But what can be said about the USC's arguments about the breakaway republics, which, in practice, amount to yet further apologism for the Ukrainian regime, and its military attacks upon them, much as with their apologism that seeks to put a gloss on the reactionary nature of that regime in general?
As Trotsky noted, in relation to the ethnic German population in the Sudetenland, had it not been for their treatment at the hands of the supposedly “democratic” Czechoslovak state, then Hitler would have had no possibility of securing their support for joining Germany. As he says, the Swiss Germans made no such demands, and Hitler was unable to even suggest drawing them into Germany.
Whether a clear majority of the breakaway republics support annexation by Russia or not, its clear that majorities in those areas continually supported pro-Russian candidates in elections to parliament, as well as for the Presidency. Indeed, the votes for pro-Russian candidates in elections in Crimea often exceeded the proportion of votes for independence from Ukraine in 2014. This reflected a country that was clearly divided and looking both West to the EU, and East to Russia. It was also reflected in the fact that a large majority opposed Ukraine joining NATO. Yet, the 2014 coup, in Kyiv was specifically designed to negate those concerns expressed, particularly in the East, of breaking with Russia, in order to orientate to the EU, and to overrule the majority opposed to NATO membership. As Irish Marxism has pointed out, the EU has just conceded that Northern Ireland could have access to both its Single Market and to the UK market, as a means of dealing with a similar situation, yet it rejected that idea for Ukraine.
That, together with the other anti-Russian policies implemented by the regime in Kyiv, would certainly be expected to have further intensified the fears of ethnic Russians in those regions, in a similar way to the attitude of Sudeten Germans described by Trotsky. The idea that “a silent majority” in those regions opposed independence, but were subdued by violent gangs, is the usual fare of bourgeois ideology and propaganda, whether its in relation to such events, or to workers being bullied into strikes and so on. Yet, the reality is, as Trotsky noted, in relation to ethnic Germans, no such foothold could be obtained, if the ethnic Russian population in those areas were happy with their condition inside Ukraine. To give another example, the Provisional IRA had no traction in Northern Ireland until such time that the British Army, on their streets, was seen as the immediate enemy, and the PIRA became seen as their defenders.
In the Franco-Prussian War, Marx and Engels initially supported Prussia, on the basis of believing that the war would hasten the creation of a German state, and with it the development of a revolutionary German proletariat. However, they quickly reversed their position, on the basis that the people of Alsace-Lorraine saw themselves as French, would continue to see themselves as French, and so would result in a forever war, drawing in France against Germany, which would be detrimental to workers interests in both France and Germany.
“The military camarilla, the professors, burghers and pot-house politicians claim that this is the means whereby Germany can be forever protected against war with France. Just the opposite. It is the best means of turning this war into a European institution. It is indeed the surest way of perpetuating military despotism in the rejuvenated Germany as essential to retaining possession of a western Poland – of Alsace and Lorraine. It is an infallible means of turning the coming peace into a mere armistice until France has recovered sufficiently to demand back her lost territories. It is the most infallible method of ruining both Germany and France by internecine strife.”
Ukrainian Ukrainians will see themselves as Ukrainians not Russians, and any attempt by Russia to annex them is forlorn, and would simply result in a forever war that not only could Russia never win, but would quickly result in its own bankruptcy and destruction. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that is what US imperialism wanted to sucker Russia into to begin with. But, for the same reasons, especially after the years of bombardment of the breakaway republics, since 2014, and the intensification of anti-Russian sentiment in the rest of Ukraine, the idea of Ukraine retaking those regions, especially now that Russia has consolidated its defensive positions within them, without massive bloodshed, and without a large scale ethnic cleansing is as impossible. It would be as reactionary as a dismantling of the existing Israeli state, by a violent war against it, by Palestinians and Arabs.
No comments:
Post a Comment