Nationalism in the Name of Anti-Imperialism
On the dawn of July 7, as the NATO summit opened in Ankara, I had a long conversation with anonymous comrades online. The topic was the ghost of Yugoslavia. One comrade asked about leftists who glorify the JNA as defenders of socialism, "Haven't they studied the history of the Russian Revolution?" Another comrade invoked Tučović, arguing that the Kosovo issue must start from the conquest of the 1912 Balkan Wars. Yet another comrade pointed out that despite Dodik publicly declaring in February of this year that he supported "President Trump's decision" on the US invasion of Iran, major leftist organizations did not issue a single statement of criticism. A common structure runs through these conversations: when abstract anti-imperialism replaces concrete class analysis, anti-imperialism becomes a mask for nationalism.
The most blatant embodiment of this structure is Dodik, the leader of Republika Srpska. While maintaining anti-NATO rhetoric, he supports the US invasion of Iran, colludes with Israel, and incites Islamophobia. He opposes imperialism only when it does not attack his own enemies. The reactionary nature is obvious. Yet many leftists remain silent about him for a simple reason: Dodik opposes NATO. And that single fact covers up the origins of ethnic cleansing, anti-Islamic racism, collusion with Israel, and alliances with anti-communists. Before the mechanical equation that the enemy of NATO is our friend, class analysis, anti-racism, and proletarian internationalism all come to a halt.
As comrades correctly pointed out, the only communist who maintained principles during the dissolution of Yugoslavia was Vlado Dapčević. He denounced Milošević, Tuđman, and Izetbegović alike as reactionary nationalists, and while opposing NATO intervention, he most sharply attacked the opportunism of leftists who packaged Serbian nationalism as an anti-imperialist alliance. The rest either knelt before nationalism, covered up ethnic cleansing with anti-imperialist rhetoric, or became complicit through silence. And that silence obliterated the moral, organizational, and theoretical assets of the left in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. In the words of one comrade, recovery is far off. Because the chances of a grandchild of a Srebrenica survivor joining that leftist movement are virtually nil unless the left clearly takes a stand on that massacre.
The conversation with Tučović expanded this issue into a deeper historical layer. The conquest of the entire Albanian nation by the Serbian bourgeoisie in 1912. Tučović called that conquest "planned murder of an entire people" and exposed the class basis of Serbian expansionism in Serbia and Albania (1914). Yet today, the only leftists who take 1912 as a starting point are the Hodžaists. They start from justified anger, but that anger reduces the entire analysis of Yugoslavia to a history of Albanian national oppression. The mainstream left avoids the conquest of 1912 itself, dismissing the victimhood of Albanians as bourgeois nationalism. These two errors go in opposite directions but grow from the same root: the habit of treating national issues not as subjects of class analysis but as material for nationalist narratives.
It is no coincidence that this conversation took place on the very day in Ankara when NATO leaders discussed the 5% GDP defense spending plan. The pattern of the 1990s, where opposition to NATO expansion led to support for Milošević, repeats in a transformed way in 2026. Opposing imperialism is correct. But when that opposition replaces concrete class analysis, packages reactionary nationalism as an anti-imperialist alliance, and pushes racism and ethnic cleansing to the sidelines, it is no longer anti-imperialism. The path shown by Dapčević and Tučović is one: proletarian internationalism that organizes both workers of the oppressor nation and workers of the oppressed nation. Any anti-imperialism that does not walk this path is destined to fall silent one day before Dodik's tweets.
The most blatant embodiment of this structure is Dodik, the leader of Republika Srpska. While maintaining anti-NATO rhetoric, he supports the US invasion of Iran, colludes with Israel, and incites Islamophobia. He opposes imperialism only when it does not attack his own enemies. The reactionary nature is obvious. Yet many leftists remain silent about him for a simple reason: Dodik opposes NATO. And that single fact covers up the origins of ethnic cleansing, anti-Islamic racism, collusion with Israel, and alliances with anti-communists. Before the mechanical equation that the enemy of NATO is our friend, class analysis, anti-racism, and proletarian internationalism all come to a halt.
As comrades correctly pointed out, the only communist who maintained principles during the dissolution of Yugoslavia was Vlado Dapčević. He denounced Milošević, Tuđman, and Izetbegović alike as reactionary nationalists, and while opposing NATO intervention, he most sharply attacked the opportunism of leftists who packaged Serbian nationalism as an anti-imperialist alliance. The rest either knelt before nationalism, covered up ethnic cleansing with anti-imperialist rhetoric, or became complicit through silence. And that silence obliterated the moral, organizational, and theoretical assets of the left in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. In the words of one comrade, recovery is far off. Because the chances of a grandchild of a Srebrenica survivor joining that leftist movement are virtually nil unless the left clearly takes a stand on that massacre.
The conversation with Tučović expanded this issue into a deeper historical layer. The conquest of the entire Albanian nation by the Serbian bourgeoisie in 1912. Tučović called that conquest "planned murder of an entire people" and exposed the class basis of Serbian expansionism in Serbia and Albania (1914). Yet today, the only leftists who take 1912 as a starting point are the Hodžaists. They start from justified anger, but that anger reduces the entire analysis of Yugoslavia to a history of Albanian national oppression. The mainstream left avoids the conquest of 1912 itself, dismissing the victimhood of Albanians as bourgeois nationalism. These two errors go in opposite directions but grow from the same root: the habit of treating national issues not as subjects of class analysis but as material for nationalist narratives.
It is no coincidence that this conversation took place on the very day in Ankara when NATO leaders discussed the 5% GDP defense spending plan. The pattern of the 1990s, where opposition to NATO expansion led to support for Milošević, repeats in a transformed way in 2026. Opposing imperialism is correct. But when that opposition replaces concrete class analysis, packages reactionary nationalism as an anti-imperialist alliance, and pushes racism and ethnic cleansing to the sidelines, it is no longer anti-imperialism. The path shown by Dapčević and Tučović is one: proletarian internationalism that organizes both workers of the oppressor nation and workers of the oppressed nation. Any anti-imperialism that does not walk this path is destined to fall silent one day before Dodik's tweets.