Former NATO commander in Europe, US Army General Wesley Clark, stated in The Hague that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) did not commit ethnic cleansing, but responded proportionately to Serb atrocities.
An aging NATO war criminal is protecting Kosovo’s Albanian terrorists.
Related:
Read More »Among the Dutch, Scandinavian and Swiss revolutionary Social-Democrats who are combating the social-chauvinist lies about “defence of the fatherland” in the present imperialist war, there have been voices in favour of replacing the old Social-Democratic minimum-programme demand for a “militia”, or “the armed nation,” by a new demand: “disarmament.” The Jugend-Internationale has inaugurated a discussion on this issue and published, in No. 3, an editorial supporting disarmament. There is also, we regret to note, a concession to the “disarmament” idea in R. Grimm’s latest theses. Discussion have been started in the periodicals Neue Leben and Vorbote.
Let us take a closer look at the position of the disarmament advocates.
The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution
or: Vladimir Lenin Collected Works Vol. 23 (PDF)
Acceptance of the proposition that the present war is imperialist, i.e., a war between two big freebooters for world domination and plunder, does not yet prove that we should reject defence of the Swiss fatherland. We, Swiss, are defending our neutrality; we have stationed troops on our boundaries for the express purpose of avoiding participation in this robber war!
This is the argument of the social-patriots, the Grütlians, both within the Socialist Party and outside it.
“If you fall in love with a struggle, it is easy to fall in love with those who share that struggle and vice versa.”
👀
Related:
PDF: The Woman Worker
Trump announces novel plan to send weapons to Ukraine and gives Russia new deadline to make peace
Whitaker, the US NATO envoy, said the immediate focus on shipping weapons to Ukraine was on defensive systems, like the Patriot batteries that can intercept Russian ballistic missiles. But he didn’t rule out providing offensive weapons.
…
By selling weapons to European nations, rather than transferring them to Ukraine itself, Trump hopes to insulate himself from political criticism that he is reversing a campaign pledge to reduce the US role in the years-long war.
Related:
US officials say they are still reviewing Ukraine’s weaponry wish list
U.S. officials say they are still sorting through Ukraine’s wish list of weaponry that it would like to receive from NATO members to determine what can be most quickly replaced after President Donald Trump announced an agreement for Europe to supply Ukraine with defensive munitions from existing stocks.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss arms transfers that have not yet been approved or completed, said Ukraine’s requests for materiel are roughly the same as they have been since the start of Russia’s invasion more than three years ago. Those include air defenses like Patriot missiles and Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems, long range missile known as ATACMS and short- to medium-range ground-to-air missiles known as NASAMs, and assorted artillery, according to the officials.
Under the terms of the very rough agreement sketched out by Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte on Monday, NATO members would ship billions of dollars of these weapons to Ukraine and then purchase replacements for them from the United States.
One official said some of the larger items — such as Patriots— could take up to five years to produce to deliver to the European donors, while smaller munitions like 155mm artillery shells can be produced on a much shorter timeline
If U.S. Gives Ukraine Long-Range Missiles, What Besides JASSM-ER Could Hit moscow
According to numerous insider reports published by Western media, this package is likely to include some form of long-range weaponry. The new military aid package that Ukraine hopes to receive from the United States may include air-launched missiles, aerial bombs, and high-precision ground-launched missiles. The primary criterion for these weapons could be their ability to strike deep into the territory of the Russian Federation.
…
The specifics remain unknown. Some sources mention “offensive missiles,” others claim these weapons will have the range to strike targets as far as Moscow. Still others explicitly state that they will be JASSM cruise missiles. All of these reports point to one clear requirement: the missiles must have a range of at least 500 km to reach Moscow from the Ukrainian border.
Ukraine Is Getting a New Way to Receive U.S. Weapons. Here’s What We Know.
How much money will this earn the United States?
Generally, a single Patriot battery costs about $1 billion to build, depending on the model, and interceptor missiles cost about $3.7 million each. JASSMs sell for about $1.5 million each. And ATACMS cost at least $1 million or more per missile.
“This is billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment that’s going to be purchased from the United States, going to NATO,” Mr. Trump said. “And that’s going to be quickly distributed to the battlefield.”
Answers To An American Journalist’s Questions
1. The governmental programme of the Soviet Government was not a reformist, but a revolutionary one. Reforms are concessions obtained from a ruling class that retains its rule. Revolution is the overthrow of the ruling class. Reformist programmes, therefore, usually consist of many items of partial significance. Our revolutionary programme consisted properly of one general item—removal of the yoke of the landowners arid capitalists, the overthrow of their power and the emancipation of the working people from those exploiters. This programme we have never changed. Some partial measures aimed at the realisation of the programme have often been subjected to change; their enumeration would require a whole volume. I will only mention that there is one other general point in our governmental programme which has, perhaps, given rise to the greatest number of changes of partial measures. That point is—the suppression of the exploiters’ resistance. After the Revolution of October 25 (November 7), 1917 we did not close down even the bourgeois newspapers and there was no mention of terror at all. We released not only many of Kerensky’s ministers, but even Krasnov who had made war onus. It was only after the exploiters, i.e., the capitalists, had begun developing their resistance that we began to crush that resistance systematically, applying even terror. This was the proletariat’s response to such actions of the bourgeoisie as the conspiracy with the capitalists of Germany, Britain, Japan, America and France to restore the rule of the exploiters in Russia, the bribery of the Czechoslovaks with Anglo-French money, the bribery of Mannerheirn, Denikin and others with German and French money, etc. One of the latest conspiracies leading to “a change”—to put it precisely, leading to increased terror against the bourgeoisie in Petrograd—was that of the bourgeoisie, acting jointly with the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries; their conspiracy concerned the surrender of Petrograd, the seizure of Krasnaya Gorka by officer-conspirators, the bribing by British and French capitalists of employees of the Swiss Embassy and of many Russian employees, etc.
Read More »
The vote in favour of the second reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29th November, proposed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, was welcomed with unalloyed enthusiasm by the bourgeois media. Photos featuring jubilant campaigners for voluntary euthanasia were plastered across web front pages. The real promise of this Bill is far from joyful for many. The Bill, which will now go to parliamentary committee with the opportunity for amendment, if finally passed into law, would represent a major political attack at a time of huge inequality and significant shortages in access to health care, social care, support for independent living, and end of life care, including adequate, high quality palliative care. Despite all this – and the loud opposition of disabled people’s organisations in particular – this measure is still mistakenly understood by some on the left as merely a matter of personal choice: an enabler rather than a threat.
Socialists should back support for living not assisted suicide
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.