Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread:

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/backdrop-to-the-war-in-ukraine.1302028/ If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[IlovethePies]

None of which were actually elected.

These are not CIA bases. These bases were run by Ukranians. The CIA did provide intelligence to the CIA in order for Ukraine to preserve its sovereignty. This is not surprising after what happened in Crimea for which the Ukranians were totally unprepared as they had already signed an agreement with Russia that Russia would not invade or violate its territorial sovereignty.


There were multiple Euromadain protests in Donbass before the Russians invaded and turned it into a hell hole. There obviously were those that were not in favor of it but what matters most is the majority of people had voted for it and that was the decision the country had taken for its future.



Until Russia violated Ukraine's territory breaking all the agreements it had signed including Ukraine transferring its nuclear weapons arsenal to Russia plus its nuclear bombers Ukraine harbored little interest in joining NATO. It was discussed as something that might happen generations down the track. It certainly was not on the agenda pre invasion.


The US did not choose any path, you muscovites just don't get it. Ukranian people in the majority chose the path of a European future. And for good reason too - being a vassall state of Russia was nothing but bad news for Ukraine.

We now have a fascist (Putin) trying force on the people of Ukraine that they aren't allowed to do this, that they aren't really Ukranian, they are all really Russian and the only place Ukraine can be is part of a new Russian empire. Fascism 101 in every sense. Babushka who told Russian soldiers they were the fascists in Berdyanks was correct (inevitably she was arrested by the fascist invaders for "extremism").

Putin is fighting the people of Ukraine to the last Russian to realise his delusions of recreating the "Great Russian" empire or whatever fascist ideology he believes in. The question you should be asking in Russia is - how much is he prepared to destroy Russia's economy and society before he realises that this dream is simply futile?

This is the " bad man "" version of history, which goes as follows: the megalomaniac Putin, somehow has decided to conquer a new Russian empire, and in so doing is prepared to destroy Russia's economy for his mad dreams. No one in Russia can stop him from pursuing this insane path abecause he is omnipotent, like a superhero vilain.

This is absurd rubbish.

Russia does not occupy anything like the same position in the global economy as the US, Germany, France, etc i It is the US/Europe that dominate the institutions of global finance capital. Russia is not an imperialist power: it is profoundly constrained by imperialist dominated international capital, due to its historical development. The Russian ruling class has neither the capability nor the intention of "conquering a new empire".

Its "military operation" in Ukraine is a defensive operation aimed at defending the wealth and profits of Russian capitalists and financial oligarchs against the predatory ambitions of US and European capitalism.

Putin uses Russian nationalism to try to generate support for the war in Russia - and just like the governments in all the former Soviet republics, utilises nationalism in order to divide the working class and dragoon it into the army as cannon fodder in defence of the profit interests of their respective financial elites.

To deny that the US is intervening into the former Soviet republics to set up puppet governments which will collaborate with the US in fomenting uprisings, conflicts and political instability within Russia is either pure ignorance or deliberate deception.

 

[DangerousD]

Stalin didn't chill much.
He did murder a lot though.
I'd suggest the Russian workers would have been better off under the Tsars.

Imagine wiping out 1/3 of today's Australian population , that's what Stalin achieved, and that's not even including the promotion of communism in Asia.

Please don't consider me anti-communism. I'm anti murdering psychopathic megalomaniac.
Its hard to believe that the political system that enables this type is a good one though.

I’ve always struggled to get my head around how Stalin being a murderous madman had anything to do with Communism and not just because he was a crazy paranoid nutcase.

 

[Zidane98]

It's hilarious that posters here are condemning (and rightly so) Putin for sending hundreds of thousands of young Russian men to their deaths for the defence of Russian oligarchs' wealth, while remaining silent about Zelensky, who is doing the very same thing -using hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men as cannon fodder in defence of the interests of Ukrainian oligarchs and their US/European capitalist backers.

This is nonsense.

If Russia stops fighting the war ends.

If Ukraine stops fighting Ukraine ceases to be a nation.

Ukrainians have no choice where Putin has plenty of choice.

They are not the same nor ever will be.

 

[Jamolad]

We get it IateallthePies, you are a socialist and wish everyone would turn to socialism.

Not going to lie, I don't get it.

Sure, there are many serious problems with all systems, including capitalism, no doubt about it, no system is perfect...and that includes socialism.

Who is left that claim to still be truly socialist? China, Vietnam, couple or few others?

How many have tried socialism and failed - it's a much larger list, yeah? Did they fail to implement it correctly, did they not try hard enough, not stay the course long enough? Or did socialism fail as a system, was ultimately rejected by the populace?

Genuine questions, as I could be wrong due to being fed a one-sided narrative and having not actually looked into it, but I thought there are more failed socialist countries than those that are still persisting with it.

I'm guessing you'll blame US/West, for every failure of socialism.

 

[RonSon]

Using hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men as cannon fodder in defence of the interests of Ukrainian oligarchs and their US/European capitalist backers.

That's all they're fighting for?

Bullshit.

 

[IlovethePies]

I’ve always struggled to get my head around how Stalin being a murderous madman had anything to do with Communism and not just because he was a crazy paranoid nutcase.

Stalin being a paranoid madman who singlehandedly created a murderous dictatorship in his insane lust for power is another "badman" version of history.

And of course it is absolute rubbish.

Stalin represented a parasitic bureaucracy which more and more came to understand that its material privileges depended upon parasiting off from the nationalised economy.

In 1924, Stalin announced his new "theory" of "socialism in one country". This was the total repudiation of everything that Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution had stood for , ie world socialist revolution.

The theory of "socialism in one country" was the ideological banner for the growing bureaucracy whose relative material privileges depended upon administrating a national economy within the borders of the Soviet Union.

Stalin was the representative of this social layer. That is why the Stalin ordered the mass murder of everyone who had any sympathies whatsoever for genuine socialism within the USSRduring the Great Terror. Stalin was a psychopath because only a psychopath would have been capable of defending the interests of a parasitic social layer which aimed to defend its wealth at the expense of the vast mass of Soviet workers.

The bureaucracy sought out Stalin because he was an individual possessing the necessary criminal attributes to defend their social interests.

The Stalinist dictatorship within the Soviet Union, from 1933 onwards, was the antithesis of genuine socialism.
That is why Trotsky in 1933 concluded that it was necessary to establish the Fourth International, because the Third International - which Lenin, he and other Bolsheviks had established - had been destroyed by Stalinism.

 

[Zidane98]

We get it IateallthePies, you are a socialist and wish everyone would turn to socialism.

Not going to lie, I don't get it.

Sure, there are many serious problems with all systems, including capitalism, no doubt about it, no system is perfect...and that includes socialism.

Who is left that claim to still be truly socialist? China, Vietnam, couple or few others?

How many have tried socialism and failed - it's a much larger list, yeah? Did they fail to implement it correctly, did they not try hard enough, not stay the course long enough? Or did socialism fail as a system, was ultimately rejected by the populace?

Genuine questions, as I could be wrong due to being fed a one-sided narrative and having not actually looked into it, but I thought there are more failed socialist countries than those that are still persisting with it.

I'm guessing you'll blame US/West, for every failure of socialism.

If Russia wants to be socialist than they are free to do so.

Ukraine isn't a socialist state any longer not ever will be again. The people don't want it and that's all that matters.

 

[IlovethePies]

That's all they're fighting for?

Bullshit.

What do you think they are fighting for? Lay your version on the table.

 

[IlovethePies]

If Russia wants to be socialist than they are free to do so.

Ukraine isn't a socialist state any longer not ever will be again. The people don't want it and that's all that matters.

This quote shows that you have absolutely no idea about what socialism is.

The greatest historical lie of the 20th century was the claim that the Stalinist dictatorship in the Soviet Union represented socialism.

The irony is that it was the Stalinist dictatorship that was the greatest enemy of socialism, even more than Nazi Germany.

Stalin killed many more genuine, fully committed socialists than did Hitler.

No single country can ever be socialist. Socialism has never yet been established, because socialism is a world planned economy in which the immense technological developments of mankind will be harnessed to meet the needs of the entire world's population. Rather than a tiny layer of parasitic bilionaires plundering the world economy for their private wealth, the great social wealth of mankind will be used to benefit the working people of the entire world.

Socialism cannot be achieved in any single country, because socialism is based on the harmonisation of the entire world economy.

None of the world's existential threats (climate change, the ongoing covid pandemic, the growing threat of world wide war, the threat of dictatorship) can be addressed except by a perspective calling for the abolition of all the competing nation states.

That is why the wsws is the only website on the planet capable of producing a truthful analysis of social and political reality. Every other news website defends in the interest of a particular nation state, and what we are witnessing today is the collapse of the entire nation state system.

 

[IlovethePies]

We get it IateallthePies, you are a socialist and wish everyone would turn to socialism.

Not going to lie, I don't get it.

Sure, there are many serious problems with all systems, including capitalism, no doubt about it, no system is perfect...and that includes socialism.

Who is left that claim to still be truly socialist? China, Vietnam, couple or few others?

How many have tried socialism and failed - it's a much larger list, yeah? Did they fail to implement it correctly, did they not try hard enough, not stay the course long enough? Or did socialism fail as a system, was ultimately rejected by the populace?

Genuine questions, as I could be wrong due to being fed a one-sided narrative and having not actually looked into it, but I thought there are more failed socialist countries than those that are still persisting with it.

I'm guessing you'll blame US/West, for every failure of socialism.

In answer to your question, I have made a reply above to Zidane which makes the start of an answer to your excellent questions.

I don't blame the West for the failure of the Russian Revolution to extend world wide as much as I blame instead the Stalinist regime which emerged in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, In the words of Leon Trotsky, Stalinism became the "grave digger" of the Russian Revolution and of genuine socialism.

However, the political party of genuine socialism, ie the Fourth International, founded by Trotsky in 1938,lives on and is represented by the World Socialist Website (wsws).

You will find that all your questions can be answered by reading the multitude of topic pages on this website.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Stalin being a paranoid madman who singlehandedly created a murderous dictatorship in his insane lust for power is another "badman" version of history.

And of course it is absolute rubbish.

Stalin represented a parasitic bureaucracy which more and more came to understand that its material privileges depended upon parasiting off from the nationalised economy.

In 1924, Stalin announced his new "theory" of "socialism in one country". This was the total repudiation of everything that Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution had stood for , ie world socialist revolution.

The theory of "socialism in one country" was the ideological banner for the growing bureaucracy whose relative material privileges depended upon administrating a national economy within the borders of the Soviet Union.

Stalin was the representative of this social layer. That is why the Stalin ordered the mass murder of everyone who had any sympathies whatsoever for genuine socialism within the USSRduring the Great Terror. Stalin was a psychopath because only a psychopath would have been capable of defending the interests of a parasitic social layer which aimed to defend its wealth at the expense of the vast mass of Soviet workers.

The bureaucracy sought out Stalin because he was an individual possessing the necessary criminal attributes to defend their social interests.

The Stalinist dictatorship within the Soviet Union, from 1933 onwards, was the antithesis of genuine socialism.
That is why Trotsky in 1933 concluded that it was necessary to establish the Fourth International, because the Third International - which Lenin, he and other Bolsheviks had established - had been destroyed by Stalinism.

Lenin, the Red Death, the anti-Kulak campagnes. I think the people of the Ukraine didn't fare too well from that. I don't think they'd want to go painting Lenin and his brand of communism as a shining light.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

In answer to your question, I have made a reply above to Zidane which makes the start of an answer to your excellent questions.

I don't blame the West for the failure of the Russian Revolution to extend world wide as much as I blame instead the Stalinist regime which emerged in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, In the words of Leon Trotsky, Stalinism became the "grave digger" of the Russian Revolution and of genuine socialism.

However, the political party of genuine socialism, ie the Fourth International, founded by Trotsky in 1938,lives on and is represented by the World Socialist Website (wsws).

You will find that all your questions can be answered by reading the multitude of topic pages on this website.

Do you endorse the millions of deaths that would be needed to force your socialism on the population of the world?
Its pretty moronic, take away the rich owner of your factory and replace him with some politician. It really doesn't improve the lot of those working there.

 

[Ballarat Bob]

My god that worldwide socialist website is like listening to student politics from the early eighties. It sounded crap then and it hasn't improved with age.
Socialism has been tried in many forms over many decades and different countries. You can't say it has had any outstanding success can you ? What's going to change now if you are singing the same tune over and over ?

 

[rank and file]

This is nonsense.

If Russia stops fighting the war ends.

If Ukraine stops fighting Ukraine ceases to be a nation.

Ukrainians have no choice where Putin has plenty of choice.

They are not the same nor ever will be.

Spot on.
Reminds me of Israel/Hamas war.
One side could end it,but they don't.
Play on,no WW3 incoming.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

My god that worldwide socialist website is like listening to student politics from the early eighties. It sounded crap then and it hasn't improved with age.

 

[RonSon]

What do you think they are fighting for? Lay your version on the table.

I guess if you're looking at it through the lens of someone who has a utopian vision of a single world socialist government without borders what you said may make sense. But I think it's safe to say Ukrainians would prefer not to have Russia committing genocide within their country and are willing to fight to prevent that happening.

 

[IlovethePies]

Do you endorse the millions of deaths that would be needed to force your socialism on the population of the world?
Its pretty moronic, take away the rich owner of your factory and replace him with some politician. It really doesn't improve the lot of those working there.

The Stalinist dictatorship that ruled the Soviet Union, and all its counterparts (the Stalinist governments of Eastern Europe and the Stalinist dictatorship that also emerged after the Chinese Revolution) had nothing in common with socialism.

The great lie of the 20th century, promoted by US propaganda and Stalinist propaganda alike, was that Stalinism = socialism.

So in answer to your question, no I utterly oppose all the crimes, and mass murder carried out by the Stalinist regimes against genuine socialists and against anyone else who opposed their criminal regime.

The enormous tragedy for the entire world is that Stalinism carried out its crimes while claiming to be "socialism". This lie continues to take its toll on political consciousness throughout the world.

When you say that removing a rich owner and replacing him with a politician (Stalinist bureaucrat), you are still thinking within the framework of Stalinism = socialism.

Socialism would mean a world planned economy in which, using the massive development of information and communication technology that now exists, those working in the factories could make the decisions about production, in collaboration with other workers involved in linked production processes across the world.

 

[IlovethePies]

My god that worldwide socialist website is like listening to student politics from the early eighties. It sounded crap then and it hasn't improved with age.
Socialism has been tried in many forms over many decades and different countries. You can't say it has had any outstanding success can you ? What's going to change now if you are singing the same tune over and over ?

Socialism has never been "tried" yet.
Stalinism has and yes it failed catastrophically, as the Fourth International predicted long ago.
But capitalism is failing as well.

So now is the time for civilisation to move to the next level, which is socialism.

 

[IlovethePies]

Lenin, the Red Death, the anti-Kulak campagnes. I think the people of the Ukraine didn't fare too well from that. I don't think they'd want to go painting Lenin and his brand of communism as a shining light.

Learn your history.
Lenin had nothing to do with the anti-Kulak campaigns and starvation during forced collectivisation.
These were all the crimes of the Stalinist dictatorship, which usurped power from the first working class state after the Russian Revolution.

Lenin had been dead for 4 to 5 years before the panicked and criminally catastrophic decision of Stalin to eliminate the kulak class, which - due to the Stalinists' own shortsighted policies - had become a threat to the regime.

 

[Mobbs]

No problem with people putting forward differing concepts of governance (or un-governance). Every format comes with pros and cons, and it's usually the campaigners who end up in charge and abuse their opportunities who tarnish everything.

Only interested in the minimalisation of abuses against everyday people - be it physical, livelihood, comfort and identity.

So all this above is actually interesting reading. It's just the disinformation bits I have an issue with.

For whoever said Russia might have been better off under Tsardom than the soviet regime(s), ( was it SaintsSeptember ?) - perhaps you're right, although I am not convinced. Institutionalised pogroms were a tsarist thing. The original demolition of the tatar Crimean population also.

Lenin was a vastly different leader compared to Stalin, and his fuse was lit due to tsarist abuses against his own family members. However from memory the Romanov family massacre was his doing (correct me if I'm wrong) and well, that was a bit of literal overkill. But by comparison, Stalin was a straight-up monster.

For whoever mentioned Nuland again lol, I can only sigh. This is the statement that RF disinformation sources have endlessly used to claim the US were involved in "installing" a Ukrainian leadership. As can be seen from the actual transcribed words, it's just a chat about who their faves are - not a word about taking any action.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The Stalinist dictatorship that ruled the Soviet Union, and all its counterparts (the Stalinist governments of Eastern Europe and the Stalinist dictatorship that also emerged after the Chinese Revolution) had nothing in common with socialism.

The great lie of the 20th century, promoted by US propaganda and Stalinist propaganda alike, was that Stalinism = socialism.

So in answer to your question, no I utterly oppose all the crimes, and mass murder carried out by the Stalinist regimes against genuine socialists and against anyone else who opposed their criminal regime.

The enormous tragedy for the entire world is that Stalinism carried out its crimes while claiming to be "socialism". This lie continues to take its toll on political consciousness throughout the world.

When you say that removing a rich owner and replacing him with a politician (Stalinist bureaucrat), you are still thinking within the framework of Stalinism = socialism.

Socialism would mean a world planned economy in which, using the massive development of information and communication technology that now exists, those working in the factories could make the decisions about production, in collaboration with other workers involved in linked production processes across the world.

Having worked in factories. They wouldn't be up to it.
There is a reason why some of those in management get tertiary qualifications. Not sure why socialism constantly downplays the function of education.
Marx was just wrong.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Learn your history.
Lenin had nothing to do with the anti-Kulak campaigns and starvation during forced collectivisation.
These were all the crimes of the Stalinist dictatorship, which usurped power from the first working class state after the Russian Revolution.

Lenin had been dead for 4 to 5 years before the panicked and criminally catastrophic decision of Stalin to eliminate the kulak class, which - due to the Stalinists' own shortsighted policies - had become a threat to the regime.

The red terror was initiated by Lenin after an attempt on his life.

Dekulakization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In November 1917, at a meeting of delegates of the committees of poor peasants, Vladimir Lenin announced a new policy to eliminate what were believed to be wealthy Soviet peasants, known as kulaks: "If the kulaks remain untouched, if we don't defeat the freeloaders, the czar and the capitalist will inevitably return.

What a joke, "wealthy peasants". Socialism at its best...kill the wealthy peasants. Lets put the dumb people who don't know how to farm in charge of farms.
Of course Stalin thought it was great fun and continued the legacy.

 

[Mobbs]

Interesting report on Kazakhstan and its history alongside Russia.

 

[IlovethePies]

Having worked in factories. They wouldn't be up to it.
There is a reason why some of those in management get tertiary qualifications. Not sure why socialism constantly downplays the function of education.
Marx was just wrong.

Scientists, it specialists, engineers are all sections of the working class.

 

[Chief]

It's hilarious that posters here are condemning (and rightly so) Putin for sending hundreds of thousands of young Russian men to their deaths for the defence of Russian oligarchs' wealth, while remaining silent about Zelensky, who is doing the very same thing -using hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men as cannon fodder in defence of the interests of Ukrainian oligarchs and their US/European capitalist backers.

If, say, Indonesia attacked Australian cities would you just sit around and say "hey workers don't fight anyone but the rich!" ?