Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB mentioned Socialist Resistance and them being part of one of the Fourth International, I thought I’d check which one as it is a bit confusing.
Here is a list of Fourth Internationals. Makes you wonder if there are more Fourth Internationals than there are Trotskyists. Here’s the list:
Fourth International (USFI)
International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)
International Committee of the Fourth International (Workers Revolutionary Party)
International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) (ICL-FI), previously the International Spartacist Tendency
League for the Fourth International (LFI), split from ICL-FI
League for the Fifth International (L5I)
International Workers League – Fourth International (IWL-FI)
Trotskyist Fraction – Fourth International (TF-FI)
International Socialist Tendency (IST), post-trotskyist
Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) – claims to be refoundation of Committee for a Workers’ International (1974)
International Socialist Alternative, claims to be successor to Committee for a Workers’ International (1974)
International Marxist Tendency (IMT), previously the Committee for a Marxist International, split from CWI
International Revolutionary Left (IRL), split from CWI
Committee for Revolutionary International Regroupment (CRIR
International Socialist League (ISL-LIS)
Internationalist Communist Union (ICU)
International Trotskyist Committee for the Political Regeneration of the Fourth International (ITC)
International Workers’ Unity – Fourth International (IWU-FI)
League for the Revolutionary Party – Communist Organization for the Fourth International
International Bolshevik Tendency
Bolshevik Tendency
Permanent Revolution Collective
International Leninist Trotskyist Fraction
Tendency for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International
Internationalist Trotskyist Nucleus-Fourth International
Organising Committee for the Reconstitution of the Fourth International (OCRFI), split from Fourth International (ICR) in 2016
Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT)
Internationalist Standpoint (IS)
International Leninist Trotskyist Tendency
International Trotskyist Opposition (reconstituted)
Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International (CERCI)Historic “Internationals”
Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI), 1974–2019 – split into Committee for a Workers’ International (Refounded) and International Socialist Alternative
Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International (CRFI)
International League for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International (ILRFI), 1976–1995
Pathfinder Tendency
Fourth International Posadist
Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International (WIRFI)
Liaison Committee for the Fourth International
International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency (TMRI), 1965–1992 – rejoined the Fourth International (post-reunification)
Permanent Revolution
Revolutionary Workers Ferment (Fomento Obrero Revolucionario, FOR)
Trotskyist International Liaison Committee, 1979–1984
Tendencia Cuartainternacionalista
Fourth International (ICR), also called FI (La Verité) or FI (International Secretariat) 1981-2015
Socialist Network (Post-Trotskyist, split from IMT)But if there is partition, won’t that leave western Ukraine able to join NATO, still posing a threat?
I also can’t see the Kiev govt. accepting any partition; and if it joins NATO post-partition, it might feel it can then strike Russian-held Ukraine with impunity, thus starting a NATO/Russia war.
You have advanced two contradictory propositions:
1. That the Kiev government will never accept partition.
2. That one part of a partitioned Ukraine will join NATO.It depends on what you mean by “accept”. Argentina doesn’t accept that the Falkland Islands are not part of Argentina but that does not alter the situation that in fact (and under international law) they are part of what’s left of the British Empire.
I would think that you are right that the Kiev government will never accept the partition of Ukraine in law, but, if the present situation is frozen, they will have to accept it as a fact even if they don’t recognise it in law.
This would mean that Ukraine — as a state with an ongoing territorial claim and dispute — would not qualify to join NATO:
Unless, that is, NATO wanted a direct war with Russia. Which they don’t as it is the officially declared US policy is merely to weaken Russia.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/04/25/politics/biden-administration-russia-strategy/index.htm
Russia seems to understand this too. So what there is there is a trial of strength between the US and Russia restricted to Ukraine.
I imagine he will feel fairly satisfied with what Russia has already got even if he would like Russia to control the whole area of the four Ukraine provinces it has annexed.
The Russian state may well want to go beyond this, if only as a bargaining chip in any future settlement. For instance to withdraw from in return for a guarantee that Ukraine won’t join NATO. Or to force Ukraine to come to the negotiating table. I don’t know. In fact Russia already controls a small part of a fifth Ukraine province that it has not annexed.
My guess is that Russia would be satisfied with a situation that froze the current line of control if this was offered. But it’s not, so it will continue to try to over-run more territory.
My guess is that Russia would be satisfied with a situation that froze the current line of control if this was offered. But it’s not, so it will continue to try to over-run more territory.
But your guesswork isn’t particularly reliable to be fair. 🙂
Fortunately a Russian invasion is not going to happen. It’s just sabre-rattling and rhetoric to back up diplomatic negotiations.
[#225741 – 21/1/22]
Not so long ago predicted a war between Russia and Turkey (which would have involved NATO). There isn’t going to be a Third Great War.
Start digging that fall-out shelter.Yes, I did underestimate the intransigence of the US in insisting that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO. I thought that, because there was less at stake for them than for Russia, they would back down. But they didn’t. Instead they called Russia’s bluff and the rest is still going on.
Incidentally, it was dated 21 January, not 21 February as you claim, ie wasn’t said 3 days before the invasion took place.
Incidentally, it was dated 21 January, not 21 February as you claim, ie wasn’t said 3 days before the invasion took place.
Mea culpa – now corrected.
Russia was not going to launch the invasion, the USA forced them to do that, and that is what they wanted, and they wanted to kill two birds with one shot which was to stop the Russian expansion and to kill the Chinese Silk Road. They did the same thing that they did in Kwait. Some left communists groups agree on that too. The USA did not accept any type of diplomatic negotiations, and when all diplomatic negotiation within the capitalists are exhausted the last resource is war. Russia is not prepare to carry a war against the USA and NATO and they knew that the USA was going to impose sanction on them, they did it when the Soviet Union was more powerful than Russia
At the present time the USA capitalist class is more interested in the Middle East crisis than Ukraine because there are several global interests involved in that conflict, and they got what they wanted in Ukraine, and Russia will keep a small portion of Ukraine, even more, Russia is already willing to negotiate a peace agreement and the USA will keep the larger portion of Ukraine under its influence
chelmsford
Participant
Not so long ago predicted a war between Russia and Turkey (which would have involved NATO). There isn’t going to be a Third Great War.
Start digging that fall-out shelter.—————————————————————————
The conspiracionists do not know the real causes of wars, they think that wars are started by an individual instead of the rivalry among the capitalists for territories, raw materials, resources, routes and sphere of influences. Capitalists have more consciousness than the working class and they are not foolish to kill all of them with one atomic bomb. When all diplomatic resources among them are exhausted they start a war and wars are not inevitable either. Iran is telling to its own rebel to avoid a world conflict because they know about the consequences and they do not have the resources to carry a long war, and the USA wants to eliminate their influences in the Middle East
Germany seemed thrilled with the Nordstream gasline which the USA scuppered, and Germany held out the longest against anti-Russia moves. Now, Germany is gung-ho for NATO and worried about a Trump return. What changed Germany?
Thomas_More
Participant
Germany seemed thrilled with the Nordstream gasline which the USA scuppered, and Germany held out the longest against anti-Russia moves. Now, Germany is gung-ho for NATO and worried about a Trump return. What changed Germany?
————————————-
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.htmlFormer President Donald Trump on Saturday said he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country that doesn’t meet spending guidelines on defense in a stunning admission he would not abide by the collective-defense clause at the heart of the alliance if reelected.
This is the opinion of a leftist group about the Ukraine -Russian war about an article published in the New York Times
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/02/26/nrdz-f26.html?pk_campaign=newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.