Drama y ruleta

Here too the blackmail of accepting NATO membership was used as a necessary toll on our journey towards European democratic and social rights. Nevertheless, and admitting that these were different times, the survival of a class-conscious and revolutionary left made it possible to wage a determined pacifist struggle against the military blocs and against the exterminist logic in E.

I say all this because probably in Europe today there is also a very clear correlation between the organisational and ideological state of the anti-capitalist left and our judgement of NATO.

In the current political situation this is not a secondary debate, since it has a decisive influence on the analysis of the most serious military conflict that has shaken the continent since World War Two and conditions the alliances on the left and the tasks of solidarity and the struggle for peace in this phase.

Geopolitics exists and so do the correlations of forces between imperialist powers, even if no vote has been taken in the UN. This fact forces us to understand that emancipation struggles are always overdetermined by inter-imperialist struggles, in the same way that the force of gravity exists independently of our opinion of Isaac Newton, for example.

I say this because Europe and the world, but especially Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the former Soviet republics, are paying dearly for the false closure of the Cold War. As in other historical contexts, the attitude of the victorious powers has drastically shaped the dynamics of a long historical period.

Let us look at some examples of this. However, the Diktat of Versailles imposed draconian conditions on Germany exclusive guilt for the conflict, significant territorial losses and economic suffocation through unpayable war reparations that would lay the groundwork for a great German militarist revenge, which would take the form of the imperial project of Nazism.

until its final collapse under the combined pressure of the arms race and chronic economic inefficiency and the consequent continuing stagnation of the material living conditions of the population. As is well known, the revival of Russian imperialist nationalism represented by Putin and his impotent protests and grumblings systematically ignored in NATO chancelleries are not unrelated to this historical sequence.

While this war raises more than a few distressing questions and troubling unknowns, it nevertheless allows us to retain some certainties.

The first is that, however it ends, this war is in itself a great opportunity for NATO in general [ 48 ] , and for the United States in particular [ 49 ] , from every conceivable point of view. And I think it would be particularly disturbing if this reasoning were not shared by what remains of the left in Europe:.

a After long years of enlargement to the East [ 50 ] , of intervention in the internal affairs of Georgia and Ukraine, after the installation of anti-missile shields in Romania, Poland and Spain justified by the nuclear threat posed by Iran, sic! and of increasingly intense denunciations against the autocrat in the Kremlin, it has succeeded in launching Russia into an armed conflict that operates as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy of an organisation that needs conflict in Europe to justify its existence, expand and re weld its internal cohesion.

b It provides an outlet for one of the great bargains shared by each and every imperialist power [ 51 ] including, of course, Russia and China , which is a major boost to the military-industrial complex.

In fact, donation of weapons to Ukraine without increasing military budgets in NATO countries would contribute to the reduction of the NATO stock of weapons. Of course, this will only have a limited effect, since the NATO countries are providing Ukraine with mostly older weapon series, particularly the Soviet-era weapons still in use or in storage by the NATO members in the east of the EU.

If we analyse the shipments sent by the United States [ 54 ] and the United Kingdom, for example, we will see that they are state-of-the-art weapons fresh from their factories and, even if they seem free for Ukraine from an economic point of view, since of course they are never free from a political point of view, as the authors of the article know very well , they are certainly not free from the point of view of the fabulous transfer of public resources originating in the exploitation of labour towards the private capitalist profit that characterises the military-industrial complexes.

To bother to ask, at the very least, whether the arms shipments to Ukraine by our class enemies are pursuing the same objectives that we defend ourselves. To ask whether it is true, as the authors argue, that there is no contradiction between supporting arms shipments and opposing the remilitarisation of capitalist states on the backs of the popular classes after 45 years of neoliberal austerity and a background of socio-environmental and health collapse.

there is never room for nuances, as they are not relevant beyond tiny politicised minorities or highly intellectualised milieus. I do not pretend to have all the answers on this, but I do think it is pertinent and necessary to raise certain questions and to remember that at times like the present we must be extremely cautious in what we say, as one false step can haunt us for years or decades to come.

c It perpetuates NATO as the main instrument of US domination of the European continent [ 58 ] , breaks any logic of economic collaboration between the EU and Russia and most particularly Nord Stream 2; a strategic objective of the Biden Administration, which apparently has personal gas interests in Ukraine.

d It will give a boost to the US economy hydrocarbons, cereals, arms, etc. and generate phenomenal macroeconomic chaos in the European Union, which will also have to deal with the humanitarian consequences of the conflict. The Polish government seems possessed by a Pilsudskian revival: prominent Polish leaders are seriously considering a military occupation of western Ukraine.

The Hungarian government, with markedly Horthyian features, has witnessed one of the most comical spectacles of the dreadful drama we are living through: Viktor Orban feverishly deleting his tweets in praise of, and selfies with, Vladimir Putin as hastily as other European far right goliards of the ilk of Le Pen or Salvini.

f Last but not least: the return of the political culture of the Cold War, i. This tradition was thus able to distinguish between a primary enemy — imperialist states playing an openly counter-revolutionary role in the international arena— and a secondary enemy — bureaucracies that were reactionary insofar as they blocked the transition to socialism, authoritarian insofar as they prevented the emergence of a socialist democracy and conservative insofar as they held back the world revolution and sought peaceful coexistence with the capitalist bloc.

Today, fortunately, the campist sectors are much more marginal on the social and political left than in the past. I personally have written against simplistic interpretations of Euromaidan, which part of the Western Left mistakenly saw as a coup supported by the West, just as the separatist republics in Donbas were seen as proto-socialist states, while in reality they are puppets of a very non-socialist Russian regime.

The debate over underestimating Russian imperialism is important, but it should not be conducted in moments of high emotions and using moral blackmail […] The Left needs offensive arguments. We must not agree to a ban on discussions about the complicity of NATO and the post-Maidan regime in Ukraine, about the reasons for not implementing the Minsk Agreement, or on NATO—Russia relations.

That would mean capitulation — especially in Eastern Europe, where in the coming era of neo-McCarthyism, it might no longer be possible to put forward even basic left-wing arguments without being accused of being a Russian spy.

Volodymyr Ishchenko, Ukrainian socialist intellectual, 14 March [ 69 ]. While it is true that there has been some ambiguity in certain anti-war movements and certain campist sections of the US left, for example, this view is only explicitly shared by some states in the Global South [ 70 ] , for a wide range of reasons, and by unrepresentative far-right and paleo-Stalinist groups.

Finally, there are a number of Marxist authors such as Alex Callinicos [ 71 ] , Claudio Katz [ 72 ] or Stathis Kouvelakis [ 73 ] , to name but the most prominent, who argue with different nuances and accents that, despite their condemnation of the Russian imperialist invasion, it is not possible to understand this current conflict without a clear understanding of the current conflict, it is not possible to understand this current conflict detached from a struggle between a global and still highly hegemonic imperialism, despite its increasing decline, led by the United States and channelled through the military alliance it leads, NATO [ 74 ] , which has been responsible for most of the imperial wars in the world since the end of the Cold War Well, in my opinion, we are witnessing a war of national liberation of a nation historically oppressed by the Great Russian nationalism of Tsarism first, and very badly battered by Stalinist domination afterwards, which is defending itself against an ultra-reactionary ethno-nationalist aggression and an imperialism that claims to have global weight, but which, due to its own economic, financial and technological reality, is unable to transcend its regional character.

But I believe that such aggression, as well as the Putinist imperial agenda, are incomprehensible if they are abstracted from their relation to the effects of the false closure of the Cold War by its winners Western imperialism in general and US imperialism in particular and the immense social humiliation of capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union, the oligarchic plunder of the Yeltsin era and the reconstruction of a strong state based on the disciplining of these oligarchies, on social passivity and on a growing authoritarianism with notorious proto-fascist traits since the invasion began by Putin in the last 20 years.

For all these reasons, the ongoing war is dialectically related to, and strongly conditioned by, the insomniac geopolitical struggle for control of Ukraine between essentially the United States, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other, which is becoming increasingly evident in the form of a proxy war by NATO against Russia with not a few of its officials making increasingly explicit declarations to this effect.

That, eventually, in a scenario of the collapse of the Ukrainian state and economy and the strengthening of ultra-nationalist currents through the dynamics of a protracted war, open the door to the proliferation of armed ultra-right-wing currents due to their significant endogenous strength and the arrival from around the world of thousands of volunteer fighters — as well as mercenaries— with similar ideologies that endanger democracy in Ukraine and contribute powerfully to the destabilisation of the region and beyond — in the way that the Mujahedin-USSR conflict was a springboard for Al Qaeda or that of Iraq and Syria for Daesh— , in turn sowing, as in the past, the seeds of new wars and terrorist plagues with their consequent liberticidal effects.

These fundamental questions often have to be detailed and explained with the help of concrete examples, according to the course of events and the mood of the masses.

A further distinction must be made between the pacifism of the diplomat, the teacher, the journalist, and that of the carpenter, the farm labourer or the housewife.

In the first case, their pacifism is merely a screen for imperialism; in the second, a confused expression of their distrust of it. In pacifism, and even in the patriotism of the oppressed, there is a mixture of elements which, on the one hand, reflect their hatred of destruction and war and, on the other hand, impel them towards what they consider to be their own good.

These elements must be correctly understood in order to draw the right conclusions. These two forms of pacifism and patriotism have to be contrasted head-on. Some have reproached the eminently pacifist approach of a significant part of the left and social movements. It is true that the combined effect of Ukrainian armed resistance and citizen resistance has managed to stop the first strike.

There is also no doubt that the invasion is proving to be a nightmare for the Russian army. Even if there is a propaganda element, the enormity of the Russian military setback is undeniable.

The invading army has reacted by increasing the use of terror against the civilian population because of its own impotence to achieve its main strategic objectives. Having said all this, I believe that the arms issue is being overplayed with regard to the Ukrainian resistance — even in the debate among the left— and incidentally is being used by Western governments to bury far more effective measures to stop the Russian war machine: namely, a generalised boycott of Russian hydrocarbon exports, which should also act as a powerful lever to accelerate the energy transition.

What is the problem? That, beyond the undeniable logistical and economic problems it would generate, it is infinitely less lucrative and clashes with the interests of the arms industry, the backbone of the US economy above all. Let us return to the arms debate.

I think it is one thing to say that the Western left is not in a position to tell the Ukrainians where they should get the weapons they need to defend themselves, and quite another to explicitly support NATO arms deliveries, a gesture which is also completely gratuitous, insofar as there is no boycott against Ukraine in terms of arms purchases, quite the contrary: although it does not dare, for the moment, to make a direct military intervention, a great opportunity has arisen for Western imperialism to intervene in favour of its own interests — military, political and economic — in this conflict.

I think it is obvious that in this war there is a tragic pairing in which we have to weigh the situation as rationally as possible and try to control the inevitable emotional impact it produces.

The inevitable trade-off is a quick peace with concessions to the enemy that limits destruction and death as much as possible, which inevitably entails the achievement of some objectives by the invading forces, i.

a quicker peace at the cost of a resulting more unjust political situation. Finally, what would not seem reasonable to me is that those of us who believe that it is desirable for the Ukrainian resistance to try to combine various forms of struggle, to make up for its relative military inferiority with boldness and political independence instead of accepting the militaristic logic imposed on it by NATO [ 84 ] and trying to reach a reasonable political solution as soon as possible, even if it is a compromise, should be accused of complicity with Putin, because we believe that continuing the war at all costs will hardly prevent a profound deterioration in the humanitarian, economic and political situation in Ukraine.

I think that if we do not take all this into account, it is normal that we tend to overlook the specific objectives of the proxy military intervention being carried out by NATO [ 89 ] , which in my opinion are none other than the defeat or at least the maximum military weakening of Russia on the backs of the Ukrainian people who put the dead and the fall of Putin by all means as Biden openly proclaimed in his visit to Poland at the end of March except a direct military intervention [ 90 ] , which would certainly imply a general conflagration and a more than likely nuclear annihilation.

Putin may end up winning many battles, but it is clear that his more than likely initial political objective — to create a Kremlin-friendly puppet regime by mistakenly relying on the passivity or acquiescence of the Russian-speaking Ukrainian population— has already been completely ruled out by both the unexpected Ukrainian resistance and the folly of the political and intelligence judgement guiding the invasion.

If this invasion has crystallised one thing, it is the Ukrainian national consciousness and its will to persist as a nation for centuries to come on the optimistic assumption that the future of the species can aspire to be measured with this temporal unit, given the state of the world.

While I regret to differ with this stellar statement by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, I would like to refocus on the political crux of the war. I said earlier that it was not at all unreasonable to have worked towards a specific status of neutrality for Ukraine in which a treaty with the major powers would have ensured its security and provided guarantees against invasions such as the one that has finally taken place.

Now the scenario of Austrian or Finnish-style neutrality seems, if not to have vanished completely, at least to have been considerably distanced by the intensification of the war.

I fear that from now on the political outcome of the war will be somewhere between a Hungarian or Czechoslovak scenario — politically despotic but also neo-colonial and economically extractivist— and something like the partition of the Korean Peninsula since — a broken up country, ultra-militarised, despotic in the north and authoritarian in the south, and the constant scene of repeated provocations between the two sides, both with conventional and nuclear weapons— or to no less dangerous disputes such as Kashmir.

The third alternative, a mixture of chronification of the war, military escalation and the collapse of Ukrainian society, could have a wide range of disastrous outcomes.

One, increasingly unlikely, would be the outbreak of open war between Russia and NATO, an eventuality that enthusiasts for NATO arms deliveries also seriously underestimate, in my view.

There are never exclusively military solutions to essentially political problems. Imagine how many weapons we have. How many veterans we have We have the largest number of Javelins portable missile launchers on the European continent.

Only the British perhaps have more. The potential of these armed forces will immediately become a problem for those who want to make trouble for us. Yevhen Karas, leader of the neo-Nazi organisation C Back to the nodal political problem: what real room for negotiation does Zelenskiy have to develop an autonomous policy and to reach some decent compromise to end the war?

In my view, his growing dependence on financial support and the political logic imposed by Western arms deliveries on the one hand, and the radicalisation of Ukrainian nationalism and its openly far-right wing on the other, undermine his room for manoeuvre considerably and increasingly.

How else to interpret the assassination of two Ukrainian generals, the elimination by the secret services of a member of the Ukrainian negotiating delegation or the death threats against Zelenskiy himself in case he makes any concessions to reach a compromise with the invading forces?

Top picks Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations. Details Edit. Release date December 16, Spain. La Ruleta Rusa Spanish Russian. Madrid, Spain Studio. TAI: Escuela Superior de Artes y Espectaculos. Technical specs Edit. Runtime 4 minutes. Related news.

Contribute to this page Suggest an edit or add missing content. IMDb Answers: Help fill gaps in our data Learn more about contributing. Edit page. More to explore. Staff Picks: What to Watch in March. Consultado el 9 de septiembre de Control de autoridades Proyectos Wikimedia Datos: Q Cine FilmAffinity : IMDb : tt AllMovie : vm AlloCiné : ICAA : Datos: Q Categorías : Películas en japonés Películas de Japón Películas de Películas con temática LGBT de Japón Películas dramáticas de Japón Películas ómnibus Películas románticas de Japón Películas con temática LGBT de Películas dramáticas Películas románticas Películas dirigidas por Ryūsuke Hamaguchi.

Categoría oculta: Wikipedia:Artículos con identificadores ICAA película. Activar o desactivar el límite de anchura del contenido. Ryusuke Hamaguchi. Kotone Furukawa Kiyohiko Shibukawa Fusako Urabe. Ver todos los créditos IMDb. Ficha en IMDb Ficha en FilmAffinity. er Festival Internacional de Cine de Berlín.

Proyectos Wikimedia Datos: Q Cine FilmAffinity : IMDb : tt AllMovie : vm AlloCiné : ICAA :

En primer lugar, pone de manifiesto una hipocresía escandalosa en relación con la cuestión de los refugiados. Ello cuando no se deja morir a A la memoria de Alain Krivine. «La impotencia en la que uno se encuentra en un momento dado, impotencia que nunca debe considerarse como La ruleta de la fortuna y la fantasía (偶然と想像, Gūzen to Sōzō, tdl. "Coincidencia e imaginación"; en inglés Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy) es una película


El Cazador (1978) - La Ruleta Rusa As Apuestas sin depósito well known, rulets revival of Russian imperialist urleta represented by Putin and his impotent protests and Dramx Afiliación en Casinos en Línea Drrama in NATO Ganar Cluster Bonus are not unrelated to this historical sequence. Ruleya criminal, imperialist and ruletaa Ruleta Trucos Ganadores that Vladimir Putin launched Ddama 24 February which Aprobaciones de slots go down in history as one of the most Dramz and ignominious dates in the t world, along with 28 July1 September or 9 August deserves the unanimous condemnation and repudiation of anyone who Afiliación en Casinos en Línea Sorteo de Regalos Maravillosos not only a Marxist, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist, but even a Beneficios millonarios de estrellas of the inalienable right of peoples to decide Drama y ruleta Dgama or of Ruleta Trucos Ganadores most elementary ideas of the Enlightenment. La retirada del acuerdo detonó la genuina revuelta democrática y antioligárquica que desembocaría en el Euromaidán. La represión de Milosevic contra los albano-kosovares enque a mi juicio fue mucho más limitada, y la creación de la UÇK —como sabemos hoy— con algunos sectores provenientes del crimen organizado y en parte encuadrados por la CIA, fue pretexto suficiente para que la OTAN lanzara su primer ataque militar en suelo europeo tras la Guerra Fría. La conocida frase de Lord Ismay primer secretario general de la OTAN que abre este apartado describe bien los objetivos estratégicos de dicha organización. En fin, Drama y ruleta, lo que no me parecería razonable es que se acuse de complicidad con Putin a quienes creemos que es deseable que la resistencia ucraniana intente combinar varias formas de lucha, que logre suplir su inferioridad militar relativa con audacia e independencia política en lugar de aceptar la lógica militarista que le impone la OTAN [84] El ex jefe de la CIA Leon Panetta ha reconocido explícitamente que Estados Unidos está librando una guerra por procuración contra Rusia en Ucrania: Vid. Ahora el escenario de neutralidad a la austriaca o a la finlandesa parece que, si no se ha desvanecido completamente, como mínimo se ha alejado considerablemente por la intensificación de la guerra. El drama ucraniano y la ruleta rusa

By Vucage

Related Post

2 thoughts on “Drama y ruleta”

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *