Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,614 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 13 hours, 18 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If the rumours are true (?) that Starmer also did a deal with Zelensky over the minerals, won’t he want to ensure his finger in the pie before Trump takes the lot?
I think my pessimism and generalisation of fellow workers in the UK has a lot to do with where I live, in an elderly/middle-aged conservative, suburbia.
But when I think of the multi-cultural urban landscape I take some courage that it won’t be plain-sailing for Krieg Starmer & Co. to sell war, not even with the mainstream media licking their boots.
I hope not, anyway.“National self-determination” is Leninist, bourgeois, drivel, aptly exposed by Mary Marcy and Rosa Luxemburg.
The nation-state is the executive of the capitalist class of each state. Why should workers take up arms and die for it? It isn’t theirs. The workers have no country (Mary Marcy). Down with patriotism!Sanders’ betrayal and peace activists arrested.
I notice that Jeremy Corbyn, though not a socialist, has integrity regarding his refusal to give in to war hysteria, and speaks out against war with great courage.
https://www.rt.com/russia/613940-russian-troops-seize-constantinople-dpr/amp/
On the face of it, Putin has achieved what the Tsars tried to do for centuries. Not that the British Empire would have allowed it. Or his present-day equivalent, Lord Starmerston.
Starmer is pressing ahead with his “coalition of the willing” Ukraine troop deployment plan, without even referring to Putin’s ruling out of any NATO troops going to Ukraine.
Starmer says the plan has entered its operational phase.
He is playing completely deaf to what Putin says.
I think Starmer and his allies in Europe will start a war with Russia, rather than allow Trump-Putin negotiations to finalise.I don’t think that likely at all.
Trump may say he doesn’t mind British and other troops being deployed in Ukraine, but it is not up to him. It has to be agreed by the Russians and they have flatly ruled out any NATO troops having a role as peacekeepers.
NATO/Ukraine are pushing the peace deal strongly, and as they see it, it is only AFTER a peace deal has been agreed that they envisage a role for NATO or European peacekeepers in Ukraine. I can’t see them openly moving into Ukraine before a peace deal in defiance of, not only Russia´s wishes, but Trump´s as well
Macron has said as much
“European ground troops would only be deployed to Ukraine in a second phase, Mr Macron said in the interview published in Le Figaro”
/www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/what-we-know-about-macron-s-ukraine-ceasefire-proposal-which-he-says-the-uk-backs/ar-AA1A9Pqm
To get the Russians to agree to a peace deal in the first place and then to allow European troops in Ukraine will require a massive change of heart and attitude on the part of European powers involved. You can’t ramp up the gung ho warmongering and call on Russia to agree to a peace deal at the same time. These are contradictory goals. Besides, without American support, Europe hasn’t got the means to take on Russia or, probably, the will – particularly if it risks escalating into a nuclear exchange.
Public support for the Ukraine war is waning, anyway, and this trend is likely to continue as economic hardship kicks in (cuts in social welfare to fund increases in offense spending, the loss of relatively cheap gas from Russia, the effects of Trumponomics and tariffs etc etc). Also, Macron and Starmer are both very likely to lose and be booted out of power come the next round of elections. Here in Spain, there is significant opposition to Sanchez’s plan to increase military spending in line with NATO’s target from some partners in the ruling coalition
Remember, politicians are basically bullshitters and poseurs and while little Boy Starmer might puff his chest up and beat his little toy drum, there is not much he can do. It’s all a passing show
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.