Will the Referendum end the “Special Military Operations”? - from its limitations to limitless “defense” operations.
The
analysis of Marxist Leninists seems contradictory at first due to the
application of the dialectic of Marxism to a given current situation but always
confirms to be correct with each development. The underlying reason is not to rely on the “military
aspect”, “military tactics”, “military gains and losses” but to the core of
the reasons for war – that is political and economic aims of a war combined.
Military tactics are applied as only a part of the short or long term economic-political aims. And these tactics are never isolated from the tactics of other belligerent countries (US-NATO) since that too are related to their political and economic interests. Concentrating on the “military tactics” on the particular cannot respond to the larger political-economic war going on in world scale. On the contrary, the war in Ukraine – Europe specific, and world at large can respond the nature of military tactics being used in Ukraine.
Whether
the war is forced upon or not, the war in Ukraine is an imperialist war – which
means a war that is waged between great powers. And imperialist wars are waged with
definitive policies and aims. Policies are economically driven
which in return are dialectically connected to the forming of strategic alliances
with the countries that have significant value in their economic, geographical, and
military conditions.
Was
it an “unprovoked” war?
To
make an objective assessment and see the reality, we must read this study of
RAND corporation on “how to overextend Russia both in militarily and
economically. It is a scenario scripted 3 years before the Ukraine war.
Thinktank
“institutions” in the US focus on
research and form a politico-economic strategy aiming to generate advice to the
decision makers in order compete against
its rivals.
To
start with let's read RAND Corporation’s research titled “(over) Extending
(the military force of) Russia”, a 350 pages study dated 2019.
Preface
notes that “This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of
the RAND Corporation research project Extending Russia… sponsored by the Army Quadrennial Defense Review Office, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-8, Headquarters, Department of the Army. The purpose of the project was to examine a range of possible means to extend Russia… measures that
could stress Russia’s military or economy or the regime’s political standing at
home and abroad.
“…While not the superpower that the Soviet Union was, Russia has gained economic strength and international weight under Putin and now boasts much greater military capabilities than any country with similar defense spending—to such a degree that it can exert its influence over immediate neighbors. Moreover, while still conventionally inferior to the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies when they are judged as a whole, Russia can and does threaten the United States and its allies through other means—short of conventional conflict.
..The steps we examine would not have either defense or deterrence as their prime purpose, although they might contribute to both. Rather, these steps are conceived of as elements in a campaign designed to unbalance the adversary, leading Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage and causing Russia to overextend itself militarily or economically or causing the regime to lose domestic and/or international prestige and influence.
Of all the measures we examined, expanding U.S. energy production and imposing trade and financial sanctions on Russia seem most likely to further stress the Russian economy, government budget, and defense spending.
Imposing tougher sanctions is also likely to degrade the Russian economy and could do so to a greater extent and more quickly than maintaining low oil prices, provided the sanctions are comprehensive and multilateral.
Increasing Europe’s ability to import gas from suppliers other than Russia…. , encouraging the emigration from Russia of skilled labor and well-educated youth could help the United States and hurt Russia…
Doing nothing, although not an active measure on the part of the United States, would also let the Russian government continue its poor regulatory regime, its state control, and its wasteful investments (meaning the social benefits to people. E.A), all of which would continue to limit the country’s economic weight and military potential.
Another way to extend Russia is to make its foreign commitments costlier, but this turns out to be quite risky for the United States and its allies and partners. Unlike the Soviet Union, Russia is not overextended geo graphically. Other than in Syria, its foreign commitments in Ukraine and the Caucasus are relatively compact, contiguous to Russia, and in locales where at least some of the local population is friendly and geography provides Russia with military advantages.
In the Caucasus, the United States has fewer options to extend Russia. Russia enjoys even greater geographic advantages there, making it considerably more expensive, for instance, for the United States to defend Georgia than for Russia to threaten it. Likewise, the United States is not in a strong position to challenge Russian influence in Central Asia for similar geographic reasons. Efforts might be made to persuade Moldova to align more closely with the West and to expel the small Russian peace-keeping force located in the Russian-speaking enclave within that country.
Most of these measures—whether in Europe or the Middle East—risk provoking Russian reaction that could impose large military costs on U.S. allies and large political costs on the United States itself. Increasing military advice and arms supplies to Ukraine is the most feasible of these options with the largest impact, but any such initiative would have to be calibrated very carefully to avoid a widely expanded conflict.
Russia’s greatest vulnerability in any competition with the United States is its economy, which is comparatively small and highly dependent on energy exports. The Russian leadership’s greatest anxiety stems from the stability and durability of the regime.
Russia’s greatest strengths are in the military and information warfare realms. Russia has deployed advanced air defense, artillery, and missile systems that greatly outrange U.S. and NATO air-defense suppression and artillery counterbattery capability, potentially requiring U.S. ground forces to fight without air superiority and with inferior fire support.
The most promising measures to stress Russia are those which directly address these vulnerabilities, anxieties, and strengths, exploiting areas of weakness while undermining Russia’s current advantages. Continuing to expand U.S. energy production in all forms, including renewables, and encouraging other countries to do the same would maximize pressure on Russia’s export receipts and thus on its national and defense budgets. Among the many measures looked at in this report, this one comes with the least cost or risk.
It will be difficult to raise the costs to Moscow of its external military commitments because most of these are in small areas adjacent to Russia and populated with comparatively pro-Russian populations.
Basing large additional U.S. ground forces in Europe might be necessary for deterrence and would likely impel a Russian force posture response, particularly if these forces were positioned close to Russia. The costs to the United States are likely to be higher than those to Russia, however, while increasing deployments near Russian borders would increase tensions, generate controversy among NATO members, and possibly provoke Russian reactions elsewhere.
…every measure needs to be deliberately planned and carefully calibrated to achieve the desired effect. Finally, although Russia would bear the cost of this increased competition less easily than the United States, both sides would have to divert national resources from other purposes.”
As
it is clear to see that what happened in Ukraine was not an “unprovoked” aggression,
but a reaction to a “scenario” outlined based on the study of US thinktank groups and “put on the stage”.
Russian Side before the
war
Widely
repeated misconception is that Russia wanted to annex Donbass, and thus, have
helped the realization of “right to self-determination” of Donbass.
The
fact is that the Russian bourgeoisie always used the Donbass issue
exclusively for their own interests in bargaining with the Ukrainian
bourgeoisie. They always have used the issue of oppressed people of, Dniper,
Kharkow, Odessa, Nokolayev and specifically of Donbass into a "bargaining
chip". While the residents of
Donbass and other regions have been fighting a civil war for 8 years not to be
part of the Ukronazi state, Russian bourgeoisie was bringing out the “Minsk
Agreements” for them as a viable choice.
Hypocritical "appeasement" policy of Russian bourgeoisie
always has been against the demand of Donbass people's right to
self-determination from neo-Nazi Ukraine, and the recognition of its
independence, its autonomous status.
In
actual reality is the people of these
regions were forced to resist both Neo- Nazi Kyiv and Russian bourgeoisie.
Having strong communist and anti-fascist base, Donbass people had no hopes and
illusions for the bourgeois Russian authorities and kept on fighting-despite
the persuasion of local "pro-Russian" bourgeoisie not to advocate
secession from Ukraine. "Pro-Russian" bourgeoisie in Ukraine, in
order to protect their own interests tried to saddle the popular movement in
the south, southeast Ukraine, through fitting into, becoming part of the
Ukronazi consensus, agreeing with the Ukronazi Kyiv authorities, and with the
conditions set by them at the expense of the interests of the working people
of Donbass. The aims of the people's liberation movement fundamentally
contradicted the interests of both bourgeois sections - both of which were
trying to suppress this uprising from the very beginning.
That
is the reason why they called on the militias not to hold a referendum on May
11, 2014, in the DPR and LPR, urging them not to secede, but “to establish a
direct dialogue between the current Kiev authorities and representatives of the
southeast of Ukraine.
That
is the reason why they imposed the “Minsk” on Donbass and obliged them to
unconditionally fulfill these agreements, forbidding the servicemen of the
people’s militia of Donbass to return fire, under conditions when the Ukronazi
side did not stop shelling civilians in Donbass…
However,
against all impositions and threats, Donbass people held a referendum at a
time they were urged not to hold.
The
liberation movement of Donbass had been waging a struggle, contrary to the
interests of bourgeoisies of both. Their liberation struggle was
practically being suppressed by both bourgeoisies. Undoubtedly, like most civil
wars, struggles contain various groups, including petty bourgeois. However, the
crux of the matter is that the contradictions between the interests of
labor and capital are expressed here clearly and sharply.
"Civil
war”, said Lenin, “is just as much a war as any other. He who
accepts the class struggle cannot fail to accept civil wars, which in
every class society are natural, and under certain conditions inevitable
continuation, development, and intensification of the class struggle. That has
been confirmed by every great revolution.
To repudiate civil war, or to forget about it, is to fall into extreme
opportunism and renounce the socialist revolution." (Military
Program of the Proletarian Revolution) " Civil war against the
bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle." (Lenin, Junious
Pamphlet)
“Special
Military Operation”- start of war in Ukraine
The
shift in Russian bourgeois' policy with the SMO, did not change the character of the
struggle of Donbass people. Their struggle against the Ukronazis primarily
and Russian bourgeoisie secondarily remained the same. It only coincided
their interests as far as the Ukraine neo-Nazi bourgeois state is
concerned.
Unlike
the western media disinformation with the tactic of big lies, Russian bourgeoisie
was still under the illusion that they can extract an “agreement” with a partial
invasion. Reaching close proximity of Kiev, Ukronazis agreed to sit at an agreement
table and accepted if not all most significant conditions of Russia. They both
forgot the decisive role of US-NATO. Russia, as a good will to the agreement
started withdrawing from Kiev and other Northern regions. Next day, the
visit of US representative made the Ukronazis change their mind and void the
agreement with western media presenting the Russian withdrawal as “military
victory”, “heroically pushing the invaders from the Ukraine territories”. That was the first blunder of Russian
bourgeoisie which changed the entire direction of “Special Military
Operation”. Entire focus was given to the “liberation of anti-Euromaidan regions
– regions that they were ready to bargain before the war.
Another
widely “accepted” bourgeois narrative is the participation of Russian
infantry in the war in the fronts of Donbass region. It was the Donbass
militia on the ground who fought and still fighting in these regions- of
course, without minimizing the importance of logistical, and mechanized
support of Russian military. No one really knew the number of Russian military in Ukraine territory, including Donbass. Most objective military analyzers agree that it was in the range of 80,000 in entire Ukraine. The limited character of “SMO” or consciously,
the air force of Russia was not to be seen in these regions.
Comrades
from Donbass pointed out that "Russia
is playing a dangerous game of appeasing the world public opinion at the
expense of Communists, anti-fascists, and people of Donbass. Unlike Kherson,
Donbass in general have no intention of annexation to Russia. Since the end of
March, the Russian air force is nowhere to be seen in the skies at the
front where mostly the local militia is fighting. Under the pretext of
"zero-collateral damage", the air force has been non-active in this
area. They are not even using the air force to bomb the Ukrainian forces situated
on the hills where there are no civilians and from where they are shelling
Donbass. They are playing a game of "appeasing one side" on
one hand, while forcing the other side into a referendum for annexation.
" “Forcing” is not in the sense of
using force but creating the conditions and psychological situation where the fear of defeat will leave the
accession to Russia as the only viable solution. The Kharkov blunder -or tactic
we will never know- reinforced this, and people of Donbass, once against any accession,
will be going for referendum for accession tomorrow.
One comrade in his critique has said;” Comrades from Donbass was right when they said that “Russia is playing a dangerous game”. However, that “danger” is not something Russia cannot handle, it is not a danger for them. The danger is related to the people of these regions and not limited to Ukraine but entire European people. It is correct that Russia with the “declaration war” can end this war with lesser sacrifice of human life than the cost of lives by dragging this war.”…“It is always the economy that shapes the policy. As you all well know war is the consequence of a definitive policy with definitive goals, so is its duration- especially for an economically and militarily superior country. "
How
will the referendum change the character of war?
It
is necessary to remind that, the Russian strategy was based on the concept of
“special military operation” with specific goals, not a “full scale war”.
Russian miliary heavily relied on local forces-militia, with a minimal (as a
ratio of its entire military) forces of their own on the ground.
Russian
strategy and tactics have been based on a long-term sustainability and sphere
of influence rather than short term, “headline” tactics.
Special
Military Operation (SMO) has its limits with its limited goals. “Declaration of
war” has no limits, as the “War of Defense”. When the referendum turns (especially)
with over % 80 for accession, those regions become part of Russia. As
international law, a country has the right to defend its land and its people
without actually “declaring war”-which is a “de facto” declaration of war. With
the positive outcome of referendum, the
SMO becomes void, “war” becomes effective.
Contrary
to the Western Medi’s fictitious narratives such as “Russia is losing ground”,
developments indicate that Russia is gaining grounds with its “goal reaching”
tactics. At his conjuncture, there is no possibility of "obtaining
guarantees from the “Western Block” for the recognition of their
interests". A block that is clearly stating the destruction and repartitioning
of Russia. Russia has calculated that its further goals can only be achieved by force. Economic and
political indications from the west shows that while west is struggling and
facing popular protests and discontent, Russia is achieving all its economic
and political goals set with the SMO in particular and approaching to the stage where it’s wider
interest goals will be the focus.
In
this direction, with the expectation of positive results from the referendum, Russia
already has called for mobilization. Unlike the western media’s propaganda and misrepresentation, “mobilization” does not mean the call for mobilization of
civilians and conscripts but the official reservist
with knowledge and experience in various fields. Most likely, reservists will
not go to Ukraine, but they will be replacing the existing professional
soldiers in different parts of Russia and the ones they replaced will be going
to Ukraine.
Invasion
of Ukraine?
Russia
does not need to invade Ukraine in order to achieve its goals. It did not and
does not have the intention to invade Ukraine. The more US-NATO (Ukraine)
resist, the more regions it will lose, but it most likely will be limited to
the regions with populations heavily against Ukraine neo-Nazi regime. Unless
Bakhmut as the key to the clearing the Donetsk from Ukrainian forces before the reach of new Russian forces, that
will be the focus of Russia. They will be bombing and destroying the critical
infrastructure, military facilities and military equipment and men till they
submit to their demand or most likely, they will be banking on the inevitable collapse of Ukraine regime
in the course of these attacks and as a result of discontent.
Unlike
some pseudo-left “assessments” that the war will push the bordering countries
to NATO, and strengthen the NATO alliance, the possibility and most likely goal
of Russia is that the collapse of Ukraine neo-Nazi regime will be a deterrent
to other bordering countries, at least a discontent and fear on the part of
population which inevitably will rise and
influence the change of policies of
border countries now in line with pro US-NATO.
One
of Russia’s long-term goals is to break the NATO alliance not only in bordering
countries but as much further as they can- which may be the reason for a likely dragging of war after “de facto”
declaration of war of defense.
It
is unlikely that Russia will stop after the total capture of Donbass, Kherson.
As the comrades from Donbass noted long ago, it possibly will extend all the
way to Odessa while connecting Transnistria, cutting Ukraine from the Black Sea,
and most likely will capture Kharkov in the process to strike a huge blow and prevent further attacks to Donbass
(and Russia) from that region.
Economics
of dragging the war and its implications – Tactics and current events
By
dragging the war, the US is already weakening the European economy and bringing
it down to its knees and making them more dependent on the US military and
energy industrial complex. It is a policy and tactic stated in RAND corporations' analysis.
The
tactical game Russia played for “public opinion” in Ukraine particular at the
expense of anti-fascist people, most likely will be rehearsed at the expense of European people which again banks on
the discontent and fear of European people and their uprising in different
degrees. This requires the dragging of the war as long as possible, especially
all through the winter.
So, dragging of the war benefits the US and Russia in achieving their goals at the expense of peoples of – not only Ukraine and Europe but of entire world.
This
dragging of war and enriching the military industrial complex, will inevitably
look for new provocations and military
actions against Russian interests in its bordering countries. That is one of
the main tactical points in RAND’s report. That includes, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan
even reaching to the Sakhalin islands to the east. This is the main theme and blueprint of the RAND report; “(Over) extending the
Russia(n military)”.
Here is what the RAND report states;
“This chapter describes six
possible U.S. moves in the current geopolitical competition: providing
lethal arms to Ukraine, resuming support to the Syrian rebels,
promoting regime change in Belarus, exploiting Armenian and Azeri
tensions, intensifying attention to Central Asia, and isolating
Transnistria (a Russian-occupied enclave within Moldova).”
It
continues another section;
“Russia also plays a key role
with Azerbaijan and Armenia, particularly over the disputed territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh….
The United States could extend
Russia in the Caucasus in two ways. First, the United States could push
for a closer NATO relationship with Georgia and Azerbaijan, likely
leading Russia to strengthen its military presence in South Ossetia, Abkhazia,
Armenia, and southern Russia.
Alternatively, the United States could try
to induce Armenia to break with Russia.
The United States might also
renew efforts to bring Georgia into NATO.”
The report clearly states that;
"While the principal aim of
these policies would be to extend Russia, closer relationships with
Georgia, Azerbaijan, or Armenia might yield important secondary benefits for
the United States… Increased
U.S. involvement in the region could produce additional economic benefits as
well."
It
clearly shows that what is going on in Caucasia is nothing, but the “provocation”
and “exploitations” of tensions scripted three years ago in order to
“over-extend” the Russia both militarily and economically. It is the clear common
hypocrisy of US pretending to be the “friend of Armenia” yet provoking Azerbaijan against Armenia for its
political and economic gains.
It
is important to touch base with the NGOs in order to understand their
roles in these provocations and propaganda.
What
are NGOs in general?
Non-Government
Organizations are organizations of not internal governments of
developing, small nations, but in reality, organizations of foreign
Governments, specifically of US. Without any exception these organizations
are funded and supported by National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an
organization which receives millions of dollars in funding from the US
government and institutions, from reactionary foundations. NED has so many
different subgroups with different names, in different countries. They have
their hands in almost all the “color revolution” and “protests” and their propagation
in every country
For
example, In the case of Armenia-Azerbaijan, the news and pictures of protests against Russia was carried out by “Gulbenkian
Foundation Armenian Communities” an NED funded organization, as the “global Investigate Journalism Network” which in
addition is funded by Soros foundation, as the rest who carried the news and
propaganda.
In
conclusion
The
war in Ukraine was never a war “against Ukraine” and there was never an issue of
“sovereignty” as far as Ukraine was concerned for it was a proxy in this
imperialist war – meaning a war between great powers. Any claims that Ukraine
as a sovereign country had the right to defend itself and has the right to “self-determination” is nothing but a bourgeois claim in the
service of Neo-Nazis.
“The
right of nations to self-determination” says Lenin, “implies exclusively
the right to independence in the political sense, the right to free
political separation from the oppressor nation. (Lenin The
Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination)
And
continues; “our definition of the “right of nations to
self-determination” must follow, a definition that is consistently
democratic, revolutionary…” (Lenin, The Revolutionary Proletariat, and
the Right of Nations to Self-Determination)
As
far as the sovereignty of a proxy small country having the right to defend itself,
Lenin states; “In imperialist wars, which
are most typical of the current imperialist epoch, small countries too cannot
defend (does not have the right to defend) their fatherland.” (Lenin,
Reply to P. Kievsky)
Ukraine
war is an imperialist war
between two imperialist blocks; on one side a militarily aggressive one, a militarily
non-aggressive one on the other. Non-aggressive
block carried out an “appeasement” policy as far as it can. That appeasement
policy has come to a dead-end with the application of “(over) extending
Russia” policy and practice and will be coming to dead-end for China due to
the provocations in East and Southeast Asia.
The
change in the war with limited goals of “Special Military Operation”, is about
to turn into a war with “no limits” since it is becoming a war of “defense!” in
its definition and implications of International Law.
The
war in Ukraine, and likely wars in any
other bordering countries cannot be assessed isolated from the fact of conflict
between two groups over the struggle for world sphere of influence- both
economic and geo- political sense. The question is how far one side will go-endure
without the use of nuclear arsenal or will the conflict reach to that level
from the level of “proxy” wars. That will
be seen with the developments on the horizon.
Erdogan
A
September
22, 2022
.jpg)
No comments