The build-up to war on Russia

[Grizzly]

Interesting...


"'An attack on Ukraine is an attack on humanity and has to be stopped': Artist Marina Abramovic sends message of solidarity to Ukraine as Russia invades."


Especially in light of...

Ukraine in top 3 of world’s child porn suppliers, Prosecutor General says
According to the official, in 2020 and 2021, the police revealed about 300 facts of child porn dissemination

https://tass.com/society/1296935

I believe all wars are followed by human traffickers (many say the cliques within the UN, United Nations) who descend on refugee's and groom women and especially children.

[JackRiddler]

If you believe some five-year-old Pizzagate misreading of random words, sure. Abramovic could only be expressing the mainstream liberal opinion of literally millions of others repeating the same thing right now because she's one of the top THEM, sending coded messages. With your decoder ring you are among the few who can see she has this pedestrian opinion only as a way to tell you that she's a biggie in child-trafficking and mock you for not being able to do anything about it. Of course.

[JackRiddler]

Found it as copy-pasta, don't know where this was originally published, but it's both of them for sure. Obviously put together at least a couple of weeks ago, before the Olympics.

MICHAEL ROBERTS on Russian exports:

1. Russia accounts for 12% of world oil production. It is the second biggest oil producer after the US. Russia is also is the second or third biggest supplier of oil to the US. It swaps its number two spot from time to time with Saudi Arabia, depending on what OPEC is doing. It is also the world’s leading gas exporter.

2. The EU imports 80% of its natural gas (split between LNG 26% and pipeline 74%). Russia currently accounts for 44% - 47% (depending on the period) of EU gas imports- all by pipeline. Current gas stocks in the EU are about 70% of normal averages and 20% in the case of Gazprom EU gas storage. The EU has the theoretical spare port capacity to increase LNG imports by approximately 40%. (The issue is whether a producer – e.g. Qatar - and LNG tankers can be found in the short term. And even then, this would only be a substitute for about one third of current imports from Russia).

3. Russia also accounts to just under half of EU coal imports (mostly for German (31.8mn tonnes) and Polish power generation (1.4mn tonnes)); 25% of EU oil imports and more than US$30bn of EU metal imports. As a reminder, nearly 25% of German power generation comes from coal.

4. Russia is also the biggest grain exporter in the world. Together with Ukraine it makes up 25% of global wheat trade (Russia is 18%). The major victims of this trade being interrupted are grain importers like Egypt and Turkey. But the effects on global food prices would be inflationary.

5. The US semiconductor industry imports 90% of its neon supplies from Ukraine. US imports 35% of its palladium from Russia for autos, electronics and medicine.

6. Boeing and other US aeronautical producers are also heavily dependent for titanium from SCMPO-AVISMA and other Russian sources. Russia is the second biggest titanium exporter (and third producer) in the world. And Ukraine is also significant at about half the size of Russian exports.

7. Russia is a major exporter of chemicals for fertilizer. For example, Russian exports of ammonium nitrate account for 44.6% global exports. Brazil is the biggest importer. The US is the 3rd largest importer. The EU imports little Russian ammonium nitrate - it only represents 1% EU production. Russia has just banned exports of ammonia nitrate (Feb 2) supposedly for a two month period.

ADAM TOOZE:

A, The sophistication of Russian weaponry and its cyber capacity betoken the underlying technological potential of the broader Russian economy. But what generates the cash is global demand for Russian oil and gas. And Putin’s regime has made use of this. It is reductive to think of Russia as a petrostate, but if you do indulge in that simplification you must recognize that it is a strategic petrostate more like UAE or Saudi than an Iraq, or Algeria.

B. Russia is a strategic petrostate in a double sense. It is too big a part of global energy markets to permit Iran-style sanctions against Russian energy sales. Russia accounts for about 40 percent of Europe’s gas imports. Comprehensive sanctions would be too destabilizing to global energy markets and that would blow back on the United States in a significant way. China could not standby and allow it to happen. Furthermore, Moscow, unlike some major oil and gas exporters, has proven capable of accumulating a substantial share of the fossil fuel proceeds. Since the struggles of the early 2000s, the Kremlin has asserted its control. In the alliance with the oligarchs it calls the shots and has brokered a deal that provides strategic resources for the state and stability and an acceptable standard of living for the bulk of the population. According to the WID-er data after the giant surge in inequality in the 1990s, Russia’s social structure has broadly stabilized.

C. Putin’s regime has managed this whilst operating a conservative fiscal and monetary policy. Currently, the Russian budget is set to balance at an oil price of only $44. That enables the accumulation of considerable reserves. If you want a single variable that sums up Russia’s position as a strategic petrostate, it is Russia’s foreign exchange reserve.

D. Hovering between $400 and $600 billion they are amongst the largest in the world, after those of China, Japan and Switzerland. This is what gives Putin his freedom of strategic maneuver. Crucially, foreign exchange reserves give the regime the capacity to withstand sanctions on the rest of the economy. They can be used to slow a run on the rouble. They can also be used to offset any currency mismatch on private sector balance sheets. As large as a government’s foreign exchange reserves may be, it will be of little help if private debts are in foreign currency. Russia’s private dollar liabilities were painfully exposed in 2008 and 2014, but have since been restructured and restrained.

E. According to data released by the Bank of Russia, Nominal foreign debt of banks and non-financial companies (corporate foreign debt) increased by US$6bn to US$394bn in 2Q21 (c.25% of GDP), easily covered by the foreign exchange reserves. This strong financial balance means that Putin’s Russia will never experience the kind of comprehensive financial and political crisis that shook the state in 1998.

F. Putin laid out his position in no uncertain terms in his sensational speech to the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 in which he outlined his comprehensive critique of Western power and Russia’s refusal to accept any further eastward expansion of NATO.

G. The end of the Soviet Union may have given Ukraine independence but for Ukrainian society at large it has been an economic disaster. Like Russia, Ukraine suffered a devastating shock in the 1990s. GDP per capita in constant PPP terms halved between 1990 and 1996. It then recovered to 80 percent of its 1990 level in 2007 and has stagnated ever since. Thirty years on, Ukraine’s GDP per capita (in constant PPP dollars as measured by the World Bank) is 20 percent lower than in 1990.

H. In addition, Ukraine’s weakness have left it vulnerable to repeated and painful foreign exchange and financial crises, best summarized by the erratic chart of the hryvina’s devaluation against the dollar and euro. There were big shocks in the late 1990s. In 2008. In 2014-5. Since 2015 the hryvina has swung around a new plateau. Given the depreciated level of the currency, in percentage terms the swings are now smaller. But Ukraine continues to be a fragile ward of the IMF.
I. Desperate to hold the Kiev regime together, the West instrumentalized the IMF under Christine Lagarde to provide financial assistance to Kiev. This was the first time that the Fund has made a program for a country in Ukraine’s unstable condition, with an ongoing conflict on its territory. But neither the EU nor the US had any intention of backing Ukraine sufficiently to win the war in the East. Instead, the Obama administration backed away and handed off the Ukraine crisis to France and Germany. In the so-called Normandy format negotiations - amidst the eruption of the Eurozone clash with the new Syriza government in Athens and the swelling refugee crisis (the original polycrisis) - Berlin and Paris =shepherded Ukraine into the Minsk II agreement in 2015. After years of alienation (remember Snowden 2013) it was a moment of restored US-German harmony.

J. The Minsk agreement of 2015 is key to the current crisis. The original deal was a reflection of Russia’s massive military superiority over Ukraine but also Russia’s unwillingness to escalate to the point of full-scale invasion. The deal satisfied Russia because it promised a decentralized Ukraine with language rights guaranteed for Russian speakers. That in Moscow’s view was enough to ensure that Ukraine would not slide into the Western sphere of influence. If no progress was made on implementing the deal, Ukraine would be left in a state of frozen conflict. The ongoing conflict might not stop IMF support, but it would rule Ukraine out as a candidate for closer integration with either the EU or NATO. But it is also a painful provisorium. It is deeply unsatisfying to the increasingly nationalist tone of politics in Kiev. Moscow found itself backing the Donbass region and having to adjust to life under a sustained sanctions regime imposed by the US and the EU.
Resolving the Minsk agreement impasse is what the argument has been about since 2019 when Zelensky was elected on a peace-ticket and President Macron of France took steps to revive the process in the hope of bringing Russia out of the deep freeze.

K. It is sometimes suggested that Putin needs a war scare for domestic political purposes. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 earned him a huge popularity bump. That has dissipated. There is little evidence from Lavarda polling data to suggest that the Russian population would welcome a new war and particularly not one with Ukraine. It is true that since 2014 the gloss has come off Russia’s economy. Putin’s regime can no longer offer a good news story of an improving welfare bargain. In 2018 it raised the pension age, further undermining morale. As analysts at the Carnegie center have remarked, the Putin-era social contract - “you provide for us and leave our Soviet-style social handouts alone, and we’ll vote for you and take no interest in your stealing and bribe-taking” - has worn thin. In the autumn elections to the Russian parliament the legacy Communist party gained strength. But, again, that hardly provides a good reason for a sudden escalation to the current level of military tension.

L. The more compelling logic is driven by the tensions within the Minsk compromise, Russia’s geopolitical concerns about America’s stance, and Putin’s own political clock. Inside the Kremlin, Putin’s own timeline is crucial. In 2024 he faces a choice as to whether to continue in power or to begin to prepare his final exit. Russia could step away from the Ukraine issue. But Putin is too dug in. He wants to resolve Ukraine. This does not mean annex it. It means achieving what the struggle between 2007 and 2015 was about i.e. drawing a line on western expansion. That needs to be achieved both by consolidating a Russian veto in Ukrainian politics and driving home the message to the West not to attempt a further expansion. If 2024 is the date that is on Putin’s mind, then this overlaps with the term of the Biden Presidency. So, setting the terms of Russo-US relations on the issue as early as possible must be a priority for the Kremlin.

M. In 2018, Putin publicly declared that a Ukrainian attempt to regain territory in the Donbas region by force would unleash a military response. The election in 2019 election of Volodymyr Zelensky was seen as potential opening. He ran as a peace candidate. He returned to the Normandy format negotiations and Russia put a lid on any violent clashes in Donbass. But Zelensky’s popularity has collapsed. Like all his predecessors he faces a choice between Russophone opposition based in the east of the country, and the nationalists rooted in Ukraine’s west. Like all his predecessors he is trying to deliver for the electorate whilst negotiating with the IMF. Ukraine’s economic situation continues to be miserable.

N. The Kremlin does not treat Ukrainian politics very seriously. They are strongly convinced that the real force in deciding Kiev’s actions is Washington. Russia had nothing good to expect from an in-coming Democratic administration and Biden had made clear his determination to take a firm line in the campaign.

O. Whichever route one proposes, it will be a disaster for US grand strategy if the upshot of the current crisis is a military escalation or an increase in hostilities with Russia that drives if further towards China. The Putin-Xi summit is already scheduled for the winter Olympics in February.

[RocketMan]

War fever is at a pitch here in Finland. There is no distinction between parliamentary left and cryptofascist parties. Maximum belligerence and non-yielding. Talk on nuclear weapons and economic realities is practically banned. Only talking tough is allowed. I don't know what kind of apocalyptic showdown they have in mind, they have given themselves over to atavistic fantasies of unlimited power and allied troops marching on Kremlin probably. Utterly senseless. Reading one Finnish "foreign policy expert's" views I was reminded of this passage in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, which is even more ingenious, prescient and timeless now than it was before for me...

https://biblioklept.org/2012/11/11/judg ... -meridian/

The judge cracked with the back of an axe the shinbone on an antelope and the hot marrow dripped smoking on the stones. They watched him. The subject was war.

The good book says that he that lives by the sword shall perish by the sword, said the black.

The judge smiled, his face shining with grease.

What right man would have it any other way? he said.

The good book does indeed count war an evil, said Irving. Yet there’s many a bloody tale of war inside it.

It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.

He turned to Brown, from whom he’d heard some whispered slur or demurrer. Ah Davy, he said. It’s your own trade we honor here. Why not rather take a small bow. Let each acknowledge each.

My trade?

Certainly.

What is my trade?

War. War is your trade. Is it not?

And it aint yours?

Mine too. Very much so.

What about all them notebooks and bones and stuff?

All other trades are contained in that of war.

Is that why war endures?

No. It endures because young men love it and old men love it in them. Those that fought, those that did not.

That’s your notion.

The judge smiled. Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all.

Suppose two men at cards with nothing to wager save their lives. Who has not heard such a tale? A turn of the card. The whole universe for such a player has labored clanking to this moment which will tell if he is to die at that man’s hand or that man at his. What more certain validation of a man’s worth could there be? This enhancement of the game to its ultimate state admits no argument concerning the notion of fate. The selection of one man over another is a preference absolute and irrevocable and it is a dull man indeed who could reckon so profound a decision without agency or significance either one. In such games as have for their stake the annihilation of the defeated the decisions are quite clear. This man holding this particular arrangement of cards in his hand is thereby removed from existence. This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one’s will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god. Brown studied the judge.

You’re crazy Holden. Crazy at last.

The judge smiled.

[drstrangelove]

Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth. - The Judge

Mccarchy wasn't as optimistic as melville. But melville was right, becasue not even the judge could become suzerain of the ocean.

[MacCruiskeen]

At an emergency session of the Bundestag this morning, the first-ever on a Sunday, Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) announced:

- a 100-billion euro increase in Germany's military budget (which means it's now more than 2% of GDP, as NATO wished), and:

- the construction of two new LNG terminals at German ports (a victory for the USA and fracking, a defeat for Russia, Germany, Europe and Nord Stream 2).

So that's two important missions quickly accomplished. Our friends in Washington have been working on it for years, of course.

Stratfor founder and CEO George Friedman about Europe, Ukraine and US military power
Published: Sunday, April 5, 2015

“[...] The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars– the First, the Second and Cold Wars– has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen. If you are an Ukrainian, it is essentially to reach out to the only country that will help you, which is the United States. [...]"

-- George Friedman, STRATFOR CEO, at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, February 2015.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc

https://uaposition.com/stratfor-founder ... ary-power/

[JackRiddler]

And sometimes I do, too.

But this is solid stuff.

(You can scrub video past first few minutes of Katie Halper doing pitches for show.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I6ZkPi6NSI

[RocketMan]

Excellent analysis by Putin apologist Aaron Mate appearing on the far right extremist Jimmy Dore Show.

I gotta say I am flip-flopping on Dore... I revert to thinking he's a good guy with sometimes suspect takes (for me).

[Grizzly]

The Witch is back!
Former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton Discusses Russia-Ukraine On MSNBC's Morning Joe(FULL)

[RocketMan]

I find it mind-boggling and scary af that we are in a more precarious situation now than during the Cuban missile crisis vis-a-vis a potential nuclear exchange and western libs are casually demanding more arms and fighter jets to Ukraine. I have even seen a few tweets in the genre of "These are the reasons why Putin will not use nukes"... I mean it's an acceptable risk now, though??!!! JEEEEBUS FUCKIN CHRIST

[Grizzly]

I'm waiting for war expert Dr, Bill Gates to tell us his thoughts on war policy.

White House Asks Congress For $6.4 Billion For Ukraine Crisis | ZeroHedge
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... ine-crisis

Fuck the millions of hurting Americans.

Deeper and deeper, at some point we're going corner this animal ... I bet William Kristol is having wet dreams.

[liminalOyster]

Just leaving this here though I suppose it could well go in the Russiagate thread as further evidence of how ham-fisted Putin's attempts at tactical media are. Also haven't read everything to check if its been posted already but did see that John Mearsheimer was interviewed in the New Yorker yesterday.

Russia to host 'First International Antifascist Conference' to fight Nazism
Libby Emmons
Brooklyn, NY
March 1, 2022 1:17 PM

Russia on Tuesday announced plans to host what they are calling the First International Antifascist Congress in August. The intended goal is to "unite efforts of the international community in the fight against the ideology of Nazism, neo-Nazism in any form of its manifestation in the modern world."
The announcement was made by Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made similar statements on Tuesday at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting. As he began to speak, many other member nations' representatives left the room.

Lavrov said that "The goal of our actions is to save people by fulfilling our allied obligations, as well as to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine." The "denazification" of Ukraine was one of Russia's stated goals for their invasion into the country.
It was reported that Shoigu announced the conference during a Tuesday conference call. "We will hold the first International Anti-Fascist Congress in August as part of the Army-2022 military-technical forum," he said.
This First International Antifascist Congress will occur during the "Eighth International Military-Technical Forum 'Army - 2022,'" and "will be held from August 15 to 21. Delegations and industrial enterprises from 129 countries were invited to the forum."
It was previously reported by Andy Ngo that during Putin's speech on the military invasion of Ukraine, the Russian president had made use of antifascist talking points, using "antifascism" as a reason for the attack.
In his speech, Putin said that Russia's invasion was not to occupy the neighboring nation, but to "demilitarize" it. On Thursday, a televised speech showed Putin announcing a "special military operation," and saying that Ukraine was committing genocide against people in the easternmost states of the country.

The lengthy speech, translated in The Print, read that: "Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine. You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people."
"The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime," Putin said. "To this end, we will seek to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation."
Ukrainian President Zelensky said that "They tell you that we're Nazis. But how can a people that lost eight million lives to defeat the Nazis support Nazism? How can I be a Nazi? Say it to my grandfather, who fought in World War II as a Soviet infantryman and died a colonel in an independent Ukraine."

https://thepostmillennial.com/russia-to ... ght-nazism

[Grizzly]

Yay! Great SOTU address!!!

[stickdog99]

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/03/02/a-s ... ne-crisis/

...

The fundamental issue is how to resolve this crisis. The mainstream position – so far as I can tell – is that the West should pour arms into Ukraine while simultaneously crushing the Russian economy with sanctions (or that it should even go to war by declaring a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine).

The hope is that, by adopting this confrontational strategy, either one of three things will happen: the Russians will be defeated or forced to withdraw; Putin will be overthrown in a palace coup or popular uprising; or he’ll be brought to the negotiating table and made to accept terms highly unfavourable to Russia.

While this strategy may work, it seems to me highly risky and potentially counter-productive.

Rather than being forced to withdraw, the Russians may simply fight more aggressively, taking even less care to avoid civilian casualties. This could result in a prolonged insurgency where large numbers of Ukrainians die. And if Putin is overthrown, there could be chaos in Russia – something we don’t want in a state armed with thousands of nukes.

A better strategy, arguably, would be something along these lines: agree to recognise Crimea and the two breakaway regions in the East; and rule out NATO membership for Ukraine. In exchange, Russia must immediately withdraw its forces, and help pay to rebuild the country.

But why shouldn’t Ukraine get to join NATO, if that’s what it wants? The reason is that Russia is a major power, and major powers get to make demands of their neighbours when it comes to matters of national security.

Can Cuba host Russian missile sites if it wants? After all, Cuba is an independent sovereign state. Basically everyone recognises that, no, Cuba cannot do this. In fact, the US would probably threaten nuclear war before the first brick had been laid. (This is more or less what it did during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.)

Can Venezuela host Chinese air bases, within striking distance of the US? Again, the US would simply not allow this to happen. It has long followed the Monroe Doctrine, which holds that foreign powers must not intervene in the political affairs of countries in the Western hemisphere.

Ukraine is a core strategic interest for Russia, as that country’s leaders have explained repeatedly over the last three decades. There are already US missile sites and air bases throughout Europe. But for Russia, Ukraine is an absolute red line. Attempting to bring it into the Western sphere of influence was always likely to have disastrous consequences.

This point has been made by numerous well-informed commentators on both the left and the right, including: Robert McNamara, Bill Bradley, Gary Hart, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer, Jack Matlock, William Perry, Noam Chomsky, Stephen Cohen, Vladimir Pozner, Jeffrey Sachs, and many others.

But wasn’t Ukrainian membership of NATO “purely theoretical”, in the words of Francis Fukuyama? Not at all. Its intention to join NATO was enshrined in the constitution in 2019. And NATO members consistently refused to rule it out, having agreed in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO”.

What’s more, Ukraine’s government is considered illegitimate by Russia. In 2014, the country had a democratically elected pro-Russian president, but he was toppled in a Western-backed coup. Since then, the country has taken a distinctly anti-Russian course, banning pro-Russian media and abolishing minority language rights.

Again, none of this is to say I support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. It’s about acknowledging geopolitical realities, and minimising the risk of catastrophic outcomes like nuclear war.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Observe the Evil Words from this Evil Man. Remember: Bad. Evil. No Good.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ine-feb-24

Transcript: Vladimir Putin’s Televised Address on Ukraine


Bloomberg News
February 24, 2022, 7:07 AM EST

President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Citizens of Russia, friends,

I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia.

I will begin with what I said in my address on February 21, 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border

Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands?

The answer is simple. Everything is clear and obvious. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That experience should serve as a good lesson for us, because it has shown us that the paralysis of power and will is the first step towards complete degradation and oblivion. We lost confidence for only one moment, but it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the world.

As a result, the old treaties and agreements are no longer effective. Entreaties and requests do not help. Anything that does not suit the dominant state, the powers that be, is denounced as archaic, obsolete and useless. At the same time, everything it regards as useful is presented as the ultimate truth and forced on others regardless of the cost, abusively and by any means available. Those who refuse to comply are subjected to strong-arm tactics.

What I am saying now does not concerns only Russia, and Russia is not the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a redivision of the world, and the norms of international law that developed by that time – and the most important of them, the fundamental norms that were adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome – came in the way of those who declared themselves the winners of the Cold War.

Of course, practice, international relations and the rules regulating them had to take into account the changes that took place in the world and in the balance of forces. However, this should have been done professionally, smoothly, patiently, and with due regard and respect for the interests of all states and one’s own responsibility. Instead, we saw a state of euphoria created by the feeling of absolute superiority, a kind of modern absolutism, coupled with the low cultural standards and arrogance of those who formulated and pushed through decisions that suited only themselves. The situation took a different turn.

There are many examples of this. First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. The bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure went on for several weeks. I have to recall these facts, because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we mentioned the event, they prefer to avoid speaking about international law, instead emphasising the circumstances which they interpret as they think necessary.

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The illegal use of military power against Libya and the distortion of all the UN Security Council decisions on Libya ruined the state, created a huge seat of international terrorism, and pushed the country towards a humanitarian catastrophe, into the vortex of a civil war, which has continued there for years. The tragedy, which was created for hundreds of thousands and even millions of people not only in Libya but in the whole region, has led to a large-scale exodus from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe.

A similar fate was also prepared for Syria. The combat operations conducted by the Western coalition in that country without the Syrian government’s approval or UN Security Council’s sanction can only be defined as aggression and intervention.

But the example that stands apart from the above events is, of course, the invasion of Iraq without any legal grounds. They used the pretext of allegedly reliable information available in the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To prove that allegation, the US Secretary of State held up a vial with white power, publicly, for the whole world to see, assuring the international community that it was a chemical warfare agent created in Iraq. It later turned out that all of that was a fake and a sham, and that Iraq did not have any chemical weapons. Incredible and shocking but true. We witnessed lies made at the highest state level and voiced from the high UN rostrum. As a result we see a tremendous loss in human life, damage, destruction, and a colossal upsurge of terrorism.

Overall, it appears that nearly everywhere, in many regions of the world where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody, non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism. I have only mentioned the most glaring but far from only examples of disregard for international law.

This array includes promises not to expand NATO eastwards even by an inch. To reiterate: they have deceived us, or, to put it simply, they have played us. Sure, one often hears that politics is a dirty business. It could be, but it shouldn’t be as dirty as it is now, not to such an extent. This type of con-artist behaviour is contrary not only to the principles of international relations but also and above all to the generally accepted norms of morality and ethics. Where is justice and truth here? Just lies and hypocrisy all around.

Incidentally, US politicians, political scientists and journalists write and say that a veritable “empire of lies” has been created inside the United States in recent years. It is hard to disagree with this – it is really so. But one should not be modest about it: the United States is still a great country and a system-forming power. All its satellites not only humbly and obediently say yes to and parrot it at the slightest pretext but also imitate its behaviour and enthusiastically accept the rules it is offering them. Therefore, one can say with good reason and confidence that the whole so-called Western bloc formed by the United States in its own image and likeness is, in its entirety, the very same “empire of lies.”

As for our country, after the disintegration of the USSR, given the entire unprecedented openness of the new, modern Russia, its readiness to work honestly with the United States and other Western partners, and its practically unilateral disarmament, they immediately tried to put the final squeeze on us, finish us off, and utterly destroy us. This is how it was in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia. What victims, what losses we had to sustain and what trials we had to go through at that time before we broke the back of international terrorism in the Caucasus! We remember this and will never forget.

.........

More at link.