Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,586 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 10 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The background to that news story is that the current pro-NATO government in Rumania is trying to stop a pro-Russian candidate from winning the upcoming presidential elections there:
Both sides are interfering trying to bring about an outcome that favours them. This is happening not just in Rumania but in other countries in the region such as Moldova, Slovakia, Hungary, Georgia and Armenia. At the moment Hungary, Georgia and Slovakia have elected pro-Russia governments while the Rumania, Moldova and Armenia have pro-NATO ones.
The situation is like it was before and between the two world wars with the “Powers” employing all sorts of intrigues to bring about a government favourable to them in the countries of the region.
This won’t necessarily provoke a war, even though the intrigues in Ukraine eventually did.
How far do you think the planned militarisation and mobilisation will go? Compulsory “civil defence”/nuclear war drills? How should we respond?
I recently forwarded an anti-fur message, upon request, to “my” MP. He shot it down with an email saying that the only priority now is “national defence.” This will be the response to all social welfare projects too: must be shelved as “national defence” is more important!
How far are they going to push this hysteria over a war the US is sick of?
How far are they going to push this hysteria over a war the US is sick of?
They will rearm and put guns before butter to do this. This will be — in fact already is being — accompanied by an intense propaganda barrage to try to persuade voters to go along with it.
Here’s an extract from an article written for next month’s Socialist Standard:
‘National security’, admirals, generals and air chief marshals are telling us, is ‘the first duty of any government’. In a sense they are right. The first duty of a government is to ensure security, though not of the population it rules over; it’s the security of its capitalist class, to protect them from being taken over by the armed forces of a rival capitalist state.
To do this, the government has to equip, train and maintain a military force armed with the most up-to-date weapons of individual and mass destruction that it can afford. This has to be paid for out of taxes that ultimately fall on the profits of the capitalist class. As the government’s ’first duty’, such spending takes priority over other government spending, as summed in the saying ‘Guns before Butter’.
And when the US and Russia do a deal, and European troops are not allowed to go ahead with their entry into Ukraine, and Trump and Putin re-establish Nordstream 2 etc., what then?
One of the problems with the ‘peace at all cost’ argument (i.e. Russia ‘winning’) that some are touting is the long-term ‘totalitarianising’ effect of this and the consequent closing off of any possibility of the free exchange of ideas which is essential for the socialist case to be heard and spread. In this connection this short article from the Guardian is a necessary read:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/09/many-teachers-dont-want-to-do-this-but-theyre-trapped-film-shows-extent-of-putin-indoctrination-in-russian-schools
In a similar connection our own Keith Graham’s recent letter in the Guardian is interesting too:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/09/the-greatest-scandal-is-individual-powerSo you think (“peace at any cost”) that fighting for Ukraine is on a par with the Spanish republic?
Europe is hyperventilating marching itself into totalitarianism, but I don’t think Russia wants to invade.
The governments here are using Ukraine as an excuse to bring in more repression, militarism, and social cuts.
My personal position is that I do not promote Trump’s peace. What I do not support is the continuation of this bloody war, nor do I take any side. If peace were achieved, it would be better than the death of our fellow Russian and Ukrainian brothers in class.
Only Trump and Putin can make “peace” in Ukraine.
Starmer’s and Macron’s “peace” is to send in troops (which will mean us all being fried!), or to continue supplying munitions to Ukraine, which will make use of them.
So, only the biggies can do the deal, and the others will have to shut up, eventually.
Thomas,
I see it as you do—between the “peace” of Trump/Putin and the “Peace” in the European style, I prefer the former, as a socialist world cannot exist with the latter option…
And while it is true that Russia is a ruthlessly authoritarian state, in which it would be impossible to spread socialist ideas, I don’t think Putin wants to annex beyond Ukraine and possibly Moldova. I don’t think he wants Ukraine; just the parts he has taken. Which is unfortunate for those living there, but at least they won’t be bombed any more.
Those trying to persuade us that Putin wants to conquer Europe are playing on most people’s childish narrative of WW2 and of wars in general as a struggle between dictatorial maniacs and nice kind democrats. One has to look at the economic realities.I see it as you do—between the “peace” of Trump/Putin and the “Peace” in the European style, I prefer the former, as a socialist world cannot exist with the latter option…
Yes, I agree with that, Roberto….
Though Trump’s motives for peace are quite different from ours, at least the possibility of some kind of deal that would lead to the cessation of conflict is on the horizon. Let’s face it, that would never have happened had the Anti-Democrat Party candidate, Kamala Harris, won. That’s about the only good thing you can say about Trump – the prospect of an escalation of the war may have receded and with it the prospect of a nuclear exchange – even if that was highly unlikely in my opinion.
Interestingly, I’ve come across some more stuff on MSM about Trump going on about “de-nuclearisation”. Can’t see it happening, but still it’s better than issuing nuclear threats
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trump-plans-to-get-rid-of-nuclear-weapons/ar-AA1Asm8O
It is left to the warmongers like the Anti-Labour Party leader, Boy Starmer, to continue beating his little toy war drum. I can’t see his posturing getting him anywhere and the cuts to social welfare spending to boost defence spending is not going to make him popular. Come the next election, this disreputable sleazy outfit could well be pushed into third place, behind Reform and the Tories. Serve the bastards right.
Of course, the Putin regime is a nasty piece of work, but all the same, better this stupid war ends now than later with yet more workers´ lives lost. In any case, the Russian military seems to be on a roll and the longer conflict goes on, the more territory it will take. Not that socialists give a fig about national sovereignty either way
I think this is the excuse the Boy wanted to cut welfare payments drastically and to wage war on his real enemy: us, the proletariat.
Mind you it’s not just Boy Starmer who is beating his toy war drum. So is Macron. Maybe even more so
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.