This Trotskyite analysis of the Ukraine situation makes for an interesting read.

[Comrade Grumpy]

Comes down hard on the West.

Comes down hard on the Ukrainian oligarchs.

Comes down hard on Putin.

Comes down hard on the reactionaries among the pro-Russian rebels.

Comes down hard on nationalism.

Lauds working class solidarity and internationalism.

Yeah, it's got that old school commie jargon thing going on, but I find myself reading it and going "uh huh, uh huh." And actually, it's kind of refreshing for at least trying to go beyond the tendentious Putin-is-the-devil vs. Kiev-is-fascist polemics that characterize too many of these discussions.

http://www.marxist.com/these-on-ukraine-2014-draft.htm

The root cause of the crisis in Ukraine is to be found in the disastrous effects of the restoration of capitalism. The destruction of the planned economy was a tremendous setback not only from the point of view of the economy, but also from a social point of view.

From the ashes of the planned economy emerged a brutal capitalist regime, based on the large scale theft of state property by different gangs of crooks and Mafiosi, the oligarchs, which came to control the economy and as a result, the political system.

Mafia-style capitalism resulted in endemic instability with western imperialism taking advantage of the crisis in Russia to exert their influence over the Ukraine, unsettling the balance of power in the region for a whole period, thus creating the conditions for the present crisis.

Some of the oligarchs thought their interests were better served with an alliance with the West, others were aligned with Russia, but their overriding motivation was the maximisation of profit at any cost, through legal and, mostly, illegal means. On this basis it was impossible to establish even the semblance of a functioning bourgeois democracy. One corrupt and authoritarian bourgeois regime followed another.

<snip>

And off we go for many more paragraphs. Some highlights:

"Although it reflected real discontent and had a mass character, especially at the beginning, the Euromaidan movement, under the guise of the struggle against corruption and repression, was, in the final analysis, a reactionary movement, from the point of view of its class composition, political aims and dominant political forces and leadership."

"The US played an important role in the outcome of the Euromaidan, in the same way that they were instrumental in the 2004 “Orange revolution”."

"Russia is a capitalist state ruled by a parasitic and rapacious oligarchy, seeking control over natural resources and spheres of influence. Its foreign policy is entirely determined by the interest and cynical aims of the oligarchy and does not contain an atom of progressive content."

"Above all, however, the (anti-Maidan) movement had deep social and economic roots in the working class in the South and the East and could not be explained as the work of Russian agents, agitators and paid mercenaries.

"It would be inaccurate to describe the Kiev authorities as a "fascist junta". It is a government of the oligarchs implementing brutal austerity cuts. These are the same people that were in power before the Euromaidan movement. Nevertheless, the ruling class has shifted sharply to the right. It is not just using far-right elements as shock troops. Slogans that were previously limited to far-right Banderists are now used in the press and media, including by politicians like Poroshenko. May Day marches, trade union conferences and other events are being attacked by far-right elements, including those that form part of the state apparatus."

"As the movement in the Donbas has become dominated by the military element, reactionary forces have become more dominant. Any military conflict serves as a magnet for adventurers, criminal elements, and the like. An example of this is the head of the armed resistance in Sloviansk, Strelkov, a Russian monarchist who fought as a mercenary volunteer in Chechnya and Serbia.

----

These guys want international working class solidarity. Maybe that's so last century.

[Igel]

1. It's more like this.

They figure out what the outcome is that would most likely achieve some portion of their ideological goals. It's the ideology that matters--all others are just pawns. (Well, they're not pawns. They'd greatly benefit from their ideology, so actually it's themselves that matter, the ideology is just a tool.)

Once they have their goal identified for the day, they backtrack to find out what role-assignments and facts are necessary to justify supporting the factions that would produce that outcome.

It's really quite Aristotelian. You already know the truth, all you have to deduce is what all the facts have to be to reach it. (I know ministers that could learn a trick or two from this kind of analysis.)

The biggest flaw in all such analyses is making everybody into the same kind of cardboard cut-outs of humanity that the analysts are. There's only one value--money/power. Nobody does anything for any other reason--and if they think so, they're obviously deluded. "Waiting for Godot" becomes a scintillating work of aspiration and hope by comparison and such analyses make me want to immediately crawl into a trash can.