Kassioun Editorial 1060: How Will the Outcome of the Battle be Determined?

Nevertheless, what is more important than merely giving a simple position on the event, whether for or against, is to try to understand it deeply, and to understand its possible consequences, in Russia itself, in Europe and the US, and in our region and the world as a whole, and then judge it based on this understanding.

The first thing to consider is the actual facts of the battle, not only in its field military sense, but more importantly its premises and causes.

Within this framework, at least two basic issues can be established:

First: The West’s quest to encircle Russia all the way to trying to end it is not a new matter, but rather a historical endeavor that is reinforced whenever the West’s financial and economic crises increase, and as a theoretical temporary way out of those crises. The same was the case in World War II and it is so now.

Second: Western preparations for the battle against Russia, based on the expansion of NATO to 14 additional countries starting from 1997, and starting with Ukraine itself, has become a proven fact. Many have admitted it, including the former Ukrainian prime minister, who spoke in detail about these preparations: implicitly the US’s establishment of five germ laboratories in Ukraine, the danger of which may exceed even nuclear weapons, as well as preparing nasty nuclear bombs using nuclear waste in Chernobyl and elsewhere. The preparations also include extensive armament and training, and setting a date for the start of the war against Russia on the 25th of last month, which is one day after the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine.

In other words, the Russian military operation in this sense can be understood as a preemptive defensive step from the point of view of Russian national security, much more than as an offensive war.

Many currents, in their reading of the event, tend to say that it is just a struggle aimed at sharing Europe, and consequently the division of control shares in the global sense, especially the economic one. Those who hold this view completely ignore what we mentioned above, which for Russia as a state and as a people is a matter of life and death, not within the logic of "defending the homeland” as a pretext for wars of dividing shares, but rather within the actual contemporary logic of defending the homeland within the framework of liberation from colonialism, especially colonialism in its contemporary economic form.

Reading matters based on the idea of dividing and re-partitioning shares, as if the world today is the same as it was before World War I, is a premature reading and far from reality. Nonetheless, it cannot be resolved in a proactive and complete manner without clarifying the outcomes of the battle, especially inside Russia.

In other words, what determines the final outcomes of this open confrontation, is how things will develop inside Russia itself from the perspective of the pattern of wealth distribution, and implicitly issues related to the financial system, as well as the role of the central bank and the nature of that role, and the roles and weight of the oligarchy.

In the midst of the ongoing battle, and with the impact of sanctions and the infernal Western blockade that seeks to stifle Russia, the objective need for radical measures in the process of redistributing wealth will become more urgent, and will become an immediate requirement for survival.

Solely on the basis of action towards this point in particular, and on the basis of the balances it will create, will the actual outcome of the battle be determined, as well as its global, regional, and local consequences, which, whatever their nature, will bring back to the forefront, whether or not some like it, the question of the historical alternative to capitalism and its decay.

(النسخة العربية)