ACN/AKN NETHERLANDS: CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN!

ACN/AKN NETHERLANDS: CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN!

AFTER THE RIGHTWING PUTSCH IN UKRAINE – USA/EU-IMPERIALISTS HYSTERICAL AFTER RUSSIAN INTERVENTION!

The Russian president Vladimir Putin has, in accordance with a decision of the Parliament of the Russian Federation, send troops to Crimea and suddenly the propaganda machine of western imperialism gets over heated. The U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Russia will pay a “high price” for its “violation of the territorial integrity” of Ukraine. Furthermore he announced to kick out Russia from the G8- consultative of the imperialist states and that Russian bank balances abroad would be frozen. Without a trace of irony Kerry preached; “You just don’t, in the 21st century behave in a 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.” Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. – the list of countries that were threatened by US-imperialism “in the 21st century” is countless. And also with the events in the Ukraine they are exactly the same US imperialists (together with those of the EU) who have a big share in the game.

The intervention of the Russian Federation on Crimea is a direct answer to the overthrowing of Yanukovych his government in Kiev. On last February 22nd the corrupt pro-Russian government of Victor Yanukovych was set aside by a rightwing putsch, which was led by fascists and warmly supported by the USA and EU; as a result Yanukovych stepped aside to Russia. Today the armed goons, who led the three month lasting mass mobilizations in the streets of Kiev and thereby proceeded to occupy government buildings and ruthless attacks on the police, have prevailed. The fascists of the Svoboda Party supply in the new government the Deputy Prime Minister and several other ministers. The co-founder of Svoboda, Andrej Parubi, is now the leader of the National Security- and Defense Council, under which the military resides. The new Deputy Prime Minister, also responsible for economic affairs, is Oleksandr Sych, also of Svoboda, a former member of parliament. While Arsenij Jazenjuk, the favorite of Washington and leader of the so-called Fatherland Party is at the head of State as Prime Minister, dictates the goons of Maidan just as before the political discourse.

The coup d’état in Kiev from the side of rightwing Ukrainian nationalists indicted great unrest among the population in Russian speaking parts of the country like eastern and southeast Ukraine. And indeed, one of the new official decisions of the new regime was to abolish the law from 2012, in which Russian and other minority languages as official languages were tolerated. Of course this was rightfully seen as an attack on non-Ukrainian minorities and lead to broad protests – even in Lviv, where the fascists enjoy many support. Of the 27 districts in Ukraine, 13 districts had Russian as second official language (especially in the east) and two western districts Romanian, Hungarian and Moldovan language. Crimea – where 58,5% of the population consists out of ethnic Russians, 24,4% out of Ukrainians and 12,1% out of Tartars – was especially affected by the new chauvinist laws from Kiev, because about 97% of the two million inhabitants regardless of their ethnic belonging use Russian as primary language.

Russian troops together with local self-defense units have taken over control in the autonomous republic of Crimea. The vast majority of Ukrainian soldiers on Crimea switched sides, others resigned from service. Also, the supreme commander of the Ukrainian marine switched to Russian side, just like 800 soldiers who were stationed on a Ukrainian Air force base in Crimea. Many Russian soldiers and members of the marine are stationed on the Crimean peninsula. In agreement with former Ukrainian governments the city of Sevastopol houses the Russian Black Sea fleet.

On last March the 16th a referendum was organized – organized by the new pro-Russian government in Crimea, in which the population was given the opportunity to decide about the status of Crimea, namely to stay part of the Ukraine or to realize de-facto independence and to search close connection with the Russian Federation. As could be expected the new regime in Kiev condemned the Russian intervention as an “unlawful occupation of Ukrainian territory” and the bourgeois-media immediately drew the comparison with the Russian-Georgian war of 2008. However the Russian intervention in Crimea has no single comparison with this war, in which Russian troops invaded deep into Georgian territory. As principled revolutionaries, we at that time defended the position of revolutionary defeatism and called up for a struggle against both bourgeois military forces. (In this conflict Georgia was supported by western imperialism)

In contradiction to the general viewpoint in the western imperialist media, the Russian intervention in Crimea is NOT an invasion of a “foreign country”, no matter the formal status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine. Crimea was part of Russia since the late 18th century, when it was conquered on the Ottoman Empire. It was not until 1954, when Crimea became part of Ukraine after the then party- and government-leader of the USSR, Nikita Khrushchev, had ceded Crimea from Russia to the Ukrainian SSR. This became important later on during the collapse of the USSR, when it became subject of intense debate between both, meanwhile bourgeois states, Russia and Ukraine. In 1991 the demand of the population to organize a referendum on the independence of the Crimea was thwarted by the Ukrainian government and indefinitely prohibited.

The main opposition in Crimea against a separation from Ukraine is from the side of the Tartars, a mostly Islamic people of Turkish descent. On last February 26th in the Crimean capital of Simferopol clashes broke out between Tartars and pro-Russian separatists, in which two people were killed and thirty people injured. The distrust of the tartars against the Russian authorities can be traced back to the era of Stalin, who deported the Crimean-Tartars from their historic fatherland in 1944, because of their collaboration with the Germans, to central-Asia and other parts of the USSR.

Ever since the contra revolutionary destruction of the bureaucratically deformed Sovjet-workerstate during the years 1991/92, we have always emphasized the need of a union of all the workers in the struggle against capitalist exploitation and all forms of repression, national oppression and chauvinist smear. In a declaration on the 3th of April 1995 we emphasized that a referendum about self-determination on Crimea as well as Chechnya would be expedient (in the context of our commitment to stand up for the democratic rights of the workers of all nationalities as well as to defend them).

The population on Crimea has the unlimited right on national self-determination, including independence, or to join the Russian Federation. During the referendum (March 16th) it could be possible that the exercise of that right depended on the support of Russian military forces. However, in reality it was the newly formed government of Crimea who asked for the Russian intervention.

For us as principled revolutionaries the support for Russian intervention on Crimea does not depend on the fact, if under Ukrainian domination (since 1954) the multiply oppressed Tartar minority is granted special rights from Russia, yes or no. That Crimea was then ceded to Ukraine was the result of a stupid administrative clerical error of the Khrushchev-regime, which was completely at odds with history as well as the national and linguistic structure of Crimea. The further developments must of course be awaited, but the new authorities have at least in words already declared that they would be willing to protect the interests of the Tartars. The vice president of the Crimea, Rustan Temirgaliev, announced that the local government will offer the Crimean-Tartars a seat in the highest Sovjet and that financial help will be made available for remigration- and re-integration programs for those who were deported during the Stalin-era. (Russia Today, 2 March)


FOR THE RIGHT OF ALL NATIONS ON SELF-DETERMINATION!

The right on national self-determination (just as other national rights) apply to the peoples of ALL nations, including for those of major powers, such as Russia. Principled revolutionaries must, with strong determination, reject the methodology in which democratic rights would only apply for certain so-called “progressive” people, while it is denied to so-called “reactionary” peoples.

For example; The Zionist state Israel ruthlessly oppresses the Arabic people of Palestine, but nonetheless we have to acknowledge the international rights of the Jews just as much as those of the Palestinians. Therefore we have to turn against the view that the Jews have to be driven into the sea. Another example: In Northern-Ireland the catholic minority is oppressed by a (however thin) protestant majority and the British state. Nevertheless we recognize the fact, that the Protestants form their own community, and are we opposed to a forced unification in an Irish-catholic state. Instead we propagate the formation of an Irish socialist workers-republic as part of a voluntary federation of workers-republics on the British islands.

The right on national self-determination is a democratic right, however no absolute right. Its application must always be subordinate to the demands of the class struggle!

As Lenin has emphasized the recognition of the right on self-determination is the best way to get rid of the national question and to create the unity of the proletariat on the foundation of class struggle, which enables the workers of the different nations to see who are their true enemies - namely their respective bourgeoisies.

We remain opposed against all manifestations of Great-Russian chauvinism: The Chechen people deserve our full support in their military struggle for national liberation against the ruthless oppression by the Russian bourgeois regime in the period of Boris Jeltsin as well as that of Vladimir Putin. With the intervention in Crimea the Putin-regime only wants to defend the interests of (capitalist) Russia against western imperialism. At the same time (and that is essential!) – also seen from the context of the increasing hostilities against the ethnic-Russian minority in Ukraine – the geopolitical interests of Russia (dictated by the considerations of the Realpolitik) coincide with the also very real fears of the population in Crimea (and, we may now add, those in southeast Ukraine).

Our position in regard of the Russian intervention in Crimea does not mean the least support or any form of political support for the bourgeois-regime of Putin! Also, our opposition against the putsch of rightwing-nationalist forces in Kiev does not mean a political support for the regime of Yanukovych! In the period prior to the putsch it would have been necessary to put the proletarian class struggle in front of the national and ethnic division Ukraine suffers from. The mobilization of the working class, to challenge the rule of the fascists on the Ukrainian streets, would certainly be in the interest of the world proletariat. Today it would certainly be in the interest of the working class to create self-defense militias in the corporations to pare off the fascists and to defend against the chauvinist violence.

To be continued…

http://acnaknnederland.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/crimea-is-russian-1/

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN (2)

As we have made clear before we support the Russian intervention of Crimea, regardless of the (future) treatment of the Tartar minority on the peninsula by the Russian authorities.

It was completely logical for the Russian speaking population in Crimea, who sighed under the yoke of Ukrainian domination since the fall of the Sovjet Union, to be very worried by the coup d’état in Kiev and the rise of a new western-backed regime which is drenched with anti-Russian fascists.

Literally the first official act of the Ukrainian Parliament was a ban on the use of Russian as official language, a ban which was then torpedoed by a veto on the part of the President in accordance with the attempts of the U.S. to set up the coup as an expression of "democracy."

Western imperialism and its media are loudly moaning about “Russian aggression” in Crimea. However this rhetoric is belied by reality. The intervention by the Russian Federation in Crimea is in its essence defensive, largely motivated by the desire to protect the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol. The so-called Russian ‘invasion’ is a phantasm and the intervention remains popular by the vast majority of the Crimean population. The run-up to the referendum took place without any serious incident. Whole armies of western journalists were send to Crimea to report about atrocities against the Tartars and other ethnic minorities, had not much to report about.

Our position in regard to the Russian military forces in Crimea is rooted in the Leninist basic principle, namely that the right on national self-determination is applied to the peoples of all nations, including big ones like Russia. It was the intervention of Russian military troops in Crimea which made expressing national self-determination for that region possible. Something like an individual “Crimea-nation” does not exist, the majority of it is at the moment Russian and has for a long time pursued the strengthening of its ties with Russia – be it in the form of independence, or that of autonomy – including the desire to be reinstated within the Russian Federation. The referendum the imperialists deemed “illegal”, only nailed down the reality that Crimea is Russian. And even this simple determination could not have happened without the presence of Russian troops. The evil smear campaign of western imperialists against the Russian intervention is only a cynical cover up for the oppressive politics of their Ukrainian quislings. It’s belied by the impossibility of the population of Crimea to organize a referendum to express their wish for separation from Ukraine.

As we argued before, in 1991 an attempt was made by the local people to organize a referendum for the independence of Crimea, it was banned by the Ukrainian authorities for an indefinite period of time. Also another attempt in 1992, where the voters was asked if they longed for a re-unification with Russia, was deemed “illegal” by the Ukrainian government. Threats from the side of the Ukrainian parliament forced the parliament on Crimea in august that year to stop its referendum on independence.

Pro-Russian forces on Crimea undertook another attempt in 1994 to organize a new referendum, this time centered around three questions about a greater level of autonomy within the Ukrainian state. Again Kiev intervened, to degrade the referendum into a plebiscite with only an advising character to eventually prohibit the entire referendum. Still the vote did take place, with a convincing majority voting for autonomy within the Ukrainian state, including 83% of the voters who expressed themselves for a statutory provision, in which the population of Crimea was granted double citizenship (Russian as well as Ukrainian). In the following year, when the conflict between Crimea and Ukraine increased, several parliamentary deputies from Crimea threatened to organize a referendum for a re-unification with Russia. In a response the Ukrainian parliament abrogated the Crimean constitution, unarmed the presidential guard and started a criminal proceeding against the then president of Crimea: Yuri Mesjkov.

The Ukrainian constitution of 1996 denied any possibility for self-determination of Crimea, because from that moment on a nationwide referendum was necessary to change the borders of Ukraine. Much fuss was made by the western imperialist media because of the absence of a choice for the status quo on the bill which was used in the current referendum. The choice that could be made was between 1) federation with Russia 2) a re-instatement of the Crimean constitution of 1992, which defined Crimea as an autonomous republic within the Ukrainian state. This constitution is portrayed as securing Russian control over Crimea in the bourgeois-press. This is of course a lie. The constitution of 1992 granted the civilians on Crimea only partial freedom, like entering into ties with Russia on certain areas. So the difference of choice on the bill is exactly getting the right on self-determination and banning that right.

Our position in regard of the Russian intervention on Crimea – we will repeat ourselves once again – does not mean any political support for Putin’s bourgeois-regime, which in itself ruthlessly oppresses national minorities, such as the Chechens, within the state-boundaries of the Russian population. As we explained before, the regime of Putin only tries to defend the (geopolitical) interests of (capitalist) Russia against western imperialism, which tries to create a satellite state on the Russian border, by its intervention on Crimea. At the same time, also from the context of the increasing hostility against the ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine, the interests of the Russian realpolitik coincides with the very real national fear which is experienced by the Russians on Crimea.

This is certainly not the first time a bourgeois regime introduced a democratic reform – also as a reaction to the growing pressure from the people – to fit its own needs. True revolutionaries support these kind of democratic reforms that are in the advance of the workers and oppressed – not only in the context of national rights, but also other rights, like the right on abortion for women, democratic rights for minorities, suffrage for the black population in the USA, etc. However, we do this only from the perspective of the independent proletariat, holding on to the political opposition against the bourgeois-forces, who because of certain events would be forced to introduce such reforms. Taking distance from supporting such reforms with the argument that it would mean a reinforcement of the reactionary capitalist domination, would mean the same as taking distance from the possibility to mobilize the working class for the socialist revolution.

So our goal is, by defending the national right on self-determination – be it for the Russians on Crimea, be it for the Chechens, who are victim of Great-Russian chauvinism – to solve the national question to create the unification of the proletariat independent from national borders. As proletarian internationalists we turn against the poison of chauvinist nationalism and we struggle for the unity of the workers on class foundation in the fight for the overthrowing of ALL bloody bourgeois-regimes in the region.

PARROTS OF WESTERN IMPERIALISM

It could be expected that the American (and EU-) imperialism would turn against the Russian intervention and the Crimean referendum. In this collision course the USA- and EU-imperialists get support from the reformist left. Submissively the reformists march at goosepas behind their imperialist masters, when they demonize Russia as the biggest evil the world has known, on exactly the same grounds as these pseudo-leftists did when western imperialism attacked Bosnia en Serbia during the ‘90s.

This is strikingly illustrated by a declaration last March the 4th coming from the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) under the leadership of Peter Taaffe, from which the sister organization in the Netherlands is De Vonk (in Germany: SAV). In the statement the CWI magnanimous acknowledges that “Crimea should have the right on self-determination”, but continues with the warning that “which is happening right now will not lead towards true self-determination; it would only mean Crimea would become a Russian protectorate.”

Therefore self-determination for the Crimean population “will not be possible under capitalism, with its poverty, unemployment and exploitation, and because competing elites who use the ‘divide and conquer’ card. Only a workers-government, that replaces rotten capitalism by a society, which is governed in the interest of the working masses, can secure the rights of all nationalities and minorities.”

The logic behind this declaration of the CWI becomes explicitly clear by a statement (on the 2nd of March), given by its sister-organization in Russia, in which is demanded: “Russian imperialism out of Crimea!” and “No referendum in Crimea with a gun on the back!”. A comparable statement was made by the Russian Socialist Movement, connected to the United Secretariat (USA, pseudo-Trotskyists), with the slogan: “No intervention by Russian troops or those of any other country in the internal affairs of Crimea!”.

All this is nothing more than a leftist sounding cover up for the position of the USA and the EU, that any vote for self-determination in Crimea would be invalid, simply because the American- and EU-imperialists tell us it’s invalid. The collision course of the CWI is exactly that which is banned by the western imperialist powers; namely, the right of the people of Crimea to choose for unification with Russia. For these social democrats self-determination is only valid, if it has the approval of their imperialist masters.

These pseudo-leftists certainly didn’t care about the “threat of armed violence” during the USA/NATO war of terror against Serbia (1999), under the leadership of the democratic government of Clinton, under the pretext of making an end to the ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Kosovo. The majority of the reformist left chose the side of imperialism and “human rights” out of name of “poor, small” Kosovo, some even supported direct imperialist military intervention. In this time the CWI called for “Self-determination for Kosovo!”, even when it was already raining bombs on Belgrade. The United Secretariat even went further and called for military intervention in Kosovo by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe – a military block dominated by EU-imperialism) and the UN.

As Leninists we in the past defended the right on national self-determination for the Albanian majority in Kosovo, including the right to the creation of their own state or an integration into a Great-Albania. But in the run-up to and during the USA/NATO war the struggle for self-determination had to be subordinated for the need to defend the military defense of Serbia against this imperialist attack without giving any support to the revanchist regime in Belgrade. The military forces of NATO replaced the Serbian army as the actual state power in Kosovo and in 2008 a fake “independence” was called off, which was in fact a diplomatic provocation, not at least aimed against Russia. Up till today the biggest military base the USA has in Europe since the Vietnam War is in Kosovo (Camp Bondsteel). Propagating the struggle for independence for Kosovo in the middle of the military offensive of USA/NATO against Serbia would essentially have contributed to the support for the predatory goals of imperialism against that country.

However, in the situation of Crimea today, there is no war to which the national question would be subordinated. In contradiction to the allegations of western imperialism, her media and her ‘leftwing’ appendices, the Russian intervention on Crimea is no deed of aggression against a ‘foreign country’. But for these reformists the reality is of no interest. To say it in common language; they are against the referendum on Crimea for the same reason they before supported the ‘independence’ of Kosovo under the auspices of western imperialism. They simply parrot their masters!

TOWARDS A NEW OCTOBER

The Reformist left has already made peace with imperialism decennia ago. This was most clearly expressed when the pseudo-left took a stand alongside the contra-revolutionary forces in the Sovjet Union. The members of the CWI literally manned the barricades of the contra-revolution, when they joined the forces of capitalist restoration under the leadership of Boris Jeltsin, who attracted the power in August of 1991. On their turn the pseudo-Trotskyists of the United Secretariat supported almost every separatist movement within the USSR, including the embracement of the fascist margin of the Baltic national movements who wanted to restore capitalism under the guise of ‘self-determination’.

In sharp contrast to this we fought for the unconditional military defense of the Sovjet Worker-state against imperialism and contra-revolution. We fought for this notwithstanding and against the mismanagement of the bureaucratic Party caste, which undermined the worker-state and opened the doors for the contra-revolution, not at least by giving up the struggle for worldwide revolution for the lie of a so-called ‘peaceful co-existence’ (with imperialism). We fought for a political revolution under the command of the working class to overthrow the party-bureaucracy and to replace it with a regime of council-democracy and revolutionary internationalism.

The liberating vision of the Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin which led towards the October revolution of 1917 – which included the right of self-determination for all peoples in the then Tsarist Empire – was brutally perverted by the bureaucratic caste within the CPSU, which started to consolidate its power during the ‘20s and ‘30s of last century. This also led to the gruesome suffering of the Crimean-Tartars, during their deportation by Stalin at the end of the last world war. At the same time the existence of a socialized economy with central planning laid the material basis for the realization for full employment, medical care for everybody and other achievements, which neutralized the most evil forms of bourgeois-nationalism, which were fed by the unrest of capitalist society.

The destruction of the Soviet worker-state brought unimagined misery and horrors for the peoples of this first workers-republic in the world. It led to a sharpening of ethnic and national contradictions and the spread of a national hate, in which the worker of one people is set up against the worker of another people. Notwithstanding the opportunity of Russia to detract from the American imperialist ambitions from time till time, are the times of the USSR as counterweight for US imperialism definitely over.

The class consciousness has had a drastic set back, so much that the working class of the country of the October revolution no longer sees socialism as its ideal of liberty.

The crucial tasks for revolutionaries nowadays, is forming an Avant Garde that has agreed to the uncompromising struggle against imperialism and all expressions of chauvinism, thereby setting course towards the struggle of the independent proletariat aimed for a NEW OCTOBER!

Source:
http://acnaknnederland.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/crimea-is-russian-2/

I don't really have the want or the time even to make a suitably long response.

But, as I had said previously, the Russians had intervened into the referendum, and the Ukraine and Crimea had a history of Russian oppression.

I am opposed to what is clearly an attempt to satisfy an essentially Eurasian urge. The Ukraine and even the Crimea has a history of resisting foreign rule from Moscow, and I still support this.

Also, intervening in Kosovo is rather justified in my view, though that is a discussion for a future thread.

And as a disclaimer, I do not support any side in this. I just happen to prefer an independent, revolutionary Ukraine to Russia making it's own imperialist agenda in the Crimea. And to be honest, I specifically don't want a powerful Russia, period.

This is probably the extent of my opinion on the issue.

Edit:You have made a thread about the Ukraine's situation on the Theory section, which isn't even related to world affairs. Additionally, there was already a good thread on this in another section of this forum. Basically, stop posting the same shit here.

Uberak wrote:I don't really have the want or the time even to make a suitably long response.

But, as I had said previously, the Russians had intervened into the referendum, and the Ukraine and Crimea had a history of Russian oppression.

I am opposed to what is clearly an attempt to satisfy an essentially Eurasian urge. The Ukraine and even the Crimea has a history of resisting foreign rule from Moscow, and I still support this.

Also, intervening in Kosovo is rather justified in my view, though that is a discussion for a future thread.

And as a disclaimer, I do not support any side in this. I just happen to prefer an independent, revolutionary Ukraine to Russia making it's own imperialist agenda in the Crimea. And to be honest, I specifically don't want a powerful Russia, period.

This is probably the extent of my opinion on the issue.

Edit:You have made a thread about the Ukraine's situation on the Theory section, which isn't even related to world affairs. Additionally, there was already a good thread on this in another section of this forum. Basically, stop posting the same shit here.

If the moderation thinks it's better to combine the treats it's fine by me.

Furthermore we have provided a clear political analysis from a consistent Leninist perspective. It's also very clear about why we reject the fallacies you display with your post here (I'm happy to discuss it with you once you have given a substantiated responds on the content).

We all want a revolutionary Ukraine, but the reality is that this is not the case at the moment. So that leaves us with two options; we remain passive by-standers or we position ourselves from a working class perspective.

Crimea belongs to the Crimean Tatars.

Social Corporatist wrote:Crimea belongs to the Crimean Tatars.

The historical and demographic reality of Crimea does prove otherwise.

Crimea is not an example of a geographic commixture of peoples. With this we of course do not mean a general mixture of ethnicities and nationalities within a separate State, which in fact occurs all over the world. With 'a geographic commixture of peoples' we mean a situation in which two (or more) peoples make a solid claim on the same territory and the thereby following conclusions for revolutionaries (examples of this would be Northern-Ireland or Israel/Palestine ofcourse).

In the case of geographically mixed peoples we claim that under capitalism - in which the Statepower by definition is dominated by one single nation - the democratic right on self-determination cannot be enforced without infringing on the national rights of the other. Therefore these conflicts cannot be solved in the context of the capitalist system, without the overthrow of all bourgeois regimes in the region.  

But in Crimea about 97% of the population speaks Russian and even the Ukrainian minority is very much 'Russified'. This cannot be compared with for example the Caucasus, which is populated by many different peoples, who all speak very different languages. It can also not be compared with Northern-Ireland where a big gap exists between an somewhat equally great Catholic and Protestant population. The recent referendum on Crimea and the following events show a different story: this is not a case of geographically mixed peoples, but essentially determined by its Russian history and etnic composition. Almost 97% of the voters in Crimea wanted a unification with Russia, notwithstanding the fact that many Tartars boycotted the referendum. Above all the unification with Russia was reached with almost no bloodshed and without any form of real resistance.        

If we would make the self-determination of the Russians in Crimea dependent on the treatment of the Tartar minority, then it is difficult to imagine how one can support national self-determination anywhere at all. The fear and unrest of the Tartar minority cannot abolish the democratic right of the Russian majority in Crimea on national self-determination, nor on their wish for unification with Russia.  

However, the goal of revolutionaries is ofcourse to mobilize the working class to defend oppressed minorities. This is an essential part of the struggle against the bourgeois class enemy. This includes the defending of the rights of indigenous populations with a a contiguous territory to determine their own future, including a possible separation.

In Russia one of the most import tasks for us, revolutionaries, is to defend the rights of the Islamic Tartars and other etnic and national minorities. So let there be no misunderstanding that our support for Russian intervention in Crimea does not in any way means political support for the current bourgeois regime and its Great-Russian chauvinist politics.

Rapaille wrote:

Social Corporatist wrote:Crimea belongs to the Crimean Tatars.

The historical and demographic reality of Crimea does verbal diarrhea...

Yeah, shut the fuck up and stop defending Russian imperialism. Thanks.

Social Corporatist wrote:

Rapaille wrote:

Social Corporatist wrote:Crimea belongs to the Crimean Tatars.

The historical and demographic reality of Crimea does verbal diarrhea...

Yeah, shut the fuck up and stop defending Russian imperialism. Thanks.

We don't support Russian imperialism, but the right for national self-determination.

The Russian intervention in Crimea is not an act of military agression, nor an invasion in a foreign country (no matter what administrative status the territory has).

That a reformist pig such as yourself is to stupid to read past the title, says more then enough about you.

Rapaille wrote:The Russian intervention in Crimea is not an act of military agression, nor an invasion in a foreign country (no matter what administrative status the territory has).

Contrary to what the world powers say? It was no different than Hitler invading and annexing Sudetenland. You're a shill.

Social Corporatist wrote:Contrary to what the world powers say?

The worldpowers say whatever fits their agenda. It's our duty to look past this propaganda.

Ever since '54 the majority of the population in Crimea demanded independence from Ukraine. This is emphasized by the former three referenda organized by the Crimean authorities (in 1991, 1992 and 1994), in which the majority of the people voted for a rapprochement to Russia - this was of course sabotaged by the government in Kiev who deemed the referenda illegal and prosecuted the former-President of Crimea: Yuri Mesjkov. The Ukrainian constitution of 1996 denied any possibility for self-determination of Crimea, because now a nationwide referendum was necessary to change the borders of Ukraine, thus making an end to the aspirations of the Crimean population to achieve any autonomy. The Tartars you refer to only make out about 10% of the Crimean population, the vast majority of the population is Russian or Russified, whether you like it or not. It´s a reality we have to take in account.

Secondly it's strictly speaking no invasion, because Russian troops have not left the Crimean territory since '54 and are permanently based in the city of Sevastopol. Furthermore the Russian intervention in Crimea is in its essence defensive, because it's motivated by the desire to protect the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol. It's supported by the Crimean authorities and population - againthis is also illustrated by the fact no serious resistance or bloodshed took place during the intervention in Crimea itself (which would be unlikely if the population did not support the intervention). No attempt is made to invade the rest of Ukraine. So it's hardly an act of military aggression, nor an invasion in a foreign nation for that matter.

Can we find certain parallels with the annexation of Sudetenland in 1938? Without a doubt, but that's hardly a solid argument to deny the Crimean population their democratic right on national self-determination.