Re: Against voting for Democrats
gilschaeffer82@...
The only thing in the works that I can see is that the Marxist Unity Group within DSA is committed to ideological and organizational independence from the Democratic Party and includes the demand for a democratic constitution in its Points of Unity. I'm not aware of any other group that does this. In my conception of how political movements develop, ideology precedes organization. I am not a member of MUG, but I agree with their democratic republicanism. There is no timetable on this.
|
|
Re: Ortho Trotskyist Blast at Marxmailian Over Ukraine
Anthony Boynton
The International Marxist Tendency (of which Socilaist Appeal is the British section) is one of those sects who think the world is too complicated to take the side of the oppressed. Here is how their statement on the Russian invasion of Ukraine concludes, "The only alternative to the carnival of reaction and the suffering of war for the Ukrainian workers and youth is a policy of class unity against the Ukrainian oligarchs, as well as against US and Russian imperialism. The national question in Ukraine is extremely complicated and any attempt to rule the country on the basis of nationalism (be that Ukrainian or pro-Russian), will inevitably result in the breakup of the country, ethnic cleansing and civil war, as we have already seen. "Ultimately, capitalism, in its epoch of senile decline, means war and economic crisis. The only way to put an end to its horrors is through the working class taking power, in one country after another, and sweeping away this rotten system. For that, a revolutionary leadership is needed – one which is firmly based on the principles of socialist internationalism. The most urgent task of the day is therefore, the patient work of building the forces of Marxism, of building the International Marxist Tendency." Ultimately, the IMT will stay on the sidelines in every major struggle of nations and classes while the rest of us get on with the life and death struggles. Anthony On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:00 AM Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001@...> wrote: "In fact, Reimann says socialists should support strengthening NATO, |
|
Re: Against voting for Democrats
Anthony Boynton
Good question, Mark. What do you propose? Anthony On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 8:45 PM Mark Lause <markalause@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Against voting for Democrats
Mark Lause
I'm essentially in agreement. But beyond these rather narrow circles, you can't seriously ask people to vote for an alternative that isn't there. I mean, I get it, but for people who don't, it just sounds nuts. So, I repeat the question I've been asking on here every election, what's in the works right now in terms of preparing an option for 2024. Cheers, Mark L. |
|
Panel: Ukrainian and Russian academics discuss the war
Dayne Goodwin
Real News Network, Nov. 9 Bill Fletcher, Jr. moderating
https://therealnews.com/panel-ukrainian-and-russian-academics-discuss-the-war Debates over the proper approach to the Russo-Ukrainian War have dominated much of the year. Yet discussions within the western left have not always featured the perspectives of Ukrainians and Russians themselves. The Real News Network board member Bill Fletcher, in partnership with Haymarket Books, hosts a panel with Ukrainian and Russian academics. Yuliya Yurchenko is a senior lecturer and researcher in political economy at the Political Economy, Governance, Finance and Accountability Institute and the Economics and International Business Department, the University of Greenwich (UK). She is the author of Ukraine and the Empire of Capital: From Marketisation to Armed Conflict (London: Pluto Press, 2018) and many other publications, including in Capital and Class and New Political Economy. She is vice-chair of the Critical Political Economy Research Network Board (European Sociological Association), co-coordinator of the World Economy working group, IIPPE, and an editor for Capital and Class. Alona Liasheva is a PhD candidate in Urban Studies (URBEUR) at University of Milan-Bicocca focusing on housing in Eastern Europe. She is a co-editor of Commons: Journal for Social Criticism. Ilya Budraitskis writes regularly on politics, art, film and philosophy for e-flux journal, openDemocracy, LeftEast, Colta.ru and other outlets, and teaches at the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences and the Institute of Contemporary Art Moscow. The Russian edition of his essay collection Dissidents among Dissidents was awarded the prestigious Andrei Bely prize in 2017. |
|
Re: Against voting for Democrats
gilschaeffer82@...
Charles, what do you have to say about the place of the democratic republic in the writings and activities of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Luxemburg? Do you think the US meets the standards of a democratic republic as these classical Marxists defined it? If not, why shouldn't that be part of our political strategy? You do not even address this issue.
|
|
Re: Against voting for Democrats
Charles Rachlis
The Workerpoet explains that their votes are cast for progressives. For revolutionary Marxism capitalism has not been progressive for over 100 years. So when we hear leftists proclaim they support progressive candidates, (and in the case of workerpoet does not name their candidates) we expect most of them are in the progressive caucus of the Democratic party. From a Marxist position this is worse than self delusion because it serves to mislead the working class away from fighting for their own fighting workers labor party to smash capitalism. Workerpoet, like many of this persuasion, claim they won't vote for centrist or corporate Democrats, notice these sort never say they won't vote for capitalist candidates or capitalist Democrats, preferring to distinguish between corporate and progressive capitalists. They promote the false concept that only corporate capitalism is regressive and creates fetters on the forces of production. Of course the workerpoet is entitled to their own opinions but when considered in the context of Marxism (which is what one would expect to read on the MarxMail page) they are peddling anti-Marxist pablum. What did Marx say about capitalism's progressive nature. Yes, it was progressive in its nascent period advancing the forces of production which had stagnated under the ancien regime (feudalism) but one need look no further than the Communist Manifesto: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007 "The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented." So please feel free to delude yourself that there are progressive capitalist politicians in the Democratic party but pushing your excuse for not fighting for the political independence of the working class on a supposedly Marxist list serve--expect pushback. Charles Rachlis "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common."
IWW founding congress opening statement
On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 08:20:03 AM PST, workerpoet <red-ink@...> wrote:
I vote for progressives. I do not vote for "centrist" corporate democrats nor or republicans. Neoliberal economics, the stubborn, hateful arrogant deafness and undermining of progressives by corporate dens feed fascism even more than voting for them directly does.
|
|
Re: Kherson liberated
David Walters
According to Ukrainian vloggers, the Russian Telegram channels are burning up over this loss by Russia. Moscow issued a statement today indicating that "legally" this area is still considered "part of Russia". Anyway, Marv's original question is now THE question: what happens now? Will Russian carpet bomb Kherson? I don't even think the Russians know at this point. For the Ukrainians, the question is actually a sharper one: what do THEY do now? Their political statements now go all the way to Crimea. How can they achieve this. There is no doubt all sort of back channel discussions going on between, I'm sure, Moscow, Washington/Brussels, Kiev. I suspect all the new battles will now shift north in Ukraine.
David |
|
Re: Kherson liberated
Erik Toren
I am personally taking all in the sense of desperation from the RT Left in their newscasts and in particular in their US version tru Sputnik Radio. /ect On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 8:35 AM Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001@...> wrote: Via https://twitter.com/search?q=Kherson%20Oblast&src=typeahead_click |
|
Re: Scholz's visit to China
Marv Gandall
Charlie says "German business's turn against China predates the war in Ukraine. Look at a few article headlines from 2020 that I found at random".
The strong turnout of US, German, and other European and Asian firms at China's annual International Import Exhibition earlier this month would seem to indicate otherwise. Clearly there are big differences between the US and allied military and political establishments and the major multinationals who profit from their ties to China. |
|
Top U.S. General Urges Diplomacy in Ukraine While Biden Advisers Resist - The New York Times
Marv Gandall
More on the tactical differences within NATO over when to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. The differences at the top may not be as wide as they seem, and may mostly turn on the need to prepare Ukrainian and Western public opinion for concessions. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-diplomacy.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20221110&instance_id=77193&nl=todaysheadlines®i_id=46319619&segment_id=112810&user_id=4e0168b6423629124e3d161d7c5253cf Top U.S. General Urges Diplomacy in Ukraine While Biden Advisers Resist Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made the case that the Ukrainians should try to cement their gains at the bargaining table. By Peter Baker New York Times Nov. 10, 2022 WASHINGTON — A disagreement has emerged at the highest levels of the United States government over whether to press Ukraine to seek a diplomatic end to its war with Russia, with America’s top general urging negotiations while other advisers to President Biden argue that it is too soon. Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made the case in internal meetings that the Ukrainians have achieved about as much as they could reasonably expect on the battlefield before winter sets in and so they should try to cement their gains at the bargaining table, according to officials informed about the discussions. But other senior officials have resisted the idea, maintaining that neither side is ready to negotiate and that any pause in the fighting would only give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a chance to regroup. While Mr. Biden’s advisers believe the war will likely be settled through negotiations eventually, officials said, they have concluded that the moment is not ripe and the United States should not be seen as pressuring the Ukrainians to hold back while they have momentum. The debate, which the officials described on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss sensitive deliberations, has spilled out into public in recent days as General Milley made public comments hinting at his private advice. “Seize the moment,” he said in a speech in New York on Wednesday. He elaborated in an interview on CNBC on Thursday. “We’ve seen the Ukrainian military fight the Russian military to a standstill,” he said. “Now, what the future holds is not known with any degree of certainty, but we think there are some possibilities here for some diplomatic solutions.” The White House, however, made a point of distancing itself from any perception that it is pushing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to cede territory to Russian invaders even as Moscow pulls forces back from the strategic city of Kherson. “The United States is not pressuring Ukraine,” Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser, told reporters on Thursday. “We’re not insisting on things with Ukraine. What we are doing is consulting as partners and showing our support not just through public statements or moral support but through the tangible, physical support of the kind of military assistance I mentioned before.” Indeed, the Pentagon on Thursday announced that it was sending another $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. Among the weapons being shipped will be the first mobile Avenger Air Defense Systems provided by the United States as well as missiles for HAWK air defense systems already provided by Spain, mortars, artillery rounds, Humvees, grenade launchers, cold weather gear and ammunition for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, that have proved so effective in pushing back the Russians. However, the Defense Department rebuffed Ukrainian requests for Gray Eagle MQ-1C drones, which American officials fear could be used to hit targets in Russian territory, risking a dangerous escalation of the war, The Wall Street Journal reported. The question of where the United States stands on negotiations has animated conversations on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean in recent days as American, Ukrainian, Russian and European officials try to decipher the sometimes mixed signals from Washington. A trip by Mr. Sullivan to Kyiv last week left some with the impression that the Biden administration was urging Mr. Zelensky to at least show willingness to negotiate, but American officials denied that. Instead, they said, at the end of a meeting mainly focused on other issues related to the war, Mr. Sullivan suggested that Mr. Zelensky think about what “a just peace,” a phrase used by the Group of 7 nations last month, would look like when the time does arrive for negotiations down the road. The confusion was exacerbated by ambiguous comments by Mr. Biden at a news conference on Wednesday. Asked if he thought Ukraine now had the leverage it needed to begin negotiations, the president left the door open. “It remains to be seen whether or not there’ll be a judgment made as to whether or not Ukraine is prepared to compromise with Russia,” he said. Pressed later about whether he was suggesting that Ukraine consider giving up some territory, Mr. Biden quickly said no. “That’s up to the Ukrainians. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” he said, repeating the official line that any resolution has to be determined by Kyiv, not the United States or Europe. “I do know one thing: We’re not going to tell them what they have to do.” Some current and former officials said the nuance of the administration’s stance has been lost. While not currently pressing for talks, the administration wants to be prepared for diplomacy at some later date when it would make sense. “My sense is the administration is dipping its toe in the possibility of diplomacy,” said Charles A. Kupchan, a Georgetown University professor who served as a Europe adviser to President Barack Obama and recently wrote an essay promoting talks. “They’re trying to thread the needle. They want to introduce the possibility of diplomacy without appearing to be telling the Ukrainians what to do.” He added: “It’s setting the table, but it’s not sitting at the table.” The evident willingness to entertain talks at some point has drawn sharp criticism from some foreign policy experts who argue that it would be a mistake to bet against Ukraine’s ability to win more of its territory back from Russian occupiers. “The United States and European partners should not forestall the possibility, even likelihood, of more Ukrainian military success by insisting on a cease-fire in place or by assuming that it’s impossible for Ukraine to, for example, liberate the Donbas or even Crimea,” Daniel Fried, a former career diplomat now at the Atlantic Council, wrote on the Just Security website. Mr. Zelensky and his aides reiterated this week that Ukraine had repeatedly proposed resuming peace talks with Russia, and that such talks could not begin until Russian troops withdraw and return the territory they have seized. But analysts noted that the Ukrainian leader did not repeat earlier statements that talks seemingly could not start while Mr. Putin was still leading Russia. More broadly, there has been huge support among the Ukrainian public for sustained military offensives against Russian positions, and each announcement of Russian setbacks has been met with an outpouring of public enthusiasm. Even before the recent wave of Ukrainian military advances, Mr. Zelensky was under heavy and sustained political pressure to refuse any concession that would leave Russian forces in control of Ukrainian territory. The debate in Washington comes as questions are being raised about the durability of American support for the Ukrainian war effort. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader hoping to become House speaker in the newly elected Congress, has rejected a “blank check” in continued aid to Ukraine, although other Republican leaders, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, remain steadfast backers of Kyiv. A group of progressive House Democrats recently released a letter recommending negotiations, then withdrew it under criticism. But some on the left continue to push for talks. “I believe that progressives have always advocated to leaning on diplomatic solutions,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, told the Intercept this week. “We should continue to lean on that.” In internal discussions at the White House, General Milley has been a strong voice for diplomacy but does not want to give the impression of undercutting the Ukrainians, officials said. He has pointed to satellite imagery showing that the Russians are digging trenches and establishing firm lines through much of the occupied territory in preparation for winter, when the fronts presumably will stabilize. The pullback from Kherson appeared to be aimed at setting up a more defensible position. Given that, officials said, the general has argued that fighting may ease during the cold months with less chance of further fundamental change on the ground, offering a window of opportunity for talks. In White House discussions, he cites World War I, when the two sides engaged in years of trench warfare with little change in territory but millions of pointless casualties, an example he aired in his speech at the Economic Club of New York this week as well. The point is not to reward Mr. Putin, officials said in describing the general’s view, but that maybe this is a time when Ukraine and its allies can start working toward a political solution because an enduring military solution may not be obtainable in the near future. General Milley’s judgment is not shared by Mr. Biden or Mr. Sullivan, the officials said. Mr. Putin has shown no willingness to negotiate, they said, and the Ukrainians have been emboldened by their success on the battlefield, making them reluctant to trade away territory at the bargaining table. If the United States pushed for talks at this point, the officials said, reflecting Mr. Sullivan’s point of view, that would send a message to Mr. Putin that all he had to do would be to drag out the war a little longer and eventually the Americans would do his work for him. “Only Zelensky and his government can make those decisions,” said Steven Pifer, a former American ambassador to Ukraine now affiliated with Stanford University. “Washington should not be pressing him to do so, and at least so far, it appears that Washington understands that.” Helene Cooper and Zach Montague contributed reporting from Washington, and Andrew E. Kramer from Snihurivka, Ukraine. |
|
Re: While invading thru Chernobyl, Russian soldiers unburied the wrecked, undead Earth itself
workerpoet
There are no good guys in this picture. Most are caught between brutal Russians and Brutal Ukrainians -- if you survive the Russian assault you might be tortured or killed as a collaborator. None of this would be happening at all if the US had not insisted on installing fascists in Ukraine and pushing NATO into the region in spite of multiple agreements. Biden could end this today but proxy war feeds the military-industrial economic base of the cancer called the US. This needs to end b popular demand before it escalates to nuclear war. The climate damage -- especially after our (yes, our) blowing of the charged Nordstream pipeline will be wit us for many, many years to come and outweighs any of Biden's climate friendly policies.
|
|
Re: Against voting for Democrats
workerpoet
I vote for progressives. I do not vote for "centrist" corporate democrats nor or republicans. Neoliberal economics, the stubborn, hateful arrogant deafness and undermining of progressives by corporate dens feed fascism even more than voting for them directly does.
|
|
Re: Great Power Rivalry: Deepening of Differences between Stalinist Parties
workerpoet
Referring to a broad array of Marxist-Leninist parties as "Stalinist" reveals a tainted perspective. .
|
|
Spare the Dummy … and Trotsky!
RKOB
Reply to a silly polemic against comrade John Reimann (and against the main target)
Spare the Dummy … and Trotsky! Reply to a not very intelligent polemic of Alan Woods’ IMT on the slogan of “Arms for the Ukraine” By Michael Pröbsting, RCIT, 11 November 2022 https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/imt-slogan-of-arms-for-the-ukraine/ |
|
Ortho Trotskyist Blast at Marxmailian Over Ukraine
Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001@...>
"In fact, Reimann says socialists should support strengthening NATO,
which objectively means strengthening US imperialism, which is also the main driving force behind the Ukrainian war effort. So a victory for Ukraine would also mean a victory for US imperialism, which is absolutely not a gain for the working class in Ukraine, Russia, or anywhere else..." More bile at https://www.socialist.net/arms-to-ukraine-abusing-trotskys-words-learn-to-think.htm Michael Pugliese |
|
Re: The Economist "imagines peace in Ukraine"
Richard Fidler
The Economist spells out its program for a postwar Ukraine once the latter has submitted to territorial concessions to Russia. Marv's post, to paraphrase him, is likewise "notable for what it omits": that those on the left like Marv calling for an immediate end to Ukraine's armed resistance fail to "imagine" an alternative to the kind of program for an amputated Ukraine spelled out by this leading organ of British capital, hardly a "staunch" supporter of Ukraine.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Fortunately, some on the genuine anti-imperialist left have begun to think through what the reconstruction of Ukraine following a Russian defeat could involve. In the forefront are the Ukrainian socialists of Sotsialny Rukh / Social Movement; their initial thinking is outlined in a document presented at their recent conference: "A Ukrainian Left under construction on several fronts," https://lifeonleft.blogspot.com/2022/10/a-ukrainian-left-under-construction-on_19.html (see the proposals cited under the subtitle "Sotsialny Rukh and the war"). See also the webinars of the October conference on "Reconstruction and Justice in Post-War Ukraine," posted here: https://commons.com.ua/en/conference-reconstruction-justice-post-war-ukraine/. And in the United States, the Ukraine Solidarity Network has outlined its "principles and goals," including Ukraine's right to reparations, cancellation of its debts, reconstruction without strings attached, and just and fair labor rights for its population. This Network, I am told, " was formed after the Socialism 2022 Conference in Chicago under the leadership of Spectre, New Politics, Against The Current, and Tempest journals plus associated political groups. These groups include DSA, Tempest Collective, International Marxist Humanist Organization, and Solidarity." The Network is "working closely with the U.K. Solidarity Campaign and Ukraine’s Sotsialyny Rukh to establish a Solidarity Network in the United States." I attach its Mission Statement. And please, Marv, don't respond by reminding me that any alternative to Western imperialist plans for Ukraine is simply utopian, given the balance of class and national forces both in Ukraine and internationally. The international Left and progressive forces desperately need to find a way out of their current confusion amidst the unfolding multipolar global imperialism, and to "imagine" how we can begin to build the necessary alternative to capitalism and climate catastrophe. The defense and rebuilding of Ukraine sovereignty is an essential ingredient of that response. Richard -----Original Message-----
From: sp-canada-discussion@... <sp-canada-discussion@...> On Behalf Of Marv Gandall Sent: November 10, 2022 3:53 PM To: Socialist Project <sp-canada-discussion@...>; Marxmail <marxmail@groups.io> Subject: The Economist "imagines peace in Ukraine" This leader from the staunchly pro-Ukraine Economist is, like other jittery Western publications of late, notable for what it omits as for what it contains - namely, no more mention of supporting the Ukrainian war effort until all of the Russian-controlled regions in the Donbas and Crimea are regained. Instead, Ukraine simply "needs to keep its access to the Black Sea". "Many people focus on how much land Ukraine recaptures”, says The Economist, but "Ukraine’s victory will rest as much on the health of its democracy as on the extent of its territory”. Accordingly, the US and NATO should focus on: 1. Postwar reconstruction, which will "require vast amounts of capital from private-sector investors” backed by seed money from governments and multilateral lenders who will have "the clout to police how the money is spent”. 2. Security guarantees "modelled on America’s relations with Israel”. 3. A vast Western rearmament program which ensures that its security guarantees to Ukraine can be met. "Work on bolstering weapons production should begin right away, by creating a pipeline of orders and rationalising procurement”. Otherwise, “if Mr Putin creates a failed state in Ukraine, NATO members will be the next targets of his aggression” 4. Bringing the Zelenskyy government into line with this program. The stakes, according to The Economist, are so great "for countless more people across Europe” beyond Ukraine that Western leaders that can no longer “wisely insist that Ukraine should determine its own objectives” because of "the threat to the security of the entire Atlantic alliance.” * * * Imagining peace in Ukraine How a stable and successful country could emerge from the trauma of Russia’s invasion The Economist Nov 10th 2022 https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/11/10/imagining-peace-in-ukraine (paywalled) IMAGINE A VICTORIOUS Ukraine in 2030. It is a democratic nation, preparing to join the European Union. Reconstruction is almost complete. The economy is growing fast; it is clean and diverse enough to keep corrupt oligarchs at bay. All this is underpinned by stout Ukrainian security. Defence against another invasion does not depend on the Kremlin’s goodwill, but on the sense that renewed Russian aggression would never succeed. Today, as Russia’s tattered army appears to retreat from Kherson in the south, an end to the fighting still seems far off. But news that Ukraine and its backers are starting to outline their views of the future makes sense, because the coming months will determine what is possible at the decade’s end. It means thinking about how to rebuild post-war Ukraine, and the security guarantees needed to deter future invaders. In the past, Western leaders have wisely insisted that Ukraine should determine its own objectives. Ukrainians are dying in a conflict all about the right of sovereign countries to decide their own future. If peace is foisted on them, it is less likely to last. However, Ukraine’s Western backers have interests at stake, too. If the war escalates, they could be sucked in. If Russia ends up denying Ukraine victory, by creating a failing state on its western borders, Vladimir Putin or his successors would threaten the security of the entire Atlantic alliance. Ukraine also has reasons to share its plans for the future with NATO. At present the West rations arms and money partly to steer the war, accelerating the supply of advanced weaponry if Ukraine appears to be struggling, but refusing aircraft and the longest-range munitions for fear that it will press on too far—whatever that means. Ukraine should be more of a partner and less of a supplicant. Another reason for Ukraine to work together with its allies is to bind them in, especially in America. Nothing can guarantee the support of the next president (Donald Trump is not a fan, for example). But a successful, settled plan for the war and its aftermath is the best available assurance of continued backing. Such a plan must include a framework for reconstruction. The Ukrainian people need to restore their shattered lives. More than that, if Ukraine’s economy fails, so will its democracy. Donors at a meeting in Berlin in October tried to sketch out a plan for rebuilding Ukraine and to estimate its costs. Patching the country up while the fighting continues, which could last another three years, will cost tens of billions of dollars, they reckoned. Initial reconstruction, lasting a further two years, might cost $100bn. A third phase—in effect, a Marshall Plan for Ukraine, probably costing even more—would seek to create an economy that is fit to join the EU. Clearly, such plans require vast amounts of capital from private-sector investors. A few dozen governments and multilateral lenders will be involved in laying the groundwork to attract outside money. If their grants and loans are pilfered by oligarchs, the country will fail. Hence Ukraine and its backers must harness the national purpose forged in war to give anti-corruption groups the clout to police how the money is spent. If Ukraine is to thrive, it also needs security. To be viable, Ukraine needs to keep its access to the Black Sea. Many people focus on how much land Ukraine recaptures; Mr Putin needs to suffer a decisive defeat so that his failure is unambiguous. Beyond that, though, Ukraine’s victory will rest as much on the health of its democracy as on the extent of its territory. When the fighting does stop, Russia will continue to re-arm rapidly. The government in Kyiv will therefore need Western security guarantees that are more robust than those that spectacularly failed to deter Mr Putin in 2014 and, again, earlier this year. NATO membership would be the gold standard, under which a Russian attack on Ukraine would count as aggression against the entire alliance. But America and many of its allies are unwilling to court direct conflict with Russia. And Turkey, which is still delaying membership for Sweden and Finland, may resist. A more plausible alternative, put forward in September by a Ukrainian official and a former NATO secretary-general, is modelled on America’s relations with Israel. The Kyiv Security Compact foresees a web of legally and politically binding commitments between Ukraine and its allies. Some countries will pledge military, financial and intelligence support if Russia attacks; others will commit to sanctions. The plan also calls for investment in weapons transfers and in Ukraine’s defence industry to be sustained over decades. Be under no illusion how hard this compact will be to bring about. One worry is the state of the Western arms industry, which was run down after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It may struggle to sustain the supply of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine while the fighting continues, let alone outpace Russia as it re-arms when the war is over. Work on bolstering weapons production should begin right away, by creating a pipeline of orders and rationalising procurement. The other worry is that the West may not have staying power. Polling of Republicans in America and voters in eastern Germany, and anti-war protests in Rome and Prague, suggest that support for Ukraine cannot be taken for granted. Governments everywhere have limited supplies of money and attention. America has other business, such as with China in the Pacific (see Leader). After decades of contracting out its security to the United States, Europe has barely begun to reckon with the extra responsibilities it must take on. The West needs to see that spending many billions of dollars in Ukraine is not an act of charity, but of self-preservation. In recent decades, Russia has started a war on its borders every few years. Mr Putin sees today’s conflict as a clash of civilisations between Russia and the West. Half-hearted Western support of Ukraine will not appease him; nor will it lead to the rebuilding of relations with Russia, as some Europeans hope. On the contrary, it will convince him that the West is decadent and vulnerable. If Mr Putin creates a failed state in Ukraine, NATO members will be the next targets of his aggression. Ukraine’s dream of victory would ensure lasting peace for its 43m inhabitants. It would also ensure peace for countless more people across Europe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sp-canada-discussion" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sp-canada-discussion+unsubscribe@.... To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sp-canada-discussion/334BDEA7-7A01-4ADE-B399-827E6B624134%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. |
|
Re: While invading thru Chernobyl, Russian soldiers unburied the wrecked, undead Earth itself
Anthony Boynton
Thanks Brian! |
|
While invading thru Chernobyl, Russian soldiers unburied the wrecked, undead Earth itself
Disturbing and inhaling radioactive dust, in their haste Russian soldiers unburied the wrecked, undead Earth itself
https://aeon.co/essays/what-did-the-russians-dig-up-when-they-dug-trenches-in-chernobyl Brian Gibbons |
|
Kherson liberated
Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001@...>
Via https://twitter.com/search?q=Kherson%20Oblast&src=typeahead_click
https://twitter.com/markito0171 , has many Tweets with video clips, #Kherson city center , https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/1591068170663632896?s=20&t=YVGhwup7lRdSUw2__ViMjg . Ukrainian army moves from all sides into formerly Russian occupied territory in Kherson oblast. I don’t see any fightings ongoing. #Ukraine , https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1591018269187932161?s=20&t=TlAeCuq69NPX1nl-C_tVDw Victory parades in Kherson Oblast. #Ukraine #Kherson https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1591002493206814720?s=20&t=-GfLL70xrMB1cdbOZX-uiA Michael Pugliese |
|