Shifting Positions on Ukraine Conflict

We have had considerable correspondence from people interested in our observations regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Recently a link was sent to a report on Henry Kissinger’s remarks on the subject at Davos with the comment that this appeared to signal an “interesting split on US foreign policy consensus.” The following is an edited version of our e-mailed response:

Yes, suddenly Kissinger, New York Times etc., are all calling for negotiations. Presumably because the Russian military is successfully destroying the Azov battalion etc. in Donbass (although until very recently the media has presented a story about an unending series of Ukrainian victories).

Poland has reportedly sent some expeditionary forces into “Galicia,” presumably in anticipation of possible annexation. Hungary is suspected of having similar plans for the ethnically Hungarian area in the south. So far, we have seen nothing on the Kremlin’s attitude; presumably they would have no problem with [Hungarian leader Viktor] Orban, a semi-ally, getting a piece.

A defeat for NATO will of course be a good thing for China, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., just as a victory for NATO would be a bad thing. Whoever wins, Ukraine seems unlikely to be a very good place to live. US/NATO popularity may fall in Ukraine as it has in Libya in the aftermath of that “humanitarian” intervention. Today we learn that the US is apparently on the brink of providing long range missiles to Ukraine, doubtless to speed along a “peace process.” If that happens, it is pretty easy to imagine how things might spiral out of control (US missile hits Russian city or military installation, US base in Germany or Poland hit in retaliation, etc., etc.).

A victory for Russia, while on balance good for the world’s workers and oppressed, will also be a victory for Putin and Great Russian chauvinism which would be a bad thing. And a wounded US ruling class (presuming a loss for NATO) will likely learn nothing and become even more crazed, if that is possible. Win or lose, the implications are ominous. As you may have seen, Noam Chomsky recently observed (with distaste and regret) that one of the few prominent national political figures in the US with a semi-rational approach to this question is the former occupant of the White House. Tucker Carlson has roughly equivalent status as regards TV news commentators.

The US, as the most powerful empire in modern history (both in hard and soft terms) has generally been less inclined to sophisticated analysis than its equally rapacious but somewhat more subtle British predecessor. A key turning point for the US was probably the “Who Lost China?” debate in 1950s where anyone with a modicum of nuance, or who told the unpopular truth about this or that aspect of the KMT [Kuomintang] or CCP [Chinese Communist Party], was branded a Commie and driven out of the State Department. The result is the Nuland and Blinken leadership. The tone-deaf quality was well captured by the “Team America: World Police” comedy/action puppet movie from 2004.

The stupidity of antagonizing Russia, which 20 years ago under Putin only wanted to join the club, particularly when China is now strong enough to compete for influence in Africa etc., is monumental. It may be seen historically as a lot stupider than Hitler opening a second front to his east…. It was all premised on the presumption that the CCP was as rotten as the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] which it has turned out not to be (so far at least).

The position of the “revolutionary” neutralists in this conflict must be uncomfortable. Bad enough to be the IBT [our former comrades of the International Bolshevik Tendency which mistakenly characterizes Russia as “imperialist”] who seem to want to focus on other issues during this critical period in global history (for obvious reasons). For the IG/SL [Internationalist Group/Spartacist League, both of which recognize that Russia is not an imperialist power] their initial mistake is going to be very difficult to explain coherently without admitting to being wrong. Not a problem for the SL of course which has become adept at unanimously renouncing the previously unanimously endorsed position. Presumably the IG, which is so brittle that it cannot even pretend to seriously examine its own history, will jump on the new US missiles or something similar and claim that the situation has qualitatively changed (and hence also their position).