Republic of Albania

Berlin: ‘Subversives of the nihilist deed’ claim responsibility for arson on Greek diplomat’s car – Media disinformation goes wild

http://en.contrainfo.espiv.net/2014/07/04/
berlin-subversives-of-the-nihilist-deed-claim-responsibility-for-arson-on-greek-diplomats-car/

We demand nothing less than the destruction of the beast that keeps the system running.

The ruling democrats strike back with full force. Amid the crisis, they reveal their true face. A face full of enthusiasm, which humiliates, tortures, incarcerates or murders people; a face which smiles happily at the cameras of the world, while thousands of cops break up any resistance with bludgeon and tear gas just around the corner.

However they’re not yet pleased with that. Having managed to break up the resistance in the streets, the dogs of the system have now devoted themselves to crushing every resistance that still exists in prisons, through the total isolation of the prisoners. The domination uses the current intimidation of the great silent majority to take revenge on those who littered Greece in December 2008 with a conflagration. Arising from the revolt, guerrilla groups made the stiff gentlemen in Brussels gasp. Their reaction didn’t take long to come, and it came forcefully. In addition to the EU/ECB/IMF Troika, they sent a bevy of anti-terror experts to Athens to defeat the resistive spirit once and for all. So the new training sessions of the cops quickly paid off. The dogs were initially able to fetch only sticks, but they soon adopted the ideological framework called fascism quite bluntly and openly; a harmonious coexistence, in which the power-hungry democratic fat asses throw themselves down at the feet of fascist thugs. The introduction of the new type-C security prisons is just one more step on the way to complete destruction of all those who are fed up with being oppressed.

We don’t want to stand idly by and watch these goings-on, like many others who have stopped fighting. That’s why we decided to pay a visit to one of their lapdogs in the quiet district of Wilmersdorf, Berlin.

We stand in solidarity with all hunger strikers in the Greek prisons.

We furthermore recall the murder of Ilia Kareli, who was put to death by the assassins called prison guards.

“In this war, loser is whoever goes home. No retreat, no postponement.”

(Conspiracy of Cells of Fire-Fraction of Nihilists, 2009)

_

Greece: Open letter of Revolutionary Struggle member Pola Roupa from clandestinity

http://en.contrainfo.espiv.net/2014/08/10/
greece-open-letter-of-revolutionary-struggle-member-pola-roupa-from-clandestinity/

On July 16th, 2014 the armed dogs of the establishment unleashed a fierce manhunt, and comrade Nikos Maziotis, member of the Revolutionary Struggle, was hit by a cop’s bullet and fell covered in blood. The comrade gave his battle against the cops that were chasing him. The state apparatus in its totality triumphed over the arrest of the “No 1 most-wanted fugitive” in the country. So did the criminal and real archi-terrorist Samaras, whose government took over the reins from the former pro-memorandum governments in a campaign for the biggest social genocide that has ever occurred in Greece in a time of “peace”. Samaras has used the arrest of Maziotis as a means to the stabilization of his faltering government, in order to support a political and economic regime with rotten foundations, which has long been discredited in social consciences.

For the political and economic regime, not only in Greece but also internationally, the arrest of a revolutionary with the political calibre of Nikos Maziotis is a “significant success”, as stated by the United States. That’s because the comrade’s arrest is perceived by our enemies as a blow to the struggle for the establishment’s subversion, as a blow to the struggle for liberation from the yoke of capitalism and the State, as a blow to the struggle for social Revolution. The size of threat that Maziotis poses to the establishment is reflected in the high-pitched nauseating rejoicing on the part of the domestic and foreign political power. Because the comrade and the Revolutionary Struggle, the organization in which he belongs, are intrinsically linked to the systemic political destabilization, to the undermining of a rotten regime; linked to the consistent war against domination and contemporary barbarity; linked to the struggle for the overthrow of the State and capitalism, linked to the social Revolution itself. Comrade Nikos Maziotis was and continues to be committed to the Revolution. This is what he has fought for, this is what he still fights for; this is why they present him as No 1 danger to the establishment. Thus, the political gravity of this case should be the primary parameter in expressing solidarity with the comrade.

Currently, Maziotis is a prisoner of social and class war. It’s not fair that he is in prison. It would only be fair if he was free, fighting for social Revolution. It would only be fair if those who are responsible for the plight of the Greek people, those who voted for and implement the memoranda, were shackled instead of him and they stood people’s trials; the economic elite, the rich who suck the blood of proletarians, the political elite and their servants. It would be fair if Samaras, Venizelos, Papandreou, Papademos and their criminal organizations, the Troikans and the leaders of the European Union, were shackled in chains. The domestic and foreign bosses, for the economic interests of whom the land and the people who live in it are being ravaged. These are the real terrorists and robbers. These are the ruthless criminals and brutal murderers.

The cheering about the arrest was accompanied by the anticipated attacks of state propaganda, reproduced and largely created by the mouthpieces of Power, the mass media. Attacks that tried to stain the comrade’s revolutionary character and used the shootout in the area of Monastiraki as their banner, in which the comrade is portrayed as “unscrupulous gunslinger” who opens fire indiscriminately, while the cops “are striving to neutralize him” without the use of firearms. The cops supposedly fired a single bullet, and this was merely done to “neutralize” the comrade. How nauseating liars and hypocrites are they, both the state mechanisms and the kneelers who bow down to the regime in the news bulletins! “He was shooting amid the crowd.” Who chose the place for this battle? Who started the manhunt? Or, should Maziotis have dropped the weapon and surrender without a fight?

The cops consciously opted to conduct an armed clash in a crowded place. The comrade was obliged to defend himself. After they made one of the injured tourists, who stated he was shot by a cop, disappear from publicity as soon as possible, they declared again and again in the mainstream media that they fired only one bullet, while the comrade fired eight bullets. But upon mere suspicion that the man they were chasing may turn out to be Maziotis, they would open fire even with automatic machine guns not to let him get away. Because the stakes for them were of great political importance, and they didn’t care one bit if their operation was taking place among dozens of people, nor did it matter to them if some bystander would get killed. Besides, if that happened, they would blame the comrade for it. Who could ever refute them?

As for the ridiculous claims that they had supposedly tracked him down a few days ago, these were said in the context of state propaganda, not to admit that this was a purely random incident. And this is something that can also be seen in their contradictory reports. First, they claim that the comrade was recognized by a secret policewoman shortly before the shootout. Then, they claim that a former secret policeman had recognized him days before at a metro station. If it were true that they had tracked him down the previous days, they would have arrested us. A female snitch and a moment of bad luck gave way to the manhunt. But, again, they could not admit that the police chase started randomly. All of the propaganda about locating him beforehand was generated to publicly assert that the repressive mechanisms, and especially the “antiterrorist” force, are productive and effective. But this is too far from reality. In the whole previous period, we were continuously among them. We were moving everywhere. We were passing by them. We watched them, but they did not see us.

Since the arrest of my companion, I have become “No 1 most-wanted fugitive”; I and my child, about whom the regime’s men of straw in the mass media “inform” with excessive vulgarity, disclosing a lot of his personal data, and with a nauseating hypocrisy they simultaneously reward the prosecution mechanisms for their “sensitivity” not to release the child’s photograph to the public. From now on, the cops are going to sweep the country to find the child based on any clues that they might have. Other than that, my son is not wanted by authorities… And as one disgraceful police-minded journalist stated in the past, they were hoping to catch us through the child. Now, through the child, they wish to capture me.

They have my comrade heavily wounded in their hands. Their vindictiveness was something expected. To them it is not enough that they have Maziotis with an arm crushed by a bullet and in serious health condition; so, despite the fact that the necessity for close medical supervision and more surgeries was made public, they enforced his vindictive transfer to a prison known to not have doctors even for the most basic medical needs of prisoners. No doubt that, because of this transfer alone, his condition has deteriorated. I know firsthand what kind of prison transfers are imposed on armed combatants. When I was forced to be moved to another prison while I was pregnant, I ended up in hospital bleeding, and I was forced to stay bedridden to avoid having a miscarriage. It is obvious that they are afraid. They have the comrade in their hands with his arm crushed, and yet they are still afraid.

In what has to do with me: really, did they expect and still anticipate that I’m going to give myself up? I’m not going to do them this favor. Let them come and get me. In reality, my persecutors do not believe that I would do such a thing. That’s why they raided and searched the home of my family, interrogated my mother and sister looking for any clues, but in vain. Their statements in the media, that I find myself in a difficult position and it’s possible that I will hand myself in to authorities, are nothing more than an ultimate effort to inflict pressure. My persecutors know me. They got to know me on April 10th, 2010, when I was pregnant in their hands, and despite their ridiculous attempts to terrorize me, I didn’t even tell them my name; all they received from me was spitting. They are aware of my political stance during imprisonment, they know what political stance I maintained during the entire trial process. I was, I am and I will be a member of the Revolutionary Struggle. If they think they can bend me, they are grossly mistaken.

The arrest of our comrade was a blow. Our comrade Lambros Foundas shed his blood in the alleys of Dafni, and Nikos Maziotis in Monastiraki. The Revolutionary Struggle has given its blood for the cause of social Revolution. But our enemies will not have the last word.

There is still open ground for the Revolutionary Struggle. The social ground is ours, not theirs. For our enemies it is a hostile, wild ground which they can control only with violence. Every day the State and the Capital plunder, terrorize, murder, and exterminate in their attempt to save the establishment. In the name of “tearing out of the system all the rot” they hack to death millions of people that are considered superfluous for the reproduction of capitalism. At the same time, they bombard the society with stupid stories of “economic recovery” and “a way out of the country from the tunnel of crisis”; stories that make the poor, the hungry, the ragged in this country burst into laughter and indignation.

On the 16th of July a battle took place in Monastiraki. An unequal battle between a revolutionary and tens of armed dogs of the State. An unequal battle, just as the struggle for Revolution is unequal in this historical period. A struggle between few revolutionaries and an apparatus that is armed to the teeth and very large in numbers. It’s just that this struggle, the revolutionary struggle, is not a numerical question. It is a matter of soul. It is a matter of believing in revolutionary justness. A matter of believing in the Revolution. Of combating a murderous system, criminal by its very nature, reproduced through exploitation, oppression, and even the physical extermination of people. A system reproduced by violence. The violence of economic policy, the violence exercised by the economic and political elite to keep the rotten capitalist system alive, to ensure their interests, and to continue to dominate. Every single one of us experience the results of this violence over the last four years that the country has been in the throes of crisis, with millions of unemployed and casual workers, with poverty wages, with the transformation of work in slave trade, with the worst conditions of wage slavery ever experienced by people in this country. We have seen and continue to see the results of this murderous violence in people’s hunger, malnutrition of children, starvations, sicknesses, deaths, and the ever increasing suicides. We see these results in dumpsters where humans-mice, with their dignity crushed, are diving for a piece of bread. This “concealed” violence of the system, amid a systemic crisis, has now become a weapon of mass destruction.

It is absolutely fair to fight injustice; to combat a system that is imprisoning, beating, killing second-class people, whether these are resisters, strikers and demonstrators or wretched migrants, with the raw violence of repressive mechanisms so as to consolidate the order. A system that is establishing “maximum security” dungeons with the primary purpose of annihilating the armed combatants politically, morally, psychologically, even physically, of crushing the willingness to wage an armed revolutionary struggle. A system served by a justice which requires the legitimization of all kinds of state violence (e.g. the case on the wreck in Farmakonisi, where Coast Guard officers were responsible for drowning migrants, is filed), but also the racist violence against wretched workers (e.g. strawberry producers and their foremen were acquitted for the murderous assault on migrant farm workers in Manolada). Moreover, internationally, in the name of consolidating the New World Order through wars against “terrorism”, the slaughter of an entire people in Palestine is being legitimized.

Revolutionary struggle is a matter of believing in the need of combating oppressors; of returning to the real criminals, the real terrorists and murderers who make up the system, a percentage of the violence which is perpetrated by them. Because only with armed revolutionary action they will be able to understand that they won’t stay forever untouched.

Most of all, revolutionary struggle is a matter of deep and unyielding belief in revolutionary justness, the righteousness of abolishing every form of exploitation and repression, and destroying the State and capitalism. The fairness of a society of economic equality, without rich and poor, without masters and slaves. The fairness of a society of truly free people.

In the period that the Revolutionary Struggle has been active, since 2003 to date, it has waged a forceful armed struggle against all forms of violence of the establishment which were mentioned above. Ministries, courts, police forces, banks, the stock exchange building, the American embassy, the Bank of Greece were targeted by the organization. Acting consistently, the Revolutionary Struggle has given significant responses to state violence, the violence of the economic and political elite, the violence of the establishment’s justice, and has written significant pages in the revolutionary history of this land, but also at international level.

The Revolutionary Struggle acted and spoke with regards to the economic crisis in times when silence spread over the establishment’s fraud of “eternal stability of the system” and “flourishing Greek economy”. Later, with the onset of the crisis, the organization refuted all of the dominant voices that spoke of “fortified and unassailable Greek economy,” but also the swallow perceptions, impregnated with the regime’s propaganda, that were unable to grasp the magnitude of the coming storm.

The Revolutionary Struggle spoke and acted with regards to the Revolution and the revolutionary social organization in times when these issues were buried beneath the mold of fraudulent social welfare. It kept and continues to keep the flame of social Revolution, the flame of freedom, alive. It marked, determined, inspired many people, and shaped and continues to shape consciences.

For all of the aforementioned, it has posed, poses and will pose a serious political threat to the establishment. The Revolutionary Struggle has fought, fights and will fight for all of the aforementioned. For all that, I will continue to fight.

FREEDOM FOR COMRADE NIKOS MAZIOTIS
HONOUR FOREVER TO COMRADE LAMBROS FOUNDAS
LONG LIVE THE SOCIAL REVOLUTION

Pola Roupa
August 8th, 2014.

Understanding the Civil War in Ukraine – Domestic roots of the conflict and foreign interventions

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article32893

David Mandel

4 August 2014

The Ukrainian conflict, like most political phenomena, is multi-dimensional and highly complex. As such, it calls for a holistic – dialectical, if you wish – approach. But to judge by American and NATO spokespersons and by their mass media, there is only one really decisive factor that explains everything: Russia’s imperialism, Vladimir Putin’s determination to dominate and further dismember the Ukraine as part of his plan to restore the Soviet empire. In this simplistic view, Ukraine, with benevolent support from the West, would be quite capable of dealing with its problems and would soon be on its way to becoming a prosperous, Western-style democracy.

My view is quite the opposite: the roots of the Ukrainian conflict are domestic and profound; outside intervention, while significant, is a secondary factor. Given limitations of space, I will, therefore, focus on the internal situation. But I will necessarily, if more briefly, also address the international dimensions of the conflict. This is also the more necessary since the Canadian government has been particularly zealous in its support for the Ukrainian government and in condemning Russia as solely responsible.

My goal is to offer a framework that can help in understanding and evaluating the mass of information about the conflict coming from governments and the media.

A Deeply Divided Society

Ukraine is a deeply divided society – along lines of language, culture, historical identity, ethnicity, religious affiliation, attitudes to Russia, as well as real and perceived economic interests. Since Ukraine became independent in 1991, these divisions have been manipulated and fostered by corrupt economic and political élites with the aim of distracting popular attention for their criminal activities and to gain advantage in intra-élite competition. This manipulation, on the background of widespread poverty and economic insecurity, has prevented popular forces from mobilizing to oppose this oppressive ruling class, the so-called ‘oligarchs’, who have run the economy into the ground while fantastically enriching themselves. Since independence, Ukraine has lost over 13 per cent of its population, down to 45 million. Of those, several million are working abroad as cheap labour in Russia and the EU.

About half of Ukraine’s population speaks Ukrainian in everyday life; the other half – Russian; and practically everyone can speak both languages well enough. The three western, overwhelmingly ukrainophone, regions joined the rest of Ukraine in the 1940s after two centuries under oppressive Austro-Hungarian, then Polish, rule. The southern and eastern parts first became part of Ukraine at the end of the Russian civil war in 1920. Until 1991, Ukraine had never existed as a state, except for a very brief period during the civil war.

The population of the western regions is deeply nationalistic; and at the centre of that nationalism at present is a profound fear, mixed with hatred, of Russia and, to varying degrees, of Russians. The eastern and southern regions, mostly russophone, have strong cultural and ethnic affinities, as well as political sympathies and economic ties, with Russia. The situation in the centre is mixed. Historical memory plays a big role in the divisions: the heroes of the west collaborated with the German occupation in World War II and participated in its crimes; the heroes of the east and south fought against fascism and for the Soviet Union. In fact, there is hardly any major historical event or figure going back centuries upon which the two poles agree. There are also economic interests: the east is more industrial and closely integrated with the Russian economy, by far Ukraine’s leading trading partner; the western is dominated by small towns and is more agrarian.

These differences express themselves in opposing political positions, in which irrational fears play a not insignificant role. The population of the west, with some support in the centre, has generally been more active politically and has sought to impose its culture, which it considers the only truly Ukrainian, on the rest of the country. People from the western regions constituted a disproportionate part of the Maidan protesters. Opinion surveys consistently show the Ukrainian population to be split on major issues, although most, both east and west, have perceived the successive governments as corrupt and dominated by oligarchs. The major issue of contention has been the legitimacy of the central government. The one formed after Victor Yanukovych’s overthrow has strong support in the west and, to a significant degree, also in the centre, which has seen a nationalistic upsurge; the population in the east and south widely despises and fears the government, which it considers illegitimate.

What was Maidan?

The initial issue in the Maidan protest was the fate of an economic agreement that the then President Yanukovych had been negotiating with the European Union. Yanukovych, who was identified with the russophone east and south, decided (wisely in my view) to suspend the negotiations and accept Russia’s offer of a $15-billion loan. But when he resorted to repression against the protesters, the protest was transformed into a protest movement against the government itself, its repressive, corrupt nature. Armed neo-fascist elements from the West increasingly became involved, further radicalizing the protest, attacking police, occupying government buildings, and finally convincing Yanukovych to flee on February 21.

A provisional government was then formed by not altogether constitutional means. It consisted exclusively of politicians identified with the western, nationalist regions and included several neo-fascists. Politicians identified with the west, including some oligarchs, were put in charge of eastern regions, whose population widely viewed the new government as hostile.

Donbass Insurgency

Copying the Maidan protest and earlier actions in the western regions that had been directed against Yanukovych’s government, groups of local Donbass citizens already in February began to occupy government buildings, calling for a referendum on the region’s autonomy and possibly its secession and annexation to Russia. These groups were initially unarmed, nor were they for the most part separatist. As their compatriots in the west had done earlier against Yanukovych, they were demanding local autonomy as a measure of protection against a hostile central government.

Kiev’s reaction only confirmed the worst fears and prejudices of the Donbass population. Under the impression of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and spurred on by its own fervent nationalism, the new government in Kiev made no serious effort to reach out to the population of the east. Instead, almost immediately it declared the protesters “terrorists” and launched a so-called “anti-terrorist operation” against them. There was no genuine desire to negotiate, but to crush militarily. And since the Ukrainian army was a mess and had little taste for fighting its own people, the government created and armed a National Guard, consisting of poorly trained volunteers that included ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists. As if that were not enough to confirm the fears of the easterners, some 45 anti-government protesters were massacred in Odessa on May 2, a crime for which Kiev blamed the protesters themselves, as well as unidentified Russian provocateurs.

None of this changed fundamentally after the presidential elections of early May. President Petro Poroshenko has also made no serious effort to negotiate an end to the conflict. The indiscriminate shelling of civilian centres in Donbass by the government only confirmed its illegitimate, alien nature in the eyes of the local population.

There is not much that is known for sure – at least by myself – about the relations between the local population and the armed insurgents in the Donbass. Moreover, these relations undoubtedly evolved over time. But it is clear that the insurgents were, and still are, in their majority local people and that, at least until relatively recently, they enjoyed varying degrees of sympathy among the population, most of whom, however, did not want to separate but only a measure of self-rule. I imagine that today the local population mostly wishes only for an end to the fighting and a measure of physical security.

The insurgency itself underwent radicalization over time, especially with the influx from Russia of Russian nationalists. In any case, although the government in Kiev has made an offer of amnesty to those who have not committed serious crimes, the militias no doubt fear only the worst if they were to surrender.

The Central Government

Ukraine’s political regime differs from Russia’s in that in Ukraine the oligarchs dominate the state and the mass media. In Russia the regime is ‘Bonapartist’, that is, the political élite dominates the oligarchs, even while serving their interests. That is essentially why there has been more political pluralism in the Ukraine. Whether that has been more beneficial to Ukraine’s working-class is another question. As for the economic and social situations, Ukraine is basically Russia but without oil and gas.

A glance at the political career of president Poroshenko, billionaire owner of a confectionary empire and auto plants, offers some idea of the nature of the regime. Poroshenko was a founding member of the Party of Regions in 2000, the political machine that eventually brought Yanukovych to power in 2010. But a year later, Poroshenko left the party to become a leading financial backer of Our Ukraine, a party closely identified with the western regions and with Ukrainian nationalism. He backed the so-called Orange Revolution at the end of 2004 that brought to power Viktor Yushchenko, a staunch pro-West Ukrainian nationalist. Poroshenko became his Foreign Minister, advocating NATO membership (a position rejected by a strong majority of the population). But he lost his job in 2010 when Yanukovych won the presidential elections. Poroshenko nevertheless returned in 2012 to serve Yanukovych as Minister of Trade and Development. But he left that post after eight months to return to parliament as an independent. In short, this is the career of an inveterate political opportunist, who, like the rest of his class, subscribes to the Russian adage: “Where my fortune lies, there lies my heart.”

Poroshenko, to the extent he has principles, does not belong to the more extreme wing of Ukrainian nationalism, although he has called the Donbass insurgents “gangs of animals.” (Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, beloved by Western governments, has called them “subhumans.”) But in any case, Poroshenko shares power with a cabinet and parliament that include extreme right-wing elements. And because of the army’s weakness, he has had to rely heavily on ultra-nationalist paramilitary forces to prosecute the war. For example, the cease-fire, to which he agreed to on June 21 and apparently wanted to prolong while pursuing negotiations, was cut short after a demonstration by so-called “volunteeer” battalions, recruited largely from ultra-nationalist far-right elements. Then there are people like the multi-billionaire governor of Dnepropetrovsk region, Igor Kolomoiskii, who payrolls his own army, the Dnipro Battalion; or the increasingly popular parliamentary deputy, the right-wing populist thug, Oleg Lyashko, who has personally commanded volunteer battalions in the Donbass. Poroshenko also has to consider the upsurge of nationalist sentiment in the wake of Crimea’s annexation and the massive propaganda campaign against Russia in the oligarch-controlled media that has gone well beyond the typically nationalist elements of Ukrainian society. Finally, the war and national emergency are needed to distract popular attention from very harsh austerity measures that are really only in their first stages.

International Dimension

Although the conflict is fundamentally a civil war, external forces have played a significant role. The “West” (U.S., EU, NATO) bears a heavy responsibility for its unflinching support and encouragement of the Ukrainian government in its pursuit of an exclusively pro-Western political and economic orientation. In view of Ukraine’s deep internal divisions, that policy is fatal to the integrity of the state and the peaceful development of the society. Moreover, from the moment the internal divisions assumed the form of an armed confrontation, the West has unflinchingly supported both the actions and the propaganda of the Kiev government. That propaganda portrays the Russian government as solely responsible for the conflict and is silent about Kiev’s own intransigence, its serious war crimes against the non-combatant population of Donbass and the serious economic suffering it is imposing on the entire population.

An analysis of Western interests and motives is beyond the scope of this presentation. But it is quite obvious that since the fall of the USSR, the U.S., with more or less active support from Europe, has followed a course aimed at maximally limiting Russia’s geopolitical influence and at surrounding it with unfriendly states. Despite solemn promises made to Mikhail Gorbachev, these states have been integrated into NATO, from which Russia is excluded. Where integration into NATO has not been possible or desirable, regime change has been pursued. That has been the West’s policy in Ukraine. The EU’s association proposal, which was at the origins of this crisis and which contained clauses pertaining to defence policy, forced this deeply divided country to choose between Europe and Russia. (A national poll from December 2013 found that 48 per cent agreed with Yanukovych’s decision not to sign and 35 per cent disagreed. In western Ukraine, however, a full 82 per cent disagreed.)

The Russian government saw the very open and active support for the Maidan protests and then for the provisional government and its policies as being in direct line with that policy of “containment.” The annexation of Crimea, that does not appear to have been long in the planning, was, at least in part, a message to the West: only so far!

Ukrainian and Western claims notwithstanding, Putin does not aim to further dismember Ukraine, nor does he plan to recreate the Soviet empire. While it may not be his preference, he is prepared to accept Ukraine’s neutrality and its closer economic ties with Europe. What he does not want is a hostile, exclusively Western-oriented Ukraine. European Russia, which has the bulk of its population and industry, shares a 2500 kilometer border with Ukraine. Given the history of the twentieth century, Russia’s sensitivity to this question should not be too hard to understand, even apart from the deep historical, cultural, ethnic, family and economic ties that bind the two societies.

But Russia is not without its own responsibility in this conflict. I take issue with some on the left (including the Russian left), who support the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s involvement in the civil war as justified anti-imperialist policies. Meanwhile, others on the left have taken the opposite position, essentially embracing Kiev’s version of the conflict.

It goes without saying that Western condemnation of the annexation of Crimea is profoundly hypocritical in view of the West’s longstanding and continuing history of imperialist aggression and disregard for international norms. One thinks of the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia and the invasion of Iraq, as only two recent examples of this. There is, moreover, no doubt that the vast majority of the population of Crimea, which never felt itself to be Ukrainian, was happy, many even overjoyed, with the annexation. Local Crimean governments have wanted as far back as 1992, only to be rebuffed by Russia. In every national election, Crimeans have voted overwhelmingly for pro-Russian Ukrainian parties.

As a citizen of Canada, a NATO member with a right-wing government that has been a zealous cheerleader for Kiev, I admit that my first instinct was to support Putin as acting in defense of his country’s national interests against Western aggression. But that is a mistaken position.

If the annexation of Crimea was not part of a master plan to restore the Soviet empire, neither was it motivated primarily by legitimate concern for Russia’s national interests. Indeed, one has to wonder what might constitute a national interest in a class-divided society where vast wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few and which is dominated by a corrupt, authoritarian government.

In any case, Putin himself has not explained the annexation in terms of geopolitical interest. In his speech in March dedicated to Crimea and in another in early July at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he referred instead to the duty to protect Russian populations outside Russia’s borders. This is an appeal to ethnic nationalism. And it (as with the wars against Chechnya and Georgia before) has been extremely successful in boosting Putin’s popularity, at the same time as it narrowed the already limited space for opposition to his regime.

But even from the point of view of geopolitical interest, the annexation of Crimea appears incredibly short-sighted and harmful to Russia. The annexation, along with Putin’s justification, gave a major boost to anti-Russia nationalist paranoia in Ukraine. At the same time, it encouraged the armed resistance in Donbass to Kiev. So while Russia, sincerely I believe, has consistently called for a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement, the annexation, in fact, has fed the armed conflict. And Russia is also directly contributing to the conflict, since the groundswell of nationalist sentiment in Russia forces Putin to allow an unofficial, limited flow of combatants and arms to the Donbass, even while Putin has no intention of intervening in force to rescue the militia. (I could be proved wrong but I strongly doubt it.)

And so instead of protecting the Russian population of Donbass, Putin has in fact contributed to the deterioration of its situation and has undermined Russia’s ability to effectively defend its interests.

But the annexation has also been very injurious to Russia’s own situation in the world. By giving a major boost to anti-Russian nationalism and the government in Kiev, Putin ensured that Ukraine will henceforth be firmly within the Western camp and hostile to Russia. He has also helped to solidify NATO as a hostile alliance aimed at containing a supposedly expansionist Russia. And he has deprived Russia of what had been its fundamental argument against U.S. and NATO aggression: respect for the international norms of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states and for their territorial integrity.

Some make the argument that Putin had to secure Russia’s naval base in Sevastopol. But the threat was only potential – although over the years high Ukrainian officials have spoken of handing it over to NATO – and its securing hardly outweighs the geopolitical damage to Russia incurred from the annexation. (Putin seems to have miscalculated Europe’s, especially Germany’s, willingness to follow the U.S. in a crusade against Russia.) Moreover, if Sevastopol were really threatened, the base could have been moved to Russia’s Black Sea port in Novorosiisk. The cost of the move would probably not be much greater than the losses that will be incurred from the Western sanctions.

Conclusion

The solution, in principle, has always been evident: a cease-fire monitored by international observers, followed by negotiations, on the sole condition of acceptance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The subject of negotiations would be the delegation of power to regional and local elected governments. This is the famous “federalization,” supported by Russia and most of the population of Donbass but rejected by Kiev and the West, who claim it is merely a cover for separation of Ukraine’s east and its annexation by Russia.

But in so deeply divided a society, federalism can, in fact, be an effective measure against separatism. (If Canada were not a federal state, Quebec would have separated years ago.) But things might have probably already gone too far. Kiev, backed by the West, will not hear of a cease-fire. It wants a full surrender or decisive military victory. And, although unlikely, domestic pressures might finally convince Putin to intervene directly. In any case, the future does not appear bright for a unified Ukrainian state. •

David Mandel

* From The Bullet. Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 1025. August 24, 2014.

* David Mandel teaches political science at the Université du Québec à Montréal and has been involved in labour education in the Ukraine for many years.

--

NATO steps up anti-Russian moves as ceasefire begins in Ukraine

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/06/ukra-s06.html

By Jordan Shilton
6 September 2013

As a ceasefire took hold in Ukraine on Friday, NATO leaders, concluding their two-day summit in Wales, intensified pressure on Russia with more threats and new military plans.

The ceasefire came into force at 18:00 local time after agreement was reached between the Kiev regime and pro-Russian separatists at a meeting in Minsk. An exchange of prisoners was agreed as well as the provision of humanitarian aid to civilians in combat zones.

The agreement, which involves Ukrainian forces removing artillery from populated areas, was proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and is to be overseen by observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Talks on the status of the areas controlled by separatists in the east are to take place at an unspecified later date.

While “cautiously” welcoming the deal, NATO officials continued to denounce Russia. Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that Moscow had a record of using such agreements as a “smokescreen.” The White House formally welcomed the ceasefire and then proceeded to attack Russia for its “flagrant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.”

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, speaking shortly before the ceasefire was finalised, urged the US and the European Union (EU) to act as guarantors of the pause in fighting, implying that a breakdown should result in direct military support for Kiev from the major powers.

As the ceasefire came in to force, three loud explosions were reported in Donetsk. Clashes also continued between separatists and government forces near the town of Mariupol, the target of a major advance by rebel forces.

Any pause in the fighting will be used by the US and other NATO powers to strengthen Ukraine’s military capacities and their own presence in the region in preparation for future conflict with Russia. Ukrainian forces have suffered heavy losses over recent weeks, forcing them to retreat in several areas.

One of the items discussed at the Wales summit was a joint plan by Britain and Germany to assist with the modernisation of command and control structures within the Ukrainian armed forces. NATO advisers are also to be involved.

“We have agreed a comprehensive and tailored package of measures,” Rasmussen said, “in order that Ukraine is better able to ensure its own security.” The €15 million promised to Kiev by Rasmussen on Thursday is to be divided into four separate funds, according to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

Plans were also finalised for NATO’s rapid response capabilities. The “readiness action plan” included the formal approval of a force of 4,000 troops referred to as the “spearhead,” capable of deployment within two days. A NATO press release noted that leaders had “agreed to maintain a continuous presence and activity in the air, on land, and at sea in the eastern part of the alliance, on a rotational basis.”

Britain is to provide a major part of the troop contingent, with a plan unveiled for 1,000 of the 4,000 soldiers to come from the UK. A further 3,500 British troops will engage in exercises in Eastern Europe by 2015.

The rotation of troops is aimed at avoiding an overt breach of NATO’s 1997 agreement with Russia foregoing the permanent stationing of NATO forces in the Baltic states or Poland. But there was no attempt at the summit to conceal that Moscow is the target of the moves, whose aggressive purpose was spelt out by Rasmussen. “This decision sends a clear message,” he declared. “NATO protects all allies at all times. And it sends a clear message to any potential aggressor: should you even think of attacking one ally, you will be facing the whole alliance.”

Rasmussen announced that to “facilitate reinforcements,” significant logistical resources and military hardware would be redeployed to Eastern Europe. In addition, a commitment was made to “step up intelligence sharing, upgrade defence plans and hold more short-notice exercises.”

Such measures dovetail with US President Barack Obama’s declaration during a state visit to the Baltic region on Wednesday that the US would provide “eternal assistance” to the Baltic states. In a press conference at the conclusion of the summit on Friday, Obama denounced what he termed Russian aggression against Ukraine. He said the summit had shown that NATO has “the will, the resources and the capabilities” to counter it.

The man who has presided over imperialist wars and subversion in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, as well as hundreds of drone assassinations in a number of countries, went on to say, “Big countries can’t just stomp on little ones, or force them to change their policies or give up their sovereignty.”

In line with the non-stop propaganda by the US, NATO and the Western media, Obama ignored the fact that the US and Germany precipitated the Ukraine crisis by engineering a coup, in league with ultra-nationalist and fascist forces, to overthrow the elected, pro-Russian government in Kiev and replace it with a rabidly anti-Russian, pro-Western regime.

Issuing a warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Obama demanded that Russia return to the group of nations that supposedly “respects international law.” Otherwise, he continued, “We mean what we say when we talk about our article 5 commitments,” referring to the collective defence clause of the NATO charter that requires all member nations to come to the defence of any one member country that is attacked.

Obama referred to the escalation of sanctions by the European Union and US against Russian state companies. The sanctions have been broadened to include energy and defence companies, having previously applied only to banks. According to the Financial Times, the sanctions would ban Russian gas firms from European capital markets. German Chancellor Angela Merkel had sought to push through the sanctions agreement prior to the NATO meeting, but smaller EU members, including Hungary, Slovakia and Cyprus, had resisted this.

Also on Friday, Germany, Poland and Denmark announced plans to double their contingent of soldiers in the Polish town of Stettin from 200 to over 400. The multi-national northeast corps would host NATO combat troops in the event of an attack on the alliance and is part of the package of measures agreed to strengthen the Ukrainian regime.

In addition, the Rapid Trident military exercise is set for September 16-26 near Ukraine’s border with Poland, and the US is moving tanks and 600 troops to Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for manoeuvres in October.

Demonstrating NATO’s renewed focus on Eastern Europe, Poland announced it would host the next NATO summit, scheduled for 2016. Warsaw has taken the lead in pursuing a hard line with Moscow.

Assistance is to be provided to speed up Georgian membership, and a decision is due on whether to invite Montenegro to join next year. In his Friday press conference, Obama held out the prospect of NATO membership to Georgia and Moldova. Such a development would continue the encirclement of Russia systematically pursued by the imperialist powers through NATO expansion.

While NATO is still not officially supplying arms to Kiev, Poroshenko revealed in comments after a meeting at the summit that at least one NATO member was providing his government with high precision weapons.

Media reports noted that the ceasefire may take some time to implement, due to what was referred to as “complicated chains of command on both sides.” Alongside regular army units, the Kiev regime has mobilised volunteer battalions composed overwhelmingly of members and supporters of the fascist Right Sector group, which played a central role in the coup in February. The reference to chains of command was a backhanded acknowledgement that Kiev does not exercise full control over these forces.

A leading role in the fighting around Mariupol has been played by the neo-Nazi Azov battalion. Speaking to the Guardian, the battalion’s commander, Andriy Beletskiy, declared, “What talk can there be of a ceasefire when the enemy is on our land?”

--

The Underrated Saudi Connection: Why Washington’s War on Terror Failed

by PATRICK COCKBURN

August 21, 2014

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/21/why-washingtons-war-on-terror-failed/

There are extraordinary elements in the present U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria that are attracting surprisingly little attention. In Iraq, the U.S. is carrying out air strikes and sending in advisers and trainers to help beat back the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (better known as ISIS) on the Kurdish capital, Erbil. The U.S. would presumably do the same if ISIS surrounds or attacks Baghdad. But in Syria, Washington’s policy is the exact opposite: there the main opponent of ISIS is the Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds in their northern enclaves. Both are under attack from ISIS, which has taken about a third of the country, including most of its oil and gas production facilities.

But U.S., Western European, Saudi, and Arab Gulf policy is to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, which happens to be the policy of ISIS and other jihadis in Syria. If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition. There is a pretense in Washington and elsewhere that there exists a “moderate” Syrian opposition being helped by the U.S., Qatar, Turkey, and the Saudis. It is, however, weak and getting more so by the day. Soon the new caliphate may stretch from the Iranian border to the Mediterranean and the only force that can possibly stop this from happening is the Syrian army.

The reality of U.S. policy is to support the government of Iraq, but not Syria, against ISIS. But one reason that group has been able to grow so strong in Iraq is that it can draw on its resources and fighters in Syria. Not everything that went wrong in Iraq was the fault of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as has now become the political and media consensus in the West. Iraqi politicians have been telling me for the last two years that foreign backing for the Sunni revolt in Syria would inevitably destabilize their country as well. This has now happened.

By continuing these contradictory policies in two countries, the U.S. has ensured that ISIS can reinforce its fighters in Iraq from Syria and vice versa. So far, Washington has been successful in escaping blame for the rise of ISIS by putting all the blame on the Iraqi government. In fact, it has created a situation in which ISIS can survive and may well flourish.

Using the al-Qa’ida Label

The sharp increase in the strength and reach of jihadist organizations in Syria and Iraq has generally been unacknowledged until recently by politicians and media in the West. A primary reason for this is that Western governments and their security forces narrowly define the jihadist threat as those forces directly controlled by al-Qa‘ida central or “core” al-Qa‘ida. This enables them to present a much more cheerful picture of their successes in the so-called war on terror than the situation on the ground warrants.

In fact, the idea that the only jihadis to be worried about are those with the official blessing of al-Qa‘ida is naïve and self-deceiving. It ignores the fact, for instance, that ISIS has been criticized by the al-Qa‘ida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for its excessive violence and sectarianism. After talking to a range of Syrian jihadi rebels not directly affiliated with al-Qa‘ida in southeast Turkey earlier this year, a source told me that “without exception they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the same thing would happen in Europe as well as the U.S.”

Jihadi groups ideologically close to al-Qa‘ida have been relabeled as moderate if their actions are deemed supportive of U.S. policy aims. In Syria, the Americans backed a plan by Saudi Arabia to build up a “Southern Front” based in Jordan that would be hostile to the Assad government in Damascus, and simultaneously hostile to al-Qa‘ida-type rebels in the north and east. The powerful but supposedly moderate Yarmouk Brigade, reportedly the planned recipient of anti-aircraft missiles from Saudi Arabia, was intended to be the leading element in this new formation. But numerous videos show that the Yarmouk Brigade has frequently fought in collaboration with JAN, the official al-Qa‘ida affiliate. Since it was likely that, in the midst of battle, these two groups would share their munitions, Washington was effectively allowing advanced weaponry to be handed over to its deadliest enemy. Iraqi officials confirm that they have captured sophisticated arms from ISIS fighters in Iraq that were originally supplied by outside powers to forces considered to be anti-al-Qa‘ida in Syria.

The name al-Qa‘ida has always been applied flexibly when identifying an enemy. In 2003 and 2004 in Iraq, as armed Iraqi opposition to the American and British-led occupation mounted, U.S. officials attributed most attacks to al-Qa‘ida, though many were carried out by nationalist and Baathist groups. Propaganda like this helped to persuade nearly 60% of U.S. voters prior to the Iraq invasion that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and those responsible for 9/11, despite the absence of any evidence for this. In Iraq itself, indeed throughout the entire Muslim world, these accusations have benefited al-Qa‘ida by exaggerating its role in the resistance to the U.S. and British occupation.

Precisely the opposite PR tactics were employed by Western governments in 2011 in Libya, where any similarity between al-Qa‘ida and the NATO-backed rebels fighting to overthrow the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was played down. Only those jihadis who had a direct operational link to the al-Qa‘ida “core” of Osama bin Laden were deemed to be dangerous. The falsity of the pretense that the anti-Gaddafi jihadis in Libya were less threatening than those in direct contact with al-Qa‘ida was forcefully, if tragically, exposed when U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by jihadi fighters in Benghazi in September 2012. These were the same fighters lauded by Western governments and media for their role in the anti-Gaddafi uprising.

Imagining al-Qa’ida as the Mafia

Al-Qa‘ida is an idea rather than an organization, and this has long been the case. For a five-year period after 1996, it did have cadres, resources, and camps in Afghanistan, but these were eliminated after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Subsequently, al-Qa‘ida’s name became primarily a rallying cry, a set of Islamic beliefs, centering on the creation of an Islamic state, the imposition of sharia, a return to Islamic customs, the subjugation of women, and the waging of holy war against other Muslims, notably the Shia, who are considered heretics worthy of death. At the center of this doctrine for making war is an emphasis on self-sacrifice and martyrdom as a symbol of religious faith and commitment. This has resulted in using untrained but fanatical believers as suicide bombers, to devastating effect.

It has always been in the interest of the U.S. and other governments that al-Qa‘ida be viewed as having a command-and-control structure like a mini-Pentagon, or like the mafia in America. This is a comforting image for the public because organized groups, however demonic, can be tracked down and eliminated through imprisonment or death. More alarming is the reality of a movement whose adherents are self-recruited and can spring up anywhere.

Osama bin Laden’s gathering of militants, which he did not call al-Qa‘ida until after 9/11, was just one of many jihadi groups 12 years ago. But today its ideas and methods are predominant among jihadis because of the prestige and publicity it gained through the destruction of the Twin Towers, the war in Iraq, and its demonization by Washington as the source of all anti-American evil. These days, there is a narrowing of differences in the beliefs of jihadis, regardless of whether or not they are formally linked to al-Qa‘ida central.

Unsurprisingly, governments prefer the fantasy picture of al-Qa‘ida because it enables them to claim victories when it succeeds in killing its better known members and allies. Often, those eliminated are given quasi-military ranks, such as “head of operations,” to enhance the significance of their demise. The culmination of this heavily publicized but largely irrelevant aspect of the “war on terror” was the killing of bin Laden in Abbottabad in Pakistan in 2011. This enabled President Obama to grandstand before the American public as the man who had presided over the hunting down of al-Qa‘ida’s leader. In practical terms, however, his death had little impact on al-Qa‘ida-type jihadi groups, whose greatest expansion has occurred subsequently.

Ignoring the Roles of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

The key decisions that enabled al-Qa‘ida to survive, and later to expand, were made in the hours immediately after 9/11. Almost every significant element in the project to crash planes into the Twin Towers and other iconic American buildings led back to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was a member of the Saudi elite, and his father had been a close associate of the Saudi monarch. Citing a CIA report from 2002, the official 9/11 report says that al-Qa‘ida relied for its financing on “a variety of donors and fundraisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia.”

The report’s investigators repeatedly found their access limited or denied when seeking information in Saudi Arabia. Yet President George W. Bush apparently never even considered holding the Saudis responsible for what happened. An exit of senior Saudis, including bin Laden relatives, from the U.S. was facilitated by the U.S. government in the days after 9/11. Most significant, 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report about the relationship between the attackers and Saudi Arabia were cut and never published, despite a promise by President Obama to do so, on the grounds of national security.

In 2009, eight years after 9/11, a cable from the U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, revealed by WikiLeaks, complained that donors in Saudi Arabia constituted the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. But despite this private admission, the U.S. and Western Europeans continued to remain indifferent to Saudi preachers whose message, spread to millions by satellite TV, YouTube, and Twitter, called for the killing of the Shia as heretics. These calls came as al-Qa‘ida bombs were slaughtering people in Shia neighborhoods in Iraq. A sub-headline in another State Department cable in the same year reads: “Saudi Arabia: Anti-Shi’ism as Foreign Policy?” Now, five years later, Saudi-supported groups have a record of extreme sectarianism against non-Sunni Muslims.

Pakistan, or rather Pakistani military intelligence in the shape of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was the other parent of al-Qa‘ida, the Taliban, and jihadi movements in general. When the Taliban was disintegrating under the weight of U.S. bombing in 2001, its forces in northern Afghanistan were trapped by anti-Taliban forces. Before they surrendered, hundreds of ISI members, military trainers, and advisers were hastily evacuated by air. Despite the clearest evidence of ISI’s sponsorship of the Taliban and jihadis in general, Washington refused to confront Pakistan, and thereby opened the way for the resurgence of the Taliban after 2003, which neither the U.S. nor NATO has been able to reverse.

The “war on terror” has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement. The U.S. did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend. Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American political establishment. Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 180 million and a military with close links to the Pentagon.

The spectacular resurgence of al-Qa‘ida and its offshoots has happened despite the huge expansion of American and British intelligence services and their budgets after 9/11. Since then, the U.S., closely followed by Britain, has fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and adopted procedures normally associated with police states, such as imprisonment without trial, rendition, torture, and domestic espionage. Governments wage the “war on terror” claiming that the rights of individual citizens must be sacrificed to secure the safety of all.

In the face of these controversial security measures, the movements against which they are aimed have not been defeated but rather have grown stronger. At the time of 9/11, al-Qa‘ida was a small, generally ineffectual organization; by 2014 al-Qa‘ida-type groups were numerous and powerful.

In other words, the “war on terror,” the waging of which has shaped the political landscape for so much of the world since 2001, has demonstrably failed. Until the fall of Mosul, nobody paid much attention.

This essay is excerpted from the first chapter of Patrick Cockburn’s new book, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising, with special thanks to his publisher, OR Books. The first section is a new introduction written for TomDispatch, where this originally appeared.