The extraordinary determination that has maintained the efforts of the Ukraine military and their population is not the reason that Putin will still have lost. Even if the Russian military manage to blow the main Ukraine cities apart Putin will still fail. This blog (see West Wars 4 March) argued that the Ukraine citizens and their leadership should have surrendered to Russia's threat of war. So far thousands of Ukrainian and Russian injuries and deaths could have been avoided. The reality is that Putin would still have failed in his determination to fix his Russian-based subaltern leadership of the Ukraine, even if there had been not one Russian shot.
Ukraine, with its large and politically active population and its developing facilities would have eventually broken down Russia's capacity to manage this nation. Russia has a large army with 11% of its money dedicated to military strength and the ownership of the majority of nukes in the world. But Russia's real resources (absence of nuclear oblivion) are something else. Here is a table of resources of the main countries in the world
1.China $113 trillion, 2.United States $50 trillion, 3. Germany $14 trillion, 4.France $14 trillion, 5. United Kingdom $7 trillion, 6. Canada $7 trillion, 7.Australia $7 trillion, 8. Japan $3 trillion 9. Mexico $3 trillion, 10. Sweden etc., etc,. Russia is ranked 43rd among 45 countries in the Europe region and its overall score is below the regional and world averages.
Russia's attempt to create a new regime, which is smashing up buildings and will continue to kill thousands, will never be able to run a massive country, particularly one that it has been locally developing its productivity. The many WW2/Nazi parallels that have been thrown at Putin's war are utterly absurd. The real Nazi organisation in the 1930s and 40s Europe was easily the most successful war machine in history. It required years and at least the 3 world-leading nations to defeat it.
And what of nuclear war? It is no longer the cold war. The US (and the UK when it comes to the new subs floating in Australia pushing back China) together with a massively advanced NATO (where we all get the bomb) has already created a hot war. Putin therefore has now put his nukes on the table. A real threat to block the expanding NATO permanently. The West (read the US) have actually used nuclear wars twice; once to save their unbelievably difficult control over Japan and the Pacific, and second to warn the USSR's expansion in 1945.
Most of the West (again see the US) have played NATO's pretended caution as the signal to the world (and particularly the Chinese) that there are no intentions for any sort of NATO military action that might 'provoke' a nuclear Putin.This sounds like lies to Putin. So, what Putin wants is not nukes but the vast implications of his enormous stockpile of nukes (much of it in dangerous decline) to increase the weight of Russia's borders. Putin's demonstration of his nukes is the fantasy that he has the power and the kit to grab what really would be a broken fence against NATO. Putin is mad for power, like Trump or the bad days of Boris. But he wants to be in History, not its absence.
The best thing for the Ukrainian people was to endure Putin's half-witted desire for 'Russia' to be extended - albeit from a poor and declining Moscow centre. Some years perhaps would open up new alternatives for the Ukraine. The Ukrainian war will inevitably expose Putin's role and leadership and will increase the breaking away of the Russian people from their own leaders. But thousands are already dead and dying to no ultimate cause. The only version of what was and what could have been, at least in part, was a new country with an independent view against both Putin's Russia and the West's NATO. Starting with the slogan 'No War for Putin or NATO.'
Instead the faltering slogan offered to the death and misery for the Ukrainians, especially in the West, still flies first. 'Self-determination.' What a brazen offer, without any real significant support against the actual chaos in the clash between Putin and NATO. The history of capitalist countries and their subordinates, virtually all of the major and minor nations of our globe, have emerged from bitter wars over wealth and power. The large majority of the nations were created by external warriors named 'traders' that made their nations for their personal property and wealth. Even the longer term nations have distributed additions, seizures and destructions to decide their 'self-determination' via the struggle of one ruling class over another.
Most successful nations have fought to the core against, not years, not decades but centuries in order to establish themselves. But the 20th century has begun to change new types of nations. The new and real 'self determination' became decisions, universally fought by bitter battles, led by the common people. Then 'self-determination' would apply in a common, genuine democratic, development, as with the battles to win a country and society based on the popular, democratic common-wealth. And as the huge struggles battling imperialism, the most successful nations that have fought and won their genuine 'self determination' against the domination of the previous external (and subordinate toadies) are precisely self determinated' on that premise.
No comments:
Post a Comment