Conflicts between peculiar Military Operations (3)

Political repression continues between the president of Russia, the oligarchate groups and the General Staff. If the troops won quickly, the oligarchate would even accept war and its conquests.

But at the end of the war, according to all predictions, it's not going to happen. The Russian Oligarchs are mostly not inclined to private financing a peculiar military operation in Ukraine.

A very interesting example is the exchange of colour metals, nickel and aluminum in London. Under sanctions, the stock exchange for Russian nickel was declared to be closed. The global price of nickel immediately increased by 30%. The Russian company with western capital immediately raised nickel prices for Russian producers in the interior market. After withdrawing the prices from Chersonia the next day returned to the erstwhile height. But after a fewer weeks, prices of colour metals rose again for Russian producers, this time by 43%. This is an example of global corporate governance of the ongoing crisis. The mobilisation of Russian economics for war did not occur. The question is, why should prices of natural materials produced in Russia increase by 43% in Russia without an authoritative answer? possibly the oligarchate decided to retreat from Chersonia to resume supplies of natural materials to the West and to be able to make even more money.

Balance sheet 30 years

After more than 30 years of regulation by neoliberal elites in Russia, the balance sheet is not beneficial for Russia. They so request a fresh legitimacy to proceed exercising power. That is why they have set out to incite the conflict with Ukraine, the propaganda of nationalism and anti-communism, which was supported by the US expansion policy. In 30 years of government, these elites have increased the distance between Russia and the most developed Western countries. There has been a comparative deindustrialisation of Russia. USSR's participation in the global product was mid 1970s. 20th century about 18%. The Russian Federation Socialist russian Republic accounted for half, or about 9%. And now Russia's share of the global product has fallen to about 3%. The purchasing power of ruble has besides fallen in relation to the purchasing power of the dollar.

As a consequence of privatization and deindustrialisation, Russia's economical sovereignty does not be or is severely limited. Most of Russia's exports are industrial and energy natural materials mastered by oligarchy. Half of the interior value of production goes to export – last year exports were 1.4 times higher than imports. Russia has had a affirmative trade balance since 1994. Over the decades, exports have remained above imports and in 2022 exports were twice as advanced as imports.

In 2022, for 10 months, the affirmative balance in abroad trade was over $230 billion. This practice shows that a large part of the profits is exported by private abroad capital, no reserves are created at the state level – private capital exports are ongoing, cities are targeted at interior needs. It is simply a truly neocolonial dependence of the Russian economy on abroad affairs. A affirmative balance of abroad trade continues to grow, it is not covered with the import of the most needed machines and equipment, so there is further natural material and economical plundering of Russia, on which Putin's squad has been liable so far.

The import which Russia is presently making demonstrates its neocolonial dependence on abroad capital. In 2022, 42.5% of Russian production was imported components (mostly indirect production, namely details, additions, nodal products based on Russian natural materials). After 2014, after the incarnation of Crimea, more than 20 import substitution programmes were adopted in Russia – all plans were not implemented, and in electronics import even increased compared to 2014. Import simplification programmes were carried out in a bureaucratic manner: the quantity and value of imported parts were reduced in the product, but imports were frequently left to those that were essential for the final production of the goods. In any products with the stamp "Dielano in Rosiji" 90% were imported components.

Putin's squad did nothing to reduce import dependency even during the 9 months of the war. Due to a simplification in imports and an increase in exports, it even created conditions for an even greater advantage of exports over imports. It's hard to say another than hitting on Russian Federation sovereignty. Russia even imports its own natural materials through abroad exchanges or as products that are only subjected to pre-treatment abroad. It is thus becoming an investment importer of goods, but specified imports do not increase its economical sovereignty and even weaken it. The increase in exports of energy natural materials to the above developed "enemies" took place in the absence of imports from these countries of strategical importance, and in peculiar of the essential machinery and technology.

Within 30 years, a strategy was created in the Russian economy that allows to send all natural materials, without gathering its own strategical economical and political objectives and while maintaining an oligarchical social structure. There were about 48 million cows in the russian Union, and now there are about 8 million cows. Russia has become an importer of comparatively costly dairy products during the regulation of oligarchy, but has thus become a crucial exporter of grain, which now does not request to be utilized for cattle feed. Even aircraft to Latin America flew through Miami alternatively than Russia's supporting Cuba (which most likely proves the link between Russian oligarchy's interests and American financial capital).

There is simply a systemic oligarchic weakening, breaking and robbing Russia, and the war in Ukraine is only 1 component in perpetuating this kind of dependence. We must halt treating Russia as a "po-communist" country. Russian communists criticizing Putin's government are fighting and persecuted, possibly even more effectively than the pro-Western opposition.

Despite the above-mentioned interior contradictions of the peculiar military operation in Ukraine, it met with a clear condemnation of the alleged Western states, including the USA, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. This “criticism” is conducted to exert force and support for pro-Western circles of Russian oligarchy. However, differences persist in the assessment of this peculiar operation, e.g. Hungary or Turkey, which belong to NATO, reflecting the circumstantial interests of these countries, but besides the hybrid nature of this war, the beginning of which cannot be seen on 24 February 2022. Russian publicists of the government have the Russian people's possible of disintegrating the European Union and NATO, but the real possibilities of this so far cannot be seen.

In the meantime, the “dialectic moment”, or technological moment, says George W. F. Hegel, The examination of the primary, simple and affirmative besides involves showing the difference, relationships and the very transition to the negative. According to Vladimir Lenin, who studied the dialectics of Hegel, the negative claims of this "negative moment" besides “requires the indication of “unity”, i.e. the relation of what is negative with what is positive, uncovering what is positive, what is negative. From argument to denial—from denial to ‘unity’ with what is claimed—without this dialectics will only become negation, play, or skepticism” [1].

In his "philosophers" he wrote that in dialectics the most crucial is knowing of negation. He did not consider it most crucial to “recognize” itself, “various negation”, “sceptical negation”, although they contain “first fruits of negation”. What he considered most crucial in negation was “the minute of the relationship, as a minute of development, with the positive, i.e. without any hesitation, without any eclecticism” [2]. Looking through the prism of this "dialectic moment" the assessment of the fighting parties should not be as one-sided and calculated as generating strong emotional effects that deprive people of freedom of thought, as has happened so far.

Stock companies and American securities and causes of war

Limited liability companies happen not only in the US, but practically everywhere in the planet – in our country too. These companies aim to rise funds and direct them into risky investment projects, which are hard to get bank loans and to make the top profits quickly. The issue of companies and capital is 1 of the most crucial issues in global economics and cannot so be overlooked.

When discussing the function of the state in the economy, George Friedman (founder and manager of a private intelligence agency Stratfor, besides working for the U.S. government), wrote, among others, – which for liberals and neoliberals may be a paradox – that The modern free marketplace is an invention of the state, as the principles according to which it functions do not come from “nature” but are “the consequence of political agreements”. Units that own public limited liability companies or even the state are not personally liable for their debts. “This is how law and the state,” Friedman wrote, transfer risks from debtors to creditors. If the company collapses, the creditors are left with nothing. Before that, the owner was personally liable for the company. Without this innovation, there would not have been specified a stock marketplace as we know it would not have been invested in start-ups, small entrepreneurship would have been created" [3].

Friedman continued his discussion about limited liability companies, saying that “this kind of hazard sharing is simply a political decision. There is nothing natural about defining the limits of individual risks where they are now. However, as time goes on, these boundaries shift. The company only exists due to the fact that it was created by the law. specified a political decision means that the limits of hazard and liability are set by law relating to undertakings alternatively than by law of nature [4].

At a time of globalisation, this work becomes global and global. The U.S. neoliberal state so acts as a guardian of the interests of American capital, which is mostly based on joint stock companies, and which is the most aggressive, as is seen in Friedman's statement, inter alia, that "the transfer of risks from debtors to creditors" would leave "believers with nothing", that "the setting of the limits of individual risks".

The administration of U.S. presidents promoting a "free market" and developing the securities marketplace on an unprecedented scale has thus spread any illusion, And in fact, it created only favourable conditions for the activities of American corporations, which, by drawing funds from around the world, hold a dominant position. Savings of the average citizen supply only first capital for companies and support their operation, after which they are mostly permanently absorbed by them, leaving a tiny slob "with nothing" ... Businesses are nothing personal, especially global interests, it is worth not provoking many local wars. American companies that can leave “believers with nothing” have immense profits and operate worldwide, according to the principles presented with all openness by Friedman. However, in order to keep this business of transferring “risks from debtors to creditors”, the American state must be ubiquitous as these companies, to do so it must take on debts and lead the world's largest arms program, expanding its abroad debt even to a country as neglected as China. In the United States, they know that, for the time being, China can do small to recover its debt, but they see their expanding military power and they request haste to defeat specified possible allies as Russia.

Through the expansionist goals of the American and European authorities and corporations, the concept of "a state of emergency", as a permanent political system, proposed many years ago by Giorgio Agambenawas raised to a fresh higher level – permanent and global “war state”‘ [5]. Since the expression "permanent state of emergency" contains an interior contradiction, due to the fact that how can it be "a state of emergency" if it is "permanent" – this means a situation in which humanity has already parted itself with traditionally understood freedom and democracy, and there is simply a time of more or little masked dictatorships and post-truths in the name of the interests of global financial oligarchy and supporting states.

In light of the contradictions of Russia's peculiar military operation in Ukraine, it can be seen that against the apocalyptic propaganda, Russia has no rational reasons or anticipation to invade Europe, Whereas the United States has created an economical and political strategy which must constantly grow and be powered from outside and defended by all available means.

Dr Edward Karolczuk

[1] Włodzimierz Lenin, “The Philosophers”, “Works All”, Vol. 29, Book and Knowledge, Warsaw 1988, p. 191.

[2] Ibid. p. 190.

[3] G. Friedman, Next Decade. Where we were and where we were going, Literary Publishing House, Krakow 2012, pp. 70-71.

[4] Ibid. p. 71.

5 Giorgio Agamben, State of emergency. Homo sacer II, 1, by M. Surma-Gawłowski, MPs G. Jankowicz, P. Mościcki, “Ha!art”, Kraków 2008. See also: Marek Zagajewski, Permanent State of emergency, in: ‘Sentence’, 3-4 (166-167), 2015, pp. 43-47.

Think Poland, No. 9-10 (26.02-5.03.2023)