Where is your CVC code?
With the world turning its eyes toward Ukraine, numerous questions are being asked. What do protesters want? What is at stake for international politics? Neoconservative John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for the Bush administration, has already put his two cents into the conversation. In the Los Angeles Times, Bolton argues that what is currently happing in Ukraine is proof that NATO should have been expanded in 2008 at the Bucharest summit:
Thus the West collectively made a terrible mistake at the NATO summit in April 2008 by not placing Ukraine (and Georgia) on a clear path to NATO membership. Had we done so, the question of EU economic relations would doubtless have been more easily resolved. Ambiguity over Ukraine, leaving it in a no man’s land between Russia and NATO, obviously didn’t lead to Ukrainian stability, domestically or internationally. And the same vital question for Kiev’s citizens abides: Is their future with the West or Moscow?
Is the push toward the EU just a step to integrate Ukraine into military alignment through NATO? There is undoubtedly an array of opinions among the protesters, but the question for someone like Bolton is not “what do the protesters want?” but “what do the powers-that-be want?” Historically, EU membership has been a step toward NATO membership, and it is also clear that the draft of the Association Agreement that the protesters seem to support includes military cooperation. Article X, section one, says:
The Parties shall explore the potential of military-technological cooperation. Ukraine and the European Defence Agency (EDA) will establish close contacts to discuss military capability improvement, including technological issues.
The right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation has also released a policy statement on the situation in Ukraine. The author of the report, Dr. Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow for Russian and Eurasian studies and international energy policy, writes that the United States should “stand with the Ukrainian people” as part of a broader struggle against Moscow. Cohen recommends that the United States
increase coordination of Ukraine policy with its European allies, including an offer of a comprehensive economic reform package, such as a technical assistance program to repair the ailing economy, a significant increase in trade with Europe and the U.S., and the IMF loan.
Those concerned about seeing a protest movement turn into an excuse for an expansion of NATO military power ought to be vigilant against neoconservatives seeking to use the protests to justify their worldview in the wake of the failed military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Activists in the United States, if they are concerned about the outcome of the protests currently underway in Ukraine, ought to defuse these attempts by neoconservatives to write their own narrative into the story.
It’s not so much what the “neocons” want but what the neoliberal economic system, aka global capitalism, always wants. Which would be to take the resources, especially shale gas, and common wealth for their profit. Access to markets is not so much an issue because Ukraine is so poor. The most important goal is to make sure that Ukraine is economically integrated into and dependent on the Western financial system, aka Troika, rather than Russia. On the political side, the E.U. and U.S. want to solidify the hierarchical governance system of the Ukrainian oligarchs. They are trying to negate the one real political advantage that the “protesters” have – unlike most people in the West, Ukrainians know how corrupt their system of governance is. The Western neocons are using the “protests” as a means to replace the current oligarchic rule, which favors Russia, with oligarchic governance that favors the West. Neoliberal democracy is the carrot that the E.U. and U.S. are holding before the “protesters” The stick will come later, after new oligarchs favorable to the West are in power. The West is offering the illusion of greater political liberty on their American libertarian shamocracy (something that is not what it appears to be and is meant to trick or deceive people) model of governance. Neoliberal “democracy” is not real democracy but a system of representative republican governance, where political decision are made not by the people but by “representatives” of the corporations, financial institutions and oligarchs. A system of governance that might be called contemporary fascism: the merger of corporate-financial and state power. The West’s strategy is a familiar and proven one. Once the nonviolent regime change is successful, the revolution can be easily co opted – a process already well under way – by “democratically” elected representatives who are anxious to serve their new Western masters. If Ukrainians know anything it is that faithful servants are paid well in the West.
P.S. For ordinary Ukrainians these political machinations are as always literally above them. What they want is greater freedom to travel and work in the E.U. and sadly for many, the prospect of emigrating – getting out of Ukraine.
The appearance at Maidan of U.S. Senator and neocon capitalist shill John McCain to “rapturous applause” was the final exclamation point in the tragic betrayal of Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution.” The events since the 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections are a case study in how nonviolent revolution and regime change can be co opted by the neoliberal world system to serve its own agenda. Through nonviolent struggle and sacrifice Ukrainains were able to overthrow a blatantly fraudulent regime and secure new, relatively free democratic elections. Now some 10 years later, the former “democratically elected” prime minister is in prison, the former “freely elected” president is a pariah, and the old fraudulent regime is back in power. And political conditions in Ukraine are worse than they were before the so-called Orange Revolution. Thanks in large part to the economic sabotage of the neoliberal economic system with a big assist from the hierarchal political leaders who came to power through the nonviolent collective action of the Orange Revolution.
What is truly tragic – but also a reason for hope – is that the Ukrainian people have finally realized that neoliberal “democracy” and nonviolent regime change are a political dead end that cannot make fundamental structural change to their economic and governance systems. It is merely a changing of the patriarchal guard with business as usual for neoliberal system. Sunday’s protests numbered a couple-hundred thousand, less than half the estimated 500,000 who marched on 23 November 2004. Numbers certainly don’t tell the whole story. The energy of the Orange Revolution is simply not there in the current protests. As well intentioned and dedicated as the current protesters are there is not the same revolutionary energy that mobilized an entire country. Part of the reason is the demand for E.U. integration, hardly on the same level with the demands for a free democratic process. Even more however, is that most Ukrainians have lost confidence in that same neoliberal “democratic” process to make real, meaningful and lasting changes. They know that the Ukrainian people are just pawns and will have no real say in the political outcome of Euro-Maidan. They protest only because the current political situation is intolerable and they don’t know what else to do. Вся потужність до рад працівників!
The Kyiv Post just published an interview with John McCain. Despite the overload of neoliberal propaganda at least one of JM’s answers had an element of truth force.
KP: You have met with a number of Ukraine’s oligarchs, many of whom are still wavering as to what side they support. Is the U.S. weighing in to encourage them to tip to one side or another? Are you offering any carrots or stick, such as a U.S. visa for Rinat Akhmetov, who has not been able to get one?
JM: It’s true that the oligarchs are very (or the) most important factor in whether this whole effort will succeed or not. There are varying degrees of support from these oligarchs, from all-out support to distance, and everything in between. Some of them, to be frank, their attitude is dictated by what they think is the chance of this movement of succeeding is. And then, there are others who realize that membership in the European Union gives them a much bigger opportunity at job creation and growth than being associated with Russia. So, I am generally pleased with the attitude of most of the oligarchs. Some of them have drawn a clear separation between themselves and the president, but obviously we would like to see a lot more of that.
Thank you Mr. Tylwak for your comments. I recognized that the distinction between the neoliberal apparatus and the security apparatus is sometimes hard to distinguish between at times; but for the sake of analysis I separated the two. Neoconservativism as an ideology within the neoliberal system is, as clearly testified by McCain’s recent visit, attempting to recover its ideological language after the disasters of both Iraq and Afghanistan. One of my concerns is that this could give “legitimacy” to a neoconservative foreign policy towards Russia and Eastern Europe; thereby setting an even less satisfactory precedent than the one we have today. What makes Ukraine different is that US policy could *theoretically* change. For years the NATO establishment has been debating its stance towards Russia. The case for NATO enlargement largely depends on western perceptions of Russia to begin with. These protests could be the perfect opportunity for a more assertive US in the region; as if it already hasn’t been. I suspect that enlargement will be on the “to do” list.
Also, can you provide a link to that McCain interview?
US senators McCain and Murphy discuss sanctions, what side of the barricades the oligarchs are on
Dec. 16, 2013, 6:06 p.m. | Ukraine — by Christopher J. Miller, Katya Gorchinskaya
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/us-senators-mccain-and-murphy-discuss-ukraines-future-with-kyiv-post-333778.html
At least in this discussion, I’m a Marxist in regard to what the neocons want – its all about economics, money and power. NATO is like McCain just a stick that the U.S. wants to poke in Putin’s eye. Regarding U.S. foreign policy it could not get any worse than the current focus on foisting neoliberal “democracy” on countries that at least in some respects were moving toward socialism. Obviously, i’m not advocating democratic socialism but for Ukraine this illusion of achieving some sort of neoliberal political liberty is particularly cruel and destructive. The nonviolent Orange Revolution was an enormously important event for the Ukrainian people – it cannot be underestimated. To see it betrayed by a focus on neoliberal democracy is a true tragedy. As the current Euro-Maidan protests demonstrate, it may be a tragedy that the Ukrainian people will have a hard-time overcoming. What many in the West do not understand is that Ukraine and Russia are already economically integrated and have been for a long time. Many Ukrainians work and live in Russia. The aspiration of some to achieve bourgeois political liberty and middle class lifestyle through EU integration may prove to be a costly chimera for most ordinary Ukrainians.
It is a tragedy indeed. The Ukrainian people deserve more than to be put between two giants. If you are interested, there is an active conversation about this article here: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/15-2
In an earlier post, i asked the question, what should be the true aspirations of the Ukrainian revolution? The Western media – both main stream and left – have portrayed the current protests as primarily about European integration and neoliberal “democracy.” The core demands of the Ukrainian protesters however, are much more fundamental – basic human rights, including the right of real democratic governance. A recent “Voice of Russia” interview with Noam Chomsky provides a valuable perspective on those aspirations as well as a possible way forward beyond the protests:
Arab world regards US and Israel as threat to world – Noam Chomsky
Voice of Russia
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_12_20/Arab-world-regards-US-and-Israel-as-threat-to-world-Noam-Chomsky-8168/
SN: I kind of want to start up by asking you to briefly describe what is anarchism and more specifically anarcho-syndicalism?
NC: Well, I think the best characterization that I know is given by one of the leading thinkers and activists in the modern anarcho-syndicalist world, Rudolf Rocker, who described anarchism in general as not a specific set of beliefs that provides particular answers to all the questions that can arise, but rather what he called ‘a general tendency in the history of humanity’ which aims to inquire into the nature of social, economic, political structures to detect structures of hierarchy and domination and to challenge them to demonstrate their legitimacy. They are not self-justified and if they cannot defend their legitimacy on some plausible grounds then to dismantle them and reconstruct then from below. And to do this in the context of the existing society, developing alternative institutions that are more free and more just in the hope of moving on to a world of free associations of workers’ communities controlling their own institutions, their own fate in association with one another of various kinds of federal arrangements and so on. That is the basic thrust of anarchism. Altogether it is myview and of anarcho-syndicalism in particular which is designed for complex industrial societies.
SN: So, you are talkingabout workers controlling their own work and controlling the enterprises that work in expanding out to the community?
NC: It’s one of crucial aspect of it. In fact, anarcho-syndicalism kind of shades off into left anti-Bolshevik Marxism. People like Anton Pannekoek, Paul Mattick, Karl Korsch and others have sympathetic relationships and ideas and the great anarchist achievement like the 1936 Spanish Revolution before it was crushed, did have the strong and sympathetic support of left Marxists who felt a community of interests and commitments.
SN: I’m kind of wondering how workers are controlling their own work. How is this organized? And how does it arise?
NC: Well, it’s all over the place. First of all it is a constant development takes place all over. There were efforts in Eastern Europe, for example, in self-management in Yugoslavia. Right now in the U.S., in the old decaying Rust Belt, where industries are collapsing, they’re being replaced, to a certain extent, by worker owned and partially worker-managed enterprises. There is one huge institution that’s undergone great conglomerate in Spain which is worker owned and the manager is selected by workers but not actually worker-managed which is a collection of heavy industries, banks, hospitals, community living and so on.
SN: So, did they rise spontaneously or is there a system that regulates how the workers organize themselves like maybe in the U.S., like they do it one way and then over Spain Mondragon they’ll do it a different way. Is there any kind of vision?
NC: There is no leadership or Bible, things develop on the basis of the circumstances that exist. So the conditions in Rust Belt in Northern Ohio and in Catalonia and in Oregon in 1936 are quite different and the backgrounds are quite different. But there were similarities in the way the take-over by working people, peasants of their own lives proceded.
SN: Let’s say that Mondragon wants to have an association with somebody in the Rust Belt …
NC: That is what is happening in fact. I don’t know how far it will go, but one of the major U.S. unions, the steel workers, has now entered into some kinds of interactions with Mondragon. They try to work out ways to develop Mondragon-type system in the old industrial sections of the U.S. and revive them on the basis of worker-ownership and community-ownership in control.
For those following events in Ukraine there are a couple of blogs that are worth a read:
Rethinking the Euro Revolution and the Yanukovych Regime
Alexander J. Motyl’s blog 25 December 2013
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/rethinking-euro-revolution-and-yanukovych-regime
“Second, in standing up for their rights, Ukrainians demonstrated to themselves, to the regime, and to the world that they are free and will fight for that freedom. The demonstrations began as protests against the government’s decision to snub the European Union; but they quickly morphed into assertions of the dignity and autonomy ”
The Mania of Ukraine’s Euromaidan
December 30, 2013
Sergey Glazyev
Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
Source URL (retrieved on Dec 30, 2013): http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-mania-ukraine%E2%80%99s-euromaidan-9636
“Second, we must remember the common history of Russia and Ukraine, as well as previous attempts at European integration. During both World Wars, integration resulted in genocide against the Ukrainian people.”
Is the Ukraine another tasty meal for the neocons stirring the pot. I hate to think what the next world war would look like. Thinking back to the way people are always manipulated into war I am quite afraid.