Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Again.. very sobering remarks ALB.
Like Thomas, I fell into the worst case propaganda of nuclear disaster.
Conventional weapons are bad enough too…
It is easy to fall into the ideology of the risk of mutually assured destruction.
The deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus made the threat more tangible… yet I guess this is part of ‘gang’ tactics to compel turf war settlement, and negotiate boundaries of street control of capital sovereignty (razor gang -like). The basic determinant of any war in their system is almost market correction of the spoils of expansion and contraction.
The odd thing is: the historical and temporal topology and information of any war differs; and yet the root causation remain the same-market spoils to the controlling elites at the expense of the subordinated classes.
If there is ever a time for education and clarity and awareness of this class exploitation it is now, and always has been.Noam Chomsky is always propagating the threat of nuclear wars, he said that during the war of Kosovo the Soviet Union was ready to drop an atomic bomb. I do not think the Soviet Union was going to do that
Let us hope they do not want to atomise the very thing they seek as market capture… they may itemise it as their capital inventory… and shun the cost of life as some collateral loss (current and future workforce. Corporate hostile takeovers and counter measures.
It is loss of life that I mourn for: people.
The commodification of people can likely lead to a morbid risk reward mentality… if only pro-social tendencies would stop them from tearing others up… again, nothing in their mode of production would permits such a nostalgia for life.
I remember reading on the site selfish ambition of people in a common society would lead to co-operation and end wars out of the self desiring life… only through mutual wish to preserve life do we see the other and a comrade and war is counter to this understanding…. can any correct this notion… I would love to better appreciate the idea.#242708
Thomas_More
Participant
The Soviet Union had ended by then, and Russia was at its political weakest.
—————————————————————————————————————-I meant Russia ( ex Soviet Union ) but the main issue is what we have said that during war time many conspiracy theory based on war hysteria are spread around the world, and the left-wingers also have always propagated fear among the population. He had also said that in several occasions we have been close to an atomic war and that is not true either
What if Article 5 is triggered? Movimiento says no nuclear weapons will ever be used, but, because of Article 5, NATO will be obliged to, won’t it?
————————————————————————————————————————-
That is not what I have said, I said that atomic war would be the last resource that can be used by the capitalist class, and they are used in order to among fear among them, they are not going to destroy all their industrial infrastructure, and natural resources needed to produce commodities, and they need the wage slaves to produce commodities. Article 5 of NATO does not call for Atomic Bombing, they will step in to defend one of their members. Capital is one of the enemy of the capital class and it forced them to enter into military conflict as a last resource too, war created destruction for them and the state must incur into large expenseshttps://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm Collective defence Article 5
Then why do the capitalists spend trillions on such weapons they don’t intend using, and billions too on luxury furnished nuclear bunkers for themselves – not to mention radiation-proof aircraft for the Heads of state to use to survey a post-nuclear landscape?
There are some bombs that can destroy bunkers, and they were used in Iraq to destroy military bunkers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP#:~:text=The%20GBU%2D57A%2FB%20Massive,the%20United%20States%20Air%20Force.The real answer to “ Then why do the capitalists spend trillions on such weapons they don’t intend using, and billions too on luxury furnished nuclear bunkers for themselves – not to mention radiation-proof aircraft for the Heads of state to use to survey a post-nuclear landscape?”
Is that because they can and that we are daft enough to let them.
However, to put it into perspective, it’s their insurance policy, I’ve got life insurance, that doesn’t mean that I plan to die right now. Hope that cheers you up a wee bit.
In terms of military spending, another of the ridiculous outcomes is the vast sums of money spent on arms that aren’t used. Vulcan Bombers, English Electric Lightnings, the last two Ark Royals, the first three generations of British nuclear weapons. All created and now scrapped.
I am not answering your question, I am giving an opinion about the effectiviness of the bunkers.
The answer has been given several times already by several participants of this forum.
War is the last resources used by capitalists when all the alternatives or diplomacy have not worked in any of the party involved in a conflict, and the capitalists are not going to destroy themselves either,
They are threatening each other, they can use atomic bombs in an extreme situation, they are investing in modern military hardwares that generate high profits
The news centers also generate high profits by creating fear among the population
So, Bakhmut still holds out, and in RT today Prigozhin is still complaining about ammunition and resources, saying counter-offensives are threatening to overwhelm his troops. Squeaky wheels and grease springs to mind, but the Russians are trying to hold a very long front, and will be cautious before they commit reserves and resources to any one point: any gaps will be plugged.
The BBC has reported Bakhmut has cost the Russians 20K KIA (whilst explicitly declining to report Ukrainian casualties, channelling their US source who says they refuse to speculate because Ukraine is the victim and has been invaded, make of that what you will).
It’s difficult to know what to make of the purported drone attack targeted on Putin: it’s probably rogue actors, but there’s a chance it’s a false flag to justify targeting Zelensky.
No matter which way you shake it, this war has been a horror show, and in the coming months, I think there will be a lot more blood shed to feed the black Earth of Ukraine.
It is a very strange situation, how drones can penetrate an area that is in constantly under military surveillance ? It might be an operation staged by the Russians government, or a could be an attack done by Russians groups that oppose Putin, or it is also a coincidence that the attack takes place when Zelensky is not in Ukraine but in Finland
False flag?
It seems the use of this technique is old as the hills. Could Putin have manufactured the event, the drone strike, to escalate his targets to ‘retaliate’ by mutual return and seek to assassinate Ukraine’s leadership… legitinising it in some macabre way…
Nothing at all is legitimate about war. False flags are the loss of truth… not just the first victim of war but a sustained casualty…
Workers killing workers is the worst of all… and that these factions can create a point of antagonism between workers, a false ideology, and use it to fuel national violence, killing a ‘false enemy’ … a false flag in itself.
Workers, I wish saw the true conditions of their lived and shared experience as a point of solidarity, due care, and common interests.It could have been done by any side of the conflict, the problem is that it might increase the confrontation, more destruction, more bombing, and more workers from both sides are going to die defending the interests of the capitalist class
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/05/04/dlkp-m04.html. This group is already blaming the Ukrainian government, but all sides are moving away from their own involvement in the attack, as it was done in Siria and other places around the world
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.