livih-sil.html
  9. https://www.chesno.org/party/178/
  10. https://unn.ua/news/soyuz-livikh-sil-vidznachaye-14-richchya
  11. https://totogeo.org/?s=leftists
  12. https://www.dsnews.ua/ukr/dosie/vasiliy-volga-03022022-450291
  13. https://www.razumkov.org.ua/uploads/article/2017_PARTII_eng.pdf
  14. https://newcoldwar.org/interview-with-vasiliy-volga-the-leader-of-the-ukrainian-union-of-left-forces/
  15. https://babel.ua/en/texts/112323-the-professor-of-the-institute-of-journalism-mykyta-vasylenko-collects-hundreds-of-thousands-of-views-commenting-on-the-war-babel-analyzed-his-speeches-following-the-standards-of-journalism
  16. https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/26/left-wing-antiwar-voice-in-ukraine-assaulted-by-rightist-extremists/
  17. https://lb.ua/news/2019/06/23/430281_spisok_soyuza_levih_sil_proshel.html
  18. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/v1191359-19
  19. https://www.cvk.gov.ua/pls/vnd2019/wp505pt001f01=919.html
  20. https://ua.korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/4429711-za-novyi-sotsializm-nova-nazva-politychnoi-partii-sls
  21. https://apostrophe.ua/ua/news/politics/political-parties/2022-01-31/vojny-ne-budet-soyuz-levyh-sil--za-novyj-socializm--opublikoval-zayavlenie-o-panike-vokrug-vozmozhnogo-vtorzheniya-rf/257645
  22. https://www.chesno.org/post/5218/
  23. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-28/ukraine-election-president-explainer-martial-law/102783760
  24. https://www.rbc.ua/rus/news/ukraine-izbrali-novogo-glavu-soyuza-levyh-1572713987.html
  25. https://ua.korrespondent.net/ukraine/4448748-souiz-livykh-syl-zaklykav-ssha-ta-velykobrytaniui-vidshkoduvaty-ukraini-65-mlrd
  26. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/08/19/ntbz-a19.html
  27. https://gordonua.com/ukr/news/politics/sojuz-livih-sil-zajaviv-shcho-jde-na-mistsevi-vibori-1515120.html
  28. https://hai-nyzhnyk.in.ua/doc/2012doc..s4.php
  29. https://clarity-project.info/edr/35678071
  30. https://sls.org.ua/uk/v-partyy-soyuz-levyh-syl-za-novyj-soczyalyzm-1500-novyh-chlenov/
  31. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/07638-20101124.pdf
  32. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ukraine/07665.pdf
  33. https://ua.korrespondent.net/ukraine/311866-eks-socialist-volga-stav-liderom-novoyi-partiyi
  34. https://www.golos.com.ua/article/196390
  35. https://zaborona.com/sud-v-ukrayini-zaboronyv-partiyu-shariya-i-shhe-8-shho-pro-nyh-vidomo/
  36. https://www.argumentua.com/novini/cud-zaboroniv-proros-isku-part-yu-od-oznogo-pokidka-vasilya-tsushka
  37. https://sls.org.ua/uk/ssha-ukrayna-rossyya-chto-proyshodyt-na-mezhdunarodnoj-arene-y-zastavyat-ly-zelenskogo-vypolnyt-mynsk-2-glavnoe-yz-efyra-maksyma-goldarba/
  38. https://interfax.com.ua/news/video/795696.html
  39. https://sd.ua/news/35005
  40. https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/news-zelensky-rnbo-nyzka-partii/31761657.html
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Volodymyr_Ishchenko/publication/312084138_The_Ukrainian_Left_during_and_after_the_Maidan_Protests/links/586e523508ae6eb871bcfba6/The-Ukrainian-Left-during-and-after-the-Maidan-Protests.pdf
  42. https://dspace.onu.edu.ua/bitstreams/0028c1f6-6eaa-49ff-ab81-a7b097f1d86f/download
  43. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/vb7_2780-22
  44. https://dspace.ut.ee/bitstreams/38c49e67-63cd-47bc-a7fb-a0d3a75c654f/download
  45. https://www.unian.ua/politics/pri-sls-stvoreno-ekspertno-analitichniy-centr-novini-ukrajina-11635906.html
  46. https://www.oporaua.org/vybory/42719-kherson-u-vyborchomu-okruzi-183-dodalos-shche-chotyry-kandydaty-12598
  47. https://umoloda.kyiv.ua/amp/number/0/2006/134569
  48. https://www.cvk.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-NDU-ua-Analytical-report.pdf
  49. https://glavcom.ua/news/partiya-soyuz-livih-sil-hotila-za-41-grn-vzyati-uchast-u-parlamentskih-viborah-607010.html
  50. https://www.oporaua.org/vybory/zvit_parlamet_election_2019-20227
  51. https://projects.lnu.edu.ua/pise-cefu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2024/08/Parties_Vol_8.pdf
  52. https://www.ifesukraine.org/en/analytics/election-bulletins/vyborchyj-byuleten-ifes-%25E2%2584%2596165-17-30-veresnya-2022/
  53. https://glavcom.ua/country/politics/verkhovnij-sud-zaboroniv-shche-odnu-partiju-878733.html
  54. https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-nato-defense-spending-double/6742135.html
  55. https://kyivindependent.com/official-ukraine-sentences-russian-proxy-leader-in-absentia-to-15-years/
  56. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/06/22/visiting-the-conquered-ukrainian-territories-in-the-company-of-the-russian-army_5987702_4.html
  57. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/10/19/7424841/
  58. https://links.org.au/node/5915
  59. https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3434673-nsdc-bans-prorussian-parties-in-ukraine.html
  60. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/vb7_2705-22
  61. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/05/05/mena-m05.html
  62. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/external-influences-on-ukraines-european-integration/
  63. https://jacobin.com/2022/03/ukraine-socialist-interview-russian-invasion-war-putin-nato-imperialism
  64. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/c/b/425069_0.pdf
  65. https://newcoldwar.org/64524-2/
  66. https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/reports/2028032/
  67. https://www.akweb.de/ausgaben/682/leftists-in-ukraine-in-the-grinder-of-geopolitics/
  68. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspends-11-political-parties-with-links-to-russia
  69. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/21/why-did-ukraine-suspend-11-pro-russia-parties
  70. https://www.leftvoice.org/president-zelenskyy-bans-opposition-parties-in-ukraine/
  71. https://novaramedia.com/2022/03/24/is-zelenskyy-cracking-down-on-the-ukrainian-left/
  72. https://www.oporaua.org/en/vybory/23940-prizupinennia-diialnosti-partii-ne-ie-pidstavoiu-dlia-pripinennia-povnovazhen-deputativ-chi-rozpusku-fraktsiyi-opora-23940
  73. https://usa.anarchistlibraries.net/library/dmitry-mrachnik-11-ukrainian-parties-were-suspended-what-s-going-on
  74. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
  75. https://www.axios.com/2022/03/20/ukraine-ban-political-parties-russian-ties
  76. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/09/08/xbay-s08.html
  77. https://zeitschrift-luxemburg.de/artikel/the-russian-invasion-and-the-left-in-ukraine
  78. https://cepa.org/article/whatever-happened-to-ukraines-pro-russians/
  79. https://againstthecurrent.org/atc219/ukrainian-leftist-speaks/
  80. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/why-ukraines-elections-can-wait/
  81. https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2022/11/what-next-for-ukraines-formerly-pro-russian-regions?lang=en
  82. https://www.promoteukraine.org/courts-ban-pro-russian-parties-in-ukraine/
  83. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/political-competition-wartime-ukraine
  84. https://iwpr.net/global-voices/ukraine-outlaw-pro-russian-political-parties
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.