******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
I agree with Michael Karadjis that Trump views China rather than Russia as the major rival to US imperialism. But this does not exclude some rivalry and conflict between the US and Russia. An example is US anger over Turkey's decision to buy S-400 missiles from Russia. Michael dismisses the idea that Turkey would try to invade northeastern Syria. But Turkey's invasion of Afrin shows its determination to crush the democratic experiment in northern and eastern Syria. A Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria can not be ruled out. Turkey would have to consider Russia's reaction to such an invasion. While Russia gave permission for the Afrin invasion, it would not necessarily do so for northeastern Syria. Russia seems to prefer a negotiated agreement between Assad and the Democratic Autonomous Administration. It could use the threat of allowing a Turkish invasion as a tactic to pressure the DAA to accept a bad deal. Chris Slee ________________________________ From: mkaradjis <mkarad...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 12:41:13 PM To: Chris Slee; Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More Actually I think the Mueller report shows that Trump was up to his eyeballs in collaboration with the Russian Tsars, and I’m not sure why there has been a rush to exonerate him on the left, when the report clearly does not do that at all. Just to make clear, I don’t think Trump’s election victory had much to do with the obvious attempts by Russia to interfere in the US elections, the obvious and proven collusion by Trump and his entire team with the Russians, and wikileaks blatant collaboration with Trump-Putin – I agree entirely with all the points that Trump won because of Clinton and the failures of US capitalism under Obama, but that’s a different matter. Was this collaboration due to Trump being an agent of the Russian oligarchy as John claims? Trump may well have more special links with the Russian oligarchs than others have, but I just don’t think that is necessary to explain US policy. The position of the Trump team that China rather than Russia was the major rival to US imperialist interests was entirely logical; as any study of the massive export of Chinese capital, compared to the pathetic level of Russian capital export (Michael Probsting’s book ‘Anti-Imperialism in the age of great power rivalry, and Louis’ review of it here on marxmail for reference) would suggest. Russian imperialism also rivals US imperialism (as do EU and Japanese imperialisms), but I’ve always thought it a mistake to view economically weak Russian imperialism as the major rival of US imperialism. Certainly there is the fact that Russia has greater military power than any of the other rivals to US imperialism, so it can throw its weight around more, and there is its diplomatic weight and the ideological echoes of history that weigh on US and Russian ruling class attitudes to each other in terms of “credibility” and such, but while these are important factors they should not be confused with more fundamental rivalry. Actually on the question of “sub-imperialism” which Patrick Bond hammers on about, I’ve always found it very useful, except when it comes to drawing the line questions. While the BRICS are a good metaphor for sub-imperialism, I think we could very usefully add states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey, while I think China has clearly emerged as an imperialist power more so than Russia. Russia if anything has more characteristics of sub-imperialism than China does, and I think it is useful to see US-Russia relations in that light. The fact that neither the Obama nor Trump administrations has had any problem with the 4-year Russian terror-bombing of Russia and effective occupation of parts of that country, and of parts of Syria’s state apparatus, is not some coincidence or something unique about both leaders, it is US imperialism looking after its interests. The fact that more anti-Russian voices under both administrations have tended to be oppositional, and thus rhetorical, is also the opposite of coincidence. It corresponds completely to the attitude of major US ally in the region, Israel, with its very close relations with Moscow, and increasingly with US allies in the Gulf, especially under Trump as the US-Saudi-UAE alliance has strengthened while these same states are developing excellent relations with Moscow and recognising Assad’s regime. >From the onset of Russian intervention to bolster Assad – about a year after >US intervention against ISIS began – the two superpowers have cooperated >closely in Syria. Sure there have been bumps in the road, but overwhelmingly >their agreement to share the Syrian sky as both bomb Syria – in many cases, >bombing the same targets even at the same time - has been almost a model of >cooperation. Is this due to US weakness, or to Trump being a money-launderer >for Russian oligarchs? I my opinion, no, it is due to US imperialism looking >after its interests. Just to be clear, John may well be right that Trump is >also a money-launderer for Russian oligarchs, but I think that is of minor >significance to the rest of the US ruling class. Who has the upper hand in Syria in this cooperation? Many would say Russia does, with the US showing its “weakness” or “retreat” etc. This is extraordinary nonsense. The US war against ISIS (and often against Nusra/HTS and sometimes other Islamist or even mainstream rebels) has cost countless billions of dollars, has destroyed entire cities, has killed thousands of people, all with full intelligence collaboration with Russia and the Assad regime. It is not a small war. Russia is waging a much bigger and far more murderous war in Syria on behalf of the tyrant, because the US (and even more, Israel) is fine with that happening, in fact, I would argue, Russia is doing the dirty work for imperialism, like a sub-imperialist power, happy to cop all the bad name for doing so, while western imperialists can pretend to be upset about “excesses” and the like. Look what happens when Russia does try to push things a little – when Assad’s forces, who the US never bombs, attacked the US’ SDF allies in eastern Deir Ezzor a year ago, backed by Russian mercenaries, the US counter-attacked and killed around 200 Russian mercenaries. Putin’s response? Who? What? Like, what was Russia going to do? Issue a statement? Russian “power” in Syria compared to US power is zip. If the US had wanted Assad and Russia to stop bombing every Syrian city into oblivion, it would have happened overnight, with no “World War III” laughable nonsense. John is correct that Trump’s withdrawal tweet was aimed at aiding the Russian position in Syria. Chris says this is wrong because it was aimed at aiding Turkey. But as Chris himself notes, Turkey is now allied to Russia, so there is no necessary contradiction. There would be to the extent that Assad objected to Turkey doing his job of crushing the SDF. But Russia very much holds the cards regarding both Erdogan and Assad; if Russia only agrees to Turkey doing some minor cross-border thing near the border, and for Assad to gobble up the rest, then that’s what will happen. The US will be fine with both, but I think the popular idea that Trump, in a simple tweet, really thought he was giving a green-light to Turkey invading the whole SDF-controlled east of Syria, not just Manbij but also Raqqa and even way down to Deir-Ezzor, is entirely fanciful. If he was thinking anything at all, it was probably just to pull Erdogan’s leg. Trump’s Saudi, UAE and Egyptian allies are very anti-Erdogan and they have been dangling the idea of an “Arab contingent” (from them) entering the region as a peace-keeping force. Of course saner heads in the US administration prevailed, because immediate withdrawal would indeed by destabilising, and the US would lose all credibility if its (inevitable) abandonment of the SDF occurred so precipitously, based on a momentary tweet. But imperialist policy is not made by tweets and not carried out “immediately”; nevertheless, US policy does aim towards withdrawal from Syria and leaving it safely within the Russian zone, more likely with Assad in greater control over the east than some wild Turkish invasion idea; I think the deal to be done is to pressure Assad (as Israel, Saudis, UAE are doing) to remove the Iranian forces and rely entirely on Russia, and for the moment, the US sees the SDF as a useful bargaining chip towards such a “Kurds for Iran” deal. On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:08 AM Chris Slee via Marxism <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu<mailto:marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>> wrote: _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
