03/17/2022

Briefly about the motives, justifications, goals and consequences of the special military operation (SMO) of Russia in Ukraine

By | 03/17/2022
0 Comment

The question of the motives for the operation should not really be asked of Russia, because Russia was not that who chose here. The operation was forced by the following circumstances:

  • Ukraine’s ongoing attacks on the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR), where, by the way, almost a million citizens of the Russian Federation live;
  • NATO’s continued expansion to the east;
  • President Zelensky’s statement on the possibility of withdrawing from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Budapest Memorandum).

    • The real manager of this conflict was undoubtedly another country, namely the United States. On the one hand, it is well known that the Ukrainian government is subordinate to the United States. On the other hand, the United States is the only obvious beneficiary of the conflict, since it has made no secret of its desire to disrupt the opening of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. As you can see, it all ties up: this conflict is organized from beginning to end by US imperialism, its NATO satellites and the puppet nationalist Ukrainian regime. Russia’s military response was entirely forced is still defensive.

    Many base their criticism of the SMO on an analysis of Putin’s speech of February 21 as anti-communist. Let me explain. Undoubtedly, Putin is an anti-communist – like any other bourgeois politician. But there is a difference between the anti-communism of the regime in Moscow and the regime in Kyiv. The latter intentionally and systematically puts anti-communism at the core of their national identity. The difference here is the same as between petty disorderly conduct and gangsterism.

    In addition, this Putin’s speech doesn’t contain any extraordinary anti-communism. Yes, he calls V. I. Lenin, with a hint of condemnation, the “creator and architect” of Soviet Ukraine, but he directly stipulates: “I am not trying to put the blame on anyone. The situation in the country at that time, both before and after the Civil War, was extremely complicated; it was critical”. It is strange when an anti-communist conservative (who has a rather narrow outlook) understands the historical dialectics better than the Marxist-Leninists who undertake to expose him.

    Then Putin said provocatively: “You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine.” It looks like a outright confession of anti-communism. However, for everyone who is familiar with the issue, it is obvious that Putin didn’t talk about his (really existing) anti-communism here, but only taunted Ukrainian nationalists (literally before that, he speaks with obvious disapproval about their demolition of Lenin’s monuments). You can, of course, take him at his word, but this is an infantile level of analysis.

    The goals of the SMO are also openly and clearly declared: “to protect civilians in Donbass, to ensure Kiev’s recognition of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics as well as Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea, to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, and to secure its neutral and nuclear-free status.”

    Now tell me which of these goals is unjust or reactionary?

    Of course, if the Ukraine stubbornly refuses to comply with these just demands, it will be completely crushed, and then the Russian bourgeoisie will not fail to add unjust and predatory claims beyond that. This is what the fascist and militaristic Kyiv regime is now leading its country to. His persistence in waging an unjust war is a real national betrayal! All progressive forces should demand that the Zelensky regime immediately agree to fair conditions and establish peace.

    What will be the consequences of the success of the SMO? Of course, there is no question of an immediate advance towards socialism or the establishment of some kind of “people’s” regimes. Those naive people who pompously expose the imperialism of Russia and the capitalism of the DPR and LPR are forcing an open door. It’s about something completely different. Of course, the Russian capitalists are driven by the desire for profit, but now their interests have temporarily coincided with the immediate interests of the proletariat and the people. First, national oppression will be significantly reduced in the region. Secondly, the fascist neo-Banderist (Stepan Bandera was a Ukrainian Nazi leader, glorified by the modern Ukrainian regime) regime will fall. Third, NATO expansion will be halted and partly pushed back. All these changes will be favorable for security and peace in the region, as well as for the development of the socialist movement.

    The last thing that needs to be said here is about the Russian alleged “peace movement”. Here you need to understand, firstly, that this movement isn’t genuine popular, it is under the domination of liberals, who give it an anti-communist and pro-NATO nature. The communists lose face by participating in it. Secondly, its demand to stop the SMO actually now means the capitulation of Russia, the surrender of the Donbass to neo-Banderists butchering, preparations for the imminent surrender of Crimea and the unstoppable expansion of NATO. Under the slogans “for peace” there is in fact a movement for an imperialist war. And if we raise the question of turning the imperialist war into a civil one, then it “suddenly” turns out that these hypocrites are “not ready” and suggest that the peoples of the world simply wait until they gain proper strength.

    But after all, when gangster attack you, you call the bourgeois police, and do not relax and wait for a socialist revolution, don’t you? Be adequate and apply Marxist dialectics, please!

    Read also the analysis of events in the Donbass from the Communist Party of the Philippines:

Leave a Reply