ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes I have to admit that AC has been proved right that the NATO leaders would not be prepared to compromise on their aim of incorporating Ukraine into their sphere of influence, knowing that the stakes were higher for Russia than for them. And now it has to come to this.
Abenezer, read that link Robbo has just put up. It will answer some of your questions and maybe help assuage some of your concerns.
Actually, the first part — “the facts” — of that CWO/ICT statement is really quite good. It’s what follows which isn’t as they repeat their mistaken analysis of why there are wars under capitalism;
“The bourgeoisie does not walk down the path towards war just because they feel like it, but rather because they find that, in addition to attacking the working class, it is the only path to alleviating their cyclical crisis of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall over time.”
I think they would be hard put to justify NATO’s attempt to incorporate Ukraine in to its sphere of influence and Russia’s determination to stop this and perhaps bring Ukraine back into its sphere as motivated by a desire to alleviate the falling rate of profit.
Nordstrean 2 is nicht kaputt. As PJS has just pointed out, it has already been built. It is inconceivable that it won’t be used and will simply be abandoned. So its opening has only been postponed.
I am not suggesting that that will happen only that it’s one possibility. But. yes, it would involve Ukrainian forces not shelling the statelets.
In any event according to NATO Russian soldiers have been there since 2014 (that their explanation for why they are not regarding this being “legalised” as the famous invasion) and so will have been being shelled.
So when do we think all this is going to be drawn back and some kind of compromise reached?
One possibility is that nothing else happens, as after the take-over of Crimea. Russia stays in control of the two statelets (which are actually larger than the two Baltic statelets Estonia and Latvia) and the low level sanctions continue.
The situation will change only if one or the other side ups the ante, NATO by threatening more sanctions unless Russian troops withdraw from the two breakaway statelets and Russia by trying to expand into the area claimed by the two statelets but currently under Ukrainian control.
Neither side’s ultimate option is on the agenda — neither a generalised Russian invasion not Ukraine joining NATO.
Yes, what is striking is that at least in public and in rhetorics the Western politicians (and the tame media) show no indication that their actions will have contributed to the crisis. Personally, I think “NATO aggression” wouldn’t be the wrong word.
Sounds as if that could be one reason why the EU is interested but I suspect NATO’s interest will be more geopolitical, to try to press home its victory in the Cold War by continuing to kick Russia while it is down.
Anyway it has nothing to do with defending democracy. The Economist Intelligence Unit classifies Ukraine “a hybrid regime, somewhere between a flawed democracy and an authoritarian state”. And of course it has its own oligarchs.
“Sanctions against Russia
After all the big talk about what would happen if Russia invaded, just a slap on the wrist; just five banks and a trio of oligarchs targetted. Perhaps they feel partly responsible for the situation by pouring arms into Ukraine which were obviously going to be used at some point to try to crush the breakaway statelets.
And who will be collateral damage — the workers as usual, in this case with even higher gas bills.
And what can we say about the despicable Labour Party — “the Party of NATO” — and its despicable leader. He probably would have let Savile off the hook if it would increase his chance of becoming prime minister.
Johnson has clarified the situation. According to him the invasion has not begun:
“Boris Johnson has said.
‘We will immediately institute a package of economic sanctions. This is, I should stress, just the first barrage of UK economic sanctions against Russia, because we expect I’m afraid that there is more Russian irrational behaviour to come … [The sanctions] will hit Russia very hard, and there is a lot more that we are going to do in the event of an invasion.’Looks as if, following Truss and Ben Wally, another UK minister — the minister of health Javid — has made a gaffe, his being to declare that the invasion has begun:
“The health secretary told Sky News:
‘We have seen that he has recognised these breakaway eastern regions in Ukraine and from the reports we can already tell that he has sent in tanks and troops.
From that you can conclude that the invasion of Ukraine has begun.’”If it really has then we can expect the full crippling sanctions to be imposed on Russia. Can we? But if the full range of sanctions are not imposed we can assume that NATO does not consider that the invasion has begun.
Interesting short article here about the two breakaway republics.
I hadn’t realised that Lugansk was a city of 1.5 million inhabitants.
Just checked. I am not sure that figure is correct but it is still a big city.
The next move is up to the Western capitalist bloc. Russia’s move to recognise the two breakaway statelets is not the famous invasion. At the moment it is not even the “minor incursion”. The sanctions that the West impose will tell us what they consider this move to be. The initial US reaction seems rather mild:
“US to continue to pursue diplomacy with Russia until ‘tanks roll’, official says
Russian president Vladimir Putin’s decision to send troops he called “peacemakers” into breakaway regions of Ukraine has not as yet constituted a further invasion that would trigger a broader sanctions package, a Biden administration official told Reuters.
The United States will continue to pursue diplomacy with Russia until “tanks roll,” another official said.
Putin’s recognition of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic in eastern Ukraine as independent and his order to send in troops was met with widespread condemnation from the west.
However, one administration official told Reuters sending Russian troops into the separatist regions was not a departure from what Russia had done already, which was why it did not trigger broader sanctions.
Speaking to reporters on a conference call, the official said:
‘This isn’t a further invasion since it’s territory that they’ve already occupied.
Russian troops moving into Donbas would not itself be a new step. Russia has had forces in the Donbas region for the past eight years… They are currently now making decisions to do this in a more overt and … open way.
Russia continues to escalate this crisis that it created in the first place. We’ll continue to pursue diplomacy until the tanks roll, but we are under no illusions about what is likely to come next.’”The Ukrainian President has said the same about Russian troops already being there for years and that this is just legalising the existing situation.
Last month Biden apparently made a gaffe about distinguishing an invasion from a “minor incursion”. Perhaps it wasn’t a gaffe after all? In any event it was clearly something that had been discussed.
