‘Many people appear to be shocked and affronted by the behaviour of those who currently control state power in the US.

They seem to have ‘blackmailed’ Ukraine to force them into an agreement about rare earths. They claim that they will take over Greenland ‘one way or the other’ (for raw materials and ‘defence’ it seems) and will ‘reclaim’ the Panama Canal – presumably by armed force in both cases, if necessary.

This is business as usual for any capitalist state – and that business is the protection of trade routes, markets and sources of industrial inputs. But for now the gloves have come off, there is less pretence than usual.

A true reflection of the economic system that it serves.’

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

From the June 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘On March 5th, 1953, one Jospeh Vissarionovich Djugashvili, alias Stalin, died.

In the Soviet Weekly (12:3:53), under a large photograph of the late Russian dictator, the following words were written:—

“The immortal name of STALIN will always live in the hearts of the Soviet people and all progressive mankind!”

And in a statement published on the same day as Stalin’s death, by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, we are told that: The heart of Jospeh Vissarionovich Stalin, comrade, in arms and continuer of genius of the cause of Lenin, wise leader and teacher of the Communist Party and the Soviet people, no longer beats.” The Russian Communists, in their statement, also inform us that: “Comrade Stalin led our country to victory over Fascism during the Second World War . . . “



In his funeral oration Georgi M. Malenkov, now Soviet Minister of Power Stations, spoke of Stalin—the “Great” Stalin—as the greatest genius of mankind, the great thinker of our epoch and the greatest theoretician on national questions. And he continued:—

“The strengthening of the country’s defence capacities and the consolidation of the Soviet armed forces have been the object of Comrade Stalin’s tireless concern.”

Malenkov then bid farewell to “our teacher and leader, our beloved friend . . . !”



After Malenkov had finished Beria, who has since been shot as a traitor and an enemy of the Soviet State, reminded those present that:—

“Our great leaders Lenin and Stalin taught us untiringly to increase and sharpen the vigilance of the Party and the people, against the designs and intrigues of the enemies of the Soviet State. We must now still further intensify our vigilance.”

And they did—against the Secret Police Chief, Beria, himself!



Three Years Later

Three years after the death of the “great” Stalin, “Comrade” Khrushchev, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in his report to the twentieth Congress of the Party, shocked many of the “comrades” present by saying:—

“Many of the shortcomings we are now working to eliminate would never have arisen of not for the complacency that at one time gained currency in some links of the Party, and for the tendency to give a rosy picture of the real state of affairs . . .

   “If Party unity was to be further consolidated and Party organisations made more active, it is necessary to reestablish the Party standards worked out by Lenin, which in the past had frequently been violated.

    “It was of paramount importance to re-establish and to strengthen in every way the Leninist principle of collective . . .

       “The Central Committee was concerned to develop the creative activity of Party members  . . . It vigorously condemned the cult of the individual as being alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, a cult which tends to make a particular leader a hero and miracle worker and at the same time belittles the role of the Party and the masses and tends to reduce their creative effort. Currency of the cult of the individual tended to minimize the role of collective leadership in the Party, and at all times resulted in serious drawbacks in our work.”

(Cominform Journal, 17.2.56).

This was only the first shot against the late “leader and genius” of the Soviet Union—Joseph Stalin.



M. A. Suslov also condemned the cult of the individual: and said that collective leadership had at least been re-established. And A. I. Mikoyan admitted that in the past three years “after a long interruption, collective leadership has been created.” (Applause). (Cominform Journal, 2.3.56, emphasis theirs). He continued by saying: ” . . . for approximately 20 years we had no collective leadership . . . ” And:

“In analyzing the economic position of present-day capitalism it is doubtful whether Stalin’s well-known thesis in the ‘Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.’ can be of any help to us or is correct—in relation to the United States, Britain and France—the thesis that with the break-up of the world market the volume of production in these countries will shrink! This assertion does not explain the complex and contradictory phenomena of present-day capitalism and the fact of the growth of capitalist production in many countries after the war.”

(Cominform Journal. 2.3.56).

Dealing with Stalin’s book ‘The Short History of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of the Soviet Union‘ Mikovan says that it is inadequate and inaccurate. After attacking other books on Party History and the Civil War, he admits that “Such historical scribbling has nothing whatever in common with Marxist history.”



Stalin the Terrorist

Since the termination of the twentieth Communist Party Congress in Moscow, it has been reported that Khrushchev made another—more pointed—attack on Stalin at a secret session. He is reported to have accused Stalin of making mistakes in regard to Soviet agriculture, of weakening the Russian Army prior to the Second World War by killing 5,000 Russian army officers—and of terrorism. Even Harry Pollitt, the British Communist, admits that “Stalin . . . ignored warnings about Hitler’s invasion plans . . . ” (Daily Worker, 24.3.56). He also admits in his first article condemning Stalin, that Stalin made serious mistakes in connection with agricultural policy, and later in his relations with Jugoslavia.



According to the Manchester Guardian (28.3.56), the first reliable report of what Mr. Khrushchev actually said about Stalin appeared in the Polish Communist Party paper Trybuna Lubu. In an article bu Jerzy Morawski, a leading Polish Communist, he says:—

   ” . . .  the degeneration of the security organs could, and indeed did take place. They became independent of the Party authorities and were used to consolidate the personal power of Stalin.”

And:—

“Later on repression was used automatically and blindly.”

And further:—

   “As a result many honest people were sent to prison penal camps or shot.”

  “Almost all the leaders and the active members of the Polish Communist Party then in the Soviet Union were arrested and sent to camps.”

For many years both Socialist and non-Socialist critics of the Russian régime have said that Russia was in fact a dictatorship, that Stalin was a ruthless dictator, that the Soviet Union was a police State, that many innocent people had been thrown into slave camps, and that neither democracy nor Socialism existed there. And for as many years Communists, in all countries, have denied these allegations. Yet now, scarcely three years after Stalin’s death, the Communists themselves are admitting much, if not all, of the truth about Stalin and his bloody dictatorship.



Perhaps in time more will be admitted. The Communists may even deny that Socialism exists in Russia.’

Peter E. Newell

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/search?q=stalin

From the June 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘On March 5th, 1953, one Jospeh Vissarionovich Djugashvili, alias Stalin, died.

In the Soviet Weekly (12:3:53), under a large photograph of the late Russian dictator, the following words were written:—

“The immortal name of STALIN will always live in the hearts of the Soviet people and all progressive mankind!”

And in a statement published on the same day as Stalin’s death, by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, we are told that: The heart of Jospeh Vissarionovich Stalin, comrade, in arms and continuer of genius of the cause of Lenin, wise leader and teacher of the Communist Party and the Soviet people, no longer beats.” The Russian Communists, in their statement, also inform us that: “Comrade Stalin led our country to victory over Fascism during the Second World War . . . “



In his funeral oration Georgi M. Malenkov, now Soviet Minister of Power Stations, spoke of Stalin—the “Great” Stalin—as the greatest genius of mankind, the great thinker of our epoch and the greatest theoretician on national questions. And he continued:—

“The strengthening of the country’s defence capacities and the consolidation of the Soviet armed forces have been the object of Comrade Stalin’s tireless concern.”

Malenkov then bid farewell to “our teacher and leader, our beloved friend . . . !”



After Malenkov had finished Beria, who has since been shot as a traitor and an enemy of the Soviet State, reminded those present that:—

“Our great leaders Lenin and Stalin taught us untiringly to increase and sharpen the vigilance of the Party and the people, against the designs and intrigues of the enemies of the Soviet State. We must now still further intensify our vigilance.”

And they did—against the Secret Police Chief, Beria, himself!



Three Years Later

Three years after the death of the “great” Stalin, “Comrade” Khrushchev, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in his report to the twentieth Congress of the Party, shocked many of the “comrades” present by saying:—

“Many of the shortcomings we are now working to eliminate would never have arisen of not for the complacency that at one time gained currency in some links of the Party, and for the tendency to give a rosy picture of the real state of affairs . . .

   “If Party unity was to be further consolidated and Party organisations made more active, it is necessary to reestablish the Party standards worked out by Lenin, which in the past had frequently been violated.

    “It was of paramount importance to re-establish and to strengthen in every way the Leninist principle of collective . . .

       “The Central Committee was concerned to develop the creative activity of Party members  . . . It vigorously condemned the cult of the individual as being alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, a cult which tends to make a particular leader a hero and miracle worker and at the same time belittles the role of the Party and the masses and tends to reduce their creative effort. Currency of the cult of the individual tended to minimize the role of collective leadership in the Party, and at all times resulted in serious drawbacks in our work.”

(Cominform Journal, 17.2.56).

This was only the first shot against the late “leader and genius” of the Soviet Union—Joseph Stalin.



M. A. Suslov also condemned the cult of the individual: and said that collective leadership had at least been re-established. And A. I. Mikoyan admitted that in the past three years “after a long interruption, collective leadership has been created.” (Applause). (Cominform Journal, 2.3.56, emphasis theirs). He continued by saying: ” . . . for approximately 20 years we had no collective leadership . . . ” And:

“In analyzing the economic position of present-day capitalism it is doubtful whether Stalin’s well-known thesis in the ‘Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.’ can be of any help to us or is correct—in relation to the United States, Britain and France—the thesis that with the break-up of the world market the volume of production in these countries will shrink! This assertion does not explain the complex and contradictory phenomena of present-day capitalism and the fact of the growth of capitalist production in many countries after the war.”

(Cominform Journal. 2.3.56).

Dealing with Stalin’s book ‘The Short History of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of the Soviet Union‘ Mikovan says that it is inadequate and inaccurate. After attacking other books on Party History and the Civil War, he admits that “Such historical scribbling has nothing whatever in common with Marxist history.”



Stalin the Terrorist

Since the termination of the twentieth Communist Party Congress in Moscow, it has been reported that Khrushchev made another—more pointed—attack on Stalin at a secret session. He is reported to have accused Stalin of making mistakes in regard to Soviet agriculture, of weakening the Russian Army prior to the Second World War by killing 5,000 Russian army officers—and of terrorism. Even Harry Pollitt, the British Communist, admits that “Stalin . . . ignored warnings about Hitler’s invasion plans . . . ” (Daily Worker, 24.3.56). He also admits in his first article condemning Stalin, that Stalin made serious mistakes in connection with agricultural policy, and later in his relations with Jugoslavia.



According to the Manchester Guardian (28.3.56), the first reliable report of what Mr. Khrushchev actually said about Stalin appeared in the Polish Communist Party paper Trybuna Lubu. In an article bu Jerzy Morawski, a leading Polish Communist, he says:—

   ” . . .  the degeneration of the security organs could, and indeed did take place. They became independent of the Party authorities and were used to consolidate the personal power of Stalin.”

And:—

“Later on repression was used automatically and blindly.”

And further:—

   “As a result many honest people were sent to prison penal camps or shot.”

  “Almost all the leaders and the active members of the Polish Communist Party then in the Soviet Union were arrested and sent to camps.”

For many years both Socialist and non-Socialist critics of the Russian régime have said that Russia was in fact a dictatorship, that Stalin was a ruthless dictator, that the Soviet Union was a police State, that many innocent people had been thrown into slave camps, and that neither democracy nor Socialism existed there. And for as many years Communists, in all countries, have denied these allegations. Yet now, scarcely three years after Stalin’s death, the Communists themselves are admitting much, if not all, of the truth about Stalin and his bloody dictatorship.



Perhaps in time more will be admitted. The Communists may even deny that Socialism exists in Russia.’

Peter E. Newell

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/search?q=stalin

From the June 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘On March 5th, 1953, one Jospeh Vissarionovich Djugashvili, alias Stalin, died.

In the Soviet Weekly (12:3:53), under a large photograph of the late Russian dictator, the following words were written:—

“The immortal name of STALIN will always live in the hearts of the Soviet people and all progressive mankind!”

And in a statement published on the same day as Stalin’s death, by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, we are told that: The heart of Jospeh Vissarionovich Stalin, comrade, in arms and continuer of genius of the cause of Lenin, wise leader and teacher of the Communist Party and the Soviet people, no longer beats.” The Russian Communists, in their statement, also inform us that: “Comrade Stalin led our country to victory over Fascism during the Second World War . . . “



In his funeral oration Georgi M. Malenkov, now Soviet Minister of Power Stations, spoke of Stalin—the “Great” Stalin—as the greatest genius of mankind, the great thinker of our epoch and the greatest theoretician on national questions. And he continued:—

“The strengthening of the country’s defence capacities and the consolidation of the Soviet armed forces have been the object of Comrade Stalin’s tireless concern.”

Malenkov then bid farewell to “our teacher and leader, our beloved friend . . . !”



After Malenkov had finished Beria, who has since been shot as a traitor and an enemy of the Soviet State, reminded those present that:—

“Our great leaders Lenin and Stalin taught us untiringly to increase and sharpen the vigilance of the Party and the people, against the designs and intrigues of the enemies of the Soviet State. We must now still further intensify our vigilance.”

And they did—against the Secret Police Chief, Beria, himself!



Three Years Later

Three years after the death of the “great” Stalin, “Comrade” Khrushchev, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in his report to the twentieth Congress of the Party, shocked many of the “comrades” present by saying:—

“Many of the shortcomings we are now working to eliminate would never have arisen of not for the complacency that at one time gained currency in some links of the Party, and for the tendency to give a rosy picture of the real state of affairs . . .

   “If Party unity was to be further consolidated and Party organisations made more active, it is necessary to reestablish the Party standards worked out by Lenin, which in the past had frequently been violated.

    “It was of paramount importance to re-establish and to strengthen in every way the Leninist principle of collective . . .

       “The Central Committee was concerned to develop the creative activity of Party members  . . . It vigorously condemned the cult of the individual as being alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, a cult which tends to make a particular leader a hero and miracle worker and at the same time belittles the role of the Party and the masses and tends to reduce their creative effort. Currency of the cult of the individual tended to minimize the role of collective leadership in the Party, and at all times resulted in serious drawbacks in our work.”

(Cominform Journal, 17.2.56).

This was only the first shot against the late “leader and genius” of the Soviet Union—Joseph Stalin.



M. A. Suslov also condemned the cult of the individual: and said that collective leadership had at least been re-established. And A. I. Mikoyan admitted that in the past three years “after a long interruption, collective leadership has been created.” (Applause). (Cominform Journal, 2.3.56, emphasis theirs). He continued by saying: ” . . . for approximately 20 years we had no collective leadership . . . ” And:

“In analyzing the economic position of present-day capitalism it is doubtful whether Stalin’s well-known thesis in the ‘Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.’ can be of any help to us or is correct—in relation to the United States, Britain and France—the thesis that with the break-up of the world market the volume of production in these countries will shrink! This assertion does not explain the complex and contradictory phenomena of present-day capitalism and the fact of the growth of capitalist production in many countries after the war.”

(Cominform Journal. 2.3.56).

Dealing with Stalin’s book ‘The Short History of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of the Soviet Union‘ Mikovan says that it is inadequate and inaccurate. After attacking other books on Party History and the Civil War, he admits that “Such historical scribbling has nothing whatever in common with Marxist history.”



Stalin the Terrorist

Since the termination of the twentieth Communist Party Congress in Moscow, it has been reported that Khrushchev made another—more pointed—attack on Stalin at a secret session. He is reported to have accused Stalin of making mistakes in regard to Soviet agriculture, of weakening the Russian Army prior to the Second World War by killing 5,000 Russian army officers—and of terrorism. Even Harry Pollitt, the British Communist, admits that “Stalin . . . ignored warnings about Hitler’s invasion plans . . . ” (Daily Worker, 24.3.56). He also admits in his first article condemning Stalin, that Stalin made serious mistakes in connection with agricultural policy, and later in his relations with Jugoslavia.



According to the Manchester Guardian (28.3.56), the first reliable report of what Mr. Khrushchev actually said about Stalin appeared in the Polish Communist Party paper Trybuna Lubu. In an article bu Jerzy Morawski, a leading Polish Communist, he says:—

   ” . . .  the degeneration of the security organs could, and indeed did take place. They became independent of the Party authorities and were used to consolidate the personal power of Stalin.”

And:—

“Later on repression was used automatically and blindly.”

And further:—

   “As a result many honest people were sent to prison penal camps or shot.”

  “Almost all the leaders and the active members of the Polish Communist Party then in the Soviet Union were arrested and sent to camps.”

For many years both Socialist and non-Socialist critics of the Russian régime have said that Russia was in fact a dictatorship, that Stalin was a ruthless dictator, that the Soviet Union was a police State, that many innocent people had been thrown into slave camps, and that neither democracy nor Socialism existed there. And for as many years Communists, in all countries, have denied these allegations. Yet now, scarcely three years after Stalin’s death, the Communists themselves are admitting much, if not all, of the truth about Stalin and his bloody dictatorship.



Perhaps in time more will be admitted. The Communists may even deny that Socialism exists in Russia.’

Peter E. Newell

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/search?q=stalin

Forget the Matrix, we’re living in an Alice in Blunderland times. At the bottom of the rabbit hole America has drunk from the bottle labelled peace, and the European Union and the UK has drunk fro the bottle labelled war.

Or perhaps the Mock Turtle’s song would be more appropriate; Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you join the dance?’ EU, UK and Ukraine.

 ‘ Would not, could not, would not, could not, would not join the dance.’ America and Russia.

Or perhaps those advocating for more war have adopted George Orwell’s 1984 slogan, War is Peace.

   

The position of the SPGB (The Socialist Party) has consistently been clear since its inception in 1904. Workers have no country and the slaughter by the working class of one or more state/s of the working class from a different state/s is one of the most pernicious impacts of, and orchestrated by, capitalism.

States have always entered into strange alliances when it suited their political, strategic, military objectives. The USA voting with Russia and North Korea in opposing a United Nations resolution which supported Ukraine and opposed Russia was not on the bingo card in 2024.

A conspiracy theory gaining ground at present is that Starmer’s One Hundred Year Pact recently signed with Ukraine gave Britain access to the natural resources of Ukraine that the President of the United States is desperate to get hold off. Ostensibly to repay America for the billions of dollars it has already supplied to Ukraine in aid over the period of the conflict. Peace means the USA saves in resources sent to Ukraine and future exploitation of Ukrainian resources for the American capitalist class. This is not to say that whatever the motives it is obvious that a peaceful settlement to the conflict needs to take place sooner rather than later.

Scepticism is always the response when politicians or others say everyone in the country supports this proposal or action. Therefore, reticent though we are to issue that sort of blanket speaking it does see fair to say that the majority of the working class do not support the continuation of the conflict. It is the ‘leadership’ of the European Union and the UK who appear to wan to desperately the war to go on.

Capitalist states are rapacious. The UK is nowhere near as powerful as the USA economically or militarily. The legacy media is, and has been for some time, publishing articles of a propaganda nature. The latest is in The Sun detailing how Europe ‘stacks up’ against Russia without the backing of America.

Two quotes: ‘Putin has thrown his troops into the meat-grinder in Ukraine and has been willing to take huge casualties for inches of land.’

‘America has some 3,700 active nuclear weapons while Europe’s only two nuclear powers, the UK and France, have just over 500 together.

Importantly, that’s enough to lay waste to Moscow and St Petersburg and all of Russia’s most critical and cherished sites.’

The first ignores the geo-political causes of the conflict. Whilst everyday Russians have suffered huge losses of killed and wounded the Ukrainians forced to take part have suffered considerably more.

The inches of land is a sizeable part of Ukraine.

The second verges on the insane and delusional. If nuclear weapons were to be used there wouldn’t be anything left of the UK and France. Or of large parts of Europe.

The Mail Online, 24 February 2025, ran a ‘story’ about a Russian submarine which fired a nuclear missile at the UK and the horrific situation that resulted. Is this a softening up of the population to agree to any egregious actions the UK might undertake?

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/html_modules/DeepDive/2025/nuclear%20war/Nuclear%20War_v9/aftermath.html

Are ‘leaders’ blundering toward a third world war because the alternative, incompetence and stupidity, doesn’t bear thinking about.

And it’s one, two, three, what are we fighting for?

Don’t complain, stay on gravy train. Next stop’s Ukraine.

And it’s five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates.

Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,

Whoopee! We’re all gonna die!

Apologies to Country Joe McDonald for alteration to his excellent anti-war song.

WORLD SOCIALISM AGAINST WAR

PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE (Zoom)

The 24th February 2022 is when the Russia- Ukraine conflict began.

If you refer to the event as a Special Military Operation and Kiev as the capital of Ukraine you’re obviously a supporter of Russia.

If you refer to the event as a war of aggression and Kief as the capital of Ukraine you’re obviously a Ukraine supporter.

Zelensky or Putin? The supporters of each behave like the most fanatical of football supporters. My team come what may! But it’s not a game because its consequences are shattering for so many innocent people who are pawns in the deadly competition.

For further identification as to your leanings then the flag emoji in your social media account will demonstrate where your sympathies lie.

The 2022 conflict can be said to have its origin in 2014 when the United States orchestrated the overthrow of the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his government which was seeking closer ties with Russia not the EU.

As the writer below explains, ‘As always in capitalism the economic conflict over control of mineral resources and trade routes (such as pipelines) will be the cause of war.’ The current attempt by the United States to get hold of fifty per cent of Ukraine’s natural resources demonstrates this clearly. There’s no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism.

At present, efforts are under way to come to a peace agreement. In the insane system that is capitalism support for such, in the eyes of European political leaders, makes peace supporters beyond the pale because won’t anyone think of the profits of arms manufacturers?

To channel Shakespeare, A plague ‘o both your houses. And a plague on capitalism because whilst it continues death and destruction will follow like night and day.

The article below is from the Socialist Standard December 2014.

‘The Ukraine Defence Minister stated ‘A great war has arrived at our doorstep, the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War Two’ (Independent, 2 September). The war in Ukraine in 2014 rose out of the ‘Euromaidan’ protests in Kiev in November 2013 when Ukraine under pressure from Russia backed out of a trade deal: the Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. For the pro-European Ukrainians EU membership is seen as synonymous with democracy as opposed to membership of Russia’s Customs Union: the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) which also includes Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Armenia. The divisions in Ukraine are basically a conflict between two groups of the capitalist class over the choice of the external orientation of the country; toward Europe or toward Russia. As a carrot Russia promised Ukraine $15 billion in loans and 30 per cent discount on natural gas prices.

Ukraine is the ‘bread basket of Europe’ with its extensive fertile farmlands of rich black soil (chornozem black earth) and the vast fields of wheat, barley, rye, oats, sunflower, beets and other grain and oil crops. In 2011, it was the world’s third-largest grain exporter, and according to a 2013 forecast by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ukraine is poised to become the world’s second biggest grain exporter in the world, shipping over 30 million tonnes of grain out of the country last year. Ukraine also has a well-developed manufacturing sector, particularly in aerospace and industrial equipment, nuclear power generation and hydroelectric generation, an advanced rocket systems industry plus the old industries from the Soviet period of coal mining, steel, and metals. It also has its own proven, significant, but yet totally undeveloped shale gas reserves.

For the Russian capitalist class Ukraine is the ‘near abroad’ and therefore within the sphere of influence of Russia. On 28 February Crimea (given to Ukraine in 1954) was occupied by Russia. Since the 1700s it has been the base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet but since Ukrainian independence in 1991 the base in Crimea has been leased from Ukraine, and the leasing agreement was due to expire in 2017, and unlikely to be renewed. This would have meant Russia not having a warm water port giving access to the Mediterranean and via the Suez Canal to the Indian Ocean. A great deal of Crimean real estate is Russian-owned, in late February Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development called on Russian capitalists to invest $5 billion in infrastructural projects in Crimea. Gazprom is interested in rich oil and gas deposits off the Crimean coast, as are such western companies as Exxon, Shell and ENI. In April Chevron signed a 50-year lease to develop Ukraine’s shale gas reserves which probably stoked Russian fears about losing its influence in Ukraine and as a major gas market. International Business Times (8 November 2013) wrote that ‘Chevron’s agreement with Ukraine was supported by the US as part of its national security strategy to help reduce Russia’s hold on Europe and Kiev.’

In April pro-Russian separatists in the Eastern Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk declared themselves ‘independent’ of Kiev as the People’s Republic of Donetsk. Russia in a throwback to Tsarist times refers to the disputed areas of south-eastern Ukraine as Novorossiya. In six months of fighting 3,000 people have been killed. This area includes the old heartland of Soviet industry with its concentration of coal and steel production; the Don coal basin known as the Donbass. Essentially Russia wants the Donbass as a ‘protectorate’ so that Ukraine can never join NATO or fully orient its foreign policy westward. The loss of the Donbass region which accounts for 16 per cent of GDP and 27 per cent of industrial production would be a disaster for Ukraine, whose economy will contract 7 per cent this year and may not expand at all in 2015 according to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Russia Today 14 May). In August the war expanded when a new war front opened on the coast where pro-Russian separatists took Novoazovsk, a small town on the way to the strategic port city of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov.

The economic war between Russia and Ukraine meant that Russian loans were frozen in January, the price of gas to Ukraine was raised by 80 per cent in April, and Russia insisted that Ukraine pay a $2.7 billion gas debt or it would halt natural gas supplies. Also Ukraine had a foreign debt of $135 billion in 2012 with $13 billion due to be paid in 2014 mostly to European banks, and another $10 billion due in 2015. Standard & Poor cut Ukraine’s credit rating describing it as ‘a distressed civil society with weakened political institutions’ (Bloomberg.com 28 January). In March the IMF authorised an $18 billion loan to Ukraine over two years, and the World Bank coughed up $3.5 billion, both designed to stop Ukraine defaulting on interest payments on its foreign debt. The hryvnia (Ukraine’s currency) has lost 35 per cent of its value against the dollar since the beginning of 2014.

Ukraine has not recovered economically from the world capitalist crisis of 2008-09 and further austerity is required, nay demanded by the IMF as a condition of its loans. The IMF want ‘commitment from the country to undertake painful austerity measures, tough reforms and a near-certain recession as a result’ (The Times, 25 February) while Reuters called it ‘some harsh economic medicine’ (5 March). This will mean cutting fuel subsidies, government spending, pensions, and wage freezes for workers. All this will lead to higher gas prices which are projected to rise by 50 per cent in 2014 and by 120 per cent at the end of four years, rising inflation, an increase in unemployment, and a decline in the standard of living for the Ukrainian working class.

The economic crisis hasn’t affected the profits of Rinat Akhmetov, the richest man in Ukraine (assets of up to $28.4 billion), his company DTEK controls half of Ukraine’s coal, steel, iron ore and thermoelectric industries, and is the largest employer in the Donbass. A Russian oligarch Abramov owns the mining company EVRAZ. The coal industry in Ukraine is affected by a crisis of over production which was identified in the trade magazine Coal Age in December 2013: ‘A production surplus in 2013 has hurt the Ukrainian coal industry which needs to reduce the level of production, and in addition, has even decided to temporarily close about 17 percent of all mines in the country. Ukraine is the fourth largest coal producer in Europe after Russia, Germany and Poland. The Ukrainian coal industry is believed to have 4 per cent of world coal reserves, or 33.9 billion Mt of proven reserves. This is enough to maintain the level of coal mining for 2012 in the country for almost 400 years.’

As always in capitalist crises, the working class are made to pay for the failures of the capitalist system. Ukrainian miners in the Independent Trade Union of Miners at the EVRAZ-owned Krivyi Rih iron ore mine in the Kryvbas (iron ore basin) near Dnepropetrovsk in Eastern Ukraine are fighting to defend their interests as workers against attacks by the capitalist class who are seeking to make redundancies, and 30 to 50 per cent cut in their real wages. The miners oppose Ukrainian nationalism and Russian separatist ideology and concentrate on fighting against ‘the never-ceasing encroachments of capital’ (Marx Value, Price and Profit), but the miners have had to establish self-defence militias to defend themselves against intimidation, and attacks by lumpen elements called ‘Tatushka’ recruited by the Russian separatists. Essentially these are gangs of thugs organised by mine bosses to crush organised workers before the region can be absorbed into the petro-oligarchy and anarchic-capitalist state that is Russia.

Because of Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, the western capitalist powers have imposed sanctions on Russia’s capitalist economy with its large energy reserves (oil and natural gas represent 68 per cent of Russia’s total exports). These commodities are under pressure as new and cheaper supplies come onto the market, and crude oil prices worldwide hit a nine month low in August. Russian capitalists targeted by western sanctions included the largest bank Sberbank, oil companies Rosneft and Transneft, and Gazprom. Their access to capital markets for any long-term funding was restricted, new exploration projects in Siberia and the Arctic were affected by barring foreign oil companies Exxon and Shell from providing any equipment, technology or assistance to deep-water, offshore, or shale projects with Gazprom Neft, LukOil, Surgutneftegas, and Rosneft. Russian gas is delivered to Europe by pipeline which probably explains why Gazprom’s main business is reported not to be on the sanctions list.

Russia is the EU’s third-biggest trading partner with a cross-border trade of $460 billion, and the EU gets a third of its oil and gas from Russia with 40 per cent of that gas pumped across Ukraine. The dominant capitalist power in Europe, Germany, has an economy intertwined with Russian gas and oil exports worth more than $75 billion a year. Larry Elliott wrote that ‘a key aim of Berlin’s foreign policy for the past quarter of a century has been to re-integrate what used to be the Soviet Union and its satellites into the market economy. Expanding capitalism to the east was seen as both good for German business and for German security. Resistance from German industry makes it unlikely Merkel will agree immediately to Iran-style sanctions that would freeze Russia out of western markets’ (Guardian 28 August). The objective of US and European capitalism is energy diversification which means to reduce dependence on Russian oil and gas.

The US and EU capitalist blocs are using the military threat of a revived NATO against Russia as part of the western capitalist attempt at influencing the external orientation of Ukraine towards Europe. In September NATO announced the creation of a spearhead 4,000 strong ‘rapid reaction’ force, with a HQ in Poland and forward units in Poland, Romania and Estonia who have all indicated willingness to host the bases so that NATO would have a continuous presence in eastern Europe. Ukraine has decided to pursue membership of NATO, and clearly the western capitalist powers regard the Russian ‘near abroad’ as their own sphere of influence. The Lithuanian president said ‘It is a fact that Russia is in a war state against Ukraine. That means it is in a state of war against a country which would like to be closely integrated with the EU. Practically Russia is in a state of war against Europe’ (Financial Times, 31 August).

The war in Ukraine was no impediment to the NATO military exercise in Ukraine in September known as ‘Rapid Trident’ at the International Peacekeeping and Security Center at Yavoriv, 60 km from Lvov in Western Ukraine close to the Polish-Ukrainian border. 1,300 troops from fifteen countries including the US, Britain, Germany, Spain, Poland, Norway, and some former Warsaw Pact countries that are part of NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme (non-NATO members such as Ukraine and other former Soviet Republics) took part.

Russia went to war with Georgia in August 2008 when Georgia sought to join NATO. Russia could not allow this and Russia halted NATO expansion into the Caucasus. A Ukraine integrated into the EU and NATO would encircle Russia, which was the same reason for war against Georgia in 2008. As always in capitalism the economic conflict over control of mineral resources and trade routes (such as pipelines) will be the cause of war.’

Steve Clayton

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-war-in-ukraine.html