JURIST Senior Editor for Long Form Content Pitasanna Shanmugathas interviews Vijay Prashad, Executive Director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, chief editor of LeftWord Books, and author of forty books including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World and The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World.

In this interview, Prashad delves into the heart of global politics and resistance movements, beginning with the intellectual debates that shaped modern India and moving through contemporary flashpoints from Syria to Ukraine. Prashad brings his distinctive perspective as both historian and activist to bear on questions of economic justice, international relations, and revolutionary thought. Throughout the dialogue, he challenges conventional narratives while offering nuanced takes on how power operates across different contexts — whether discussing BRICS’s quiet transformation of global trade or the enduring relevance of Marx’s critique of capitalism. Prashad’s most recent book, co-written with academic Noam Chomsky, is titled On Cuba: Reflections on 70 Years of Revolution and Struggle.

This is the second of a two-part interview, which has been edited for clarity and concision. Click here to read Part 1 of the interview.

Pitasanna Shanmugathas: Shifting gears again, let’s talk about the root cause behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The mainstream media asserts that Putin is bent on resurrecting the Soviet Union and that this is why he carried out the invasion.

Vijay Prashad: Well, I mean, look — if Putin were truly interested in resurrecting the Soviet Union, why not start with easier targets? Why not just walk into Central Asia and incorporate Kazakhstan? Those countries are much richer than Ukraine, with vast mineral wealth. The idea that he wants to recreate the Soviet Union is absurd. I don’t think Mr. Putin has any such interest.

Putin was the understudy of Boris Yeltsin, who essentially sold out Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, Yeltsin actually lost the 1996 election, and the United States had to step in to secure his victory. There is now overwhelming evidence that the Communists won that election, but it was stolen through election interference—ironically, by the United States, which sought to keep its puppet, Boris Yeltsin, in power, despite his frequent drunkenness.

Putin was groomed in Yeltsin’s final years to be his successor—a safe pair of hands, pro-Western, and reliable. However, once in office, he realized just how dire Russia’s situation had become. He is, after all, a patriotic Russian. At the time, Russia was a country plagued by rampant alcoholism, widespread depression, and no control over its mineral resources. It had essentially subordinated itself to the West.

In 2007, Putin gave a notable speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he openly criticized the idea of a unipolar world, directly challenging U.S. global dominance. It’s an important speech — one that your readers should look up to better understand his worldview. His perspective hasn’t changed much since then.

Meanwhile, the financial crisis weakened the West, and Russia began asserting greater control over its mineral resources, re-nationalizing its oil and natural gas industries. Russia became a key energy supplier for Europe. However, Western strategic errors — such as the invasion of Iraq, hostility toward Iran, and the destruction of the Libyan state — took three major energy suppliers offline, forcing Europe to rely even more on Russian energy.

At the same time, the European Union expanded NATO, a move that Russia viewed as a direct threat. Russia never had an issue with countries joining the EU, but NATO expansion was a different matter. The primary concern was the placement of mid-range nuclear missiles near Russia’s borders. Then, in 2019, the Trump administration withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, heightening fears that nuclear weapons could be stationed in Ukraine if it joined NATO.

Putin refused to accept this. He pointed to a 1990 handshake agreement between US Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze during German reunification. The agreement was that NATO would not expand “one inch” east of Germany’s border. Putin now insists that NATO should return to those terms, which would mean even Poland and the Baltic states might have to reconsider their NATO membership. Of course, this is a negotiating stance. His primary concern is ensuring that Ukraine and Georgia—two large countries bordering Russia—do not join NATO, which he sees as a military alliance hostile to Russia.

So, in 2022, he invaded Ukraine. But I don’t believe he intends to annex the entire country. If that were the goal, he would have bombed Kyiv’s airport and destroyed the city—just as the United States did to Iraq or as Israel is doing to Gaza. The Russian approach has been very different. Instead, they have annexed parts of eastern Ukraine, where many Russian-speaking populations reside, and, of course, Crimea.

There is an argument that when the Soviet Union created the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, it added historically Russian territories, including Crimea, to Ukraine. Crimea itself has long been a contested region. In the 19th century, there was even a war over it because the British sought access to Sevastopol, a strategic Black Sea port. This remains a critical issue today; Russia does not want NATO to control the Black Sea, as it would cut off access to the Mediterranean and warm-water ports.

So, if you keep pushing a country like Russia — expanding military alliances to its borders and making provocative moves—it’s naïve to believe it won’t react. And when it did, it started a war.

Shanmugathas: It was recently reported by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Ukraine has agreed to a 30-day ceasefire deal brokered by the United States. However, Putin has expressed reservations about the terms of the ceasefire, leading to concerns that Putin does not have a genuine desire to end the war. What are your thoughts on this? Additionally, what do you think a final settlement to the Russia-Ukraine war could entail, and is it achievable?

Prashad: I mean, look, Mr. Putin is as skilled a negotiator as anyone—perhaps even better than you and me. But the reality is that Russia is making significant gains on the battlefield right now, especially with Ukraine lacking US intelligence support [editor’s note: the US has resumed intelligence sharing with Ukraine since this interview was conducted]. Without American “eyes in the sky,” the Ukrainians are at a major disadvantage, and the Russians are capitalizing on this. Do they want to give up those gains? I don’t think so. I believe they will try to prolong the war for at least a few more days until they secure even more substantial territorial advances.

That’s one factor. Secondly, Putin is bargaining for major concessions. He wants Ukraine to agree not to join NATO, to limit its rearmament, and to make other strategic commitments. He is holding out for something significant.

Ultimately, all wars end in negotiated peace, and this one will be no exception. I believe that, in the end, Russia will come out with more than Ukraine. Moscow is going to hold onto the eastern provinces, which are predominantly Russian-speaking. If those populations were to vote in an open referendum monitored by the UN, they would likely choose to join Russia. The Russian-organized referendum in those regions already indicated that outcome, though many may not trust the legitimacy of that vote. If an independent referendum were held, I think the results would still lean in Russia’s favor.

As for Crimea, it is clear that it will not be returned to Ukraine. That is simply not on the table.

So, Ukraine will lose significant territory—this is a major blow. However, they will regain control over the rest of their country, with Russian troops likely withdrawing from certain areas in the north. The bigger questions are whether Ukraine will agree to substantial demilitarization and whether it will formally commit to staying out of NATO. That remains uncertain.

It’s also worth noting that many European countries do not actually want Ukraine to join NATO. Their primary concern is restoring access to Russian energy, which could be a key component of any final deal.

In the end, Ukraine is going to lose a lot in this negotiation. The US has already signaled that it will not support Ukraine indefinitely, and without American backing, European powers like Germany, France, and the UK cannot take on Russia militarily. It’s simply impossible. Their dependence on NATO exposes the fact that, without the US, they lack real military capability. Europe has never developed an independent military force strong enough to stand against Russia.

So, at the negotiating table, Ukraine will likely have to make significant concessions.

Shanmugathas: You’ve been vocal about BRICS, the intergovernmental organization, being key to dismantling an unjust world order. In your opinion, how is this organization instrumental in achieving that, especially in the present age of Trump?

Prashad: I mean, firstly, I’m not an exaggerator when it comes to BRICS, and that’s important to note. BRICS was formed in 2009 as a response to the financial crisis of 2007. The major economies of the Global South were concerned that demand for their goods and services in Europe and the United States would collapse, as the US market was on the verge of failure.

So, they sought to create new markets among themselves. For instance, Brazil could trade more with South Africa, and so on. Initially, BRICS was primarily a commercial and trading bloc, which is significant. It’s crucial for these countries to trade with one another rather than directing their entire productive capacity toward Europe and North America.

Moreover, BRICS also focuses on meeting essential needs, such as food, services, and development initiatives that these nations can provide for one another. Over time, the organization has made some political statements—such as calls for UN reform—but fundamentally, it is not a political body.

There are two key reasons for this. First, the founding BRICS nations have vastly different political ideologies and worldviews. For example, when India joined under the Congress Party, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government was very pro-US. In contrast, China, by 2009, had already begun to move away from its earlier perception of the US as a benign power. Brazil, under Lula, had significant doubts about US influence as well.

Second, BRICS’ expansion brought in countries with even more divergent political and social systems—such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. This shows that what unites them is not politics, but trade and economic development. The political shifts follow economic cooperation, not the other way around.

In this sense, BRICS is changing the world through trade, not political initiatives. Trump, on the other hand, has tried to reshape global trade through sanctions and tariffs. However, if countries are already working to reduce their reliance on the US market, then imposing tariffs and sanctions only pushes them to strengthen trade among themselves. That’s precisely what’s happening.

Today, China has become the largest trading partner for most countries in Asia, Africa, and South America—surpassing the United States. This shift is reshaping global power dynamics, not through political decrees, but through trade. And that, I think, is a fascinating development.

Shanmugathas: One of the BRICS countries, South Africa, has recently drawn the ire of the American superpower. On February 7th, Trump signed an executive order halting aid to South Africa in response to the recent passage of its land expropriation act. I’ve personally been critical of Nelson Mandela because, when he became President, he didn’t go far enough in terms of actually fulfilling the promises of the ANC’s Freedom Charter, particularly in terms of his failure to enact meaningful land reforms, nationalize the nation’s resources—such as mining—and ensuring that the country’s wealth is distributed to the majority Black South African population. What are your thoughts on the current trajectory of South Africa?

Prashad: Well, I mean, 30 years after the fall of apartheid, there have been some advances, but many retreats. The principal issue is that most of the country is struggling — unable to get jobs, unable to get housing, struggling to maintain income levels, and so on. It’s a really tough situation. The government that has been in power since 1994 hasn’t really met those promises. You’re right. But look at what you said — you did something very interesting. Mandela, like Baba Saheb Ambedkar in a way, was a believer in liberal jurisprudence because he didn’t want to touch property rights. He felt that those were inviolable. He basically went for the idea that we should have equal rights before the law, have elections, and use education as the ladder for equality. However, he allowed unequal relations in property laws to remain intact. He didn’t want to expropriate the property of apartheid. He didn’t want to take land away from people, not like in Zimbabwe, where rich white farmers were expropriated, and so on. There was no real economic democratization. And that’s the interesting debate of our times. It goes back to Ambedkar, the Marxists, and in a sense, Nelson Mandela and the assassinated communist Chris Hani, who was killed just before the end of apartheid. He was a leader of the Communist Party, a great hero in Soweto, and was assassinated by white supremacists.

What would the debates between Hani and Mandela, who both had a seat in the leadership of the ANC, have been like? Would they have been able to get something like the Growth and Redistribution Act through, which, in 1996, basically institutionalized neoliberalism in South Africa? This act also halted the advancement of the people. South Africa took the road of liberalism and neoliberalism. Liberalism, in the sense that we think of advances for the deprived—voting, education, equal rights before the law—was implemented. But the undemocracy of the economics remained intact. You get a similar situation as in India. People are able to vote and have equal rights before the law, but they remain poor. And if you’re poor, even those equal rights before the law are constrained; your vote is worth less than that of a rich person, and so on. The liberal solution doesn’t address the problems of history.

If we talk about Mandela, we first have to recognize that he played a heroic role. I mean, he was a lawyer, extremely charismatic, and came from a chief’s family. He could have had a personal career that benefited him, even if he had to endure many slights of racism. He could have made a lot of money, but instead, he risked everything. He went to prison, to Robben Island, and faced the barbarities of the apartheid state for decades. Then, when he was released, he made a deal—a moderated transformation — with the elites.

Shanmugathas: How do you believe the Trump administration will handle Gaza? Trump has made statements suggesting he wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza and then have the US control it. But what do you think will be the fate of Gaza under the Trump administration?

Prashad: Well, frankly, I don’t think ethnic cleansing is in the cards anymore because hundreds of thousands of Gazans—Palestinians—very bravely, on January 27th, walked back to their homes in the north. Now, they are trying to force them out again by putting pressure through tactics like cutting water, cutting electricity, and so on. But these people are here to stay. Short of a second genocide, they’re not leaving. And, you know, you can’t make your Riviera because the Palestinians are there. So, in that sense, not only was it an enormous intelligence failure on the part of the Israelis for not detecting that they were going to march northward, or for not stopping them, but now they’ve trapped the Americans into something they probably didn’t want. They probably didn’t want to cleanse the place of Palestinians. But now, they’d have to do it again. I don’t know if there’s an appetite for that.

Shanmugathas: On this day [March 14], Karl Marx died in 1883. Mr. Prashad, you’re a Marxist. How would you explain Marx’s primary economic philosophy to someone who’s completely unfamiliar with him, and how do his teachings remain relevant in the world today?

Prashad: Marx wrote about everything from culture to economics. It’s not that he left anything out of his scope, but the essence of Marxism is that it’s a critique of capitalism. What Marx discovered is that capitalism builds wealth through its exploitation of labor.

Capitalism does this by dividing the working day into two parts. One part is how long it takes for a worker to earn their wages for the entire day. So, for example, if you are paid for an 8-hour day and you fulfill your wage in the first hour, then the remaining 7 hours of your work produce surplus value, which is what generates profit for the owner. As technology improves and your productivity increases, the time it takes to fulfill your wage decreases because you’re able to work more efficiently. So, suddenly, in half an hour, you can fulfill your wage for the entire 8-hour day, and then the remaining 7.5 hours of work generate surplus value. As surplus value increases, so does your exploitation.

This is Marx’s genius insight, because what he explains is that workers aren’t cheated out of their labor. Instead, they enter into a contract with their employers to be paid a fixed wage for 8 hours of work, and they don’t see how exploitation happens. Secondly, exploitation doesn’t occur because employers are geniuses who come up with new ideas. We can see how ideas spread and become widely adopted over time, as others take them by borrowing or copying. Yet, despite this, companies still make a profit. The profit doesn’t come from nothing; it comes from the exploitation of workers, the extraction of surplus value.

This is Marx’s important discovery, and it remains relevant today. Wealth is still created by the exploitation of labor. Even when we talk about robots, don’t forget that robots are made by human labor—they don’t make themselves. And even if robots could make themselves, they wouldn’t be out there gathering raw materials or assembling themselves. When we reach a point where everything is automated, we’ll have an interesting debate about capitalism and surplus value. But until we get there, Marxism remains extremely relevant as a critique of capitalism. In fact, it provides the most authentic and thorough analysis of capitalism and its logic that we have today, even though Capital, Volume 1, was written in 1867.

Shanmugathas: My final question to you is about your recent book On Cuba: Reflections on 70 Years of Revolution and Struggle, which you co-wrote with Noam Chomsky. Can you talk about what readers can expect to discover from this book and the insights they can gain? Also, discuss the writing process and collaboration, especially considering that Professor Chomsky suffered a stroke in June 2023, and how you went about publishing the book.

Prashad: Chomsky and I had previously co-authored a book titled The Withdrawal on Iraq and Afghanistan. In early 2022, I took the Spanish edition to Cuba and gave it to renowned singer Silvio Rodríguez, a big Chomsky fan. When I told Noam, he was excited, and we started discussing Cuba. I suggested recording a series of Zoom conversations, which became the foundation of our book — a love letter to Cuba. I transcribed our discussions, but Noam felt they needed shaping into a narrative. In February, I worked intensely to turn them into a manuscript, which he reviewed and refined. Before I could send back further revisions, he suffered a stroke, so towards the end, I had to complete it alone. But, basically, we worked on it together. The book’s core argument is that the US opposes Cuba not just because it defies them, but because that defiance could be contagious. US documents from 1959 to today repeatedly warn of this. The fear of Cuba’s defiance spreading is what drives Washington’s hostility — even toward a small country of 11 million people. But that defiance has been contagious — it was contagious for us, too.

Shanmugathas: Thank you so much Mr. Prashad for this insightful discussion.