Mick Hall ☭ According to the Guardian the US, congressional Democrats have agreed to provide another $39.8bn in additional aid for Ukraine, exceeding President Joe Biden’s request last month for $33bn including more than $20bn in military assistance. Senate leaders were prepared to move quickly to enact the new proposals, which includes an additional $3.4bn for military aid and $3.4bn in humanitarian aid.

The USA is a nation which can conjure up this amount of money for its military and its proxy in the Ukraine, but it cannot or will not provide for its citizens a universal health care system free at the point of need.

In one US city alone, San Francisco, in the richest country in the world has more homeless people sleeping on the streets and in homeless shelters than all western nations put together.

Cross the North Atlantic to the UK and you see much the same indifference, the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, with the support of the leader of the opposition Kier Starmer, have donated £2.1 billion of aid to the Ukraine so far with a further £1.4 pledged over the next three months. Yet the NHS is in tatters, 5% of the population depend on charitable food banks to feed themselves and families, and come winter a sizeable section of the population won’t be able to pay their energy bills and may well be left in the cold and dark.

All this because Joe Biden, with his British poodle marching in unison, decided to put the squeeze on Russia by moving NATO’s presence to its borders without a thought about the hardships and dangers this will create for the British and US people. To become embroiled and fund a war which is taking place 1,800 miles away from the UK and 4,775 from a US border is infantile, a crime against humanity. Their attitude is basically war is a profitable business for the few and to hell with the consequences.

As to the Ukraine and Russia, as Sun Tzu once wrote there is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. Negotiations to end this war are long overdue, however with NATO and Putin throwing petrol on the flames it doesn’t look like it will end anytime soon.

⏩ Mick Hall is a veteran Left Wing activist and trade unionist.

The Ukraine War ✑ What A Waste Of Human Endeavour And Lives

Mick Hall ☭ According to the Guardian the US, congressional Democrats have agreed to provide another $39.8bn in additional aid for Ukraine, exceeding President Joe Biden’s request last month for $33bn including more than $20bn in military assistance. Senate leaders were prepared to move quickly to enact the new proposals, which includes an additional $3.4bn for military aid and $3.4bn in humanitarian aid.

The USA is a nation which can conjure up this amount of money for its military and its proxy in the Ukraine, but it cannot or will not provide for its citizens a universal health care system free at the point of need.

In one US city alone, San Francisco, in the richest country in the world has more homeless people sleeping on the streets and in homeless shelters than all western nations put together.

Cross the North Atlantic to the UK and you see much the same indifference, the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, with the support of the leader of the opposition Kier Starmer, have donated £2.1 billion of aid to the Ukraine so far with a further £1.4 pledged over the next three months. Yet the NHS is in tatters, 5% of the population depend on charitable food banks to feed themselves and families, and come winter a sizeable section of the population won’t be able to pay their energy bills and may well be left in the cold and dark.

All this because Joe Biden, with his British poodle marching in unison, decided to put the squeeze on Russia by moving NATO’s presence to its borders without a thought about the hardships and dangers this will create for the British and US people. To become embroiled and fund a war which is taking place 1,800 miles away from the UK and 4,775 from a US border is infantile, a crime against humanity. Their attitude is basically war is a profitable business for the few and to hell with the consequences.

As to the Ukraine and Russia, as Sun Tzu once wrote there is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. Negotiations to end this war are long overdue, however with NATO and Putin throwing petrol on the flames it doesn’t look like it will end anytime soon.

⏩ Mick Hall is a veteran Left Wing activist and trade unionist.

15 comments:

  1. Mick, would you have advocated negotiations between Hitler and the Allies to stop the Second World War? The basic fact that the juvenile, regressive left cannot face up to is that Russia led by a kleptocratic, populist imperialist invaded a sovereign democratic nation and has carried out multiple war crimes.

    it was not Biden or any other US President who has moved NATO supposedly to Russia's frontiers but the choices of independent democracies such as Sweden and Finland.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Barry - your characterisation of Russia is fine by me but it only explains part of it.

    Consistently NATO has sought to expand and push eastwards despite multiple understandings between the West and Russia that this would not happen. One of the most informative pieces I have read on NATO is by Thomas Meaney in the Guardian long read section. He packs a lot into one article.

    There should be negotiations but what meaning can they have prior to a unilateral decision by Russia to withdraw? Only after that can the argument can be made that the Ukrainians should no longer be fed arms. To demand it now is to side with the aggressor. It seems folly to call for negotiations prior to Kremlin withdrawal - every aggressor can wage war on another society, invade it, grab as much as it can before shouting negotiate . . . by the way what we have we hold.

    Denying the Ukrainians arms while their society is under siege by its bellicose neighbour is simply a means to ensure they have no leverage in negotiations while guaranteeing the advantage lies with Russia.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Give the Ukrainian armed forces arms, including the Nazi Azov Regiment and allow your own people to starve and suffer ill health due to either no health service or one in terminal decline.
    As for the ridiculous comparison of negotiating between "Hitler and the allies" to stop the Second World War, prior to 1939 that is exactly what Chamberlain was doing with his "piece of paper". The US only involved themselves, not because of coming to Britains aid, but because the Nazis had declared war on them as allies of Japan.
    All wars come to an end, eventually, and this one will be no exception. The west, including Britain have been after getting their feet in Russia, ever since the Red Army kicked their arses in the Russian Civil War. Britain went to war in 1939 not because the Nazi bastards invaded Poland, but because they did not invade Soviet Russia.
    Russia are using conscript troops which begs the question, for me, if they are so concerned about their western security why are they not using their best troops and equipment and taken the lot?
    The US led by Biden who, a little like King George III, has delusions, like thinking he's Irish and the British a fella better suited to performing in Billy Smarts Circus. As for Russias leadership, bent as they are,either do the job or get the fuck out, defend your western borders or stop moaning.
    As for negotiations, why not? They must include no NATO further expansion eastwards including Ukraine. As for the right of nations to join any alliance they wish, did this apply to Austria willingly joining the Third Reich?. Thought I'd mention that as Barry seems to like drawing comparisons between Putin and Hitler!

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Chamberlain reference struck me immediately because I had been thinking on reading Mick's piece that calls for negotiation under the current circumstances remind me of Peace In Our Time. It would be a dirty peace. At the same time a dirty peace can often be better than war.
      As for NATO, if stopping its growth was what Putin wanted, then he looks to have failed. Is he going to invade Sweden and Finland now after his military debacle in Ukraine.
      If the USSR was able to enter into a pact with Nazi Germany, divide Poland between them and then perpetrate the Katyn Wood massacre, Austria is going to feel justified in going with the Anschluss.

      Delete
  4. I see your point about the Hitler/Stalin pact Anthony. No Marxist, Internationalist, could ever support deals with the far right, not even in wars of national liberation. What many western historians fail, purposely, in my view, to tell us is of the anti fascist pact Soviet Russia offered Poland, Britain and France. This would have put a million Red Army troops on the Polish German border, backed by artillery. Britain, France and Polish troops collectivelly would match this number. The Poles refused, outright, thus sealing their own fate. The British and French did not even respond, giving Stalin, for once possibly justified, the impression they may link arms with the Nazis against Soviet Russia. Fearing this Stalin singned the pact months after his offer was rejected.

    In much the same way as Austria felt justified going with the Anschluss, no doubt Soviet Russia felt similar.

    The Red Army had been weakened by Stalin and were in no state to fight. That was until 5th December 19941when Zukhov successfully defended Moscow. From then on it was downhill for the Third Reich.

    In 1939 Russias forces struggled against Finnland, which today Russian conscripts are struggling in Ukraine. The west should keep out, its fuckall to do with them, unless Putins claims are correct! The Ukrainian armed forces are more than holding their own, even winning, so Biden, Johnson, and NATO should mind their own. That is, unless their real objective is make, one day, incursions into Russia.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When there is an existential threat, Caoimhin, states will do what they can to continue their existence. And if that means an alliance with the devil then they will opt for it. I think Stalin was trying to play for time until he the forces he had destroyed in 37b were back to full strength. The pact you refer to was offered to France and Britain as I understand it and not to Poland but it would have put Soviet troops in Poland. Given the history of conquest by Russia of Poland, the Poles were hardly gonna want that. Even if we accept the necessity of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact from a Soviet perspective, that does not in any way legitimise the Soviet war crimes at Katyn or the partition of Poland.
      I think the citizens of the West should demand of their governments that they help the Ukrainians. Not only the Ukrainians but the Palestinians as well. The concept of humanitarian military intervention is a sound one - but outside of Tanzania going into Uganda and Vietnam going into Cambodia, it has never actually been tried or worked. Where the West should have intervened but failed miserable was in Rwanda. What intervention there was came from the French - but to facilitate Hutu Power, not the people being butchered.
      The best scenario as I see it is for Western governments to be compelled by their own societies to intervene where the governments do not want to intervene, and to prevent them intervening where they do want to intervene. I guess there is about zilch chance of that happening.

      Delete
  5. Sorry Anthony it was offered, the pact that is, to France, Britain and Poland. Poland at the time had a far right government which was itself anti-Semitic, though not on the scale of Nazi Germany.
    The Polish Government may have thought Nazi Germany would not invade, they were wrong and had thrown away the chance to have a unified defence. Forget Britain and France, they were hoping to take Soviet Russia on the coat tails of the Third Reich. Putin, bad as he is, is right to be worried about NATO and all they stand for. Look at what this gang have done in other countries, Iraq, clandestinely Syria using depleted uranium bombs, certainly in Iraq, banned might I remind everybody, under international law.
    I do now seriously question Putins state of mind, or lack of, because as I suggested earlier, if western security on his borders are his concern he should, by now, have done the job. He hasn't and in my view won't, as thousands of Russian kids, conscripts, are dying. Probably dying for what, at first, was their concern for Russias security on their western border. And what of the Nazi elements of the Ukrainian Armed Forces? Suddenly the west no longer refer to them as "neo-Nazis" or fascists but nationalists!
    Poland did a pact with the devil alright, the wrong fucking devil! A pact with Soviet Russia along with Britain and France may well have saved their people, particularly, though by no means exclusively, Jewish people.
    I accept, indeed insist, no country has the right to invade another. Under capitalism, which modern Russia is a part of, these conflicts will continue. For example, the US had no more interest in Kuwait than I have in becoming the next Pope. They did, and do, have an interest in Kuwaiti oil, as did the other headbanger Saddam. As Lenin once said, before he blew it, "what happens when the thievas fall out?"

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I know it was three way pact about Poland but not involving Poland. There was a strong history of anti-Semitism in Poland but there was in Russia as well. Poland was always suspicious of Germany just as it was of the Soviets. I guess it was well founded suspicion given the Nazi-Soviet agreement to invade and carve up Poland. Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany working hand in hand to destroy another country!

      Delete
  6. No way known would the Soviets have entered a Pact with Poland, Poland had invaded Belarus, Lithuania and a fair whack of the Ukraine when Russia was embroiled in a Civil War after the end of WWI. After the Bolsheviks won they advanced West but still Piłsudski believed that Poland could take on and defeat The Red Army. Poland and Russia knocked the crap out of each other for 3 years before signing a peace treaty. It's amazing to think that most of the West these days believe Poland to be some sort of hard done by State when the truth is they were every bit as aggressive and expansionist as their neighbours. Fast forward to today and people seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room. Absolutely every nation will have noted that Ukraine surrendered it's Nukes to Moscow for guarantees they wouldn't be attacked. There is now a lot more interest in gaining Nukes to ensure régime survival across the globe, and it will only take one mistake for catastrophe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anthony, Soviet Russia were forced into a situation by the British and French ignoring the offer of an anti-Nazi pact. Polands refusal to allow Red Army troops, including ironically Ukrainians, on Polish soil was a big mistake and it sealed their fate. Thanks to Stalin and his purges the Red Army were in a bad state until Zukhov, Kengeck (sorry about spelling) and other qhality Marshalls entered the fray.

    Despite early efforts in the revolutionary period to stamp out anti-Semitism it was, as you point out, bad in Russia. It was worse in Poland and perhaps only the Nazis had a worse track record in this field.

    Stalin realised when it was almost too late the damage he, and he alone, had done to his forces. Fortunately he did not have Zukhov shot mainly due to him being stationed in the east monitoring Japan. He had put himself in a weak position, too weak to seriously engage the Nazi armies. Hence the pact. Britain and France should have accepted but, as I maintain, they too had eyes on Soviet Russia. Britain had this notion dating back to their ill-fatted intervention in Russias Civil War when Trotsky's fledgling Red Army kicked theirs and the yanks arses.

    You are dead right about the increased nuclear threat globallly as nations scramble to have their own nuclear weapons. One mistake is literally all it takes and looking at some of the cuckoos with their fingers on the button that could happen any time. Its enough to drive anybody to drink🍺🍺🍺.
    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the circumstances might have left Stalin thinking he had no option - but to agree a pact with the Nazis to invade Poland and then to commit the atrocity at Katyn (on Beria's advice seemingly) was unpardonable. The Poles were hardly going to want any Soviet presence on their soil. A dilemma is often thrown up when a state cannot decide which of its enemies is the worst, particularly when its enemies often seem in cahoots. Certainly by the summer of 1940 the Poles had every reason to believe the mass war criminals of the NKVD were worse than the Mass war criminals of the SS.

      Delete
  8. Mick Hall Comments

    A few points from me my position is neither Washington or Moscow and I want no part in it. One only has to look back at the recent history of NATO and Russia to see their leaderships are murdering warmongering scum and not to be trusted. This war has clearly been manufactured in Washington and Putin took the bait.

    As to the NATO poster boy for war Zelenskyy he is either an idiot or scoundrel on the make. What did he think would happen when he got into bed with NATO - the Russian bear would roll over on its back and be satisfied with a jar of honey?

    As to national borders they change and always have done, I don't have to remind you chaps of this as a sizable section of the north of Ireland was chopped off after threats of a terrible war and remains partitioned up to this day. Finland is another example and there are many others - Mexico also. Indeed the Ukrainian border has flip flopped all over the place down the centuries. Having yet another satrap in charge has often been the order of the day. The old saying marry in haste repent at leisure springs to mind.

    As to Sweden joining NATO, I'm not sure that is a runner. Erdogan will demand a high price from Sweden to gain his vote to join. It's the betrayal of the PKK and other Kurds who found sanctuary there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A right wing regime invades its neighbour. Regardless of the West's role, surely the neighbour has the right not to be invaded and has the right to resist. I think most of the Left's position is neither Moscow nor Washington, but Kiev. The Tankie Left seem to back the aggressor but that is probably more down to the love of absolutism than Left ideals.

      Delete
  9. Mick Halls analysis is close enough for me, in fact spot on. At first I thought Zelensky had a point now all he rants on about is more weapons, not a word about his own citizens, refugees. I think he is both an idiot, puppet, and self centred. As for the leaderships of NATO, essentially the USA, they have wanted since 1945 to get close to Russias borders. Under the USSR they, NATO, were not militarily able, and they knew it. Putin, on the other hand, is a fool, and certainly not a nice man, whose invasion was ill thought out and as a result is flagging
    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. of course Zelensky has a point - as the leader of an invaded country his point is that Ukraine has a right not to be invaded by its aggressive neighbour. He has spoken constantly about his own citizens and also the need for weapons. The country has a right to resist invasion. That said, he has a brass neck given that he supported the Israeli bombing of Gaza. There is a great piece on NATO in the Guardian long read - it charts out the evolution of the institution from defensive entity to something much more offensive.

      Delete