Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action)
Index
Part 1: Critical approach to the positions of the CPG
• Reasons for a response to the Communist Party of Greece (CPG)
• Greece must leave NATO! Or should not it?
• The CPG’s subterfuge to avoid debate
• No support for capitalists?
• Reactionary Venezuela?
• The member organizations of the Platform “ignore or deny” that the current mode of production in the world is capitalist….
Part 2: Criticism of the ideological foundations of the CPG
• A handful of countries?
• “Imperialist pyramid” or Lenin’s theory of imperialism?
• Idealism hidden in “imperialist pyramid”.
• Methodological error
• No participation of communists in governments led by the bourgeoisie?
• Are there no stages between capitalism and socialism?
• Erroneous positions are not harmless
• Incorrect and damaging derivations
Part 3: Imperialism vs. imperialism?
• A long work
• Brief and concise summary of the “imperialist pyramid” and the CPG study method
• A big mess
• China and Russia belong to the G20
• State presence in Russian companies
• Foreign penetration of the Russian economy
• “Gigantic amounts” of capital export from Russia
• The “big” Russian banking
• Warmongering Russia?
• Imbalance
• All the same… or not?
• Broad background to the current conflict in Ukraine
• The context of the war
• A brief parenthesis
• Production structure of Russia, China and other countries
Conclusions
• Nihil novum sub sole
• Another reality
• Other behaviour
• Syria
(The previous sections have been published in past issues.)
Conclusions
Nihil novum sub sole
Due to a method of analysis that can be anything but materialist dialectics and a not so remarkable ability to distinguish between methodology and conclusions, the CPG ends up equating the world war that is brewing at present with the First World War. Because Lenin deduced in his time that the First World War consisted of the clash between the imperialist powers, in accordance with the biblical proverb nihil novum sub sole (“there is nothing new under the sun”), the CPG thinks that today it must be the same as in Lenin’s time, as if the river of time did not flow, as if there had been neither the Second World War, nor the processes of decolonisation, nor the expansion of socialist societies and the subsequent liquidation of part of them.
A confrontation between imperialist countries and countries that resist subjugation does not fit in with their dogma. But this is precisely the situation that has been developing in the last decades: the imperialist bloc (USA and EU) against Yugoslavia. The imperialist bloc against Afghanistan. The imperialist bloc against Iraq. The imperialist bloc against Libya. The imperialist bloc against Syria. The imperialist bloc against Russia. The imperialist bloc against Yemen. And probably, in the not so distant future, the imperialist bloc against the DPRK.
The CPG’s mystique is one thing, and reality is quite another. In this reality, not in the hallucination of the CPG’s “imperialist pyramid”, the vast majority of countries are not imperialist, including Russia, as we have shown in this paper.
Extrapolating Lenin’s conclusions from one particular historical epoch to a post-World War II era leads to dangerous conclusions that equate victims and victimizers. According to the CPG, two imperialist blocs would be confronting each other today: NATO on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other. And since both blocs would be imperialist, no one would dare to side with one of them and whoever did so would be against Lenin and, worse, against the ultimate contemporary derivation of his theory: the “magical imperialist pyramid”.
If the CPG were to continue with the same consequence with which it slanders Russia and China and other countries with its idea of the “imperialist pyramid”, the situation would be: all against all. However, his imperialist pyramid allows everything. It allows him to be consistent with it and not to be consistent with it. It allows him to adjust everything he mentally extracts from reality as he pleases. As it suits it, it can raise or lower an imaginary bar along it and place it wherever it pleases.
Because, in essence, the CPG is not about countries like Afghanistan, Syria or Sudan. The CPG has another aim with its “magical imperialist pyramid”: to have a so-called “theoretical” tool to accuse Russia, China, Iran and other strong countries that resist imperialism of being imperialist, and to give this absurdity the appearance of “science”. The “imperialist pyramid” is directed against these countries. With this, they do a great service to the real imperialist powers of the world.
Another reality
During the First World War there was no clear winner among the imperialists at war, and even one imperialist country, Russia, was taken out of the orbit of the imperialist countries. Given the admittedly undefined situation left by the First World War, a more devastating war broke out: the Second World War, whose function was to define what the first one could not and, of course, to confront a new danger: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR was the victor of the Second World War. However, the real winner (i.e. the country that profited most from the end of the war) was the USA. With it and the phase immediately after it, the USA emerged as the new hegemonic country of the imperialist bloc and the other countries, imperialist or not, were subjugated to it. The European imperialist countries were doubly weakened: by the costs they had incurred during the war and by the consolidation of the socialist camp, of which several Eastern European countries were part.
Subsequently, the USSR was liquidated. This resulted in a new reality, diametrically different from that of the First World War. The most striking difference is that imperialism today, together with the USA, has a definite centre. Around this centre, there is a periphery of imperialist countries and, around these, another periphery made up of countries which are not imperialist, but which benefit from their membership of the imperialist bloc, as we saw in the last graphs, and thus participate in the plunder of the rest of the world.
This unnatural relationship between the imperialist countries (unnatural because it turns the imperialist countries into allies and not enemies) has led to a particular fact: that these countries constitute a collective imperialist bloc under the command of the USA, whose military organisation that collectively imposes imperialist interests on the rest of the world is NATO.
This unity among the imperialist countries, this way of acting collectively and not confrontationally, only became possible because an imperialist country became hegemonic, and it is so because there was a clear and unique winner of the Second World War. The collective of imperialist countries is neither egalitarian nor homogeneous, but imposes a subjugation particularly on those countries that were defeated during the Second World War.
Regardless of this, it is this bloc, the bloc of all united imperialists, which is in confrontation with the rest of human societies and constitutes the true and only enemy of humanity.
It is therefore absurd to consider, as the CPG does, that the war that is beginning to unfold is a carbon copy of the First World War, when the realities are so different. Time does not pass in vain.
In this new era of imperialism, the world war that is rapidly unfolding is not a repetition of World War I, but a continuation of World War II, whose aim is to complete the task of European fascism: to destroy what is left of the socialist camp (in alphabetical order: China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam), as well as any form of resistance to the expansion of imperialist capital throughout the world. The expansionist drive of imperialist capital faces two formidable obstacles: Russia and China. For this reason, it is essential that all communists, socialists and democrats support Russia and China in their opposition to imperialism. And this is why the idea spread by the CPG is so harmful, dangerous and reprehensible.
Other behaviour
We have already seen that times have changed from the First World War to the present (we consider the present as the phase from the time the USSR was liquidated to the present day). But the present has also changed.
The stage of political, economic and military interventions of imperialism directed exclusively against largely defenceless countries has come to an end, and a new one has opened in which the USA and the NATO it leads are challenging countries with large nuclear arsenals and powerful armed forces. We will now look at the different attitudes of imperialist and non-imperialist countries, especially Russia (because Russia is the focus of our work). We will see how much the political behaviour of the two countries differs:
NATO regularly carries out military exercises in which “defensive attacks” against Russia, “pre-emptive attacks” against the DPRK and “defence” tests against China are rehearsed. It seems that NATO member states are urging a war against these countries. In January 2024, NATO Admiral Rob Bauer called on the people of Europe to prepare for a “war against Russia within the next 20 years”.
Roderick Kiesewetter of the CDU/Germany said that the war should be taken to Russia.[1]
We remember well, that the US and the EU staged a coup in Ukraine in 2014 against the then democratically elected President Yanukovych after he refused to accept the terms of the EU agreement because it would have opened the Ukrainian agricultural market largely to heavily subsidised EU agricultural producers.[2] Former President Yanukovych said that “I, as president and as a patriot of my country, cannot accept such conditions”.[3]
The behaviour of NATO states where their economic interests cannot fully assert themselves, where the free exploitation of other countries’ raw materials by their monopoly companies is not fully guaranteed, where limits are imposed on the export of capital or the return on capital (e.g. in China), is well known: overthrow an unwanted head of state. To want to defend your own agricultural producers would be insane and tyrannical, but to call for war against Russia after Germany was responsible for the deaths of between 27 and 32 million Soviet citizens in World War II would be the purest expression of sanity.
The folly, of course, is not that the peoples of the world want to defend themselves against the exploitative policies of the imperialist countries. The madness is to believe that all the peoples of the world must accept it without resistance and that, if they do not, they are forced to do so with sanctions, coups and even wars. This is what happened in Ukraine with Yanukovych.
Since the outbreak of the war in the Ukraine in the Donbass Region in 2014, Russia sought to find ways for peace, such as the well-known Minsk agreements. In December 2021, Russia presented NATO states with a treaty proposal for a security agreement. Among other points, Russia proposed that Ukraine should not join NATO and, in order to avoid incidents, proposed that neither NATO nor Russia could conduct military manoeuvres in a strip defined by all treaty parties on the border between Russia and NATO member states (including states that only have a military alliance with NATO).[4] It was a last-ditch attempt to make Russia’s security interests clear to NATO states through diplomatic channels before the start of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine.[5]
But Russia has continued to try to reach agreements with the “West”, also after the start of the Special Military Operation. Negotiations were held again in March 2022, this time in Istanbul.[6] Both sides signed a document that stipulated very unfavourable conditions for Russia. For example, the Donbass was to remain Ukrainian, as previously stipulated in the Minsk Agreements. According to the Washington Post, Crimea would only be handed over to Russia “on a leasehold basis”. Russia was to withdraw its troops. In return, Ukraine was to reduce the size of its army and not join NATO. And Russia signed the agreement and withdrew its troops. But, according to David Arachamia (a Zelensky official), Boris Johnson (then UK Prime Minister) went to Kiev and presented Ukraine with a choice: if Ukraine complied with the agreement, there would be no more Western aid. But if it continued to fight, it would receive all imaginable funds. Today we know well what Zelensky decided.[7]
In the face of NATO’s relentless escalation of warmongering, the overwhelmingly re-elected Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on 29 February 2024 this year that Russian weapons could also reach European territory.[8]
A few days earlier, on 26 February of this year, Putin said that the deployment of NATO ground troops in Ukraine “would be the last step before World War III”.[9] On the night of 17 March 2024, he warned that a direct military conflict between Russia and NATO forces in Ukraine would mean that the world would be one step away from a third thermonuclear world war.
But no, a thermonuclear war seems to be worth it for NATO states when it comes to saving their battered and moribund economies from collapse. Thus two days later, on 19 March 2024, the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service, Sergei Naryshkin, reported that France was already preparing to send a contingent of some 2,000 troops to Ukraine.[10]
Also on 19 March, US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin participated in a meeting of the Contact Group on Ukraine at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where he reiterated US policy that NATO would soon be at war with Russia if Ukraine were defeated. How ironic, because it would have been earlier if Russia had not prevented NATO’s advance into that very country… Extending NATO’s architecture to Ukraine would have directly nullified the nuclear parity between Russia and the United States to Russia’s detriment.
A day earlier, German and Polish defence ministers Boris Pistorius and Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz met outside Warsaw and announced that the two countries would jointly deploy a rapid reaction force to the EU’s eastern border (initially with 2,500 troops per country).
On 1 March 2024, an audio recording was made public revealing that high-ranking Bundeswehr officers were planning an attack on the Kerch bridge in Crimea with some 20 Taurus cruise missiles.[11] On 6 May 2024, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, due to “Russia’s increasingly aggressive behaviour and the increasingly tense situation”, decided to travel to Latvia and Lithuania[12] and talk with Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda about the approximately 4,800 Bundeswehr troops Germany wants to station on NATO’s eastern flank.[13] [14] On 24 May 2024, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg urged NATO member states to allow Ukraine to use Western weapons against Russian territory.[15]
On 28 May 2024, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz joined Stoltenberg’s calls and said he would agree to Ukraine using German-supplied weapons “within the framework of international law” against Russia, including on Russian territory.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that “this constant escalation could have serious consequences”.[16]
In Germany, the CDU[17] is likely to be the next government and, although it may seem hard to believe, on the basis of the signals it is giving, it is likely to outdo the current government in warmongering. For example, it has spoken out in favour of the gradual reintroduction of compulsory military service in Germany to “give a clear signal to Russia”, arguing that Germany would not currently be in a position to defend itself against foreign aggression. This is Kafkaesque, because Germany is a US-occupied country, and has been since 1945, when it was not the US, the UK or France, but the Soviet Union that liberated the country from fascism. It sounds schizophrenic, but it is real: Germany “must” militarise, not to drive the current occupiers out of the country, but to wage war against those who liberated it from fascism…
On 5 June last year, the German defence minister said: “we must be prepared for war [against Russia, it is understood] until 2029”.[18]
The reaction of France, the US, the UK, Germany and NATO as a whole to Russia’s repeated calls for reason seems incredible.[19]
NATO sacrifices Ukrainian lives for its own interests. It is also trying to do so with the Baltic peoples and Georgia. A large part of the population of the latter country strongly resists being bled dry again for foreign interests. But the NATO countries will continue to plunge more and more peoples on the face of the earth into blood and death. It should not be forgotten for a moment that the governments of NATO countries are desperate, and rightly so, because their economic system is collapsing. All this seemingly irrational warmongering is ultimately an act of survival.
In this fact lies the great importance of Russia’s fight against NATO on Ukrainian territory. Russia is directly confronting imperialism there. Whether it does so by choice or because history has dragged it into it is of no political significance. Russia is confronting imperialism, that is the only fact that counts.
And in this confrontation it is the imperialist countries that are taking the lead in the war against Russia. At every step, Russia has only reacted to imperialist manoeuvres, not because it wants to or because it is morally better, but because it does not have the capacity to act otherwise. Russia also does not interfere directly in the domestic politics of other countries, which again underlines its non-imperialist character and its relative weakness vis-à-vis the imperialists.
In short, its political actions in the world reflect the non-imperialist character of its state, which in turn is the political reflection of its economic structure, a structure much like that of any other non-imperialist country.
Syria
Where most clearly and unfortunately dramatically it became clear that neither Russia, nor China, nor Iran, are imperialists, was in Syria.
In the blink of an eye Syria ceased to exist. The coup in Syria against the al-Assad government has been a terrible blow to the resistance in that region and, equally serious, Russia lost a key strategic point in the world. Syria is located at the geographical centre of the world. We watch with great concern as Russia loses all the magnificent legacy of international political influence inherited from the USSR.
The argument that the US could no longer assert itself militarily anywhere proved to be a huge fallacy in Syria. The coup in Syria was a joint defeat of Russia, Iran and the rest of the regional resistance bloc. In the face of these facts, the CPG has not said a word, of course, due to the powerful hallucinogenic effect of its “magical imperialist pyramid”, which, as we have seen throughout the work, clouds the mind to such an extent that one can no longer distinguish the essential from the secondary.
In our opinion, the Astana Agreement is at the root of the terrible events in Syria, as it allowed the Turkish occupation army to settle on Syrian territory with the alleged intention of controlling the terrorists, supported, ironically, by Turkey. In other words, Turkey guarding its allied forces in Syria? Sooner or later this was bound to backfire.
The Astana Agreement was a failure very similar to the Minsk Agreements, which only allowed the imperialist forces and their regional lackeys to regain strength, while continuing to weaken Syria with sanctions and rampant terrorism, to the point of bleeding it dry, starvation and cold.
The Astana Agreement, and particularly its tragic outcome in Syria, could not be a better illustration of Russia’s non-imperialist character. Russia and Iran did not sign it because they were fools or because they betrayed the Syrian people, but because they did not have the strength to support Syria’s struggle for territorial unity. Russia is still pursuing a policy that is, in our view, too soft. Time and again it has abandoned its core objectives in exchange for circumstantial calm. This is imposed by reality, not by will. Russia always acts in response to imperialist actions because it lacks sufficient political strength, in other words, because the political strength of the imperialists is greater. Russia cannot carry out its desired policy consistently to the end because of its relative weakness with the imperialists. But then reality hits it with triple force against it. We hope that the events in Syria will serve as a definitive lesson to him and that he will stop accepting a circumstantial calm, because the imperialists cannot be believed for a single word and, however terrible it may be, they cannot be given any rest, because they never rest. They will break every agreement, every word, because their policy is based on lies.
The danger coming from NATO seems to us to be immense. NATO is preparing an army that could be two to five times bigger than the Russian army. NATO is able to do this because of its expansionism. In practice, it is changing from a North Atlantic organisation into a global organisation. The imperialists control large parts of the world market, the sources of raw materials, trade routes and, to a large extent, the national policies of many countries. They declare every corner of the earth as part of their sphere of interest, for that is how their imperialist character manifests itself.
Imperialists appear powerful because they are powerful. What has happened in Syria should be a wake-up call for the anti-imperialist forces, as it demonstrates several things:
• That the imperialists seem to have largely achieved all their objectives to date.
• That the imperialists seem to be always steps ahead, that they seem to have the ability to plan for the future in the long term and to wait long years for their plans to come to fruition.
• That, after Syria, Lebanon, Iraq (where an attempt will be made to re-stabilise the country in order to wipe out the Shiite forces in that country for good), Yemen and, above all, Iran will probably follow.
• That, from all that has been said, it is clear that the anti-imperialist bloc is to a large extent weaker than the imperialist bloc.
Yes, we are concerned. We wish Russia a monumental victory in the Donbas. And we hope that it will prepare properly for it and, above all, for the war that NATO is preparing against it, because what we see so far is only the beginning of the great confrontation that NATO is pushing for.
Russia has started a fight against internal corruption. This is very positive, but we believe it is moving too slowly. In our opinion, Russia should strengthen the state, boost domestic production and industry, drastically reduce the influence of the oligarchy, transfer all enterprises in the country’s strategic sectors to the state, accelerate the rehabilitation of the USSR, Stalin and Lenin, etc., in short, reorient its policy towards the structure of the USSR. With its current economic, political and social structure, we see it as difficult for Russia to survive NATO.
A powerful Russia is in the interests of all the freedom-seeking peoples of the world! Likewise, a very powerful China and Iran: The only existing military alliance today is NATO. We believe that it is time for countries like China, Russia, the DPRK, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua to move forward in building a military alliance of their own, including the development of nuclear power.
It is in the interests of all the free peoples of the world, of the peoples fighting for their freedom and, in general, of the great majorities, that Russia, China, the DPRK and Iran should be very strong, because they are the countries that can do the most damage to the imperialists. Its defeat would be an even greater defeat than the liquidation of the USSR for all the forces in the world fighting for national sovereignty, against fascism and imperialism.
But, as we have seen throughout this work, it seems quite clear that these countries cannot confront imperialism and its concrete expression, fascism, alone. They need as many political forces as possible throughout the world to fight against these two political expressions. And these political forces need these powerful states, regardless of their governments, the bourgeois character of their states and the prevailing mode of production in those countries, as long as their active role is anti-imperialist and anti-fascist, because there is no force in the present capable of confronting contemporary imperialism on its own.
However, the CPG seems determined to distance communists from these countries with the absurd and disastrous idea of the “imperialist pyramid”. This is even more damaging because these countries have managed to develop economic and even peaceful political cooperation through the BRICS, which goes beyond the prevailing political systems in them; that is, regardless of whether the countries are socialist or capitalist (non-imperialist) in nature.
At present, communist forces must work to orient the national struggle towards socialism, understanding something that the CPG is not capable of comprehending: that the struggle for a socialist society goes hand in hand with national democratic sectors and in alliance with those countries that confront imperialism and fascism.
By denying this fact, in this historical context, the CPG not only distances communists from the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist struggle, but demobilises them! Communist forces, on the contrary, should be at the forefront of support for Russia, China, Iran, the DPRK, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Laos and all the other countries and movements that, each in their own way, are confronting imperialism and fascism.
Because:
Only with the great majorities fighting together can imperialism be defeated once and for all!
Notes
[1] Kiesewetter’s words were:
“The evil in all this is Putin and his criminal war of aggression. That’s why Russia must be shown that it can’t go on like this. Russia must recognise its neighbours’ right to exist. The war must be taken back to Russia. Russian military installations and headquarters must be destroyed. We must do everything possible so that Ukraine can destroy not only Russia’s oil refineries, but also ministries, command posts and combat centres. It is time for the Russian people to realise that they have a dictator who is sacrificing Russia’s future”.
[2] This would have meant that Ukrainian agricultural producers would no longer have been competitive.
[3] Yanukovych’s words were:
“I, as president and as a patriot of my country, cannot accept such conditions. That is why, in search of a way out of the current economic situation in Ukraine, we agreed with Russia to reduce the price of gas from 430 to 268.5 dollars, to grant a state loan of 15 billion and development loans of up to 5 billion at acceptable interest rates. We have agreed to draw up a road map to restore the $15-17 billion in trade between our countries that has been lost in the last 1.5 to 2 years. We have signed an agreement under which we will look at joint programmes for a number of industries to increase production of finished products and create new jobs.”
While Yanukovych flirted with the EU and NATO, he was considered a “flawless democrat”. When he put Ukraine’s national interests before those of the EU and NATO, he was overnight declared a “dictator” (in the bourgeois sense of the word), opposed in the streets by a “freedom-loving” people.
[4] Russia also proposed that short- and medium-range land-based missiles should not be deployed in areas from which targets on the territory of other States Parties could be attacked. In general, nuclear weapons should not be deployed outside one’s own country. Finally, Russia proposed a return to the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which prohibited the permanent stationing of NATO troops in Eastern Europe.
[5] NATO’s written response of January 2022 has not yet been made public, but according to statements by US Secretary of State Blinken and NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, no concessions were made to Russia. This is in line with NATO’s behaviour since its founding (1949).
[6] It is not true what the bourgeois media reported that Russia had torpedoed the negotiations.
[7] It is not a question of defending “democracy and “freedom”, even in the bourgeois sense of the word. A quote:
“We cannot allow Russia to win this war. Otherwise, American and European interests will be severely damaged. This is not about supporting Ukraine just out of generosity and because we love the Ukrainian people. It is about our own interests and those of the United States as a global actor.”
These were the words of Joseph Borrell.
[8] Putin’s words were:
“They must understand that we also have weapons […] that can attack and eliminate targets on their territory. […] All this is real and can provoke conflict and lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Don’t they understand? These are people who suffered hard times. But now they have forgotten what war means.”
[9] Putin responded to a journalist’s question about French President Emmanuel Macron’s comments on 26 February that the deployment of NATO ground troops in Ukraine could not be ruled out, that everyone knows that this would be the last step before World War III Putin’s words were:
“Everybody knows that this will be the last step before World War III. [I have said it over and over again and I will say it again. We are in favour of peace talks, but not just because the enemy is running out of ammunition”.
[10] Sergei Naryshkin said:
“Initially it will consist of about 2,000 soldiers. [….] This will make them a legitimate priority target for the Russian armed forces. This means that they will suffer the fate of all Frenchmen who have ever invaded the Russian world with a sword”.
[11] The authenticity of the recording was immediately confirmed by the German government. The bourgeois media and the German government were not shocked by the content of the conversation between high-ranking Bundeswehr officers, but by the fact that it had been leaked. As military strategist Scott Ritter pointed out, this was an act of aggression by Germany against Russia, and Russia could rightly have interpreted it as an open declaration of war by Germany against its country.
[12] In the Lithuanian military training area of Pabrade, he visited the 10th Armoured Division of the Bundeswehr, which is participating in NATO military exercises there.
[13] This will “only” cost around 9 billion euros.
[14] At about the same time that Oslo announced its recognition of Palestine, the Norwegian authorities passed a law banning Russian tourists from entering the country. Associated Press reported on 23 May:
“Norway said on Thursday it would further tighten its entry restrictions on people from Russia and warned that those with tourist visas issued by Norway before controls were tightened in 2022, or issued by another European country, would not be able to enter the Scandinavian country from next week.“
A day before Spain’s official recognition of the State of Palestine came into force, Zelensky was personally received by the King in Spain. Subsequently, million-dollar security agreements were signed between the Sánchez government and Zelensky.
[15] Stoltenberg’s words were:
“The time has come to consider whether it would not be right to lift some of the restrictions that have been imposed. If [Ukraine] cannot attack military targets on Russian territory, then [the restrictions] tie the Ukrainians’ hand and make it very difficult for them to defend themselves. It is clear that Ukraine has the right to defend itself […] Legitimate self-defence includes the right to attack legitimate military targets inside Russia as well.”
[16] Putin’s words were:
“Today, the NATO Secretary General talks about the possibility of attacking Russian territory with long-range precision weapons. He should know that long-range precision weapons cannot be used without reconnaissance satellites. The final selection of the target and the so-called flight task can only be carried out by highly qualified specialists on the basis of technical expertise. This flight task is not prepared by Ukrainian soldiers, but by representatives of NATO member states. They should be aware of what they are getting into.
First they provoked us in Donbass, led us by the nose for eight years, deceived us into believing that they would solve the problem peacefully and forced us to resolve the situation by armed means. Then they deceived us during the negotiations. They thought they would defeat Russia on the battlefield and inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. We warned them: do not invade our territory, do not bombard Belgorod and other neighbouring areas, otherwise we will be forced to create a security zone.
This continued escalation could have serious consequences.”
[17] The CDU will probably have to form a coalition government with other parties that are not yet foreseeable (perhaps the AfD and SPD).
[18] Der Spiegel reports that:
“Because of the threat posed by Russia, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius wants to strengthen the Bundeswehr’s operational readiness. ‘We must be prepared for war in 2029,’ the SPD politician said on Wednesday during the government question session in the Bundestag. ‘We must not believe that Putin will stop at Ukraine’s borders if he were to go that far,’ Pistorius said. Russia is not only a threat to Ukraine, but also to Georgia, Moldova and ultimately NATO. ‘We must exert a deterrent effect to prevent things going to an extreme’.”
[19] Instead of holding peace talks, they are escalating the war. First they sent weapons to Ukraine, then medium-range missiles, then Leopard and Abrams tanks, a short time ago they began discussing sending long-range Taurus cruise missiles that can penetrate deep into Russian territory and deploying NATO troops to fight Russian soldiers, and today they have authorised Ukraine to use weapons supplied by NATO countries on Russian territory as well.
