The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was ostensibly a conflict between two ideologies and two socio-economic systems. All that seems to be over. The day of a new socialism may dawn unexpectedly, but today capitalism rules the world. At first glance, it may seem to be a classic clash between rival capitalists. And yet, once again an ideological conflict is emerging, one which divides capitalists themselves, even in Russia and in the United States itself. It is the conflict between American unipolar dominance and a multipolar world.

Today the atmosphere at the UN Security Council resembles the insanity of the witch hunts in Salem, Massachusetts only several hundred years ago. There is a witch hunt, and according to eleven members of the Security Council, the birthplace hatching these witches is Russia (and North Korea). The atmosphere of hysteria, irrationality and demonization overtaking the majority of the members of the Security Council is accurately described as a “collective psychosis.”

Britain’s opposition leader should have plenty on his plate at the moment, but Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is spending much of his time instead putting out fires as he is attacked from within and without his party for failing to get to grips with a supposed “anti-semitism crisis” besetting Labour. In late March, leading Jewish groups organised a large “Enough is enough” march on parliament, attended by prominent Labour MPs, to accuse Corbyn of siding with anti-Semites.

People are understandably sceptical of pronouncements from the UK government and the intelligence services. Especially when these are mediated through that most untrustworthy of mouthpieces – Boris Johnson. The shadow of the 2003 Iraq ‘dodgy dossier’ looms particularly large in the collective consciousness of my generation. But it still shocks me that many of these people do not apply the same skeptical approach to the propaganda of a far-right Russian regime.

In the forthcoming election on March 18th, what is actually on offer is not the election of a peacetime president, but of a Supreme Commander; the type of leader who, in wartime, like Churchill or Stalin, cannot promise anything else but “blood, sweat and tears.” The figure of Putin, as it were, rises above economic and social policy, thereby transferring that obligation to the competence of government technocrats. Putin is the leader of the nation, primarily responsible for issues of war and peace.

Canada’s Justin Trudeau too has decried Russia’s “likely” involvement. The leaders’ careful use of the words “likely” and “plausible” reflects the fact that, to date, there is no hard evidence on who was behind the attack. Skripal, a former Soviet intelligence agent who had worked secretly for Britain’s MI6 during the 1990s, was probably not on Moscow’s Christmas card list.

The Russian president is clearly a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him since he became the Russian Federation’s second president. I’ve stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000s –– I pondered my thoughts and concerns, and included them in a book published in 2011.

This sounds pretty innocuous, but it might turn out to be one of the most transformative political decisions of the Labour leader’s career, because it could change how we think about political parties. If Corbyn gets his way, when you think of Labour, you won’t imagine rows of MPs on green leather benches, or a smartly suited minister chatting to a reporter.

The fight for control of our national fate, our resources, our environment and our industry cannot be successful without challenging the control by the ruling classes. That inevitably means looking beyond Quebec’s borders and calling on the working people in the rest of Canada to support our fight for social justice against the equally inevitable intervention of the Canadian state and its financial institutions.

That challenge is how to maximise support for pro-independence and pro-sovereignty forces in the face of what is certain to be a brutal campaign aimed at scaring every last doubter about Catalan independence to vote for the unionist parties. To stand a chance of defeating it, Catalunya en Comu will have to do more than just saying, as it has to date, “neither 155 nor the unilateral declaration of independence.”