The USC, dealing with the question of danger of nuclear war, say,
“Any conflict involving a nuclear power raises fears of nuclear war, a horrifying prospect for all of us. In Ukraine, there is only one nuclear power involved in the conflict: Russia.”
Clearly, that is not true. Even if you believe that NATO is not involved in any of the fighting in Ukraine, was not involved in blowing up Nordstream and so on, it is still clearly involved, because without it, the war would have ended long ago. Its impossible to deny that NATO, the world's largest nuclear power, has been supplying its side in the war with huge amounts of weapons, as well as intervening via cyber warfare, economic warfare, and intelligence warfare against Russia, not to mention its threats against other countries, like China, if they did not comply with US measures, let alone were they to more actively support Russia. Indeed, the release of the secret US Defence Department documents shows that they have been intervening, including using Special Forces in active operations inside Ukraine!
They then go on to protest the Russian atrocities that have occurred in Ukraine, and say that this has to be taken into account “against our moral duty to defend civilians”. But that is equivalent to the arguments of Russian liberals like Miliukov in support of Russian intervention in the Balkan Wars. No one denies Russian atrocities, but it is ridiculous for USC to deny atrocities by Ukrainian forces, particularly those of the Nazis involved in its armed forces too, both against Russian forces, and against civilian populations in the East supporting Russia. As Trotsky put it, arguing against Miliukov's partiality in only seeing atrocities by the Ottoman's,
“Did you not hear during your travels – it must be supposed that this would be of interest to you – about the monstrous acts of brutality that were committed by the triumphant soldiery of the allies all along their line of march, not only on unarmed Turkish soldiers, wounded or taken prisoner, but also on the peaceful Muslim inhabitants, on old men and women, on defenceless children?” (The Balkan Wars, p 285-6)
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?”
And, its in that context that he makes the statement grossly distorted by the AWL,
“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.
“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’.” (p 293)
In other words, setting out the responsibility of socialists in the imperialist states of opposing their intervention, and the atrocities that go with it.
The USC continue,
“But what if the policy of ending Western arms to Ukraine is adopted? It seems more than likely that Russia will continue with the war, and could well do so until the achievement of its initial aim, namely the occupation of all Ukrainian territory and the installation of a ‘friendly’ government.”
Why does that seem more likely? That is not what happened in Georgia in 2008. Its very unlikely the initial aim was the occupation of all Ukrainian territory, not only because it would have been militarily impossible, which Putin would know, but also because had that actually been the intention Russia would have had to mobilise multiple times the actual forces it did, and much more weaponry, and would have had to have hit much harder right from the start. Russia, in fact, followed the same play book as NATO in Kosovo, and with the similar goal. Having consolidated in the East and South-East, its far more likely to defend that position, and will use defenders advantage to mince any Ukrainian counter-offensive.
No comments:
Post a Comment