NATO:
TROOPS OUT OF EASTERN EUROPE! LIFT THE
SANCTIONS! HANDS OFF RUSSIA!
03-05-2016 – In a rational world, a fleet of warships
belonging to country A patrolling 50 miles from the shore of country B would be
seen as a considerable threat to the security of country B. Not so if you
happen to be a part of the Western corporate media, and country A is Russia,
and country B is the United States of America. In that case, Russia is seen as
a hostile provocateur, and the US is seen as waging a heroic struggle to
contain an aggressive rogue state. The massive and ongoing mobilisation of US
and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) troops on the borders of Russia,
far from being seen as unwarranted, is seen as a necessary amassment to prevent
the evil Kremlin plotting against Europe.
Needless to say, the world labouring under the hegemony
of US imperialism, is not rational, and won’t be until the dragon is slayed.
Thankfully, some of the actions of the Russian state are staying the hand of the
US imperialist dragon, but this is something which the arrogant hegemon cannot
forgive. An example is the Russian intervention on the side of the Syrian Arab
Republic against the atrocious proxy war being waged against it by the US and
its allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and backed by Israel. At the invitation
of the Syrian government, from September 30 last year, the Russian military
began taking out the US proxy ISIS forces, and other armed mercenary groups
committing barbaric acts against civilians across Syria. The actions of the
Russian government, supported by Iran and Hezbollah, tipped the balance
decisively in favour of elementary justice – the right of a sovereign state to exercise
its own policies independently of imperialism. At the same time, the Russian
moves thoroughly exposed the US role in funding and arming jihadist barbarians
and trucking them into Syria. The US could not openly defend its own monsters,
for even the most blind would clearly see what is an open secret.
Even if Russia had not come to the material aid of Syria,
however, Russia would still be relentlessly targeted, and indeed, surrounded on
many sides. In an important sense, the US war for regime change is not just
directed at Syria, but Russia. It’s not difficult to see that the US/NATO
backing of a fascist coup in Ukraine in 2014 was and is another front aimed at
Russia. On top of this, Pentagon officials have recently announced plans to
deploy 4000 troops, 250 tanks and 1700 pieces of wheeled military hardware to
Eastern Europe.
It is thought that the Britain and Germany will contribute to these four new
battalions. NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander General Philip Breedlove is being
replaced by US Army General Curtis Scarapotti. Scarapotti reportedly told a US Senate
hearing that Russia was displaying “increasingly aggressive behaviour that
challenges international norms, often in violation of international law”.
Such rhetoric is scarcely credible. And what should be the response of Russia
when NATO essentially occupies Europe? One would think a natural response would
be one in which Russia makes every move to defend itself against what could
potentially be a dire threat. And this is apparently what has occurred –
Russian military troop movements and exercises in the vicinity of the borders
with the European countries. Yet the US responds by claiming that the Russian
troop movements are "extraordinarily provocative”. The US has sent its
troops and advanced military hardware thousands of miles to be stationed on
Russia’s borders. In response, Russian troop movements – on Russian territory –
are regarded as “extraordinarily provocative”. Welcome to the upside down
world of the New Cold War.
Why
a New Cold War?
The reasons for the reigniting of the West’s New Cold War
against Russia are relatively easy to identify. The capitalist
counterrevolution which destroyed the Soviet Union was only the first step for
the US. At first, during the 1990s, the US rulers could quite easily work with
a pro-US drunkard, Boris Yeltsin. The catastrophic decline in industry,
manufacturing, and life expectancy in Russia at that time was largely
facilitated by Yeltsin and other oligarchs, who handed US capital, in a
financial and political sense, more or less open access. None of this shock
treatment had any effect other than to make the dire economic conditions
dramatically worse for the majority of Russians. Consequently, Yeltsin and his
accompanying “democracy” was almost universally detested in Russia.
Beginning around the turn of the 21st century,
the rise of Vladimir Putin and his cohorts saw a vast change in direction for
Russia. Putin sought to nationalise some resources, arrested and tried some of
the more corrupt oligarchs, and slowly the economy began to pull itself out of
the doldrums. Conditions are still not rosy, but by most measures an
improvement on the devastation of the 1990s. This is one reason for the
popularity of Putin domestically. Another is the fact that under Putin, Russia
has sought a path independent of, and not subordinate to, the US behemoth. This
alone is enough to enrage the US elite, and they have responded by demonising
Putin and Russia itself in endless media propaganda. A string of newspapers and
magazines depict Putin as a new version of Stalin.
Yet the more Putin stands up to the US, the more
admiration he receives both from Russians within and others internationally,
including those who do not at all have left-wing sympathies. The view is
prevalent that Putin is a leader who at least, “knows what he is doing”, as
opposed to Western politicians who are unable to do anything about their collapsing
economies or declining living standards for the majority. Therefore the
propaganda of the media scribes in the West becomes ever more shrill, and ever
more extreme. In response to some Russian Navy ships sailing in the vicinity of
Australia during the G20 Summit in 2014, the Murdoch tabloid the Herald Sun
hysterically headlined “The Reds are Coming” complete with Putin in a Navy
uniform and a hammer and sickle! Tabloid newspapers in the West are not
refined publications admittedly. However the tone of the propaganda was
alarming. In fact, one could say that the relentless Western corporate
propaganda against Putin and Russia, despite Russia being capitalist for the
last 25 years, is a distorted form of anti-communism. It is therefore in the
interests of working people to reject it entirely, and seek to combat it.
Of course, working
people should not seek to politically endorse Putin, as he is no socialist, and
does not seek to lead an anti-imperialist revolution domestically or
internationally. The Russian government cannot be extended political support
either, as it does contain some particularly objectionable positions, not the
least of which is a seeming defence of Zionist Israel. Nonetheless, to the
extent that Russia resists the world dominance of the US, and resists the
infractions of NATO on its own doorsteps and elsewhere, the world’s workers
find themselves in a temporary bloc with the Russian state. Like all political
blocs, it not permanent and it is conditional, but for the interim it needs to
be real. For example, Russia’s actions in the defence of Syria have arguably
prevented a wider regional war. In Ukraine, despite the non-intervention of
Russia to back the anti-fascist resistance in Donetsk and Lugansk, the threat
of it probably stayed the hand of the US from pushing its proxy
ultra-nationalists to wage all-out war on the east against Russian borders. And
this is before we even begin to discuss the increasingly independent economic
agenda of Russia, in joining forces with rising non-Western nations such as the
BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).
While Yeltsin was pro-US, Putin is not. Putin and his
backers seek to protect Russia’s interest not in terms of socialism, but in
terms of capitalism. For the US Empire, however, the rejection of socialism in
Russia in practice means very little. As Eric Zuesse writes, for the US led
West:
“….jihadists are just a side
show. The main event is Russia. The end of communism, and of the USSR, and of
the Warsaw Pact, doesn’t really make any difference to them. They want the land, and its resources.
They don’t care about the people on it – anywhere.”
Moreover, Putin and his cohorts are not willing to
subordinate themselves to the US, and are not willing to be controlled by them.
Perhaps naively, they may have imagined that the US would welcome them into the
family of capitalist nations if they abandoned socialism. Yet this is not the
way imperialism works. Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, demands total
subservience, which means zero independence. For the Putin led wing of the
Russian rulers, this is unacceptable. They believe they have a right to form
independent relations with other nations, to engage in trade, cultural and
diplomatic relations with any other country, from the first or third world. Yet
to even think this, let alone begin to carry it out, is to enrage that entity
which arrogates to itself the title of world leader. The fury of the US Empire
vents itself in a veritable storm of anti-Russian and anti-Putin propaganda,
almost all of which is based on barely concealed lies.
The
left and “imperialism”
Many fall for this base level Western propaganda. This is
to some extent to be expected, for without significant and strong workers
parties in the West, many working people never hear a view opposing the US
line. Yet this excuse cannot be claimed by the left parties which exist – for
they should know a lot better. Unfortunately, for some of them Russia today is
the Soviet Union of yesterday, which even at that time they opposed. Some
others hesitate to back Russia out of supposed concern over classic middle
class issues such as the lack of “democracy” and limitations on homosexual
relationships – as important as these are. Some others subscribe to the absurd
theory which claims that Russia is “imperialist”, and is therefore simply
competing with the US to divide up the world. All of these positions in the end
amount to a capitulation to capitalist propaganda – even if on other issues
such groups can see through corporate spin.
The left party Socialist Alternative, publishers of Red Flag, are perhaps the most strident
in putting forward the “Russia is imperialist” fantasy. They hold to a type of
moral equivalency between the US and Russia, which dates back to their forbears
during the 1980s, who proclaimed “Neither Washington nor Moscow but
international socialism”. In the same way in which “Neither Washington nor
Moscow” in previous decades meant in practice support for Washington, today the
“Russia is imperialist” furphy in practice means embracing the US empire,
albeit with little conviction. In the case of the proxy war on Syria, Socialist
Alternative thus sees the Russian assistance to the Syrian government as
“imperialist” intervention. Needless to say, if it was
it would be the first imperialist intervention in history where the invaded
country issued a formal invitation to its subjugator!
Solidarity, the estranged sister organisation to
Socialist Alternative, likewise see Russia as simply a rival imperialist
vis-à-vis the US. For them, NATO’s installation of a fascist backed government
in Kiev in February 2014 was some kind of justifiable uprising. The real
culprit, according to them, is Russian intervention. The “Russia is
imperialist” theory immediately paints Russia as world enemy number one, while
US imperialism is seen as something minor, or even benign. At times, it even
lends itself to covert calls for US intervention. Referring to Crimea’s vote to
re-join Russia, which was passed by over 90% of Crimeans, as an annexation (!),
Solidarity then go on to lament the lack of action by the US Empire, and their
allies:
“The West has denounced
Russian intervention in strident terms. But they have been reluctant to take
any serious action. Both US President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela
Merkel have ruled out sending troops into Ukraine.”
This is because the NATO backed fascists have done the
work of imperialist troops! Better to arm proxy forces, even if fascist, than
to send in your own uniformed mob. Solidarity here are pining for the West to
take “serious action”. It illustrates well the political direction the “Russia
is imperialist” theory pushes you – in the direction of the Oval Office in
Washington.
The Socialist Alliance, publishers of Green Left Weekly, equivocates on the
question of Russian “imperialism”. It appears to be a case of trying to hold on
to some fragments of one’s heritage, while also partially chiming in on the
anti-Putin/anti-Russia corporate bandwagon. Some of their leading members hold
different public positions within the organisation. For example, Chris Slee
subscribes to the Russia is “imperialist” theory, while Renfrey Clarke
opposes it.
Yet Green Left Weekly largely orients
itself to real US led imperialism in retrospectively supporting the
“independence” of Ukraine in 1991.
Needless to say, what occurred
was not “independence” as such, but a capitalist counterrevolution which
destroyed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), arguably the greatest
setback for the world’s working class to have ever occurred. “Independence” for
Ukraine meant the recreation of capitalism, which in turn led to social and
economic catastrophe, which ultimately led to the intervention of NATO and a
fascist-led coup. In fact, if the USSR had not been overthrown by capitalist
counterrevolution, there would be no basis for fascism in Ukraine today.
Working people can well do without such “independence”.
The Socialist Equality Party (SEP), to their credit,
continually warn about the dangers of a US led war on Russia. Their World
Socialist Web Site (WSWS) is full of well researched information on the ongoing
military, political and diplomatic brinkmanship and war being carried out by
the NATO countries against Russia. They are also skilled at noting how
propaganda weapons such as allegations of Russian athletes being on state
sponsored doping programs, are used at precise times which coincide with the
geopolitical objectives of the US ruling class. They correctly observe that the
current unproven allegations against Russian athletes are aimed at getting
Russia banned from the Rio Olympics as well as attempting to prevent Russia
from holding the soccer World Cup in 2018. However, the SEP in
practice are known to be reclusive, and rarely take part in political activity
where other left parties are involved.
The Communist Party of Australia (CPA) has quite good
positions on the question of Russia and Ukraine, at least on paper. They do
stand in opposition to the NATO installed fascist-led government in Kiev in
February 2014. They also have defended the right of the Communist Party of
Ukraine (KPU) to operate, and defended them against persecution by the
ultra-nationalists – despite some of the actions of the KPU. The CPA noted that
the KPU sought governmental and parliamentary alliances not only with Victor Yanukovych’s
Party of the Regions, but also with reactionary nationalist Yulia Timoshenko,
who is now a part of the fascist Kiev junta. However, the CPA, like
the SEP, is known for abstention and lack of activity on many fronts, and the
anti-war sphere is another one.
One left group which is very active, however, was
inactive on the whole question of the US led fascist coup in Ukraine.
Trotskyist Platform (TP), which ordinarily puts forward a class struggle
perspective on most issues, fell in with other left groups which were paralysed
by the events and the aftermath of the events in Ukraine in 2014. The cardinal
error which TP commits is that it takes seriously the claim that Russia is
“imperialist”. Although, in their lengthy article on the situation in Ukraine,
they do not mention the word imperialist in relation to Russia, they do state
that Russia is a “rival” to the imperialist West. But for Russia to be any
kind of “rival” to the imperialist powers – the US, Britain, France etc. -
which are backed by Canberra – it would have to be “imperialist”. But this is
plainly false.
This topic would need a separate study in itself. Suffice
to say, for Russia to be “imperialist” a number of factors would have to be
proven. Firstly, it would have to be proven that finance capital completely
dominates the Russian economy. Secondly, it would have to be proven that the
Russian state aggressively uses its military power to prize open markets in
foreign countries by threats, invasions, occupations and wars. Thirdly, it would
have to have a network of military bases in many parts of the world, OR it
would have to co-operate its military alongside the United States, Britain,
France, Germany and so on. Clearly, none of these factors exist.
Russia’s economy only began to recover from the total
devastation of the 90s when Putin and his allies began re-taking parts of it
back into state hands. The military conflicts the Russian state has been
involved with have been primarily defensive, actions which defended Russia in a
territorial or political sense. And in recent times it is quite obvious that
Russia is the military target of the US-led West, despite necessary agreed
ceasefires where Russia and the US are both militarily active – though for different
sides, in Syria.
TP does correctly raise the demand for the lifting of
Western sanctions on Russia. However, on other issues such as the US led
bombing against Libya in 2011, TP were vociferous in their opposition to NATO.
Yet in relation to Russia, their mention of NATO is negligible. In Ukraine, the
NATO powers, later backed by Canberra, were instrumental in the installation of
a fascist-led government in Kiev. This is while NATO for years has been
completing a military encirclement of Russia. In the last couple of years, this
military encirclement has pushed the region to the brink of war. The latest US
provocation was the switching on of an $800 million missile “shield” in
Romania.
Just imagine if Russia had moved ANY troops anywhere near the US, let alone
surround it, let alone set up missile bases on their doorstep. This is the
reality for Russia today. Yet it appears that TP cannot mention NATO’s
extremely dangerous provocations against Russia. If they did, it would tend to
undermine their claim that Russia is merely a “rival” to the US led West. The
reality is that despite Russia being capitalist, it is still enemy number one,
alongside Red China, as far as the US empire is concerned. The left needs to
defend Russia despite its socio-economic system and despite its political
leadership. Working people have a side where Russia defends itself against
NATO.
The
struggle against fascism
TP seems to view the conflict in Ukraine as one between
Ukrainian fascists and Russian fascists, and therefore tries to apply a “plague
on both your houses” position, albeit with words backing the Donbass
“self-determination” struggle. They raise the reports of attacks on Roma people
in Ukraine, and attribute them to what they call the “pro-Russian” side. However, some reports
have stated that while some assaults of Roma people in Ukraine were carried
out, there is no hard evidence that these were in fact carried out by the
“separatists”.
It is of course a huge concern that the Eastern Ukrainian resistance included
some with pro-monarchist, pro-tsarist and even pro-Nazi political views, in
amongst pro-Soviet, pro-USSR, pro-Lenin political views. It is a massive
contradiction, born of the rift between the loss of living standards that
accompanied the destruction of the former USSR, and the rejection of
bureaucratic and politically repressive rule that occurred during those times.
In the process of rejecting the lack of workers’ political rights in the former
Soviet Union, some turned to nationalism, tsarism and even fascism.
TP is correct to call for a political struggle within the
Donbass resistance for the victory of internationalist, pro-working class
politics, which overcomes backward political views. Yet the contradiction is
that those within the resistance with shady political views are in practice
fighting back against US and NATO backed fascism. The principal axis of the
struggle there is the one against US imperialism, which in the case of Ukraine
is backing real fascism. The resistance in the East of Ukraine was not, as TP
claim, one of “self-determination”. The Eastern Ukrainians did not desire
self-determination as such – they simply refused to live under a fascist
government – and thus were forced to declare their own regional republics. They
did this by taking up arms, and with incredible bravery, facing shelling and
missiles from the NATO backed Kiev military. The dynamic of the Donbass
struggle is overall a struggle against a fascism which hails its origins with
fascists who fought with the Nazis in World War II. This is its character despite
the presence of some tsarist and anti-Semitic views amongst those who have
joined the anti-fascist resistance.
TP is also correct to note that Canberra has played its
own role in backing the US/NATO juggernaut in Ukraine, and by extension,
Ukrainian fascism. At the time Liberal PM Tony Abbott openly embraced US backed
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, and jetted to Ukraine to join his
“advisory council”. Canberra also blasted
Russia, without a shred of evidence, for the downing of Malaysian airlines
flight MH17. This appeared to be a part of the US plan to destabilise Russia,
by any means. Yet while TP makes muted calls to oppose Canberra’s “meddling” in
Ukraine, the best way to do that would be to oppose fascism in Ukraine, while
defending Russia against NATO. Yet this is precisely what TP did not, and
cannot do. Such actions would undermine its view that Russia is merely a
“rival” of the US. And since no one doubts the US is imperialist, labelling
Russia a rival is tantamount to labelling Russia as imperialist also. For only
an imperialist power can “rival” another imperialist power.
Without formally endorsing the right-wing “Russia is
imperialist” theory, TP tips their hat in this direction, placing them in the
company of those who they correctly criticise for their opposition to Red China
– groups such as Socialist Alternative, Socialist Alliance and Solidarity. They
all of a sudden go very quiet with their opposition to NATO, which is marked
because they were at the forefront of opposing NATO’s criminal actions against
Libya. It is notable that they have also been silent on Russia’s intervention
against the US proxy ISIS forces in Syria. Even outright opponents of the
Russian state cannot openly disapprove of Russia's jet fighters taking out the
genocidal ISIS mercenaries. If they were consistent, they might claim that such
actions were intended as part of “rivalry” with the US.
The moment a left group utters the word “imperialism” in
relation to Russia, they are propelled into the camp of NATO, despite their
intentions. There is only one imperialism, and it is led by the US. Any mention
of Russia as “imperialist” or as a “rival” of the US,
immediately lets the US Empire off the hook – its monumental crimes are
lessened or forgotten, and it even begins to attract some sympathy – as if it
is being targeted by “evil” Russia. Workers can start believing US propaganda
about the deployment of huge military arsenals in Eastern Europe as “routine
exercises”. US planes on the borders of Russia being warned away can start to
be seen as “Russian aggression”. This is how the US aggressor can, through
sophisticated corporate propaganda, be seen as “just doing its job”. This is
how imperialist wars begin. Left parties, more than others, should know better.
In practice, TP was a part of the left’s silence
on the imperialist war provocation against Russia, which included the arming
and political backing of fascists in Ukraine. They joined with the Socialist
Alliance, Socialist Alternative and Solidarity in either quietly backing, or
attempting to remain neutral, on NATO backed fascists and ultra-nationalists
taking power in Kiev. The underlying reasons lay either in original opposition
to the Soviet Union, OR, falsely ascribing “imperialism” to the current Russian
state. In practice, they meant the same thing – a deathly silence when Russia
and the anti-fascist resistance in Ukraine desperately needed international
solidarity. At best, at least they did not hail the fascist coup as a
“revolution” – despite some of them using this label for similar activity in
Libya and Syria. At worst, it meant tacit endorsement of yet another US
sponsored effort at regime change - an effort which could have sparked World
War III.
No
to NATO
The central axis of the West’s confrontation with Russia
is the use of NATO, what should be a Cold War relic, to aggressively strengthen
US imperialism vis-à-vis Russia. While workers cannot politically endorse the
Russian government or the Russian state, workers internationally have an
enormous stake in defending Russia against NATO and against US led imperialism.
Washington, with Canberra’s backing, seeks the destruction of any semblance of
independence from Russia in any sphere – political, diplomatic or military. The
world’s workers have a vital interest in pushing back against a rapacious US
imperialism, which is lashing out in inverse proportion to its economy’s
prospects. The US Empire is prepared to ally with, or arm, anyone – even Nazis
– to further its goals.
The main political line in Ukraine for workers is to see
the defeat of NATO and its fascist forces. In practice this will mean forming a
temporary bloc with pro-Russian forces, but only insofar as they are combating
Western aggression. There should be an internal political struggle amongst the
anti-fascist resistance for genuinely internationalist and socialist aims.
International workers and left parties can assist this struggle by resolutely
standing with the anti-fascist resistance against US backed Nazism. Ultimately,
there needs to be a political movement for workers’ power and for socialism in
Europe and Russia, as the only ultimate prevention of war. Hands off Russia!
