Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,318 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 4 days, 10 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Sorry, a bit fed up of hearing that Russia’s invasion was ‘provoked’ (so presumably you can’t blame Russia).
So you go along with the Western media’s narrative that it was “unprovoked” and that it is “Putin’s war”, the personal choice of an evil ruler of an evil empire (and so presumably you can’t blame the US, NATO and Britain)?
Why is it not possible, in the clash of interests between capitalist states for one side to do something that provokes the other side into military action?
It has happened quite often in recent history. To say that one side provoked the other is not to take sides but merely to note a historical fact.
It was obviously a provocative act to expand NATO and its missiles aimed at Russia into Ukraine just as it was for Russia to try to instal missiles in Cuba aimed at America in 1962. On that occasion the provoking state backed down. In Ukraine it didn’t.
In any event, socialists don’t take sides in capitalist wars. We note that it is whole capitalist system with its built-in competitive struggle for profits that is war-prone, with wars breaking out when the rulers of one state judge that a vital interest is at stake that can be defended in no other way.
So you go along with the Western media’s narrative that it was “unprovoked” and that it is “Putin’s war”, the personal choice of an evil ruler of an evil empire (and so presumably you can’t blame the US, NATO and Britain)?
You know better than to make this crass assumption, ALB.
This is like the dinosaur-denying conspiraloons who retort to evolutionists: “So you believe Jurassic Park, do you?”I was only counterposing a hypothetical crass assumption to H.Moss’s crass assumption that to say that Russia’s invasion was provoked was to exonerate Russia.
Personally, I think there was provocation on both sides if we are getting into the game of allocating blame which is not really what we socialists are into. Otherwise, we would be little different from those leftists who say the enemy is imperialism – specifically, American imperialism – and that we are morally obliged to stand up for whatever regime is under assault from said American imperialism.
There was certainly some provocation on the NATO/Ukraine side in the form of the Eastward expansion of NATO after Gorbachev dissolved the Warsaw Pact. I’ve never really understood the reason for this expansion. You would have thought the appropriate response to the dissolution of the Warsaw pact would have been the dissolution of NATO but it didn’t happen. The Russians were clearly worried about NATO expansion in the same way that the Americans were worried about nuclear missiles being sent to Cuba all those years ago. Whats sauce for the goose….
Then there was Donbas. This region broke away from Ukraine after the CIA-backed Maidan coup – another provocation – that toppled the government there. Donbas did not want to remain under the new, clearly Russophobic, regime which, with the support of fascist elements, started shelling cities in Donbas from 2014 onwards. Thousands of civilians lost their lives in Donbas before the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
As I understand it – correct me if I am wrong – Russia´s initial response was not to get directly involved. It wanted Donbas to be a kind of semi-autonomous region within Ukraine with guaranteed language rights etc. The Minsk agreements were supposed to resolve the situation there but they did not hold up. The spark that supposedly set off the Russian invasion was what appeared to be a massive build-up of Ukrainian forces on the border with Donbas in preparation for a large-scale invasion and in contravention of the Minsk agreement
That said, the way in which the Russian regime responded to these events demonstrates that it was no less culpable. The so-called special military operation began with an attempt to reach Kyiv and presumably decapitate the regime there (and “denazify” it, as the propaganda put it, although these also hardened fascists fighting on the Russian side). From Russia´s point of view, I would argue making a beeline to Kyiv was an incredibly stupid blunder as it did indeed allow the Ukrainian side to take the high moral ground by describing this as an unprovoked invasion. From that point of view, it would have been better had they just entered into Donbas and supported the separatists there.
But of course, this is to look at the conflict from what might be called a capitalist perspective which indulges such fanciful notions as the “just war” or “unprovoked aggression” and where everything is analysed in simplistic black or white terms by both sides in any conflict. From such a perspective the problem is never capitalism itself but, as socialists, we beg to differ
What about Senator Lyndsey Graham’s analysis? In a nutshell – it’s all about the loot. No socialist can argue with that.
“Then there was Donbas. This region broke away from Ukraine after the CIA-backed Maidan coup – another provocation – that toppled the government there. Donbas did not want to remain under the new, clearly Russophobic, regime which, with the support of fascist elements, started shelling cities in Donbas from 2014 onwards.”
As far as the surveys and scholarship that I’m aware of, most of the residents in the Donbass region were actually not in favor of outright separation from Ukraine and joining Russia, but rather different forms of greater regional autonomy, which included separation. The 2014 survey I mentioned previously in this thread discusses this, which is also referenced by Sakwa in his scholarly work Frontline Ukraine.
You’re spot on though in noting how the Russian invasion of Kiev was, besides being a horrific act from a capitalist regime that involved massacres like the one in Bucha, just a strategic blunder on the part of Moscow. The invasion has distracted from the fact that there was quite a bit of Ukrainian opposition to the post-Maidan government in Kiev and its discriminatory policies from the more Russophilic parts of Ukraine. It has also allowed Ukrainian nationalists, along with the people who parrot them in the West, including quite a number of socialists, to present the Ukrainian recapturing of places like the Donbass and Crimea as a form of “self-defense,” when a number of residents in these regions would perhaps think differently. It is well-documented, for example, that the majority of Crimeans sympathize more with Russia than with Ukraine and mostly approved of the 2014 Russian annexation of the peninsula. It was certainly more possible to speak of Ukrainian self-defense when Russia was invading Kiev, amid a mostly hostile Kievan population, but it’s just ludicrous to speak of the “liberation” of places like Crimea when the majority of Crimeans (who are mostly ethnic-Russians) don’t even desire “liberation” to begin with.
“As I understand it – correct me if I am wrong – Russia´s initial response was not to get directly involved. It wanted Donbas to be a kind of semi-autonomous region within Ukraine with guaranteed language rights etc.”
It’s also worth noting that Russia annexed Crimea mostly due to fears of losing access to their only major warm-water sea port in Sevastopol, which they have maintained since the days of the Russian Empire. Moscow became apprehensive about their continued access to the naval base following the Maidan coup and the rise of an openly pro-Western and Russophobic government in Kiev.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c625p2wy3q7o.amp
This could drag in more countries.At this point either ALB or Robbo step in to reassure Sir Thomas all will be well.
Getting a bit samey this thread.https://kyivindependent.com/russia-destroys-historic-house-of-20th-century-ukrainian-revolutionary/
I don’t suppose they deliberately singled out the building but this is the sort of thing that happens in wars. It looks as if the Russian state might soon capture Gulyaipole — or what’s left of it —which it claims is part of its territory.
“there are limits to the losses Ukraine can take. We do not know where that limit lies, but we’ll know when it happens. Crucially, there will be no victory for Ukraine. Unforgivably, there is not, and never has been, a western strategy except to bleed Russia as long as possible.”
and
“More fundamentally, two ancient ethical questions governing whether a war is just must now be asked and answered: whether there is a reasonable prospect of success, and whether the potential gain is proportionate to the cost.”
This seems to be a sobering analysis, Ukraine is collapsing slowly, it cannot afford to mobilise its 18-25 year olds: Russia will not overrun Ukraine, and the author is right, they simply could not hold it. They may seek to Finlandise the Ukrainian government, but I suspect they will opt for taking Luhansk and Donetsk: I doubt they’ll strike for Odessa (link up with Transnistria?).
How will Moscow and Washington re-establish relations when the Ukraine war ends? How will both arrange any re-establishment in propaganda terms for the brainwashed workers on both sides?
It was quickly done after WW2, but in that case the figureheads of the defeated side were all dead.
Similarly, how will Pacific tensions be resolved without war?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.