When Offense is Defined as Defense—Kursk Version
Image by Max Kukurudziak.
So, let me get this straight. When Kyiv sends its military into Russia, occupying territory and killing residents, it’s a defensive move. When Israel sends its military into Gaza and the West Bank, it’s also a defensive move. When the United States occupies countries around the world, sails its warships off the coast of China and Iran, those are defensive moves. Yet, When Russia sends its military into Ukraine, it’s an offensive move. Something is, to say the least amiss. Indeed, something is just plain rotten. Although the specifics are certainly different in each of these cases, if one considers them all as elements of Washington’s neverending drive towards hegemony (an accurate historical framing) then the notion that all of the ostensibly defensive moves by US clients mentioned here are actually the opposite.
One does not need to be a supporter of Russia, Iran or China, to see the obvious hypocrisy. A historical side note and something that is at least an interesting coincidence: in 1943 the Nazi army invaded the exact same Kursk region. That battle is considered to be one of two turning points in the European theater in World War Two. The other was the Battle of Stalingrad. The Nazi’s intention in 1943 was to weaken the Soviet offensive potential for the summer of 1943 by cutting off and enveloping Soviet forces in Kursk. The battle that ensued was one of the bloodiest of the war’s eastern front. It has been suggested that one of Kyiv’s reasons for going into Kursk is to siphon off Russian forces from other front lines, thereby weakening the entire Russian line.
This incursion into Russia is both foolish and provocative. The nature and sophistication of the operation has led some on all sides to speculate that not only was NATO crucial in the planning, but may very well have troops from various countries in the military alliance involved. That being said, why didn’t Kyiv keep any of the agreements it had made regarding neutrality instead of opting to go for NATO membership? Why? Because the US and NATO convinced, coerced and cajoled certain elements of the Ukrainian capitalist class that they could make more money for themselves if they chose US and other western capitalists over the Russian capitalist class. I’m not saying Russia was right to invade, but I am saying it is way past time to negotiate an end to the conflict—something neither NATO or Washington want to see. I think China will play a major role in ending this, especially since Washington (and Russia to some degree) seem content with the status quo.
This incursion into Russia indicates a couple things. First is that this action changes Ukraine’s claim that Kyiv is fighting a war to defend its territory. Instead, this incursion makes Ukraine’s war as just one part of Washington’s imperial battle with Moscow an even greater fact. Various news agencies reported Biden’s August 13, 2024 comments on the matter: “It’s creating a real dilemma for Putin, and we’ve been in direct contact, constant contact, with the Ukrainians. That’s all I’m going to say about it while it’s active,” (AFP) Meanwhile Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal(D-CT) met with Zelensky and praised the action, while also encouraging retired jet pilots to join mercenary forces aligned with the Ukrainian military (and paid by Washington). (Euronews 8/13/24) Such remarks certainly seem to indicate a greater involvement than Washington has been letting on. Other foreign news sources reported on the destruction of a bridge in Kursk by Ukraine-led forces using US-made HIMARS missiles. (Hindustan Times 8/18/24) This is of course in violation of previous arms supply agreements that forbade Kyiv from using US-provided weapons in offensive actions. Furthermore, the presence of hundreds more NATO-provided fighter jets, tanks, other artillery and the ammunition these machines use against Moscow forces suggests that these considerably more dangerous weapons will be used in the incursion. This is despite the fact that those weapons were officially provided to the Kyiv military for defensive purposes only. Of course, as the Israeli genocide of Palestinians emphasizes, any military action will be defined as defensive when the generals and politicians reject diplomacy and decide on aggression.
It cannot be repeated enough. The best means for Ukraine to be sovereign and independent is to enter negotiations with Russia. Of course, this means that there would be bargains made on both sides. This has been the case since well before the Russian invasion in February 2022. It continues to be so. This war serves the purposes of the United States and its alliance in Washington’s pursuit of global dominance. So far, it’s been doing this with the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and citizens and (lots of) US money. However, if Washington and its military alliance continue to arm Ukraine while decreasing the limits on the use of those arms, the world could be looking at a war fought directly between NATO and Russian forces. This is a scenario that the world should reject without a second thought.
When a nation’s economy demands provoking and maintaining armed conflict around the world like the economy of the United States does, that indicates a fundamental flaw in the economy of that nation. Stating this does not absolve other nations whose economies also rely on war spending, but it does beg the question if those economies would be expanding their war industries if it we not for the threat of attack that Washington’s course presents. In other words, would Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have occurred if Washington had not funded and encouraged Kyiv’s war sector or, similarly, would China be stepping up its military spending if Washington wasn’t encouraging the war hawks in Taiwan? History tells us the answer to that question is no.
posted by Satish Sharma at
15:31
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home