Propaganda & Provocation

For weeks, now, NATO imperialism has been ramping up its propaganda, claiming that Russia was about to invade Ukraine. The propaganda acted as cover against the fact that NATO itself has been continuing its build up of troops, and encirclement of Russia, and has also failed to implement the Minsk Accords, by pressing Kyiv to stop shelling the Donbass, and implement the promised autonomy.

But, the propaganda has had another purpose, it has also been used as provocation. Rather like Needles taunting Marty McFly, it is NATO trying to provoke Russia into attacking Ukraine by asking, “What's the matter? Chicken?” Because, if Russia does not attack Ukraine, then NATO will simply spin that into being a claim that the only reason it did not happen was because of NATO's threats. This is not at all unusual in such conflicts between bourgeois states, for whom war is the continuation of politics by other means. And, the use of propaganda, including the most lurid accounts of atrocities committed by the other side, are its stock in trade.

Claims of atrocities are a favourite of liberal interventionists, as a pretext for wars. As Trotsky described, in relation to the Balkan Wars, at the start of the 20th century, liberals sent out the message to minorities that they will be there to defend them, should any atrocity or grievance be imposed upon them. Of course, the response to this by every minority is then to shout atrocity, and, thereby, obtain the support of some liberal interventionist patron, who can come and win battles for them, which they would never be able to achieve, left to their own devices. Indeed, the smaller, the less support any minority has, within any given state, the more likely it is that they will shout atrocity, in order to gain such intervention. Its why Marx and Engels saw small-nations as being reactionary, because they would always appeal to larger states – at that time Tsarist Russia – for support, with reactionary consequences.

And, of course, once the liberal interventionists have used this pretext of atrocity to justify the military involvement of their own large state, the more they must rely on propaganda to justify those claims, whilst simultaneously censoring the reporting of atrocities committed by the “liberators”. So, for example, as Trotsky describes, in relation to the Balkan Wars, the Russian liberals, like Miliukov, argued for Tsarist intervention in the Balkans to defend the interests of the Slavic peoples, and Orthodox Christians, who were being oppressed by the Ottoman Empire. The liberal Russian press carried extensive stories about Turkish atrocities being committed. However, Trotsky and other war reporters sent back stories of equally barbarous acts being undertaken by not only the Bulgars and others, fighting against the Ottomans, but also by those very liberal interventionist forces, sent from Russia to bring “liberation from above”. Yet, all of these reports failed to see the light of day, in the press.

Responding to the liberal Miliukov, Trotsky writes,

"Your censorship has not pursued military aims, it has not been concerned to safeguard military secrets, but rather to conceal 'secrets' of quite a different order: all the black spots, all the cruelties and crimes, all the infamies that accompany every war, and your war in particular. That is what you have striven above all to hide from Europe! You have indulged in the senseless dream of hypnotising European public opinion and making it believe not what was true, not what you yourselves know to be true, but what you wanted to get accepted as true. You wanted to make Europe believe that the armed Turkish peasants, workers and hamals (porters) whom the ruling caste of Turkey transforms into an instrument for enslaving the non-Turkish nationalities, and the Turkish working masses, constitute 100 percent embodiments of cruelty, barbarism, and bestiality. And you wanted to make Europe believe that the Bulgarian army – from the lowest-ranking soldier working in the cookhouse up to commander in chief Savov, from whose brow you have not managed to wipe the stamp of that indictment for embezzlement, that the whole of this army constitutes a living embodiment of the highest ideals of right and justice.”

(The Balkan Wars, p 282-2)

“You defined your war as a crusade for civilisation against barbarism. You strove, with your pencils and scissors, to adjust all our telegrams and correspondence to those two categories. But now Europe will learn that the path of the crusading army was marked by crimes that must evoke shudders and nausea in every cultured person, in everyone capable of feeling and thinking.”

(ibid)

Of course, today, any such critical reporting is made near impossible, because reporters are required to be “embedded” in the military forces themselves. The censorship is done first hand, and the sheer weight of the bourgeois media propaganda machine overwhelms any dissident view. The only meaningful dissident view comes from the propaganda of the opposing forces, and that in itself, disqualifies it, because it can simply be dismissed as propaganda. And, as Trotsky describes, this was not some accident, but a conscious decision by the liberal interventionists. As Trotsky says, Miliukov had personally visited the Balkans, and so knew that these atrocities were being committed by the liberal interventionist forces. The argument was simply being made that it was necessary to cover them up, to stay silent about them, on the basis that it was more important to bring about the “liberation from above”.

Trotsky rejected the whole idea that any real liberation can be achieved in that way, or that the working-class can sub-contract its historic tasks to the bourgeoisie, and to its state, particularly in the form of such military action,

“Would you not agree that a conspiracy of silence by all of our 'leading' papers.... that this mutual agreement to keep quiet makes all of you fellow travellers and moral participants in bestialities that will lie as a stain of dishonour on our whole epoch?

Are not, in these circumstances, your protests against Turkish atrocities – which I am not at all going to deny – like the disgusting conduct of Pharisees: resulting, it must be supposed, not from the general principles of culture and humanity but from naked calculations of imperialist greed?”

Trotsky would well recognise such behaviour by liberals and the media, today, in a series of such conflicts, only to no doubt be impressed by the technology that now enables them to undertake it on so much more of a grand scale. He would not be so impressed by those liberals who proclaim themselves to be Marxists and even Trotskyists, but who pursue the same liberal agenda as Miliukov, still less those like the AWL, who have bowdlerised his own writings on the Balkans, to try to make them say the opposite. The AWL repeatedly chops quotes from Trotsky to reverse their actual meaning. In order to try to justify liberal interventionism by NATO, they took a quote from Trotsky in relation to the Balkans, to try to claim that Trotsky was saying that we cannot stand idly by whilst atrocities are committed.

But, Trotsky, was railing against the atrocities committed by the liberal interventionists! The AWL take a part of the quote, and use it completely out of context. In it, Trotsky is continuing to attack Miliukov for the fact that the liberals censored the reports of atrocities committed against the Turks!

The AWL cite the following bit of the quote,

“An individual, a group, a party, or a class that ‘objectively’ picks its nose while it watches men drunk with blood massacring defenceless people is condemned by history to rot and become worm-eaten while it is still alive.”

Suggesting that this is a justification for intervention. But, Trotsky was arguing against it, as the rest of the quote, and the context makes clear.

“On the other hand, a party or the class that rises up against every abominable action wherever it has occurred, as vigorously and unhesitatingly as a living organism reacts to protect its eyes when they are threatened with external injury – such a party or class is sound of heart. Protest against the outrages in the Balkans cleanses the social atmosphere in our own country, heightens the level of moral awareness among our own people. The working masses of the population in every country are both a potential instrument of bloody outrages and a potential victim of such deeds. Therefore an uncompromising protest against atrocities serves not only the purpose of moral self-defence on the personal and party level but also the purpose of politically safeguarding the people against adventurism concealed under the flag of ‘liberation’.”

(ibid, p 293)

The fact that the AWL, misuse this quote, in the way they do, and it cannot simply be an error, particularly as they do the same thing so frequently, illustrates the degree of their bankruptcy and decadence, the degree to which they are simply social-imperialists, acting as the lackeys of NATO imperialism. A similar thing to what Trotsky describes, in relation to the Balkans, has been seen in every instance of liberal interventionism. Sometimes, a part of the truth still manages to get out, as with the reports of US atrocities at Abu Ghraib, or in Afghanistan, but its clear that these are just the tip of the iceberg of NATO atrocities committed under the guise of “liberation from above”. And, when such instances are reported, what happens? We have the US, which refuses to even have its troops tried in the International Criminal Court for war crimes, and the British government, with no opposition from the PLP, has also passed legislation to prevent British troops being prosecuted for war crimes.  The AWL, of course, respond that they never called for such atrocities to occur, as though, like Proudhon, and other idealists, they think its possible to wish for only the "good" , whilst rejecting the inextricably linked "bad", of any phenomenon.  No wonder the AWL appear to be about to formally drop the materialism and Marxism that they actually abandoned long ago.

The play book for these conflicts is now well established. Take, the NATO war against Serbia, for example. The US, used its relationship with Osama Bin Laden (before he turned on them, and started flying planes into the World Trade Centre) to make contacts with the Kosovan Liberation Army, which, at the time, was just a bunch of gangsters. They armed and financed the KLA, enabling it to undertake attacks on Kosovan Serb villages, so as to stir up communal violence between Serbs and Albanians. Eventually, Serbia sent in its troops to defend the Kosovan Serbs against these attacks, and as soon as it did, NATO used this as its required pretext to attack Serbia. Does this sound familiar in relation to what is happening currently in Ukraine? Even Sky News has reported from the front lines in Eastern Ukraine that despite the claims of NATO, increased shelling by the Kyiv government, and its fascist allies is occurring.

Having militarily occupied Kosovo, a long standing province of Serbia, and following many Kosovan Serbs having been ethnically cleansed, even under the watchful eyes of the NATO occupying force, they then organised a referendum, which was used to justify the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, in order to defend its right to self-determination. Of course, when Russia followed this example, in relation to Crimea, and despite the fact that, in repeated elections, a Russian majority in Crimea had indicated its support for Russia, and pro-Russian candidates, NATO objected, deeming such action to be merely an act of aggression. Of course, what all such actions do is to line workers in the various countries up behind their respective ruling classes, and so drives a wedge between them. The AWL, of course, despite its claims to be Marxists, and to be proponents of an independent working-class, lined up solidly behind NATO imperialism in supporting the separation of Kosovo, whilst opposing the separation of Crimea.

A similar series of events occurred in relation to the Russian majority provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, within Georgia. The facts in relation to South Ossetia are fairly clear, but listen to the media today, and you will not know them. To believe the media, and Western politicians, what happened in South Ossetia was that Russia used some kind of false flag operation to justify it invading Georgia, much as is presented in relation to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. But, in 2008, although the media and bourgeois politicians, not to mention the ever supporting AWL, were ready to criticise Russia, for such action, and again with predictions that they were going to occupy the whole of Georgia, even sections of that media, and some bourgeois politicians had to recant, as the truth of Georgian War Crimes in South Ossetia came out.

The BBC's Tim Whewell's reports on the attacks by Georgia, made clear that the Georgian state had acted recklessly in attacking South Ossetia. It was not at all a matter of Russia constructing some false flag justification for intervention, but an actual invasion by Georgia that provoked the response. Again, with the Ukrainian state refusing to abide by the term of the Minsk Agreements recognising the right to widespread autonomy for the Donbass, and other regions of Eastern Ukraine, and, instead, bombing and shelling those areas, in conjunction with fascist paramilitaries, we see the same strategy, and any response to it by Russia, being portrayed by NATO, as simply a false pretext. Yet, if NATO wanted to deny any such pretext, they would have been demanding that the Ukrainian government abide by the Minsk Agreements, that they disarm the fascist paramilitaries, and stop bombing and shelling the civilians in Eastern Ukraine.

In 2008, in South Ossetia, of course, the AWL, were quick to stand behind the delusional President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvilli, whose troops were guilty of these war crimes, just as Miliukov denied any atrocities by liberal interventionist forces, or by the opponents of the Ottomans.

That made the AWL even more apologists for NATO than was the BBC, as Whewell's report of the events makes clear. Indeed, the AWL, who as far as I am aware has never self criticised its position, in respect of that conflict, were bigger social imperialists than even David Miliband! Miliband, faced with the facts, from the report by Human Rights Watch of the Georgian War Crimes, told the BBC that the Georgian attack on South Ossetia was “reckless”. Of course, true to form, Miliband later went on to say that although it was “reckless”, avoiding accepting that war crimes had been committed, still complained that it was all Russia's fault.

Of course, as with Trotsky's reporting of the Balkan Wars, the result was to drive a further wedge between Russian and Georgian workers, with a further cycle of violence being provoked by it. It is precisely why Marxists do not promote the liberal demand for “self-determination”, which, in practice, in all such conditions, can only mean a demand for “defence of the fatherland”, and lining up behind your own ruling class, much as happened prior to WWI and WWII.

Today, we have NATO, as with Miliukov, denying any atrocities by its forces, or by the Ukrainian government. That whilst, as above, even the bourgeois media, such as Sky News is reporting on them happening! When Russia pointed to such atrocities in Eastern Ukraine, the first response of NATO was to deny any such atrocities had ever occurred. White House Press Spokesperson, Jen Psaki, simply looked ludicrous when she denied any such acts by the Kyiv government. Instead, she claimed that any such claims were simply part of a Russian false flag operation to justify invading Ukraine. And, the bumbling Boris Johnson, showed just how easily this kind of approach can bite you in the butt.

Johnson took advantage of the situation to sit himself in the cockpit of a military jet, just as the warmonger Thatcher liked to be pictured sitting in the driving seat of a tank. Told of an attack on a school in Donbass, Johnson assumed that this was a Russian claim of such an attack, and the basis of such a false flag justification. Unfortunately, for him, the attack on the school had come from the separatist forces, not from the Ukrainian government.

But, its clear from the reports even of those such as Sky News that attacks by the Kyiv government and its fascist allies have intensified in recent days, as the continual provocation from NATO imperialism, have failed to needle Russia into carrying out the long promised invasion that people like Liz Truss and the doddering Joe Biden have been insisting was imminent. NATO and its allies in Kyiv know, as with the genocidal attacks by the KLA in Kosovo, and the war crimes of the Georgian government in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, eventually, this creates demands amongst Russians to intervene to defend their communities. But, Marxists can no more accept that as justification than we can in opposing intervention by NATO imperialism. Our solution resides in an independent working-class, struggling against its own ruling class, and building unity across these borders, however difficult that may be in the given circumstances.

Russia may well feel itself pressurised both by NATO needling with taunts of “What's the matter chicken?”, and increased attacks on Russian communities in Eastern Ukraine. But, they would do well to remember what happened to Marty McFly. In Back To The Future II, he responded to those taunts, resulting in him being involved in a car crash that ruined his life, whereas, in Back To The Future III, he ignored the taunts, and avoided the accident. 

Its not the job of Marxists to give advice to the bourgeoisie and their state, and nor would we expect them to listen, anyway. But, it is clearly not in Russia's interest to invade Ukraine, as even many bourgeois analysts have pointed out. There is no economic benefit in occupying Ukraine, with its bankrupt economy, and the costs of doing so both financially and in terms of the loss of life in any invasion make it not worthwhile. That is perhaps why, despite all of the NATO propaganda, Russia has nowhere near the number of troops on the border it would require if it really were going to invade.

Often the best guess on these matters comes from the professional speculators, who make money from analysing the likely course of events. Those speculators see a Russian invasion as unlikely, precisely because there is nothing in it for Russia. Mattias Westman, founder of Prosperity Capital, a Russia-focused asset manager, says a Russian invasion is extremely unlikely. Vladimir Putin “is popular, but starting a war would not be”, especially when the death toll started to mount. According to Westman, Putin's survival depends on retaining the support of the Russian people, which, in turn, depends on the prosperity of the Russian economy. An invasion, with all its costs, plus the effects of sanctions and so on, on the Russian economy, would undermine that. Max King elaborates on this in an article in Moneyweek.

We are not concerned with how uncomfortable actual events make the ruling class in Russia, in Ukraine, or in NATO, or with the consequences for speculators. Our concern is only with the interests of the global working class. Our mantra “The Main Enemy Is At Home” applies to workers in Russia, the same as to workers in NATO countries, and in Ukraine. In that respect too, even were Russia to invade Ukraine, we cannot put the interests of Ukraine, or even Ukrainian workers above the interests of the global working-class, and certainly not simply for the liberal demand of the “right to self-determination”. As Lenin put it, we are for the self-determination of the working class in each nation, not the self determination of nations. That is all the more the case, when such situations, and the demand for self-determination is used to advance the strategic interests of one or another imperialist power.

“The several demands of democracy, including self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected. It is possible that the republican movement in one country may be merely an instrument of the clerical or financial-monarchist intrigues of other countries; if so, we must not support this particular, concrete movement, but it would be ridiculous to delete the demand for a republic from the programme of international Social-Democracy on these grounds...

There is no doubt that all international Social-Democracy, as well as the really internationalist section of Social-Democracy in the little country, would be against substituting a republic for the monarchy in this case. The substitution of a republic for a monarchy is not an absolute, but one of the democratic demands, subordinate to the interests of democracy (and still more, of course, to those of the socialist proletariat) as a whole.”

(Lenin The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up)

We see no solution to such problems residing in the warmongering and military actions of imperialist powers be they NATO or the Russian kleptocartic regime of Putin. Unlike the petty-bourgeois, moral socialists of the various strands of the Third Camp, we reject the idea that we should act merely as cheerleaders of any of these butchers, and robbers, and instead propose a truly independent working-class solution fought for by a global working-class organised in an international labour movement, that seeks to create the greatest unity of workers across borders. That requires rejection of the liberal-bourgeois demand for self-determination, which can only mean, now, bourgeois defencism, defence of the fatherland, and a lining up behind the ruling class and its state of each country. As socialists in Britain we demand the end of the warmongering by our own ruling class, and its state, and because we realise we have no power to make it agree to such demands, we see our main task as being to struggle for the overthrow of that state, and its replacement by a workers' state. As socialists in the US, and other NATO countries, that same argument applies.  But, we also call on the workers and socialists in Russia, and its allies to follow the same course.

No To War – Stop The Warmongering – The Main Enemy Is At Home – Workers of The World Unite