The USC then turn to the role of NATO. Once again, you might think that Marxists would not need to be asked whether they are concerned about the role of imperialism, and of an imperialist military alliance such as NATO. However, having asked the question of itself, its answer again amounts simply to apologism, and diversion from an answer. They correctly say “All imperialist powers work to influence the affairs of other countries in the interests of their governments and corporations.”. In fact, not just imperialist powers, but doing so is the function of every state. Yet, they, then, go on to seemingly suggest that, peculiarly, NATO had not done that in Ukraine!
We are told that “US imperialism was originally opposed to Ukrainian independence and afterwards lobbied heavily for the Budapest memorandum under which nuclear weapons stored in Ukraine were moved to Russia.” But, no historical context to that is given. So, missing, here, is the fact that, at the time, Moscow was stuffed to the gills with US “advisors”, like Jeffrey Sachs, and other free market economists such as Steve Leisman, who now appears on CNBC.
Unlike much of the Central and Eastern European Stalinist states that were incorporated into the EU, the US saw Russia, as its own fiefdom, at that time, with Yeltsin being their puppet. It was a Wild West for US Corporations, and so, of course, the US wanted to keep Ukraine, with its own vast resources a part of it. Imagine how much weaker US imperialism would be, relative to Europe, if Ukraine, let alone large parts of European Russia, had been drawn into the EU?!
The USC then avoid discussing the role of US imperialism in organising the 2014 coup, instead claiming that it was a “genuine mass popular uprising inside the country”. Once again, we see the use of abstract liberal terms such as “popular”, which, in this context, is not only devoid of class character, but also hides a significant factor. Wikipedia point out,
“According to December 2013 polls (by three different pollsters), between 45% and 50% of Ukrainians supported Euromaidan, while between 42% and 50% opposed it.[154][155][156] The biggest support for the protest was found in Kyiv (about 75%) and western Ukraine (more than 80%).[154][157] Among Euromaidan protesters, 55% were from the west of the country, with 24% from central Ukraine and 21% from the east.[158]”
So, not only not “popular” in the sense of being overwhelmingly supported, but also, crucially reflecting the actual division of Ukraine between its ethnic Ukrainians in the West and Centre, and ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the East! Some simple consideration of that fact, and the subsequent events, in which the one half then imposed their will upon the other, gives some clue as to what happened after. You might as well say that the Ulster Workers Strike was a genuine mass popular uprising, or that Brexit supported by 52% was such. Moreover, even if it were true, and did not actually signify this ethnic division of the country, it does not mean that NATO imperialism had not played a significant role in it, a fact that not even the US has denied, having pumped billions of Dollars into promoting its chosen causes in Ukraine. There again perhaps the USC's own history, as described by the WW, colours its thoughts in that matter.
The USC state,
“The argument that NATO expansion provides a justification for Putin’s actions does not stand up.”
Quite true, but what does opposition to Putin's role have to do with supporting Zelensky and his NATO backers? That is a non sequitur, if you reject the idea that my enemy's enemy is my friend. But, the fact that it does not justify Russia's invasion, does not change the fact that, in the real world, any such expansion is likely to provoke a response from those threatened by it. When Russia, in 1962, said it was going to station missiles on Cuba, the US responded by sending in its fleet and threatening WWIII, for example. As Marxists, we should surely be opposed to any actions by imperialist powers that are designed to increase global tensions and drive towards war. Yet, USC seems peculiarly partial when it comes to such actions by US imperialism and its allies.
A further example of that is its claims that there is no solid evidence that the US blew up the Nordstream pipelines. I have responded to that elsewhere.
They also say,
“But in Ukraine, the US, UK, etc., are not fighting.”
That is almost certainly not true, and it is really just sophistry, because NATO is fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. NATO has large numbers of “advisors” in Ukraine, and it is providing large amounts of support and training for Ukrainian forces to use the huge amounts of NATO weaponry provided. NATO is also providing technical support and intelligence, using its own spy satellites, as witnessed by the recent downing of one of them in the Black Sea, and the fact that the US has pretty much hegemonic control over the world's internet communications, through US technology and communications companies.
Besides western mercenaries fighting in Ukraine, its highly likely that Special Forces have been used to paint targets and so on. And, the logic of NATO's position is that, if Ukraine falls back further, and, as the latest NATO equipment is likely to get destroyed, or, for NATO, worse captured, as it attempts a Spring Counter-Offensive, into, now, Russian held territory, NATO forces themselves may well get drawn in. That is certainly the view of Britain' top soldier who advised military families in Britain to prepare for their kids going to fight and die in Ukraine!
The leak of the 100 pages or so of US Defence Department documents confirms what I said a year ago, and since, and which anyone not gullible enough to be taken in by NATO/Ukrainian propaganda should also have been able to determine. It shows a NATO dominated by the US, which pulls the strings, and sees the other members of NATO as simply useful idiots to be spied on, and used to fulfil its global strategic ambitions. It at least lifts the lid on the extent to which the US/NATO is pulling the strings in Ukraine, and using Ukrainians, and the Special Forces of other NATO states, not to mention the economies of the EU, battered by its economic war against Russia and China, and resultant soaring price of energy and food, as just cannon fodder. Even so, it admits that, as Russia consolidates in Eastern Ukraine, even with all of the advanced weapons and Special Forces and so on, Ukraine has no chance of retaking that territory, as a stalemate persists through 2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment