10:47 AMVictor Shapinov and his "Marxism and the War in Donbass"
Article #3, continued from
The discussion on RevLeft refers to an article by a well-known "leftist" in Ukraine Victor Shapinov as a definitive statement on the war in Ukraine. The title of the article is "Marxism and the War in Donbass", written in 2015. Let's see who is Victor Shapinov, and what does his article say.
1) Victor Shapinov
Victor Shapinov (photo above) is one of the leaders of several organizations, originating from a Stalinist faction of bureaucracy, which sell their "services" to the highest bidder.
Shapinov was born in 1980 (source). He finished a university in Russia and started his political career with the Russian Communist Workers' Party, a fragment of deceased the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In 2002, he was an assistant to a Deputy of the State Duma of Russia V.A. Tul'kin, who was also the head of the RCWP. As a rule, it is only representatives of former "nomenklatura", the privileged caste of high bureaucracy, who get invited to such positions.
After a factional fight within the RCWP, Shapinov was removed from position of a "Party Secretary on Ideology" in 2004, and moved to Kiev, Ukraine.
In 2005, Shapinov was one of the leaders of youth organization called "Che Guevara", in Kiev. This organization used to picket a McDonalds restaurant in Kiev. Reason for this was that one of the owners of a chain of large electronics store "Foxtrot", by the name of Gennady Vikhodtsev (Геннадий Выходцев), has organized free dinners for veterans and pensioneers at McDonalds, in his bid to be elected to the city council. Hence, his opponent, a director of land resources of Kiev State Administration Anatoly Mukhovik (Анатолий Муховик) has paid the leaders of "Che Guevara" to picket this specific McDonalds' restaurant with a hypocritical slogan "Don't sell yourself to a bourgeois!". Leaders of "Che Guevara" charged Anatoly Mukhovik: 500 dollars - for printing stickers, 500 dollars - for distribution of stickers, 700 dollars - for picketing the store on 20 February, 2005 (source).
Also, leaders of "Che Guevara" were close to a vice-president of "Cuba-Ukraine" friendship society Vasily Tereschuk. He is a former deputy of the Supreme Soviet representing the interests of Vladimir Boiko, a de-facto owner of Illich Steel and Iron Works in Mariupol', which is the second largest metallurgical enterprise in Ukraine. In 1990's the Steel Works was supplying steel to the break-away Transnistria republic, after which it was re-exported to Western Europe. This was done in circumvention of customs, according to a complex corruption scheme. In 2004, the Ukrainian customs attempted to stop this. Hence, Vasily Tereschuk has attempted to use "Che Guevara" for picketing in Transnestria.
Leaders of "Che Guevara" are known to have voyaged to a number of Arab countries and to North Korea. Their voyage to the Arab countries was paid for by Youssef Hares, head of the "Hares Group", which was the monopolist in export of metal from Illich Steel and Iron Works to Western Europe and the Middle East. .
In 2007, a conglomerate of several leftist organizations, including "Che Guevara", the editorial staff of "Contr.Info" (Sergey Ischenko), and some anarchists, formed a nebulous "Organization of Marxists". Vasily Tereschuk (see above) was chosen as the leader of this organization. However, Tereschuk was also an owner of several building companies. As there is a fierce turf war going on in Kiev, he has used activists of "Organization of Marxists" for picketing his rivals as "illegal builders". In return for removing pickets, V. Tereschuk charged up to 200 thousand dollars (source).
"Organization of Marxists" participated in the 2008 European Social Forum in Malmo, Sweden, and established connections with the Left Party of Sweden. The party has given 30 thousand dollars to Shapinov for organizing political conferences. However, this grant was hidden from membership of the organization. When a controller from the Left Party came to Kiev to check on how the money was spent, Shapinov was not able to give an account for the money. It turned out that at this time he was in Russia, working as a political consultant for Putin's "United Russia" party in the town of Gus-Khrustal'ny (source). It seems that the Left Party let the matter drop.
"Organization of Marxists" soon fell apart, as it united representatives of various, often hostile social currents, without a definitive program. For example, one of its "ideologues", Alexander Budilo, has argued that the USSR has become an imperialist state in 1930's. However, Victor Shapinov, being a Stalinist, could not accept such a position (source).
Soon, another organization called "Borot'ba" was formed. A prominent anarchist in Ukraine, Alexander Volodarsky, writes in 2014: "Borot'ba was formed by that faction of 'Organization of Marxists' which is often characterized as Stalinist... Leaders of Borot'ba have originated from Komsomol [a youth division of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union], some of them actively participated in the Communist Party of Ukraine. This finds its reflection not only in nostalgia which they feel for the USSR, which they actively exploit in their agitation, not only in positive evaluation of the Soviet regime, but in the whole organizational culture, in tactics, strategy and goals". Swedish "Aftonbladet" confirms this analysis: "The organization clearly has traits of Soviet nostalgia".
Stalinism in organization today means: 1) hierarchy - fat party bosses on top; 2) all key decisions are taken by the small group of "party bosses" in secrecy, democracy within the party merely as a show; 3) male chauvinism and abuse of women (there were a number of specific instances, see article of Volodarsky); 4) constant wavering and zig-zag political line, for example cooperation with anti-Semites and monarchists, in Ukraine, in Russia, etc., but to the naive leftists in the West declaring themselves to be "anti-nationalists". Hence, they have been called "chameleons", by Alexander Volodarsky, as chameleon changes its color according to surroundings. (The photo below is symbolic of "red-brown" coalition formed between Stalinists and nationalists, monarchists, etc.)
In 2016 the e-mail of a council to Putin, Surkov, was broken into. On the list of recepients of financial help from Kremlin we find leaders of "Borot'ba" (Shapinov, Manchuk and Kirichuk) (source). As there is no "free lunch", the financial help from Kremlin came with certain thesis (called "темники", from Russian "тема", "theme") which these people had to advance. Some members of the organization have admitted to obtaining money from Kremlin, but they say they didn't "sin" against communist principles.
In our daily lives, we wouldn't dare to accept "gifts" from people we don't trust, people who have fooled us in the past, people which hold different, even hostile life principles from us. Shouldn't the same apply to politics? Acceptance of money from Kremlin is an example of opportunism on part of "Borot'ba".
2) Shapinov's "Marxism and the War in Donbass", 2015
First, we need to congratulate Trotskyist site for publishing this article. Victor Shapinov is a Stalinist, and, for example, on March 5, 2017, he pays homage on the death of Stalin (see his FB page).
Second, we must congratulate the Trotskyist site for representing the political line of "United Russia", as V. Shapinov is now known to be sponsored from Kremlin. The policy of "United Russia" is that of Russian chauvinism, religious education in schools, privileges for high bureaucracy, promoting development of capitalism, etc.
Now, let's take a look at Shapinov's concept of history:
“The clash of these divisions of labor (the German-Central European, Anglo-French, American and Japanese) was the economic cause of the First and Second World Wars. After World War II, there was only one such system – headed by the United States. In the late 1940s, it incorporated the European and Japanese systems, in the 1970s it absorbed the former colonies, in the 1980s China and the Eastern European people’s democracies, and in the 1990s the Soviet Union”
Here, a division of the world into "spheres of influence", in other words, colonies, is called "division of labor" . Moreover, after WWII, the globe was divided at least into 2 zones of influence: that of “socialist camp”, headed by the USSR, and that of “free world”, headed by the U.S. After the conflict between China and the USSR in 1960’s, the first camp split into 2.
Continuing discussion of the fate of imperialist system, Shapinov writes:
"After 2008, the system entered a period of systemic crisis, the causes of which I have examined elsewhere, and gradual decay"
So, Lenin and Trotsky were wrong to talk about crisis of capitalism in their life times? Perhaps, what Shapinov wanted to say was that in 2008, another crisis of capitalism has started, as a long-term decline is marked by a number of crisis.
Decay of capitalism has been going on for a long time, and its first world crisis has manifested as the First World War. This was answered by the victory of the October revolution in Russia.
The second major crisis of capitalism has started in late 1920's, with the Great Depression in the United States. This depression spread to other parts of the capitalist world, which led to the rise and victory of Nazi party in Germany, and hence to the Second World War. The war ended with half of Germany, and all of Eastern Europe in the Soviet "zone of influence". The civil war in China, started in 1911, led to the Chinese Commuist Party taking power in 1949. The civil war in Korea led to the country being split into two hostile states. The civil war in Vietnam, started at the close of WWII, led in 1974 to the victory of the Communist party.
The Greek Communist Party, on the other hand, has lost its bid for power, started during the Second World War, in large part due to the policy of accomodation with capitalism, dictated by the Stalinist leadership. The effects of the defeat are still reverberating in the country.
We feel that the third major crisis of the capitalist system has already started, and roughly coincides with the break-up of the "socialist" Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. These events represent a crisis of Stalinist regimes. These are attempts at Restoration of capitalism in the former "socialist camp". Such attempts at Restoration must inevitably pass through the stage of civil wars. Those who dream of a possibility of restoring a capitalist social system without a fight are "reformists in reverse", as Leon Trotsky used to call them.
The civil wars fought in former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union have not succeeded, so far, in establishing the dictatorship of capitalist class. The very concept of "private property" is on shaky foundations, as most of the property controlled by the oligarchs has been taken over from the Soviet times, and the results of privatization are not final. One example of this we see in the control over a Ukrainian state oil company removed from Igor Kolomoisky. In this video, you can see a take over of a state company controlled by Kolomoisky, and the abuse the oligarch pours on a journalist from "Radio Svoboda".
The situation in "transitional economies" remains highly unstable, as there is no clear winner. In some regions, the conflict has been "frozen", i.e. the status quo accepted temporarily by all sides, as for example in the Transnistria. In other parts, the fighting is going on, as for example in Donbass.
From experience of Yugoslavia, and other instances, we understand that imperialism will not remain on sidelines, but will attempt to carve a piece of territory (e.g. "Camp Bondsteel" in Kosovo). But, there are problems here:
1) in the course of NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, 1999, there were discussions about forming a German-French force, opposed to the American-British force;
2) there are contradictions between interests of Russia, China, North Korea, etc. on the one hand, and NATO countries, on the other hand.
The world is preparing for World War III. This is evident from the growing military budgets of all world powers. The fuse for the War may be set by the crisis of Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe and Asia.
What can we foresee about the coming war?
1) Just like tanks were used at the close of WWI by the British, and then massively used all sides in WWII, so were the nuclear bombs used by the United States at the close of WWII, and will be massively used by all sides in WWIII. Hence, if WWI numbered dead in tens of millions, and WWII in hundreds of millions, WWIII will number the dead in thousands of millions, i.e. billions of human beings.
2) Armies and governments will be destroyed. For example, the government of Yugoslavia was destroyed in WWII. But this has led to the rise of Communist partisans. In Iraq, the government was destroyed in 2003, and this has led to the rise of the Islamist guerrilla movements, and later to ISIL.
Hence, we need to ask: what ideology will these partisan movements adopt? The present period is marked by the crisis of socialist theory and organization. Decay of Stalinism leaves us with many splinters of the Stalinist Communist parties, which engage in mimicry of socialist ideology, as we have seen above with "Che Guevara" - "Organization of Marxists" - "Borot'ba". The task of socialists is to show these organizations for what they are, a neo-Stalinism. And neo-Stalinism is nothing but serving the highest bidding capitalist, and/or state bureaucracy.
Shapinov's article is full of "pearls", scuh as: "there is no 'Russian imperialism', and even 'American imperialism; in the sense of 1914". What about Afghanistan? What about Iraq? What about constant threat against Iran? Cuba? etc.
But let's come to the gist of Shapinov' argument, which is opposing the regime in Kiev to the regime in Donbass. He writes: "In the Ukrainian crisis, the Russian capitalist elite have not conducted any deliberate imperialist strategy, they have only responded to the challenges of a rapidly developing situation. This reaction has been halfhearted, contradictory, inconsistent".
This is exactly how Trotsky has characterized the policy of Stalin: a zig-zag, half-hearted, contradictory. For example, this is what we've seen in Spain, 1936, and this has led to the defeat of the Republic.
But this calls into question the truth of calling the rulers in Moscow "a capitalist elite". It is assuming that Russia is a capitalist country, but what's lacking is a convincing demonstration how this change has taken place: from a "socialist" society to a capitalist one. Shapinov, as true Stalinist, was writing about gradual decay since 1960's of socialist principles in the USSR, but granted the truth of this, it doesn't show how the army and the police of the "socialist" society was destroyed and substituted by the army and the police of capitalist society. And it is exactly this which Marxists mean when they say "counter-revolution has taken place". For example, look at Afghanistan before, and after 1992. The decaying army of Najibullah was destroyed and replaced by warring factions of Mujahedeen. This was no ordinary coup. This was a counter-revolution, preceded, and followed by a civil war. (In the photo: Najibullah and his brother hanged).
Most dangerous in Shapinov's analysis is the thesis that Donetsk and Luhansk "People's Republics" represent "people's uprisings". He writes: "As the situation developed following the coup in Ukraine and the beginning of the uprising in Crimea and the South-East". So, the military take over of Crimea by Russia, veiled by referendum, was an "uprising"...
The logic of Shapinov doesn't follow from the situation in the Soviet Union, and other similar countries. There, we see clans of bureaucracy, in bed with gangsters, developing with impunity, and competing with each other. It is this that has led to the break up of one country into a number of republics, as clans of "mafia" thought it would be easier in this way to divide up the material resources. In the 1990's, we have seen numerous wars between clans of mafia, inside each of the republics. Many "businessmen" and political figures were killed, as result trying to divide up the spoils of the Soviet Union. One example which immediately comes to mind is Vladislav List'ev, who was killed in 1995; the issue was control of the #1 TV channel in Russia. In the photo below we see a scene after a murder of a head of Donetsk region (Ukraine) Evgeny Shcherban in 1996. Cause of the murder: a conflict over control of distribution of gas between two groups of "mafia".
It is such "mafia" wars which have led to the Chechen wars in 1990's. The issue was control over oil. On the one hand, there were the Chechen officials and gangsters, headed by Dudaev; on the other hand, there were the Russian officials, headed by Yeltsin.
In Ukraine, we now have a similar conflict. Donbass is the region rich in coal and metals. Certain officials from Soviet era, in bed with local gangsters, attempted to take over these resources. Among them we can name such figures as Rinat Akhmetov, a cardsharper in orign, but through his connections with a gangster who controlled Donetsk, and former president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma, he became the richest man in Ukraine. We call also name Alexander Efremov, a komsomol leader in his youth, who has taken over the Luhansk region.
In Donbass or in Crimea, there were no precursors for a "people's uprising": no revolutionary leaders, no revolutionary ideology. The war in Donbass is the murder of Evgeny Shcherban writ large. It is a war between two clans of "mafia" over control of material wealth inherited from the Soviet times. The problem has not been solved with the murder of Shcheban; it is not solved now, when armies of Ukraine and Russia get involved in it. The problem is not even posed. And people like Shapinov are plainly lying, when they portray the nature of the war as "people's uprsings".
But let's hear about how Shapinov is characterizing the regime in Kiev, as opposed to the "people's republics" in Donbass. He writes:
"The policies of Kiev in the civil war are a logical continuation of the policies of the Maidan. This has several components:
1. “European integration” and subordination to imperialism. The first slogan of the Maidan was so-called “European integration”, which in economic terms means the surrender of Ukrainian markets to European corporations, the transformation of Ukraine into a colony of the European Union as a source of raw materials and disenfranchised migrant worker-slaves...
2. Neoliberalism. The post-Maidan government has consistently pursued policies dictated by the IMF. And this is not “cheating” Maidan expectations. All this was openly declared from the rostrum of the Maidan, and the political forces that led the movement have long and consistently favored economic neoliberalism. Movement toward all-out privatization and the systematic destruction of the remnants of the welfare state...
3. Nationalism and fascism... Our organization wrote in winter 2014: “The undoubted success of the nationalists is due to the fact that, because of their high level of activity, they have managed to impose ideological leadership on the Euromaidan movement".
If South-East represents "people's uprising", where do we see such ideological leadership on the part of the left? The only left I have heard of in these regions were the people in jails, people like Igor Danilov and Ilya Romanov.
Shapinov writes: "The neoliberals adopted the political program of Ukrainian fascists, and the Nazis agreed with carrying out the neoliberal line in the economy. This alliance was “consecrated” by representatives of imperialism, such as Catherine Ashton, Victoria Nuland, and John McCain". This is almost correct, except that people like Poroshenko and Yatsenuk are not "neo-liberals", but plain thieves. Witness, for example, how Yatsenuk is buying real estate in Florida, after being fired from his position as a prime-minister of Ukraine, in 2016.
The correct statement would be: high government officials, who are really thieves writ large, are mimicking the language of neoliberals, and they have conducted an alliance with neo-Nazis, at home, and with reps of imperialism, abroad.
Here is an interesting quote, taken from Wikipedia:
"According to Yatsenyuk, it will be impossible to fight corruption without changing the country's system of government, "The system of government in Ukraine has in fact remained the same as it was under the Soviet Union".
This confirms our view that social/political system in the former USSR has not changed since 1991.
Shapinov continues to list the characteristics of the Kiev regime:
"4. The violent suppression of political opponents, repression, censorship of the media, banning of communist ideology..." This is correct. One recent example of violent suppression of communist ideology is the destruction of the exposition of an anarchist-communist painter David Chichkan, in February 2017. Ukraine is rapidly moving towards becoming a state with Nazi characteristics.
"5. Contempt for the working class, 'class racism.' Established on Maidan under the leadership of the oligarchy, the ideology of the social bloc of nationalist intelligentsia and 'middle class' petty proprietors has infected the Western Ukrainian 'man in the street,' who clearly defines his class enemy: the 'cattle' in Donbass. With this 'class racism' against the working-class majority of the South-East, the oligarchy rallies broad social strata around itself, leading even a poor person in the streets of Kiev to support policies in the interests of billionaires Kolomoisky and Poroshenko." Curious, but similar phenomenon can be observed among the Russian immigrants in the in the U.S.: contempt for the Negro struggle against racism, disdain of workers' struggle for minimum wage, even though many immigrants work for a minimum wage, etc. That’s what I call ideological leadership by capitalism!
Now, let's turn to the policies of the Donbass "republics", as characterized by Shapinov.
"1. Anti-fascism. The rebels of all political persuasions definitely characterize the regime established in Kiev after Maidan as fascist. Often without a clear scientific understanding of fascism, they nonetheless reject the following features of the Kiev regime: extreme nationalism, chauvinistic language policy, anti-communism and anti-Sovietism, repression of political opponents, exoneration of Nazi war criminals and collaborators."
This is a lie, as there are openly fascist elements from Russia fighting for DNR and LNR. Painting of David Chichkan below, destroyed by the pro-Ukrainian nazis, plainly shows this. Soldiers on both sides of the conflict wear swastika-like symbols, and have identical slogans: "Glory to Ukraine" and "Glory to Novorossia"; also "Power to Ukrainians" and "Power to Russians".
Note how evidence from various walks of life confirms our thesis that the nature of the two regimes - in Kiev, and in "Novorossia" - is the same.
"2. Anti-oligarchism. The role of the Ukrainian oligarchy, as the main sponsor and beneficiary of Maidan and the right-nationalist coup, became an essential element of the consciousness of the resistance movement in the South-East. Also, during the winter and spring of 2014, the complete dependence and subordination of the Ukrainian oligarchy to imperialism, headed by the United States, became apparent. A good example is the behavior of the 'master of Donbass' and one of the main sponsors of the Party of Regions, Rinat Akhmetov. This 'friendly' Donetsk oligarch, after a conversation with U.S. State Department representative Victoria Nuland, openly supported the Maidan, making a special statement on behalf of the SCM Corporation."
This is bull, as the property of Akhmetov at Donbass was expropriated only after he refused to pay taxes to the Donbass government (more read here). Other oligarchs, such as Efremov, were left intact.
In essence, this was is a huge re-division of property, specifically outdated industrial assets from the Soviet times.
"3. Anti-neoliberal policies. An important feature of the internal life of the Donbass republics is the trend towards social-democratic, Keynesian models of economic development, socially-oriented state capitalism. While this is only a trend, though an important one, it is the opposite of the economic policy of the Kiev authorities. Tentative steps to nationalize strategic assets (such as retail chains, mines, etc.) are met with delight by the population. Alexander Borodai, who distinguished himself by stating that we will not carry out nationalizations, because we are not communists,' left the leadership of the DNR. On the contrary, the leadership of the republics not only takes steps to return some industry, trade and infrastructure to state ownership, but also actively promotes these measures among the population".
Well, let's take a look at one of the leaders Igor Plotnitsky, the head of Luhansk People's Republic.
Here is a resume.
In 1992 Plotnisky became involved in trade, which, in the former USSR, automatically means relationships with mafia.
In 1996, he became a head of a company trading in oil.
In 2014 he became a leader of the Luhansk People's Republic. According to this article, all the key people in the Luhansk government are people appointed, or collaborators, of Luhansk oligarch Alexander Efremov.
Pavel Dremov, who was an officer of Igor Plotnitsky, has accused his chief of theft of state property (source). Other leaders, e.g. Fominov, the head of batallion "Odessa", have shown that Plotnitsky has stolen and sold humanitarian aid to the people of Luhansk (source).
Soldiers of "volunteer batallion" "Prizrak" (Ghost), known for their socialist orientation, have accused Plotnitsky of murder of their commander, Alexander Bednov, on January 1, 2015. On 23 May, 2015, another commander Alexander Mozgovoy (photo below) was killed "by unknown group of people".
Alexander Mozgovy, a more honest fellow than Shapinov, has given the following characteristic of the regime:
"There is a dictatorship. Not military and not proletarian. A dictatorship of stage directors of former times... And the representatives of the Ukrainian army should not be glad, as they have the same situation. A year ago many of you honestly believed in destruction of power of oligarchy and returning to people their dignity. As a result, instead of one group of thieves, another came, only more bloodthirsty. Almost the same analogy applies to our territory. All who have risen here were for justice and leadership of the people. But in the final result, one side and the other, obtained the same thing: murder. Murder of themselves" (source).
In this video, in Russian, Alexander Mozgovoy characterizes both armies as "rams" which have collided in interests of hostile powers; he calls for nationalization of strategic resources, while leaving intact small and medium businesses.
After A. Mozgovoy was killed, his brigade published principles upon which the brigade is based. In paragraph #5 we read: "It is the clash of olygarchic clans which is responsible for starting the present war in Donbass" (Именно олигархические кланы виновны в развязывании нынешней войны на Донбассе.)
It is curious to observe that murders of military commanders in the Luhansk "People's Republics" are related to the trade in coal with "mainland Ukraine" and various "kickback" schemes (source). All this helps to characterize the regimes, both in Kiev and in the South-East, as run by former Soviet officials who became "olygarchs" through various corruption schemes and murders. Their represenatatives, down the official ladder of power, function in the same way, but on a smaller scale.
Back to Shapinov. He writes:
"4. Dangerous trends of Russian nationalism in response to the Ukrainian chauvinism of the new Kiev authorities have not developed in a serious way (although that danger has been actively exploited by opponents of the people’s republics for propaganda purposes)".
Alexey Mil'chakov (3rd in the photo below) was born in 1991 in Russia. He became a follower of neo-Nazism and has published, in 2011, a photo of a hanged puppy, which he later ate. In 2014 he came to Luhansk as a volunteer and formed a platoon called "Rusich", together with other neo-Nazis. He has become known in the war for his cruelty (source). Notice the emblem which one of his buddies wears (on the left) is similar to the one depicted in the painting of David Chichkan (above).
What about people like "Ataman Kozitskin" and his "cossacks"? They used to control half of Luhansk region, before conflict with Plotnitsky. They dressed as "white guards", from the period of the Russian revolution, and are well known for their great Russian chauvinism and anti-Semitism. Ataman Kozitskin is also known as a simple thief (source).
What is interesting is that the Russian side of Wikipedia tries to clean up all references to such persons. For example, whereas a few years ago I found a reference to "Rusich" on Wikipedia, now it is absent. Russia attempts to present states in the South-East of Ukraine as legitimate "people's uprising", and this is exactly the thesis of Shapinov.
The regimes in Kiev and in Russia are not "fascist", but run by bureaucrats who turned into thieves, and murderers of their own people. To the West, they try to appear as "legitimate", not nationalistic. But deep inside, they are both extreme nationalistic and develop towards Nazism.
In such wars, the most dangerous are the ones like Shapinov, who say:
“History has known in the past (and very likely will know, must know, in the future) wars (democratic and revolutionary wars) which, while replacing every kind of ‘right,’ every kind of democracy, by violence during the war, nevertheless, in their social content and implications, served the cause of democracy, and consequently socialism,” Lenin wrote. (6) It is this kind of war we have now in the Donbass."
As the proverb goes, "even the devil can swear on the Bible". In reality, these wars are not for "democracy, and consequently socialism", but gangsters' turf wars, writ large.
|Total comments: 0|