The Chinese Revolution After The Sixth Congress, 5. Appendix – A Remarkable Document - Part 4 of 10

In China, neither imperialism nor the Chinese capitalist state was defending workers' interests. Imperialism was clearly tied to the Chinese militarists, as well as having its own bodies of armed men, in the country, to oppress the workers, and to defend its own interest. As Trotsky points out, the KMT was the party of the bourgeoisie, which, itself, was intimately tied to imperialism. The KMT's claim to be “anti-imperialist” was bogus, because of that, and amounted only to playing off one imperialist power against another. Trotsky made the same point about Ukraine, where, again, different sections of society looked to different imperialists to further their specific interests.

“Only hopeless pacifist blockheads are capable of thinking that the emancipation and unification of the Ukraine can be achieved by peaceful diplomatic means, by referendums, by decisions of the League of Nations, etc. In no way superior to them of course are those “nationalists” who propose to solve the Ukrainian question by entering the service of one imperialism against another. Hitler gave an invaluable lesson to those adventurers by tossing (for how long?) Carpatho-Ukraine to the Hungarians who immediately slaughtered not a few trusting Ukrainians. Insofar as the issue depends upon the military strength of the imperialist states, the victory of one grouping or another can signify only a new dismemberment and a still more brutal subjugation of the Ukrainian people, The program of independence for the Ukraine in the epoch of imperialism is directly and indissolubly bound up with the program of the proletarian revolution. It would be criminal to entertain any illusions on this score...

The worker and peasant masses in the Western Ukraine, in Bukovina, in the Carpatho-Ukraine are in a state of confusion: Where to turn? What to demand? This situation naturally shifts the leadership to the most reactionary Ukrainian cliques who express their “nationalism” by seeking to sell the Ukrainian people to one imperialism or another in return for a promise of fictitious independence.”

(Problem of the Ukraine)

The same is true in Ukraine, today, with the Ukrainian capitalist state oppressing Ukrainian workers in the interests of the Ukrainian oligarchs, who are intimately tied to US and Western imperialism. The claims of Zelensky's corrupt capitalist government, as with the claims of the KMT, to be “anti-imperialist”, as it opposes Putin's invasion, is wholly bogus for the reasons Trotsky described, in relation to China and Ukraine, in the 1930's. He made exactly the same analysis in relation to Czechoslovakia.

“Even irrespective of its international ties Czechoslovakia constitutes a thoroughly imperialist state. Economically, monopoly capitalism reigns there. Politically, the Czech bourgeoisie dominates (perhaps soon we will have to say, dominated!) several oppressed nationalities. Such a war, even on the part of isolated Czechoslovakia would thus have been carried on not for national independence but for the maintenance and if possible the extension of the borders of imperialist exploitation.”

Those examples, as with the position of the social-patriots and social-imperialists, today, in relation to Ukraine, are simply a repetition of the deception carried out by them, in WWI, as described by Lenin in the Theses On The National and Colonial Questions, in which they dress up defence of the fatherland in the clothes of national independence and national self-determination. The most blatant example of that is the defence of Zionist imperialism, in Israel/Palestine, on grounds of a bourgeois-defencist position of “a right of self-defence” for capitalist states.

“Recognition of internationalism in word, and its replacement in deed by petty-bourgeois nationalism and pacifism, in all propaganda, agitation and practical work, is very common, not only among the parties of the Second International, but also among those which have withdrawn from it, and often even among parties which now call themselves communist...

The age-old oppression of colonial and weak nationalities by the imperialist powers has not only filled the working masses of the oppressed countries with animosity towards the oppressor nations, but has also aroused distrust in these nations in general, even in their proletariat. The despicable betrayal of socialism by the majority of the official leaders of this proletariat in 1914-19, when “defence of country” was used as a social-chauvinist cloak to conceal the defence of the “right” of their “own” bourgeoisie to oppress colonies and fleece financially dependent countries, was certain to enhance this perfectly legitimate distrust.”

Back To Part 3

Bourgeois-Democracy Crumbles As It Defends Its Genocide - Part 2

The chaos caused in Libya spread into Mali and other parts of North Africa, and, again, it has opened the door for rivals to fill the void, most notably the role of the Russian Wagner Group, as China, also, continues to expand its economic reach. Similarly, US imperialism promotes the Zionist genocide against the Palestinians, because, much as with Sherman's genocide against the Native Americans, and the European Colonialists' genocides against indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere, it is necessary to establish its unchallenged position, as a Zionist state “from the river to the sea”, as its doctrine commits it, and as the laws of capital, in the age of imperialism requires it to do. Only then can it begin to create that wider politico-economic bloc with the other US clients in Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states, free from the repeated rebellions of the Palestinians, and the support for them amongst the Arab masses that obstructs the actions of their rulers.

Such a development is also in the interests of EU imperialism. Indeed, it is more so than for US imperialism, in the longer run, because a stabilisation of the region, and its economic growth, will mean far greater trade, and investment opportunities for EU imperialism, as its closer neighbour. So, it is no wonder that the political representatives of US, UK and EU “democratic imperialism” have been prepared to move heaven and earth to support the genocide undertaken by Zionism in Palestine, and to claim that black is white, as they try to deny it is happening. For years, they have equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, a strategy used even more intensively and fraudulently, in recent years, as they sought to attack the Left, for example, against Corbyn and his supporters.

In the 1930's, when that same “democratic imperialism” was seeking to dupe the masses into support for its imperialist wars against Germany and Japan, it did so by claiming that it was engaged in a war for “democracy”, all the while holding millions of colonial slaves in chains! As Trotsky noted,

"Three hundred fifty million Indians must reconcile themselves to their slavery in order to support British democracy, the rulers of which at this very time, together with the slaveholders of “democratic” France, are delivering the Spanish people into Franco’s bondage. People of Latin America must tolerate with gratitude the foot of Anglo-Saxon imperialism on their neck only because this foot is dressed in a suede democratic boot. Disgrace, shame, cynicism – without end!"

(Phrases and Reality)

It does so, today, aided not only by the likes of imperialist politicians such as Biden and Starmer, but also, of social-imperialists of the type of the USC, and its components such as the AWL, who play the same role, today, in that regard, as did the Stalinists and centrists in the 1930's. They have been complicit in this narrative of imperialism, including in its use of anti-Semitism witch hunts in the labour movement. But, to do that, they also had to claim that it was okay to criticise the actions of Israeli governments, even though, in practice, nearly every such criticism was met with the same charges of anti-Semitism.

The line that it was okay to criticise Israeli governments, rather than the racist, colonialist ideology of Zionism, which underpins that state, was also meant to enable imperialism to pressure those Zionist governments, such as that of Netanyahu, which were seen as too maverick, uncontrollable, and representing the same kind of petty-bourgeois interests as those of Trump, Truss, and so on. It is the same motivation that leads to liberal Zionist newspapers such as Ha'aretz, to stand against Netanyahu, and to ridiculously claim that he has failed in his aims in Gaza. He has failed their aims, not his, and not the rationale of Zionism, as now manifest, in its requirement for a final solution against the Palestinians.

Back To Part 1

Wage-labour and Capital, Section II - Part 3 of 6

The determining factor of supply is value. If the producer can sell their commodity at a value that is greater than the value of the commodities consumed in its production, i.e. make a profit, they will engage in production. Of course, if they can make a higher rate of profit by engaging in some other production, they will move their capital to that sphere, and so, as described above, this will bring about changes in supply, prices and profits, in these different spheres. As Marx sets out in Capital III, this is why The Law of The Tendency for the Rate of Profit To Fall, in spheres where the organic composition of capital is higher, or rate of turnover of capital is lower, is a most important law for capitalism, both in determining prices of production, and the allocation of capital.

It is this, not the preferences of the consumer, that is the determinant of value/price. The consumer may, of course, decide that they do not obtain use-value/utility from any given commodity, at its market value, and so withdraw their demand for it. So be it. In that case, supply would contract also, may be even to zero! As Marx describes in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 20, and in The Grundrisse, demand is a function of use-value/utility. But, just because consumers decide they are only prepared to pay £0.50 for commodity A, rather than £1 that does not mean that the price of commodity A will fall to £0.50. It means demand would collapse, but, if no producers of A could produce it, and make average profit, at £0.50, supply would also disappear.

Marx, also, deals, here, with the false arguments of orthodox economics in relation to inflation. If we take the most basic condition of an economy, with just two commodities, A and B, both with a value of 10 hours per unit, then 1 unit of A will exchange for 1 unit of B. Put another way, the price of 1 unit of A is 1 unit of B. But, now, suppose demand for A doubles, but cannot be increased to meet this demand? As Marx described earlier, owners of B, who are buyers of A will increase competition between themselves to buy the available supplies of A. The same would be true if the supply of A fell.

As a result of this, the B price of A would rise, even though the value of A and B remains unchanged. The price of A might rise to 2B. But that is just another way of saying that the A price of B has fallen! Previously, the A price of 1 unit of B, was 1 unit, but, now, is just 0.5 units of A. The sum of all prices, therefore, remains the same. The price of A has doubled, the price of B halving, cancelling each other out.

“If the price of a commodity rises considerably because of inadequate supply or disproportionate increase of demand, the price of some other commodity must necessarily have fallen proportionately; for the price of a commodity only expresses in money the ratio in which other commodities are given in exchange for it. If, for example, the price of a yard of silk material rises from five marks to six marks, the price of silver in relation to the silk material has fallen, and likewise the prices of all other commodities that have remained at their old prices have fallen in relation to the silk.” (p 24)

Back To Part 2

Bourgeois Democracy Crumbles As It Defends Its Genocide - Part 1

Bourgeois-democracy is a sham, a fraud, a means of deluding the masses into believing that they have a real say in the running of society, when, in fact, irrespective of what colour rosette the governing parties wear, the actual control of society rests with the owners of property, and their state. Whenever the superficial rights and freedoms promised by bourgeois-democracy are actually used by the masses to promote their own interests, or to challenge the actions of the state, the ruling class, and its state, simply abandons even the pretext; it removes the velvet glove and exposes the iron first of its class dictatorship. Across the world, as “democratic-imperialism”, seeks to justify and defend its genocide in Gaza, in the face of popular revolt, bourgeois-democracy is crumbling, as it exposes that iron first. And, contrary to the bleating of subjectivists, such as Paul Mason, over the last few years, it is not the fascists of the type of Trump, Johnson, Le Pen, Wilders, or the AfD that are the instrument of that iron first, but those that Mason has looked to within the ranks of social-democracy, such as Biden, Starmer, Scholz, Macron et al, Bonapartists themselves, one and all.

I recently, noted the video from Owen Jones, detailing the arrest of a Jewish activist in Germany, on the grounds of “anti-Semitism”, for having taken part in opposing the Zionist genocide, as well as noting the arrest by British police of a Rabbi, on the same basis. It rather frames the context of the actions of Gideon Falter, and his claims in relation to the actions of police. It also, highlights the extent to which the contradictions inherent within bourgeois-democracy, and its attempts to defend the actions of “democratic imperialism”, in carrying out, and complicity in genocide, have reached the stage in which they must violently explode in crisis. As Owen Jones says, what more repulsive sight can there be than that of German state stormtroopers arresting German Jews, and claiming to be doing so on the grounds of anti-Semitism, whilst, in fact, what they are doing is defending the role of the German state, in once more being involved in a genocide?

Now, Owen Jones, in another video, featuring Yanis Varoufakis, banned by that same German state, details the crumbling of bourgeois-democracy in Germany.

 

For months, the genocide undertaken by the Zionist state against Palestinians has been undeniable, and has provoked ever greater popular protests against it. That genocide is backed to the hilt by “democratic imperialism”, that arms it, propagandises for it, and in the words of the likes of Biden, Starmer and co., stands “shoulder to shoulder” with it. Why does this “democratic imperialism” stand shoulder to shoulder with Zionism, and its genocide? Because the Zionist state, in Israel, is its tool, its proxy in the region, just as Zelensky and his regime in Ukraine, and the inheritors of Chiang Kai Shek's butchers in Taiwan, are its proxy, its foot soldiers in various parts of the world, where it has global strategic interests, and increasingly so, now, as it faces a challenge to its global hegemony, from an up and coming imperialist bloc, led by China and Russia.

The US imperialist strategy in the Middle-East, involves a regional, politico-economic bloc bringing together Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States. Prior to the Iraq War, and NATO's wars in Libya and Syria, which utilised Islamist groups against the existing regimes, funded and armed by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, the economic development of those states was enabling them to be drawn closer to the EU, in a similar manner to that of the former Stalinist states in Central Europe, prior to them joining the EU. That, in itself, was seen as a threat by US imperialism, as EU imperialism remains the most powerful potential rival to the US, despite its continued subservience to it, as both try to defend their current dominance against the rising imperialist bloc led by China.

The chaos caused by US imperialism in the Middle-East and North Africa by its wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria, ended that process of economic and social development, and also ended the process of closer integration with the EU, strengthening US imperialism against EU imperialism, and emphasising its continued dominance over it. But, European imperialism, older and wiser than US imperialism, knows that such developments as those now sought by US imperialism, have other consequences, in the longer term. US imperialism's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, cost it large amounts of treasure, and achieved its aim of removing the existing regimes, creating chaos, and so removing a potential regional power, but, in Afghanistan, China is the one, now, stepping in to offer the potential of trade and investment, furthering its own global imperialist ambitions, and influence. In Iraq, it is Iran, against whom US imperialism initially promoted Saddam Hussein as their proxy, that has gained most influence, strengthening its own sub-imperialist power, as an ally of China and Russia.

Forward To Part 2

The Chinese Revolution After The Sixth Congress, 5. Appendix – A Remarkable Document - Part 3 of 10

Marx's analysis does not say that the peasantry/petty-bourgeoisie cannot carry through revolutions, particularly where its solidified under a Bonapartist leader, or military junta. It says it cannot form the ruling class. Having carried through such a revolution/Peasant War, the state must represent the interests of capital or labour, must become some form of capitalist or workers' state, albeit with whatever deformations.

Alternatively, if, as with Pol Pot, in Cambodia, the aftermath of NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, or as with the Taliban in Afghanistan, prior to 2001, and after 2021, it tries to turn the clock back from capitalist development, to some form of agrarian society, or small commodity producing economy, everything that goes with it is restored such as landlordism, warlordism and so on, the disintegration of the nation state, leading to a failed state and collapse.

China, too, was in danger of suffering that fate, under Mao and the Cultural Revolution, and Great Leap Forward, which cost the lives of millions from starvation, until it was reversed, but, at which point, the course was set by the state to represent the interests of capital, symbolised in the policies of Deng Xiaoping.

“Let us recall that immediately after the May Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, which entrusted the leadership of the agrarian revolution to the Left Guomindang, the latter began to exterminate the workers and peasants. The position of the ECCI became completely untenable. At all costs, there had to be, and that without delay, “left” actions in China to refute the “calumny” of the Opposition, that is, its irreproachable prognosis. That is why the Chinese Central Committee, which found itself between the hammer and the anvil, was obliged, in August 1927, to turn the proletarian policy topsy-turvy all over again.” (p 212-3)

The revolution, to be progressive, could only be one led by a revolutionary, industrial proletariat, drawing the poor peasants and urban petty-bourgeois behind it. That was what the Bolsheviks did in 1917, and why The Theses On The National and Colonial Questions, as cited by Trotsky, emphasises that its only those revolutionary forces, organised, not only to fight against landlordism, imperialism etc., but also against their own bourgeois-democracy that can be supported. Its why Marxists should not support the guerrilla wars of, say, the Viet Cong, the ANC, FARC, PIRA, and so on, even if we would, simultaneously, oppose the old landlord/feudal regime, imperialism and so on. Opposing one does not at all imply supporting the other, on the basis of some kind of moralistic lesser-evilism, or “my enemy's enemy is my friend”, campism, as Trotsky explains in “Learn To Think". We are not bourgeois democrats, nor nationalists, our goal is international socialism not bourgeois nationalism.

Indeed, for that reason, even less can we accept the idea that imperialism defends the interests of workers or oppressed peoples, as social-imperialists like the AWL, and the USC would have us believe! As Trotsky points out in Lenin and Imperialist War.

“If revolutionary and progressive movements beyond the boundaries of ones own country could be supported by supporting ones own imperialist bourgeoisie then the policy of social patriotism was in principle correct. There was no reason, then, for the founding of the Third International.”

Back To Part 2

Forward To Part 4

Wage-labour and Capital, Section II - Part 2 of 6

“Let us suppose that there are 100 bales of cotton on the market and at the same time purchasers for 1,000 bales of cotton. In this case, therefore, the demand is 10 times as great as the supply. Competition will be very strong among the buyers, each of whom desires to get one, and if possible, all of the whole hundred bales for himself. This example is no arbitrary assumption. We have experienced periods of cotton crop failure, in the history of the trade, when a few capitalists in alliance have tried to buy not one hundred bales, but all the cotton stocks of the world. Hence, In the example mentioned, one buyer will seek to drive the others from the field by offering a relatively higher price per bale of cotton. The cotton sellers, who perceive that the troops of the enemy army are engaged in the most violent struggle among themselves, and the same of all their hundred bales is absolutely certain, will take good care not to fall out among themselves and depress the price of cotton at the moment their adversaries are competing with one another to force it up. Thus, peace suddenly descends on the army of sellers. They stand facing the buyers as one man, fold their arms philosophically and there would be no bounds to their demands were it not that the offers of even the most persistent and eager buyers have very definite limits.” (p 23)

One limit has been mentioned, which is the effect on the rate of profit. As Marx sets out, in Capital III, Chapter 6, and elsewhere, the increase in the price of cotton affects the price of yarn, but does not change the amount of surplus value produced, in yarn production. So, the rate of profit would fall, meaning that capital could be better used elsewhere. In Chapter 6, the other limitation is also mentioned. That is that the resulting increase in the price of yarn would reduce demand for it, possibly to a level where production becomes unviable. Consumers of cotton yarn may switch to wool, or some other material, so that yarn producers would, therefore, switch to these other inputs.

“It is well known that the reverse case, with reverse result, occurs more frequently. Considerable surplus of supply over demand; desperate competition among the sellers, lack of buyers; disposal of goods at ridiculously low prices.” (p 23)

But, Marx notes that the terms high or low prices are themselves relative. High or low compared to what?

“And if the price is determined by the relation between supply and demand, what determines the relation of supply and demand? (p 23-4)

The same applies to profit. What determines that a given rate of profit is high or low? It requires some presumption of what is a normal rate of profit, in which case, what determines the normal profit? Why should it be, say, 20%, and not 10% or 30%? It is certainly the case, as Marx describes, in Capital III, that, if firms see that, in their current line of business, they can only make, on average, 10% profit, whereas, in some other line of business, the rate of profit, on average, is 30%, capital will, gradually, move to the latter, and away from the former. As a result, supply, in the latter will rise, prices and the rate of profit will fall, whilst supply, in the former, will fall, and prices and the rate of profit will rise.

This very process results in an average rate of profit, in this case, of 20%, and is the process by which prices of production are determined as cost of production plus average profit. But, this still does not explain why this average is 20%, rather than 10% or 30%. Orthodox economics would explain it by saying that firms take their cost of production and add a percentage of mark-up, as profit. This is, superficially, what does happen. The result is then the selling price. What they can add as mark-up, this subjectivist theory would argue, is determined by what consumers are themselves prepared to pay. In this subjectivist theory, prices, and consequently profits, are determined by demand, by what the consumer is prepared to pay. But, then, we are back to the original question of what determines what the consumer is prepared to pay? It does no good to say its whether the consumer thinks the price is high or low, because high or low compared to what?

And, if the consumer thinks the price of yarn is too high, and so refuses to buy yarn, this sudden glut of yarn would lead to yarn producers slashing prices to clear their stocks, but, what then? If the price that consumers think is reasonable is below the cost of production, yarn producers will simply stop producing yarn. They do not produce it for some altruistic reason, or to satisfy the needs of consumers, but, only, to make profit.

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 3

Why US Military Aid To Ukraine Will Make No Real Change

The US, desperate to provide even more military aid to its proxy, the Zionist state in Israel, to continue its genocide against Palestinians, has also, now, voted through a package of military aid to Ukraine that reactionary Republicans had been holding up, as they sought to tie it to closing the US border with Mexico. The US is not going to do the latter, because, faced with growing labour shortages, as the economy continues on a tear, it needs millions of migrant workers to stop US wages rising at an even faster pace than they are, squeezing US profit margins, and causing interest rates to rise further. The aid, amounting to $61 billion, will make no real difference to the proxy war being fought out on Ukraine's soil.

The reason for that is quite simple.  It is, now, Ukraine that is put in the position of being on the offensive, against a well entrenched Russian military. To overcome such defence, Ukraine needs at least a 4:1 advantage, and simply does not have it. It does not have it in military equipment, including munitions, and more importantly, it does not have it in soldiers, especially as, now, young Ukrainian workers are seeing what the war is about, and large numbers are seeking to escape, as Zelensky's corrupt regime tries to draft more of them into its imperialist war, on behalf of US imperialism.

The reason that the additional aid will make no significant difference is because the whole narrative of the war, presented by NATO, and by Zelensky, from the start, was false. The narrative was that Russia intended to annex the whole of Ukraine, as a taster, before, attacking other former parts of the USSR, in the Baltics, Poland and so on. Such a narrative was insane to begin with, and that was shown by the contradictions that emerged within it, not long after the war began.

We were told that Putin was driven by some kind of, Hilteresque megalomania, to want to restore the old USSR. Itself, such subjectivist explanations for war, which Paul Mason has promoted, in recent years, are highly suspect, and explain nothing. Marxists know that wars are motivated by underlying material interests, in short, economic interests, not the whims of individuals. Hitler did not seek to conquer Europe, because he was a megalomaniac, but, because Europe needed a large, single European market, to compete with US imperialism, and German imperialism, as the most powerful in Europe, sought to bring it about under its domination. It was simply a continuation of that from WWI.

Putin's war in Ukraine is, similarly, not driven by some kind of megalomania, or ethnic imperative, but by an understandable concern not to allow NATO imperialism to continue to expand up to Russia's borders, and from where it would continue to chip away at the various Russian Republics, stirring up ethnic tensions, as, for example, the US did by supporting the KLA to incite ethnic violence against Kosovan Serbs, so as to, at least, keep Russia busy fighting these insurgencies, if not to see its territory continually broken apart. As a former KGB operative, Putin knew that Russia could not hope to invade and annex the whole of Ukraine. It would have required vast amounts of resources and military manpower, for little real long-term advantage. Even if it could be done, it would have been impossible to hold on to, and would have economically destroyed Russia. NATO, also, no doubt, understood this, despite their narrative that this was Putin's plan.

They may have hoped to have goaded Putin into it, just as Blairite, former NATO Secretary-General, George Robertson admits, they goaded him into the invasion itself. More likely, they simply needed that narrative to get Ukrainian citizens to buy the argument, and put their lives on the line, for a war they could never actually win, as well as to sell workers, in other NATO countries, on the idea of providing vast amounts of money to finance such a war, at a time when they were being told they had to accept austerity, and pay cuts!

The reality was that Putin never had any intention of trying to invade the whole of Ukraine, or trying to annex it, any more than NATO intended to invade and occupy the whole of Serbia in order to separate off Kosovo from it. In fact, it would have been far easier for NATO to have invaded the whole of Serbia and occupied it than it would for Russia to invade and occupy the whole of Ukraine.

Having established the narrative that Russia intended to invade and annex the whole of Ukraine, a narrative that many on the Left, including those, like Eddie Ford of the CPGB, that do not support NATO, also bought,  the failure of Russia to do so means that it can be presented as a defeat for Russia, and only a matter of time before its sent packing. But, Russia never mobilised anything like the military forces and materiel required to invade, let alone occupy long-term, the whole of Ukraine. It put less forces in the field than Ukraine had mobilised, whereas military doctrine required it to have at least four times as many! Russia clearly intended only to invade and annex Eastern Ukraine, where the ethnic Russians form a majority, and that is what it has done, just as, in 2014, it annexed majority Russian Crimea.

Yes, of course, Russia attacked Kyiv and so on, but, when NATO sought to annex Kosovo, it also attacked Belgrade. In modern war, its necessary to destroy, or at least seriously degrade, command and control systems, and these are often centred on the political and administrative centres, as well as other transport and communications systems, such as energy supplies, airports and so on. As I wrote at the time, Russia, in its invasion of Eastern Ukraine, adopted the NATO play-book used in Kosovo etc. When Russia rolled its tanks into South Ossetia, in 2008, to similarly put an end to ethnic cleansing and genocide by the NATO backed Georgian government, it also rolled its tanks into the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, as it destroyed Georgian command and control. NATO and Georgia said it was going to annex the whole of Georgia, and, indeed, it easily could have done so, by that point. But, it didn't, pulling its military back into South Ossetia, once those objectives had been met. It did a similar thing in Abkhazia.

Russia could never have invaded or annexed the whole of Ukraine, by contrast. It is a vast country, and provided with huge resources from NATO. NATO may, indeed, have wanted to try to goad it into trying, so as to ruin Russia, itself, but there was no chance of it doing so. On the contrary, Russia can simply sit back in its bulwarks, now established, in Eastern Ukraine, drawing the Ukrainians on to its guns, and cutting them down likes poppies in the field, to coin a phrase. Young Ukrainian workers are simply the meat in a meat grinder perpetuated by NATO, and their Zelensky puppet, to keep Russia busy, but the cost of that, for NATO, is that it is now sucked into another forever war that is costing it far more financially to continue the military supplies than it is costing Russia, as the defender of territory, and which, with its backing from China, it is well placed to continue to do.

NATO may have fallen for its own propaganda about Russia seeking to invade the whole of Ukraine, in which case, the additional military aid would make a difference, but, given that the propaganda was itself nonsense to begin with it won't. The fact that it was simply propaganda can be seen from the contradiction inherent within it. On the one hand, it said, “Russia intends to invade the whole of Ukraine.” However, keen to emphasise its failure, and the supposed weakness of Putin, it pointed to the retreat from Kyiv, and so on. Yet, even as it was emphasising this military weakness of Russia, it continued to put out a parallel narrative that this weak Russian state, with its incompetent military brass, was, any day, also going to be posing a threat to the Baltics, Poland and Central and Eastern Europe!!!

Last year, we were told that all of the Leopard II tanks, and so on, provided by NATO to Ukraine, were going to finally see off the Russians. But, of course, as I had said at the time, it was never going to happen. Had the Russians have continued to try to invade the rest of Ukraine, as the NATO propaganda claimed they were going to do, then, yes, those tanks and other equipment would have made a difference, in the same way that such equipment made a difference in fighting against the initial Russian advance into Eastern Ukraine, and caused the Russians to lose large numbers of troops and equipment. But, so long as Russia stayed put and defended, having dug into defensive positions that was never going to be the case.

Tanks are great if they are taking part in tank battles against other tanks that are attacking your territory. You have defenders' advantage. However, if Ukraine, now, wants to take back Eastern Ukraine, it has to be the attacker. In the last year, as I had predicted, all of those hyped up NATO provided tanks proved useless, as they rolled on to Russian defensive positions, where they could be decimated by land mines, stuck in tank traps, as well as picked off by artillery, not to mention infantry using simple RPG's, drones and shoulder launched missiles that cost a fraction of a tank. The same is true of NATO provided jets. In short, this is lots of money, provided by taxpayers in NATO countries, that is basically going to finance war production in war production factories, and it is money that is going down a big hole simply to keep young Ukrainian workers – and young Russian workers on the other side – fighting in a war that is in none of their interests.