Monday, March 17, 2025

Socialist PM Sánchez: Spain must help countries facing Russian threats

Pedro Sánchez in the closing speech at the PSOE congress in Cantabria
Copyright Captura de vídeo x.com @pedrosanchez
By Jesús Maturana
Published on 
This article was originally published in Spanish

The Spanish prime minister also stressed the need for a just peace in Ukraine without rewarding Moscow's aggression.

In his speech at his centre-left PSOE party congress in Cantabria, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said Spain must show solidarity with countries on Russia's borders, as Moscow continues to threaten democracy and rule-based order.

"What is at stake is not simply a war or an invasion. There is something much more besides this, which would be important in itself, and that is that the multilateral order is at stake," Sánchez said at the closing event on Sunday, stressing that it is a system based on principles established in the United Nations Charter.

The Spanish leader indicated that the aim is to achieve a "just and lasting" peace in Ukraine, where "peace is urgent, but not at the cost of rewarding the aggressor, which will open the door to future, even more serious aggressions."

He was also blunt in declaring that "if Ukraine wants to be part of the European Union, Russia has to respect what Ukraine wants to be".

Sánchez, however, acknowledged the different security realities faced by European countries, admitting that "defence in the east of Europe has nothing to do with the security challenges we have in Spain."

Despite this, the president said that Spain would help those under threat.

"We are not going to have a physical attack from Russia like some of the Baltic or Nordic countries, such as Finland, might have," Sánchez said.

"They need our solidarity and they need and demand that together we increase our security capacity to dissuade Russia," he explained, reaffirming Spain's pro-European commitment both "out of interest" and "out of conviction".

Spanish state: PSOE Congress closes ranks around leader

Friday 14 March 2025, by Jaime Pastor


The 41st Congress of the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE – Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party), held from 29 November to 1 December 2024, took place against an increasingly unstable international and geopolitical backdrop, and at a time when the media and the judiciary are focusing on corruption, the new shadow hanging over ‘Sanchismo’, the method of government of the current prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, who is also the party’s general secretary, in particular the affair involving the party’s former number two, José Luis Ábalos.



In these conditions, the course of the Congress held in Seville was predictable: to make a grand show of cohesion around the charismatic leader and his Manual de Resistencia, and to reaffirm the gamble of playing the blackmail card (‘the arrival of the right and the far right’) to the full in order to discipline his partners in government and parliament. In this way, Sánchez is seeking to achieve his objective: to stay in the palace of Moncloa until 2027 and, despite the poor predictions of the opinion polls, to win the next elections. Unsurprisingly, there has been not the slightest hint of self-criticism about the policies pursued in recent years, or even about his co-responsibility for the inertia in the face of the tragic DANA disaster, although the reproaches have come from very different quarters, and even from some of his partners, such as Compromís and Podemos. [1]


Framework document

If we look at the Congress’ framework document, entitled ’Spain 2030. A socialism that advances, a Spain that leads’, we can see some signs of a rather radical rhetoric against the “super-rich”, in defence of the “middle and working classes”, but little programmatic novelty. In fact, the document begins by announcing four major challenges for 2030, which seems a long way off in these times of reactionary upsurge: developing a different model of growth and tackling the climate emergency (we’d have to explain how the first and second can be compatible), tackling the transformation of the world order and finally responding to the ‘rise of authoritarian values and the international ultra-right’.

This is followed by an attempt to magnify the ‘impossibles we have achieved’ in the last period (starting with the employment reform, albeit very limited) and the announcement of the ‘impossibles we will achieve’ (with the project, hardly viable with its allies, the Basque PNV and the Catalan Junts, of a constitutional shield for social conquests), before moving on to define a national project with ten objectives. The first of these (‘A more competitive, fair and sustainable economy’) sets out the framework within which the following objectives are to be pursued: shorter working hours, quality education, housing for all, the fight against all inequalities, a strengthened ‘autonomous’ state, full democracy to confront disinformation, a vocation for leadership of the European project, support for the (false) ‘two-state solution in Israel and Palestine’, and the strengthening of the EU’s ‘strategic autonomy’ in defence matters with the alibi of the war in Ukraine.

In addition to the most widely publicised measure to reduce working hours, the concrete content of which remains to be seen, other new measures that could attract attention include the creation of a ‘citizen’s seat’ in Congress and the Senate so that representatives of civil society can intervene, the right to vote from the age of 16 and the convening of deliberative citizen’s conventions, a ban on the conversion of residential housing into tourist and seasonal accommodation, the creation of a public office for the construction of social housing and the obligation that loans and rents should not exceed 30% of salaries, reform of the system for financing the regions (with a formulation vague enough to satisfy all the baronies) and the repeal of the 1979 agreement with the Catholic Church on cultural and educational issues.

Some of these promises sound like mere repetition of those already included in previous Congresses, while at the same time they highlight the scant attention paid to the mortifying migration policy (there is simply mention of the need for ‘an immigration model that guarantees a constant flow’) or the absence of a tax policy that goes beyond a reference to the obligation (how?) for big business to share some of the scandalous profits made in recent years. [2] Last but not least, the absolute silence on the Saharawi people’s right to self-determination, once again confirming complicity with the repressive Moroccan regime.

We should also note the triumph of the so-called ‘classical’ feminists with their amendment aimed at preventing the inclusion of Q+ alongside LGTBI. This result was obtained thanks to the lobby led by former vice-president Carmen Calvo, and was finally voted in plenary with a very low turnout. This decision represents a serious step backwards in the recognition of diversity, contributes to the promotion of transphobia, strengthens the right in its cultural war and distances the PSOE from a position on which there is a broad consensus throughout the feminist movement, particularly among its younger generations.

A fragile domination

In short, Sánchez took advantage of the Congress to demand the loyalty of the activist apparatus in the face of the judicial, political and media harassment to which he has been subjected, especially since the approval of the amnesty law (while seeking to make people forget that he did not protest, and was even complicit, when the harassment was directed at Catalan nationalism and Podemos). At the same time, he is proposing a government project that is sufficiently ambiguous on the fundamental issues that oppose him to the right wing Partido Popular (PP) to try to attract part of its electorate and even re-establish a two-party system with this party in the name of a sense of responsibility towards the state. This is a difficult task, as we can see from the migration emergency in the Canary Islands, since the PP remains under pressure not only from Vox (ready to unabashedly claim the legacy of the Franco dictatorship as we approach the 50th anniversary of the death of its founder), but also from the president of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, both of whom have been strengthened by Trump’s election victory. Furthermore, given the heterogeneity of his allies in parliament, it is impossible to predict whether some of the progressive laws and measures promised, starting with their inclusion in the budget, will materialise.

As a result, we are going to end up with a PSOE that will continue along the path of reformism without structural reforms that challenge the interests of big business and the foundations of the monarchical regime of which this same party has been and still is a fundamental pillar. This is not the way to stem the real threat of the reactionary bloc, or even, despite the good macroeconomic data, to mitigate the worsening inequalities. At best, the PSOE can try to neutralise social conflicts by responding to certain demands, as in the case of the fight for decent housing; but it will be difficult to achieve this if the tax on seasonal rents has not made any headway in Parliament.

The strategic impasse into which the PSOE has plunged is not unrelated to the long-standing trend towards an Atlanticist social liberalism which is tending to lose its centrality in many countries, as is the case today in France and very probably in Germany after the general elections in February. Against this backdrop, in the case of Spain, the government’s resilience increasingly appears to be an anomaly made possible by the fact that it has managed simultaneously to cancel out the ‘breakaway’ potential of the parties that have emerged to its left - Podemos and then Sumar - and to maintain a policy of pacts with regional forces, mainly in the Basque Country and Catalonia, in exchange for modest concessions.

However, this policy of fear in the face of the ‘greater danger’ will not last forever, as social unrest and political disaffection, now accentuated by the consequences of the DANA disaster, continue to grow. This government’s policies will not prevent the reactionary bloc from capitalising on the spread of ‘anti-politics’ among new sectors of the electorate.

Fear of internal democracy

On an organisational level, the consolidation of a party model based on an increasingly reinforced Caesarism around the ‘leader maximo’ has also become evident, as Manuel de la Rocha Rubí, one of the few delegates from the Izquierda Socialista current present at the Congress, has already pointed out : according to him, a clear demonstration of a ‘fear of democracy’ was shown by ‘the very refusal to debate government management at Congress, violating a basic democratic principle and a key article of our statutes’. [3] And the party’s total subordination to the government has been established, in a way that is all the more visible given the large number of ministers on the new Federal Executive Committee. In the end, he concludes, ‘the party’s position is set by the government and not the other way round, without even the possibility of influencing each other’.

The case of Madrid, with the forced resignation of Juan Lobato from the post of Secretary General of the Partido Socialista de Madrid, regardless of what is thought of his behaviour in the case of Díaz Ayuso’s companion, is another clear example of these practices, and Izquierda Socialista de Madrid rightly criticised (with the slogan ‘Form counts!’) the ban on meetings aimed at setting up another candidacy to face the official one led by the current minister Oscar López. [4]

At the end of the day, according to the maxim of making a virtue of necessity, we are witnessing the triumph of a plebiscitary leadership model that aspires only to remain in government, at the price of a few concessions to its allies in areas that do not touch the hard core of the political economy dictated by the European Union, notably through the European Commission and the European Central Bank.
The vacuum on the left

Added to these gloomy prospects is the tragic absence of political forces to the left of the PSOE, capable of building an alternative to confront the right’s policies of division among the popular classes but also building an alternative to the declining social liberalism of Sánchez. Neither Sumar - who is increasingly content with the limits set by Moncloa and the EU - nor Podemos - despite its current efforts to appear hypercritical of the PSOE, with which it nevertheless aspires to govern - now have the credibility to constitute a pole of reference in the onerous task of recomposing a left that wishes to learn the lessons of the cycle opened by 15M and the Catalan process in order to chart a course of refoundation that is not subordinate to institutional politics.

On the social front, the leaderships of the major trade unions, the CCOO and UGT, which are themselves subservient to the government, do not appear today to be the frame of reference for the recomposition of a workers’ movement ready to confront employers and big business who are increasingly inclined to favour the arrival of the reactionary bloc in government.

Nevertheless, the mobilisations for decent housing - a true expression, in almost all of Spain, of a class struggle that directly attacks rentier capitalism - the admirable outpouring of solidarity towards the population of Valencia and other regions of the country in the face of the eco-social disaster of DANA, the various forms of resistance in different sectors such as health and education, or the solidarity with Palestine are signs of hope that a new cycle of mobilisation on the left, starting from the grassroots, can be opened up in the period ahead. It is on the basis of these experiences that we must learn to seek new forms of convergence, in the struggles and in the debates between renewed action collectives. And launch with them new initiatives to build a common political and social front, capable of confronting the reactionary threat and building up an anti-hegemonic potential from the neighbourhoods and workplaces. Only in this way can we put back at the centre the need for a strategy of ecosocial transition and a democratic rupture with this regime and the power bloc that supports it.

Attached documentsspanish-state-psoe-congress-closes-ranks-around-leader_a8900.pdf (PDF - 924 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8900]

Footnotes


[1] The DANA (‘depresion aislada en niveles alto’, or ‘isolated high-level depression’) is a meteorological phenomenon also known as a ‘cold drop’, caused by the warming of the oceans and polar zones, which caused terrible destruction in Valencia in November 2024.


[2] This is what Andreu Missé criticises: ‘The tax reform carried out by the government… and its partners is minimal. It is more like a succession of patches. The agreement reached in Congress approved the tax on banks, the increase in capital income, hydrocarbons and tobacco. But it had to defer the energy tax to a new law. And taxes on real estate (Socimis), private insurance, luxury goods and diesel, as well as VAT on tourist flats, were rejected’. Alternativas económicas, December 2024, 130, p. 3).

Not to mention the still-postponed repeal of the gag law and the law on state secrets; the urgently-needed democratic reform of the judicial system (where is that promise of ‘democratic renewal’? [[The Ley Mordaza(‘gag law’ is the nickname given to the Citizen Security Law passed in 2015 under the Popular Party (PP) government. It includes sanctions against unauthorised demonstrations in front of public buildings, a ban on filming the forces of law and order, subject to heavy fines, fines for contempt of the forces of law and order, even without physical violence, and the express expulsion of migrants at the borders of Ceuta and Melilla.


[3] ‘Congreso socialista y crítica a la gestión’, eldiario.es, Manuel de la Rocha Rubí, 6 December 2024.


[4] In November 2024, Juan Lobato resigned as Secretary General of the Madrid PSOE after a controversy surrounding his handling of information about Alberto González Amador, the partner of Isabel Díaz Ayuso, President of the Comunidad de Madrid. Lobato had revealed sensitive information about him, fuelling accusations of tax fraud. Faced with internal pressure and to avoid division, he chose to leave. Díaz Ayuso, a key figure in the Popular Party, is known for her neoliberal management, her opposition to Catalan independence and her handling of the pandemic.

Jaime Pastor, professor of political science, member of Anticapitalistas (section of the Fourth International in the Spanish state), is the managing editor of the magazine Viento Sur.


Spanish state: Housing – old problem, new

solutions

Saturday 15 March 2025, by Alex Francés Blanca Martinez


Rent levels have been on everyone’s lips in recent months, and not for nothing. Not only because it’s a problem that affects hundreds of thousands of people, but also because the housing rights movement has succeeded in getting tens of thousands of people onto the streets of Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Seville, Gijón, Burgos, Zaragoza, Salamanca and other cities.


Like many people - including the organisers - we were surprised by the sudden outburst of tenants, but also from other social sectors, taking to the streets en masse. The fact is that these mobilisations, the largest in recent history, took place at a time of political ebb and flow, with a general retreat of the forces of the left and the rise of the right and the far right. Against this backdrop, the tenants’ unions (Sindicatos de Inquilinas) succeeded in carving out a place for themselves in the media and in defining the political agenda with a radical discourse of con-frontation with the rentier system and with the political parties of the so-called progressive bloc, incapable of providing real answers to the housing problem.
Building tenants’ unions as tools of struggle

Despite the surprise generated by these mobilisations, they did not come out of nowhere. They are the fruit of a housing movement built up over many years. And, above all, they are the result of the building of tenants’ unions, which have succeeded in affiliating thousands of people (more than 3,000 in Madrid and more than 5,000 in Catalonia), rowing against the tide during years of political regression. Both unions were founded in May 2017, when the 15M cycle was clearly running out of steam, Podemos was beginning its process of subordination and adaptation to the PSOE, and the large-scale mobilisations that had characterised the previous cycle were beginning to run out of steam.

The tenants’ unions were able to perceive and try to overcome some of the limitations char-acteristic of recent social movements, thanks to hybrid forms between the latter and workers’ trades unionism. They have opted for the creation of stable structures, with membership and permanent staff, like any trade union. It is these elements that have enabled these tenants’ unions to endure, develop and consolidate, and even resist the ravages caused by the restrictions on activism imposed in the context of the pandemic. These restrictions were the coup de grâce for the majority of social movements, which were unable to resist the cessation of their activities.


Concrete battles

However, the organisational challenge was not the only key to the unions’ success. Their ability to articulate the conflict between tenants and landlords in a collective manner was another, as was their ability to create trade union tools that enabled them to win victories. The ability to give concrete, useful answers to the people who came to the meetings to present their problems, and to resolve them, was the key to growth. There’s no better way to win members than to demonstrate the usefulness of tenants’ unions. There’s nothing like the collective struggle to make people understand the need to fight beyond individual cases. There’s nothing like victories against landlords to gain social legitimacy and improve the balance of power in favour of tenants and the working classes.

Different strategies have been developed to deal with most of the problems faced by tenants, such as the non-reimbursement of deposits, the illegal charging of fees, the lack of repairs and maintenance to flats and buildings, harassment aimed at pushing tenants out of their homes and so on. But above all, a strategy of resistance has been put in place in the face of the main problem: rising prices and the non-renewal of rental contracts, which are the main mechanisms by which housing is treated as a commodity, allowing landlords to increase their profits at the expense of a basic necessity and impoverishing more and more tenants.

A concentration of capital

Faced with this situation of abuse, tenants’ unions have developed the Nos quedamos/Ens quedem (We stay) union strategy, which consists of disobeying both price increases and lease non-renewals. The idea is simple: tenants stay in their homes after the end of the contract, paying the same price, and enter into a process of collective negotiation with the landlord to obtain a renewal of the contract without a price increase.

Although we are sold the idea of a housing stock in the hands of small owners who depend on this income to survive, the reality is much more complex. One of the dynamics of the property market that emerged in the wake of the 2008 crisis, and the shift in the property market from buy-to-let to leasing, was the rush by companies and investment funds. As a result, in recent years there has been a steady increase in the number of large landlords and a trend towards the concentration of ownership in a small number of hands. While these large landlords do not yet account for the majority of the rental property market, they do play a dominant role, spear-heading property speculation.

It is in this context that the organisation of vertical property blocks takes on its full meaning, sometimes comprising dozens of flats for rent, in which a large number of tenants affected by the same problems can be found and who can fight together against a common enemy. [1] Tenants’ unions have decided to break with the passive dynamic of waiting for the people concerned to come to their meetings, and adopt a proactive role that seeks conflict. In short, to go on the offensive. Seek out the different parts of the same property, talk to the neighbours, identify the main problems in each community and organise a joint fight by dozens or hundreds of tenants to guarantee the rights that are being trampled underfoot. And above all, act before the majority of tenants find themselves in a critical situation, thereby saving time in organising and fighting.

Articulating the conflict

Another of the fundamental pillars has been to combine the struggle through conflict with the struggle in the institutional arena, understanding the need to obtain legislative changes that recognise the rights and improve the general situation of tenants. In this sense, the legislative improvements achieved through the reform of the LAU [Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos, Urban Tenancies Act] and the Housing Act (5/7 year contract duration, fees to be paid by the property, regulation of rents in force in some Catalan municipalities, limitation of deposits and so on) should be seen as victories achieved through struggle, but without falling into trium-phalism. Acknowledging these advances does not mean ignoring the fact that their effects have been very limited and totally inadequate. We must not forget that current legislation continues to protect the interests of landlords to the detriment of the right to housing.

The key to linking the trade union struggle with the institutional struggle and legislative im-provements is to understand the latter not as an end in themselves, not as a possible real solution to the housing problem, but as another tool for action, as an improvement in the balance of power in favour of tenants, a tool that serves as a basis for promoting subsequent conflicts against landlords and preparing the next round of struggles. Legislative improvements, the fight for a programme that raises awareness, trade union action and institutional pressure are all part of the political struggle that is being waged at all levels and against all parts of the state.

The rent strike

A large part of the success of the mobilisations of October and November 2024 lay precisely in their ability to put forward demands and a programme felt to be legitimate by large sections of the working class, in particular the need for an urgent and radical reduction in rent prices (minimum 50%), a measure totally unacceptable to the government. At the same time, the mobilisations denounced the fact that this supposedly progressive government regards housing as a commodity and always legislates to guarantee the continued existence of private property and its profits. Finally, they highlighted a new trade union strategy for achieving this autonomous price reduction: the rent strike.

But lower rents are not the only urgent measure. The following measures, among others, are necessary:

Stable, long-term leases with automatic renewal, providing long-term guarantees so that people can plan and develop their lives in good conditions.
The expropriation of all empty, tourist and vulture-funded housing that is not fulfilling its social function, in order to create a public housing stock under social control.
Genuine regulation of rents, taking into account the social and economic situation of families, and adjusting rents to a maximum of 10% of income.

All these measures are essential if we are to begin to alleviate the housing emergency from which we have been suffering for years. But let’s make no mistake, the only way to guarantee the right to housing for all is to take housing off the market and end renting as a method of extracting rents on the backs of the working class. And this will not be done within the framework of the capitalist system.

Rebuilding class consciousness and fighting the far right

Over and above the need to organise tenants to improve their material conditions, organi-sations and structures like tenants’ unions can play a key role in rebuilding class consciousness, by articulating important sectors of working women in their complexity, with a feminist and anti-racist perspective, and by serving as a bastion against the far right.

It is important to emphasise, as has been stressed on other occasions, that there is no such thing as a tenant class. Tenants are a sector of the working class, whose class position is con-ditioned not only by the exploitation of labour, but also by the lack of control over their housing, just as is the case for people with mortgages or who live in squats. Contrary to those who speak of a generational issue, we see it as a confrontation between the working class and the interests of the rentiers, who constitute a central fraction of the bourgeoisie in the Spanish state.

The potential of the housing rights movement offers us the chance to build a union capable of countering the dynamic imposed by the market, by bringing together the most impoverished sectors and those who, although not subject to the greatest precariousness, suffer the exploi-tation of rentiers on a daily basis. Tenants’ unions now have an obligation to work - by ar-ticulating conflict and organisation through the experience of struggle - to build a mass movement capable of integrating the majority of people who rent their homes.

The rising cost of living, the eviction of neighbours from our neighbourhoods, the prolif-eration of tourist flats, the systematic degradation and commodification of public services, are also a consequence of the process of commodification of our neighbourhoods, directly linked to the rentier offensive. But this situation also offers opportunities to the housing movement and to all those on the revolutionary left who feel it necessary to form a political and social bloc that breaks with the policy of social dialogue. In the case of housing, it’s a question of widening our field of action to include the whole of the working class, in particular those who own and live in a house, and whose interests are closer to those of people who don’t have control over their housing, than to those of the 6% of the population who make a living from renting.
Facing the reactionaries

Moreover, the class conflict over housing is one of the spearheads of the far right through the squadrism of the desokupación companies [private companies which offer quick and effective solutions to evict illegal occupants], generating security responses to invented panics - you can go downstairs to buy your bread and find your home squatted - and as a tool for the reproduction of the immiserated middle classes, in the struggle of the second last against the last. While the far right seeks to fragment the working class on the basis of issues such as nationality or race, tenant unionism - in general - makes it possible to unite the working class as a whole in the struggle.

The best way to confront the reactionary positions of certain sectors of the middle classes is to unite the working classes with a political programme that proposes universal solutions to the housing problem, recognising the diversity of the working class and emphasising the need to put forward anti-racist and feminist principles.
A feminist struggle

In the field of housing, this is very visible because migrant sectors - which are often on the margins of political circuits - are organising alongside non-migrant sectors, sometimes in less precarious situations. By generating communities and collective struggle processes, the native white population ceases to consider migrants as an ‘other’ and sees them as part of the same subject. All this with a large number of women as the main protagonists.

This is no coincidence: the home is still the space that patriarchy and capitalism re-serve for women, who continue to perform most of the tasks necessary for social reproduction. For many of them, the home remains a place of responsibility and work, but also of personal fulfilment. Moreover, when they are evicted from their homes, they are not only evicted from the home, but also from a community. This is also why, when it comes to defending the home and all that it contains, it is women who are on the front line.

While men often occupy more space at tenants’ union meetings, every week more and more women are taking charge of their own dispute, leading and managing their own cases, adding this extra workload to caring tasks and working for a living. In a neo-liberal culture and economy that wants us to be alone and powerless, where everyone has to save themselves, it’s our neighbours who support and back each other up to go where the state won’t, while the system continues its attacks.

Resistance against evictions and the fight for decent housing for all place life at the centre and focus attention on social reproduction. We are challenging the rules of the market and property speculation, which put economic profit before human needs and the preservation of life; we are forging links with feminist struggles against the gentrification and destruction of working-class neighbourhoods; we are resisting the commodification of public space. The fight for housing must embody this feminist and militant trade unionism that confronts the neoliberal attack on the reproduction of life, by building alliances with domestic workers, sex workers, sexual and gender dissidents, migrant and racialised women, and all those who bear the full brunt of the crisis of social reproduction.

New challenges for tenant unionism

In conclusion, we think it is important to highlight the main challenges that tenants’ unions, and the movement as a whole, must face in the coming years if we are to be able to provide a comprehensive response to the housing problem. Firstly, we need to develop and refine the tool of the rent strike so that it is genuinely useful and enables us to achieve further victories and large-scale price reductions, while also being able to take advantage of moments of political irruption. In addition, we need to go beyond the existing tenant unions, betting on the development of new tenant organisations at territorial and national level and taking a further step to overcome the fragmentation between tenants and owner-occupiers on loan, and create a housing unionism capable of providing a global response.

First of all, it has to be said that the rent strike is already underway. Hundreds of Nestar tenants, organised with the Sindicato de Inquilinas de Madrid, have already stopped paying part of their rent to combat the abuses of this vulture fund; similarly, the tenants of La Caixa are leading a total rent strike, with the Sindicat de Llogateres de Catalunya, to recover the IBI [Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, the local property tax that affects every property], fraudulently levied. The organisation of blocs in struggle has made possible active strikes in Madrid and Catalonia, taking advantage of the collective component of these strikes and directly attacking the big vulture funds. This is a direct attack on real estate capital, and it has also led to victories such as the elimination of unfair terms, demonstrating the effectiveness of collective struggle.

The Madrid tenants’ union put forward the idea of a rent strike in the run-up to the demon-stration on 13 October, and this possibility made its way into the media, arousing the horror and indignation of the rentiers, but also the curiosity and enthusiasm of many tenants. The strike is useful as an element of agitation and as a horizon towards which to march, on the understanding that it must be the consequence of a process of bottom-up struggles, which creates the possibilities from concrete experiences of strikes, partial or total, in vertical building blocks, to gain conflict and legitimacy while extending the organisation and the slogan to each neighbourhood and improving our balance of power. The rent strike cannot be a symbolic proclamation: if it is declared, it is to be won.

But in addition to developing the rent strike, tenants’ unions must be able to take advantage of the present moment. As we have already mentioned, unions have been able to build stable, long-term organisations, thanks to structured plans, long-term bets and a clear methodology. However, at a time when the issue of housing is bursting onto the political and media scene, it is essential to have the audacity to take the initiative, because the current political situation demands rapid responses in order to take advantage of a moment of political momentum and mobilise the masses by going beyond day-to-day action.
Confronting capitalism

On the one hand, this makes it possible to challenge the state with programmatic slogans, such as the expropriation of empty, tourist and temporary housing, while at the same time raising the general level of awareness and appealing to the need to organise. Challenging the state is essential if we are to understand that rent is one of the structural elements in the construction of capitalism in the Spanish state, which, although it may manifest itself in different forms - seasonal rentals, touristification, empty dwellings and so on - responds to the same speculative dynamic of generalised price rises.

The fact that rent is a widespread problem raises the question of political power and the state, which ultimately has the political capacity to intervene and guide society as a whole. This is why it is important that, in addition to the formation and development of tenants’ unions in all territories, they should be able to articulate and coordinate amongst themselves, forming a confederal organisation, which improves our balance of power when confronting each of the institutions of the state, maintaining a totalising orientation towards governments as the main parties responsible for the housing situation.

But the aim should not just be to make an organisational leap at the territorial level, but to make the leap towards an integral housing unionism, which deals with all the problems - renting, squatting, substandard housing, mortgages - and which would be able to unite and give effective responses to the whole of the working class which does not have control over its housing.

At the moment, renting is a starting point for organising the conflict around the lack of control over housing. On the one hand, it is a numerically very important sector of the working class and, on the other, it is the one that suffers most from the problems of the commodification of housing. What’s more, the instability of the contracts, which allow abusive increases or evictions of families on a regular basis, with only a few years between them, leads to a dynamic and effective fight against the rentier system.

However, we need to appeal to the entire working class who do not have control over their housing, understanding that ultimately the central problem lies in its commodification. It is essential to develop a programme that addresses all these sectors in a universal way so as to avoid confrontation between indebted landlords, tenants and squatters, whose common interest is to ensure that housing is a universal good and not a commodity. It is therefore also a political step forward, uniting, through a concrete programme, the demands and needs of those whom the market and the state seek to divide. To make progress in building a political bloc of the working class which, through the experience of the housing conflict, breaks with the strategy of social dialogue and conceives of politics as an awareness of our own capacity to build a social, cultural and political alternative to capitalism.

In our view, this unity is only possible through a common struggle and a common experience that highlights the imperative need and urgency of articulating a political alternative that, on the common basis of an anti-capitalist response to the whole system of capitalist domination and exploitation, articulates in the field of housing an ecosocialist programmatic response as a springboard for direct confrontation against all the parties of the regime and the state, in their own institutions. There are already many examples where, in the absence of a political tool of our own from which to confront without concessions the parties of rent and property speculation, we are presented with the main alternative of delegation to those who, at best, assume a critical management of the capitalist crisis. But we are aware that one of the historic slogans of the housing movement, vivienda universal y de calidad, ‘universal and quality housing’, has no chance of becoming a reality under the boot of capitalism. This imposes on us all the task of advancing towards this goal by combining daily conquests with the construction of a social and political bloc that embraces this idea and is prepared to fight for it in all areas of the class struggle.

Attached documentsspanish-state-housing-old-problem-new-solutions_a8899.pdf (PDF - 935.5 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8899]

Footnotes


[1] Vertical property blocks refer to buildings where all the flats belong to a single owner or entity (such as an investment fund, a bank or a large landlord), unlike horizontal property, where each flat has a different owner.

Alex Francés  is a housing rights activists in the tenants’ union of Catalonia and a member of Anticapitalistas, the Spanish section of the IV International.

Blanca Martinez is a housing rights activists in the tenants’ unions of Madrid, and s member of Anticapitalistas, the Spanish section of the IV e International.



International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.




Student protests in Serbia: "The movement cannot afford to stop now"

Sunday 16 March 2025, by Vladimir Unkovski-Korica


On January 28, the ongoing mass protest movement in Serbia toppled the government, ushering in the biggest challenge to Aleksandar Vučić’s authoritarian rule, which has been in place for more than a decade

The timeline of events is now well known to readers of Western media. On November 1, the awning of the railway station in Novi Sad collapsed, killing 15 people. As the country is still recovering from a mass school shooting in May 2023, many people have entered into a state of shock and mourning following this latest disaster. But something changed on November 22, when the regime’s henchmen attacked a gathering of students and staff at the University of Belgrade’s Faculty of Drama in tribute to the victims of the Novi Sad collapse.

Towards a mass movement

In the following days, the blockade of faculties spread to other higher and technical education institutions. The students made several demands, including the request for the publication of all documents related to the reconstruction of the Novi Sad railway station, but also the dropping of charges against the arrested protesters, the prosecution of the low-ranking officials who physically attacked the protesters, and a 20 per cent reduction in tuition fees.

A month after the November 22 attack, the movement had gained momentum. Three-quarters of higher education institutions were occupied. In addition, the spirit of revolt took hold of primary and secondary school students and their teachers. Already in conflict with the state, teachers defied minimum service laws and their compromised union leaderships, going on indefinite strike in many cases.

The strikes also affected other sectors, unevenly: media workers, bus drivers, lawyers and even groups of miners expressed their support for the students’ demands. In addition, a campaign of civil disobedience spread throughout the country. Blocking roads and highways became the movement’s favourite tactic, joined by farmers.

On December 22, 100,000 people demonstrated in Belgrade in the largest mass demonstration since the fall of Slobodan Milošević in October 2000. If the government hoped that the movement would stop after the holiday season, it was wrong. The initiative “Stop, Serbia!” – a response to the ruling parliamentary group “Serbia must not stop!” – led to more than 231 local demonstrations.

The movement culminated on January 24 with what was called a "general strike," a day of strikes and protests that coincided with separate, but also massive, boycotts of retail chains not only in Serbia but also in neighbouring Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia, all of which became independent states from Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Government crisis

A few days later, during a 24-hour blockade of Belgrade’s busiest traffic intersection, regime supporters brutally beat a student in Novi Sad, escalating tensions. The government of Serbian Prime Minister Miloš Vučević resigned the next day, while President Vučić addressed the nation, announcing a pardon for the protesters and a government reshuffle, pending new elections.

Vučić said calls for transparency had been met by the release of thousands of pages of documents, a claim refuted by a study by the University of Belgrade’s Faculty of Civil Engineering. Vučić rejected opposition calls for a transitional government of experts to be set up pending new elections, illustrating the level of pressure he is under.

Rather than easing tensions, the government’s resignation and the nervousness of the regime’s strongman appear to have emboldened the student movement, which organized a massive march on the 80 kilometres from Belgrade to Novi Sad, where tens of thousands of protesters blocked the three bridges over the Danube on January 31.

But the initiative has generated deeper support. Residents of towns and villages along the march route took to the streets to greet the students and held barbecues in support. Taxi associations also pledged dozens of vehicles to help transport students to Belgrade after the Novi Sad demonstration.

Vučić, for his part, has been touring the country, greeting dwindling crowds, in which people, emboldened by the situation, have openly challenged him. Assailed, Vučić claims that the state is threatened from outside and from within. He says that any change of government would undermine the success of its economic model based on foreign direct investment (FDI). Serbia attracted a record €5 billion in FDI last year, making it a regional leader and one of the fastest-growing European economies since the Covid-19 pandemic.

Support from abroad

But who could possibly want to topple such a successful government? The major powers have rushed to support Vučić in recent weeks. The European Commission’s director-general for enlargement, Gert Jan Koopman, has said that the EU “will neither accept nor support a violent change of power in Serbia.” Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, has made similar statements.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s special presidential envoy for peace negotiations in Serbia and Kosovo between 2019 and 2021, Richard Grenell, noted that the United States does not support "those who undermine the rule of law or take control of government buildings by force", while Moscow denounced a "colour revolution" and Beijing highlighted Belgrade’s ability to preserve peace and stability.

All this reflects the relative success of Vučić’s balancing act in international politics. While courting Chinese investment by making Serbia China’s key partner in its 14+1 initiative to promote trade and investment relations between China and Central and Eastern European countries, Vučić has pledged Serbian lithium deposits to the Anglo-Australian multinational Rio Tinto to supply the European Union.

In recent years, the United Arab Emirates has also invested in Belgrade’s waterfront, while Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, is seeking to develop a luxury hotel project in Belgrade on the site of the former army headquarters, which was bombed by NATO in 1999 and has since served as an unofficial memorial site.

The major powers are scrambling to take a position in Serbia, but have no reason to hasten Vučić’s downfall. However, they have no permanent allies in the country, only interests, and they will continue to defend them whether Vučić remains in power or not. Given the scale of the geopolitical turmoil around the Black Sea – with Russia’s war with Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Lebanon, Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria – threatening to worsen regional instability, a chaotic change of government in Serbia would not benefit anyone.

Opposition at home

However, the Serbian population is in revolt. To understand this, it must be emphasized that, despite strong growth in Serbian GDP, close to 4 per cent last year, the standard of living is deteriorating. The country ranks 34th out of 41 European countries in a ranking established by the World Population Review in April 2024.

While average wages have increased significantly in recent years, the cost of living has also increased, driven by demand-side inflation, energy inflation, and monopolies. Food inflation has caused the price of basic necessities to nearly double since 2021. Regional wage disparities are widening, and a high unemployment rate of over 8 per cent persists. It is no coincidence that Serbia lost 7 per cent of its population between 2011 and 2022, reflecting a mass exodus abroad.These statistics are not enough to explain why the Serbian people are in revolt. In fact, all the investment projects mentioned above, linked to China, Rio Tinto, the EU, the UAE and the US, have faced massive opposition in one form or another, due to their destructive impact on social fabrics, environmental conditions, urban dynamics and regional balances.

Since 2014, the growing anger of Serbs has given rise to major waves of protests, but this anger has hardly been expressed politically. Unfortunately, the Serbian political opposition remains dominated by a variety of liberal or conservative nationalist forces that offer little in the way of a transformative agenda. It is no coincidence that Vučić’s party continues to outpace all opposition groups in the polls, or that its tried and tested method of overcoming popular discontent is to return to the ballot box.

Its power is more solid there than on the streets, where popular sentiment is not contained within the narrow channels of representative democracy. The ruling party’s domination of public sector jobs, the media, the judiciary, the electoral process and, ultimately, the repressive apparatus of the state means that the stability of the regime is ensured by the use of elections, while the public sphere is the preferred terrain of protest.

And now?

The student movement, the spearhead of the popular movement in recent months, has shown a remarkable ability to overcome the regime’s manoeuvres. Its determination to maintain its demands has already defeated several government attempts to calm the protest movement with carrots and sticks.

But the time will soon come when the question of political power will be posed. The country is increasingly ungovernable, and Vučić has shown that he understands that his position is under threat, raising the possibility of a referendum on his mandate, or new elections. The movement cannot afford to stop now. It must get rid of Vučić and fight for power.

To achieve this, the movement must claim independence from existing political forces. Without an alternative vision of society, this will prove difficult. Some sectors of the movement have already begun to accept the opposition’s call for a government of experts, pending new elections. However, such an eventuality would leave many entrenched interests intact and would not challenge class inequalities in Serbia, not to mention the deep tentacles of the great powers in Serbian politics.

As Vincent Bevins has shown in his book If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution, mass movements dominated the decade 2010-2020, but their aspirations were rarely fulfilled, worldwide. One of the main reasons is the weakness of the left and its strategic vision within the movements themselves. Serbia is no exception, and its left is weak and atomized.

But the mass movement in Serbia has achieved gains that are worth defending in the coming weeks, months, and years. Through their popular decision-making methods built in the heat of the struggle, such as plenums and general assemblies, students have laid the foundations for the future democratization of academic institutions. Striking workers also increasingly see the need to democratize trade unions, replace compromised officials with more combative elements, and build grassroots activist networks that can act independently of their leaders.

Moreover, the popularity of the demand for a general strike and the fighting spirit of some sectors of the working class, not seen since the fall of Slobodan Milošević’s regime, represent a leap in popular consciousness. The willingness to carry out actions in workplaces with political objectives, complementing and strengthening forms of mass civil disobedience, suggests that a rudimentary but real class consciousness is taking shape.

As Serbia enters a period of longer political instability, reflecting greater international uncertainty, the country’s left has an unprecedented opportunity to root itself more deeply in the working class and fight for a more democratic and just society. By connecting the most progressive demands of previous waves of protest – for democratic freedoms, environmental protection, and the common good – to the current collective cry for justice, the left can show that the problem is much broader than corruption and build organizations and institutions capable of delivering real change.

February 4, 2025


Attached documentsstudent-protests-in-serbia-the-movement-cannot-afford-to_a8901.pdf (PDF - 899.2 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8901]


Vladimir Unkovski-Korica is a member of Marks21 in Serbia. He is a historian and researcher who is currently Lecturer in Central and East European Studies at the University of Glasgow. His upcoming book entitled “The Economic Struggle for Power in Tito’s Yugoslavia: From World War II to Non-Alignment” will be released soon.



International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.
Kurdistan: ‘Turkey must choose between the status quo, endless war and peace with the Kurds’.

Monday 17 March 2025, by Salih Azad


Following the appeal by Abudllah Öcalan, leader of the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), for his movement to lay down its arms, what are the prospects for the Kurdish people? L’Anticapitaliste spoke with Salih Azad, head of the Kurdish Democratic Centre in Marseille.


Can you shed some light on Öcalan’s call? Will the PKK dissolve itself?

Discreet talks have been going on for some time and have taken a positive turn. The PKK was founded in the 1970s against a backdrop of the Cold War in which armed struggle was the only possible option. This struggle led to recognition of the existence of the Kurdish people and, above all, of their fight for their legitimate rights. In 2025, conditions are different. The PKK as it existed has ‘had its day’ and a new chapter may be opening today. If the Turkish state is prepared to listen to Öcalan’s appeal, if the Kurdish question is no longer seen as a question of terrorism, a peaceful and democratic solution may be possible.

Twice in 25 years, most recently in 2009, Öcalan has made attempts in this direction, both of which failed. Turkey (a nation-state of Turks alone) is the consequence of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after 1918, to the sole benefit of the British and French imperialists. This model is no longer viable. Given the situation in the Middle East, Turkey is at a crossroads and can no longer pursue the policy it has pursued to date.

Turkey must choose between the status quo, endless war and peace with the Kurds. This will not be easy. This war has claimed more than 10,000 victims on both sides; 5,000 villages have been razed to the ground; deportations and torture have gone on for forty years.

Can we trust Erdoğan?

Turkey has no other choice. The Turks, but the Kurds too, aspire to live in peace.

Does Öcalan’s appeal also concern Kurdish organisations in Syria, Iraq or Iran?

For the moment, no. It is up to the Kurds in these regions to decide freely on their strategy.

If this process succeeds, what will be the effects on the region?

The effects could be very significant. We may be on the brink of a historic moment. But let’s not forget that ISIS is still a mortal danger for the region, especially after Ahmed al-Sharaa, who came to power in Syria through al-Qaeda and ISIS, and is still supported by Erdoğan.

Thousands of jihadist prisoners of all nationalities were being held in camps in Syria and are about to be released. Their children, indoctrinated in the ideology of ISIS for years could be a real danger.

What will happen to the Rojava ‘model’ in this context?

Rojava will continue to uphold its multinational, multi-faith and democratic ‘model’, especially if Turkey’s ‘anti-terrorist’ war comes to an end. If this peace process succeeds, if the ‘terrorist’ label disappears, the whole Kurdish question will take on a different character and will finally be able to be extended. This could be the first step towards the community of free peoples to which we have long aspired. Not a ‘Kurdish state’, but a free, secular, democratic state for all the peoples living in this land: Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Persians and so on.

All in all, are you rather optimistic?

Yes, I admit that I am optimistic. As I said, Turkey has no other solution. And this issue will eventually affect other states in the region, like Iran perhaps. That’s my hope for the whole of the Middle East.

L’Anticapitaliste 7 March 2025


Attached documentskurdistan-turkey-must-choose-between-the-status-quo-endless_a8903.pdf (PDF - 899.9 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8903]


Salih Azad
Salih Azad is head of the Kurdish Democratic Centre in Marseille.


International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.

AU CONTRAIRE


Ukraine Timeline Tells the Tale


THE RUSSIAN FAIRYTALE



May 18, 2015: Remains of an Eastern Orthodox church after shelling by the Ukrainian Army near Donetsk International Airport. Eastern Ukraine. (Mstyslav Chernov. CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

Special to Consortium News and published there on February 25, 2025

The way to prevent the Ukraine war from being understood is to suppress its history.

A cartoon version has the conflict beginning on Feb. 24, 2022 when Vladimir Putin woke up that morning and decided to invade Ukraine.

There was no other cause, according to this version, other than unprovoked, Russian aggression against an innocent country.

Please use this short, historical guide to share with people who still flip through the funny pages trying to figure out what’s going on in Ukraine.

The mainstream account is like opening a novel in the middle of the book to read a random chapter as though it’s the beginning of the story.

Thirty years from now historians will write about the context of the Ukraine war: the coup, the attack on Donbass, NATO expansion, rejection of the Minsk Accords and Russian treaty proposals — without being called Putin puppets.

It will be the same way historians write of the Versailles Treaty as a cause of Nazism and WWII, without being called Nazi-sympathizers.

Providing context is taboo while the war continues in Ukraine, as it would have been during WWII. Context is paramount in journalism.

But journalists have to get with the program of war propaganda while a war goes on. Journalists are clearly not afforded these same liberties as historians. Long after the war, historians are free to sift through the facts.

The Ukraine Timeline

World War II— Ukrainian national fascists, led by Stepan Bandera, at first allied with the German Nazis, massacre more than a hundred thousands Jews and Poles.

1950s to 1990 – C.I.A. brought Ukrainian fascists to the U.S. and worked with them to undermine the Soviet Union in Ukraine, running sabotage and propaganda operations. Ukrainian fascist leader Mykola Lebed was taken to New York where he worked with the C.I.A. through at least the 1960s and was still useful to the C.I.A. until 1991, the year of Ukraine’s independence. The evidence is in a U.S. government report starting from page 82. Ukraine has thus been a staging ground for the U.S. to weaken and threaten Moscow for nearly 80 years.

November 1990: A year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe (also known as the Paris Charter) is adopted by the U.S., Europe and the Soviet Union. The charter is based on the Helsinki Accords and is updated in the 1999 Charter for European Security. These documents are the foundation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The OSCE charter says no country or bloc can preserve its own security at another country’s expense.

Dec. 25, 1991: Soviet Union collapses. Wall Street and Washington carpetbaggers move in during the ensuing decade to asset-strip the country of formerly state-owned properties, enrich themselves, help give rise to oligarchs, and impoverish the Russian, Ukrainian and other former Soviet peoples.

1990s: U.S. reneges on promise to last Soviet leader Gorbachev not to expand NATO to Eastern Europe in exchange for a unified Germany. George Kennan, the leading U.S. government expert on the U.S.S.R., opposes expansion. Sen. Joe Biden, who supports NATO enlargement, predicts Russia will react hostilely to it.

1997: Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. national security adviser, in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, writes:

“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.”

New Year’s Eve 1999: After eight years of U.S. and Wall Street dominance, Vladimir Putin becomes president of Russia. Bill Clinton rebuffs him in 2000 when he asks to join NATO.

Putin begins closing the door on Western interlopers, restoring Russian sovereignty, ultimately angering Washington and Wall Street. This process does not occur in Ukraine, which remains subject to Western exploitation and impoverishment of Ukrainian people.

Feb. 10, 2007: Putin gives his Munich Security Conference speech in which he condemns U.S. aggressive unilateralism, including its illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq and its NATO expansion eastward.

He said: “We have the right to ask: against whom is this [NATO] expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.”


Putin speaks three years after the Baltic States, former Soviet republics bordering on Russia, joined the Western Alliance. The West humiliates Putin and Russia by ignoring its legitimate concerns. A year after his speech, NATO says Ukraine and Georgia will become members. Four other former Warsaw Pact states join in 2009.

2004-5: Orange Revolution. Election results are overturned giving the presidency in a run-off to U.S.-aligned Viktor Yuschenko over Viktor Yanukovich. Yuschenko makes fascist leader Bandera a “hero of Ukraine.”

April 3, 2008: At a NATO conference in Bucharest, a summit declaration “welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO”. Russia harshly objects. William Burns, then U.S. ambassador to Russia, and presently C.I.A. director, warns in a cable to Washington, revealed by WikiLeaks, that,

“Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains ‘an emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. … Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat.”

A crisis in Georgia erupts four months later leading to a brief war with Russia, which the European Union blames on provocation from Georgia.

November 2009: Russia seeks new security arrangement in Europe. Moscow releases a draft of a proposal for a new European security architecture that the Kremlin says should replace outdated institutions such as NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

The text, posted on the Kremlin’s website on Nov. 29, comes more than a year after President Dmitry Medvedev first formally raised the issue. Speaking in Berlin in June 2008, Medvedev said the new pact was necessary to finally update Cold War-era arrangements.

“I’m convinced that Europe’s problems won’t be solved until its unity is established, an organic wholeness of all its integral parts, including Russia,” Medvedev said.

2010: Viktor Yanukovich is elected president of Ukraine in a free and fair election, according to the OSCE.

2013: Yanukovich chooses an economic package from Russia rather than an association agreement with the EU. This threatens Western exploiters in Ukraine and Ukrainian comprador political leaders and oligarchs.

February 2014: Yanukovich is overthrown in a violent, U.S.-backed coup (presaged by the Nuland-Pyatt intercept), with Ukrainian fascist groups, like Right Sector, playing a lead role. Ukrainian fascists parade through cities in torch-lit parades with portraits of Bandera.


Protesters clash with police in Kiev, Ukraine, February 2014. (Wikimedia Commons)

March 16, 2014: In a rejection of the coup and the unconstitutional installation of an anti-Russian government in Kiev, Crimeans vote by 97 percent to join Russia in a referendum with 89 percent turnout. The Wagner private military organization is created to support Crimea. Virtually no shots are fired, and no one was killed in what Western media wrongly portrays as a “Russian invasion of Crimea.”

April 12, 2014: The Coup government in Kiev launches war against anti-coup, pro-democracy separatists in Donbass. Openly neo-Nazi Azov Battalion plays a key role in the fighting for Kiev. Wagner forces arrive to support Donbass militias. U.S. again exaggerates this as a Russian “invasion” of Ukraine. “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,” says U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who voted as a senator in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 on a completely trumped up pre-text.

May 2, 2014: Dozens of ethnic Russian protestors are burnt alive in a building in Odessa by neo-Nazi thugs. Eight days later, Luhansk and Donetsk declare independence and vote to leave Ukraine.

Sept. 5, 2014: First Minsk agreement is signed in Minsk, Belarus by Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, and the leaders of the breakaway Donbass republics, with mediation by Germany and France in a Normandy Format. It fails to resolve the conflict.

Feb. 12, 2015: Minsk II is signed in Belarus, which would end the fighting and grant the republics autonomy while they remain part of Ukraine. The accord was unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 15. In December 2022 former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admits West never had intention of pushing for Minsk implementation and essentially used it as a ruse to give time for NATO to arm and train the Ukraine armed forces.

2016: The hoax known as Russiagate grips the Democratic Party and its allied media in the United States, in which it is falsely alleged that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to get Donald Trump elected. The phony scandal serves to further demonize Russia in the U.S. and raise tensions between the nuclear-armed powers, conditioning the public for war against Russia.

May 12, 2016: The US activates missile system in Romania, angering Russia. U.S. claims it is purely defensive, but Moscow says the system could also be used offensively and would cut the time to deliver a strike on the Russian capital to within 10 to 12 minutes.

June 6, 2016: Symbolically on the anniversary of the Normandy invasion, NATO launches aggressive exercises against Russia. It begins war games with 31,000 troops near Russia’s borders, the largest exercise in Eastern Europe since the Cold War ended. For the first time in 75 years, German troops retrace the steps of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union across Poland.

German Foreign Minister Frank Walter-Steinmeier objects. “What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering,” Steinmeier stunningly tells Bild am Sontag newspaper. “Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken.”

Instead, Steinmeier calls for dialogue with Moscow. “We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation,” he warns, adding it would be “fatal to search only for military solutions and a policy of deterrence.”

December 2021: Russia offers draft treaty proposals to the United States and NATO proposing a new security architecture in Europe, reviving the failed Russian attempt to do so in 2009. The treaties propose the removal of the Romanian missile system and the withdrawal of NATO troop deployments from Eastern Europe. Russia says there will be a “technical-military” response if there are not serious negotiations on the treaties. The U.S. and NATO essentially reject them out of hand.

February 2022: Russia begins its military intervention into Donbass in the still ongoing Ukrainian civil war after first recognizing the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk.

Before the intervention, OSCE maps show a significant uptick of shelling from Ukraine into the separatist republics, where more than 10,000 people have been killed since 2014.


Ukrainian troops in the Donbass region, March 2015. (OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

March-April 2022: Russia and Ukraine agree on a framework agreement that would end the war, including Ukraine pledging not to join NATO. The U.S. and U.K. object. Prime Minister Boris Johnson flies to Kiev to tell Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to stop negotiating with Russia. The war continues with Russia seizing much of the Donbass.

March 26, 2022: Biden admits in a speech in Warsaw that the U.S. is seeking through its proxy war against Russia to overthrow the Putin government. Earlier in March he overruled his secretary of state on establishing a no-fly zone against Russian aircraft in Ukraine. Biden opposed the no-fly zone, he said at the time, because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

September 2022: Donbass republics vote to join the Russian Federation, as well as two other regions: Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

May 2023: Ukraine begins a counter-offensive to try to take back territory controlled by Russia. As seen in leaked documents earlier in the year, U.S. intelligence concludes the offensive will fail before it begins.

June 2023: A 36-hour rebellion by the Wagner group fails, when its leader Yevegny Prigoshzin takes a deal to go into exile in Belarus. The Wagner private army, which was funded and armed by the Russian Ministry of Defense, is absorbed into the Russian army. The Ukrainian offensive ends in failure at the end of November.

September 2024: Biden deferred to the realists in the Pentagon to oppose long-range British Storm Shadow missiles from being fired by Ukraine deep into Russia out of fear it would also lead to a direct NATO-Russia military confrontation with all that that entails.

Putin warned at the time that because British soldiers on the ground in Ukraine would actually launch the British missiles into Russia with U.S. geostrategic support, it “will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”

November 2024: After he was driven from the race and his party lost the White House, a lame duck Biden suddenly switched gears, allowing not only British, but also U.S. long-range ATACMS missiles to be fired into Russia. It’s not clear that the White House ever informed the Pentagon in advance of a move that risked the very World War III that Biden had previously sought to avoid.

February 2025: The first direct contact between senior leadership of the United States and Russia in more than three years takes place, with a phone call between the countries’ presidents and a meeting of foreign ministers in Saudi Arabia. They agree to begin negotiations to end the war.

*****

This timeline clearly shows an aggressive Western intent towards Russia, and how the tragedy could have been avoided if NATO would not allow Ukraine to join; if the Minsk accords had been implemented; and if the U.S. and NATO negotiated a new security arrangement in Europe, taking Russian security concerns into account.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for the Wall Street JournalBoston Globe, and numerous other newspapers, including the Montreal Gazette and the Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for the New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe. Read other articles by Joe.


Scrooged 2025




In Charles Dicken’s classic novel Scrooge, later made into the great film A Christmas Carol, we see Ebenezer Scrooge being paid a visit at his office on Christmas Eve. The men visiting him are looking for donations to help the poor and destitute:

“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the [one of the gentlemen], taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

“You wish to be anonymous?”

“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

Look around you folks, at what this Trump 2.0 with help by Elon Musk is doing to our nation and the working stiffs who make up 99+ % of us. This is the great upheaval for Capitalism on Steroids! Just the plan to cut Medicaid funding is enough to scurry us all to the poorhouse. How many MAGA  supporters of Trump and Musk will be affected by these cuts? All those working stiff and retired working stiff seniors will one day need to enter a nursing home or assisted living, and the money is not there to aid them… while Trump’s billionaire and mega millionaire friends and supporters get more tax breaks… it would be too late by then.

When our drinking water becomes even more leaded and putrid by industrial wastes and poisons, there will no EPA to soothe us. When schools are forbidden to teach about the evils of American slavery, replaced in the curriculum by teaching about The Gulf of America… we are done for. When the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is replaced by The Center for Freedom and Liberty, better put on those N-95 masks folks. When the Trump-Musk tariffs see massive boycotts on American exports by various nations worldwide, who will finally stop this financial bleeding of working stiffs and poor?

As with Scrooge isn’t it funny how the Super Rich, who never had to worry about enough money for housing or food and medicine, love to speak down to us all? The ‘ arrogance of indigence’ becomes deafening. Watch the great Norman Jewison 1975 film Rollerball  and see what can happen when Corporations control us… completely! In the 1976 Sidney Lumet classic film Network the big cheese, Jensen of the media giant, tells it straight to Howard Beale, the radical newscaster: “There is no America, there is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT, AT&T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today!”

Wouldn’t it be great if next Christmas ( or much sooner) those Ghosts of Christmas come to visit Trump and Musk as they sleep? Hope springs eternal.

Philip A Farruggio is regular columnist on itstheempirestupid website. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 500 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the It’s the Empire… Stupid radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at paf1222@bellsouth.netRead other articles by Philip.