Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Economic analysis of Russia from a former deputy minister of finance of Russia.
Conclusion – Russia will still be able to afford to continue the war in 2023
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/5/does-russia-have-enough-money-for-war
The writer of that article uses the expression Money like it falls from the sky. Probably, he/she should be talking about original accumulation of capital or surplus values which comes from the sweat shop of the Russian working class and the sweat of the working class of other countries.
War expenses are paid from the surplus of the capitalist class which is the financer of the state, but it impose a heavy financial burden on the state and some states can not afford it for a long time which was the case of the Soviet Union when the USA forced them to spend excessive amount of surplus value on armaments, and then Rusia was up for sale, hunger, misery, unemployment spread like a disease
The Soviet Union had more resources, more wages slaves, more territories, more diversified production, more speheres of influences, more world market, more world supporter and it had an implosion, it might be the same case for Russia, that is the main purpose of the USA ruling class
“Five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States”
So three there.
“I make it two, Albania and Norway with Ireland, a half member.”
So that’s five and a half then. UAE is a US protectorate so that may as well be six and a half. Ghabon, Ghana and Kenya no doubt easily bullied by NATOstan. Nine and half, rounded up to ten.
Ritter makes much of the requirement that there must be an imminent threat to justify a pre-emptive strike.
Even under your own scenario (which I don’t accept) Ukraine had positioned an invading army with heavy weapons and been conducting artillery barrages to soften up the separatists. Ample time for Russia to appeal to the UN and furnish the evidence. Can you direct me to any Russian resolution or was it all so sudden that Russia didn’t have the time to provide proof of Ukraine’s intentions? There may well have been such a diplomatic approach at UN level but I have failed to find it. You may have better luck in directing us to such a move at the UN.
Again Ritter says Article 51 was used as the legal justification for the invasion of Iraq. Any nation can claim such a self-defence pretext but does it stand up to scrutiny?
Hans Blix had not completed his investigation and had reported making steady progress. Yet, UK, US, Denmark and Australia nevertheless ignored that fact.
Countless organisations declared the Iraq invasion illegal and numerous have called for Bush and Blair to be charged with being war criminals. Not just individual commentators but well-respected NGOs.
Ritter’s faulty logic says that one illegal war legitimises another.
Ritter, as far as I know, has no qualification in international law so should we defer to his authority as an expert?
So can you link me to someone who practises international law, a credible professional, who declareD the invasion of Ukraine as legal? I am sure there must be such a person and we be interested to read his or her informed legal opinion.
“Even under your own scenario (which I don’t accept) Ukraine had positioned an invading army with heavy weapons and been conducting artillery barrages to soften up the separatists. Ample time for Russia to appeal to the UN and furnish the evidence.”
The Minsk Agreement had already been enshrined as a UN resolution at the Securty Council. France and Germany were not fulfilling their obligations to press for Ukrainian compliance. The UK was arming and building numerous bases in Ukraine. The US was arming and training Ukrainian troops and directing Ukraine into a confrontation with Russia. The UN mechanisms established to prevent conflict had not only failed but were being actively undermined. Russia had no choice but to act.
https://ru-main.ru/russian-officials-seek-for-effective-ways-to-stop-war-in-donbass/
“Can you direct me to any Russian resolution or was it all so sudden that Russia didn’t have the time to provide proof of Ukraine’s intentions?”
I’m not aware of any. But we both know the US and UK are active participants in the conflict and would have vetoed any Security Council Resolution. The time lost on any such Kabuki theater, which the US and UK were no doubt counting on, would have benefited the Kiev Nazi invasion of Donbass.
“There may well have been such a diplomatic approach at UN level but I have failed to find it. You may have better luck in directing us to such a move at the UN.”
Russia wasn’t going to play games with the US and UK. It was going to act to prevent a Nazi invasion and ethnic cleansing of Donbass.
“Countless organisations declared the Iraq invasion illegal and numerous have called for Bush and Blair to be charged with being war criminals. Not just individual commentators but well-respected NGOs.”
It was precedent setting. And what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But like you say, it’s just Scott Ritter’s interpretation of the law. The Kremlin has its own, and if asked would no doubt provide its legal reasoning.
“Ritter’s faulty logic says that one illegal war legitimises another.”
That’s your opinion. And you’re entitled to it.
“So can you link me to someone who practises international law, a credible professional, who declareD the invasion of Ukraine as legal? I am sure there must be such a person and we be interested to read his or her informed legal opinion.”
I’ve already provided a source that gives a legal defence of the invasion. You don’t like it, I don’t give a shit. I’m not your librarian. You want another source, find it yourself.
“I’ve already provided a source that gives a legal defence of the invasion.”
Is your only source legal advice from Ritter?
Russia could easily have gone to the general assembly and appealed to the court of public opinion. Instead, it spent weeks and months positioning its forces under the guise of military exercises, denying its intention to invade Ukraine.
Ritter himself emphasises for a pre-emptive attack, there has to be an imminent threat.
There was no imminent threat to justify an invasion. The majority of NATO nations did not believe Russia would attack despite US intelligence. (The French chief of intelligence had to resign for not fully appreciating the warning signs of a Russian invasion)
All we have is Russian and separatist (and your) claim that Ukraine were preparing an attack whereas Ukraine could explain that they were preparing to defend itself against those threatening Russian troop movements which were a prelude to the war. In spring 2021, Russia began a major military build-up near the border. A second build-up followed from October 2021
Russia was seeking a pretext for invading.
https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-looking-for-excuse-to-invade-ukraine-blame-it-nato-us-2021-12Russia began the evacuation of its Kiev embassy staff beginning of January 2022.
A UN Security Council meeting was convened on 31 January 2022 to discuss the ongoing crisis. Russia tried to block the meeting.
As your link cites talks with Merkel, perhaps her view will be of interest.
Merkel described Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a “barbaric war of aggression” which constituted a “far-reaching turning point” and the most “glaring breach of international law” in Europe since the Second World War. “My solidarity goes out to Ukraine which has been attacked and raided by Russia,”
Merkel said she had aimed to convene European talks with Vladimir Putin the year before his invasion of Ukraine but in the end did not see any possibility of influencing the Russian president at the end of her term.
She said she had tried to convene European talks with the Russian president and French President Emmanuel Macron in the summer of 2021.
“But I didn’t have the power to get my way,” she told Spiegel news. “Really everyone knew: in autumn she’ll be gone,” She added that “for Putin, only power counts”. Merkel said her stance on Ukraine in the Minsk peace talks had bought Kyiv time to defend itself better against the Russian military.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63751688?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA
“Russia could easily have gone to the general assembly and appealed to the court of public opinion.”
Lol. Public opinion doesn’t stop Nazis, violence does.
“Instead, it spent weeks and months positioning its forces under the guise of military exercises, denying its intention to invade Ukraine.”
Meant to dissuade the Nazis from doing something stupid. Except the Russian decision to intervene in the conflict was last minute. So yet one more thing you are wrong about brah.
U.S. Intelligence Says Putin Made a Last-Minute Decision to Invade Ukraine
“Ritter himself emphasises for a pre-emptive attack, there has to be an imminent threat.”
Must we chase our tails on this? Yawn.
“There was no imminent threat to justify an invasion.”
There was.
“The majority of NATO nations did not believe Russia would attack despite US intelligence.”
Because the Kremlin did not know it would intervene in the conflict. Its hand was forced by Kiev Nazi aggression.
“(The French chief of intelligence had to resign for not fully appreciating the warning signs of a Russian invasion)”
The world’s smallest violin is playing for him.
“All we have is Russian and separatist (and your) claim that Ukraine were preparing an attack whereas Ukraine could explain that they were preparing to defend itself against those threatening Russian troop movements which were a prelude to the war.”
Erm no. We also have the shelling, the troop build-up, the admission Minsk was used as a smokescreen to re-arm, the promises to retake Donbass and Crimea, the threat of acquiring nuclear weapons, etc. Forget about all that?
“In spring 2021, Russia began a major military build-up near the border. A second build-up followed from October 2021”
Both precipitated by Ukrainian build-ups.
“Russia was seeking a pretext for invading.”
BS. Russia wanted Minsk 2. I prefer to think you’re too dim to be a liar. But you’re certainly giving Pinocchio a run for his money.
Let’s cut to the chase and stop piddling about with side-issues
Putin’s three key demands were the end of the expansion of NATO, no deployment of offensive weapon systems close to the Russian borders, and returning NATO to the status quo of 1997.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/01/russia-ukraine-tensions-worsen-00004070
The rest was all window-dressing, the genocide claims, the invasion of DPR and LPR, the De-Nazification. Political fiction to garner domestic support from Russians
Global geo-politics was always the real issue. Ukraine and the separatist republics mere pawns.
Look once again at the beginning of this topic thread and you will find repeated posts stating that the war was provoked by the West’s economic and military expansion.
Russia’s self-interest was to counter it for its own strategic reasons as specified by Putin a year earlier in his famous essay…An expansion of the Russian Federation to include Belarus and Ukraine
We oppose both sides in this war because workers have no vested interest in who prevails.
Has the invasion succeeded in achieving these aims?
More expansion with Sweden and Finland joining. More NATO forces to Poland and the Baltic States with even more integration with all the NATO countries committing increased military budgets. DUH
Any hope Putin had of returning Ukraine to being an ally has totally disappeared.
I can speculate that in Belarus increased opposition to Lukashenko has weakened it.
A rather more rational capitalist view than usual on the war and about how it could end and why it might have never started:
https://www.jns.org/opinion/it-is-in-americas-interest-to-end-the-war-in-ukraine/
An excellent discussion of western/Ukrainian duplicity regarding Minsk Agreements. Starts at 43:40.
“Putin’s three key demands were the end of the expansion of NATO, no deployment of offensive weapon systems close to the Russian borders, and returning NATO to the status quo of 1997.”
Point one required implementation of Minsk 2.
“The rest was all window-dressing, the genocide claims, the invasion of DPR and LPR, the De-Nazification.”
Rubbish. You’ve created a false dichotomy.
“Political fiction to garner domestic support from Russians”
Nothing fictional about it at all. The Kiev Nazis wanted to ethnically cleanse Donbass. They probably foolishly believed Russia would not intervene. Well, they were wrong about that.
“Global geo-politics was always the real issue.”
Again a false dichotomy. Both can be true at the same time.
“Ukraine and the separatist republics mere pawns.”
Yes, Ukraine is a NATOstani pawn.
“Look once again at the beginning of this topic thread and you will find repeated posts stating that the war was provoked by the West’s economic and military expansion.”
Yes, but the trigger was Kiev’s attack on Donbass.
“Russia’s self-interest was to counter it for its own strategic reasons as specified by Putin a year earlier in his famous essay…An expansion of the Russian Federation to include Belarus and Ukraine”
Its existential interest.
“We oppose both sides in this war because workers have no vested interest in who prevails.”
Workers absolutely do have a vested interest in a Russian victory. It will very likely lead to a collapse of NATO and the eventual creation of a multipolar world free of Washington’s hegemony.
“Has the invasion succeeded in achieving these aims?”
It’s half time. Stop calling the match.
“More expansion with Sweden and Finland joining.”
Actually, Turkey is blocking their membership. But Russia is not concerned if either join. If Finland builds NATO infrastructure however, then Finland has a problem.
“More NATO forces to Poland and the Baltic States with even more integration with all the NATO countries committing increased military budgets. DUH”
NATO is a paper tiger. Its economies are in crisis. The alliance is likely to crumble upon Russia’s victory over the Ukrainian Nazis.
“Any hope Putin had of returning Ukraine to being an ally has totally disappeared.”
And what are next week’s lotto numbers?
“I can speculate that in Belarus increased opposition to Lukashenko has weakened it.”
And Starlight the rainbow unicorn has invited all her friends to a lollipop party.
TS “but the trigger was Kiev’s attack on Donbass”
Other than the continued exchanges of artillery fire, there was no attack on the separatist republics by Ukraine that acted as a trigger even though you claim there was preparation for such a planned attack. You are re-writing history with your own facts. Let’s stick to actual events and stop making them up.
“Any hope Putin had of returning Ukraine to being an ally has totally disappeared.” And what are next week’s lotto numbers?
Are you seriously suggesting that I am wrong in saying that Putin’s aspirations declared in his 2021 essay of a comradely union with Ukraine is impossible now? What fantasy are you living in?
But I now want to return to an earlier post where I referred to internal Russian politics.
Gulnaz Sharafutdinova is Professor of Russian Politics and Acting Director of Russia Institute at King’s College London. Author of ‘The Red Mirror: Putin’s Leadership’ and ‘Russia’s Insecure Identity and Political Consequences of Crony Capitalism Inside Russia’ so she is no journalistic light-weight but a scholar.
“The shift of power and influence away from the official security and defence institutions towards non-state organisations, such as Wagner and Kadyrov’s forces (also known as kadyrovtsy), who feel empowered to openly and sharply criticise state officials and army generals, might have significant consequences…”
“Other than the continued exchanges of artillery fire, there was no attack on the separatist republics by Ukraine that acted as a trigger”
Artillery barrages are an attack. The 150,000 Ukrainian troops were not mobilized on the deconfliction line for a camping trip. They were in place to invade. Russia pre-empted their attack.
“even though you claim there was preparation for such a planned attack.”
There was. There are mountains of evidence to support such a consclusion. Much of which has been presented here. The Russians could provide it all in far more detail.
“You are re-writing history with your own facts.”
No, you are. Because your main source of information on the conflict is the lying western press which convinced dupes like you that Iraq had WMDs, that Gadaafi was giving rape pills to his troops and Assad gassing his own people. It has now convinced you Russia was the aggressor and you swallow it hook, line and sinker. It’s sad and pathetic that a grown adult can be fooled so easily. You are a useful idiot and willing dupe of the NATOstani elite. Bravo.
“Let’s stick to actual events and stop making them up.”
Agreed. Only you’re not capable of actually doing so.
“Are you seriously suggesting that I am wrong in saying that Putin’s aspirations declared in his 2021 essay of a comradely union with Ukraine is impossible now?”
I assume you mean
“possible” not “impossible”. No doubt the same thing was said about Chechnya.“What fantasy are you living in?”
Chechnya.
“Gulnaz Sharafutdinova is Professor of Russian Politics and Acting Director of Russia Institute at King’s College London. Author of ‘The Red Mirror: Putin’s Leadership’ and ‘Russia’s Insecure Identity and Political Consequences of Crony Capitalism Inside Russia’ so she is no journalistic light-weight but a scholar.”
I have very little respect for western “scholars” when it comes to discussion of “official enemies”. They lie as much as “journalists”.
““The shift of power and influence away from the official security and defence institutions towards non-state organisations, such as Wagner and Kadyrov’s forces (also known as kadyrovtsy), who feel empowered to openly and sharply criticise state officials and army generals, might have significant consequences…””
Wagner and Kaydrov’s forces are but a tiny fraction of a fraction of Russian personnel. There are somewhere around half a million Russian troops in theater now. Wagner is around 5,000 the Chechens 10,000 if I recall. Your “scholar” thinks them significant how exactly? Lol, Lol, Lol
To duplicate the personal fiefdom of Ramzan Kadyrov. What an aspiration.
So bad are conditions that the exiles in the Chechen diaspora refuse to return and outnumber the population of Chechenya
However, you may also have overlooked the existence of the Dzhokhar Dudayev Battalion, Sheikh Mansur Battalion, and the Separate Special Purpose Battalion in the Ukrainian army.
TS “Your “scholar” thinks them significant how exactly?”
If you deign not to read the article, then you will never know the answer.
With all these detailed and seemingly endless refutations of Russian propaganda we are forgetting Karl Liebknecht’s slogan that “The Main Enemy is At Home”. That means, in this instance, concentrating more on attacking the propaganda put out by NATO and its proxy in Kiev. It certainly means not using this propaganda to refute Russian propaganda.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-k/works/1915/05/main-enemy-home.htm
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.