Trump’s impeachment proceedings and threats of war

7

23/11/2019 by socialistfight

The impeachment of Trump by Pelosi

There is a saying attributed to banker J.P. Morgan: “A man always has two reasons for what he does: the good and the real.”

On September 26, U.S. Congressman Adam Schiff reviewed the contents of the “whistleblower” complaint that triggered President Donald Trump’s impeachment investigation.

“It reads like a classic organized crime attack,” Schiff said.

Imitating Trump addressing Ukrainian President Volodymir  Zelensky, Schiff demanded, “I want you to sanitish my political opponent, doyouunderstand?. And not just a little.”

While Trump’s alleged “organized crime act” was the “right” reason for the impeachment investigation, the real reason emerged during two weeks of public hearings in Congress.

The hearings have lifted the lid on a massive U.S. conspiracy to spend billions of dollars to overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014 and foment a civil war that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of People.

The impeachment campaign is itself the product of efforts by intelligence sections and State Department elements to escalate the conflict between Washington and Russia, with potential consequences global lying-

On Thursday, Democratic MP Eric  Swalwell  showed a photo of Ukrainian President Zelensky in a bulletproof vest on the “front lines” of the civil war in eastern Ukraine. He asked State Department witnesses “why it is so important that our hard-earned taxes help President Zelensky and the men at his side fight Russia in this hot war.”

David Holmes, political advisor at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, replied:

This is not the time to withdraw from our relations with Ukraine, but rather to double the stake. While we are sitting here, the Ukrainians are waging a hot war on Ukrainian territory against Russian aggression.

Later in his testimony, Mr. Holmes pointed out the considerable sums spent by the United States and its European allies to fight this “hot war”, claiming that the United States had provided $5 billion and its European allies. $12 billion since 2014.

In her testimony last week, the former Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovich,recalled himas ambassador:

I went to the front about ten times during a hot war… sometimes literally when we heard about the impact of artillery, and to see how our aid money was used.

She added:

Ukraine, with a huge land mass and a large population, has the potential to be an important force multiplier. On the security side. And now Ukraine is a battleground for competition from the great powers with a hot war for control of territory and a hybrid war to control Ukraine’s leadership.

She explained that the 2014 “Maidan Revolution,” funded and led by the United States and led by fascists, which she and other State Department officials absurdly called the “Dignity Revolution,” was part of that conflict. That is why they launched the Dignity Revolution in 2014, demanding to be part of Europe,” she said.

Diplomat George Kent raised the same theme in his testimony last Wednesday:

“The People’s Dignity Revolution in Ukraine in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian leadership to flee to Moscow. After that, Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying seven percent of its territory, roughly the equivalent of the size of Texas for the United States….

Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial integrity and sovereignty against Russian aggression. U.S. support in Ukraine’s de facto war of independence has been crucial in this regard. »

Kent later compared the role of the United States in the Ukrainian Civil War to that of Spain and France in the American War of Independence. In this conflict, Spain and France were officially at war with Great Britain, including in 1778 and 1779.

If Kent’s analogy is true, then the United States is in an undeclared war with Russia.

But when did we ever discuss this war with the American people? Has there ever been a vote by Congress to authorize it? Does anyone believe that if the question “Do you want to spend billions of dollars to help Ukraine wage war on Russia” was asked of the American public, the percentage of those who would say yes would be more than tiny? Of course, this question was never asked.

But at congressional hearings this week, government officials said any questioning of the aid is virtually treason. In her testimony on Thursday, Fiona Hill, a former member of the National Security Council, accused anyone who questioned the fact that “Ukraine is a valuable partner” of the United States in promoting “Russian interests.”

When we are consumed by partisan resentment, we cannot fight these external forces,” she said, threatening “the president, or anyone else, who obstructs or subverts the national security of the United States.”

In 2017, Hill wrote a blog post for the Brookings Institution calling Trump “Bolshevik,” echoing statements made more than 60 years ago by Robert W. Welch, leader of the John Birch  Society, who said President Eisenhower was a “communist.”

The democrats’ wild claims that Trump operates  as a “Russian asset” have very real content: The extremely dangerous advance of factions within the state towards a military confrontation between the United States and Russia, whose combined nuclear arsenals are capable of destroying all of humanity on numerous occasions.

In June 2017, just a few months after Trump took office, thiswebsite characterized the growing struggle within the state as follows:

The differences in  the Trump administration are mainly focused on foreign policy issues… Some  are determined to prevent Trump from weakening the anti-Russia policy developed under Obama, which Hillary Clinton’s campaign had set itself the goal of developing.

The manic focus on Russia is not an accident. Mr. Trump’s foreign policy priorities are, as we know, focused on confrontation with China. His alleged plea for an “agreement” with Russia is incompatible with the strategic plan supported by the dominant sections of the military establishment, intelligence and foreign policy.

The destruction of Russia’s ability to thwart U.S. military operations is considered essential for control of the Eurasian landmass, without which an American victory in the long-term conflict with China is considered impossible.

There is no “peaceful” faction within the American political establishment. No credit can be given to any of the parties of American imperialism, which over the decades have presided over the fall of dozens of governments, the outbreak of countless wars and the deaths of millions of people.

Apology to WSWS

I wish to apologise for posting the above article on the website from a comrade in France without checking if he wanted it published or inquiring about the source. I normally read the WSWS posts but I had to get the Liverpool from London train on 23 November and did not have the time and have now just read that WSWS post and do acknowledge it is the same article, albeit slightly modified which does not indicate its source.

I read the article in French on Saturday morning, substantially agreed with it, google translated and published it and had just enough time to catch my train to Liverpool.

I do acknowledge, with Viriato, that WSWS publishes some excellent material and also some dreadful, sectarian stuff. But you do have a right to demand the source, he did only send the article for information and it was my mistake to publish it without asking. It was the fourth article from Viriato I have translated and published over the last week, on Latin America and the global resurgence of the working class and I did not check these sources either. However I agree with Viriato’s motivation for circulating this material amongst his numerous contacts in France, and you should too. All the articles were substantially compatible with the Socialist Fight stance so I published.

Apologies again and here is the link requested:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/23/pers-n23.html

Gerry Downing

La procédure de destitution de Trump et les menaces de guerre

Il y a un dicton attribué au banquier J.P. Morgan : “Un homme a toujours deux raisons pour ce qu’il fait : la bonne et la vraie.”

Le 26 septembre, le membre du Congrès US Adam Schiff a passé en revue le contenu de la plainte du “lanceur d’alerte” qui a déclenché l’enquête de destitution du président Donald Trump.

“Ça se lit comme une attaque classique venant du crime organisé”, a dit M. Schiff.

Imitant Trump s’adressant au président ukrainien Volodymir Zelensky, Schiff a exigé, “Je veux que vous salopez mon adversaire politique, comprenez-vous ?. Et pas qu’un peu.”

Si la prétendue “acte apparenté au crime organisé” de Trump a été la “bonne” raison de l’enquête de destitution, la vraie raison est apparue au cours des deux semaines d’audiences publiques du Congrès.

 Les audiences ont levé le voile sur une conspiration massive des États-Unis visant à dépenser des milliards de dollars pour renverser le gouvernement démocratiquement élu de l’Ukraine en 2014 et fomenter une guerre civile qui a entraîné la mort de milliers de personnes.

La campagne de destitution est elle-même le produit des efforts déployés par des sections des services de renseignement et des éléments du département d’État pour intensifier le conflit entre Washington et la Russie, avec des conséquences potentiellement catastrophiques à l’échelle mondiale.

Jeudi, le député démocrate Eric Swalwell a montré une photo du président ukrainien Zelensky en gilet pare-balles sur les “lignes de front” de la guerre civile en Ukraine orientale. Il a demandé aux témoins du département d’État “pourquoi il est si important que nos impôts durement gagnés aident le président Zelensky et les hommes à ses côtés à combattre la Russie dans cette guerre chaude”.

David Holmes, conseiller politique à l’ambassade des États-Unis à Kiev, a répondu :

Ce n’est pas le moment de se retirer de nos relations avec l’Ukraine, mais plutôt de doubler la mise. Alors que nous sommes assis ici, les Ukrainiens mènent une guerre chaude sur le territoire ukrainien contre l’agression russe.

Plus tard dans son témoignage, M. Holmes a souligné les sommes considérables dépensées par les États-Unis et leurs alliés européens pour combattre cette ” guerre chaude “, affirmant que les États-Unis avaient fourni 5 milliards de dollars et leurs alliés européens 12 milliards depuis 2014.

Dans son témoignage de la semaine dernière, l’ancienne ambassadrice en Ukraine, Marie Yovanovich, l’a rappelé en tant qu’ambassadrice :

Je suis allé au front une dizaine de fois pendant une guerre chaude… parfois littéralement lorsque nous avons entendu parler de l’impact de l’artillerie, et pour voir comment l’argent de notre aide était utilisé.

Elle a ajouté :

L’Ukraine, avec une masse terrestre énorme et une population importante, a le potentiel d’être un multiplicateur de force important[…] Du côté de la sécurité[…] Et maintenant, l’Ukraine est un champ de bataille pour la concurrence des grandes puissances avec une guerre chaude pour le contrôle du territoire et une guerre hybride pour contrôler le leadership de l’Ukraine.

Elle a expliqué que la ” révolution de Maidan ” de 2014, financée et dirigée par les États-Unis et dirigée par des fascistes, qu’elle et d’autres responsables du département d’État ont absurdement appelée la ” Révolution de la dignité “, faisait partie de ce conflit. “C’est pourquoi ils ont lancé la Révolution de la Dignité en 2014, exigeant de faire partie de l’Europe “, a-t-elle déclaré.

Le diplomate George Kent a invoqué le même thème dans son témoignage mercredi dernier :

« La révolution populaire de la dignité en Ukraine en 2014 a forcé une direction pro-russe corrompue à fuir à Moscou. Après cela, la Russie a envahi l’Ukraine, occupant sept pour cent de son territoire, à peu près l’équivalent de la taille du Texas pour les États-Unis….

Depuis lors, plus de 13 000 Ukrainiens sont morts sur le sol ukrainien en défendant leur intégrité territoriale et leur souveraineté contre l’agression russe. Le soutien américain dans la guerre d’indépendance de facto de l’Ukraine a été crucial à cet égard. »

Par la suite, Kent a comparé le rôle des États-Unis dans la guerre civile ukrainienne à celui de l’Espagne et de la France dans la guerre d’indépendance américaine. Dans ce conflit, l’Espagne et la France étaient officiellement en guerre avec la Grande-Bretagne, y compris en 1778 et 1779.

Si l’analogie de Kent est vraie, alors les États-Unis sont dans une guerre non déclarée avec la Russie.

Mais quand a-t-on déjà discuté de cette guerre avec le peuple américain ? Y a-t-il jamais eu un vote du Congrès pour l’autoriser ? Quelqu’un croit-il que si la question “Voulez-vous dépenser des milliards de dollars pour aider l’Ukraine à faire la guerre à la Russie” était posée au public américain, le pourcentage de ceux qui répondraient oui serait plus que minuscule ? Bien sûr, cette question n’a jamais été posée.

Mais lors des audiences du Congrès cette semaine, les représentants du gouvernement ont déclaré que toute remise en question de cette aide est pratiquement une trahison. Dans son témoignage de jeudi, Fiona Hill, ancienne membre du Conseil national de sécurité, a accusé quiconque s’interrogeait sur le fait que “l’Ukraine est un partenaire précieux” des États-Unis de promouvoir les “intérêts russes”.

Quand nous sommes consumés par la rancœur partisane, nous ne pouvons pas combattre ces forces extérieures “, a-t-elle dit, menaçant ” le président, ou quiconque d’autre, qui entrave ou subvertit la sécurité nationale des Etats-Unis “.

En 2017, Hill a écrit un billet de blog pour la Brookings Institution traitant Trump de “bolchevique”, faisant écho aux déclarations faites il y a plus de 60 ans par Robert W. Welch, dirigeant de la John Birch Society, qui a déclaré que le président Eisenhower était un “communiste”.

Les allégations folles des démocrates selon lesquelles Trump fonctionne comme un ” atout russe ” ont un contenu bien réel : L’avancée extrêmement dangereuse des factions au sein de l’État en vue d’une confrontation militaire entre les États-Unis et la Russie, dont les arsenaux nucléaires combinés sont capables de détruire l’humanité tout entière à de nombreuses reprises.

En juin 2017, quelques mois à peine après l’arrivée au pouvoir de Trump, ce site Internet a caractérisé la lutte croissante au sein de l’État comme suit :

Les divergences dans l’administration Trump sont principalement centrées sur des questions de politique étrangère… Certains sont déterminés à empêcher Trump d’affaiblir la politique anti-Russie développée sous Obama, que la campagne d’Hillary Clinton s’était donnée pour objectif de développer.

L’accent maniaque mis sur la Russie n’est pas un accident. Les priorités de la politique étrangère de M. Trump sont axées, comme on le sait, sur l’affrontement avec la Chine. Son prétendu plaidoyer en faveur d’un “accord” avec la Russie est incompatible avec le plan stratégique soutenu par les sections dominantes de l’establishment militaire, du renseignement et de la politique étrangère.

 La destruction de la capacité de la Russie à déjouer les opérations militaires américaines est considérée comme essentielle pour le contrôle de la masse continentale eurasienne, sans laquelle une victoire américaine dans le conflit à long terme avec la Chine est considérée comme impossible.

Il n’y a pas de faction “pacifique” au sein de l’establishment politique américain. Aucun crédit ne peut être accordé à l’un ou l’autre des partis de l’impérialisme américain, qui ont, au cours des décennies, présidé à la chute de dizaines de gouvernements, au déclenchement d’innombrables guerres et à la mort de millions de personnes.

7 thoughts on “Trump’s impeachment proceedings and threats of war

  1. Mike Martin says:

    This excellent article is practically a straight copy of one on the World Socialist Web Site on 23rd November titled “Who decided the US should fight a ‘hot war’ with Russia”. It is even careful to cut out a reference to WSWS. Otherwise there are only minor changes of text to cover the tracks

    As I understand it wsws.org do not mind articles being copied in whole or part, provided the source is indicated. Short of that the word plagiarism springs to mind.

    If SF is closely in agreement with wsws.org , perhaps they should be discussing how to further the anti-war cause.

    Like

  2. Dear Mr Downing. The above article is a shameful example of plagiarism from the November 23 World Socialist Web Site perspective, “Who decided the US should fight a ‘hot war’ with Russia?” To conceal this either you or your group’s “author” have carried out some minor textual rearranging and then omitted a quote from the WSWS that would have identified its true origins. I insist that you now make this clear to your readers and provide the necessary link to the original source.

    Like

  3. Viriato says:

    A clarification.

    I, Viriato, who is a french sympathiser of SF’s points of view for some time and publishes articles of my own and under my own responsability, , has sent this and others articles refering to the US and Chile, taken on the WEB, that I copy and modifie for reasons of political agitation.

    Perhaps, the publishers of the blog has published to rapidly these articles sent to a number of people well beyond SF.

    If I cut the references is just to avoid sectarian reactions to the material. I care only on ideas not on organizations. If I cut the WSWS reference is because I found their material good sometimes but quite sectarian others. I publish for my friends and comrades only what I consider correct.

    I do the same with the SF material and with many other materials.

    I take the grain and through the stray.

    It is perhaps a bad proceeding, but, today, in the state of the whole left movement, I am for the unity of marxists and to fight sectarians and rightists. Then I take what is valuable but not what it is not.

    WSWS publishes very good materials, some times, and others just good to through to the bin because sectarians mainly.

    Of course SF is not responsible of the cuts and modifications, nor of my opinions, me only .

    I humble apologize whoever feels blessed or in disconfort for these mistakes and remarks made only with the scope to inform and propagate the marxist point of view.

    Like

  4. Mike Martin says:

    It seems that Socialist Fight does not take responsibility for its own website?

    Even if you post as an individual you should indicate your sources rather than systematically conceal them and present the work as your own. In this case the article was unsigned and appeared to be the work of SF. I respect your desire to promote discussion but the first step is to acknowledge others views honestly.

    You say that you sent the article to other places as well. It seems reasonable to ask that you indicate which places so that the repetition of the errors can be avoided. Alternatively, have you forwarded them a correction yourself?

    Like

  5. Viriato says:

    There is a misunderstanding.

    I sent the article, cut and slightly modified as it is, to a number of correspondents, one of them, SF. For information purposes and I could not imagine that it would be published by anyone.

    SF, from time to time, publishged articles coming from many directions.

    I have before published articles and coments from France (Gilets Jaunes for instance or Chile where I come from). SF publishes them because they are not sectarians and, I suppose, believes in open discussion and I believe the same.

    That makes SF no responsible for the contents or mistakes made by the senders.

    They have even published articles coming from ex-stalinists who has change their minds after reading or discussiong with G. Downing (myself) and others that still remain somewhat what you call “stalinists” or in my opinion people travelling to a better understanding.

    I think that is exactly a leninist attitude (I hardly know Trotski even if I have developpe a respect for the man and working class political figure and I am reading him as much as I can) that SF has and I hope, will maintain.

    I have made a slight mistake but there is no reason to mount an attack on this issue. Butsectarian and petit bourgeois boutiquiers pass all their “political” life attacking each others (not helping the ones who make mistakes or are wrong, as worker’s do) trying to “kill” the concurrence. A most nasty “méthod” very much petit-bourgeois and totally alien with the correct proletarian attitude of “healing the patient/comrade, not trying to kill him”

    On the “reference” issue I must say that I do as I find the better way to transmit today necessary ideas and I am not forced at all to give the sources if I considered that it could vezry possible make the ideas beeing dismissed because the ones that write them are associated to a bunch of dye in the core sectarians.

    The problem with WSWS is that there are very good papers coming from writers as David Walsch (remarquables) , Billy van Auken (also) or some of Lantier but others awfully sectarians and outright stupids.

    What can I do if I cannot send not aware people to a site which is in a so contradictory state?

    Just publish the good papers not indicating the source.

    The problem is not “not referencing the sources”, the problem is this contradictory nature of WSWS.

    I think I have said all what is necesary in this matter.

    Like

  6. Apology to WSWS

    I wish to apologise for posting the above article on the website from a comrade in France without checking if he wanted it published or inquiring about the source. I normally read the WSWS posts but I had to get the Liverpool from London train on 23 November and did not have the time and have now just read that WSWS post and do acknowledge it is the same article, albeit slightly modified which does not indicate its source.

    I read the article in French on Saturday morning, substantially agreed with it, google translated and published it and had just enough time to catch my train to Liverpool.

    I do acknowledge, with Viriato, that WSWS publishes some excellent material and also some dreadful, sectarian stuff. But you do have a right to demand the source, he did only send the article for information and it was my mistake to publish it without asking. It was the fourth article from Viriato I have translated and published over the last week, on Latin America and the global resurgence of the working class and I did not check these sources either. However I agree with Viriato’s motivation for circulating this material amongst his numerous contacts in France, and you should too. All the articles were substantially compatible with the Socialist Fight stance so I published.

    Apologies again and here is the link requested:

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/23/pers-n23.html

    Gerry Downing

    Liked by 1 person

  7. The WSWS article on Ukraine correctly exposes the fascist efforts of the Democrats to back fascism in Ukraine and promote the “usual” US imperialist interest of keeping Nato going in Europe and undermining Russia. But much more needs to be said about WHY Trump’s style of fascism is taking the US to its alternative EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVE strategy of “isolationism”, meaning stoking up trouble for its EU “foes” (Trump’s words) with a view to, potentially, OPENING the door to a Russian assault on EU interests. The global inter-imperialist trade war is HOTTING UP and the US Empire is crumbling, with multiple mass rebellions hitting Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Puerto Rico, Lebanon, Haiti, Indonesia, floundering coup in Bolivia, and now mass protests in Colombia. Monopoly-capitalist financial circles are full of talk about the 2008 meltdown striking again but many times worse and without the possibility of QE to save the markets.
    The WSWS article has some good impressions of what is happening over Ukraine but there is NO MARXIST DISCUSSION in it of the overall deepening global crisis of capitalism and how inter-imperialist conflict will force the masses in country after country to return to Bolshevik struggle and socialist revolution to establish workers states.
    The essence of Marxism is the permanent battle to explain that capitalism is a system of CRISIS that must, at some point, absolutely CRASH into such impossible economic contradictions that a REVOLUTIONARY BREAK is required to permit civilisation to move forwards. Following on from Marx’s greatest achievement – the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat, Leninism, in theory and practice, established the Bolsheviks’ revolutionary journalistic practice of spreading a paper that explains that imperialism’s warmongering system will eventually break down in chaos and FORCE the masses to make socialist revolution.
    This understanding is a million miles away from delusions in social-democracy, “left” pressure or supporting “left” Labourism, which is why Lenin did not back the Kerensky parliamentary democracy stooges for British and French imperialism in his day, and leaves all Trots and revisionist opportunists hanging out to dry for putting their trust in “left” pressure around the fraud of Corbynism. The EPSR’s last issue attacked the illusions in popular frontism and revisionism now being destroyed by the coup in Bolivia, and it would be good if SF responds to that. The EPSR’s next issue will be about the general election and the general contempt and disgust that all workers feel towards bourgeois democracy and parliament and the efforts of Corbyn backers to keep sick parliamentary illusions going.
    Lenin would be endlessly gratified to see how HATED the parliamentary charlatans are, and this hatred will be the making of REAL revolutions in Chile, Iraq, Haiti, etc – and, eventually, Britain.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

WRP Explosion

%d bloggers like this: