MIM Notes 186 May 15 1999 NATO wakes up Russian people NATO is waking up the Russian and other former Soviet peoples. The bombing goes to show that it is never the agitation of the communists that causes the people to move. The ruling class itself can't help but politicize the people. The communists only provide strategic leadership, ideological clarity and a plan that requires the energy of the oppressed and exploited to carry out. At a recent MIM talk (see page one story) on the NATO bombing of Kosovo, a reporter from a Boston University student newspaper came and challenged the speaker by saying that it is not the "majority of the Russian people" opposing the bombing, just Zhironovsky. MIM pointed out that the Russian Duma had just voted to send weapons to the Serbs, because the pseudo-communists who want an immediate restoration of the Soviet Union voted for it. The reporter said that Russia was too dependent on Western money--to which we replied that kind of thinking is too chancy to be good for global peace. As if to prove MIM right, the next day President Boris Yeltsin asked the United $tates not to make him get involved in the Balkans. "'I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don't push us towards military action. Otherwise, there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war,' Yeltsin said in a meeting with regional leaders."(1) At the same time, the Russians put on a realpolitik display of muscle-flexing that would also help to clarify the situation. "The speaker of the Russian Duma, communist Gennady Seleznyov, quoted Yeltsin earlier Friday [April 9--ed.] as saying he had ordered nuclear missiles to be targeted toward NATO members involved in the bombing of Yugoslavia, and backed a political union of Russia, Belarus and Yugoslavia."(1) Yeltsin later denied the point about bombing, but the diplomatic point was made. On April 11, the Hungarians stopped a 73 truck convoy the Russians said was humanitarian aid for Serbia. Hungary joined NATO (the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization) two weeks before the bombing. Since Russia does not border Hungary, and the Soviet bloc does not exist anymore, the trucks could not get to Serbia. NATO said the trucks had fuel that could be used by the Serb war machine. Hence, NATO was tacitly admitting that Russia was already conducting small acts of war against it. Next on April 12th, the New York Times admitted on page one that "in a nationwide survey of 1,600 Russians, the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Studies concluded that only 39 percent of respondents felt positive about the United States in March, compared with 67 percent just three months earlier. The share of Russians who said their view of America was 'mainly bad' or 'very bad' more than doubled, from 23 percent to 49 percent."(2) "'Russians felt that we ended the cold war and started to behave nicely by dissolving the Warsaw Pact, withdrawing troops, cutting arms,' . . . 'And thus the very maintenance of NATO was seen as strange. But the enlargement of NATO, with NATO absorbing former Soviet clients -- that was interpreted as a symbol of Western mistrust toward Russia, and some even said hostile intentions.'"(2) NATO formed after World War by the European and U.$. imperialists needing to form a bloc against the Stalin-led Soviet Union and its allies. We agree with Russian sentiment that NATO never should have formed, and that it's continuous existence after the Cold War proves U.$. intentions are bad. Stalin told his colleagues in the Soviet government after World War II that the imperialists would attack again soon and fall of its own accord for good. As it turns out Stalin died in 1953 and the Soviet Union itself became capitalist and imperialist. Now it is 1999 and the proletariat is starting to realize it should have finished the job Lenin and Stalin started. It is a difficult job, so difficult the masses of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union paused for a rest and started to disbelieve the proletarian leaders. Notes: 1.http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/10/kosovo.russia.diplomacy. 01/ 2. New York Times 12 April 1999, pp. 1, a11.