Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yes, we were wrong in not expecting Russia to invade. I still don’t think that that was Russia’s intention from the start but that the massing of troops on the Ukraine border was a move to strengthening its bargaining hand.
Where we went wrong was in underestimating the West’s (ie America’s) intransigence. I thought they would back down. The fact that they didn’t suggests that it was America’s intention to do down Russia from the start.
I know this view aligns with the leftist position that the present situation is due to “NATO expansionism”, but can anyone think of another explanation?
Perhaps it was to occupy only the Donbas region of Ukraine and unite it to the LPR and DPR, enlarging those to make it the friendly buffer state that Russia sought Ukraine to be, plus to make it more viable and Russia fell for its own propaganda that they expected it to be more sympathetic to Russian rule.
But first, before grabbing the Donbas, Russia had to achieve Ukraine’s surrender to permit the eventual re-drawing of the border in a peace settlement. Putin may indeed hold the belief that such a goal still remains possible.
It may explain Russia’s reticence to initially launch a full-scale shock and awe war and appear to try to limit their attack to military objectives such as airports but that has gone awry and now it is seen necessary to capture cities, maybe even only encircling them in sieges to pressure Zelenskyy into capitulation and ceding the eastern part of the country.
So in my scenario, while NATO expansion was a factor there was another way of fending it off.
But what do I know, I was only a postman and never studied military strategy at Sandhurst or West Point.
Someone has pointed out to me that the ultimate cause of the present situation is the global capitalist system of economic competition both between capitalist enterprises and between capitalist states. The economic stakes being sources of raw materials, markets, trade routes, investment outlets, and strategic points and areas to protect these.
So, to blame just one side, as in the leftist slogan “No to NATO expansionism” is to exonerate Russia. This was why I was feeling uneasy about reaching the conclusion that the war might be NATO’s fault and so in a way exonerate Russia to some extent. But, to avoid this, is precisely why we do not support organisations like the Stop the War Coalition (of which Corbyn was once the leader) who campaign under this slogan — even though of course we do want the war to stop.
I suppose the situation is similar to the interwar period last century. The world was already dominated by America, Britain and France, so any other capitalist power wanting to challenge this such as Germany and Japan was bound to appear to be the aggressor and in fact to have to be more aggressive. But the blame them exclusively for the war exonerated the already dominant capitalist states and to take their side.
In other words, we always need to bring into any explanation the nature of the whole global capitalist system as creating the conditions for wars.
Still, I believe that Russia was not going to invade Ukraine, they moved troops to the borders in order to exercise pressure on the other capitalist blocs. I do not take the stand of the leftwingers who claim that capitalist expansion or imperialism falls into one country only ( or the so-called empire ) imperialism is the whole capitalist system. The other view of the left is that one individual can initiate or stop a war, and that is false too, the logic of the capitalist mode of production is the cause of wars
This is the only leftist group that has taken a correct stand
https://en.internationalism.org/content/17148/capitalism-war-war-capitalism-international-leaflet
The situation in Odessa
“What I think of Russia has not changed today, I don’t see Russia as an aggressor. I believe that in a month, maybe a little more, the military actions will stop and more reasonable people will take the place of our current leaders,” said Alexander, a resident of the city. “For me it’s the defenders who are the danger, much more than the so-called aggressors.”
A further reminder of NATO atrocities in its 1999 bombing campaign against what was left of Yugoslavia.
Labour — the “party of NATO — was then the government in Britain.
This statement on the war is good too. It’s from a group that is against the so-called nation-state ( from an anti-nationalism rather than an anarchist point of view) as well as capitalism. In German they call themselves “Gegen Kapital und Nation”.
Here is how that group interprets the Ukraine state’s defence strategy:
“Ukraine has no bright future to offer to its patriots. In his well-received speeches the Ukrainian president executes the Ukrainian defence strategy. This strategy is prepared to sacrifice everything and everyone in Ukraine for Ukraine. Assuming that it cannot win a war against Russia, the Ukrainian military strategy is to mobilise its entire society in multiple defence “waves” until the “international community” ends the conflict “on favourable terms for Ukraine” (hence the insistence on no-fly zones to draw NATO into a direct confrontation with Russia). The president’s pitch essentially is: “die for the fatherland until NATO intervenes.”
YMS, as our war games expert, does this make sense as a strategy? It does seem to be that that is their strategy, cynical and a mug’s game for those called upon to die for the Ukrainian state as it is.
news.sky.com
Europe is funding the war – not CFC’
Graffiti has appeared at Stamford Bridge club today after Chelsea’s owner Roman Abramovich was sanctioned by the government for his links to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A message outside the stadium in red spray paint read: “Europe is funding the war – not CFC”.
The move by the UK government has frozen the 55-year-old billionaire’s planned sale of Chelsea.
The Stamford Bridge club will be given a special licence to continue operation but under limited terms.
The move has thrown Chelsea’s long-term future into doubt, though government ministers have insisted any damage will be limited.On the BBC this morning, there was an interview with whoever, he was asked would Putin use chemical weapons?
The reply: Assad* has used them (chemical weapons) in Syria, and nothing was done about it”.
Presumably meaning Assad wasn’t charged with war crimes against humanity.*gets away with on the grounds that chemical weapons were used by ISIL militants?
Evidence has been claimed both have used them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_warNewsreaders saying the west will be drawn in if Putin uses chemical weapons. Why would it be?
Putin like any other president has his/her own boss
@abiezer_coppe
Oh no, I hope CFC don’t run out of plastic flags.
I don’t think that CFC fans get much sympathy from other football fans. 10 years of history…
“Why are Chelsea fans having to suffer?” asks a disgruntled Chelsea fan interviewed during news of CFC owner Roman Abramovich assets being frozen, BBC Breakfast Sports.
All Abramovich has to do is wait for trickle down.
The USA armed forces used cluster bombs in the Gulf war and the Iraq war and depleted uranium too, hospitals, churches and ambulances were also bombs. The VP of the USA known as Kamala Harris should do some history search
As the US have imposed sanctions on Russian oil imports.
The beneficiaries of this will be erm..Venezuela*.
*Saw something to this effect in the media, but can’t remember when/where
atm?Capitalists bed hoping.
Wonder if those who tell us about Venezuela blah, blah socialist… socialism failed… starvation…on the party Twitter feed. Will suddenly go missing?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.