[WSMDiscuss] Invasion of Ukraine: War Completes 250 Days Today: Divisions on the Left

Sukla Sen sukla.sen at gmail.com
Mon Oct 31 11:48:51 CET 2022

During the initial months, the US was too parsimonious, too cautious in
providing military hardware to Ukraine.
Based mainly on two considerations. One, Putin's repeated nuclear threats
since Feb 24 made it tread cautiously -- in fact, too cautiously, as it
appears now. Two, it had also feared that cutting-edge armaments if given
to the Ukrainian armed forces would soon add to the arsenals of the
invading and advancing  Russians.

Not for nothing, almost immediately after the launch of the invasion, the
US had offered Zelensky a safe flight out of Ukraine -- presumably to
enable him to lead a government-in-exile. In the event, Zelensky instantly
turned it down (ref.: <
https://twitter.com/UkrEmbLondon/status/1497506134692970499>). Right at
that moment he looked very much a valiant tragic hero -- destined to meet
his fate, rather sooner than later. In the coming weeks, things, however,
would turn out to be way different. And Zelensky's heroic gesture must have
made a very big difference.
The "spirit" of the fighting forces is something pretty much intangible.
But, in the subject case, that appears to be the paramount factor -- given
the vast asymmetry between the two forces in terms of all measurable

In any case, with time, it started getting clearer and clearer that Putin
had/has no plan, at least till now, to enact his (repeated) nuclear threats
(ref.: <
Let alone fighting in the so-called four "annexed" regions, even attacks
deep within Crimea have elicited only much intensified conventional
long-range attacks on crucial cities and power and water infrastructures
far from the battlefields, but no nuclear response. Moreover, a large-scale
conscription drive is just incompatible with a plan for any nuclear strike
-- whether strategic or even tactical.
The Ukrainian armed forces would also soon enough prove their worth well
beyond the pale of any reasonable doubt.
The "Special Military Operation", which, to begin with, was expected to be
over in weeks if not days (ref.: <
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240> and <
https://thefrontierpost.com/the-new-world-order/>), is today completing 250
days -- to the great amazement of friends and foes alike.

There's always a time lag between a decision to provide certain arms to the
Ukrainians and those arms actually becoming an effective part of their
With the flow of arms, finally, picking up -- in terms of both number and
quality, the defenders have now started pushing the invaders back.
The table is turning--even if only slowly--and Zelensky -- regardless of
all the relentless hits -- is now talking of the necessity to make Putin
lose: <

<<The war in Ukraine has been fought primarily through the air, with
artillery, rockets, missiles and drones. And for months, Russia had the
upper hand, able to lob munitions at Ukrainian cities, towns and military
targets from positions well beyond the reach of Ukrainian weapons.

But in recent months, the tide has turned along the front lines in southern
Ukraine. With powerful Western weapons and deadly homemade drones, Ukraine
now has artillery superiority in the area, commanders and military analysts

Ukraine now has an edge in range and in precision-guided rockets and
artillery shells, a class of weapons largely lacking in Russia’s arsenal.
Ukrainian soldiers are taking out armored vehicles worth millions of
dollars with cheap homemade drones, as well as with more advanced drones
and other weapons provided by the United States and allies.>>

(Excerpted from:


*Ukraine: Divisions Among The Left*

*Achin Vanaik*

It was never expected that the response to the war on Ukraine of the Left
internationally, would be so divided. Broadly there have been four
positions held by those who consider themselves to be anti-capitalist
socialists of one kind or the other. The arguments, rationalisations and
justifications provided by the first three of these groups do, in some
degree or the other, overlap.

The first group (which is certainly the smallest of the four categories)
includes those who fully support the Russian invasion as well as those who
while not going gung-ho in supporting the invasion will neither call it an
invasion nor condemn it in even the mildest of language. The Communist
Party of the Russian Federation fully supports the action which it
describes only as a "special military operation". The Communist Party of
India (Marxist) or CPM calls the war "unfortunate"  and insists that
US/NATO expansionism is the real cause forcing Russia to behave as it did.
The older and smaller Communist Party of India (CPI) says much the same
without using the word "unfortunate" even, and makes a meaningless general
call for peace in the region. That is to say, neither of these parties make
even a cursory criticism of the Russian action and put not just primary but
sole blame on the US/NATO. Whatever the leaders and ideologues of these two
parties in India may think privately, in public they do not even declare
that Russia (and China) are now capitalist countries let alone that they
are imperialist. In fact, a principal ideologue of the CPM, Vijay Prashad
who has written a number of good books on the Middle East and on the Indian
diaspora in the US, says that the only imperialist country in the world is
the US. So France and the UK, despite their behaviour in Africa, the Middle
East or elsewhere are no longer to be seen as imperialist powers despite
their past. While lower order powers making military-political incursions
abroad whether they be Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel, etc.
are also absolved of any charge of being weaker imperialist countries or
even sub-imperialisms. It is not just that the US is the biggest
imperialist power with the ugliest historical record which it is; but that
it is uniquely imperialist!. However, this claim cannot be used to deny the
ugly and unjustified behaviour of either China or Russia or even the former
USSR. Loyalty to the CPM/CPI, however, has generally triumphed to the point
of its acolytes and leaders repeatedly defending the indefensible whether
it is the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 or of Czechoslovakia in 1968
or post-Soviet Russia in Chechnya and Ukraine.

Second Group: Two Variants

The second group do condemn the Russian invasion in milder or stronger
forms. But they generally avoid reference to Ukraine's 'right to
self-determination' since if one were to endorse this clearly and
unequivocally or even half-heartedly, then what follows as a matter of
logic is endorsing the right to resist of the Ukraine people, whatever be
the nature of their current government, to fight as they see fit to regain
their freedom and sovereignty. However, the central preoccupation of this
group of leftists is to focus on the iniquities of the US and NATO. The
latter's expansionist drive is not seen as the sole reason for the invasion
but it is seen as the main reason. This is the dominant prism used for
understanding the why of the invasion and what the response of the Left and
progressives should be to this development. Depending on whether one sees
Russia as itself an imperialist country or not, there will be variation in
the degree of culpability to be attached to Russia. a) Those reluctant to
identify Russia as an imperialist power (even if of much lesser weight than
the US) can then talk of its 'misadventures' or its 'imperial' behaviour
but above all emphasize its 'reactive' character mistaken though this is or
might be. They will highlight the iniquities of the Ukrainian government,
its rightwing and even its supposedly far-right or Nazi character which can
then serve as a kind of excuse for Russia's assault. b) Then there are
those who say very clearly that Russia (and China) are imperialist powers
though weaker than the US. Hence there is an inter-imperialist dimension to
the Ukraine issue and a corresponding geopolitics that must be unravelled.
That there is a geopolitical dimension that has to addressed is obvious
since the impact and implications of the Russian invasion are not confined
to Ukraine and yes, these inter-imperialist rivalries have also been
playing out within Ukraine's own internal politics.

The crucial question is how much weight to give to this inter-imperialist
dimension as a causal or explanatory factor behind Russia's decision to
invade. Those subscribing to approach a) given above will give much more
weight to the geo-political dimension (they are reluctant to call Russia
imperialist) and will in their arguments provide at least implicit
rationalisations, even justifications, that will greatly soften their
explicit words of formal condemnation. Supplementary arguments will be used
to buttress their case. There will be talk of Kiev's repression in the
Donbas region where pro-Russia separatist forces are presumably wanting to
exercise their choice of political self-determination. This argument then
becomes a cover of sorts for Russian intervention in the past (the 2014
takeover of Crimea) and the 'understandable' desire of Moscow today to
'counter' this drive against the more culturally Russified eastern part of
the Ukraine. Focussing more attention in one's arguments on the 'Nazi'
character of the government and the ruling classes for example, becomes a
way of  diverting attention away from the fact that it is the huge mass of
ordinary working people in Ukraine who are angry, who are suffering deaths,
injuries and devastations from the military assault and who are fighting
back in whatever way they can. To pretend or even imply that the broad
masses are dupes of their authoritarian rulers is shameful. One can
certainly criticise the far-right forces and ruling government in Ukraine
but there are liberals, socialists, Marxists, feminists who are very much
part of the forces resisting the Russian forces. This is rarely if ever
mentioned; nor is it pointed out that Ukraine's quite flawed democratic
polity is less flawed than that of Putin's Russia. Instead, most efforts
are made to promote the view that since the 2014 Maidan protests
(supposedly engineered by Washington) the Kiev regime is basically a puppet
or near-puppet regime of the US led West.

Those subscribing to approach b) will usually say a lot more about
Ukraine's sovereignty being violated. They will make more noises about the
suffering of the Ukrainian people and that they are resisting. They will
generally be more critical of both the domestic and external behaviour of
Putin and the Russian ruling classes---after all, Russia is an ambitious
imperialist power. Its recent record from 1990 onwards can be brought in to
defend the argument that they too are an imperialist power though not one
able to match the US. So Russia's military-political interventions into
Afghanistan, Georgia, Moldova, Abkhazia, Tajikistan, Nagorno-Karabakh,
Kazakhstan, Chechnya, Armenia and Azerbaijan and its own establishment of a
pact of countries over which it can exercise some degree of control and
influence, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) are much more
likely to be pointed out. But since this lot of leftists also claim that
the primary factor in causing this war is inter-imperialist rivalries, this
section of the Left will also greatly underplay the more fundamental reason
for why the Russian government carried out this invasion. Ironically, this
is not something that Putin and the key decision-makers and supporters
around him have ever been shy of publicly voicing---that the very formation
of a post-Soviet Ukraine as an independent country is unacceptable and
that, in part or preferably whole, it should cease to exist and be part of
a Greater Russia and subordinate to the dictates from Moscow. That Putin
declared as much to the Russian people just before invading is either
ignored or only very briefly mentioned in the most cursory way. No, it is
US/NATO expansionism that is the main culprit alongside the geopolitical
ambitions of Russia beyond the specific concern with Ukraine that must be
understood to make proper sense of what has happened.

In both the cases of a) and b) it is essentially assumed that Putin is so
naive that he would not recognise that his attack on Ukraine (the country
had not even reached the stage of getting a NATO Membership Plan), far from
weakening this western expansionism, would solidify and spur it forward
towards greater hostility and efforts to militarily encroach nearer
Russia's borders. It should occasion no surprise that Finland and Sweden
have now decided to become members of NATO thus providing newer border
outposts against Russia. It is also revealing that Putin has dismissed
these developments as of little worry or consequence indicating that for
him, capturing as much as he can of Ukraine and dismembering it is a much
greater priority than concern about US/NATO expansionism. Both a) and b)
use the language of this being a 'proxy war' between Russia and the US-led
West. What an extraordinary claim! The term 'proxy war 'is used in cases
where within some country there is an internal conflict between two major
forces, something like a civil war situation where two major external
forces or blocs are militarily-politically respectively supporting opposing
sides. The 'external' aspect is then to be seen as the major arena of
contestation rather than the internal conflict itself. The geopolitical
dimension is given a higher political status and concern than the national
dimension. Is it any wonder then that upholders of this approach go on and
on about the global impact of the war in Ukraine, of how global food
supplies are being affected and how a new Cold War is emerging and how this
new and growing tension is making things globally worse and dangerous. All
true of course. But this then should lead to a more severe and forthright
condemnation of the culprit Russia which has caused it and should reinforce
support from the international Left for Ukrainian resistance. Moreover, to
call this basically a 'proxy war' is absurd. It is an actual war launched
by one side, Russia against another capitalist country which is not itself
an imperialist country or a weaker imperialist power or even a
sub-imperialist one. The use of the term 'proxy war' disguises what is the
central characteristic---that for Ukraine this is a war of national
liberation against a foreign power out to crush and subordinate it and that
Ukraine therefore deserves the support of the international left which must
always be both unconditional in defending its right to self-determination
and yet always prepared to be critical and even opposed to the ways its
government and other forces may go about conducting this struggle.

As for the possible advocacy and exercise of the right to
self-determination in Donbas and Crimea, this cannot ever be justifiably
done under the military jackboot of a foreign occupier. The military
takeover of Crimea in 2014 followed by a referendum under occupation was a
deliberate and ruthless violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum whereby
Russia, in return for retrieving Ukraine's nuclear arsenal (then the third
largest in the world) promised never to violate its territorial
integrity---a betrayal that gets little or no mention among the
geopolitical preoccupations of the Left rationalisers of Russian behaviour.

Third Group

This third group is for peace and an end to militarism. It notes the
suffering of the Ukrainian people and condemns Russia for what it has done.
But for various reasons---the danger of further military escalation, the
nefarious designs of the US for wanting to 'bleed' Russia over time by
continuing the war---it wants a settlement as quickly as possible. This
group is therefore against US/NATO supplying of arms to Ukraine---a posture
also held by the first and second group of leftists discussed above.
Another common position held by these three groups is that economic
sanctions against Russia should be opposed because these will hurt ordinary
working people economically. That they are in fact endorsing and supporting
an undeclared regime of sanctions against the Ukrainian people (their
desired embargo on arms) whereby on a mass scale the suffering endured by
Ukrainians---millions displaced as refugees, physical deaths and injuries,
destruction of homes and devastation of everyday life is far beyond what
can happen in Russia through sanctions---does not even seem to register on
the minds of these leftists. How is this settlement to be achieved? Why,
through diplomacy presumably! And how is that going to happen? Is a
ceasefire and settlement to be somehow imposed on the belligerents or at
least made more possible through pressures applied from outside powers?
Since Russia is much the more powerful side in this war isn't it logical
that it would be easier to achieve a settlement by pressuring the weaker
side, the Ukrainians? In brief, what follows from this logic is that for
the peace advocates, in the name of a practical and realistic assessment of
the balance of forces on the ground, the least consideration should be
given to what the Ukrainians themselves think or want.

Ukrainians want justice; they want a retreat of Russia, they want
reparations. Their only hope of being able to move some way at least
towards these goals depends on changing the course of this war in a
direction whereby the costs to Russia, material and political, become
progressively higher. Weapons support, whatever be the motivations of the
suppliers which are not the same as those of the Ukrainian people fighting,
is vital. Certainly, those motivations can be fiercely criticised by left
voices but solidarity with the people of Ukraine is primary. They have to
decide whether and when to stop fighting. We on the outside can disagree
with tactics, strategies and policies and warn about this or that. But we
must respect their freedom of agency to decide as they see fit because they
are the people oppressed! On this issue the position of Chomsky and other
peace votaries like him is not to be upheld or supported.

Fourth Group

This fourth group aligns itself with what the anti-Stalinist Marxists and
Socialists and Socialist Feminists and progressive Anarchists of Ukraine
themselves say. Listen to us, they say. We are as much against the US and
NATO as you in the West and elsewhere are. But this war is not about
Russian security concerns but primarily about its imperialist ambitions. We
are fighting this war; we need political, moral, material support and yes a
continual supply of weapons to enable us to effectively resist this
military onslaught. The more determinedly the international left supports
us the stronger can the Ukrainian left become internally, for we are much
more aware than you outsiders of our own class and internal divisions and
its dangers even as we are broadly united as we must be, in opposing the
Russian military and its government. We, like leftists internationally,
also want a dismantling of NATO which has now become more difficult to
attain. But what about the dismantling of all imperialist blocs like the
CSTO about which you say little or nothing?

Any end to this war, whether temporary or prolonged or permanent will be
shaped by the course this war will take. And that trajectory will itself
depend on the strength and durability of the will of the Ukrainian people
to keep resisting this great injustice done to them. The calculations of
the US and other Western powers, that currently say they support Ukraine,
are always subject to change and to the proclivity of their
elites/governments to making unprincipled deals with others including
Russia if they think this will best suit their 'national interests'. The
international revolutionary and democratic left should be the most
principled supporters in the fight against injustices everywhere.

Even as we criticise those sections of the Western left who are not
prepared to give unconditional yet critical support to Ukraine and go on
and on about the Russian invasion as basically a reaction to the US and its
allies, we can be grateful that at least they are strongly critical of and
opposed to their own governments for their imperialist behaviour or
collusion in imperialist pacts like NATO. In India, however, too many
liberals as well as many of those who see themselves as on the left refuse
to similarly attack the stand of the Indian government but actually
applauded its so-called neutrality on the war in Ukraine. This is an India
which is, in all but name, a strategic ally of the US and whose own
imperialist ambitions to become a dominant regional (perhaps global) power
require it to maintain a strong military relationship with Russia and
Israel and with the US as well. India has the second largest army in the
world. It has the third largest military budget and is the fourth largest
purchaser of arms. Its healthcare expenditure as a proportion of GDP is the
fourth lowest in the world and it has the largest absolute number of
malnourished and undernourished people in the world. India itself is a
lower order imperialist power with ambitions to become an ever more
powerful imperialist one. Why should leftists support such an orientation
let alone cover it up with false references to India having a foreign
policy of 'strategic autonomy' or 'neutrality'?

In a world divided into separate nation-states the left everywhere must
always also take a stand against the pernicious, immoral and unprincipled
positions adopted by its own national governments. This, much of the Indian
organised left has failed to do. The  position of the Radical Socialist
(RS) group is clear. That the Communist Party of India Marxist
Leninist-Liberation (CPIML-Liberation) has also taken a forthright stand
condemning the Russian invasion and supporting the Ukrainian resistance is
to its credit. The Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) does
condemn Russia and declare its support for Ukrainian sovereignty and
resistance. However, its public statement is a very long and rambling text
which spends most of its time making generalities about 'proletarians of
the world unite' and of 'turning the imperialist war into a civil war and
revolution'. The statement has more to do with propagandising the general
perspectives of the Party than with analysing or focusing on the
specificities of the Russia-Ukraine issue. One of the more interesting
sidelights revealed in the text is that the CPI-Maoist calls China a
"social imperialist" country. This means it sees China as still not a
capitalist country but one which turned towards social imperialism
presumably after the leadership of Mao ended. That the two biggest parties
of the mainstream Indian left---the CPM and CPI---have neither condemned
Russia nor the stand of the Indian government nor offered solidarity to the
Ukrainian people, is but another symptom of why we need to build a newer
revolutionary and democratic left in India.

Achin Vanaik

An Addendum

Many of those who position themselves on the anti-capitalist radical Left
nonetheless have viewed the war in Ukraine through a lens which saw the
primary conflict as between a much stronger and more hegemonic imperialist
power the US and a weaker one Russia. Even for those who didn't give
primary status to this imperialist face-off, some did believe that this
would require them to more generally support the lesser imperialism since
counter-balancing against the stronger US (and allies) opens up greater
spaces globally for progressives forces and struggles against capitalism.
Another term when used on the left buys into a similar kind of thinking.
This is the belief that in today's world there is real merit in supporting
the development of 'multipolarity' as against a unipolar order represented
by the US. In effect, the way is made clear for these sections of the Left
to, in some way or the other, take sides with the "lesser evil" imperialism
and endorse its regressive foreign policy behaviour.

A Realist Discourse

This language of 'poles' and 'polarity' (whether of unipolarity, bipolarity
or multipolarity) is a standard refrain in the Realist discourse on
international relations and foreign policy behaviour and is used by
rightwing and liberal thinkers who have no interest whatsoever in fighting
against capitalism, domestically or globally. So why do leftists who
believe they are inspired by Marxism, adopt the same terminology not only
using the term 'multipolarity' as a conceptual tool but also ascribing
virtues to it as a desired outcome?

In this Realist discourse, states are seen as the primary actors on the
world stage. But the state entity that that they refer to is understood as
a 'national territorial totality' when it is actually a much smaller set of
apparatuses that is encased within a much wider social formation involving
all kinds of tensions and relations between the state and civil society,
between different sections in that larger social order, with above all, the
division between classes. All states are class states that are structurally
biased towards the interests of their ruling classes. In the post-1990
overwhelmingly capitalist world we live in today, these are the interests
of capitalists, weaker or stronger, more or less independent from others.
However, this much more important reality is covered up and obscured by the
notion of the state in its foreign policy acting as a 'national territorial
totality'. The fact that world politics is very much shaped by the
competition among the most powerful such states, each pursuing the
interests domestically and externally of their own capitalist classes and
TNCs, is similarly obscured.

Talk of polarity (single, dual or multi-) is another way of shifting the
understanding of vertical power relations away from its social and class
nature to a supposedly horizontal set of power relations between a few
'poles', each of which is also understood as a 'national territorial
totality'. A state defined in such a way is then axiomatically pursuing the
'national interest' and to question this means one is being anti-national
and unpatriotic. There is all too often  much wisdom in the saying that
"patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

Revolutionary Marxists should (a) unconditionally but critically support
oppressed nations subject to military invasions by imperialist powers even
if they are capitalist and autocratic e.g., opposing the US invasions of
1991 and 2003 of Iraq. b) They should support progressive anti-capitalist
forces and struggles in all countries (whether liberal democratic or
authoritarian) against their own capitalist ruling classes even if these
capitalists are feeble and subordinate to other ruling classes in other
countries. c) It is important to fight for greater democratization even
within a capitalist country and to oppose any steps being taken toward
greater authoritarianism internally. However, when it comes to the external
bullying and imperialist behaviour of the stronger countries it is not
their internal political character i.e., whether they are liberal
democratic or authoritarian that is the key explanatory factor but their
capitalist character. All such imperialist behaviour and efforts to
establish their respective 'spheres of influence'---a euphemism for
bullying and trying to subordinate in one way or the other weaker
neighbouring and even more distant countries---must be opposed.

No Longer the Cold War Era

What about the idea that multipolarity provides greater global space for
progressive and revolutionary struggles? In today's world this is a
dangerous delusion. Today's world order is fundamentally different from
that in the Cold War era. Then the world was not 'Bipolar'---a deeply
misleading term---but had a systemic divide. That is to say, there were two
fundamentally different socio-economic systems, a capitalist vs. a
non-capitalist bloc arraigned against each other. The existence of such a
non-capitalist  but far from socialist bloc meant that an objective space
was created for progressive struggles in the developing world to advance,
most notably de-colonization. But even here the primary reason for
successful liberation came from the internal struggle for national
liberation howsoever much it may have been helped by outside material and
political support. Even so, in this misnamed 'Socialist or 'Communist'
bloc, because of their governments ridiculous belief in the possibility of
"socialism in one country", the nationalism became much more important than
socialist aspirations which required the  strongest commitment to the
principles of  Proletarian Internationalism. The end result was nationalist
hostilities and rivalries---Stalin vs. Tito, the Sino-Soviet split, the
USSR against Albania, China militarily attacking Vietnam (1979),
Kampuchea's war with Vietnam, not to mention the diplomatic games played
between the USSR and the US, the former's repressions against progressive
and pro-Socialist struggles in Hungary (!956)  and Czechoslovakia(1968),
and the shameful entente between Mao's China and the US under Nixon.  The
best characterisation of the external behaviour  of the most powerful
non-capitalist regimes of USSR and China  is that they were deeply
contradictory---both progressive and reactionary.

Today's world order is very different. The most powerful countries are now
capitalist and imperialist. Different imperialist powers (US, Russia, China
and a few others) are interested in supporting regime change in other
countries if this can result in governments that are more amenable to their
own regime. Even better if after such changes they become subordinate or
best of all if they become basically puppets. Of course over time, even
such alliance arrangements and networks because of imperialist competitions
will be subject to shifting compositions among their country-members. But
the one thing to be absolutely sure about is that none of these imperialist
powers want to promote or see anti-capitalist regimes emerge anywhere.
Capitalist competition will always create temporary or longer term winners
and losers as well as shifts in power rankings. But what remains the common
global commitment is that the world must remain capitalist.

Nor do the imperialist countries care whether their allies are internally
more democratic or authoritarian--- the crucial thing is that they remain
allies and subordinates. As for the weaker and smaller countries which are
capitalist or seeking to establish a more stable or independent capitalism,
they too are bitterly opposed to progressive anti-capitalist politics and
struggles. Why then should revolutionary leftists see any virtue in today's
world of such inter-imperialist rivalries? We should not be fighting to
shift the world from a "super-imperialism" to a "multi-imperialism" but
against all imperialist and capitalist states. Our strategic allies in this
much longer term domestic and global struggle are not governments but
progressive and anti-capitalist forces and organisations everywhere.

>From the time of Marx till the 1990s despite all ups and downs, the banner
of internationalism was upheld by the Left. Today, contra the hopes of
Marx,  it is the biggest capitalists of the world who are saying "Despite
all differences let us try and unite to protect and strengthen the world
capitalist order since we having nothing to lose, certainly not our

The struggle for the Revolutionary Left to once again capture the banner of
internationalism has now become more necessary than ever.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/attachments/20221031/3b5a00ac/attachment.htm>

More information about the WSM-Discuss mailing list