The Right to Oxygen. Part VI

(If you haven’t already, please read Parts I, II, III, IV and V first)

So, is a coup against Putin in the works? Is this work intensifying? Are real steps being taken in this direction? What is the nature of these steps and of the forces taking these steps? It is necessary to look for the answer to these analytical questions within our reality. Specifically, the focus of this reality is located in Donbass, as the site where history has awakened. Let us examine what is happening at this site. And within the specifics, let us find the universal, which we have just discussed. Let us find that which allows us to recognize the existence of a real conflict between mutacapitalism and capitalist classicism, between the “inferior merger elite” (or, the anti-elite) and that which we have called the counter-elite.

Why is it that all of a sudden Merkel and Hollande, the leaders of the two principal nations of Old Europe, came to Putin in Moscow, with hat in hand? They indeed came to Putin with hat in hand, and everybody understands this. What caused these arrogant people representing the mighty West, this Roman Empire of the 21st century, to accept the role of petitioners? It was the cauldron in Debaltsevo.

What compelled these same people to come to Minsk, where they would spend day and night discussing the appeasement of some Godforsaken Donbass natives? That very same cauldron in Debaltsevo.

Of course, in Rambouillet and in other places, somebody also discussed something with Milošević before beginning the bombing campaign and the land invasion. But, if at some point some Caesar of the new Rome or some sort of new Roman triumvirate will order a bombing campaign on Russia, it will happen in a completely different global situation. And, it will be a different Caesar who will give this order, in agreement with a different set of supreme patricians of the agonizing new Rome.

“Not now”, as the new Romans say, who are also former barbarians, whom Old Rome had previously mopped the floor with. So, let us not bring the topic of future Roman actions into this discussion. Let us figure out what precisely had alarmed the new Roman patriciate today. What alarmed them, as we all understand, was Debaltsevo. This means that something outside of the norm is happening in Debaltsevo and Donbass as a whole. But, what does “outside of the norm” mean?

It means that there was a certain series of normal events, and that what happened in Debaltsevo falls outside of the norm, outside of this series of normal events. That being said, the same series of normal events can contain events large and small, dramatic and mundane. This is why one can state that something outside of the norm happened in Debaltsevo only after first a) defining a series of normal events, and b) proving that what happened in Debaltsevo cannot be reconciled with this series of events.

A series of events is usually called a process. I do not want to overload this short work with pondering about how a process differs from a flow, and how a flow differs from less coherently organized series (complexes, packets, cascades). I will say just that a series of events becomes a process when the substance that all of these events have in common outweighs the specifics of each separate event. Otherwise, the series of events becomes not a process, but something else. Everything here depends on whether or not the events share a single and obvious logic of purposes, to what degree this logic of purposes influences the internal structure of every separate event, and so forth.

The one logic of purposes that unites all of the events taking place in Donbass is resistance of the citizens living on this territory against the evil which for them Maidan and the “Maidanites” embody. This is an evil with very far-reaching implications. It is the evil of fascism, specifically, neo-fascism. At the same time, it is the evil of a very historically recognizable fascism. It is the evil of the new West. It is the evil of mutacapitalism. But for now, let us not discuss this evil. It is much more necessary for us now, at this stage of our discussion, to determine that it exists. And, that everyday folks in Donbass very much feel its presence. In fact, they feel its presence to the point that they are ready to take up arms and battle against it in a self-sacrificial way.

In precisely the same way, its presence is felt in different cities in Russia and around the world. Including Spain, among other places. Most importantly, however, is that Donbass caught on to the existence of this evil, and that it told it “no!” Having said this, it began to fight against it with weapons in hand.

Of course, the citizens of Donbass can call the evil of the Maidan by different names. Or, they can give it no name. Despite the great importance of exactly by what name they would call it, it is even more important that they feel the presence of this evil, and that this acute perception of evil gave birth to the Resistance.

In executing the coup d’etat, the Maidan made violence the fundamental element of its existence. Having taken power over the country, it went from violence using pieces of steel pipes, shanks, knives, and assault rifles to violence using “Grad” and “Uragan” multiple rocket launch systems, Su-25 ground attack planes, and “Tochka-U” tactical ballistic missiles.

The gangster-fascist essence of the Maidan makes itself known in this unquenchable thirst for violence. Had the Maidan captured weapons of mass destruction, it would have immediately used them to satisfy its pervasive lust for sadism.

Consequently, the will of the citizens of Donbass to resist the evil of the Maidan could only take form as the will for armed resistance. Putting off to the side the question as to who has the ability to first demonstrate the will for armed resistance in practice, to pull these weapons from somewhere and to demonstrate the readily available skill to use them, I move to the most important.

This will of the citizens, becoming materialized through real action, creates a focus or foci of armed resistance. Having discovered this as the political certainty which has been made clear to us, we thus discover that the entire process taking place in Donbass is, in essence, the process in which the armed resistance against the Maidan is developing.

Militiamen in Debaltsevo

Foci of any armed resistance go through profound changes in their structure and character as they go through the process of developing in this manner. Therefore, we can and must view what is happening in Donbass as different phases of the process of a focus of armed resistance developing. What are these different phases?

During the first phase, an easily suppressible focus of armed resistance always takes form. In Donbass, many people contributed to its formation. Bezler, Khodakovsky, Ponomarev, Zakharchenko (just listing these names in alphabetical order). But then, Strelkov wedged himself into the process of forming this focus. What then began can be called a conscious attempt to arrest this development, so that it would never move past the first phase, the phase in which precisely an easily suppressible focus of armed resistance develops. I want to immediately qualify that almost any developing focus of armed resistance initially starts out as an easily suppressible one. In the same way, a fire is easy to put out at the moment when it starts to burn. But, it was not by accident that Lenin insistently repeated the words of the Decembrists that “From a spark a fire will flare up”. And, it was no accident that he named his newspaper “Iskra” [“Spark”]. The tiny, easily suppressible focus of armed resistance of Donbass, since we are talking about a historical process, had to rapidly expand, transforming into a focus which is difficult to suppress and then into an unsuppressible focus of armed resistance against the rampaging gangsters.

In the mountains of Sierra Maestra. Ernesto “Che” Guevara (second from the left), Fidel Castro, Raul Castro (sitting) among their brothers-in-arms. June 7, 1957.

I think it is necessary to stress (and I will constantly stress this!) that there is nothing unnatural or belonging to the realm of conspiracy theories, that a focus of armed resistance starts out as tiny and easily suppressible. Fidel Castro, having landed in Cuba with a small band of armed revolutionaries, which suffered severely from the voyage and the landing, began by creating what would seem to be the same kind of easily suppressible focus of armed resistance against the Americans and their henchman, Batista. But, this focus became a spark, from which a fire flared up. It flared up so quickly, that Batista’s regime fell, and Fidel became architect of Cuba’s destiny and the most influential of all Latin American leaders.

Having established himself in this role with the support of the USSR, Fidel Castro did not fall after the collapse of Soviet Union, and he continued to hold these positions until his last breath, throughout the entire post-Soviet period of world history. He held these positions in a tiny country, next door to the United States of America. Is this not an example of how processes can unfold, turning easily suppressible foci of armed resistance into super-foci, forming a new statehood and a new sociopolitical order?

However, the legendary Che Guevara did not manage to successfully apply the experience of the Cuban Revolution to other Latin American countries. The spark flared up, and it was put out. This does not in any way mean that Che Guevara, he who created this spark, was an imperialist agent who consciously created specifically an easily suppressible focus of armed resistance in Bolivia.

Some sparks flare up into fires; others die. This is the essence of history. Did the spark of the Bolshevik revolt not become a fire spreading to the ends of the world?

Mao Zedong created what seemed to be an easily suppressible focus of armed resistance in China. This spark, after a long kindling, created a great power.

Ho Chi Minh created the same kind of focus in Vietnam with the same result.

The rebellion in Transnistria was a spark which quickly flared into a fire. It was a rebellion against punitive forces very similar to the ones acting now under the yellow and blue flag of Ukraine.

And finally, was the Maidan itself not a spark of a black flame, which managed to ignite thanks to enormous help from the West and the gross inadequacy of Yanukovich, who was paralyzed by the West?

The arrival of Strelkov together with a small band of armed companions in the town of Slavyansk, where Ponomarev, the local leader, had already struck a tiny spark of resistance against the death squads, could easily have been mistaken for Fidel Castro’s landing or for any similar heroic historical undertaking.

However, it soon became clear that Strelkov wants nothing to do with history and heroic upheavals. That in a certain sense, he finds history repulsive. This became clear not as a result of some special investigation. It became clear from Strelkov’s own words. Who did Strelkov address on behalf of the easily suppressible focus of armed resistance in Slavyansk? Only Russia. And, only with one request: to save the easily suppressible focus of armed resistance, which he helped to create, from inevitable and swift suppression by Ukrainian death squads, who had acquired control over the personnel and heavy weaponry of a considerably large army.

The blatantly non-historical and even anti-historical nature of Strelkov’s adventures becomes apparent as soon as one understands how people who are igniting a truly historical flame of one armed resistance or another behave. They do not behave at all like Strelkov, do you see?

What, in essence, did Strelkov repeat time and time again? He said that the rebels in Slavyansk are doomed, because the focus of armed resistance that they created is extremely weak. That Russia must save them. And, if it doesn’t save them, then… It seems to have been said that in this case Strelkov’s handful of fighters would fall like the Spartans at Thermopylae. But, this turned out to be irresponsible chatter, an attempt to organize a spectacle with a historical theme. Sensitive damsels and feminine bloggers began to sob. Very many popularized this sobbing. So many, that it was fit to speak of a large theater production featuring a warrior-hero, who worked miracles, but who was betrayed by the treacherous emperor.

This hero had absolutely no intention of dying. It was apparent that his posturing and his grimacing and his complaints were well thought-out and deliberate. That the Russian authorities were being told, in essence, “If Mother Russia and specifically President Putin will not save us, then we will flee… And, we will shift our focus to advertising ourselves. As well as smearing those who refused to use the regular Russian army, meaning, betrayed us, screwed us over, and so on”.

To help the reader, whom Strelkov’s backers feverishly keep trying to influence to this day, to better understand how provocative such a message is, I suggest he or she imagine Fidel Castro, who has yet to take power in Cuba, but is already telling Khrushchev and the CPSU, “ We are your supporters. We have created a focus of armed resistance against the pro-American Batista regime. This focus is easily suppressible. Save us; send Soviet forces into Cuba. If you do not send them, we will flee, and we will begin to mercilessly shame you as traitors, who screwed over the heroic project of ‘Novo-Cuba’”.

One could object and say, “Not everything is a result of historical undertakings, when heroes like Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, or Ho Chi Minh act at their own risk, make the people rise up, make history, and build a new state with a new social order. Indeed, other very important undertakings exist, which do not have this historic nature but still serve Russia’s interests. What if Strelkov was part of such an undertaking? Is it then acceptable to attack Strelkov?”

Well, then let us first agree that we have examined scenario #1, that Strelkov acted as a new Fidel Castro in kindling the historical spark in Donbass. We have determined that Strelkov’s actions do not correspond to this scenario. Recognizing this, we begin to examine scenario #2, according to which Strelkov is not a historical hero like Fidel Castro, but rather a special hero, a kind of “Quiet Russian” (like the “Quiet American”, the protagonist in Graham Greene’s novel, who draws American forces into Vietnam). Incidentally, the term “polite people” and “quiet people” [in reference to Russian forces in Crimea] fits well with such a scenario.

Consider this, if the Strelkov virus hasn’t completely devoured your brain yet! If scenario #2 was real, which entails:

  1. Putin (who else?) sending a “Quiet Russian” with a special team to Slavyansk;

  2. This “Quiet Russian” lighting the fire of an easily suppressible focus of armed resistance;

  3. Russian media showing the horrors of the punitive campaign and the heroism of the people of Donbass whose revolt is being led by the “Quiet Russian”;

D) The rapid deployment of Russian forces, similar to the deployment of American forces in Vietnam. Then why must the “Quiet Russian” named Strelkov sob loudly, painting the picture night and day of exactly how weak the focus of armed resistance he created is. Why must he present himself as a noble sacrifice, betrayed and sent to be slaughtered (we clearly know by whom), shaming those who sent him, blaming the leadership who sent him for “screwing over” Novorussia, for betraying the Russian agenda?

Strelkov did not behave like a “Quiet Russian”, is it not so? Neither “Quiet Americans”, nor “Quiet Frenchmen” and “Quiet Englishmen behave like this.

Then scenario #2, Strelkov the “Quiet Russian” has nothing to do with what really happened.

Scenario #1, that Strelkov, like a new Fidel Castro, was kindling the spark of the Donbass revolution at his own risk, also has nothing in common with reality. In such a case, Strelkov should have been addressing the people of Donbass, constantly attracting these people, and not shoving popular leaders into counter-intelligence basements. He should have taken power, relying on the local masses for support. He should have expanded the focus of resistance, leading it into the next phase. After already defeating the death squads, he then should have built new relations with Russia. Then he would have become the Fidel Castro of Donbass, is it not so?

One might argue that Mao Zedong or Ho Chi Minh, unlike Fidel Castro, relied on support from the USSR to take power. But, how did they rely on it? There was nothing Mao Zedong feared more than to appear to his comrades as a helpless Soviet puppet, whom the mighty Soviet Army would bring to China in its rear. He did everything to ensure that nobody could even suspect something of the like. In such a case, he would have lost the ability to find support from the great Chinese people as well as the ability to garner support from the Chinese elites. These elites answered only when they became sure that Mao Zedong’s actions were those of a national leader, and not of a puppet. This is why they supported him and not the pro-American Chiang Kai-shek, or not the excessively Soviet Wang Ming. This is the logic of any statesman, who counts on history and on his people.

Moreover, when some Soviet or American protege would come to power with the aid of a foreign army within the framework of that very “Quiet model” (AKA scenario #2), this puppet a) did not spend day and night discrediting his puppet-masters, and b) tried to gain an independent reputation as quickly as possible, or humbly left after a certain time, relinquishing power to a more autonomous, and therefore, a capable protege of one superpower or the other (a perfect example is the replacement of Babrak Karmal, a dependent Afghan politician, with the much more autonomous Mohammad Najibullah).

But, if Strelkov’s phenomenon has nothing to do with scenario #1 (a “new Fidel Castro” acting at his own risk), nor with scenario #2 (a “Quiet/Polite Russian” sent by Putin to prepare the ground for the deployment of Russian forces to Ukraine), then what does his phenomenon mean? What are we dealing with? It is indeed obviously and undeniably clear to anyone capable of thinking that Strelkov’s phenomenon has nothing to do with scenario #1 or scenario #2.

What is left to somehow defend Strelkov’s actions is scenario #3, in which case Strelkov is a special representative not of Putin, but of a certain “war party”, one of the powerful groups within the Russian elite opposing the so-called fifth column, or the “peace party”.

So, the “war party” sends Strelkov to Slavyansk, telling him “You go and create an outrageous picture, and we, with the help of this picture, will convince the head of state to send in the army”.

I am convinced that no such party ever existed. But, let us suppose that it existed, and that Strelkov was its special representative. But in this case, Strelkov should not have a) personally engaged in a smear campaign against Putin, or b) fraternized with the author of the main anti-Putin memes (“Putin screwed us” and “Send in the army, bitch!”). A hypothetical “war party” trying to convince Putin to send troops would never allow anything of sort, because this would hurt its chances for success: no political leader would ever send in the military under pressure and to the accompaniment of his own vilification.

I stress, not a single political leader would do this, and certainly not Putin. One does not have to be a member of Putin’s inner circle to understand this. However, a “war party” could only consist of Putin’s innermost circle.

So, somebody sent Strelkov. Because, if nobody had sent him, he would have acted differently. But, it was not Putin or the “war party” who sent Strelkov. Then who was it?

Scenario #4: Strelkov was sent by Malofeev, the orthodox mini-oligarch, who became so cocky that he dared to act independently, without coordinating his actions with Putin, or any senior administrators close to Putin. But, such a madman would quickly have some sense beat into him. And, there is no need to examine hypotheses that have nothing to do with reality. We all know who the real Malofeev is. He is neither “a trusted confidant of the Commander in-Chief”, nor is he a vagabond. We all know who the real Malofeev turns to for advise, whom he visits, and without whom he doesn’t make a single decision.

Then what kind of scenario can one offer to explain Strelkov’s actions? Unfortunately, the only remaining scenario #5, which explains his behavior, is the scenario of a conspiracy against Putin. I stress that this is not some abstract conspiracy of some undefined international puppet-masters, but a very specific conspiracy to depose the legally elected President of Russia, to drive the so-called “moskalized” [“moskal” is the Ukrainian derogatory term for Russians] population of Eastern Ukraine from its land, to return Crimea to Ukraine, and to split the post-Putinist Russia into multiple pieces, in other words, to execute an inferior merger of Russia with the West.

If Russia merging with the West at full-value is impossible, and if Putin does not want to merge on inferior terms (in a situation when a majority of the elite does not see an alternative to merging and is ready to do so on inferior terms, if merging at full-value is impossible), then this elite majority has to try to conspire with the West and with the Western-controlled Ukraine to jointly execute a certain conspiracy with far-reaching implications. To send its protege, Strelkov, as part of this conspiracy. To instruct him to create precisely an easily suppressible focus of armed resistance on Slavyansk. To start assaulting the population of Donbass with “Grad” rockets in response to this. To show a horrifying picture on TV. To uproot millions of refugees (driving the “moskalized” people off the land). To discredit Putin, who “screwed” Strelkov the hero. To evacuate this hero to Russian territory. To completely clear Donbass of all of its “moskalized” population, and to decisively humiliate Putin in doing so. To incite an anti-Putin rebellion. To clear Crimea of its’ population too, as Russia descends into chaos. To install a post-Putinist regime, and in this new regime, which would condemn Putinism, begin merging Russia into the West on inferior terms.

You might protest and say that this isn’t so.

I would have been happy if this wasn’t so. I don’t want it to be so. I have no desire to dig up dirt on anybody; it just isn’t my style. And especially, I do not want anything of the sort to happen in this current situation, which has become unbelievably complex for Russia.

But agree, there can only be five scenarios. And, I have described all of them. Also agree that four of them do not match Strelkov’s real behavior. Only the fifth scenario matches his behavior. These are not my insinuations, do you understand? This is an undeniable analysis. And for me, it was such at the very moment when Strelkov withdrew his forces from Slavyansk. I knew at that moment that scenario #5 was being implemented, because all other scenarios had nothing to do with reality. Would you like to condemn me and prove me wrong? Then offer one other scenario of your own, rather than screaming at the top of your lungs. You can’t? Then let me propose one.

Scenario #6: The entire leadership is stoned out of its mind. Everybody is in a special condition resulting from the excessive consumption of alcohol and more powerful drugs. Furthermore, in order for this scenario to be real, every single decision-maker needs to act like this. But, this scenario just does not have anything to do with reality. It has much less in common with reality than scenario #5.

This means that we are forced to recognize that scenario #5 is being implemented. And, that the actor implementing it is the Russian elite, which has agreed to an inferior merger with the West. This elite is our home-grown mutacapitalism.

(To be continued…)

 

Source (for copy): http://eu.eot.su/?p=10107

 

This is the translation of the third part of the second article (published in “Essence of Time” newspaper issue 118 on March 12, 2015) by Sergey Kurginyan on the new ongoing mutation of capitalism. Capitalism is destroying nation states in favor of a global state; it is destroying the family as an institution, and it is reformatting itself into something entirely anti-humanistic. In doing so, the new mutated capitalism, with its twin brothers, neofascism and radical Islamism, inevitably clashes with classic capitalism. Whose side should Communists be on in this battle? You will find the answer in this series of articles.

 

We encourage republishing of our translations and articles, but ONLY with mentioning the original article page at eu.eot.su (link above).
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on VKEmail this to someonePrint this page

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Website

10 + thirteen =

Loading Facebook Comments ...