The adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum, would appear to be more and more interpreted by the UK and western European countries as Si vis bellum, para bellum. Those with a far better knowledge of Latin than this Blog will no doubt correct us as to the the accuracy of our adaptation.
Whilst such intentions and actions may benefit the Underwood's of the world they place the majority in danger of death and destruction.
Since it is the majority who run capitalism on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the minority exploitative class can we suppose that a section of the working class will welcome the employment opportunities that such pre-war preparation offers?
As the propertyless majority have little choice but to to sell their labour power to the capitalist class in order to obtain wages and salaries in order to acquire the necessities of life and to reproduce themselves should those who choose to work for the various merchants of death concern themselves with the use and consequences of their labour?
Many workers are already employed in various positions which reinforce the repression of others in diverse ways on behalf of capitalists and of the state.
The resonant lines from a Percy Bysshe Shelley poem deserve to have more impact, 'we are many, they are few.'
The solution is not if you want peace you must prepare for war. The solution is a society where quality goods and services are produced for use not profit – a moneyless, leaderless, stateless society. War and weapons manufacture, and the horrendous outcomes of such will have no place in socialism.
'The UK will sharply boost explosives production to reduce dependence on the US, The Times reported. The outlet cited a growing concern over the reliability of American military support.
According to the report, shipping containers will be deployed across the UK to manufacture RDX, a key explosive used in 155mm artillery rounds and other British weapons.
BAE Systems, Britain’s only producer of the rounds, also plans to build three new sites to improve the system’s resilience, according to Steve Cardew, business development director at BAE’s Maritime and Land Defence Solutions.
“One large facility is clearly a big security threat. If you have dispersed facilities, it is much more secure,” Cardew told the outlet.
Traditionally, RDX has been made in large, inefficient plants. Cardew said the container-based model would be faster, cheaper, and more efficient, with each unit capable of producing up to 100 tonnes annually.
He said the ramp-up was essential “to effectively match Russia and other hostile nations,” adding that rising global demand had “forced” BAE to speed up production.
The report noted the UK had supplied much of its 155mm ammunition to Ukraine as part of its multi-billion-pound military assistance.
It also cited US President Donald Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy – including tariffs and a temporary halt to military and intelligence aid to Kiev – as a reason the UK and EU are increasingly wary of relying on American weapons.
Currently, 155mm rounds made with US-sourced explosives are subject to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (Itar), restricting their use and resale without US approval.
Cardew said BAE, which previously imported RDX from the US and France, will be able to market its own ‘Itar-free’ products globally once local production ramps up.
The company aims for a 16-fold increase in 155mm rounds when its new plant in south Wales opens this summer.'
'The UK would support Germany if it decides to give long-range Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, The Telegraph reported citing British government sources.
London has long backed arming Kiev with the German-made weapons, which have a 500km range and are capable of striking targets deep into Russian territory, the report stated. Moscow has warned that supplying long-range missiles to Kiev and allowing it to strike Russian territory will be considered an escalation of hostilities.
“We continue to work with our partners, including Germany, to equip Ukraine as best we can to defend its sovereign territory,” a British foreign policy official told the outlet, commenting on the potential Taurus deliveries.
The report follows recent remarks by incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who signaled he was willing to supply Taurus missiles to Kiev.
“I have always said that I would do it,” Merz told German state broadcaster ARD.
“Our European partners are already supplying cruise missiles… The British are doing it, the French are doing it, and the Americans are doing it,” he added, referencing the UK’s Storm Shadow and France’s Scalp missiles respectively.
The move must be agreed upon with Berlin’s European partners, Merz said. His CDU party has said the missiles could be used to strike Russian command centres and supply routes, including the Kerch Bridge to Crimea.
Merz’s stance contrasts sharply with that of outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has repeatedly refused to give Kiev Taurus missiles and warned that the move could escalate the conflict and draw Germany directly into war with Moscow.
Merz is expected to take office in May, once his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Scholz’s Social Democrats (SPD) finalize a coalition agreement. CDU defence spokesman Roderich Kiesewetter told The Telegraph that the missile delivery issue “remains a point of contention” in coalition talks.
SPD members have
expressed concern over the Taurus’ range and power, arguing it
poses a greater escalation risk than British or French systems. Party
leader Matthias Miersch this week suggested Merz might change course
once he receives classified intelligence on the missiles.
German
Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, an SPD member, has previously
stated there are “many
good arguments”
against the delivery, citing confidential national security
concerns.'
7 comments:
If they actually want direct war with Russia, they must really believe it would remain a "conventional" war. Surely they must realise that, even if the French and British go nuclear, Russia would also wipe them off the map, literally?
Sun Tzu may or may not have said 'An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes' but the present day conduct of some states and their various capitalist interests within appear to be anything but rational. Those benefiting from the military-industrial complex,( the EU wants to spend eight hundred billion Euros on building up its military strength) and the Russophobe 'leaders' of western Europe, and within the USA, are either behaving like ostriches or are calculating their chances of destroying Russia as good before it retaliates and destroys them. Even a first nuclear strike on Russia would, as you say, result in the utter destruction of the parties involved. Russia still has apparently around five thousand nuclear weapons. They also have now hypersonic missiles. There may be a calculation that the use of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons would not result in a response from strategic nuclear weapons. Given the underlying raison d'etre of capitalism to leave control in the hands of a minority is like the majority playing Russian roulette but with five bullets in the chamber. If the propaganda emanating from the MSM and state organs becomes even more intense then hopefully the majority will make it perfectly clear that it will not become lambs to the slaughter in order to satisfy the deranged delusions of the Dr Strangelove types. The necessity for the transition to socialism becomes more and more of an imperative as each day passes.
It doesn't seem at all likely that the workers will rise to forestall it. For a start, "nationhood" is their deluded priority and they see other workers as "foreigners", not fellow workers.
An insanity that goes against their capitalist interests seems to be gripping the European heads of state, and it is moving too fast for any hope of a social revolution.
You pose the sixty four thousand dollar question. What is it going to take before the majority recognise that capitalism is no longer in the interests of the global working class. Capitalism long ago achieved its historical role of being providing the stage for the ultimate humankind social system, socialism. However, it's not going to drop into the laps of the majority, it has to be fought for. Nationalism is one of the barriers to the understanding of, and the desire for, socialism. Given that capitalism deploys a vast ongoing array of means to prevent that understanding taking place the obstacles are, and always have been, formidable. Even wars and conflicts, which hurt the working class the most seem not to substantially shift attitudes. What will it take for a majority to say enough is enough? The threat of nuclear war has been hanging over the world since 1945, not forgetting the death and destruction caused by two European 'world' wars. And on and on and on.
Will the possibility of a 'real' nuclear war finally cause an awakening? You are correct to say that capitalist propaganda works very hard to paint other members of the working class, the Other. Very unfortunate but when someone is struggling to survive economically in a capitalist state then it's sometimes hard to be overly concerned about actions like genocide taking place on the other side of the world. And lets not forget the bread and circuses diversions of television, sport, and which celebrity is sleeping with whom.
Which would suggest that yes, the workers will passively go along with the end of life on Earth and their own mass extermination.
And as for the capitalists of the UK, France and Germany, it seems they are prepared to commit suicide for the sake of ... What?... and have been beguiled by their own propaganda. The Russian capitalists seem to be perplexed by this, especially as the US has backed away and the Europeans are not now obliged to keep singing the old lousy war song!
To quote Lenin, the proletariat are capable only of raising themselves to the level of trade union consciousness and therefore need the vanguard Party to lead them on to the revolution. This of course leads to state capitalism should a 'revolution' occur under such circumstances. Lenin was wrong as are all the 'socialist' leninist-trotskyist blind followers of today. Revolutions can occur very quickly and the social order can change in a very short space of time. As probably any SPGBer will tell you the case for socialism propagated by the SPGB since 1904 is so simple, straightforward and obvious that the biggest surprise remains the inability of a majority to take it onboard despite all the obstacles put in the way. Amongst those religion still plays a significant role. Why are almost one and a half million catholics allowing themselves to continue to be dictated to by a new pope when he gets 'elected'. William Morris had it right when he wrote of the spread of ideas from a few individuals. Civilisation may not be trembling yet but the time must come at some point. The alternative is too awful to contemplate.
I think patriotism is far more dangerous than religion - although it depends on the religion. We are seeing a strange situation in Europe, whereby the capitalist parties opposing the resurgence of militarism are the far right nationalist ones (with the exception of Merz).
Would the EU "leaders" really launch a war for no material interest, but solely for the psychological one of not "losing face"?
Post a Comment