ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That assumes that Trump will not have been elected President. Apparently he once said that NATO is dead and that the US would never help Europe in a war with Russia:
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/donald-trump-says-never-help-europe-attack
Maybe that’s why some European militarists are worried and want to beef up their state’s armed forces and win popular support for this.
It seems it sells newspapers too.
Meanwhile the government doesn’t seem too happy with the views of Sir Patrick Blimp:
“In response to Gen Sir Patrick speech the UK prime minister’s spokesman said hypothetical scenarios of a future potential conflict were not helpful and ruled out any move towards a conscription model for the Army.”
Every day more military warnings.
Yes, currently militarists are campaigning for more money to be spent on the armed forces and their weapons, exaggerating the threat from Russia to back up their case.
For instance, there is an editorial in today’s Times headed “Big Stick” with the subheading “Russia’s potential for nuclear adventurism justifies the updating of Britain’s deterrent”. Apparently, Russia has an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons (to be used on the battlefield rather than to blow up the world). The editorial concludes:
“‘Speak softly and carry a big stick,’ goes the proverb. In this uncertain world Britain requires its nuclear big stick more than ever.”
I thought the “proverb” was first enunciated by US President Theodore Roosevelt. It is a theory of diplomacy which accepts that relations between capitalist states are based on the principle that “might is right”.
It doesn’t necessarily imply that the stick should be used but only that it should be waved about so the other side can see it and take that fact into account.
We shouldn’t help the militarists’ campaign by accepting what they say as necessarily true. They have an axe to grind.
Interesting voting tactic in the New Hampshire primary elections:
Apparently these votes will be counted separately:
“The New Hampshire secretary of state’s office told HuffPost that the ‘ceasefire’ votes will be tallied in a ‘separate column’.”
I wonder how many votes they will get.
Don’t forget this comment at the end from another WSPUS comrade:
“Ukraine is just another proxy war between East & West, like Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan (from 1979-89). There is no way I can imagine NATO going to war with Russia/China or vice versa. If there was going to be a nuclear war, it would have happened during the nuclear arms race of 1945-87. In conclusion, world leaders are not going to blow up the world to stop a rival group of capitalists from being top dog.”
Sunak — backed by Starmer — has justified the latest bombing raid on Yemen as “self-defence”. Who do he — do they — think they are kidding? More like “self-interest” in keeping a key trade route open. But even that’s open to question. By bombing Yemen the first time they clearly made the situation more risky for all ships, especially for UK shipping which wasn’t targetted before (unless they were bound for Israel). But now they are.
Sunak also claimed that it had nothing to do with the war in Gaza. Nobody will believe that.
Maybe they are interpreting to “self-interest” in a broader sense of showing to Iran who is in control of the resources and sea trade routes in the Middle East and are prepared to sacrifice the interest of shipping capitalists in the wider capitalist interest.
It goes without saying that they couldn’t care less about the effect on ordinary people such as prices rising more and being at greater risk of being the victims of terrorist attacks.
Good stuff. Particularly relevant today are the two articles about the bombing of tribesmen in the Middle East which show that Starmer’s support for bombing Yemen today is consistent with past Labour practice — and would be continued under a future Labour government.
Yes, we missed that as well as the coming into office of the first Labour government (which didn’t last for long but was enough to convince the ruling class that Labour was fit to govern the British Empire on their behalf).
Anyway, here’s the special issue we brought out on the centenary of Lenin’s birth in April 1870:
Sounds like the military-industrial complex creating an atmosphere to get governments to allocate more to military spending. Guns before butter again, that comes naturally under capitalism. Disturbing all the same.
Grant Shapps, the minister of war, was doing the same thing a week or so ago:
Actually, not yet. Russia resorted to war because the US and Britain were so intransigent that Ukraine should be able to join NATO. Anyway, it looks like Russia is going to get a big chunk of Ukraine and control of the Sea of Azov out of it.
Here is the full text of Milei’s speech at Davos:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/special-address-by-javier-milei-president-of-argentina/
It reveals his “Anarcho-capitalism” to be old-fashioned 19th century free trade liberalism. In fact the term he uses the most to describe what he is in favour of is “free trade capitalism”.
This will be the passage that the elites cheered the most:
“capitalist successful business people are social benefactors who, far from appropriating the wealth of others, contribute to the general well-being. Ultimately, a successful entrepreneur is a hero.”
You are missing the point as to why states arm themselves with the most up to date weapons of destruction that they can afford. It’s because relations between capitalist states are based on the principle that might is right. The mightier a state is the more clout it has in diplomatic negotiations, the outcome of which depends on how each side perceives the balance of forces.
This in fact could even be said to be the main “use” of these weapons. Even if there was never to be any wars capitalism would still have to waste resources on weapons of destruction.
But of course there are wars but only as a last resort when diplomatic negotiations and bargaining fail and a state considers its vital interests to be under threat, as Russia did over NATO trying to incorporate Ukraine and move weapons up to its border or as the US feels from time to time that its access to raw materials or to trade routes is threatened.
In other words, the examples you give are not preparations for war but preparations to build up a state’s might so it’s not trampled on in negotiations to protect or further the economic interests of its capitalist class.
Northern Ireland is the only place in the UK where a political strike has been successful — the Ulster Workers’Council Strike of May 1974. Its organisation and methods, including armed militias, had all the characteristics of how some syndicalists and councillors see the revolution. However, it is not often mentioned by them as its aim was not that desirable:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Workers%27_Council_strike
The Guardian has provided a chronology of the bombing spree in the Middle East between the gangsters and the counter-gangsters operating there:
1. Continuing – Israel-Lebanon border
Israel and Hezbollah exchange fire across border2. 7 Oct – continuing – southern Israel
1,140 killed in Hamas attack on southern Israel, according to Israel. Rocket attacks on Israeli cities3. 7 Oct – continuing – Gaza
More than 24,000 Palestinans killed in Israeli assault on Gaza, say Palestinian authorities4. 14 Nov – West Bank
Raid on Jenin refugee camp amid escalating
West Bank violence5. 8-12 Nov – Deir ez-Zor province, Syria
US strikes on claimed Iranian Revolutionary Guards facilities6. 19 Nov – continuing – Red Sea attacks
Houthi attacks on shipping in response to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza7. 21 Nov – south of Baghdad, Iraq
US airstrikes hit Iran-backed militants in Iraq in response to attacks on US troops8. 25 Dec – Damascus, Syria
Iranian general Sayyed Razi Mousavi killed
in Israeli strike9. 2 Jan – Beirut, Lebanon
Seven Hamas militants including senior leader al-Arouri killed10. 3 Jan – Kerman, Iran
Twin bombings target Qassem Soleimani memorial11. 4 Jan – Baghdad, Iraq
US airstrike kills an Iranian-backed militia leader accused of launching attacks against US troops12. 12 Jan – De facto Houthi authority, Yemen UK and US launch airstrikes on Houthi infrastructure. US carries out additional strikes on 13 and 16 Jan
13. 15 Jan – Erbil, Iraq
Iran hits multiple targets allegedly linked to Israel14. 15 Jan – Idlib province, Syria
Iran strikes targets allegedly linked to Isis-K15. 17 Jan – Balochistan, Pakistan
Iran strikes targets allegedly linked to Sunni militant group16. 18 Jan – Near Saravan City, Iran
Pakistan strikes Iranian village it claims houses terrorist group originally from Pakistan17. 17 Jan – De facto Houthi authority, Yemen US carries out fourth round of strikes on Houthi targets, reportedly hitting loaded missiles
