Why has NATO/Ukrainian imperialism chosen this moment to invade Russia? The answer lies in a similar question raised by Trotsky and the Left Opposition, in 1927, in relation to the Canton Uprising. It has nothing to do with military strategy, or the claimed revolutionary strategy of a war of independence. It is a reckless adventure that will lead to the loss of thousands more Ukrainian lives, not to mention the loss of thousands of lives of Russian civilians, most of them workers, already, as a consequence of the bombing and shelling by the NATO/Ukrainian imperialist armies. It is, as with the Canton uprising, a piece of political theatre, designed to coincide with the upcoming US Presidential elections, and, also, probably connected to the renewed imperialist offensive in the Middle East, in support of the Zionist genocide in Gaza.
The consequence of the invasion by NATO/Ukrainian imperialist forces into Russia, is, of course, to blow apart many of the arguments previously used by NATO imperialism, and its social-imperialist apologists, who claimed that Russia had no reason to fear NATO expansion right up to its borders! The invasion has served not only to explode that argument, but, thereby, to also strengthen the position of Putin and his vile reactionary, anti-working class regime. Any rational person, with a knowledge of history knows that the claims about Russia having nothing to fear from NATO, were nonsense. Not only is the history of imperialist war one in which rival imperialist blocs butt heads against each other in that way, but even the recent history of the action of NATO in financing and promoting insurgency movements in countries across the globe, including the most reactionary, anti-democratic forces, such as Bin Laden, the KLA, jihadists in Libya, Syria and so on, illustrates the point.
In relation to such activities, and the response to them, Trotsky wrote, citing Lenin,
“Imperialism camouflages its own peculiar aims – seizure of colonies, markets, sources of raw material, spheres of influence – with such ideas as “safeguarding peace against the aggressors,” “defence of the fatherland,” “defence of democracy,” etc. These ideas are false through and through. It is the duty of every socialist not to support them but, on the contrary, to unmask them before the people. “The question of which group delivered the first military blow or first declare war,” wrote Lenin in March 1915, “has no importance whatever in determining the tactics of socialists. Phrases about the defence of the fatherland, repelling invasion by the enemy, conducting a defensive war, etc., are on both sides a complete deception of the people.” “For decades,” explained Lenin, “three bandits (the bourgeoisie and governments of England, Russia, and France) armed themselves to despoil Germany. Is it surprising that the two bandits (Germany and Austria-Hungary) launched an attack before the three bandits succeeded in obtaining the new knives they had ordered?””
The same applies to Russia's response to a continued NATO expansion. Lenin, of course, did not conclude from this that Germany/Austria-Hungary could be supported in their response, just as Marxists cannot conclude that Russia can be supported in its response. As Lenin and Trotsky point out, here, we are not concerned with the essentially moral question about who shot first, right or wrong, justified or unjustified, but about what the underlying class relations and bases of the war are. The First World War, like the Second World War, was an inter-imperialist war, fought for the interests of competing imperialist powers, and was massively detrimental to the interests of the working-class, both as a global class, and to its national components.
In the age of imperialism, everywhere, the principle established by Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Lenin and others of “The Main Enemy Is At Home”, applies. In other words, everywhere, in imperialist states as well as in non-imperialist states, including those actually involved in a national independence struggle (as with China in the 1920's described by Trotsky) the main enemy of the working-class is the national bourgeoisie, i.e. their own ruling class. That bourgeois ruling-class, as Lenin and Trotsky explained, is what exploits and oppresses them every single day, even as it diverts attention from that exploitation and oppression by directing the workers anger against the colonial/imperialist occupiers/aggressors. Lenin wrote, for example, about the bourgeoisie in the various oppressed nations imprisoned in the Tsarist Empire,
“Social-Democrats must moreover bear in mind that the landowners, the clergy and the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations often cover up with nationalist slogans their efforts to divide the workers and dupe them by doing deals behind their backs with the landowners and bourgeoisie of the ruling nation to the detriment of the masses of the working people of all nations.”)
As Trotsky set out in relation to the Chinese bourgeoisie, and its political representative, the KMT, it was integrally connected to that same imperialist capital against whom, it claimed to be undertaking an “anti-imperialist” war of national liberation. The same was true of Trotsky's analysis of the Spanish bourgeoisie, and the reality of its support for Franco. Trotsky made the same point about Czechoslovakia, in the 1930's, as well as about Ukraine, during that time.
“It is impermissible to consider a war between Czechoslovakia and Germany, even if other imperialist states were not immediately involved, outside of that entanglement of European and world imperialist relations from which the war might have broken out as an episode. A month or two later the Czech-German war – if the Czech bourgeoisie could fight and wanted to fight – would almost inevitably have involved other states. It would therefore be the greatest mistake for a Marxist to define his position on the basis of temporary conjunctural diplomatic and military groupings, rather than on the basis of the general character of the social forces standing behind the war.”
So, the NATO/Ukrainian invasion of Russia undermines all those arguments previously put forward about Russia having nothing to fear about NATO expansion, and about the war being one purely of national independence, or “defence of the fatherland”. NATO imperialism, of course, is not too concerned about that. It squares such circles every day, and has a massive propaganda machine for that effect, even where its own population are that engaged with world affairs to question such contradictions in the first place. For example, it is currently defending the Zionist state's genocide in Gaza, being carried out with NATO support, and weapons and financing from US, UK and EU imperialism, by portraying it as merely Israel's right to self-defence! Of course, some of the “anti-imperialists” of the USC, also defend Zionism on the basis of emphasising, even during this current genocide, and war of annexation, Israel's right to defend itself!
In reality, this contradiction, exposed by NATO/Ukraine's invasion of Russia is only a problem for those social-imperialists that have aligned themselves with it, on those ridiculous claims about “self-defence”, and so on. They are, as Trotsky put it, like trained donkeys, in the service of that imperialism, or as Lenin put it, “useful idiots”. At each stage as they have tried to reconcile their position of supporting one camp (NATO/Ukraine) in an imperialist war, against the opposing imperialist camp (Russia/China) by trying to claim that it is merely some kind of people's war against fascism/authoritarianism, or else merely a question of supporting the right of national self-determination/defence of the fatherland, they have had to perform logical acrobatics, as one aspect of their argument has been undermined after another.
At each stage, they have had “red lines” of what they could support on that basis, and on each occasion as the war has broken through those red lines, they have retreated further, made yet another demoralising capitulation to principle, so as to retain their alliance with the most powerful imperialist bloc on the planet. But, imperialism has no concern for the travails of such “useful idiots”, who at best, given their pitifully small numbers and significance – a condition that has arisen over the last 80 years precisely because of such tailing of one bourgeois or petty-bourgeois camp after another, rather than fighting for independent revolutionary programmes – provide it with Left cover for its actions.
Rather like the Canton insurrection in 1927, this invasion of Russia by NATO/Ukrainian imperialism is a stunt, a piece of military/political theatre ahead of the US Presidential elections. It has no chance of success, or being sustained, contrary to the claims about it being used as a bargaining chip by Ukraine in future negotiations with Russia about the return of some of Eastern Ukraine. It is being argued that it has some strategic significance, because it will mean that Russia has to draw forces from elsewhere in Eastern Ukraine, but that is nonsensical. Firstly, to launch the invasion, Ukraine itself had to use forces that otherwise would have been used in Eastern Ukraine, in defensive positions. Secondly, although the attack took Russia by surprise, it still suffers the problems of any offensive action as against a defensive response. In other words, you need to mobilise far more forces for a successful attack than are required for a successful defence.
As throughout this inter-imperialist war, NATO has undoubtedly had its own forces involved not only in the planning, and arming of the attack, but also on the ground, as the leak of US Defence Department papers indicated last year. But, already, the advance has ground to a halt, with Russia being able to destroy large numbers of the attacking tanks and armoured vehicles, quite cheaply via air attacks, using aircraft, drones, and attack helicopters. The surprise attack meant that Ukraine captured hundreds of Russian troops, but it now has to guard them. It has itself lost at least hundreds, if not thousands of its its own troops in what will turn out to be a pointless exercise, and one that will, as one military expert put it, lead to further demoralisation.
Russia will not need to draw troops from elsewhere on the front line as claimed, because, unlike Ukraine, it has vast reserves that can be called upon from elsewhere in Russia, as both Napoleon and Hitler discovered, in the past. It will simply assist Putin in justifying his war, and mobilise more of those men and resources. The Ukrainian forces will no doubt have to retreat in the near future or face being encircled and destroyed. But, the purpose of the invasion, after nearly two years, of NATO/Ukrainian imperialism failing to launch any kind of effective counter-attack, despite all of the huge amounts of weapons, and latest military technology mobilised by them, was a publicity stunt, to try to shore up support for the war ahead of the US elections, and in the face of growing dissent across Europe, as the connections between this war and the war in the Middle-East are drawn.
Just as with the claims that the Zionist state is acting beyond what its US sponsor would like, both in Gaza, and in its attacks on Lebanon, Iran etc., so too the same claims are being made in relation to the Ukrainian invasion of Russia. Those claims are nonsense. At each stage, US imperialism has backed the Zionist genocide, and continues to arm it, as, at each stage, it goes beyond what were supposed to be red lines. Remember the supposed red line about the Zionist state invading Rafah? You could be forgiven if you don't because it was breached months ago, and has been breached several times since then, but the response of US imperialism was to send even more weapons to the Zionist regime, and that will continue whether Trump or Harris wins the election.
It has been claimed that the US did not want the Zionists to launch its attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon and Iran, but, the fallacy of that is shown by the fact that, in preparation for any response from Iran, Hezbollah, or the Houthis, US imperialism, alongside, UK and EU imperialism has sent even more warships, aircraft carriers, and submarines to the area with the overt intent to support the Zionist regime, militarily, and to join the war on its side, as it attacks Lebanon, Yemen and Iran! US imperialism, even when it comes to defending the so called international rules based order, as implemented by the ICC and ICJ, instead has sided with the Zionist butchers, and condemned the ICC and ICJ judges as being “anti-Semitic”, imposing measures against them, just as it did against the UNRWA.
Similarly, the idea that Ukraine did not launch this invasion of Russia without US/NATO backing is equally absurd. Zelensky doesn't even fart without NATO having first provided him with the baked beans.
It doesn't really matter, to US imperialism, whether it is Trump or Harris that provides the support for the Zionists, but it does matter whether it is Harris or Trump in the Whitehouse, when it comes to continuing its imperialist war in Ukraine-Russia. The biggest threat to that war, currently comes from a Trump victory. That looked certain until a couple of weeks ago, but the replacement of Genocide Joe with Holocaust Harris as the Democrats candidate, has changed that calculation. In the coming weeks, however, the reactionary nature of Harris' politics will be further on show, as the genocide in Gaza continues, and a wider war in the region intensifies. The problem for Democrats is still to ensure that they get their vote out in the swing states. Renewed campus occupations and street protests are inevitable as students return in the next few weeks. Harris' position is no better, and can be no better than that of Biden, because it is determined by the interests of US imperialism.
To set against that, they need a distraction, and a basis to mobilise their vote. A significant proportion of the population in the US has become at best apathetic towards, if not hostile to a continuation of the war in Ukraine, despite the fact that it is Europeans that have paid the cost of it. That provides support for Trump, but the current adventure by Ukraine/NATO in the invasion of Russia gives short-term good news and a feeling of success, of the idea of “one-last push”, yet again, if only Trump can be kept out, and US support for the war be continued. If it does that, and ensures that Harris wins the election, it will have fulfilled its purpose, for imperialism, even at the cost of thousands more lives, and even though, after the election, the Ukrainian troops, or what is left of them, scurry back across the border.
No comments:
Post a Comment