Thank you, Foxy,

I don't think there is remotely anything 'Left' about Putin, I suspect he represents the worst aspects, the most reactionary aspects, of the 'Great Russian' imperialist mentality which - if we are to be honest - has continued unabated from long before the 1917 Revolution right through Lenin and Stalin's times, Khrushchev and Brezhnev's times, and since.

Imperialism is a very difficult habit to get out of. Tsarism had a peculiarly absolutist side - 'For the Tsar, God and Country' - which was never to be questioned. So it is today in Putin's Russia.

Yes, I hope, probably vainly, that the fires he is lighting will peter out. But let's face it, he owns the Russian media, the world-wide Russian TV machine. So any hope that the Russian people will see sense and let other countries alone may be doomed.

As you fear, Foxy, which country will be next ?

If only there was still a Left with courage and integrity. Another lifelong illusion dashed.

Love,

Joe

Russia already had virtual unlimited access to a warm water port, in Crimea, and just needed to update the lease!
The real reason is very likely the oil and gas reserves, and Putin's ability, to use energy resources as an economic weapon.
He seems to be repeating a successful reunification formula with a once independent Georgia?
He can take what he likes, if the bites are small enough and the real opposition very weak or as badly divided as the Ukraine!
And who can or will stop him, when that requires boots on the ground and commitment to stay the course until the end!
The brutal roman empire ended, because it became too big to control, and filled with too many dissenters. [The slaves turned on their masters!]
As long as a brutal Putin continues to alienate his own people, and many of those he has conquered, with brute force control; he will hold on to his conquests, not that much longer than the equally brutal Nazi's held on to French conquests!
Like all the self evident megalomaniacs who proceeded him, he is just too arrogant, fundamentally flawed and self deluded, to adapt to and roll out those policies, that win the hearts and minds as well!
He being who he really is, the new all powerful Czar, just doesn't believe he has too?
And he believes, that many voting Russians approve of the gradual expansion? They also approved of the pullout from Afghanistan, given the continuing cost of that conflict, one that very nearly bankrupted Russia!
He and his current moves are very popular in Russia? And he does have an election to win?
What will those same voters believe, when the bills associated with just holding on to those new acquisitions, come rolling in!?
But particularly, if new oil discoveries elsewhere, drive down the price of energy, say, to below the cost to Russia, of just producing a barrel of fuel/cubic metre of scrubbed gas?
I can remember, when a barrel of oil only cost the west $10.00!
Understand?
Rhrosty.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

As I wrote in my earlier post -
What matters is that this breach of the territorial
integrity of another country has started a new era.
We are returning to the pre-World War II behaviour
of the Soviet Union. It is a start of expansionism,
ignoring all norms of international treaties and
agreements. It is too easy to brush aside the
events that are unfolding, events which have in the
past involved most countries of the world into
endless conflicts and horrific wars.

Substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons, including the
"delivery systems," were stationed in the Ukrainian
territory when the Soviet Union collapsed, and were
under the control of the newly emerged Ukraine.
The "western powers" were anxious to avoid proliferation
of nuclear weapons and wanted to destroy them.
As Russia was regarded as a reliable, big power, it
was put to the Ukrainians that they should surrender their
nuclear weapons to Russia to deal with the destruction.

This was regarded as a reduction of nuclear danger
to all "western powers." It did nothing to reduce the
danger to Ukraine. Ukraine was guaranteed its security
in return for their willingness to surrender peacefully their
arsenal. Yes, Ukraine did hand over their nuclear arsenal
to Russia.

Have you seen the graphic TV re-broadcast of a TV program
in Moscow that reminded in threatening tone that Russia
"was the only power able to destroy New York and other
American cities, leaving behind only radioactive ahes?"

It is worth noting that it was shown at the same time as the
invasion of Crimea by the Russian troops.

Hi Foxy,

Yes, that TV braggart was hardly typifying a nation being harassed or put upon by Ukrainians fascists.

As a good Leftie, I recall reading about Russia's war with Finland [when I read the book, I was on Russia's side, of course], in which Stalin demanded that territory in Karelia be handed over. The Finns refused, Russia invaded, Finland appealed for international assistance, got none except from Nazi Germany. Russia launched the largest bombing campaign known at that time. The great Finn composer Sibelius, 75 at the time, used to fire off his old 0.22 at Russian planes. At least, he had both courage and integrity.

For all that, Alexander Wirth, in his 'Russia at War', points out that citizens in the later-besieged city of Leningrad chose to walk on the south side of streets, knowing it would not be bombarded by the Finns anywhere near as heavily as the north side by the Nazis.

It must be horrible to be a third party caught in a war between evils: which side do you choose ? The lesser worst side ?

It was a similar dilemma for Stepan Bandera and General Vlasov, Ukrainian and Russian respectively, seeking some sort of liberation from Stalinist terror, and throwing in their lots with the Nazis. Bandera was jailed by them for three years - they had no more desire for his notion of an independent Ukraine than Stalin had, or Putin has, for that matter - and Vlasov similarly was confined by the Nazis until he agreed to form a pro-Nazi army of Russians. Of course, he was hanged along with other 'turncoat' generals in 1946.

With the 1930s politically-induced famine in the Ukraine in mind, many millions deliberately killed off, I don't know which way I would have gone if I had been Bandera. And after twenty years of Red Terror across the 'Left'-reconstituted Tsarist Empire, maybe I would have done just what Vlasov did, knowing certain death, either way, was the price. No, I wouldn't have had his courage.

[TBC]

[continued]

It's a bit rich, though, for Putin to level a charge of Right-wing influence at Ukraine, when he has just hosted Le Pen from the extreme Right in France, or when the ultra-nationalist Russian Zhirinovsky can offer his full support without any demurral from Putin. Zhirinovsky, le Pen and Putin - my God, what a reactionary bunch.

One lesson might be learnt, however, from the EU's over-reliance on Russia for its energy: that, in future, every effort must always be put into diversifying dependence on suppliers of resources - diversified globalisation, diversified multilateralism, if you like.

In that sense, Putin has played his last card.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I wouldn't trust Putin to have played his last card.

I remember the joke about "motivation," where an
Englishman, a French man, and a Russian are arguing
about which one of them could get a cat to eat
mustard.

The Englishman grabs the cat and sits
it on his lap, then proceeds to politely get it to
lick the mustard off his fingers while singing to it,
"Nice kitty..." The cat sneezes and won't have a bar
of it. Then the Frenchman tries sweet talking the cat -
again to no avail.

Finally the Russian takes the
mustard and wipes it on the cat's bum. The cat furiously
begins licking its bum (stings like hell). Then
the Russian turns to his two colleagues smiles and
says, "The right motivation always works!"