Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
TW – “The Europeans certainly don’t consider Russia part of Europe. No invitation to join the EU or NATO.”
I didn’t realise that geography was invite based. You presumably now think that the EU and NATO control geography. Is there no limit to your paranoia.
Presumably Switzerland is in Africa on your map.
😂😂😂😂TW – “You are an ideologue All-in, not a materialist”
Come on then sunshine give us the meaning of the words you speak, or as I suspect do you just open your mouth and let the wind blow your tongue around?
“The new world that is emerging will be based on win-win economic relations rather than naked aggression, coups and ruthless exploitation. Socialism will have breathing space to thrive in this new environment but only if the US and the other core imperialist counties (Europe. Australia/New Zealand, Japan and Singapore) are defeated in their ambitions to maintain the status quo.”
____________________________________________________This is delusional on so many levels
TS´s conception of “socialism” is about as “socialist” as the “socialism” of the German Nazi Party. His outlook is the “red fascism” of far-right Stalinists who like their counterparts in nazi Germany are fiercely ultranationalist, disgustingly elitist, and show complete contempt for working-class lives (TS gets off on the idea of turning fellow workers into “fertilizer”).
He has zero understanding of what capitalism is about – let alone socialism. He does not seem at all familiar with the Marxian explanation of capitalism as a system of generalised wage labour that must operate in the interest of capital and hence against wage labour. Preposterously, and in direct opposition to the Marxian position, he seems to imagine that the state sector of the capitalist economy is somehow “noncapitalist”. How is that even possible if according to Marxist theory, the state is an institutional tool that exists to serve the interest of the ruling class- in this case, a capitalist ruling class?
The fact that politicians and not capitalists themselves for the most part do not directly administer capitalism via the capitalist state is completely irrelevant. The politicians are obliged to administer capitalism in the only way it can be administered – in the interests of capital
Just because much of the state sector is unproductive in the sense that it does not produce commodities (and therefore does not generate profits) does not alter the fact that it is indispensable to capitalism and its profit motive. Adam Smith knew this well enough but not our economically illiterate TS. The military, for example, exists to protect and promote the interests of the domestic capitalist class in their competitive struggles against rivals for markets, resources, and points of strategic interest. War is essentially an extension of this economic conflict into the military field.
Hilariously, TS fancies himself as a “materialist” – actually, he is a self-declared idealist who thinks capitalist conflicts like the current one in Ukraine is fought over rival ideologies like Nazism – and pompously tell us that “his posts are meant to inform those who are actually materialists”, not “ideologues” like ourselves…..
He declares
“China is run by Marxists as is Vietnam, Cuba and Laos. The leaders of all these countries disagree that the profit motive is inherent to their societies. It is a temporary and necessary stage on their road to communism.”
Seriously? This is so goddamn stupid that I don’t know whether or laugh or cry at the sheer insanity of it. China is a billionaire´s paradise. The Chinese ruling class has ZERO intention of ever heading for a moneyless wageless stateless and classless society. Why should it when it is the direct beneficiary of the status quo – the existing class-based society capitalist society? TS calls himself a “materialist”. Can he cite one case throughout recorded history when a ruling class has gone completely against its own interest and has willingly and voluntarily opted for its own extinction? Some materialist!
The Chinese ruling class is never going to willingly relinquish its power and economic status in capitalist society any more than the American or British ruling class will. It will have to be forced to do so by the conscious and democratic will of the majority – the working class.
Finally, what are we to make of this gibberish?:
“the new world that is emerging will be based on win-win economic relations rather than naked aggression, coups and ruthless exploitation”.
This is as dumb as the capitalist hard sell attempted by anarcho-capitalists who like to reassure us that there is no class struggle in capitalism and that the interests of workers and capitalists are convergent. A “win-win situation” my arse!
Chinese capitalist imperialism is driven by what is called “brute force economics” intent upon eliminating the competition and reducing client states to a state of dependence on China. TS like the gullible fool he is has fallen for the hard sell – the ideology – in complete contravention of his supposed “materialism”. He should do some reading
The supposed “multipolar” world we are meant to be emerging into does not in the least spell the weakening, let alone the end, of imperialism. Imperialism is merely the transnational expression of capitalism´s expansionist dynamic and it can take many forms – not just in the form of setting up American military bases everywhere as some naive leftists (and rightists) contend. What we are seeing is merely a reconfiguration of the map of global imperialism in favour of Asia.
Imperialism, whether in its manifest or latent form, whether in its military or economic guise, is intrinsic to capitalism and is a tendency that exists in every single country in the world. This is because every single country in the world is capitalist.
This exposes the utter absurdity of TS´s position. He thinks imperialism is confined to just capitalist states like America. He has bought into the idealist concept of American exceptionalism. There is something in the nature of American society that uniquely makes it imperialist. This is the same childish idea that feeds into the notion that wars are about “good” versus “evil”.
In TS´s case, it’s the evil empire of America versus Holy Mother Russia led by Saint Putin.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
Yevgeny Prigozhin said that it could take 18 months to two years for Russia to fully secure control of Ukraine’s eastern industrial heartland of Donbas.
He added that the war could go on for three years if Russia decides to capture broader territories east of the Dnieper River.
Of course, for someone who runs a mercenary army, the longer a war goes on, the more profits he accrues.
But it may also be a sign of him disparaging the Russian army’s performance as it is no longer a secret that tension and rivalry exist between the two forces.
https://www.anews.com.tr/world/2023/02/11/wagner-owner-says-war-in-ukraine-will-drag-on-for-years
In the same interview he says Wagner no longer recruits convicts from Russian prisons but that the Russian army now does.
Thank you for your response. It seems we found a way to communicate without symmetrical negative retorts. I prefer that, it is conducive to discourse. So, thank you.
“They are delusional fanatics. The fate of the world is literally in the hands of a small group of delusional fanatics who believe Russia is just one step up the escalation ladder from complete defeat. But Russia is not. Russia is winning.”
Fanatical belief seems systemic in today’s world order. States produce messaging through their ideological state apparatus , having one believe there is a just cause and a matter of principle on either side. The Regressive apparatus (Army, Police and traditional forms of power) are simply engaging in a capture of markets. Corporations may not lob a weapon with such crudity in a hostile take over, yet the principle and inter-discursiveness is that… war for market control of a people and its resources. I know you may not see it this way, but this is how it seems to me and many others, but we will not get full recursion on that idea.
“It’s up to the people of Europe to start putting their bodies in front of weapons shipments. If they’re serious about avoiding a nuclear war this is a good place to start”
The socialist intention is education leading to awareness of our oppression and collective wish for a pro-social society. Parliament is our only tool- a tool of a class or groups of people alienated from the means of production and anterior to the accumulation of wealth. It is through democracy that we get a collective will of the social group and change the base/structure (it economic and its ideological articulations). Bodies of our dear brothers and sisters is not the way. That is a barbarism in Rosa Luxemburg’s “socialism or barbarism”.
TS, I wonder if you may consider that nationalism and vilification of the Ukraine is the narrative Russian state officials are using to legitimise the war. Wonder if you might consider the sub narrative (aside narrative) might be the capture of markets to compete against the Western economies- increasing their economic base through annexation to retain a larger relevancy against OECD blocks.
Time is money: war is money.
Stay safe and thank you for your challenges, it assist focus a point of view, even if you might not share it.. maybe at times it may lead to concurring: like socialism or barbarism.
The Ukrainian secret police clamps down on draft dodgers — yes, they exist there as well as in Russia. Good luck to them.
https://ssu.gov.ua/en/novyny/sbu-likviduvala-6-novykh-kanaliv-vtechi-ukhyliantiv-za-kordon
BBC and TASS are both reporting that the Russians are claiming to have captured the district of Krasny Hora to the north of Bakhmut: which puts them almost inside the town and cutting off northern supply routes.
Now, the BBC are reporting Russian losses of 800+ per day (pinch of salt: but RT & Tass are not talking up Ukrainian casualties, and not mentioning Russia casualties: but the fighting is intense, Russia has more men it can lose: and if Bakmut falls, it will probably involve the surrender of thousands of Ukrainian troops).
Tactical advances have been made in Kremennaya in Luhansk, but fighting in Ugledar doesn’t seem to be being highlighted, where the twittersphere says things are not going well for the Russians (and there doesn’t seem to be any propagandising pushback on that).
“Thank you for your response. It seems we found a way to communicate without symmetrical negative retorts.”
I am quite capable of being civil but if there’s a shift in tone I won’t allow an insult to go unanswered.
“I prefer that, it is conducive to discourse. So, thank you.”
I agree.
“Fanatical belief seems systemic in today’s world order. States produce messaging through their ideological state apparatus , having one believe there is a just cause and a matter of principle on either side.”
Sure, but they can’t both be right. You will probably retort that they can both be wrong. And yes, they could. But I don’t believe the Russian state is in the wrong here. As far as I understand it it is the official position of the SPGB that Russia was provoked in to invading Ukraine. If you deliberately provoke someone in to taking an action then they they take that action it seems to me that the provocateur is at fault.
“The Regressive apparatus (Army, Police and traditional forms of power) are simply engaging in a capture of markets.”
That is NATOstan’s motivation, sure. Not Russia’s. For Moscow this is a conflict to prevent the imperialist dismemberment of its state and to birth a new anti-NATOstani coalition to overthrow the “rules based order” of the US hegemon.
“Corporations may not lob a weapon with such crudity in a hostile take over, yet the principle and inter-discursiveness is that… war for market control of a people and its resources. I know you may not see it this way, but this is how it seems to me and many others, but we will not get full recursion on that idea.”
You are correct. I do not see it that way and I believe it an ideological blind-spot of yours that you do.
“The socialist intention is education leading to awareness of our oppression and collective wish for a pro-social society.”
Isn’t praxis the socialist intention?
“Parliament is our only tool- a tool of a class or groups of people alienated from the means of production and anterior to the accumulation of wealth.”
But parliaments are constituted of representatives are they not? How does a leaderless organisation lead?
“It is through democracy that we get a collective will of the social group and change the base/structure (it economic and its ideological articulations).”
It depends what you mean by “democracy”. There are many iterations, some, like the American or British, undifferentiatiable from oligarchy.
“Bodies of our dear brothers and sisters is not the way.”
I believe you’ve misunderstood me. I was inferring protest/civil disobedience not armed resistance.
“That is a barbarism in Rosa Luxemburg’s “socialism or barbarism”.”
“TS, I wonder if you may consider that nationalism and vilification of the Ukraine is the narrative Russian state officials are using to legitimise the war.”
I don’t believe you are familiar with Russian media. They do not vilify Ukraine. Russians love Ukraine. Moscow is very specific. They blame this conflict on
NATO and the Nazis maneuvered into power through the Maidan regime change operation/coup.“Wonder if you might consider the sub narrative (aside narrative) might be the capture of markets to compete against the Western economies- increasing their economic base through annexation to retain a larger relevancy against OECD blocks.”
Except that Moscow did everything within its power to avoid the conflict continually calling for the implementation of Minsk 2. We know Minsk was a charade, thanks to Merkel and Yanukovych, meant to string along the Russians and buy time for the Nazi proxies in Kiev to rearm. This is incontrovertible evidence of western, not Russian, duplicity. Russia wanted peace not a costly war for “markets”. Again, I believe this is an ideological blind-spot of yours.
“Time is money: war is money.”
Pithy but in no way does it advance understanding of this conflict.
“Stay safe and thank you for your challenges, it assist focus a point of view, even if you might not share it..”
I believe you are focused on a mistaken point of view. One arrived at through ideology rather than evidence. But, as Swift said, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into.”
“maybe at times it may lead to concurring: like socialism or barbarism.”
Maybe.
BBC embedded in Bakhmut report
“We have some shortages of ammunition of all kinds, especially artillery rounds,” says Capt Mykhailo from the 93rd Mechanised Brigade, whose call sign is ‘Polyglot’. “We also need encrypted communication devices from our Western allies, and some armoured personnel carriers to move troops around. But we still manage. One of the main lessons of this war is how to fight with limited resources.”
We get an insight into the ammunition problems as Ukrainian troops target a Russian position with 60mm mortars. The first mortar round flies from the tube with a loud bang. The second round doesn’t eject.
Of course, they also highlight the high cost in human life for the Russians (but don’t mention the same for the Ukrainians, save that a lot of men have given their lives to hold the town).
Just while I’m here, True Scotsman makes the below point:
Sure, but they can’t both be right. You will probably retort that they can both be wrong. And yes, they could. But I don’t believe the Russian state is in the wrong here. As far as I understand it it is the official position of the SPGB that Russia was provoked in to invading Ukraine. If you deliberately provoke someone in to taking an action then they they take that action it seems to me that the provocateur is at fault.Ethically, it depends on what the provocateur wanted to achieve, and what the provoked person is doing. A nagging spouse may well provoke a person to violence, but we would condemn the violent one anyway, and see it for the abuse it was.
In this circumstance, the provocation from the US is to try and make Ukraine part of it’s sphere of influence (or, at least, that is how the kremlin sees it) while Moscow believes it to be within its sphere of influence: Ukraine is caught between the pass and fell of mighty powers (or, again, at least, that is Moscow’s aim, to claim equality with the US and to settle this Empire to Empire).
“Ethically, it depends on what the provocateur wanted to achieve, and what the provoked person is doing. A nagging spouse may well provoke a person to violence, but we would condemn the violent one anyway, and see it for the abuse it was.”
And what if the nagging spouse’s foreign lover, who covets the family home, gives said spouse a loaded shotgun and directs them to first shoot the family dog then point it at said nagged spouse and pull the trigger? Then what do you see?
“In this circumstance, the provocation from the US is to try and make Ukraine part of it’s sphere of influence (or, at least, that is how the kremlin sees it) while Moscow believes it to be within its sphere of influence”
No that was not the plan. Stage one was to overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected government in a violent fascist led coup. Stage two provoke. Arm said fascists, sick ’em on rhe ethnic Russian population; promise said fascists NATO membership along with basing rights and eventually nukes and wait for the Russians to respond, as they must, with violence. Stage four: sanction Russia, activate fifth columnists such as “human rights activists” and other assorted NGO regime change operatives. Infiltrate the protests that the various traitors and fifth columnists stage with agents provocoteurs and bring down the government. Stage five: break up Russia into statelets, pauperise the population, privatise all state assets and steal anything not nailed to the floor. All this you will find written in exquisite detail in neo-con think tank white papers and RAND reports. It’s not even a secret.
“Ukraine is caught between the pass and fell of mighty powers (or, again, at least, that is Moscow’s aim, to claim equality with the US and to settle this Empire to Empire).”
Rubbish. Russia has no imperial ambitions. Quite the opposite. It is at the coal face of the struggle against NATOstani(read US) imperial hegemony. If you weren’t blinkered by ideology you would know this. But you can only lead a horse to water. You can’t make it drink.
True Scotsman wrote:
No that was not the plan… Stage five: break up Russia into statelets, pauperise the population, privatise all state assets and steal anything not nailed to the floor. All this you will find written in exquisite detail in neo-con think tank white papers and RAND reports. It’s not even a secret.Sounds awfully like bringing Ukraine, and ultimately Russia, into the US sphere of influence.
Rubbish. Russia has no imperial ambitions. Quite the opposite. It is at the coal face of the struggle against NATOstani(read US) imperial hegemony. If you weren’t blinkered by ideology you would know this. But you can only lead a horse to water. You can’t make it drink.
Russia has a clear and longstanding sphere of influence policy: it’s stated war aim was to control the foreign policy of Ukraine, much as it demonstrated it’s sphere of influence interests during the NATO bombing of Serbia (which it clearly hasn’t forgotten). Likewise, it’s intervention in Syria. It’s intervention in Georgia, etc.
“Rubbish. Russia has no imperial ambitions. Quite the opposite. It is at the coal face of the struggle against NATOstani(read US) imperial hegemony. If you weren’t blinkered by ideology you would know this. But you can only lead a horse to water. You can’t make it drink.”
_________________________________________
Once again TS demonstrates he has no understanding of what imperialism means. He equates this merely with territorial expansion backed by military force – although even on this very narrow definition Russia qualifies, without a shadow of doubt, as an imperialist power. How else are we to understand the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas for example?
His idealist and emphatically non-materialist explanation for the war in Ukraine gives overriding importance to the role of ideology. This is a struggle against Nazism according to TS (notwithstanding that there is little to choose between the Ukrainian and Russian regimes in terms of their repressive authoritarian character or that self-identifying Nazis can be found on both sides of this conflict). TS has rejected the Marxist explanation that at the root of this conflict is the usual capitalist rivalries over markets, resources, trade routes, and points of strategic importance.
True to his conspiracy-coloured view of the world, he refers to some neo-con think tank white papers and RAND reports (no references provided) to bolster his view that Western imperialist powers seek to “break up Russia into statelets, pauperise the population, privatise all state assets and steal anything not nailed to the floor” All this, he assures, “you will find written in exquisite detail” in the aforementioned papers and reports. Maybe you can (or maybe you can´t) but it does not follow that the events that unfolded in Ukraine can be explained in terms of stated intentions and hallucinatory fantasies expressed by a handful of neocon crazies in some relatively obscure publications which 99.999% of the population would not have clapped eyes upon.
That is not the way a “materialist” would analyse the situation and, of course, it hardly needs to be pointed out that it was the Russian oligarchs themselves (mostly ex-high-ranking apparatchiks of the pseudo-Russian “communist” party) who were at the forefront of “privatising state assets and stealing everything not nailed to the floor” following the collapse of Soviet state capitalism. The Putin regime is precisely the official representative of this Russian oligarchic capitalist class with Putin himself being one of them
An interesting statement from Moldova’s president who also faces a Russian-supported breakaway separatist republic problem.
Maia Sandu accused Russia of planning to use foreign saboteurs to bring down her country’s leadership, stop it from joining the EU, and instrumentalise it in the war against Ukraine.
Recent protests against the administration’s pro-Western course have been described as part of a Kremlin-sponsored campaign to destabilise the government.
“Through violent actions disguised as protests by the so-called opposition, the change of power in Chișinău would be forced,” Sandu said.
The plans would involve foreigners from Russia, Montenegro, Belarus and Serbia entering the country to carry out subversive actions and trying to spark protests in an attempt to “change the legitimate government to an illegal government controlled by the Russian Federation,” the Moldovan president said.
According to Sandu, Russia aims “to overturn the constitutional order, to change the legitimate power from Chisinau to an illegitimate one that would put [Moldova] at Russia’s disposal to stop the European integration process.”
An important caveat, however. The intelligence came from Ukrainian sources but confirmed by Moldova
Echoes of the 2014 Crimea/Donbas playbook.
Moldova’s president warns Russia plans coup d’etat in the country
TW – Stated “As far as I understand it is the official position of the SPGB that Russia was provoked in to invading Ukraine. If you deliberately provoke someone in to taking an action then they they take that action it seems to me that the provocateur is at fault.”
This is not the “official position of the SPGB”. We are a democratic party and it would only be the “official position” of the SPGB if the democratic processes of the party decided it was the “official position” of the party.
Some members writing for the Party Journal have put their view that the West provoked the conflict, this was their view, (one I agree with to some extent). However this needs to be seen within the context of capitalist society, i.e. that all sections of the ruling class are in struggle with other sections of their class to gain the long term strategic and eventually the financial advantage, or trying to lesson their disadvantage, in terms of each other.
Which side was “at fault” is not something we (and the working class) have an interest in, one way or the other. It certainly doesn’t follow that we should therefore support the victim of the provocation. As we have tried to explain to you, our view is that neither side of the conflict deserves any support from the working class. They essentially are the two shitty cheeks of the same capitalist arsehole.
Your idea that Russia is some form of society that is not capitalist and is not socialist, is as laughable as it is demonstrably incorrect.
TW – “But parliaments are constituted of representatives are they not? How does a leaderless organisation lead?”
The clue is in your own words “representatives”. Representatives do not lead, they represent, a leadership organisation therefore does not lead, it represents the group it is elected to represent.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of idealism as magnificently as you misunderstand materialism. Idealism doesn’t mean that you have ideas. The Materialist Conception of History does not deny the influence of ideas on history. In fact there would be no revolutionary changes if ideas did not play a part. What it does is to trace the source of the ideas, but to deny the power of ideas alone.
Socialist have drawn certain conclusions from past and present conditions and are trying to pass on these ideas with a view to bringing about a change in the economic base of society because we hold that present conditions are fettering the further development of mankind.
TW stated – I believe you’ve misunderstood me. I was inferring protest/civil disobedience not armed resistance. – ”
You weren’t inferring, you were implying. The active person makes the implication, the inference is made by the person receiving the implicit message.
“Maia Sandu accused Russia of planning to use foreign saboteurs to bring down her country’s leadership, stop it from joining the EU”
Sure, there’s no way ordinary people would be challenging their “leaders” who are attempting to incorporate them into the neo-liberal hell-hole that is the EU. It must be “outside agitators”. Said every fascist ever. Now All-in is shamelessly pedaling fascist memes. Good running dog, here’s a bone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.