Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,322 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 3 hours, 44 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Zelensky is talking about a negotiated settlement again. This of course is the only way out (and the sooner the better for the working class there) other than one side or the other capitulating, which is not going to happen.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61535353.amp
This goes against what Borys and Truss have been telling the Ukraine regime — that the only way out is to drive Russian and pro-Russian forces out of the whole of Ukraine, even including Crimea (which would involve massive ethnic cleaning) — and which members of the regime have believed. They haven’t yet cottoned on that Borys is a notorious bullshitter.
His “strategy” is even out of line with the US’s which is to supply arms to the Ukraine regime so as to strengthen its hand in the inevitable negotiations.
But what concessions will he make?
I believe Ukraine has given up hope of ever getting Crimea back but will it recognise the two breakaway republics or compromise on the gains made by Russia in the Donbas.
Easy to say you are willing to talk for appearance’s sake. Real negotiations are about give and take.
What is he going to give and what is Russia going to take?
Here is a relevant point made (amongst others) in an article about the economic effects of the sanctions imposed on Russia:
“Over time, the economic sanctions imposed in support of Ukraine will have important economic consequences. The cost of living in virtually all countries of the world will rise, on top of the price inflation that was already taking off even before the war started. This will be blamed on the war, and declared by all right-thinking people to be part of the sacrifice that is necessary to defend democracy and peace against autocracy and war.”
“Right thinking people” such as politicians and the media might think this, but ordinary people may not. If they don’t, as would be understandable even normal, then they might use their votes to kick out the politicians who actions aggravated the cost of living crisis.
In fact, it would be poetic justice if, as a result of the extra pain they inflicted on ordinary people, Borys, Truss and the others should feel the pain of losing political office and being demoted to the opposition benches with scant chance of regaining their place on the greasy pole.
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/the-ukrainian-war-and-the-end-of-globalization
Against their previous customary practice, the IMF is calling for governments to intervene and subsidize the economy to tackle the cost of living rising prices.
Several months ago all the problems were blamed on the Pandemic, and now the new pretext is the war in Ukraine.
Before the Pandemic and before the war, hunger and malnutrition were already an epidemic all over the earth, and the economic crisis already existed before the pandemic.
Human beings do not eat flags, machine guns, petrol, religion and patriotism.
Hypocratically the USA government is saying that Ukrainian are suffering due to lack of foods, but their war in Yemen, Somalia and others part of Africa were already producing a large scale of hungers and diseases in Africa and the Middle East.
Some fanatics blame the problems on immigrations from Central America but the USA was the main cause of the problems that are affecting Central America and those politicians are completely blinds or are using it as a pretext to obtain votes and be elected using the sufferings of others humans beings
I participate in a Russian-language leftist listserv run by Professor Vladislav Bugera of Ufa (Bashkortostan, one of the republics in the Russian Federation). Other participants are in various post-Soviet states. Politically they are left communists, anarcho-syndicalists and social democrats. There has been a lot of discussion of the war in Ukraine. While all participants are ‘against’ the war there are different slants. Bugera defends Russia’s position with regard to the Donbass though not Ukraine as a whole. He believes that to some degree at least the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics express popular interests. Other participants say this is a delusory view of these repressive statelets and take a much more sharply anti-Kremlin stance. However, it is not clear what Bugera really thinks. He admits he is afraid that if he publishes sharply anti-Kremlin philippics his website will be taken down, as many others have been. So it seems he is playing some sort of game with the censor.
Retweeted by Freedom Press
This hits hard. #FckPutin pic.twitter.com/PGQlaFjHSG
— Dywizjon 161 (@Dywizjon161) May 23, 2022
I don’t understand that cartoon. It seems to be a pro-war anarchist criticising anti-war anarchists for saying “no war but the class war”. Is this a correct interpretation?
Libcom comments explain the reasoning behind it
https://libcom.org/discussion/freedom-press-no-longer-believe-no-war-class-war
Freedom Press no longer believe in ‘No war but the class war’?
Rob Ray 32 min 47 sec ago
Not my retweet (it’s a jointly used account) but missing the point of the meme entirely there – it’s a criticism of some Western anarchists who use the slogan to the point of refusing to listen to or show solidarity with Eastern European anarchists.Freedom Press as a whole is comprised of people with a variety of viewpoints, we don’t have a unified position as such – afair we’ve put out one “Freedom Press view” in about five years, in favour of trans rights. Not that this stops a lot of people from trying to define one on our behalf on the grounds of particular Tweets or articles so they can tell us off about it of course.
That all being said, as a personal thing I think NWBTCW can sometimes be simplistically fetishised into ludicrousness. It’s a slogan which helps to frame how we think about conflict, not an inviolable pacifistic principle. Sometimes, for example, if the option is mass murder or fighting back to try and save working class lives, it’s correct to fight. Not for the fiefdoms of elites (NWBTCW is important to identify that aspect) – just to stave off mass murder.
UK risks a shooting war with Russia?
Britain has backed in principle a proposal by Lithuania for a naval coalition “of the willing” to lift the Russian Black Sea blockade on Ukrainian grain exports.
“Liz Truss Retweeted
Gabrielius Landsbergis
@GLandsbergis
A great meeting with a true friend Liz Truss. Full agreement on the need to help Ukraine to achieve a complete victory.”At some point the US, let alone France and Germany, is going to have to restrain talk by Borys and Truss about “complete victory” and get them to fall in line with the US’s declared aim of weakening Russia so as to strengthen Ukraine’s hand in the inevitable negotiations to end the war.
Let’s see if Global Britain can organise this coalition of the warmongers on its own without the US.
The first problem would be to get British warships into the Black Sea as the answer to the question posed in this article appears to be none.
I believe Lithuania has a few patrol boats that they might be able to get there via the Danube.
A more realistic understanding than Truss of diplomacy from an old hand:
And here’s Lavrov’s direct reply to Truss:
“Lavrov said that Western politicians that say Russia should suffer defeat are bad at history.
“Once again, we are now living through such a period in our history. They say that Russia must “be defeated”, they must “defeat Russia”, make Russia “lose on the battlefield,” he said at an event entitled One Hundred Questions for a Leader. “I am sure that you know history better than the Western politicians who are casting these ‘spells.’”
“They must have done poorly in school,” Lavrov went on to say. “They have drawn the wrong conclusions from their understanding of the past and of Russia.”.George Soros and pessimistic prediction
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatens to be the “beginning of the third world war” that could spell the end of civilisation…
“The invasion may have been the beginning of the third world war and our civilisation may not survive it,” he said. “The invasion of Ukraine didn’t come out of the blue. The world has been increasingly engaged in a struggle between two systems of governance that are diametrically opposed to each other: open society and closed society…
“While the war rages, the fight against climate change has to take second place. Yet the experts tell us that we have already fallen far behind, and climate change is on the verge of becoming irreversible. That could be the end of our civilisation.
“Therefore, we must mobilise all our resources to bring the war to an early end. The best and perhaps only way to preserve our civilisation is to defeat Putin as soon as possible. That’s the bottom line.”
Population decline said to be a cause for the invasion
a slumping birth rate, a death rate on the rise and immigration slowly falling, Russia is experiencing population decline… Putin is now facing a “major problem for someone who believes population is synonymous with power”, says French demographer Laurent Chalard.
“Putin is obsessed with this demographic issue,” says Chalard. “In his mind, the power of a country is linked to the size of its population. The larger the population, the more powerful the state.” Following this mindset, Putin presented the demographic crisis as a “historic challenge” in January 2020, and assured his country that “Russia’s destiny and its historic prospects depend on how numerous we will be”.
In the face of this, population decline is clearly a key motivator for Russia in its war against Ukraine… Ukraine has a population of 44 million people who are mostly of Slavic descent from the former Soviet bloc. For Putin, the invasion is not only about capturing territory he believes belongs to Russia, but about gaining control over a population he wants to ‘integrate’ into the country.
That’s the exact opposite of what Zelensky claims in his nightly show. He claims that Russia wants to destroy everything and kill everybody in Ukraine. That’s so over the top that nobody can take it seriously. But no doubt it serves a purpose by stirring up hatred of Russians to mobilise workers to fight for the Ukrainian state.
I don’t think the French demographer has a case either. It would be a new cause for a state to go to war. In the 1930s Germany, Japan and Italy pleaded the opposite for their expansionism — that they were overpopulated and needed more “lebensraum”.
I suppose that in theory a desire to get control of more workers could be a reason for a state to go to war but I don’t think there are any historical examples (Japan perhaps in the 1930s?). The economic reasons that drive states to adopt war as a policy are more usually to acquire, defend or control sources of raw materials, trade routes, markets and investment outlets, and strategic points and places to protect these.
In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine it will be that the government there regarded Ukraine being incorporated into NATO as a threat to their security and wanted to pre-empt this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.