So, this shows this same division of Ukraine into the Westward looking, ethnic Ukrainians in the West and Centre, as against the Eastward looking, ethnic-Russian regions in the East, and South, and Crimea, which is far from the description of an almost overwhelming, popular revolt against Yanukovytch, and support for the EU and NATO, presented by western media, and the social imperialists. In those conditions, the attempt to hold on to Eastern and Southern Ukraine, and Crimea, by the Kyiv regime, following the 2014 coup, was bound to provoke a response, especially as the attempts to hold on to those regions, involved the use of the paramilitary forces of the Nazis of the Azov Battalion, and Right Sector, and came with further ultra-nationalist policies from the Ukrainian state in relation to use of the Russian language and so on.
Russia has undoubtedly taken advantage of that to expand into Eastern Ukraine, even though, initially, it sought to keep the ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine, as autonomous regions within Ukraine, so as, thereby, to continue to exert influence in elections to the Ukrainian parliament and Presidency. That was the purpose of the Minsk Agreements, but for the West, as Angela Merkel revealed in an interview with Die Zeit, on December 7th 2022, “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time,” and “It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.” In other words, this was another example of the point made by Lenin, and cited by Trotsky that it was really just a case of one set of bandits, NATO-Ukraine, planning for war, and just waiting to have its new supply of knives ready, but, then being thwarted by the other bandit, Russia pre-empting them. “It was clear to all of us that this was a frozen conflict, that the problem had not been solved, but that is precisely what gave Ukraine valuable time,” Merkel told Die Zeit.
And so, we come, now, to the NATO/Ukrainian invasion of Russia, in its Kursk region. Unlike, the Russian invasion of Eastern and Southern Ukraine, and Crimea, there is no attempt to even claim that this is being done to liberate ethnic Ukrainians from oppression. It is being portrayed as simply a strategic operation, both to encumber Russian military advances in Ukraine, and also to act as a bargaining chip in eventual negotiations over the return of Ukrainian territory. The real reason, of course, as I set out a while ago, is that its a stunt ahead of the US Presidential elections, geared both to give false hope of some Ukrainian victory, to ensure continued US funding and weapons, and also to assist Kamala Harris and the Democrats to win in the upcoming elections to prevent a Trumpist victory, which threatens future US backing for the war.
Russia occupies more than 20% of Ukraine, in the East, South and Crimea. Western media talk about the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk occupying 1,000 square kilometres, which sounds a lot until you compare it to the 62,000 or so square kilometres of Ukraine occupied by Russia. To put it further into context, it is an area equivalent of only around 20 miles by 50 miles. The total area of the Kursk region is 30,000 square kilometres, so that the area occupied amounts to just 3%. The total area of Russia, is 17 million square kilometres, so it is just 0.006% of it occupied by Ukraine, or less than a pin prick. It would hardly constitute much of a bargaining chip.
Nor does the invasion have any strategic logic, as other military strategists have noted. Ukraine cannot advance further into Russia than this pin-prick, because it does not have the forces to do so, even with the support of NATO forces actually involved, but not acknowledged by it publicly. In order to undertake this invasion, Ukraine has had to take its best troops and weapons away from elsewhere in Ukraine, thereby, weakening its defence of those areas. As a result, Russia, which did not move large numbers of troops or equipment to defend Kursk, has made more rapid advances in Eastern Ukraine, now being on the verge of having control of the whole of Eastern Ukraine, including, now, the large and strategically important city of Pokrovsk.
The Ukrainian forces in Kursk, had a rapid success, precisely because it was a surprise attack into a Russian oblast that Russia saw no need to significantly defend, because there is no significant strategic advantage gained by Ukraine in invading it. Its troops and weapons are, now, pretty much tied up there, unable to move forward, and, for now, unable to retreat, because to do so would be demoralising, and does not serve the real purpose of providing false hope ahead of the US Presidential elections. They need to sit there, pretty much as sitting ducks, until November, as the Russians pound them from the air with missiles, drones, aircraft, and attack helicopters, as well as long range artillery.
Already, many of those advanced tanks and other equipment supplied by Britain and other NATO countries appear to have been taken out from the air, as Ukrainian forces suffer the disadvantage of all attacking forces, against defenders. According to Forbes magazine it lost at least 4 tanks, and 41 armoured vehicles, within the first few days. As of 27th August, Forbes also reports that Ukraine has lost 87 pieces of heavy equipment, whilst making little further progress, with its supply lines, now, stretched. It has also lost one of the 10 F-16 fighters supplied to it by NATO, and as Russia has taken advantage to make much more rapid advances in Eastern Ukraine, an increasing number of Ukrainians complain that Zelensky, who now has no democratic mandate, is more concerned with attacking Russia than defending Ukraine.
Rather than moving troops from Eastern Ukraine, Russia has moved troops from elsewhere in Russia, and, almost at a time of its choosing, it can move troops and weaponry in through the neighbouring oblasts in a pincer movement that will encircle the Ukrainian forces in Kursk.
Western media has, also, tried to justify the aims of the invasion by claiming that, by bringing the war to the people of Russia, it will provoke further internal opposition to Putin. Since when has that ever worked? Thomas Hobbes wrote 400 years ago that it was fear of external enemies that enabled sovereigns to accrue absolute power in their hands, granted to them by the people. When Britain, France and the other allies began to mobilise against Nazi Germany, it gave a boost to Hitler, who was likewise able to rally even many of those that opposed his regime, in defence of the fatherland. After all, we are told that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has united its own population for its defence, so why would anyone not believe that the threat of invasion would have the same consequence when it comes to Russia?
Workers cannot ally themselves with their own ruling-class, or the ruling class of some other state, as the means of their liberation. The Main Enemy Is At Home. The solution is only international workers solidarity. We are for the self-determination of the working-class, as a global class, not the reactionary demand of national self-determination, which means defence of the capitalist fatherland, and so of the same capitalist state that is our exploiter and oppressor.
No comments:
Post a Comment