Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,149 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 6 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The Propaganda War
Russia’s military buildup near Ukraine has expanded to include supplies of blood along with other medical materials that would allow it to treat casualties, in yet another key indicator of Moscow’s military readiness, three U.S. officials tell Reuters speaking on condition of anonymity.
Ukraine’s deputy defence minister Hanna Malyar denied the information.
“This information is not true. Such ‘news’ is an element of information and psychological war. The purpose of such information is to spread panic and fear in our society,” she said
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-russia-moves-blood-supplies-173639366.html
If the USA is determined to “finish the job”, then surely Putin would choose the nuclear option, and death, rather than lose power and let a pro-American govt take over Russia.
The irony is that, under Trump, this crisis might not have happened. So who was the imaginary “lesser evil” on foreign policy: Biden the Bellicose or Trump the Isolationist? -ALB
I do a daily survey of the right-wing media headlines and they too are anti-war
Newsmax, One America News and Fox have all run stories against a war.
An example
The USA news media are like a pendulum, they oscillate from one side to another side, those were the same news media that supported the Iraq war and the embargo against China during the presidency of Donald Trump, they are antiwar at present because the Republicans want to earn brownie points for the midterm elections, they have always supported wars
Abiezer_Coppe
Participant
If the USA is determined to “finish the job”, then surely Putin would choose the nuclear option, and death, rather than lose power and let a pro-American govt take over Russia.
————————-
I don’t think an individual can start a war, in the past, the soviet union couple of times tried to shoot atomic rockets and several generals did not approve it, and also Putin has more internal problems than external problems and war will not give him more powers and more support from the workersBut they don’t need workers’ support for war.
None of us have any say, unless we topple capitalism first.
War is not democratic. We’ll just be told, “We are now at war with Russia” – just like in 1939 with Germany, announced then by radio, like it or lump it.
And once wars have started, and casualties mount, the workers’ hatred for the “enemy” workers also mounts.I have known that for many years, my point is that capitalist will use all their political and diplomatic resources to avoid war, and war is their last resource, and wars are not inevitables, mankind can stop wars. During 1914 Russians did not want the fight and the war ended
Only because there was a revolution!
Without a revolution, how can we stop the coming war?
As to the head of state being unable to launch a war, how come? Putin and Biden are commanders-in-chief of their armed forces. Any refusal to do as they say by army personnel would be treason/mutiny. The military are taught to obey.
It was not a revolution, it was a coup. The real history shows that the workers were at the front and the leaders and the party were marching behind. At the present time, the first revolution that we need is a mental revolution or a revolution of class consciousness. We had said many times that one of the merits of the Bolsheviks is that they were able to stop the war. There were several occasions including the USA and the Soviet Union that top generals contradicted the order of the commander in chief, even more, Noam Chomsky in one of his books indicated that. This is another conflict based on market
It has become something of a tradition in the UK in recent years to put involvement in a war to a parliamentary vote.
2003 Iraq invasion by Blair was approved by MPs
2013 Syrian intervention by Cameron rejected by MPsWill Boris Johnson follow these earlier precedents and put the question of a Ukrainian war to a Parliamentary vote?
I’ve attempted an analysis of the situation and posted it on wspus.org
We’ll be fried before British MPs arrive at the House to vote!
Under the unwritten British constitution, going to war has been a “a royal prerogative”, ie something the government can do off its own bat without needing to get the approval of Parliament first. However, if a government did this against the will of parliament it wouldn’t last long as a parliamentary majority would vote it out of office. As Alan has said, the practice has grown up of governments formally consulting Parliament before authorising military action. In one case, over Syria in 2013, they didn’t get it.
But let’s not exaggerate. The UK government is planning to double the number of British troops in some NATO countries bordering on Russia — from 800 to 1600. Russia is going to be trembling in its boots over that.
The only interest I can think of for British capitalism in Ukraine would be to weaken Russia generally. In other words, it wouldn’t be about the Ukraine as such. This could be an advantage because, due to global warming, a north east passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific will be open as a regular commercial trade route which Russia could control. Can’t think of anything else.
1). It would be like the Soviet Union in Afganistán and russia in Syria
2) The USA passed a law to obtain congress approval before starting a war. The constitution says the USA will only attack when it is being attacked
Capitalists law and agreements can be violated by the capitalists
The patriotic act allows the USA to attack any country
ACG on the Ukraine situation
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.