sshenfield
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Zelensky is not a Banderite.
On the Odessa massacre, see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/ukraine-dead-odessa-building-fire
By ‘Nazis’ Putin means Banderites, Ukrainian integral nationalists in the tradition of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, who did indeed collaborate with the Nazis during their WW2 occupation of Ukraine and massacred plenty of Poles and Jews in Western Ukraine. In post-Soviet Ukraine they constituted the Svoboda (Freedom) Party and the Right Sector. Although a minority, they are well armed and highly motivated. They played a crucial role in overthrowing Yanukovych in 2014 and in the massacre of Russian activists in Odessa and remained a significant part of the Ukrainian forces in the civil war in the east (e.g., the Azov Battalion). By de-Nazification I expect Putin means the exclusion of Banderites from public life, prosecution for their crimes and an end to the glorification of Bandera and their other ‘heroes’.
Ukrainians all along have been split about 50-50 between those who insist on breaking all ties with Russia and joining NATO and those who want to preserve ties and take Russian security concerns into account by remaining a neutral buffer state. Many of the uncompromising Ukrainian nationalists are armed and prepared to overthrow any government that makes a ‘fishy deal’ with Russia. Zelenko has been inclined toward compromise with Russia but scared of the ultras. If Putin does not get too greedy and stops upping his demands, he can come to an agreement with Zelenko that permanently weakens and marginalizes the ultras, who would become something like the IRA in Ireland.
From the photos on the BBC website the anti-war demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg seem quite big. As casualties mount and the coffins come back popular opposition will surely mount. This may be the issue that finally topples the Putin regime.
Very insightful interview (in two parts) with Andrei Buzarov on The Analysis (https://theanalysis.news/massive-escalation-in-donbas-or-a-new-propaganda-campaign-andrey-buzarov-pt-1-2/?cmid=b1126eeb-06b8-4404-aa5b-d27e4115fecb). One of the things he explains is that there are two rival diplomatic efforts, one involving the US and the other France and Germany (without the US). There is a division of interests between the US + its closest allies (like the UK) and France + Germany (e.g., Germany wants to save the Nordstream project for a gas pipeline under the Baltic from Russia to Germany, while the US wants to scupper the project). This intra-NATO split corresponds to a political division inside Ukraine between extreme and moderate Ukrainian nationalists, with President Zelenko inclined toward the moderates but afraid of another armed uprising by the extremists if he makes deal they disapprove of.
If the enemies of democracy are organizing to destroy it — Alan has drawn attention to some of the methods they are using — and we could do something to help defend it and choose not to, then however we may justify that choice objectively we are supporting the anti-democratic reaction. That is the logic of the situation in which we find ourselves here in the US, very much against our will.
The real process that maintains and fosters a social environment in which the movement for socialism is able to grow and develop is the struggle to defend and extend democracy. That is because the logical end point of the extension of democracy is a fully democratic society, in which democracy also applies to control over the means of production. i.e., social democracy or socialism.
ZJW says that an emphasis on the defense of democracy results in rallying behind the Democratic Party. ‘Rallying’ would obscure the need for socialism and so is unacceptable to us as socialists. However, our view of whether democracy is endangered, how and to what extent, should be based on study of the actual situation, NOT on what we fear would be the political result of acknowledging the danger to democracy.
‘Rallying’ is a possible political result of emphasizing the danger to democracy, but I do not think it is the inevitable result. We need not make the defense of democracy our SOLE emphasis. Equally important is to explain how the Democrats’ capitalism-as-usual constantly generates the conditions that enable threats to democracy to arise and to make people aware of the socialist alternative. Doing that hardly amounts to ‘rallying behind the Democratic Party.’
Chomsky’s position makes sense to me. He advocates tactical voting as something imposed by the situation but at the same time exposes the truth about the capitalist nature of both parties.
Yes, black people have been under threat all the time, but the degree of threat has varied over time. There was a long period when any black man who was not submissive enough was likely to be lynched or otherwise tortured to death by the KKK and when black communities were subjected to pogroms and ethnic cleansing. In recent decades those things have not happened. Maybe they remained latent, but better latent than actual. Should it be a matter of indifference to us whether or not political forces seeking a return to the old days gain power?
Not ALL the ‘conspiracy theories’ applied to the Republicans can also be validly applied to the Democrats. Neither are willing to introduce universal healthcare, but that is not the issue we are discussing here. There is ample evidence that the Republicans and not the Democrats are working to undermine and weaken the democratic elements that currently exist in the political system. We can argue that the Democrats help create the conditions that make this possible, but that is not quite the same thing. There is a real difference. Does it really not matter? And why should there be only ONE ‘problem’? There are many problems, even though most are subordinate to the general problem of capitalism.
I’ve attempted an analysis of the situation and posted it on wspus.org
By its own rules, NATO cannot admit a new member state that has an unresolved internal armed conflict. The civil war in eastern Ukraine is stalemated and is likely to be prolonged indefinitely, as whatever aid the West gives the Ukrainian government Russia will continue providing enough aid to the Donetsk and Luhansk ‘People’s Republics’ to stave off their defeat. So despite the talk it does not seem to me that there is any possibility of Ukraine joining NATO in the foreseeable future and the Russian leadership is overreacting.
Russia may be engaged in a broader effort to consolidate its sphere of influence in the inner part of the post-Soviet region, including Belarus and Kazakhstan as well as (part of?) Ukraine. In Kazakhstan China-oriented officials are now being purged and Russian advisors are at work in Minsk. But in Belarus and Kazakhstan it is only a matter of consolidating existing influence. Ukraine is already ‘lost’ to Russia. I cannot see what sense a full or even partial invasion of Ukraine would make.
Two books have appeared this month that are relevant to this discussion:
Mark Bowden and Matthew Teague, The Steal: The Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election and the People Who Stopped it (NY: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2022). Note that ‘the people who stopped it’ were Republicans who formally supported Trump but prioritized their constitutional obligations, those whom Trump loyalists call RINOs.
Barbara F. Walter, How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them (NY: Crown, 2022). She identifies the warning signs on the basis of international experience and applies them to the US.
I do not expect discontinuity in constitutional forms. There will still be elections but they will be held in conditions that ensure Trump can ‘find’ the votes he needs to win (like Putin in Russia). Vigilante terror will neutralize ‘enemies of the people.’ I agree with ALB that this is all very bad for the competitive viability of US capitalism. Major donors may shift their backing to the Democrats (Sheldon Adelson was a big donor to Trump, but after his death his widow announced she would not be making more political donations).
The top brass is presumably contemplating under what conditions they might intervene to prevent civil war, but the military is deeply penetrated by far-right elements, especially Christian nationalists.
ALB’s complacent conclusion that ‘it ain’t going to happen’ is belied by his own scenario in which Democratic states oppose a Trump presidency. The federal dictator could impose his will because he would be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, provided that the top brass recognized him as president.
Yes, many elected and appointed officials within the machinery of government have resisted Trump, but Trump and his supporters and funders are working systematically to ensure that next time Trump loyalists will occupy as many key positions as possible. The outcome is uncertain, but a scenario in which resistance grows progressively weaker cannot be e excluded.
Doesn’t addition of the word ‘independent’ make it a distinct name? In 1916 members of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany who were against the war broke away to form a new party called the Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany (or the Independents for short).
Michael Mann presents his analysis of ‘soft denialism’ at greater length in his new book ‘The New Climate War’ (2021), which I have reviewed for the next issue of World Socialist. The ‘conspiracies’ are quite real, the main conspirators, besides the corporations themselves, being PR firms and charlatans paid to pose as scientists and say what the corporations want the public to believe.
