Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
BBC are saying 100,000 have left, it’s a clean sweep. No doubt some will go back, but it looks like ethnic cleansing is complete.
But conflicts between capitalist states may have little or nothing to do with capitalism as such, inasmuch as they are not principally fought over resources, markets or trade routes etc.
In this case, the mineral and industrial wealth of Ukraine is in the east, and the western part is largely agricultural, there is iron, coal and even oil: Russia has noted how it has made the Azov sea and internal sea, which is important for trade routes: likewise, Crimea is important as a way of controlling much of the Black Sea. A clear Russian war aim is to take Odesa, and make Ukraine a land-locked country.
Yes, Russia is also asserting an imperial sphere of influence, much like the Monroe doctrine, but countries choosing US hegemony rather than joining Russian hegemony are still in the grip of Hegemony.
The funders conference for the reconstruction of Ukraine talked of needing to restructure transport links to integrate Ukraine into the EU market, and open itself up to investment from EU capital.
There’s a scene in some Arthurian movie: two armies are facing off, and under terms of truce, if one side draws a sword, the battle begins (one soldier sees a snake and kills it, thus starting the bloody battle). The point: when armies are staring at each other, poised and cocked to fight, it doesn’t really matter who started it, the point is to stop it.
This is a war for land and minerals, which are not worth any worker from either side dying for.
An interesting and, it seems to me, balanced assessment of the current state of the war (again, from The Conversation). It seems relevant, with our recent discussions of conscription: “Russian pro-war bloggers complain that the country has refused to go into “total war” mode. But if it’s a long war of attrition, as seems likely, maintaining normality is actually a strength.”
And: “The bottom line is that Ukraine, which is completely dependent on outside support both financially and militarily, will find it hard to sustain its war effort at current levels. Right now it is Kyiv, not Moscow, which is under the greater pressure.” There is a likelihood that Slovakia may elect a war-sceptic government this weekend (or, at least, one that will be heavily divided on the matter) and Poland has some elections coming up, the destabilising effects of cheap Ukrainian grain may well ripple through the neighbour states. The ‘Justness’ of the cause may well be up against the self interest of the actors in the region.
Interesting article in The Conversation: “In December 2022, Azerbaijan began a blockade of the Lachin corridor, the only connection between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. In February, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued a binding order that Azerbaijan must immediately allow the unimpeded movement of people and goods along the corridor. Azerbaijan ignored this.”
The author notes that there was no come back from major powers, seemingly green lighting this move. Worryingly, they also suggest that Azerbaijan has expansionist aims, backed by Turkey: “There is reason to remain concerned about Azerbaijan’s plans. After the suppression of the Karabakh Armenians, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, reiterated what he has said before that he sees what he calls “Western Armenia” as historical Azerbaijani territory that Azerbaijan therefore has the right to reclaim.”
PGB,
well, terminology is an aside: what matters is that the effective control of the war is in the hands of the donors (since, if they cut off supplies, it’s all over). Their motives matter, and I think the onus would be on anyone trying to say that the the donor states are fighting for justice or the interests of Ukrainian people to prove that, especially in the light of their track record.
In world capitalism, no state is truly sovereign, and the world markets dictate much more than any one government can, so it is worth asking whether it is worth dying for what amounts to a change of name on the brass plate. A Ukrainian victory and recovery of their lands won’t lead to democracy, especially as the donors will call in their chips.
I doubt, in any case, that Russia intends to occupy the whole country, their war aims seem to be partition (cutting rump Ukraine off from the sea by taking Odesa as well). They’d be bled white in the west.
Ukraine will be Finlandised by the EU or Finlandised by Russia.
If that had been the whole of the comment, yes, it would have been a fair comparison, but it was part of a post with a more substantive and serious content. Your post that was just removed was an entirely off-topic post that took the form of personal communication, so it was in breech of the forum rules:
1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.Interestingly, the situation there is not on the front page of the BBC news right now (it is at the front of the ‘World’ news if you click through there, slightly ahead of David McCallum dying).
They have this article up – this is an interesting case of how propaganda and focus pull together, in this case, there is no British interest nor rival, so it gets slipped in as ‘in other news’. As far as I can see, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh are being shamelessly used: the Armenian government says they are fleeing repression, Azerbaijan says they needn’t and they’ll be full citizens (but, it does seem they are blockading the enclave, which will cause shortages, which basically encourages people to leave).
Russia, from an article I’ve seen on RT, seems to be blaming Armenia for undermining the previous peace deal by recognising Artsakh.
I do wonder if Russia is playing to get Azerbaijan’s oil, and this is part of the price?
PGB,
given the Ukrainian state is functionally bankrupt, and now only exists due to funding by foreign powers, I think it is perfectly fair to start describing this as a proxy war: that in no way vitiates the agency of the Ukrainians, but describes the constraints on their actions and abilities in this situation: whatever the ‘justness’ of their cause, it is fair to question the motives of the US et al and whether they are entirely disinterested (and given their recent record of using invasion and military force for geopolitical ends, it makes little sense to see their intervention as about stopping Russia from using invasion and military force for geopolitical ends, except as a rival rather than as a malefactor).
Even within ‘just war’ theory, one of the criteria for a just war is likelihood of success: is a victory possible. Independence is off the agenda for Ukraine, and even if victorious now, it will be a satrapy of the backing powers. Given it has exhausted all its own military stockpiles and its state is bankrupt, it’s reasonable to say it has already lost: maybe with enough pressure Russia can be made to backdown, but that doesn’t, in my current view, seem likely.
I think we are entitled to ask, as human beings, whether dying in their thousands is worth it. We are also entitled to question the motives of the governments we live under, and their, it seems to me, treating the Ukrainians as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.
To be, uncharacteristically fair to the Geordies, we are united in opposition to the real enemy: Monkey Hangers.
More seriously, to be frank I’d not begrudge the players, it’s their talent that makes the spectacle, and every penny that doesn’t go into their pocket will just go to the club owners and the businesses that feed off the footy, which in turn are feeding of our (collective) desire for community and enjoyment. Most of their wages comes from advertisers, not from gates (so, in a big way, we are part of the product, working for free, ourselves).
@Lizzie45 : picking up on spelling errors or language use is a form of personal attack under rule 7, please don’t.
@Wez:
7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Please watch your tone.
@Almamater please ignore and only respond to the debating content of Wez’ post.
I’m not at the point of naming users, but I recently removed a post with no content other than personal abuse, and also a post that responded to personal abuse.
7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Also rule 1 is relevant:
1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
There is no limit on what users can contribute, as long as they are bringing something to discussion of the topic at hand.
Apologies @Lizzie45 your message hasn’t reached us, it might be better to normally go via the forum moderation thread in the WSM section. In this case your message got binned since it seemed to have no content, it seemed to be a quote followed by ‘It’s enough to make a cat laugh’.
So, it’s over, again, and hopefully this time for good: Armenia recognises Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities have surrendered: so the ongoing hope is this does not lead to repression of the Armenian minority, though we can probably expect some of the members of the autonomous region to flee.
It looks for now like this is played out, unless Armenia wants to reignite it sometime soon (and, certainly, there seem to be popular protests against this, seen as a loss of natiunal prestige).
“This Conference rules that it is policy that any socially useful regulatory measures will be retained in Socialism.(2006)
“That the 1984 Conference Resolution, ‘This Conference affirms that socialism will entail the immediate abolition and not the gradual decline of the State’, be rescinded and replaced with: ‘That as the State is an expression of and enforcer of class society, the capture of political power by the working class and the subsequent conversion of the means of living into common property will necessarily lead to the abolition of the state, as its function as the custodian of class rule will have ended. Those intrinsically useful functions of the state machine in capitalism will be retained by socialist society but re-organised and democratised to meet the needs of a society based on production for use’ (2004)
“This Conference affirms that any law concerned with the enforcement of class relations or property interests could have no place in socialist society, but that any regulation which may serve the needs of the community could become part of democratic organisation in socialism.(1998)
“That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word “law” means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society. (1991).”
If memory serves, the 2006 resolution was an attempt to remove the 1991 version, which was amended to buggery.
