Saudi Arabia, Turkey prepare for ground invasion of Syria

[ckaihatsu]

Saudi Arabia, Turkey prepare for ground invasion of Syria

Imperialist-backed

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

By staff

The U.S. and its Mideast regional partners are escalating their aggression against Syria, threatening to trigger broader war in the region and beyond.

On Feb. 11, Saudi Arabia announced that it would move troops, artillery and fighter jets to the Incirlik military base in southern Turkey. At Incirlik, Saudi forces join U.S. Air Force and Turkish Air Force troops, who jointly operate out of the base. According to the announcement, Saudi Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman alluded to a possible ground invasion of Syria.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu confirmed the possibility of a joint Saudi-Turkey invasion in an interview on Feb. 14. On the same day, the Syrian government confirmed that Turkish forces had begun shelling both civilian and military targets in northern Syria.

According to the Syrian government, Turkey's shelling has targeted both Syrian Arab Army positions and Kurdish forces. This aggressive move by Saudi Arabia provoked outrage from Russia and Iran, both supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's national democratic government. Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev warned that a ground invasion of Syria could lead to “permanent war” and vowed to continue supporting the ongoing peace negotiations taking place in Munich. Similarly, Iran pledged to oppose any offensive measures against Syria. Iranian Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri said they “will take necessary actions in due time” to not “let the situation in Syria to go forward the way rebel countries [the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Turkey] want.”

According to Saudi officials, an invasion of Syria would aim at toppling Assad - the main goal of the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Turkey since the outbreak of war in Syria five years ago. They also identified the containment of the so called Islamic State (IS) insurgency, which controls some territory in Syria and Iraq, as an objective.

Despite its rhetoric, the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Turkey are not seriously interested in defeating IS or the other reactionary paramilitary groups fighting Assad. IS itself emerged from the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the free-flow of foreign arms to rebel forces in Syria. Instead, they hope to use the spread of IS as justification for direct military intervention against Assad. Speaking to this point, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said last week, “Unless and until there is a change in Syria, Daesh [Islamic State] will not be defeated in Syria, period.”

Saudi Arabia's military threats against Syria come at a time of crisis for the oil-rich monarchy, which is losing regional influence to the growing camp of resistance in the Middle East. In Yemen, Saudi forces launched a brutal assault on the country after the popularly supported Houthi insurgency overthrew the U.S.-Saudi puppet government. The survival of Assad's government in Syria after five years of fighting foreign-backed paramilitary forces also speaks to Saudi Arabia's diminishing power. Amid this crisis, Turkey's ruling class sees an opportunity to fulfill its own expansionist aims, with regime-change in Syria as its first priority.

Anti-war activists must closely watch the events in Syria and oppose any invasion of Syria either by the U.S. or its regional partners, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

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

[AdrianO]

Time to sit back and watch as they screw themselves back to the stone age.
Not like they aren't backwards as it is.

[PikSmeet]

Imperalist backed? Hmm, interesting. Given that there are no imperalist powers left.
Whatever argument used to justify such a term can also be used to those backing the other side(s) in this conflict as every capitalist country would be imperalist, if it could get away with it. But as for a country occupying another country and taking the fat of the land from it, does this happen outside of Tibet?

[Lord Testicles]

But as for a country occupying another country and taking the fat of the land from it, does this happen outside of Tibet?

If it happens in Tibet then it happens everywhere where a nations doesn't have a state. Personally, I don't see what real difference it would make for the people in Tibet if they are ruled from Beijing or Lhasa.

[PikSmeet]

If it happens in Tibet then it happens everywhere where a nations doesn't have a state. Personally, I don't see what real difference it would make for the people in Tibet if they are ruled from Beijing or Lhasa.


Agreed, but are the people who write the drivel in the OP's post seriously expecting us to believe that the nations of the World can be neatly divided into two camps: imperalist and anti-imperalist.

[John Nada]

Time to sit back and watch as they screw themselves back to the stone age.
Not like they aren't backwards as it is.Sit back? If these nations draw SCO and NATO deeper into this, it's done. WWIII.:unsure:

And the Middle East is "backwards" because imperialist nations like the US, Russia, UK, China and France make superprofits keeping it that way for over a hundred years. First as colonies, then neo-colonies.
Imperalist backed? Hmm, interesting. Given that there are no imperalist powers left. Whatever argument used to justify such a term can also be used to those backing the other side(s) in this conflict as every capitalist country would be imperalist, if it could get away with it. But as for a country occupying another country and taking the fat of the land from it, does this happen outside of Tibet?Imperialist powers are still very much around. Just making more flags and drawing lines on the map doesn't mean they ever left "their" colonies. They still indirectly rule through puppet leaders and control over the economy via debt, FDI and trade. It's about de facto economic and sometimes political control over other nations as colonies(direct territorial control), neo-colonies(de jure independence, de facto colonies) or semi-colonies(economic domination but some political autonomy more or less). US and UK's preferred MO anyway, that caught on after WWII.

The article's mistake is claiming Russia and China aren't imperialist and that Syria wasn't already a Russian semi-colony that the US, UK and France(it's former direct colonial overlord) covet. Classic "re-division of the world".

And yes, a lot of the semi-colonies' bourgeoisie would love to be new imperialists in their own right. That seems to be what Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran are fighting for. They broke out from mere semi-colonies to expansionist sub-imperialists and maybe one day imperialists. Semi-colonies with colonies, like a subcontractor or middleperson. Thing is most cannot economically and/or militarily expand out, take over and super-exploit each other equally. Sadly it's unlike Jamaica, Tajikistan or Laos will ever catch up to the US, China or France and become imperialist:(.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Time to sit back and watch as they screw themselves back to the stone age.
Not like they aren't backwards as it is.

Sorry, WTF?
Backward as opposed to whom?
What are you getting at here?

Because it sounds like some some serious chauvinism, but I want to give you some space to clarify before I jump down your throat . . .

[AdrianO]

Sorry, WTF?
Backward as opposed to whom?
What are you getting at here?

Because it sounds like some some serious chauvinism, but I want to give you some space to clarify before I jump down your throat . . .
Well I meant Saudi Arabia and Iran mostly.
What do you want to argue about ?

[PikSmeet]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia

The 19th largest economy in the World is backward? Since when?
Oh and it's all the fault of the West. I thought money flowed into Saudia Arabia, but apparently it's all flowing out to the West.
Because it is a colony of the West?
If you look at the history of colonies, but the late 1940s the economic costs of keeping them outweighed their benefits. That is why Britain got rid of their empire ;)
Now, for those that back Assad, I want you to fill in the blanks.

"Assad must win............................................... ..........................because it will be a victory for the working class"

[Lord Testicles]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia

The 19th largest economy in the World is backward? Since when?


Are you seriously going to argue that Saudi Arabia isn't backwards because it's got the worlds 19th largest economy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6fgPNPIekE)?

[cyu]

Seems to me the ability of a nation to rally their troops, is directly proportional to how much press freedom is restricted in favor of the existing ruling class.

[I guess it follows that if you want to rally the masses towards revolution, it would be suicide to allow capitalists (or any minority class, for that matter) to continue to own / control the media.]

[PikSmeet]

Are you seriously going to argue that Saudi Arabia isn't backwards because it's got the worlds 19th largest economy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6fgPNPIekE)?

Not a bit of it, I was arguing that the West has not retarded it's economic growth. How could they have done this?

[Devrim]

I don't think either a turkey or Saudi are about to invade Syria at all.

Devrim

[PikSmeet]

I don't think either a turkey or Saudi are about to invade Syria at all.

Devrim

So, if that argument was a horse, it would have fallen at the first fence?

[cyu]

From an "average citizen" in Turkey http://rezzanatakol.deviantart.com/journal/idiots-591058144



Unbelievable!

Do you hear the cries of war?
I think that some politicians are absolutely greedy idiots.
Some of them are rubbing their palms, they produces trouble and problems for the benefit.
They are disgusting! Now me nauseous! People are dying the cause ugly political games!
I realize all your games! Detestable politicians have a way to hell!

[Rafiq]

Are you seriously going to argue that Saudi Arabia isn't backwards because it's got the worlds 19th largest economy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6fgPNPIekE)?

The problem, so to speak, is that countries like Saudi Arabia are not 'backwards' in the sense that they've stubbornly clung on to traditions while the modern world marches on. In fact what makes Saudi Arabia uniquely an abomination of the modern world is the fact that it is very much integrated and actively a part of our modern world totality - that is to say, the backwardness that is pervasive in Saudi Arabia is not the vestige of something ancient, it fully answers to, and is completely contextually situated within our modern world totality.

This is to say nothing of Iran, where this is even moreso the case (insofar as unlike Saudi Arabia, the Iranian state can be qualified as Fascist - i.e. actively mobilizes the energies of its proletarian masses so as to dissuade the internal class antagonism, i.e. pursues an 'alternate modernity'). The uniqueness of Saudi Arabia, as well as the gulf countries in general, against Iran is simple. Iran's Islamism constitutes an alternative modernity, insofar as there exists an Iranian mode of production - Iran as a state, while just as dependent on the world totality, represents its own distinct kind of capitalism. Saudi Arabia and the gulf states, conversely, are not pursuing an 'alternative modernity' but instead parasitically, and fully dependent on the machinations of world finance - these countries do not produce any value, so to speak, their wealth comes almost purely from resource-backed financial speculation, while as far as facilitating life itself in these countries, they have huge swaths of enslaved migrant workers. Iran is a distinct geist, which means a revolution in Iran by Iranians is possible. But this is not so for countries like Kuwait - a revolution in Kuwait means the destruction of Kuwait and the usurping of the Kuwaiti nation by foreign migrant workers (whose rage is mobilized by Islamists already).

So the point is rather simple: Saudi Arabia is an abomination, it is a fully modern state, and all of the backwardness is contextually a part of our modern world, reconciled with it. There is no antagonism between 'Saudi traditions' and the rest of the world (as there might be, in say rural Afghanistan). That's what makes it sick.

[Devrim]

So, if that argument was a horse, it would have fallen at the first fence?

It's not an argument it's a statement. We will see what happens.

Devrim

[Yazman]

It's not an argument it's a statement. We will see what happens.

Devrim

Devrim, how come you think they won't invade? Your opinion on Turkish stuff I rate pretty highly so I'd like to know.

Personally I don't think they'll invade either, it just sounds like rhetoric to me.

[LionofTepelenë]

Turkey was tempted to invade Syria back in 2014, that was back when ISIL still wasn't powerful and protests were still occuring. But didn't do it because of international tensions. But now, because of Turkey's shit with Russia, it will most likely not invade unless something drastic occurs.

And that drastic thing is if ISIL supply lines get cut off, see ISIL has been armed by Turkey all along. Turkey's goals are; 1) to eliminate Assad; 2) Suppress and Kurdish resistance (PKK and Rojava); 3) see a pro-western government enters into power. Turkey is using ISIL as a proxy in order to soften Syria up, and will continue until the window is completely shut.

As you see below this post, the arrow indicates the specific window in which Turkish supplies are entering ISIL. Turkey will do anything to maintain this position, as it's the lifeline of ISIL. If this is cut off (Kurdish fighters), then turkey will have to deal with 2 Kurdish nations on its borders.

If that window is cut, then Turkey will invade.

[ckaihatsu]

Given the overall bogging down of the capitalist world economy, this Syria (et al) situation is resembling a kind of 'soft'-World-War-III, or a 'Cold War II'.

I think things would have been much worse by now if it weren't for the contemporary advent of the 'second superpower' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Superpower), and also from the profoundly increased interconnectedness of the contemporary global economy -- nationalistic fervor isn't what it used to be, and the tamped-down world GDP is affecting *all* national economies, across-the-board.

The point here is that the Western powers (NATO) are content to drag their feet regarding ISIS and any regional adventurism on the part of Turkey and Saudi Arabia -- destabilization aids the imperialist cause, while 'settling things' would enable the West's rivals, Syria, Iran, and Russia, to gain time and footing in the context of multipolar geopolitics.

[PikSmeet]

Given the overall bogging down of the capitalist world economy, this Syria (et al) situation is resembling a kind of 'soft'-World-War-III, or a 'Cold War II'.

I think things would have been much worse by now if it weren't for the contemporary advent of the 'second superpower' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Superpower), and also from the profoundly increased interconnectedness of the contemporary global economy -- nationalistic fervor isn't what it used to be, and the tamped-down world GDP is affecting *all* national economies, across-the-board.

The point here is that the Western powers (NATO) are content to drag their feet regarding ISIS and any regional adventurism on the part of Turkey and Saudi Arabia -- destabilization aids the imperialist cause, while 'settling things' would enable the West's rivals, Syria, Iran, and Russia, to gain time and footing in the context of multipolar geopolitics.


Aiding the imperalist cause? Which block? The Western or the Eastern imperalists? Just wish there was a block that was on the side of the working classes.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Well I meant Saudi Arabia and Iran mostly.
What do you want to argue about ?

The rhetoric of backwardness is routinely mobilized by imperialism in defense of its foreign policies, and as a justification for repression at home. It also flies in the face of reality - the "backwardness" of Iran's law is no more than the backwardness of Canada's Indian Act (upon which South African apartheid was modeled). The repression in Saudi Arabia still doesn't bring its incarceration rates anywhere close to those of the United States. That they are articulated in religious rather than liberal terminology doesn't really make much difference when it comes down to the practice. Saudi Arabia's neo-colonial status vis- the United States is maybe "backward" in some sense - but this is a statement about global capitalism generally . . .

[ckaihatsu]

Aiding the imperalist cause? Which block? The Western or the Eastern imperalists? Just wish there was a block that was on the side of the working classes.


At no point am I saying 'aid the imperialist cause' -- those are *your* words, not mine.

I was describing the situation *empirically*, for whatever that's worth.

[AdrianO]

The rhetoric of backwardness is routinely mobilized by imperialism in defense of its foreign policies, and as a justification for repression at home. It also flies in the face of reality - the "backwardness" of Iran's law is no more than the backwardness of Canada's Indian Act (upon which South African apartheid was modeled). The repression in Saudi Arabia still doesn't bring its incarceration rates anywhere close to those of the United States. That they are articulated in religious rather than liberal terminology doesn't really make much difference when out comes down to the practice. Saudi Arabia's neo-colonial status vis- the United States is maybe "backward" in some sense - but this is a statement about global capitalism generally . . .
It is the fact of religious context that makes them backwards, hell even some parts of the US are just as backwards.
Religion just like capitalism, is another shroud of oppression that some countries have managed to get rid of for the most part. While others like the Saudis are still in the Middle Ages. Take away their modern American toys and what are you left with?
A monarchy that rules with religion on its side. They even have serfs in the form of immigrant workers who are routinely tortured and raped and paid next to nothing. How is that any different from feudal Europe?

[PikSmeet]

At no point am I saying 'aid the imperialist cause' -- those are *your* words, not mine.

I was describing the situation *empirically*, for whatever that's worth.

I'm confused, are you saying that one side is imperalist and the other isn't? Though last time I checked there were at least 4 sides to this war.

[John Nada]

I'm confused, are you saying that one side is imperalist and the other isn't? Though last time I checked there were at least 4 sides to this war.Imperialism is not militarism, expansionism or even colonialism alone[semi-colonies can have (neo)colonies]. The direct colonialism and interventionism might be the more overt and dramatic parts of it, but it's the daily grind of economic superexploitaiton that's the worst part.

It's not anyone exercising sovereign power under capitalism. It's monopoly capitalism at its highest stage:
If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.
(...)we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

Most nations do not have highly developed and prominent monopolies, cartels and trusts that you'd see in the US(Wall Street, big oil, big pharma, big banks, ect.). They do not form monopolistic associations and divide the world into "their own" sphere of influence. A lot of the state bureaucracies, monopolies and comprador-bourgeoisie(local capitalist puppets) in the Third-World are more "middlepeople" for imperialist-capitalists. They depend heavily on exporting commodities to imperialist nations and not exporting capital.

Russia may fit Lenin's 5 characteristics of an imperialist nation(I think it does, but this is disputed), but Syria and even Saudi Arabia and Iran do not. These nations are semi-colonies of imperialists, latter two are an intermediate type between semi-colony and imperialists, either refered to as expasionist semi-colonies or sub-imperialists.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm confused, are you saying that one side is imperalist and the other isn't? Though last time I checked there were at least 4 sides to this war.


I think the 'everyone's an imperialist', 'Chinese checkers' framework is the wrong one to use when looking at 'hotspot' situations in geopolitics, like the current one in the Middle East.


http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/chinese-checkers-2.jpg


I'll reiterate my statement from the other thread:





[M]y 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.


So this is to say that there 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*.)

Also, again:





'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.

[PikSmeet]

I'm astonished at the naivety on display here. Every side is either imperalist or has ambitions to be one. Neither side is for the working class. One side loses ground and that creates a vacuum that will be filled by another capitalist power. The only losers in this are the working class. Sorry but this conflict is not a game of Chinese checkers, its disgusting and revolting and none of us should take sides. It's workers of the World unite, not workers of the World slaughter each other.

[cyu]

At the risk of Godwinning myself, reminds me a bit of taking sides when Nazi Germany invaded their pro-capitalist neighbors. Do we hope the lesser of two evils wins out in the end? People with different perspectives might say different sides are the lesser of the evils. But it is indeed true that war is a good time to remind ourselves which side we're really on - not the side of any ruling class.

'I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.'

[G4b3n]

Given the overall bogging down of the capitalist world economy, this Syria (et al) situation is resembling a kind of 'soft'-World-War-III, or a 'Cold War II'.

I think things would have been much worse by now if it weren't for the contemporary advent of the 'second superpower' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Superpower), and also from the profoundly increased interconnectedness of the contemporary global economy -- nationalistic fervor isn't what it used to be, and the tamped-down world GDP is affecting *all* national economies, across-the-board.

The point here is that the Western powers (NATO) are content to drag their feet regarding ISIS and any regional adventurism on the part of Turkey and Saudi Arabia -- destabilization aids the imperialist cause, while 'settling things' would enable the West's rivals, Syria, Iran, and Russia, to gain time and footing in the context of multipolar geopolitics.


I had a professor argue to me the other day that the Cold War, in terms of western and eastern spheres of influence has been a thing since the 1890s and we are still engaging in it, and the ideological shifts are largely inconsequential because we ought to look at the material shifts. It was a pretty convincing argument.

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.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm astonished at the naivety on display here. Every side is either imperalist or has ambitions to be one.


This is the crux of the disagreement / misunderstanding -- threads of discussion here from years ago (circa 2012-2013) revolved around whether Syria should be 'defended', with the contrarian opinion saying the same as you now, that considerations of such geopolitical particulars amount to a coin-flip.

I can only repeat that your position is *ultra-left* in the context of the real-world situation, whether we like what's transpiring or not. I'm all for the workers of the world mobilizing immediately, to instantly usurp all of this national-capital factionalism, but if the circumstances in front of us oblige and enable us to be anti-imperialist in the direction of opposing the Western / NATO / U.S. powers, then that would be the correct *specific* position, to the actual situation.

Again, no flag-waving, no changing of politics, just a sober acknowledgement of conditions that are not of our choosing, with an appropriate political response.





Neither side is for the working class. One side loses ground and that creates a vacuum that will be filled by another capitalist power. The only losers in this are the working class.


Overall I agree with this part, but at the same time you're being too general, blithe, and dismissive of particulars, because what the militaristic capitalist powers do -- warfare -- affects working class people on the ground.





Sorry but this conflict is not a game of Chinese checkers,


That's what I said:





[The] 'Chinese checkers' framework is the wrong one


---





its disgusting and revolting and none of us should take sides. It's workers of the World unite, not workers of the World slaughter each other.


Correct -- you may want to revisit my stated position from post #27:





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.


---





At the risk of Godwinning myself, reminds me a bit of taking sides when Nazi Germany invaded their pro-capitalist neighbors. Do we hope the lesser of two evils wins out in the end? People with different perspectives might say different sides are the lesser of the evils. But it is indeed true that war is a good time to remind ourselves which side we're really on - not the side of any ruling class.

'I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.'


I welcome your mentioning of that particular dramatic / horrific instance from history -- people have made parallels from historical fascism to the present-day politics of ISIS, and I'll maintain that *both* instances illustrate that qualitative *distinctions* among the world powers have to be made, despite our general revolutionary politics.

Please note that this kind of distinction has become RevLeft board policy:





Policy on endorsement of Daesh, aka the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL etc

This announcement is to clarify the Revleft.com policy of no platform for fascism, which includes a strict prohibition of any form of expressed support for or endorsement of the fascist terrorist organization Daesh, aka the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL etc on our forums.

Any such sentiment expressed on RevLeft, (whether it be from an individual or that expressed by any group), be it an outright endorsement of Daesh ideology or the slightest apologism for the organizations actions for any reason, (including 'anti-imperialism'), will lead to an instant and permanent banning of the user in question regardless of their stated political ideology or motives.




The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Madamme Ovaries For This Useful Post:

Antiochus, Asero, Aslan, blake 3:17, bricolage, ChangeAndChance, ckaihatsu, CyM, DDR, dodger, Hit The North, Juan Moreno, Q, RedAnarchist, Rudolf, Sentinel

http://www.revleft.com/vb/policy-endorsement-daesh-t194996/index.html


---





I had a professor argue to me the other day that the Cold War, in terms of western and eastern spheres of influence has been a thing since the 1890s and we are still engaging in it, and the ideological shifts are largely inconsequential because we ought to look at the material shifts. It was a pretty convincing argument.


The 'Cold War' term actually refers to a post-inter-imperialist-rivalry era after World War II, at which time the global hierarchy of bourgeois national powers had been firmly established, with the Allies on top.

The Cold War was more about the showdown between the 'First World' and the 'Second World', each vying for the approval of the 'Third World'.

I can invoke the 'Cold War II' term (post #20), because here we have an echo of the postwar Cold War, now centering around Syria, with neocolonialism on the rise overall from the imperialists, and now also China.





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.


This is another good topic raised, besides cyu's -- 'legitimate' 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.

[ckaihatsu]

'Cold War II'


http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news

http://www.legitgov.org/US-test-fire-ICBM-amid-strategic-tensions-Russia-North-Korea

U.S. to test-fire ICBM amid strategic tensions with Russia, North Korea

February 26, 2016 by legitgov

U.S. to test-fire ICBM amid strategic tensions with Russia, North Korea --Tests have been conducted at least 15 times since January 2011 - Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work | 26 Feb 2016 | The U.S. military plans to test-fire its second intercontinental ballistic missile in a week overnight on Thursday to demonstrate the reliability of American nuclear arms at a time of rising strategic tensions with countries like Russia and North Korea. The unarmed Minuteman III missile will blast off from a silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California late on Thursday or early on Friday, headed toward a target area near Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands of the South Pacific.