Internet Statement 2015-29


The Ukrainian conflict from a Russian perspective

Maria Weiß   05/31/2015

How else the so-called Majdan uprising in Ukraine should have been answered, if not with an annexation of the Crimea by Russia? Just imagine, that had not been made. Who says that that the Ukraine would not be a NATO member now, since long, and of course there would be also a corresponding NATO base in the Crimea now? To assume such a thing, that's by no means such an improbability. Something like that is always a trade-off question, and sometimes a single false step is the step into the abyss.


What is it today, what prevents the so-called West from integrating the Ukraine into NATO, as desired by the new government there? Basically, it's nothing more than that they shy away from confrontation with the Russian nuclear force, that they do not want this in any case now, or perhaps do not want it anyway, because of feeling compelled to prepare a far greater confrontation in another part of the world. The latest skirmishes in the South China Sea speak their own language in this context.


One can hardly assume that the US in particular would have tolerated the actions of Putin concerning the Crimea if there had not been the nuclear force on the opponent's side.


It's always a question of how fine is the lens through which you look:


If you look at the development since the end of the 1980s / early 1990s, and you want to summarize it and get to the point, then one can nevertheless actually characterize it as follows: Gorbachev was a traitor, Yeltsin a putschist and then Putin has collected the shards and tried to make the best of it. This of course is very concise and hides a lot of details and differentiations. It is perhaps not doing justice in all respects, but in the end the question arises whether this is precisely the conclusion that one must draw. And in the moment when, so to speak, in Russia the pieces are collected and the country recovers, then of course grows again the confrontation with the international opponents. And that is what we are currently experiencing.

Of course it may not be left out at such a rough conclusion that the revolution in China was the impetus for this development, which has enabled the United States to soar the sole hegemonic power again, and to draw their profit from the weakness resulting from the revisionist degeneration and the revisionist upheavals, both in the Soviet Union and in China. That's what they did and what still influences the present situation. It is certainly one of the sources of the current tightening. This does not provide relief for the revisionists, not at all, but it makes clear that just the other side of capitalism and imperialism, which promotes revisionism, is to be attacked as a driving force behind this development at least in the same way.


Now, of course, one can reply that revisionism is itself a form of exploitation system, it has admitted this, what now they want to complain? Yes that's true, they did so, but it does not relieve the other side, the counterpart, they themselves have sponsored, produced and favored revisionism.


What follows from this? It follows that, as a whole, such a system of exploitation has to be overcome, it must be overthrown and another new social system must be enforced, in which people are reaping the fruits of their labor themselves and in which they are capable to benefit from them in the overall social context. One can not justify the existence of new exploiters by ignoring the old. Since you'd run historically backwards, what is wrong as anyone can see. We must go forward and break the system of exploitation wherever its weaknesses show and its contradictions can no longer be managed, in order to arrive at a new form of social organization and reproduction.

One can hardly assume that the US in particular would have tolerated the actions of Putin concerning the Crimea if there had not been the nuclear force on the opponent's side, then and now. As much as one has to criticize Putin's system inside Russia, so, nevertheless, it is right that the right to defense against foreign aggression or attempts to subordinate must be highly valued. The opposite would be disastrous, not only for Russia but for the whole of Europe.


Of course, it was and is correct to criticize that, with its repeated attempts of gas blackmail, Putin has tried to keep European states in dependency, or to bring some ones back into dependency, even states of the former Soviet Union, also our country, with using internal forces such as the Schröder clique that has favored this and has been rewarded for their efforts with fat items. That's the one thing. But on the other side you just have to see that since the early 1990s, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is an unmistakable advantage on the part of the West towards Eastern Europe, with a significant influence of the United States; that all these new NATO memberships constitute de facto new bases, what is not a coincidence. The harassment on the other side, especially on the Russian one, concerning such an advancement to a certain extent, is understandable. Denying it means to be blind in one eye.


What should therefore be done on the Russian side to act against such a development, such a quasi encirclement - at least in tendency? One must firstly defend the own independence, secondly pursue a policy of not bringing other countries into dependency, now in turn, or even keeping them in it, thus making the own position wrong and ultimately undermining the own interest by providing the opponent with pretexts. Wants to say that the Ukraine in its present form has a right to national independence and its own self-defense and integrity. That's not in question, it must be respected. Of course on the other side more destabilizing attempts of undermining by the West towards the East can not be accepted, so to say, there is a certain justification to put a stop to their attempts.


For example, if today explains Poland or the Baltic States, that they feel threatened by Russia, and they cite primarily historical experiences, then you have to ask this: What is the actual reason at present? What actions? The action concerning the Crimea can hardly be cited, because in contrast to the Crimea, these countries have never been an essential part of Russia, in a comparable way to the Crimea. This is a special case and should be treated accordingly. So what else is it that makes them currently worry? What peeps behind it, is basically nothing else but the above mentioned US-NATO strategy of a continuous advance in the east, by which they either create pretexts themselves, or exploit weaknesses of the opponent. The argument can not be accepted. It is necessary to examine things in an individual case very closely and analyze them in their specificity. It is not acceptable in any case to have the special case of Ukraine serve as a general pretext for NATO's advance eastwards.


In a certain way Ukraine itself has saddled the present not minor problems it is facing inside. Now let them see how they cope with them. Whether they but can get help with their problems from people like Saakashvili (former president of Georgia), who himself had to throw in the towel at home, it will be seen.


Looking back:

After the overthrow of tsarism and the victory of the proletarian revolution led by Lenin, the Soviet Union not randomly emerged in its first state form. That was a close composite of a number of nations, large and small, and of national units that have come together there, due to historical and territorial closeness, of course mainly due to the class victory over tsarism; it evolved there, however, from the previous an association of states with very different cultural characteristics. (It should be noted here that the principle of the right to separation was just always highlighted by Lenin very strongly and defended well against forces within the Bolsheviks, within its own ranks, who were herein to differ.) The break up, as it has been promoted and supported by the international exponents of the capitalist counter-power USA, after  the Soviet Union had been internally destroyed by the revisionist betrayal, of course has created new problems. But these have to be solved by the various peoples themselves, and not by self-appointed international powers who think they can decide on the whole world. This is necessarily to defend, especially in regard to the principle of international democracy among states, which that self-appointed global power USA always likes to cite, but likes more to trample on it constantly in practice.


This union of the former Soviet Socialist Republics has not evolved just randomly, but has grown historically in some way and come about on a voluntary basis of the different peoples. No foreign power has the right to destroy that, and to make it subservient to its own hegemonic intentions. This is a presumption that must be rejected. Especially European countries, due to all their specific experiences, have every reason to do the same.

Let's go back to Lenin and the right to separation of individual states of this association, which he defended in particular. Something similar is also true still today. That means, if Ukraine wants to separate, then they may do that. Since no one can tell them what to do. But when it is exploited, for example, by international powers having expansive aspirations, then it will shift in a way, the freedom of choice, because it's also a point that should be noted. Such a complicated issue should therefore be resolved, as far as possible and with all the necessary efforts, through negotiations and mutual consultation. But not through blackmail, no matter if it is of economic or political nature, and certainly not by using military force from outside.

[Translation of the German original text.]