Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is fascinating essay by (allegedly) Putin:
Here
“What can be said to this? Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!”“I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.”
He considers the ‘anti-Russian’ agenda to be the work of 3rd Parties on Ukraine.
The whole thing reads very much like what we can expect from British patriots should Scotland ever gain independence…
Re: Nordstream: the War nerd discussion touches on this, noting that Putin has more leverage over Ukraine once it’s done, so they add it as another reason why invasion is unlikely now.
Re: way out. Paul Mason has been pushing the line that NATO can keep the principle that Ukraine could join, but in practice refuse to admit a state to a defensive alliance that is in a current state of war with a disputed border.
I’ve had the occasion to think, during the ‘rona crisis, how it proved that book wrong, they would really rather rule in hell than live in heaven. In some ways, it’s been quite shocking to see.
Paul Mason has been fairly vocal about the Russian build up:
“Meanwhile, an analysis from the Centre for Defence Strategies, a Ukrainian think thank, has concluded there is no immediate threat of Russian military action.
The think tank cites the following reasons:
a) The vehicles being monitored on the Ukraine-Russia border are not deployed, and nor are any of the required logistical units. They remain parked ready to roll.
b) The Russian troops are not moving as brigades, but as separate battalions; likewise their support units are moving separately. There is not, says the think tank, the “necessary connections” to begin operating at brigade level and above.
c) Further, Russia has neither deployed nor tested its wartime administration system — of eg transport police, logistical troops, security detachments.
The Centre concludes there is no possibility of action starting within “two to three weeks” and in addition, that a large scale invasion/occupation looks highly unlikely.”Without endorsement – I’m not qualified to judge – this sounds a level headed and thorough discussion of the situation (there may be some biases, listeners beware).
the suggestion is that London and Washington are ramping things up: but that Russia is seeking to Finlandise Ukraine
ISTR claims that the Russian game plan is partition, taking the largely Russian east, and leaving the largely agrarian west, which then falls into the European orbit (at least that’s what Germany would like), hence why the Germans are more accommodating (although maybe the views of the now ex-German admiral are more widely shared:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-navy-chief-resigns-over-putin-comments-2022-01-22/)Time for Axel Rose to take a bow:
“It outlines the various levels of popular representation in China — with people’s congresses elected at township and county level by all adult citizens, and higher congresses at provincial and national level elected by the lower congresses.
With more than 900 million people participating in the most recent township and county elections, electing nearly 2.5 million representatives, they are the largest direct elections anywhere in the world, it says, adding that voter turnout at around 90 per cent is higher than in the US where 66 per cent voted in the last presidential election. It also outlines China’s consultative procedures for formulating policies and laws, and points to the role of “people’s supervisors” who inspect and monitor the operation of the courts.”
Fnar. Wikipedia puts it succinctly:
“Elections in the People’s Republic of China are based on a hierarchical electoral system, whereby local People’s Congresses are directly elected. All higher levels of People’s Congresses up to the National People’s Congress (NPC), the national legislature, are indirectly elected by the People’s Congress of the level immediately below.[1] The NPC Standing Committee may partially alter laws passed by the NPC when the NPC is not in session, which is significant since the Standing Committee meets more frequently than the NPC.[2]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China“Elected leaders remain subordinate to the corresponding CCP secretary, and most are appointed by higher-level party organizations.[43] Furthermore, while legally responsible for the oversight of the administration, it is difficult for a person in a people’s congress without party support to exercise effective control or power over the administration of the executive at a given level.”
I read in the Morning Star that one of the Insulate Britain prisoners has begun a hunger strike. 5 days in.
I finally got round to reading the JFK timeline, to scratch an itch.
Short version, Oswald got his job in the book depository long before the route of the motorcade was decided, the only way he could have been a plant there would be if the motorcade planners had been in on the job, which, given the route wasn’t finalised till late, would suggest they weren’t.
That would only leave then that his alleged handlers got lucky, and he was in the right place at the right time for them, or he was a lone opportunist (which seems much more likely).
Let’s not forget, according to some docs I’ve seen, the party has basically alleged that the Vietnamese (and to extent the Korean) wars were about keeping those South China Sea lanes open.
This turn in discussion reminds me of the absolute poverty of Trotsky’s writing. I’d been led by his acolytes to expect some sort of major political insights, but the reality is his message was “Go back to your constituencies and prepare for civil war.” Of course, if you premise is civil war, then you need a command control apparatus for an army, and that shapes the conception of the party, if, instead you envisage a political process based on the overwhelming majority of people acting in their own interests, you don’t need that command control apparatus. This isn’t spontaneism, it’s simply democracy as the means to the end. Democracy and conspiratorial/minority organising are incompatible, and this goes to the heart of this whole debate.
“Russia’s state archive has published formerly top secret Soviet-era documents on the April 1940 Katyn massacre on its website….
“The first page of the letter bears the word Za – “in favour” – scrawled in blue pencil with the signatures of then Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and of Politburo members K. Voroshilov and A. Mikoyan, along with V. Molotov in ordinary pencil. In the margin are the names Kalinin and Kaganovich – also aides to Stalin – added in blue ink, and also with the word za.”
Now, irrespective of whether the actual massacre on the ground occurred, unless this is a forgery from within the Russians state archive, then Stalin authorised some 14K+ executions.
There are documents that seem to corroborate this document, so i think forgery is unlikely.
I love it when people are condemned by their own defence: “The democratic aspects of the Constitution2 were inserted at Stalin’s insistence. Stalin and his closest supporters fought tenaciously to keep these provisions. He, and they, yielded only when confronted by their rejection by the Party’s Central Committee, and by the panic surrounding the discovery of serious conspiracies that collaborated with Japanese and German fascism to overthrow the Soviet government.”
“Senior Party leaders were usually veterans of the dangerous days of Tsarist times, the Revolution, the Civil War, and collectivization, when to be a communist was fraught with peril and difficulty. Many had little formal education. It appears that most of them were unwilling or unable to “remake themselves” through self-education.”
“Ezhov’s own confessions are evidence that Stalin and the central Soviet leadership were not responsible for his massive executions. Ezhov explicitly states many times that his repressions and executions were carried out in pursuit of his own private conspiratorial goals. In his confession of August 4, 1939 Ezhov admitted: “[W]e were deceiving the government in the most blatant manner.”11 There is no evidence that these confessions represent anything but what Ezhov chose to say—no evidence of torture, threats, or fabrication.”
So, Furr simply Mirror’s the Trotskyist line that it was dwn to bad men (Zinoviev, Yezhov, etc.) and their hero was bravely battling the bureaucracy.
This is all irrelevant, since it demonstrates that the system established in 1917 was weak and prone to conspiratorial collapse, and could only continue without democratic input. Furr is possibly one of the greatest anti-bolshevik writers anyone could read.
If we believe Furr, it was all those nasty Bolsheviks and not cuddly Mr. Stalin who was to blame.
BTW, we have copies of the transcripts of the Moscow trials in the party library, I’ve flicked through them, they were not free and fair trials.
