ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t know whether or not this is an April Fool but here is the front page of today’s Times:
“Don’t back down, Ukraine urged. Britain fears western allies will push Zelensky to settle for early peace deal.
Britain is concerned that the United States, France and Germany will push Ukraine to “settle” and make significant concessions in peace talks with Russia, The Times has been told. A senior government source said there were concerns that allies were “over-eager” to secure an early peace deal”https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dont-back-down-britain-urges-ukraine-wmtfkv3pn
Borys is clearly becoming too big for his boots when the poodle starts to tell its master what to do. Not doubt he will be slapped down but this is further evidence of Britain’s malign influence in trying to prolong the war with its death, destruction and misery.
“Real freedom doesn’t have a flag” is not part of the photo but what we as socialists say, added precisely as a criticism of those on the demonstration for wrapping themselves in a flag. The sane applies to the slogan “Stop All War”. It was meant as a criticism of the demonstrators who were demanding to stop one particular war (actually, to support one side in it).
Interview here with the leader of one of the breakaway statelets in the Donbas in which he invokes the “right to self- determination”:
“You know that there are two contradictory articles in the United Nations Charter, written respectively: One: the right to self-determination. The other article: the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the states. Which one of these two articles is the essential one? I believe the right to self-determination should be the essential one, and the people should have the right to make their own decisions. This is my opinion and understanding on this subject. I believe if the needs and the plight of people were the principle – instead of the economic interests of the states – the global system would have been more just.”
According to the TUSC website, one of our opponents in Clapham East will be them, their candidate being a Bobbie Cranney. Our chance to confront and expose SPEW as a phoney socialist party.
While we are sorting out the sheep from the goats, here’s a different breed of goat, the pro-Russia ones. This is the position of the “New Communist Party” (a breakaway from the old Communist Party over the Russian action in Czechoslovakia in 1968, hence their name of “tankies”):
They justify still supporting Russia, despite it not claiming to be socialist and them admitting it is capitalist, on the grounds that Russia is an economically backward country and so a victim of “imperialism”.
I know that opinion polls only give quick off-the-cuff answers to set questions and so are not all that reliable but the results of this one suggest that young people in the US, Britain and France are less susceptible to pro-war propaganda than those aged 65 and over:
It also seems that people in the UK are generally more susceptible even than those in the US. In fact only about 2% in the UK would seem to support neither side (very broadly our position) compared to about 15% in France and 10% the US.
Being the self-appointed chief cheer-leader in Europe for continuing the war in Ukraine seems to have gone to Borys’s head. He imagines himself to be a Great War leader. His latest idea is to send armoured landrovers to Ukraine to break the siege of Mariupol:
Apparently he sees it like the Relief of Mafeking in the Boer War that he would have learned as a schoolboy.
The trouble is that there is no way that the Ukrainian cavalry in landrovers could end the Russian encirclement of Mariupol. If they could they would already have done it.
But it’s another headline for Borys.
That’s ingratitude for you. Like Labour, the AWL supports Ukraine in the Ukraine-Russia War but Labour still wants to kick them out.
It is true, though, that the AWL is an “entryist” group in the Trotskyist tradition even if they are Trotskyoids rather than pure Trots.
Items from today’s Times indicating who is interested in keeping the war going:
“A government source expressed concern that France and Germany could call for sanctions to be eased if Putin agreed to take no more territory.”
“Johnson said he wanted to send Ukraine ‘more lethal’ military aid.”
And from the editorial:
“The surest path to an acceptable settlement is for the Ukraine to prevail over Russia militarily.”
Clearly Johnson has earned his place in the history books as a warmonger. How long British oligarchs (other than those who are merchants of death) will go along with sacrificing their profits to continue the war remains to be seen. As yet none has spoken out but the pain has not yet really been felt.
Russia’s list of “unfriendly countries” is instructive:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfriendly_Countries_List
It shows that they are all states that depend on US military protection and so can be expected to fall in line with US geopolitical strategy. The rest of the world (most) are neutral.
Looks like evidence of a serious war crime has emerged. Be interesting to see if the International Criminal Court, aided by UK money and advice, will investigate it. This is not self-evident as the perpetuators appear to be a rightwing nationalist militia incorporated into the Ukrainian army.
Arms companies — the merchants of death — have certainly benefitted from the war. There’s an article in today’s Times headed “Defence companies having a good war as shares skyrocket” which begin:
“Defence companies stocks have risen dramatically as the war in Ukraine triggers a ‘massive reinvestment’ in arms, according to industry sources.
Western governments are flooding Ukraine with guns, ammunitions and sophisticated man-portable missile systems, sending share prices for weapons companies up by as much as 72 per cent since the day Russia invaded.”That’s what you’d expect once a war starts. But I don’t think we can say that these companies start wars. They just profit from them. Nor would governments want to favour arms companies in particular as it is governments that have to pay for the arms — out of taxes paid by other sections of the capitalist class.
When I first read Martov’s theory as to why Bolshevik tactics were popular among some sections of the working class outside Russia I found it disappointing and could understand why the 1939 translation left it out.
To see support outside Russia for Bolshevik tactics as coming mainly from ex-soldiers is unconvincing and doesn’t fit the facts, not even in the defeated German and Austrian empires and certainly not in Britain, France and Italy. I know it was written in 1919 when it was not clear how things were going to develop. In any event it didn’t take long —a couple of years — before the Bolshevik government changed its tactics and abandoned immediate insurrection for electing left wing governments.
Dan of course was writing much later and able to trace the origin of Bolshevik ideas and tactics to a section of the Russian anti-tsarist revolutionary movement. But, if I remember, he still saw Bolshevik Russia as in some way basically socialist (because it was based on state ownership) rather than as a form of capitalism.
Because NATO, ie the US, wouldn’t let him of course. Equally significant is his new concession (recognition of reality) that Russian troops could stay in the Donbas region.
Some NATO states, eg Britain, still don’t want him to make any concessions as that would not mean that Russia would be seen to have failed. They prefer to provide Ukraine with more arms in the hope that Russia can be defeated militarily, but the only result will be more cities bombed, more people killed and more refugees.
