"Why Ukraine may embrace China's peace plan"
The one issue that the author does not consider is the issue of morale inside the Russian military. There are already reports of Russian troop desertions and even of gun battles between Russian troops. Who knows how that could develop under the pressure of a Ukrainian offensive?
from what I understand the author is a conservative. We know that in the US there is a wing of the strategists for the US capitalists who argue for something like what this writer calls for. If this is what happens, it will be a serious setback to the world working class. It will strengthen the forces Putin has gathered round his regime - the far right and even fascist forces globally.
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
"Ukraine was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about Chinese President Xi Jinping’s high-profile visit to Moscow this week, watching on as Russia rolled out the red carpet for China’s leader and waiting for its turn to have an audience with Xi.
"Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Chinese president were reportedly set to have a telephone call after the Sino-Russian meeting but there has been no further updates on this and, when asked Tuesday about a possible call between the leaders, Zelenskyy said “nothing specific [has been decided]; we don’t yet have a confirmation.”
"Having been uncharacteristically tight-lipped about Putin and Xi’s meeting, Zelenskyy responded Tuesday by saying that Kyiv had “invited” China to participate in a Ukrainian-devised peace formula to end the war, but that it was still waiting for a response.
“We offered China to become a partner in the implementation of the peace formula. We passed over our formula across all channels. We invite you to dialogue. We are waiting for your answer,” Zelenskyy told a press conference Tuesday, adding: “We are receiving some signals, but there are no specifics yet.”
From: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/23/ukraine-waits-for-its-moment-with-chinas-xi-but-will-kyiv-be-heard.html
In the same year, Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps bought 9% of Ukraine's famously fertile farmland, equal to 5% of the country's total territory, with a 50-year lease. (In 2020, the U.S. imposed sanctions on the Chinese company over human-rights abuses.)So this makes China one of the largest land owners, all of it agricultural, in Ukraine today. China likely doesn't want to lose this which is why it has sort only leaned, but not gone totally in, with Russia in this war. I think the Ukraine/China thing will play out quite slowly.
David
Here is a pessimistic article on the perspectives for the war. I've said for some time now that the situation could degenerate into one that has some similarities to that of the West Bank. It would be different in some ways but similar in others. That, essentially, is what this article argues. I don't think Zelensky can formally accept something like that, but informally it may become so.
The one issue that the author does not consider is the issue of morale inside the Russian military. There are already reports of Russian troop desertions and even of gun battles between Russian troops. Who knows how that could develop under the pressure of a Ukrainian offensive?
The one issue that the author does not consider is the issue of morale inside the Russian military. There are already reports of Russian troop desertions and even of gun battles between Russian troops. Who knows how that could develop under the pressure of a Ukrainian offensive?
As some comrades know, I am partial to Indochina War analogies ---- I know many disagree but I will re-summarize before taking the "next step" in the analogy --THe Ukrainians are the Vietnamese--- fighting for their nationThe Russians are the American imperialists --- seeking to impose their will on a nationThe AMericans and NATO are "like" the Soviets and Chinese during the Indochina Wars --- mostly interested in their own national interests while making "noise" about "Socialist Solidarity" (the US version is "the international cause of DEMOCRACY" {ugh!])THe VIetnamese fought on until the AMericans tired of the "endless war" (which if I remember correctly, the editors of the MOnthly Review argued that "endless war" was actually the goal of the US ruling class once it was clear that massive bombing would not deter the Vietnamese. THat was because from an imperialist perspective they "couldn't" lose or the entire imperial system would be in danger ---- and let's remember the "loss" of Angola and Mozambique and the "danger" of losing Portugal in the mid 1970s ---)SO WHY DID THE US "GIVE UP"? -- because the army was falling apart and domestic opposition made it impossible for NIXON to fight the war the way Johnson had ...Sorry for being repetitious -- NOW --- my new proposal isRUSSIAN MILITARY DISINTEGRATION might be exactly analogous to what the US experienced --- YES, Putin is able to suppress domestic opposition much better than the US ruling class in the 1960s and into the 1970s --- INTERESTINGLY, what gave Nixon more "space" to try and work out a "face saving" exit was the replacement of the draft ----I don't think the Russian state can afford to do that ---Nixon and Kissinger (based on Rusti Eisenberg's phenomenal new book) tried to get the Soviets and Chinese to help them "get out" by having them pressure the Vietnamese. Maybe the reverse could happen in the Ukrainian situation --- CHINA could pressure Russia to get out --- or at least get out "enough" so that it will be worth-while for the Ukrainians to agree to something less than total victory. The Chinese certainly do not want to see Ukraine destroyed.The key actor -- just as in Indochina -- are the Ukrainians --- anyone who believes in self determination must stand in solidarity with them even though the prospect of ENDLESS WAR means death and destruction for them for years to come.(Remember, the VIetnamese had to fight from approximately 1962 --- when Kennedy invaded Vietnam --- till final victory in 1975 ---- Can the Ukrainian people withstand the kind of war of attrition that the current struggle might degenerate to for --- say --- ten years? Is there a "better way" as people like Chomsky keep insisting? MY proposed conclusion to all this questioning is that the Ukrainians and ONLY the Ukrainians can answer that. Just as the Soviets and Chinese deferred to the Vietnamese (after pressuring them at Geneva in 1954 to accept "half a loaf") those of us in the international solidarity movement have to support them ....)THis is of course tricky because we DON'T want to support American militarists who see this war as a bonanza for the military industrial complex --- So the international solidarity movement has to walk a fine line.(Meanwhile, the "peace" movement in the US needs to be careful not to fall into the pro-Putin camp --- again a difficult fine line.)I REMAIN IMPRESSED BY THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO WALK BOTH THESE LINES --- especially those in Ukraine trying to do that.Sorry to reiterate this --- BUT IT'S GODDAM COMPLICATED.(and sorry for some of the repetition re the analogy to Indochina)
As some comrades know, I am partial to Indochina War analogies ---- I know many disagree but I will re-summarize before taking the "next step" in the analogy --THe Ukrainians are the Vietnamese--- fighting for their nationThe Russians are the American imperialists --- seeking to impose their will on a nationThe AMericans and NATO are "like" the Soviets and Chinese during the Indochina Wars --- mostly interested in their own national interests while making "noise" about "Socialist Solidarity" (the US version is "the international cause of DEMOCRACY" {ugh!])THe VIetnamese fought on until the AMericans tired of the "endless war" (which if I remember correctly, the editors of the MOnthly Review argued that "endless war" was actually the goal of the US ruling class once it was clear that massive bombing would not deter the Vietnamese. THat was because from an imperialist perspective they "couldn't" lose or the entire imperial system would be in danger ---- and let's remember the "loss" of Angola and Mozambique and the "danger" of losing Portugal in the mid 1970s ---)SO WHY DID THE US "GIVE UP"? -- because the army was falling apart and domestic opposition made it impossible for NIXON to fight the war the way Johnson had ...Sorry for being repetitious -- NOW --- my new proposal isRUSSIAN MILITARY DISINTEGRATION might be exactly analogous to what the US experienced --- YES, Putin is able to suppress domestic opposition much better than the US ruling class in the 1960s and into the 1970s --- INTERESTINGLY, what gave Nixon more "space" to try and work out a "face saving" exit was the replacement of the draft ----I don't think the Russian state can afford to do that ---Nixon and Kissinger (based on Rusti Eisenberg's phenomenal new book) tried to get the Soviets and Chinese to help them "get out" by having them pressure the Vietnamese. Maybe the reverse could happen in the Ukrainian situation --- CHINA could pressure Russia to get out --- or at least get out "enough" so that it will be worth-while for the Ukrainians to agree to something less than total victory. The Chinese certainly do not want to see Ukraine destroyed.The key actor -- just as in Indochina -- are the Ukrainians --- anyone who believes in self determination must stand in solidarity with them even though the prospect of ENDLESS WAR means death and destruction for them for years to come.(Remember, the VIetnamese had to fight from approximately 1962 --- when Kennedy invaded Vietnam --- till final victory in 1975 ---- Can the Ukrainian people withstand the kind of war of attrition that the current struggle might degenerate to for --- say --- ten years? Is there a "better way" as people like Chomsky keep insisting? MY proposed conclusion to all this questioning is that the Ukrainians and ONLY the Ukrainians can answer that. Just as the Soviets and Chinese deferred to the Vietnamese (after pressuring them at Geneva in 1954 to accept "half a loaf") those of us in the international solidarity movement have to support them ....)THis is of course tricky because we DON'T want to support American militarists who see this war as a bonanza for the military industrial complex --- So the international solidarity movement has to walk a fine line.(Meanwhile, the "peace" movement in the US needs to be careful not to fall into the pro-Putin camp --- again a difficult fine line.)I REMAIN IMPRESSED BY THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO WALK BOTH THESE LINES --- especially those in Ukraine trying to do that.Sorry to reiterate this --- BUT IT'S GODDAM COMPLICATED.(and sorry for some of the repetition re the analogy to Indochina)On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 3:42 PM John Reimann <1999wildcat@...> wrote:Here is a pessimistic article on the perspectives for the war. I've said for some time now that the situation could degenerate into one that has some similarities to that of the West Bank. It would be different in some ways but similar in others. That, essentially, is what this article argues. I don't think Zelensky can formally accept something like that, but informally it may become so.
The one issue that the author does not consider is the issue of morale inside the Russian military. There are already reports of Russian troop desertions and even of gun battles between Russian troops. Who knows how that could develop under the pressure of a Ukrainian offensive?
THe Ukrainians are the Vietnamese--- fighting for their nation
My difficulty with applying this analogy to the Ukraine war and to agreeing that it must be the Ukrainians who decide how long to fight, is that Ukrainians don't really get to decide. Millions have already fled the country, not wanting to be or to have their children be random targets of Russian rockets and bombs or to be drafted and forced to fight the invading Russian army. (I picked up some Ukrainian 20-somethings in my rental car during a visit to Finland ... they wanted to stay out of the country to avoid the draf
*****************************************
So far, Ukraine has managed to replenish its ranks. But some draft-age men are dodging mobilization.
Matthew Luxmoore
Wall Street Journal
March 23 2023
DNIPRO, Ukraine—One Ukrainian paid almost $10,000 to flee the draft. Another has ignored five military summonses. A third avoids public spaces, fearing a military official will pounce and issue a call-up.
When Russia invaded in February last year, thousands of volunteers lined up outside military recruitment centers. With many of them now dead or injured, Ukrainian authorities are scrambling to recruit replacements, often drafting those who have neither the desire nor the training to serve. The result is a growing number of fighting-age men who are attempting to evade service.
So far, Ukraine has managed to replenish its ranks regularly, and has largely succeeded in holding back a monthslong Russian onslaught in the east as it awaits an influx of tens of thousands of fresh troops, many of them trained in the West, to drive its planned spring offensive.
But while polls show that support for the defense effort remains high, the stock of willing volunteers now appears to be dwindling. Ukraine’s population is less than one-third the size of Russia’s, not accounting for the exodus of millions since the war began, and the kind of coercion used in Russia’s authoritarian system isn’t an option, Kyiv says.
“We can’t do as Russia does and drive people to war with batons,” President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters in February, three days after he renewed a decree on mobilization that makes reservists and most healthy men of fighting age eligible for call-up, in place since the war started. He said evasion of military service was a serious issue for Ukraine.
The war has ravaged the professional armies of both Ukraine and Russia. Moscow responded last September with a mobilization of more than 300,000 men, and President Vladimir Putin has told Russians to prepare for a protracted war.
Ukraine had a standing army of 260,000 when Russia invaded, and around 100,000 have been killed or wounded since then, according to Western estimates. The military banked until recently on patriotic fervor to swell those ranks. TV ads call on people to sign up and “defend what’s yours,” and billboards promote the Interior Ministry’s new Offensive Guard, with brigades named Anger and Spartan, and slogans urging reservists and experienced troops to “turn your rage into firepower.”
Alongside the recruitment campaigns, Ukraine is increasingly relying on enlistment officers in military uniform handing out summonses in public spaces. The Security Service of Ukraine, the country’s domestic security and intelligence agency, said this month that it had closed down 26 Telegram channels that had been posting the locations and times where they were active.
Receiving a summons in Ukraine means one of three things. You may simply be obliged to visit the recruitment office and confirm your details so authorities can update their databases. You may be subject to a medical checkup to assess your fitness for service. Or you may be required to pack your things and report for dispatch to an army base and training as a mobilized soldier.
A 25-year-old operations manager at a cryptocurrency company in Kyiv has spent the past few months staying away from cafes, restaurants and other public spaces to avoid a call-up. He said he understands the need for mobilization but said he believes he does his part by contributing part of his income each month to the armed forces.
“I’m pretty sure there are people with better ability to fight than me,” he said. “I’m not standing on the front lines shooting bad guys, but there are multiple front lines in this war.”
Ruslan Bortnik, head of the Ukrainian Institute of Politics, a think tank in Kyiv, said recent changes have discouraged many men from fighting. Last month, the military slashed bonuses for non-front-line personnel, calling it a cost-saving measure. A new law signed by Mr. Zelensky in January introduced harsher punishment for desertion and disobedience.
There have been public scandals involving inappropriate call-ups and videos appearing to show men being roughed up by enlistment officers for refusing a summons. A disabled person was drafted in western Ukraine and pronounced fit for service despite having no hands. Another died on the front lines within a month of mobilization after 10 days of training, according to his relatives.
Officials last week denied that untrained mobilized troops were being sent to battle unprepared, though they said the length of military training has been squeezed into a shorter period due to the war. “Kremlin propaganda continues to spread fakes and myths,” Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Malyar said in a Telegram post. Several soldiers interviewed by The Wall Street Journal near Bakhmut last week said they had been sent to battle within days of being called up. Others say they have received several weeks of training.
Ignoring a summons can lead to criminal charges, though such cases are rarely punished. A 38-year-old welder in the eastern Dnipropetrovsk region has received five summonses despite being a father of three children, caring for a mother who has cancer, and having health problems—all of which, he contends, are grounds for an exemption. He said he is challenging the call-up.
Mykola Usenko, a 33-year-old factory worker from the same village who was mobilized in November, said it was better not to take people who don’t want to fight. “There are those who want to go that aren’t being called up,” said Mr. Usenko, who returned home this month to recuperate from injuries sustained at the front. “Call them up instead.”
With men between the ages of 18 and 60 banned from leaving Ukraine, a small number have resorted to radical means to get out. The country’s border force frequently reports arrests, publishing stories of men cross-dressing as women, paying smugglers to whisk them out and one almost drowning as he tried to cross a river that runs along the border with Hungary this month.
Ukrainian authorities say 66,374 men exited the country in 2022 using documents that allow volunteers and humanitarian-aid workers to leave, provided they come back within a specified period. More than 9,300 of them haven’t returned, the figures show.
Various schemes have helped men flee, often costing thousands of dollars. They include buying a passenger seat alongside a long-haul truck driver leaving the country, bribing a doctor to issue an exemption, or enrolling at a university using fake documents, according to men interviewed by the Journal who have researched them.
A 37-year-old native of Kyiv left Ukraine in February after paying close to $10,000 for three different schemes. He had owned a small business selling car parts in the Ukrainian capital but said it fell apart when the war started.
The man said he first paid $2,500 for a student card from a Warsaw university, and an official spot on one of the university’s courses. But the day after he received the card in September, Ukraine said it was no longer allowing male students to leave. A friend had a contact at a draft office, and the businessman paid the contact $3,000 for documents listing him as unfit for service. The contact took his money and stopped answering his calls, he said.
In the end, he acquired a document listing him as a volunteer aid worker, traveled to the Polish border at night and spent an hour convincing a guard that he wasn’t trying to flee before finally being allowed to enter Poland.
“For the first time in a year I felt free, like my life again belonged to me,” he said in a phone interview from Canada, where he is building a new life with his wife. He left disillusioned with Ukraine’s struggle to overcome corruption and said he wasn’t willing to fight for change.
There is still a steady flow of volunteers to the army, and many men willing to fight. Polls suggest public support for Ukraine’s defense effort hasn’t waned. But Mr. Bortnik said time might not be on Ukraine’s side as it continues to lose lives on the battlefield and discontent over conditions for soldiers grows.
“The financial incentive has gone away. Some are thinking: ‘I can earn that money myself, without risking my life,’” he said.
—Natalia Gryvnyak and Ievgeniia Sivorka contributed to this article.
To: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [marxmail] "Why Ukraine may embrace China's peace plan"
THe Ukrainians are the Vietnamese--- fighting for their nation
My difficulty with applying this analogy to the Ukraine war and to agreeing that it must be the Ukrainians who decide how long to fight, is that Ukrainians don't really get to decide. Millions have already fled the country, not wanting to be or to have their children be random targets of Russian rockets and bombs or to be drafted and forced to fight the invading Russian army. (I picked up some Ukrainian 20-somethings in my rental car during a visit to Finland ... they wanted to stay out of the country to avoid the draf
*****************************************
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
> On Mar 25, 2023, at 1:53 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand2@...> wrote:
>
> So far, Ukraine has managed to replenish its ranks. But some draft-age men are dodging mobilization.
Why are they only talking about men?
Mark
Regarding Michael Meeropol's analogy to the US invasion of Vietnam: There are clear similarities but also some huge differences. The US invasion of Vietnam never was about annexation. No US president ever claimed nor acted as if Vietnam had no right to exist as an independent nation, that it always was and must be part of the United States. The other clear difference is that the US ruling class ruled and rules through "democratic" means whereas Putin does not.Combined together, this gives the US ruling class a good deal more flexibility than Putin has. If a president is deeply committed to a particular policy and the top circles of the ruling class are determined that a different policy is necessary, they can simply change that president (or at least they have been able to up until now). That's what they did when they got rid of Nixon (although it took a crisis to do so). It's what they did when they got rid of Bush and replaced him with Obama.In Russia things are entirely different. It's almost the reverse. If the president doesn't like top members of the ruling class, HE gets rid of THEM (as in falling out of windows). Nor do I think that Putin can survive an outright defeat in Ukraine - with defeat being defined as gaining no new territory through this invasion. Therefore, Putin cannot accept a withdrawal. The problem is that Zelensky at this time cannot accept any further Russian occupation on more Ukrainian territory than what they occupied prior to 2/24/22. Maybe not even that much. Maybe if the Ukrainian people are really crushed in the future that will change, but that's a different question.My point is that at this time I don't see how any peace plan can work.John Reimann--
Zelenski's puppet master had already shot down China's peace plan. So, no point in discussing it.Vijaya Kumar marla
Why are they only talking about men?
Only men are banned from leaving the country and subject to the draft.
I think the Chinese efforts in both Ukraine and with the recent Saudi-Iranian deal should be seen as an attempt by Beijing to weaken American hegemony in Asia. However, a simple thought experiment demonstrates that this is not to be construed as so promising as some on the Left desire:
At this juncture, does anyone see any evidence that Beijing is reaching an equivalent summit to New York City in terms of cultural or financial standing within the world economy? How many trillions of dollars per day flow through Wall Street? Does Beijing’s stock exchange have parity? Do people go to Beijing’s cultural centers in the way that the world does for New York? It’s utterly ludicrous to think that such parity exists.
Chris Slee
Regarding Michael Meeropol's analogy to the US invasion of Vietnam: There are clear similarities but also some huge differences. The US invasion of Vietnam never was about annexation. . . .
Regarding Michael Meeropol's analogy to the US invasion of Vietnam: There are clear similarities but also some huge differences. The US invasion of Vietnam never was about annexation. No US president ever claimed nor acted as if Vietnam had no right to exist as an independent nation, that it always was and must be part of the United States. The other clear difference is that the US ruling class ruled and rules through "democratic" means whereas Putin does not.Combined together, this gives the US ruling class a good deal more flexibility than Putin has. If a president is deeply committed to a particular policy and the top circles of the ruling class are determined that a different policy is necessary, they can simply change that president (or at least they have been able to up until now). That's what they did when they got rid of Nixon (although it took a crisis to do so). It's what they did when they got rid of Bush and replaced him with Obama.In Russia things are entirely different. It's almost the reverse. If the president doesn't like top members of the ruling class, HE gets rid of THEM (as in falling out of windows). Nor do I think that Putin can survive an outright defeat in Ukraine - with defeat being defined as gaining no new territory through this invasion. Therefore, Putin cannot accept a withdrawal. The problem is that Zelensky at this time cannot accept any further Russian occupation on more Ukrainian territory than what they occupied prior to 2/24/22. Maybe not even that much. Maybe if the Ukrainian people are really crushed in the future that will change, but that's a different question.My point is that at this time I don't see how any peace plan can work.
I think Michael's Vietnam-Ukraine analogy is good for the basic framework of understanding the parallel between US imperialism in Vietnam and Russian imperialism in Ukraine. I doubt that John and i disagree about basics either but i beg to differ/quibble that "The US invasion of Vietnam never was about annexation..."I think the U.S. invasion of Vietnam was about annexing southern Vietnam, south of the 17th parallel. Not openly annexing, since in the post-WWII era explicit colonialism was in political disrepute and no longer functional. After underwriting the bulk of the expense of the failed French eight-year war effort to reconquer Vietnam, the U.S. government reacted to the resultant 1954 Geneva Accords with initially covert subversion followed by open military intervention to keep southern Vietnam within the international U.S. empire.dayne