Russia, Syria and the camp of resistance in the Middle East

[ckaihatsu]

Russia, Syria and the camp of resistance in the Middle East

Outcome of the five-year war in Syria is critically important to resistance project

http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/article-lead-photo/Russiaoil.jpg

By staff

On Sept. 30, 2015, Russian planes began conducting airstrikes against rebel targets in Syria at the request of President Bashar al-Assad. This military intervention signaled a new chapter in the five-year war in Syria, which has pitted the country's national democratic government against foreign-backed rebel groups. Launched for the stated purpose of defeating the growing Islamic State (IS) insurgency, Russia's operations have also targeted U.S.-backed reactionary rebel groups.

For those forces resisting imperialism in the Middle East, the outcome of the war in Syria is of critical importance. Russian air support has significantly bolstered the position of the Syrian government. And while national self-interest, not solidarity, drives Russian intervention in Syria, it has the effect of strengthening the camp of resistance to imperialism in the region.

War in Syria and the camp of resistance

In 2011, neoliberal economic policies pushed by global financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF contributed to a wave of mass protests in countries across the Middle East and north Africa. After protests in Tunisia and Egypt brought down two U.S.-backed regimes, the Western imperialist powers leveraged this political unrest to destabilize Libya and Syria's national democratic governments.

Both Libya and Syria proved too strong for the imperialist-backed opposition to topple alone. In Libya, it took a NATO military intervention to turn the tide against Qaddafi's government in 2011. Similarly, the rebels in Syria lacked broad mass support and proved unable to topple Assad. This prompted a massive influx of arms and supplies from the U.S. and its regional allies – Turkey and Saudi Arabia, in particular – to opposition forces. The U.S. and other imperialist powers also threatened direct military intervention along the lines of NATO's campaign in Libya.

By overthrowing the Assad government, the U.S. hopes to strike a major blow against the camp of resistance to imperialism, Zionism and reaction. Anchored by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the camp of resistance includes Syria, Hezbollah and other patriotic forces of Lebanon, the Palestinian liberation organizations and other allied national democratic movements in the Middle East. Taken together, it is the main obstacle to Western domination of the region.

The significance of the war in Syria

As one of several national democratic states in the Middle East brought to power by popular anti-colonial uprisings in the 1950s and 60s, the Syrian Arab Republic generally charts an independent course from imperialism. State-ownership of some major industries, a robust trade union structure and regulations on foreign investment prevented Western finance capital from dominating the Syrian economy.

Beyond its economic model, however, Syria drew the wrath of Washington for its anti-imperialist foreign policy. Syria backs Hezbollah and according to some reports, serves as a conduit for Iranian support because of its border with Lebanon. Palestinian liberation organizations also enjoyed significant Syrian backing.

A major motivation for the imperialists' proxy war on Syria, however, is the Assad government's close relationship with Iran. Since Iran's national democratic revolution that brought down the Shah in 1979, Syria serves as Iran's closest and most consistent allied government in the Middle East. It provided training, arms and troops to Iran to repel the U.S.-backed Iraqi invasion in the 1980s. The two nations materially supported the progressive and patriotic Lebanese forces resisting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Amid sanctions and threats of U.S. and Israeli aggression, Syria continues to support Iran, and for this, it faces the threat of regime change.

Russian motivations for intervention in Syria

Syria and Russia have enjoyed close relations for decades. During the Cold War, Syria became one of the Soviet Union's two closest regional partners – the other being People's Democratic Republic of Yemen – and it allowed the USSR to build a naval base in the city of Tartus.

The Russian Federation maintained its alliance with Syria, albeit with entirely different motives. After the overthrow of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia's new capitalist ruling class scrambled to maintain its military presence around the world. In Syria, Russia forgave three-fourths of Syrian debt in exchange for expanding the formerly Soviet naval base, and they quickly became Syria's largest arms supplier. Russian corporations began investing in Syria, like a $1.1 billion project in 2010 to build a rival pipeline to Western-controlled energy infrastructure. When the war broke out in 2011, Russian corporations stepped up their investment, which provided the Syrian government with much-needed liquidity to fight the imperialist-backed rebels and maintain the economy.

While Russian support remains instrumental to preventing the fall of Syria's national democratic government, international solidarity is not its driving motive. Rather, the monopoly capitalists who rule Russia hope to strengthen their presence in the oil-rich Middle East by curbing the power of the U.S. and its partners. The Russian Federation is emerging as an imperialist power, although it remains weak and unstable compared to the U.S., Western Europe and Japan. For instance, Russia has 11 military bases in 11 different countries compared to the U.S.'s 900-plus military bases in 130 different countries. Excluded from sharing in the spoils of imperialism by these larger, stronger powers, Russia largely pursues its own agenda in conflict with the larger, stronger imperialist powers.

Russia became a capitalist country in 1991 when a counterrevolution led by Boris Yeltsin overthrew socialism. Oligarchs began buying up Soviet industries as quickly as the newly minted capitalist state could sell them off, which led to a disastrous economic crisis felt most by the working class. This crisis pushed a large section of the oligarchs to favor greater state regulation, with Vladmir Putin as their political representative. Monopolies became the decisive force within Russian capitalism and finance capital largely merged with industry.

National sovereignty and foreign intervention

Regardless of its self-interested motives, however, Russian intervention in Syria is positive for the camp of resistance in the Middle East. The Syrian government has survived the five-year onslaught by imperialist-backed rebel forces for three main reasons: first, the continued support for Assad by a majority of the Syrian people; second, crucial military and economic assistance from Hezbollah and Iran and, third, Russia's military and diplomatic backing.

Unlike the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Russian intervention came at the formal request of the sovereign national government of Syria. This request was in response to protracted foreign aggression by the Western imperialist powers and their partners, not a domestic crisis. The rebellion in Syria was backed and controlled by outside aggressors from its inception – a far cry from the image of a 'popular revolution against a dictator' promoted by the U.S. and Western Europe. In this sense, it differs sharply from requests by U.S.-backed dictatorships for intervention to put down revolutionary unrest, like South Vietnam in the early 1960s.

Furthermore, Syria is not a neo-colony of Russia, nor is Assad a puppet of Russia. The Syrian state came to power from a national democratic uprising, not Russian maneuvering. In 2010, one year before the outbreak of war, Syria's top four trading partners were the European Union (22.5%), Iraq (13.3%), Saudi Arabia (9%) and China (6.9%), while Russia was a distant ninth at 3%. Although Russian investments have become more consequential in recent years, this is the product of crippling international sanctions imposed on Syria by Western imperialism.

The Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union, and we should avoid the mistake of thinking that its motives and aspirations are genuinely anti-imperialist. Nevertheless, Russia's intervention in Syria strengthens the camp of resistance to imperialism, Zionism and reaction. By enhancing the position of the Syrian government, which is a key player in the camp of resistance, Russia actually weakens U.S. imperialism and its partners.

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

[PikSmeet]

Bah, national interest, how reactionary! I don't take sides in this conflict as no one is on the side of the working class. They can all go to hell. Just another capitalist war.

[Armchair Partisan]

The Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union, and we should avoid the mistake of thinking that its motives and aspirations are genuinely anti-imperialist. Nevertheless, Russia's intervention in Syria strengthens the camp of resistance to imperialism, Zionism and reaction. By enhancing the position of the Syrian government, which is a key player in the camp of resistance, Russia actually weakens U.S. imperialism and its partners.

We should also avoid the mistake of thinking that the weakening of one particular imperialism is a gain for the working class movement (as opposed to just a gain for another imperialism).

Also:


Iran's national democratic revolution [...] in 1979

Combined with you calling the Shiite sectarian Houthis "national democratic" as well... one doesn't need to be very progressive to earn the moniker of "national democratic" from you, do they?

[PikSmeet]

We should also avoid the mistake of thinking that the weakening of one particular imperialism is a gain for the working class movement (as opposed to just a gain for another imperialism).

So, what the OP is saying is that Russia's intervention both strengthens and weakens imperalism...confused, you will be!

[Guardia Rossa]

Russia became a capitalist country in 1991 when a counterrevolution led by Boris Yeltsin overthrew socialism.

*Sigh*

I'd say fuck all sides in this war, the sooner there is any form of peace the better, this way perhaps we can switch the struggle from political to social, to Klassenkampf.

[o well this is ok I guess]

We should also avoid the mistake of thinking that the weakening of one particular imperialism is a gain for the working class movement (as opposed to just a gain for another imperialism).

Also:



Combined with you calling the Shiite sectarian Houthis "national democratic" as well... one doesn't need to be very progressive to earn the moniker of "national democratic" from you, do they? Don't forget the bit where the Syrians are said to have supported the "national democratic" forces in Lebanon in 1982, which were apparently the maronites and not the PLO, and were also great for having supported the PLO for the periods of time they weren't straight up bombing them.

[PikSmeet]

Next they'll be saying that Syria, if it could get away with it, would be an imperalist nation and that the Ba'ath party is socialist in name only.;)

[ckaihatsu]

We should also avoid the mistake of thinking that the weakening of one particular imperialism is a gain for the working class movement (as opposed to just a gain for another imperialism).


'Imperialism' implies the conquering and subjugation of colony-states, a condition that simply *doesn't apply* to all major countries -- it's the *Western* countries that have this hegemonic (economic) control, but not second-tier powers like Russia, Iran, and Syria.

We should avoid the mistake of thinking that the status quo of predominant imperialist hegemony is preferable for the working class, when the bourgeois geopolitical situation could instead potentially be *multipolar* and without warfare.





Also:





Iran's national democratic revolution [...] in 1979





Combined with you calling the Shiite sectarian Houthis "national democratic" as well... one doesn't need to be very progressive to earn the moniker of "national democratic" from you, do they?


Again you're being ultra-left -- it's too facile to blithely dismiss the overthrow of the U.S.-backed Shah, even if his replacement happened to be one of independent clerical sectarianism.

And, likewise, if the Houthis happen to be fighting nationalist Yemen and its ally Saudi Arabia, then that's decisively in the 'plus' column, for the fact of its being anti-adventurist / anti-imperialist.





Armed strength[edit]

Situation in March 2012

Saudi and former Yemeni officials have claimed that the Houthis have received significant support from Iran in the form of weapons, money and training since 2004, while Houthi leadership denies having received weapons or financial support from Iran.[7][91] Also, Tehran denied the allegation of Houthis arm support by Iran.[92] A December 2009 cable between Sanaa and various intelligence agencies disseminated by WikiLeaks states that US State Dept. analysts believed the Houthis obtained weapons from the Yemeni black market and corrupt members of the Republican Guard.[83] On the edition of 8 April 2015 of PBS Newshour, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the US knew Iran was providing military support to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, adding that Washington "is not going to stand by while the region is destabilized".[93]

Despite being less in numbers and equipment than the Saudi-led coalition, Ansar Allah managed to inflict heavy losses and destroy dozens of invading vehicles in the city of Ma'rib on 14 September 2015.[94] In addition, Ansar Allah managed to capture a Saudi soldier, Ibrahim Araj Mohammad Hakami whose confession was broadcast on Ansar Allah news channel Al-Masirah TV.[95][96][97]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis#Armed_strength


---





Don't forget the bit where the Syrians are said to have supported the "national democratic" forces in Lebanon in 1982, which were apparently the maronites and not the PLO, and were also great for having supported the PLO for the periods of time they weren't straight up bombing them.


This just isn't even factually accurate.





The Siege[edit]

The ring around Beirut was closed by 13 June 1982, 7 days after the start of Israeli invasion to Lebanon. PLO and part of Syrian forces were isolated in the city.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Beirut#The_Siege

[o well this is ok I guess]

This just isn't even factually accurate. You're right, I'm mixing dates, my bad. The time in which Syrians were having a go at the PLO for the sake of the Maronites was June of 1976.

[PikSmeet]

Plus column, what upper ****!

The only entry in the plus column would be are they "fighting" to replace capitalism with socialism. If not, then move on. They are not out friends. If they are fighting to replace foreign capitalists with home grown ones then they are no friends of the working classes.

[Gepetto]

Also:



Combined with you calling the Shiite sectarian Houthis "national democratic" as well... one doesn't need to be very progressive to earn the moniker of "national democratic" from you, do they?
Isn't it funny that Sparts got banned for "Islamo-fascism" (even though none of them said they agree with ICL-FI's military support for ISIS) but people who are truly in bed with mullahs and brutal theocratic regimes are allowed?

[PikSmeet]

Isn't it funny that Sparts got banned for "Islamo-fascism" (even though none of them said they agree with ICL-FI's military support for ISIS) but people who are truly in bed with mullahs and brutal theocratic regimes are allowed?

Because it's acceptable for them, to live in the West and be anti-west, yet as for the countries and regimes they support, we know they'd be the first against the wall!

[ckaihatsu]

Plus column, what upper ****!

The only entry in the plus column would be are they "fighting" to replace capitalism with socialism. If not, then move on. They are not out friends. If they are fighting to replace foreign capitalists with home grown ones then they are no friends of the working classes.


Correct, and I don't disagree -- I'm not *advocating* any politics that sides with *any* faction of capital.





Isn't it funny that Sparts got banned for "Islamo-fascism" (even though none of them said they agree with ICL-FI's military support for ISIS) but people who are truly in bed with mullahs and brutal theocratic regimes are allowed?


This is an important, related point -- there *is* a distinction to be made between the nascent, sheerly-theocratic Islamic State, and Iran, which continues to be a relatively advanced nation-state and economy, albeit Islamist.




Other countries[edit]

In the Mideast and Muslim world, particularly in its early years, it triggered enormous enthusiasm and redoubled opposition to western intervention and influence. Islamist insurgents rose in Saudi Arabia (1979), Egypt (1981), Syria (1982), and Lebanon (1983).[243]

Although ultimately only the Lebanese Islamists succeeded, other activities have had more long-term impact. The Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa calling for the killing of Indian-born British citizen Salman Rushdie had international impact. The Islamic revolutionary government itself is credited with helping establish Hezbollah in Lebanon[244] and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

On the other side of the ledger, at least one observer argues that despite great effort and expense the only countries outside Iran the revolution had a "measure of lasting influence" on are Lebanon and Iraq.[245] Others claim the devastating Iran–Iraq War "mortally wounded ... the ideal of spreading the Islamic revolution,"[161] or that the Islamic Republic's pursuit of an ideological rather than a "nationalist, pragmatic" foreign policy has weakened Iran's "place as a great regional power".[246]

Domestic[edit]

Internally, the revolution has brought a broadening of education and health care for the poor, and particularly governmental promotion of Islam, and the elimination of secularism and American influence in government. Fewer changes have occurred in terms of political freedom, governmental honesty and efficiency, economic equality and self-sufficiency, or even popular religious devotion.[247][248] Opinion polls and observers report widespread dissatisfaction, including a "rift" between the revolutionary generation and younger Iranians who find it "impossible to understand what their parents were so passionate about."[249]

Human development[edit]

Literacy has continued to increase under the Islamic Republic which uses Islamic principles.[250][251] By 2002, illiteracy rates dropped by more than half.[252][253] Maternal and infant mortality rates have also been cut significantly.[254] Population growth was first encouraged, but discouraged after 1988.[255] Overall, Iran's Human development Index rating has climbed significantly from 0.569 in 1980 to 0.732 in 2002, on par with neighbour Turkey.[256][257] Iran has since fallen 8 spots below Turkey in the latest HDI however.[258]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Other_countries


Again, my position is that the world's working class does *not* benefit from either hegemonic one-empire imperialism (the U.S.), *or* from international world war.

If hegemonic control can be *checked*, with worldwide political involvement -- as we saw against the U.S.'s intervention in Iraq, in 2003, and as we saw in 2013 in support of Syria against an imminent attack by NATO -- then those *specific* anti-imperialist policies *should* be supported, unreservedly.





International

Main articles: International reactions to the 2013 Ghouta attacks, Agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons and US–Russia peace proposals on Syria

The international community condemned the attacks. United States President Barack Obama said the US military should strike targets in Syria to retaliate for the government's purported use of chemical weapons, a proposal publicly supported by French President François Hollande, but condemned by Russia and Iran.[231][232] The Arab League stated it would support military action against Syria in the event of UN support, though member states Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Tunisia opposed it.[233]

At the end of August, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom voted against military intervention in Syria.[234] In early September, the United States Congress began debating a proposed authorisation to use military force, although votes on the resolution were indefinitely postponed amid opposition from many legislators[235] and tentative agreement between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin on an alternative proposal, under which Syria would declare and surrender its chemical weapons to be destroyed under international supervision.[236]

In contrast to the positions of their governments, polls in early September indicated that most people in the US, UK, Germany and France opposed military intervention in Syria.[237][238][239][240][241] One poll indicated that 50% of Americans could support military intervention with cruise missiles only, "meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks."[242] In a survey of American military personnel, around 75% said they opposed air strikes on Syria, with 80% saying an attack would not be "in the U.S. national interest".[243] Meanwhile, a Russian poll suggested that most Russians supported neither side in the conflict, with less than 10% saying they supported Assad.[244]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack#International


Finally, for the sake of illustration, I'll put it this way: Would we ever ape the *economic nationalist* position that ceaselessly calls for 'bipartisanship' in governmental politics -- ?

In other words the following two qualitative pairs are comparable as an analogy: 'bipartisan' is to 'national' as 'hegemonic' is to 'international'.

[Antiochus]

Ugh, lets get something very obvious straight: The Shah of Iran was an asshole and when he was overthrown by (originally) the Tudeh, it was a very positive development. But the mistake of these forces was their alliance with Islamist scum. Scum that took over very quickly.

Iran after 1979 till the present is MUCH WORSE as far as reaction is concerned than the Shah. It should be noted that many of the things that drove Islamists crazy in Iran was NOT the torture, the imprisonments etc... (all of which they perform at a far higher rate); it was pornography being legal, women having equal status to men (de jure anyway) and the "modernization" of the country.

The Islamists of Iran represented the landed elites and the most reactionary forces within Iran (more so than the Shah). It would be as if the Black Hundreds turned on the Tsar because he instituted minor reforms for minorities/women etc...

[ckaihatsu]

Ugh, lets get something very obvious straight: The Shah of Iran was an asshole and when he was overthrown by (originally) the Tudeh, it was a very positive development. But the mistake of these forces was their alliance with Islamist scum. Scum that took over very quickly.

Iran after 1979 till the present is MUCH WORSE as far as reaction is concerned than the Shah. It should be noted that many of the things that drove Islamists crazy in Iran was NOT the torture, the imprisonments etc... (all of which they perform at a far higher rate); it was pornography being legal, women having equal status to men (de jure anyway) and the "modernization" of the country.

The Islamists of Iran represented the landed elites and the most reactionary forces within Iran (more so than the Shah). It would be as if the Black Hundreds turned on the Tsar because he instituted minor reforms for minorities/women etc...


Okay.

And how are things *today* in Iran, besides what the average person might know offhand -- ? I ask this, partly to mean that some decades have passed since 1979 and much has changed there, in terms of culture and geopolitics.

The point being that, again, Iran can't be readily compared as comparable to ISIS or the Islamic State.

[Antiochus]

Well we can look at a few of the uncontested things (things the Iranian government claims or stipulates itself). In modern Iran it is illegal for women to not wear the veil in public. Homosexuals supposedly do not exist in Iran (they are executed if 'caught'. Though I personally do not know the extent of these executions).

And a few years back Ahmadinejad, who in many social democrat forums and papers was lauded as an anti-imperialist, hosted a holocaust-denial conference. And no, Iran cannot be compared to ISIS, I never said otherwise. Nevertheless, Iran is only slightly less reactionary than SA. Both of these ideological monstrosities competing for their place as some sort of Islamist example for the rest of the world.

[hexaune]

Well we can look at a few of the uncontested things (things the Iranian government claims or stipulates itself). In modern Iran it is illegal for women to not wear the veil in public. Homosexuals supposedly do not exist in Iran (they are executed if 'caught'. Though I personally do not know the extent of these executions).

And a few years back Ahmadinejad, who in many social democrat forums and papers was lauded as an anti-imperialist, hosted a holocaust-denial conference. And no, Iran cannot be compared to ISIS, I never said otherwise. Nevertheless, Iran is only slightly less reactionary than SA. Both of these ideological monstrosities competing for their place as some sort of Islamist example for the rest of the world.

With regards to homosexuality in Iran, there is also a policy to ''encourage'' homosexuals into gender reassignment to ''turn them straight'' which is disgusting and seriously disturbing!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I can't believe i've spent even 5 minutes of my life reading such a poorly written piece of shit. Where to start with the bullshit and inaccuracy?

Firstly, apparently being Islamic and patriotic are now criteria of opposition to imperialism? I was under the impression that socialists do not depend on the opium of the masses nor national pride to oppose capital in all its forms, including its imperial form.

Secondly, apparently Syria is a pole of resistance to neo-liberalism, yet the article also goes on to point out that Syria's biggest trading partner, with whom it conducts 22.5% of its trade is....the EU, the mighty behemoth of latter-day capitalism itself. So which is it - is Syria some great 'national democratic' government that is steadfastly opposing imperialism and neo-liberalism...or is it just another country that has decided that, as well as having the sort of democracy where father is succeeded by son, it needs to have the sort of resistance to neo-liberalism that involves...trading with the neo-liberals??

I'm also not sure in what way Zionism is relevant to the civil war in Syria. Seems like some people on the left can't help but mention Zionism wherever they take their shitty brand of 'anti-imperialism'. Sadly, all this means is that the line between genuine opposition to the actions of the Israeli state, and something that is a little murkier and suspiciously anti-anything Israeli or Jewish is blurred to the extent that it makes genuine anti-Israel actions like BDS difficult to succeed.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I can't believe i've spent even 5 minutes of my life reading such a poorly written piece of shit. Where to start with the bullshit and inaccuracy?

Firstly, apparently being Islamic and patriotic are now criteria of opposition to imperialism? I was under the impression that socialists do not depend on the opium of the masses nor national pride to oppose capital in all its forms, including its imperial form.

Secondly, apparently Syria is a pole of resistance to neo-liberalism, yet the article also goes on to point out that Syria's biggest trading partner, with whom it conducts 22.5% of its trade is....the EU, the mighty behemoth of latter-day capitalism itself. So which is it - is Syria some great 'national democratic' government that is steadfastly opposing imperialism and neo-liberalism...or is it just another country that has decided that, as well as having the sort of democracy where father is succeeded by son, it needs to have the sort of resistance to neo-liberalism that involves...trading with the neo-liberals??

I'm also not sure in what way Zionism is relevant to the civil war in Syria. Seems like some people on the left can't help but mention Zionism wherever they take their shitty brand of 'anti-imperialism'. Sadly, all this means is that the line between genuine opposition to the actions of the Israeli state, and something that is a little murkier and suspiciously anti-anything Israeli or Jewish is blurred to the extent that it makes genuine anti-Israel actions like BDS difficult to succeed. Syria was seen as one of the heavier counterweights to Israeli power in the region after it turned out Egypt wasn't too useful in that position. I suppose the argument is that removing Syria as a regional power increases Israel's share of clout. Insofar as the left has no end of conspiracy theorists, it's probably figured that the whole thing is a CIA plot or something of the like in order to protect Israel.

[PikSmeet]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35586886

Karl Marx once said that socialists/communists disdain from telling lies.
As no side is owning up to this and blaming the others, well at least one of them is lying. So, when the liar(s) are caught out I hope their socialist support melts away. As the last thing a socialist wants to do is support a pack of lying, murdering b*****ds

[Guardia Rossa]

Isn't it funny that Sparts got banned for "Islamo-fascism" (even though none of them said they agree with ICL-FI's military support for ISIS) but people who are truly in bed with mullahs and brutal theocratic regimes are allowed?

As if a Fascist regime that toasts people and post it on Youtube is comparable to some conservative dictatorship. It's like comparing Hindenburg to Hitler. Or Cruz to Trump.

[rev_com]

Russia is a capitalist country perhaps more capitalist than the US of A

[PikSmeet]

Russia is a capitalist country perhaps more capitalist than the US of A

Yep and Russian boots, for certain sections of the left, are made for licking.

[Burzhuin]

*Sigh*

I'd say fuck all sides in this war, the sooner there is any form of peace the better, this way perhaps we can switch the struggle from political to social, to Klassenkampf.
I think you would agree that if the current Ba'ath government remains in power it would be better off for Syrian Proletariat. Because about ISIS alternative I do not even want to think.

[PikSmeet]

I think you would agree that if the current Ba'ath government remains in power it would be better off for Syrian Proletariat. Because about ISIS alternative I do not even want to think.

The authoritarian Ba'ath government that used to torture it's own citizens & administer Syrian capitalism?

[Burzhuin]

The authoritarian Ba'ath government that used to torture it's own citizens & administer Syrian capitalism?
Would you be so kind and give me example of the Government that NEVER used to torture its own citizens? In the USA police is torturing suspects. I hope you got my point.

Do you like it or not but many political parties (even two Communist parties) are legal and participate in the country political life. Should I describe what happen if ISIS takes over?

[Lord Testicles]

Should I describe what happen if ISIS takes over?

Don't bother you're responding to a troll.

[Burzhuin]

Don't bother you're responding to a troll.
I am writing not for trolls, I am sure we have plenty here, but for those who ABLE to think.

[PikSmeet]

I am writing not for trolls, I am sure we have plenty here, but for those who ABLE to think.

Lets hope you have plenty of those too.

[ckaihatsu]

I think you would agree that if the current Ba'ath government remains in power it would be better off for Syrian Proletariat. Because about ISIS alternative I do not even want to think.





The authoritarian Ba'ath government that used to torture it's own citizens & administer Syrian capitalism?


As others are noting there *are no* 'perfect' options here -- we're talking about relative differences within the machinations of militarized national-capitalist factional rivalries and warfare.

To *ignore* these matters of geopolitics completely would be *abstentionist* and ultra-left, while moving to one or the other country and changing one's official nationality to fight for one side or the other would be false consciousness, obviously.

[PikSmeet]

As others are noting there *are no* 'perfect' options here -- we're talking about relative differences within the machinations of militarized national-capitalist factional rivalries and warfare.

To *ignore* these matters of geopolitics completely would be *abstentionist* and ultra-left, while moving to one or the other country and changing one's official nationality to fight for one side or the other would be false consciousness, obviously.

So the simply answer is that we don't give support to any of the sides fighting here.

[ckaihatsu]

So the simply answer is that we don't give support to any of the sides fighting here.


Yes and no -- *simply*, there should be no 'flag-waving' from any revolutionary, since nationalist interests are not working-class / proletarian interests.

But strict abstentionism isn't appropriate either since the world's working class can't just *ignore* international warfare -- though no one should be politically or physically supporting sides in imperialist / adventurist wars -- warfare, as in the two world wars of the 20th century, destroys and maims millions of working class lives. The working class is better-off if national interests *don't* go to war than if they do.

So, as Burzuin noted, it's absolutely appropriate to be *anti-ISIS*, in whatever regard -- even with the fact that Western powers have officially lined up against it as well -- because it's thoroughly reactionary and fundamentalist.

Here's from a similar current thread:





On social media, I am seeing the remaining Stalinist parties of Syria welcoming the Russian occupation on a "national" basis because their state as one oppressed by imperialism formally welcomed the occupation. So I am wondering what affects farther western imperialist intervention will have on the workers movement in Syria. I am also wondering how Russia's presence in the region is anymore legitimate beyond Stalinist logic.





'[L]egitimate' would not come from any of us, because revolutionaries do *not* consider any of these geopolitical machinations to *be* legitimate. (Hence no flag-waving.)

Taking your presentation at face-value and without any fact-checking, I'll note that this stated action of *alliance* could not be termed an 'occupation', nor should any purportedly revolutionary ('Stalinist') parties be *welcoming* another bourgeois-national force, since that's simply inappropriate.

From the revolutionary standpoint a tentative, united-front 'alliance' with other-national forces (or intra-national forces, for that matter) would just be a *tactic*, and nothing more.

And:




[T]here are objectively *levels of involvement* at play, which can be structured as 'politics - strategies - tactics'. Just because we may be against the NATO bombing of Syria (and Libya, for that matter), that doesn't mean that we're automatically all waving flags for one nation-state or another. (To spell-it-out, it would be a *strategy* to oppose imperialist warfare against a particular country, but that doesn't make that targeted country an *imperialist* one itself, nor does it mean that revolutionaries are siding with nationalist politics *in general*.)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/saudi-arabia-turkey-t195312/index.html

[PikSmeet]

Yes and no -- *simply*, there should be no 'flag-waving' from any revolutionary, since nationalist interests are not working-class / proletarian interests.

But strict abstentionism isn't appropriate either since the world's working class can't just *ignore* international warfare -- though no one should be politically or physically supporting sides in imperialist / adventurist wars -- warfare, as in the two world wars of the 20th century, destroys and maims millions of working class lives. The working class is better-off if national interests *don't* go to war than if they do.

So, as Burzuin noted, it's absolutely appropriate to be *anti-ISIS*, in whatever regard -- even with the fact that Western powers have officially lined up against it as well -- because it's thoroughly reactionary and fundamentalist.

Here's from a similar current thread:







And:



http://www.revleft.com/vb/saudi-arabia-turkey-t195312/index.html


I do understand the above raised points and have some sympathy, I did ask the party I was a member of what we should do and the answer I got back was all we can is to not take sides and to keep stating the need for socialism.
That answer I accept is not satisfactory but I am still not sure what side, if any, that should be supported in Syria. I fully support the ceasefire but hope everyone does.

[ckaihatsu]

I do understand the above raised points and have some sympathy, I did ask the party I was a member of what we should do and the answer I got back was all we can is to not take sides and to keep stating the need for socialism.
That answer I accept is not satisfactory but I am still not sure what side, if any, that should be supported in Syria. I fully support the ceasefire but hope everyone does.


Of course we remain revolutionaries and point out the world's objective need for socialism -- it's *especially* relevant during times when countries are war-mongering and looking for recruits from the working class to do their battlefield fighting *for* them.

If this main line, though, feels too leftist-separatist, given existing geopolitics, it's certainly understandable -- again, the tactic would be 'united front', as against ISIS.

Here are a couple of diagrams to illustrate the relative left-right positioning of politics-strategies-tactics:


[21] Ideologies & Operations

http://s6.postimg.org/7bv0qzsvl/21_Ideologies_Operations.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/x7era6up9/full/)


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)

[Burzhuin]

It is too bad there was no Internet in 1936-1945. I imagine how a lot of so called "revolutionary" would not support antifascist fighting since it is not fighting for socialism, world revolution, liberation of proletariat, (did I miss anything)?

[PikSmeet]

It is too bad there was no Internet in 1936-1945. I imagine how a lot of so called "revolutionary" would not support antifascist fighting since it is not fighting for socialism, world revolution, liberation of proletariat, (did I miss anything)?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain#War

Been done mate.

Before anyone asks, no I'm not a member.

[Burzhuin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain#War

Been done mate.

Before anyone asks, no I'm not a member.

Just proved my point.

[PikSmeet]

Just proved my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

You denounce this too?

[Burzhuin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

You denounce this too?

Denounce what? Fact of the Pact? No, I would not. But I will tell you what. In situation when you have to chose between two evils: War with all capitalist' countries right now (in 1939) or in future war with fascist Germany when capitalist world would be split. I am whole heartedly support the latter.

[PikSmeet]

Denounce what? Fact of the Pact? No, I would not. But I will tell you what. In situation when you have to chose between two evils: War with all capitalist' countries right now (in 1939) or in future war with fascist Germany when capitalist world would be split. I am whole heartedly support the latter.

Using that argument you would have supported appeasement.

As Neville Chamberlain said he only appeased Hitler as Britain was not strong enough at the time, to defeat Germany.

[Burzhuin]

Your comparison is incorrect. England and USSR were in VERY different situations. And, let me refresh your memory, USSR was the ONLY country offered its help to Czechoslovakia. Should I remind you WHO strongly advised Prague not to accept USSR' help?

[cyu]

I thought the part about dissent and disobedience from the Joint Chiefs interesting, and not something I heard before. That's not just different people trying to cover their @$$, is it?

http://www.blacklistednews.com/U.S._Supplies_ISIS_through_Turkey/49557/0/38/38/Y/M.html

The Turkish Government is trying to prevent the public from knowing that Turkey has been serving as the transit-route by which the U.S. government and its allied Arab oil monarchies (especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar) have been supplying foreign jihadists and weapons (largely U.S. but paid for with Saudi funds) into Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad.


One U.S. ally was Al Qaeda in Syria, known in Syria as Al Nusra, (Nusra and Erdoğan wanted to provide the excuse that Obama had set... as his “red line” to overthrow Assad — a chemical-weapons attack in Syria.)


From the beginning, the joint chiefs had been sceptical of the administration’s argument that it had the facts to back up its belief in Assad’s guilt. ‘There was no way they thought Syria would use nerve gas at that stage, because Assad was winning the war’

[The Intransigent Faction]

So, what are the implications, going forward, for Russia's apparent withdrawal? I doubt it signifies a thaw in relations between the U.S. and Russian governments, but it's hard to say what this will mean for Assad, or for the position of ISIS and other groups in Syria.

[hexaune]

So, what are the implications, going forward, for Russia's apparent withdrawal? I doubt it signifies a thaw in relations between the U.S. and Russian governments, but it's hard to say what this will mean for Assad, or for the position of ISIS and other groups in Syria.

The general consensus seems to be that they have strengthened Assad's hand enough for him to have an influential role at the negotiating table, so that he can play a part in shaping Syria (in Russia's favour) and any future constitution. By pulling out now, he will have to resign in the mid term, which should remove a major bottleneck in the discussions as they probably don't want to be bogged down in a never ending war, which would probably be the scenario if they tried to put him back in long term control of the country.

Its hard to say for sure and they seriously blindsided ''the west'' with their withdrawal now, the above scenario does seem to make sense however and would be a win win for Russia.