The difference between Marxist and Bourgeois analysis of the developments and forecast of the war in Ukraine
Marxist analysis proceeds from the analysis of economic and political situation in particular with direct connection to the same in world general. That follows with the comparison of economic, political, and military strength of belligerent countries. In simple words, the military strategy and tactics are driven by the economic-political strategy at large. The economic-political strategy is the decisive factor in military strategy, not the other way around.
Few of these somewhat objective liberal analyzers came to the conclusion that;
1- “the war in Ukraine was forced
upon Russia.” That conclusion was
reached by the Marxist Leninists of Donbass and MLDG group at the start of the
war;
“The war in
Ukraine is nothing but an inevitable result of US-NATO military aggression
which was consciously forced upon Russia.” (1)
2- “the war will not be a quick
one but will be a “dragging” one.” That conclusion was reached by the Marxist
Leninists of Donbass even before the war as a hint, and as a definite forecast after
Ukraine did not comply with the Istanbul agreement.
“The western part of Ukraine is out of war zone without any military attack to cities from Russia. That is a very affective policy of Russia as far as the public opinion is concerned and it serves its long term “sphere of influence” policy and aim. Taking the “special operation” extremely slow, dragging it to the winter may well be within its long-term strategy. They are mostly targeting the concentration of military hardware, communication, military men, and of their destruction. Both strategies of Russia in Mariupol and Kherson tactical offensives were a long term, planned tactics with sustainability in mind.” (2)
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. … war is the consequence of a definitive policy with definitive goals, so is its duration- especially for an economically and militarily superior country. … 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. " (3)
The war will
drag, not because of the resistance of Ukraine, or of the mistakes of Russia,
but because Russian strategy requires it so. Russia will decide to end it or
not at some point depending on the achievement level of successes of its
strategy. (4)
3- “It is likely that Odessa, Kharkov,
Nikolayev and Dnieper will be invaded.” That
conclusion was reached by the Marxist Leninists of Donbass as a likely one earlier on.
Due to the Western, especially that of US pressure not to sit for an agreement, it is most likely that Kharkov (which already made an official agreement with Donbass), Dnieper and Nikolayev is on the agenda and will be "liberated" in the process. Depending on the developments during this phase, Odessa is a likely choice to cut Ukraine from accessing to Black Sea. All of which has the expectation of an internal conflict within Ukraine bourgeoisie and the removal of "Euromaidan", "US-NATO" bourgeois clique from power by the Ukrainians themselves. (5)
These and much more conclusions
reached based on the “battles” and developments in military strategy by itself
confirms the superiority of Marxist analysis for it proceeds from the economic-political
situations and conditions in any given particular and general, and on its strategy determined there upon. Dialectics of Marxism helps forecasting the possible economic-political strategy
and from that the military strategy and tactics in general, based on the
existing conditions, economic and strategic alliances, their military strength -not
in a specific but in dialectic connection to the general.
Another important conclusion they
are close to reaching is the question of invasion of Ukraine. Marxists analyzers
rejected the “intent of Russia to invade all of Ukraine” from the start.
Originally the Russian strategy was limited to Donbass, and they were ready to
negotiate with Ukraine neo-Nazis at the expense of the Russian people in other
regions.
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. (3)
General strategy had to be changed after Ukraine’s defaulting Istanbul
agreement, “hypocrisy, big lies, exaggerations of Ukraine’s unsustainable military
gains on one side, losses of Russia on other strengthen the illusion yet
created a discontent among the Russian population which in the final analysis
forced its government to take the necessary action.”
With the application of a wide range of economic, social, and political blockades, inevitably the change in the strategy was to be substantial. Rather than contending with Donbass, Russian strategy which was already not a short-term military strategy but a political strategy with specific goals, turned into a strategy with a “long term goals of expanding its “sphere of influence” and preventing the existence of NATO not only on its border but as far as possible, to the status of 1990s. That does require the dragging of this war all through the winter, invasion of all Russian speaking regions and even cities and towns and integrating them into Russian territory either with autonomous status or not. (6)
Russia did not and does not need
to invade all 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.” (3)
Although it is unlikely for
Russia to Invade all Ukraine, at the same time “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.” (3)
“Even though Putin said that they
are ready to sit down for an agreement, concluding his words with “new regions
are not negotiable” and with the “ultimatum to Ukraine to withdraw all its
forces from these regions”, clearly confirms the comrade's assessment that
Russia is as eager as the US-NATO to drag this war till it gets the best
gain-deal out of the war. The longer the
war is, the larger the Ukraine loss of territories will be- but most likely
limited to the regions mentioned.” (7)
It does not mean that the “invasion
of Ukraine at large” is impossible or cannot be on the agenda. The conditions
may change drastically with the participation of other bordering countries and
may require the extension of invasion to other regions. This possibility may be deducted
from Putin’s speech using “past” tense in regard to Russian purpose and intentions in Ukraine and not responding to
the question of “will Ukraine be able to exist as a state”, he responds in past
tense “we did not set ourselves to destroy Ukraine”. That can be translated to; “if it requires, we
will have to”.
The changes in the conditions
do not change the main economic-political strategy but force the changes in the
military strategy and tactics to realize the main strategy. Under current
conditions, there is no indication that Russia will have to invade all Ukraine but will limit itself to the regions specified earlier.
In conclusion, Marxist Leninists
proceeds from the economic-political analyses down to the specific in
dialectical connection with the general, liberals (and revisionist) from the specific and get stuck in the specific. For a
Marxist Leninist, the event in Ukraine is not an isolated issue from the
general world issues, but dialectically connected to that. In this sense,
Ukraine or Russia issue is an offshoot
of US-NATO versus China-Russia conflict at large, cannot and should not be
taken separately in its current context and its further escalation context.
This is a current issue of development
from a unipolar world to multipolar
world. Most Bernsteinists as the Kautskyite revisionist vehemently yet in a
sophistry way make statements against the multipolar world. What is the core of
the issue behind this opposition is similar to the sophist statements of “there is no socialist country in the world” by which they reinforce the Trostkyite
idea that there cannot be a socialism in one country. In this case it goes back
to Lenin’s critique of Kautsky in regard to the “ultra-imperialism”, a unipolar
world where all the imperialists shake hands and unite and a "peaceful
capitalism", an era of no wars, an
era of “gentle ultra-imperialism” replace the old “competing imperialism. In
reality they are defending the theory
and practice of a unipolar world and hoping to debunk Lenin’s assessment of ultra-imperialism argument as reactionary.
Ideological warfare is a very complex war. The defense of “unipolar war” is not an isolated case but an
ideological one in its core which denies the law of uneven development in the
period of imperialism. With Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism they preach
the possibility of a peaceful settlement of inter imperialist conflicts. In
other words, with sophistry, they defend the theory of "ultra-imperialism" which
Lenin called as “reactionary” and stated that is “a most reactionary method of consoling the
masses with hopes of permanent peace being possible under capitalism, by
distracting their attention from the sharp antagonisms and acute problems of
the present times and directing it towards illusory prospects of an imaginary
"ultra-imperialism" of the future. Deception of the masses -- there
is nothing but this in Kautsky's "Marxian" theory." (8)
Erdogan A
December 1, 2022
Notes
(1) Imperialism - in Ukraine Particular
(2) Ukraine Military- A Guinea pig of US-NATO experiment in studying Russian Military tactics
(3) Will the Referendum end the “Special Military Operations”?
.jpg)
No comments