That is not what was written.
25% is a large proportion of the voting populace and is not to be taken lightly or be relaxed about.
Answers were in context to what was asked and not an attempt to be dismissive. If you think I for example sit here thinking that MLP has only 20% and can be ignored your off you trolley, mate. That Zemmour (interesting to see where his votes go) and the Republicans also get high numbers compared to the Socialists (who admittedly need to reform) is outrageous. Ok there’s Melenchon (lots of waffle) but his % is very questionnable and he is not Presidential material imo.
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine entails a grave violation of the jus cogens rule stipulated in article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter – the prohibition of the use of force without approval of the Security Council. Admittedly, Russia has invoked article 51 of the Charter, which recognizes the right of self-defence until the Security Council is seised of the matter. However, this provision only operates when there has been a prior military attack, which a state must repulse, because its very survival is at stake. This is not the case in the current conflict.
Some legal experts have evoked the idea of pre-emptive self-defence, which, however, does not exist in international law, and is as invalid here as it was when George W. Bush invoked it to justify his war of aggression on Iraq 2003. Some observers have suggested a justification based on the concept of vital interests of the state, which Israel invokes from time to time in an attempt to justify its crimes against Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and others. Only apologists would buy these arguments that lack any legitimacy in international law – or natural law.
Our priority today must be to work for an immediate cease fire, followed by urgent humanitarian assistance and an international conference that would attempt to reach a compromise that would be conducive to durable peace in the region. A compromise means that there must be give and take. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 was resolved through a pragmatic quid pro quo, whereby the Soviets pulled their missiles out of Cuba, and the United States removed its missiles from Turkey.
Whoever says war, says propaganda, and the level of fake news and false narratives concerning the conflict renders it difficult to address the issues in a realistic manner. I do not mean Realpolitik, balance of power, or Machiavellism – I simply mean evidence-based, rational argumentation, solidly anchored in a comprehensive evaluation of all pertinent factors, including the pre-history of the conflict, breaches of oral agreements, mutual perceptions of bad faith, the interference in the internal affairs of states, the instrumentalization and foreign financing of non-governmental organizations as trojan horses to destabilize governments, the unconstitutional coup d’état against the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanunovych, the denial of the right of internal self-determination to ethnic Russians and Russian mother tongue Ukrainians, the Russophobic legislation of the Ukrainian Parliament, the violence practised against the Donbas Russians, the flouting of the agreements of Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, constant provocations and threats in violation of article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits not only the use of force, but also the threat thereof.
Notwithstanding the bogus narratives we read in the corporate press, this conflict did not emerge out of the blue, but was the result of cumulative errors and abuses and of an atmosphere of deception, hostility and “hate speech”.
The current political constellation and the toxic atmosphere against anything Russian constitute major obstacles to constructive solutions. As pre-conditions to any successful negotiation one would expect the capacity of all parties to take a certain distance, demonstrate a measure of mutual respect and an honest effort at approaching the conflict from different perspectives. If one side pretends that it has a monopoly of the truth and superior moral authority, this augurs badly for any solution.
Groupthink jumps to the eye when one observes the way in which the mainstream media reports on the conflict and the almost total absence of balance, the invisibility of the arguments of the other side, which have been formulated over the years and have been ignored by Western politicians and journalists. Only a few academics like Professors John Mearsheimer, Francis Boyle, Dan Kovalik, Noam Chomsky, only certain diplomats like Jack Matlock and George F. Kennan seem to have understood what was at issue: the right of every country to national security and the necessity to build a durable European – and world – security architecture.
The two proposals put forward by Russia in December 2021 would have deserved serious consideration and general debate – instead of being arrogantly put aside by the US and NATO. The rejection of these proposals and the refusal of Ukraine to implement the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 led directly to today’s tragedy.
An objective third party should have no difficulty in trying to see Russia’s concerns and would not simply perfunctorily repeat State Department and Pentagon narratives. There is no doubt that assurances were given to Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand eastward. In fact, there is no reason for the existence of NATO, once the Warsaw Pact was dismantled.
Many observers have already acknowledged that judging by NATO’s post-Cold War practices, it can in no sense be considered a “defensive alliance”. On the contrary. NATO itself and NATO members have engaged in bullying and threatening other countries. NATO countries have committed the crime of aggression, as well as war crimes and crimes against humanity in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Syria – in total impunity. Would this bring NATO within the meaning of article 9 of the Nuremberg Statute concerning “criminal organizations”?
One of the major problems with international law is that there is no effective enforcement mechanism. Serial violations of the UN Charter have resulted in a loss of authority and credibility – and the emergence of what may be termed “precedents of permissibility”. Here is a non-exhaustive list of egregious violations of the UN Charter by many countries without any accountability, and with the unfortunate complicity of the corporate media that has downplayed the gravity of the crimes, white-washed the perpetrators, and suppressed the views of critics. Among them
US aggressions and regime-change attempts against Cuba, Dominical Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela, the “extraordinary rendition” program, systematic torture and indefinite detention in Guantanamo Naval Base
Israel’s multiple aggressions against its Arab neighbours. The occupation and annexation of Palestinian territories, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights. Israel’s continued bombardment of Syria, targeted assassination, the use of cluster-bombs and other illegal weapons in the war against Lebanon, etc.
Turkey’s invasion and bombardment of Cyprus in 1974, the killing of thousands of Greek-Cypriots and the expulsion of some 200,000 Greek Cypriots from Northern Cyprus to the South, the continued occupation of 37% of the territory of the island, the refusal to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
Saudi Arabia’s murderous war against the Yemeni people, its illegal blockade and responsibility for the bombardment of schools, the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, and the starving of the population, resulting in the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis.
Azerbaijan’s aggression, together with Turkey and Libyan and Syrian mercenaries in the September 2020 Blitzkrieg against the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, entailing thousands of civilian deaths, the destruction of churches and monasteries and the violation of the right of self determination to the Armenian people.
It is a disgrace that the international community tolerated these crimes of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity without demanding accountability from the perpetrators. This is what I mean when I speak of “precedents of permissibility”.
Indeed, if NATO countries, Israel, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia and other states commit crimes in total impunity, does not this situation encourage other states to do the same? Double-standards in the application of international law and international criminal law undermine the entire system.
That is what Friedrich von Schiller meant in his drama Piccolimini: Das eben ist der Fluch der bösen Tat, dass sie fortzeugend immer Böses muss gebären. That is: the curse of an evil deed, because it continues generating further evils.
Lessons learned: the multiple violations of the prohibition of the use of force by powerful States without Security Council approval – and this in total impunity — cannot and did not change international law nor could it derogate from article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The general principle of law ex injuria non oritur jus – “out of a violation of law, no new law can emerge” — prevents the recognition of a new norm allowing aggression. However, such repeated violations have given rise to “precedents of permissibility”, because in reality countries do get away with criminal activity, because the UN lacks appropriate enforcement mechanisms. The International Criminal Court possesses little authority and credibility and is hardly a deterrent force, because hitherto it has only indicted Africans and it has refused to investigate some of the most egregious aggressions and war crimes committed since the Statute of Rome entered into force in 2002. Today it may be Russia, but over the past 20 years we have seen aggressions and war crimes committed by NATO countries, notably the US, UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Australia, and by other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, India, China, Myanmar, etc. Yes, the ICC should investigate war crimes committed in the Ukrainian war, but it must also investigate and condemn all the prior crimes if it wants to be taken seriously. If international law means anything, it must be applied uniformly.
1 Like
Not that i agree entirely with what the author states but a useful perspective.
Ataturk to turkey was what nehru was to India , albiet more respected.
1 Like
His direct involvement in the Greece-Turkey war is proven beyond doubt, but he had a heavy involvement in the pre-ww1 armament race which took place in Europe, and influenced the outcome indirectly. He was a personal friend of Clemenceau for instance, which didn’t hinder him to sell tons of weapons to Germany and Austria-Hungary.
I read a book about this guy some time ago, and it was a bit of an eye-opener. Since then, I’m totally obsessed indeed! 
Nah, I just think that if there has been people like him in the past, there is no reason to think that there aren’t currently this kind of types around, pulling several strings in the background. There is no clear limit between indirectly helping to stoke tensions and convincing governments to buy arms. There is a big grey zone, and these people are involved in it, at the highest level.
But enough of this. I’ll rest my case now and spare everyone with my obsessive chatter! 
@Sithbare interested in your perspective. Let’s say NATO did not exist. Do you believe Russia would act any differently?
I tend to believe Russia would be more rather than less aggressive.
Even Russia seems to have shifted the narrative away from NATO and towards denazification.
1 Like
I believe that there needed to be some form of detterence to ensure that Russia did not rise up again. But expansion of Nato wasn’t one of them.
If the Nato would not have been so aggressive in terms of it’s dealings with Russia, Would Russia have been more receptive and less aggressive, I’d like to think so. The US and NATO with their constant undermining of other countries (Not that Russia doesn’t do the same).
Putin pushing the narrative to denazification is bullshit, Even if there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine (the Azov Battalion for example), It is upto Ukraine to sort their Internal problems. This is like India invading Pakistan saying that we are there to stamp out islamic terrrorism (Not that it’s possible considering pakistan is a nuclear power , but just the B.S of Putin using denazification as a rationale to invade Ukraine.
The US had tbeir chances to engage with Russia during tbe Yeltsin , Medvedev days. The fact that they did not engage in good faith and also that Yeltsin was incompetent led to the rise of Putin.
The Ukraine fallout is a result of decades of mis-steps by both sides
1 Like
Surely we missed the opportunity when there was Gorbatchev!
1 Like
For some reason Putin has to act now against Ukraine, because Russia is oh so threatened by NATO aggression, although NATO refuses to get directly involved even after his own aggression. Yeah. This is such nonsense.
All he’s managed is to prove that NATO has no interest waging a war with Russia while simultaneously proving to his neighbours that it’s absolutely existential to be in NATO.
9 Likes
It’s undeniable that he’s right. All are supposed to be equal under the law. If the West really wanted to be a beacon of enlightment and democracy for the rest of the world, it would have condemned Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney for the Iraq invasion. The Turks for invading and still holding 38% of Cyprus. The Europeans for their heinous acts on their colonies among others. The Saudis and the rest of the Gulf States for their atrocious human rights record. For once it responded in the appropiate manner to a monstrous attack but only because it came from the other side.
The one thing Putin is right about is that the West is being hypocritical and sanctimonious. The past decades have provided irrefutable evidence to that.
2 Likes
This part is what I’m not sure about. Yes, Ukraine refused to implement the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 but those agreements were very unworkable and made from a Russian position of strength. But the fact is that they were signed no matter how unfair the Ukranians saw them as.
Also, Putin and Russia always had designs on Ukraine and Ukrainian actions during that period do not hold them in good light either. I remember reading somewhere that Zelenskyy wasn’t able to visit a part of Ukraine (before the current conflict due to the far-right elements in Ukraine (Again will try to find the link to that). As I said before and reiterate again , There are far right elements in Ukraine and it’s Ukraine’s responsibility to sort them out and Putin had no reason to use that justification to invade Ukraine.
It’s the continued portrayal of news from majorly one side that bothers me. Maybe I’m a bit of a free speech absolutist.
The rest of what the author says is absolutely true and I agree entirely with his reasoning.
Gorbachev , Yeltsin , Medvedev and even in the early days of Putin when he came down hard on oligarchs. There were a lot of chances that were spurned by the west to normalize relations with Russia.
Quite a lot of People everywhere have said that the real threat is from China and US and NATO instead of normalizing relations with Russia and getting them more into their axis have by their expansion of NATO rather pushed Russia and China together. This could be one of the worst strategic decisions that US/NATO has made , on par with the decision to ferment terrorism in Pakistan to use against the Russians in the cold war.
Nope it’s a whole load of bullshit disguising whataboutism under a thin veneer of neutrality. Just observe all the examples given, somehow very conveniently, the aggressors are all American-aligned, or perceived to be so. In contrast, the poor victims are Russian-aligned, c.f. the use of Yugoslavia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, etc.
Not to mention, it insinuates that the US deliberately destabilised and initiated the resignation of Yanukovych, which it paints as a coup d’etat. Nothing to do with the free will of the Ukrainian people, nor the fact that Yanukovych was arguably engaging in embezzlement of state assets. Nor anything to do with the fact that under his government, they used violent and lethal force on the protestors against his rejection of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. No, it was clearly an unlawful coup d’etat that denied an upstanding person of his post. Oh wait, didn’t he go on the run to Russia?
Also, the entire claim of bogus narratives is completely laughable, and is in line with the projection constantly engaged in by the Russian government. Russian speakers are not oppressed in Ukraine, and never were. Those supposed laws were enacted in response to an illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2014, despite their claims of it being just ethnic Russian Ukrainians spontaneously deciding to secede.
The narrative the author wants us to accept is that:
- Russia has a legitimate interest in ensuring through any means that the governments in their neighbourhood are Russian-aligned, or more accurate, aligned with the kleptocrats who rule Russia.
- This interest is legitimate for Russia, but when the United States engages in it in, I quote “Cuba, Dominical [sic] Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela”, it’s not legitimate, and constitutes “aggressions”
- Russia’s 2 proposals, based on its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and threatening further use of force, as it has now engaged in, should be treated seriously, and that the sovereign government of Ukraine must “compromise”, engaging in “give and take” to an invader, an aggressor on its territory.
- Russia’s kleptocracy has a right to demand concessions from Ukraine on the basis of the use of force, from which, we can infer that the author believes that any country has the right to invade another country to impose its will on that country, despite the author criticising the United States for lesser actions.
The only true words spoken are in the last paragraph, where the author demands that the International Criminal Court should investigate all war crimes. However, the rest of it is just propaganda by the Russian government, plain and simple. To put it charitably, the author is a useful idiot. To put it cynically, the author is actively working on behalf of the Russian government to further its propaganda efforts.
5 Likes
I think that was my point. The premise of your logic was fine, it was just that it took several leaps and suppositions to achieve the conclusion, ignoring the many other more direct and influential causes.
2 Likes
Cheers. You just saved me from a lot of typing.
4 Likes
Literally the only thing the author got right was that all countries should be treated equally. The rest of it is all Russian propaganda.
I think you need to see who the author is
By this logic, any country can invade another and force it to sign concessions? What’s to stop China from invading India and then forcing it to make reparations for those war efforts, and signing away all its resources?
You can only have either a might-based world order, or a rules-based world order. You can’t have both.
I think that’s mostly bullshit. That Ukraine has a large far-right problem is more Russian propaganda. The Ukrainian far-right is tiny, especially that Russian favourite canard, the Azov Battalion. It barely has a membership of 10k, in a country of 47m people. As opposed to the far-right government in Russia.
Sometimes there just isn’t a “both sides”. Sometimes wrong is just wrong.
3 Likes
So what. We have a former chancellor that is basically employed by Putin. And this dude is on the board of trustees for AfD’s Desiderius Erasmus Foundation, the far right in Germany that is completely in Putin’s pocket.
2 Likes