[A precise answer requires precise questions ]
[[link removed]]

HOW WILL THE WAR END?  
[[link removed]]


 

Boris Kagarlitsky
August 30, 2022
Russian Dissent
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ A precise answer requires precise questions _

,

 

The war between Russia and Ukraine has not only destroyed the lives of
many thousands in both states, but also dealt a heavy blow to left and
left-liberal political discourse in the West. Over the course of many
years, ideological clichés have developed and worked successfully,
allowing a more or less predictable response to any conflict and
crisis in the modern world. We knew for sure that the main source of
problems is the policy of the conservative elites of the West, aimed
at oppressing the peoples of the global South. That is why pacifists
and socialists should criticize the NATO bloc, sympathize with states
that are under pressure from the West, even if the political regimes
existing there are very far from any ideas of democracy. The events of
February 24, when pro-Western Ukraine was subjected to aggression by
the rulers of Russia, who declared themselves fighters against Western
influence, confused and disoriented many. Of course, the condemnation
of aggression was almost universal, except for a number of marginal
groups and individuals who opposed not only the left mainstream, but
also reality. However, a moralistic condemnation of war and aggression
turns out to be insufficient to not only formulate political
positions, or even to give a general assessment of what is happening,
but also to answer the question of what exactly should be fought for,
and what should be achieved in the current situation.

The fact that the events of the Russian-Ukrainian war do not fit into
the usual story of Western imperialism asserting its dominance over
other countries and peoples does not mean that we should forgo
criticism of the existing global system. Here, the danger is
different: we risk becoming hostages of the usual ready-made formulas,
and we refuse to analyze reality, which shows a more complex, and most
importantly, a real picture with all its contradictions.

Let’s try to understand what is happening specifically, without
succumbing to the ideological clichés of one side or the other.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

Of course, it is the Russian oligarchy and Putin’s regime that bear
the greatest responsibility for the current war. We can and should
talk about the violation of human rights in Ukraine, about the fact
that in 2014 the new government in Kyiv and its supporters used force
against protesting citizens in the South-East (not only in Donetsk and
Lugansk, but also in Kharkov and Odessa). One can and should be
mindful of the ridiculous attempts to ban or suppress the Russian
language (“the demand is as immoral as it is insane,” as Ukrainian
director Serhiy Loznitsa put it). Today, this is openly spoken not
only by those who have always criticized the authorities in Kyiv, but
even by many of its supporters, such as Alexei Arestovich, an adviser
to President Zelensky. But remembering all this makes sense only after
the main culprit is named, and they are the current Kremlin rulers.

To be sure, the regime that has taken shape in Russia over the past
years did not fall from the sky, nor is it simply the result of the
madness of one person, or the product of the vicious inclinations of
the group around him. It quite naturally formed on the basis of an
economic policy that reflected the logic of modern neoliberalism, and
with the full support of the West.

When discussing sanctions, one should not forget that it was
Russia’s integration into global markets - via the export of mineral
raw materials - which led to the formation of the typical features of
capitalism in the periphery, just the same as occurred in many
countries in Africa or Asia, which then gave rise to the corresponding
socio-political structures and relations, practices which are now
unanimously condemned by the “enlightened West” as
“non-European.” In this regard, by the way, sanctions are forced
and belated, undermining the existing economic structure and striking
at the structure of interests prevailing in Russia, and in the future
they may create an objective basis for systemic changes in our
country. But these changes can become a reality only after the
collapse of the current regime.

The ruling circles of the West and Ukraine share responsibility for
the war with the Putin regime, but it is this regime that is today the
main factor in the unfolding crisis. Without politically removing him
from the scene, we cannot hope for any resolution of this situation.
To argue differently means not only to support the Kremlin, but also
to contribute to the endless prolongation of the war with all its
accompanying disasters. This must be remembered by anyone who dreams
of a humane and just world.

To oppose the Putin regime means to resolutely oppose attempts to
identify this regime with Russian society and Russian culture
generally (which is precisely the central element of the current
regime’s official propaganda). During the 20 years of Putin’s rule
in Russia, mass protests have broken out many times, whole cities came
out in opposition (from the Volokolamsk district or the Khabarovsk
regional), months-long campaigns of resistance were organized which
did not give up despite severe repression. The only thing that
fundamentally distinguished the Russian protest from what happened in
Ukraine and many other countries was that the protests here were
always peaceful and non-violent. In this sense, the experience of
Russia clearly refutes Gene Sharp’s theory, popular among the
liberal public, that dictatorships are allegedly afraid of peaceful
protest and can be overthrown with its help. To a peaceful protest,
regardless of its mass character, the authorities reacted either with
indifference or repression.

The current war could radically change the situation. But the
development of events will depend on how things go in Ukraine.

WHAT PEACE INITIATIVES DESERVE SUPPORT?

The protracted war inevitably puts the question of a truce on the
agenda. The anti-war movement in Russia has fought for this from the
very first day of the war. Even official public opinion polls in
Russia show that the majority of the population supports an early
cessation of hostilities.

But when speaking out for peace, one cannot play into the hands of
those who unleashed this war. If the ceasefire does not involve the
withdrawal of troops to the positions they occupied on February 23,
such an initiative is essentially an encouragement of aggression and
recognition of the “right” of one state to seize and hold the
territories of another by force. In this case, it doesn’t matter at
all how we feel about the authorities that currently exist in Ukraine:
the seizure of its territory is a violation not only of state
sovereignty, but first of all of the rights and freedoms of the
population living there, whose opinion no one even thinks to ask. It
is especially striking when something like this is proposed by some
liberal political commentators in the West, who believe that it is
possible to discuss territorial concessions or the revision of the
borders of foreign states without thinking about what the inhabitants
of these countries might want. What is this, if not a classic example
of colonialist thinking, which does not recognize the right of the
natives to make their own choices. And if we are talking about an
agreement between Putin and the West, why is it proposed to resolve
the issue at the expense of Ukraine? Why, instead of discussing the
fate of Kherson, not agree to the return of Alaska “to its native
Russian shores?”

It is clear that the withdrawal of the Russian army from the occupied
territories will mean an admission of defeat. This is precisely what
the Putin regime seeks to avoid at all costs, and not because someone
in the Kremlin really needs Kherson or Mariupol turned into ruins. The
ruling circles of Russia are well aware that defeat in the war will
result in both their own downfall and in the first stirrings of
revolutionary changes in the country. That is why they are ready to
continue hostilities indefinitely, regardless of the price that will
have to be paid by society in the form of human lives or economic
damage. And when it comes to a truce, they cling to any option that
would allow them to at least take credit for success. But there should
be no illusions here: Putin’s regime is a state whose further
existence is possible only under conditions of permanent war. It will
not be able to establish any stable peace or even a truce, and not at
all because, as we are often told, evil imperialists are in power in
the Kremlin, who will not rest until they destroy Ukraine. Russia is
ruled by unprincipled and corrupt pragmatists. The fate of both Russia
and Ukraine are matter of equal indifference to them. However, they
have become entangled in their own contradictions and, having warmed
up nationalist sentiments in that part of society that is still loyal,
they simply will not be able to return to the state of affairs that
existed before the start of the Ukrainian crisis.

As we remember, at the beginning of the war the Putin government did
not put forward any territorial claims against Ukraine. The Kremlin
was generally unable to formulate any intelligible demands, limiting
itself to a general insistence that “Nazis” supposedly ruled in
Ukraine. The inability to state a specific set of demands or a
consistent statement regarding the goals of the war is a consequence
of the fact that the real reasons for the outbreak of hostilities did
not lie in the sphere of Russian-Ukrainian affairs, or even
international relations at all. The causes of the war must be sought
in the internal political crisis of the Putin regime. The ruling
circles needed a “small, victorious war” to complete the
reorganization of power against the background of the deteriorating
health of the ruler, and of the growing alienation between the state
and society. It is now clear that the prolongation of the war has
thwarted the Kremlin’s plans. But admitting a military failure would
mean a full-blown political disaster for Putin’s oligarchy. That is
why in April 2022, when the Istanbul conference almost came to an
agreement to end the war and begin the withdrawal of troops, progress
suddenly stalled. After assessing the internal political situation,
Putin’s entourage came to the conclusion that peace is more
dangerous for them than the continuation of the war.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO PUTIN’S REGIME?

Of course, Putin’s regime did not begin its life as the same form we
see before us today. Recriminations and accusations about the fact
that this government was “tolerated for so long” (like similar
delusional arguments about the alleged collective responsibility of
Russians for the current state of affairs) are completely meaningless.
The political system in Russia has undergone a gradual evolution,
becoming more and more authoritarian, but finally acquired its current
form relatively recently, as a result of a “coup from above”
carried out under the guise of a 2020 constitutional reform. But even
this coup did not happen in a vacuum, and was by no means simply the
result of Putin’s lust for power or the intrigues of his inner
circle. All of it was the result of prolonged economic stagnation, the
growth of mass discontent, and the growing number of conflicts within
the ruling class. In such a situation, those in power found no other
way out than tightening authoritarian control over society,
dismantling the remaining democratic freedoms, blatant repression, and
then, when none of this was sufficient, the war, which, by their
calculation, was supposed to restore the unity of society.

But the calculation of the Kremlin’s masters regarding the course of
the war in Ukraine turned out to be completely false. On the one hand,
the events every day demonstrate more and more how incompetent and
mediocre the people who dragged the country into the current
catastrophe turned out to be; on the other hand, any attempt to get
out of this impasse will require them to recognize the very fact of
that failure - this inevitably raises the uncomfortable question of
responsibility. Therefore, the people who now rule in our state are
more comfortable sinking deeper and deeper into the catastrophe than
trying to overcome it. It is the internal political crisis in Russia
that is the main reason for the start of the war, and the reason why
this war cannot end, despite the obvious lack of any prospects for
success.

The war will not end until there is a regime change in Russia. This is
not an ideological statement, but a fundamental political principle of
the Putin regime itself, which cannot survive other than by dragging
out the war indefinitely. Unfortunately for the Kremlin rulers,
eternal war is impossible, especially as it turns into an endless
series of failures and defeats, something which tends not to stabilize
a regime.

Apparently the best way out, which both people around the incumbent
president and many politicians in the West are inclined towards, is to
offer us Putinism without Putin in the very near future, since the
current state of the first citizen’s health leaves much to be
desired. To shift the responsibility onto one person, somehow come to
an agreement with foreign governments, and then continue to rule the
country in the old way - this is the strategic perspective towards
which the Russian elite is gradually turning. But even if this
scenario is realized in the near future, it will not succeed in
reviving the status quo. Russia is ripe for deep changes. With the end
of the war, they will begin, regardless of whether anyone likes it or
not.

Translated by Dan Erdman

_BORIS YULYEVICH KAGARLITSKY
[[link removed]] (Russian
[[link removed]]: Бори́с
Ю́льевич Кагарли́цкий; born 29 August 1958) is a
Russian Marxist [[link removed]] theoretician
[[link removed]] and sociologist
[[link removed]] who has been a political
dissident [[link removed]] in
the Soviet Union [[link removed]]. He is
coordinator of the Transnational Institute
[[link removed]] Global Crisis
project and Director of the Institute of Globalization and Social
Movements
[[link removed]] (IGSO)
in Moscow [[link removed]]. Kagarlisky hosts
a YouTube [[link removed]] channel Rabkor,
associated with his online newspaper of the same name and with IGSO._

* Ukraine
[[link removed]]
* Russia
[[link removed]]
* Vladimir Putin
[[link removed]]
* Ukraine war
[[link removed]]
* Russian left
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]