How do we commemorate it? The atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War on August 6 and 9, 1945 by the United States remain the only examples of the use of such a weapon in history. Rather than banishing any temptation to use them, the wholehearted killing of tens of thousands of civilians through experimental designs laid the grounds for an arms race that has never dissipated. Once found, the military use of the atom was never abolished or dissipated. As Henry Stimson, US Secretary of War, put it to President Harry Truman in April 1945, “if the problem of the proper use of this weapon can be solved, we would have the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved.”
After eight decades, we have two diametrically opposed trends, babbling in separate halls. Non-nuclear weapons states, for the most part, are showing fortitude and resolve in stigmatising the nuclear bomb through such instruments as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Others, such as a neutered, heavily vassalized Australia, prefer the comfort of extended deterrence offered by the US nuclear deterrent. But the aristocrats and landed gentry of the nuclear club continue to retain their prized assets, seeking to modernise and refurbish them. Like prized livestock, these creatures need feeding and watering, not forced retirement. In 2024, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute documents, the US, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel “continued intensive nuclear modernization programmes […] upgrading existing weapons and adding newer versions.”
This whole process has been characterised by a certain snobbery, one encouraged by the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The document legitimised the sanctity of the nuclear club by means of bribery: non-nuclear weapon states could still avail themselves of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while nuclear weapons states would abide by the promise of Article VI. “Each of the Parties to the Treaty,” states the article, “undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
The NPT, and in particular Article VI, is looking increasingly worn. Executive director of Project Ploughshares, Cesar Jaramillo, is merely stating the obvious by referring to two stresses at work on those arrangements: an internal one marked “by the persistent failure of nuclear-weapon states to meet disarmament obligations” and an external one characterised by “shifting geopolitical dynamics that threaten to dismantle longstanding norms.”
Unfortunately, the events of this year, particularly regarding the illegal attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and infrastructure by Israel and the United States, continues to demonstrate the appeal of such weapons. On the pretext of claiming how horrifying such arms are in terms of acquisition and potential use, the two countries demonstrated their quintessential value. The implications of Operations “Rising Lion” and “Midnight Hammer”, the respective names given to the Israeli and US bombing operations against the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities in June, bode ill. The absurdity of this action was laid bare by the fact that Iran had originally surrendered its quest for a nuclear weapon by joining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that the US decided to leave in 2018. That Tehran subsequently enriched uranium to the level of 60 per cent was something to draw the surly attention of the International Atomic Energy Agency, but it was still below the 90 per cent required for weapons-grade production.
As the bombs fell, the grand defenders of international law were nowhere to be found. When they bothered to make an appearance, they scolded Iran for nursing nuclear ambitions of its own, sparing any chastening words for Israel, an undeclared nuclear power that decided years ago to join the nuclear club as a prancing upstart sneering at international treaties, even as it decided to deny the entitlement of any power in the Middle East to do the same. The words of Australia’s Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, were typical of this: “The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent this. That is what this is.”
The tragic lesson of the June attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure adds succour to the proposition that not having such a military capability, and more to the point, being told not to acquire one, endangers the state in question. The North Koreans, having witnessed the demise of the regimes of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya to foreign invasion and interventions despite both having abandoned their nuclear programs, studied that lesson with avid keenness. In Europe, countries concerned about a loss of interest from the Trump administration in extending its nuclear deterrent – an infantile notion given the presence of some 100,000 US soldiers and 100 tactical nuclear weapons on the continent – are mulling over a collective option that could involve a “Eurobomb”. The pollen of proliferation is in the air.
The nuclear club, to admit members, requires stupendously good references (is the candidate clubbable or not?), powerful patrons and shed loads of hypocrisy. Short of that, the country must acquire nuclear weapons clandestinely, a point Israel knows better than most. Once admitted to the inner sanctum, membership guarantees both security and an eternal reluctance that a sovereign option, once attained, should ever be relinquished.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
From the article — “As the bombs fell, the grand defenders of international law were nowhere to be found. When they bothered to make an appearance, they scolded Iran for nursing nuclear ambitions of its own, sparing any chastening words for Israel, an undeclared nuclear power that decided years ago to join the nuclear club…”
The protection of Israel by the Western powers as it carries out a genocide in Gaza, is linked to the extreme level of condemnation of Russia by those same powers, as it acts to protect the Russian speaking people of the Donbass region of Ukraine who were attacked by their own government in violation of international law. More on that link to Israel later.
So extreme has the Western media criticism been, particularly in attributing motives and intentions to Russia for which there is no evidence, that it can justifiably be referred to as russophobia.
This russophobia that is on constant display in the mainstream news media shares some features with cults.
Cults do not have to be religious. Linguist Amanda Montell, author of Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism, explains that people can “erect a cult around anything, as long as you can inject it with fear and an ‘us-versus-them’ mentality”.
That is certainly the case when it comes to the image of Russia that is projected in the Western media.
So frenetic is the negativity about Russia that it is accused simultaneously of being on the path to resurrecting the Russian Empire, and also about to collapse economically.
To detect cultish thinking, Montell says certain texts being “off-limits” can also be a warning sign.
We saw that at the start of the Ukraine war when items of Russian literature and music, long regarded as representing the highest standard of Western culture, were banned in Europe.
We also saw Russian news media outlets banned in Europe for spreading “Russian propaganda.”
Russian state owned media are propaganda outlets but the same in UK and Oz are not?
Truly amazing developments.
Dr Alexandra Stein is a social psychologist, writer and educator who specializes in cults and extremist groups.
She writes “Importantly a cult also alternates fear messages with the idea that the cult is the only safe place. A cult will claim to have all the answers to all questions forever, …”
We see that in not just the dismissal by the leading liberal democracies of the BRICS project, (of which Russia is a leading member) but also in their depiction of BRICS as a threat. This is an indication of the level of ideological fear that lies at the heart of russophobia.
BRICS is merely an international trade project in which the participants are market economies to varying degrees.
Just as the liberal democracies are market economies to varying degrees.
The West imposed market economics on the world by force.
The style of market economics they imposed, operates on rules and within structures designed by the West. But now they fear further refinement of the concept.
Why would this be so?
Because the refinements suggested by BRICS take power away from the leading liberal democracies.
And that is what lies at the heart of russophobia.
It’s not a fear of Russian autocracy.
The West never saw an autocrat they didn’t love.
They establish autocracies. They luv ‘em. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Chile, the list is endless.
Even Stalin was lovable Uncle Joe for a while.
And it’s not a fear of Russian expansion.
Their fear lies in having to deal with peer level rivals on an even economic playing field where they are not the referee.
Oddly, the BRICS phobia has not been taken up as yet by the Western media in the same way that it embraced russophobia. But if the economic woes facing the West deteriorate significantly, and their woes are many, the media narrative will change. BRICS will suddenly become the worst thing since Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.
So remember the warning from Amanda Montell.
Next time you see language of fanaticism, or an us-versus-them mentality, you could be dealing with a cult.
But this raises the question as to the purpose of cults — why do they arise?
Invariably they protect the exercise of power by an individual or a small select group.
This is the link between the cultish denigration of Russia and the cultish protection of Israel.
Both projects serve the same purpose.
Both serve the same select group.
Both protect the economic status quo.
And what is the economic status quo?
It’s the global financial system set up by the former colonial masters to protect the wealth they amassed by plunder.
“…How do we commemorate it?…” To commemorate is to celebrate, pay tribute to, pay homage to, honour, salute; etc. Rather than commemorate in these terms it is vital that the World understands the universal horror and outcome of nuclear warfare that happened twice to one nation, (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Just as Jewish communities remember the consequences of the Holocaust and say in reverence: “Never Again”, so should the World recognise the nuclear abomination that was cast onto the civilian populations of Japan in 1945 and commit to never resort to nuclear warfare again.
” it acts to protect the Russian speaking people of the Donbass region of Ukraine who were attacked by their own government in violation of international law.”
I recently challenged Steve to provide a link to a credible International legal expert who unequivocally says Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is supported by international law.
He declined.
“he declined”.
AC should learn to never trust his memory.
At Trump Puts Putin On Double Secret Probation I had previously posted this to throw light on Russia’s right to make a pre-emptive strike — “It will surprise many, as it surprised me, that despite being involved in a needless and bloody prolonging of the war, the UK supports the Russian position. The Australian Attorney-General in 2017 supported the UK on this. Needless to say, they have been quiet on this matter since 2022.”
“The following by Daniel Bethlehem QC in 2012, from the UN and The American Journal of International Law, is instructive.
He states — Article 51 of the charter provides that, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.
It is argued by some that the language of Article 51 provides for a right of self-defence only in response to an actual armed attack. However, it has been the consistent position of successive United Kingdom Governments over many years that the right of self-defence under international law includes the right to use force where an armed attack is imminent. It is clear that the language of Article 51 was not intended to create a new right of self-defence.
Article 51 recognises the inherent right of self-defence that states enjoy under international law. That can be traced back to the “Caroline” incident in 1837. . . . It is not a new invention. The charter did not therefore affect the scope of the right of self-defence existing at that time in customary international law, which included the right to use force in anticipation of an imminent armed attack.”
“The Government’s position is supported by the records of the international conference at which the UN charter was drawn up and by state practice since 1945. It is therefore the Government’s view that international law permits the use of force in self-defence against an imminent attack …”
Bethlehem is stating there that pre-emptive self-defence was already recognised under international law before the arrival of the UN Charter, and that Article 51 of the charter did not override or extinguish existing law. In that post I then outlined the details of the imminent threat.
But there was another aspect from international law that supports the Russian intervention — the Responsibility to Protect.
From the Council on Foreign Relations — “In 2005, UN members endorsed the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine. This idea asserts countries have a fundamental sovereign responsibility to protect their citizens. If they fail to do so, the UN has the responsibility to protect vulnerable people. R2P gives the UN (and its member countries) the right to violate another country’s sovereignty if needed to protect innocent and engaged people. In other words, countries acting within the UN system can use all means necessary—-including military intervention—to prevent large–scale loss of life.”
Given that Ukraine had been shelling their own people in the Russian-speaking area of the Donbass for several years with much loss of life, they were in breach of the UN Charter and so, as a member of the UN, Russia had the right to intervene.
I recently challenged Steve to provide a link to a credible International legal expert who unequivocally says Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is supported by international law.
He hasn’t
Now things have got weird.
And I mean, really really weird.
If the legality of Russia’s invasion was as clear cut as you assert, there would be dozens of eminent legal scholars and experts in international jurisprudence expressly stating this.
There aren’t
What we have us Steve’s interpretation of subject and a few statements that predate Russia’s invasion.
I recently challenged Steve to provide a link to a credible International legal expert who unequivocally says Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is supported by international law.
He can’t
It’s only a few months ago that AC proudly informed us, with an impressive display of self-aggrandizement — The sign of intelligence is being able to read widely and distilling this into an opinion that you’re capable of expressing in your own words.
It seems that this laudable capability has deserted him.
Now, it seems, AC needs a father-figure to interpret for him UN provisions and legal opinions that a moderately capable 12 year old could understand.
Really Steve
If the question of legality of Russia’s invasion was as you have stated, you would be able to find a dozen or more articles to support your claim, by legal academics and reputable practicing international lawyers.
But you can’t cite any, because there aren’t any! None. Zero.
All you can do is post your personal interpretation, your personal assertion. This has proved repeatedly to be questionable, on a range of issues (and that is putting it to you as gently as possible)
1st Rule of Blogging — Never boast of your superior abilities.
But moving on from the weird and not-so-wonderful, luckily there is some good news about the cultish thinking of Western superiority that is the cause of much global chaos.
Three years ago, EU policy chief Josep Borrell described Europe as a “garden” and warned that “most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden”.
Yesterday at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit, President Xi Jinping offered a very different garden metaphor, representing a profoundly different vision of international relations: “The vast land of Asia and Europe, a cradle of ancient civilisations where the earliest exchanges between the East and the West took place, has been a driving force behind human progress. SCO member states need to enhance mutual understanding and friendship through people-to-people exchanges, firmly support one another in economic cooperation, and jointly cultivate a garden of civilisations in which all cultures flourish in prosperity and harmony through mutual enlightenment.”
Borrell’s vision embodies the spirit of white supremacy and colonial nostalgia.
That cultish vision is being openly challenged.
Steve, when you make links (from anyone who happens to agree with you) your personal and specific standard for commenting , it’s best not to get all tetchy when you are reminded of this.
When your claims about the legality of Russia’s invasion are only your wordy personal opinions, without a shred of support form any reputable practicing international lawyer, academic or authority, you can expect to be reminded of this.
It is yet another indication that your views on this subject shouldn’t be taken seriously
It’s of some significance that when I first posted the opinion of an expert in international law regarding the right to pre-emptive self-defence, that information elicited no response from AC.
We see now that this expert opinion is still of no interest. Why?
It’s because AC is having great difficulty processing the fact that he has swallowed hook line and sinker, the cheap propaganda of the cult of Western superiority.
Of course, that propaganda is an easy sell to those who already believe in the lie of Western superiority.
And that’s what is behind the wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed the Russian invasion and continues to this day.
That’s what’s behind AC’s desperate clinging to a position that gives him comfort, that soothes the rocky road from perception to reality.
For those with an innate sense of superiority, it’s only the West that can use military force in the pursuit of national interests.
Any military action by others is seen, if only sub-consciously, as an attack on the very concept of Western superiority.
When you’ve been top-dog for 500 years, coming back to the field feels like oppression.
The use of military force by Hamas is seen as an attack on the concept of Western superiority.
The rise of a peer military force like China is seen as an attack on the concept of Western superiority by much of the Western media.
Western policy-makers are struggling with the rise of China and the emergence of BRICS.
The problem the world faces is the question as to how the West will react to the inevitable.
Will the West embrace the vision of President Xi and work towards a global system of cooperation and mutual prosperity, or will it resist the rise of peer actors by the use of military force?
You’re avoiding the issue Steve, and that has to be pointed out.
This is the challenge that you can’t deal with-
I recently challenged Steve to provide a link to a credible International legal expert who unequivocally says Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is supported by international law.
Originally I suggested you provide a few links that specificallyand unequivocally dealt with Russia’s invasion, but you can’t provide any. Not one. None. Zero.
That’s because there aren’t any.
Keep digging Steve
2nd Rule of Blogging — Do not repeat comments that demonstrate an incapacity for independent thought.
It’s worth repeating, just to make sure Steve understands that (unless he is an eminent international law expert), he is completely on his own on this issue.
Originally I suggested you provide a few links that specifically and unequivocally dealt with the legality of Russia’s invasion, but you can’t provide any. Not one. None. Zero.
That’s because there aren’t any.
Steve has an opinion that he supports with… his own opinions!
AC is determined to put his incapacity for independent thought right up there in flashing neon lights.
The legality question is so simple that it does not require confirmation by an expert in international law.
Russia had two legal justifications for its action — the Responsibility to Protect the Ukrainian citizens of the Donbass who were being killed by their own government, and the right to pre-emptive defence in the face of an imminent threat.
The right to pre-emptive action is recognised by law, and that right has been supported by the governments of the UK and Australia.
That’s it.
How simple can it be?
It could not be more simple.
But simple facts like this are hard to digest when one has allowed cultish propaganda to replace the ability to think and analyse independently.
It’s so much easier to let others do your thinking for you.
Steve, that’s just so lame and embarrassing, even for you.
I have no doubt that you have sought to find a reputable international law scholar to support the claims you’re making.
No doubt you have found a dozen or more that have articulately explained a contrary position to yours.
But no reputable (or from what I can see, even disreputable) legal figure has sought to write a rebuttal.
It’s only you. No one else.
But people are expected to take you seriously?
I think I’ve indulged AC long enough.
You can take a horse to water but…
Some people just cannot see an off-ramp.
But you can’t cite any, because there aren’t any! None. Zero.
You can’t
He hasn’t
you can’t provide any. Not one. None. Zero.
he is completely on his own on this issue.
It’s only you. No one else.
without a shred of support form any reputable practicing international lawyer, academic or authority,
That’s because there aren’t any.
Oh dear.
Despite his modest claims of intellectual brilliance, AC is incapable of comprehending simple explanations without the guiding hand of an authority figure. My boundless compassion for his plight obliges me to lend assistance.
Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and is author of No More War: How the West Violates International Law by Using “Humanitarian” Intervention to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests.
Kovalik wrote a lengthy article explaining the legality of the Russian decision to act.
Here are the final three paragraphs.
In short, there is no doubt that Russia has been threatened, and in a quite profound way, with concrete destabilizing efforts by the US, NATO and their extremist surrogates in Ukraine. Russia has been so threatened for a full eight years. And Russia has witnessed what such destabilizing efforts have meant for other countries, from Iraq to Afghanistan to Syria to Libya – that is, nearly a total annihilation of the country as a functioning nation-state.
It is hard to conceive of a more pressing case for the need to act in defense of the nation. While the UN Charter prohibits unilateral acts of war, it also provides, in Article 51, that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense… ” And this right of self-defense has been interpreted to permit countries to respond, not only to actual armed attacks, but also to the threat of imminent attack.
In light of the above, it is my assessment that this right has been triggered in the instant case, and that Russia had a right to act in its own self-defense by intervening in Ukraine, which had become a proxy of the US and NATO for an assault – not only on Russian ethnics within Ukraine – but also upon Russia itself. A contrary conclusion would simply ignore the dire realities facing Russia.
For readers who have an interest in the cultish support in the media for Western superiority and how this has been weaponised against Russia, check out the wikipedia entry on Daniel Kovalik . You’ll see examples of the cult features I mentioned in my first post.
Or alternatively, sit back and watch as AC’s response to this comment confirms much of what I’ve said about cultish thinking.
https://mediareviewnet.com/2022/04/daniel-kovalik-why-russias-intervention-in-ukraine-is-legal-under-international-law/
I stated in my first comment — This is the link between the cultish denigration of Russia and the cultish protection of Israel…Both protect the economic status quo. And what is the economic status quo? It’s the global financial system set up by the former colonial masters to protect the wealth they amassed by plunder.
There’s a great insight into the protection of the economic status quo at the ABC site today.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-05/gary-stevenson-economist-and-former-trader/105734926
It’s a summary of an interview with a UK economist from last night’s Business program. The full interview link is available, and worth watching.
You’ll see aspects of cultish thinking.
Steve, you just can’t face the fact that there are no reputable international law scholars or practitioners who unequivocally argue that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is legal.
Zero, nil, nought.
Daniel Kovalik is a activist lawyer/academic in human and workers rights
He has worked in one of over 4000 universities in the US. How many legal peers does he have?
Has he written a few peer reviewed papers on international law and specifically on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
His analysis is threadbare.
But the good news is that I can now see where you procured your narrative
Thanks SD. Excellent archived article by Daniel Kovalik
Here’s another, different tilt, more contemporary, from Pearls and Irritations by Prof Jeffrey D Sachs 31-08-25 A new foreign policy for Europe – Ukraine / Russia et al
Cheers Clakka, that’s an great article by Jeffrey Sachs.
And it was good to see Sachs link the media war against Russia to the media war against China.
This confirms the theme of my comments here, that the irrational news media coverage of global affairs has a cult-like aspect to it for a specific purpose — the protection of the wealth accumulated by colonial plunder.
Many thanks. That’s one to file away.
Thanks for the heads up re Jeffrey Sachs.
I’ve outlined previously that I have posted the following on a few sites related to him.
No one deals with these issues.
I might try posting it on peals and irritations.
••••••••••
I wonder whether one of the Jeffrey Sachs supporters would like to deal with his narrative about Russia and Ukraine.
Sachs states that Russia was provoked due to NATO expanding, contrary to a commitment.
Would anyone like to deal with the following-
• the exchange regarding NATO expansion was non binding and verbal. Not written, let alone in a binding treaty.
• it was an exchange with the Soviet Union, not with Russia
• the Soviet Union was comprised of 15 countries. Russia was only one
• a number of the other 14 countries have specifically sought to release NATO from that verbal exchange because they sought to join NATO. As equal recipients of the exchange, this is their right.
• does anyone believe a verbal exchange is binding on future administrations?
• Putin has previously said Ukraine joining NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO. This was after the verbal exchange
• Putin had asked when Russia would be invited to join NATO. This was also after the exchange. Was Putin seeking the membership for Russia, but violently opposes this option for other former Soviet countries?
• does Putin comply with the verbal exchanges (and even the written commitments) of his immediate precedessor, Boris Yeltsin?
I think Sachs exaggerates and misrepresents the status of the verbal exchange .
When AC states that the commitments to not expand NATO were made to the Soviet Union, not Russia, he displays ignorance. Or worse. The same commitments were given to Russia.
When AC states that other former Soviet states sought to release NATO from the agreements, he exposes the lie that the agreements were regarded as non-binding.
If it was accepted that the agreements were not binding, then seeking release was not necessary. And this raises the question as to why anyone would accept non-binding agreements on matters of the utmost gravity. The agreements were considered by all parties at the time to be binding, as the records show.
When AC states that the commitments to not expand NATO were only verbal, he implies that the process was not documented. That is false. Details of the documentation were provided at a previous article, so AC is deliberately hiding the truth.
When AC asks “does anyone believe a verbal exchange is binding on future administrations?” he acknowledges that the promises to the Soviet Union were in fact binding. Which rather undermines his other belief that verbal agreements are not binding.
When AC states that verbal agreements are not binding he displays the moral outlook that we would expect of a defender of US imperialism.
What sort of person says things like that?
What sort of world would we live in if our social relations and international relations were based on the kind of thinking that encourages deceit and manipulation?
We all know the answer to that.
We would end up living in Trumpworld, where trade agreements are tossed aside, where promises are made with no intention of abiding by them, where tariffs are used as a weapon.
It is for good reason that the Global South refers to the US as The Empire Of Lies.
The Empire of Lies — a comfortable home for some.
You’re (deliberately?) missing an important point here Steve.
When (after the verbal exchange) Putin-
• stated Ukraine joining NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO
• sought an invitation for Russia to join NATO
…he (verbally) reneged on the verbal exchange. He demonstrated he didn’t seek to maintain that commitment.
He can’t break, overlook, ignore the verbal exchange by his own statements, requests and actions, and then (violently and brutally) insist on the other party remaining bound by it.
Things are getting weird again.
And I mean, really really weird.
AC falsified the history of the NATO commitments to not expand toward Russia, and now, having been exposed as a fabricator, he acts as though that history is of no importance. The verbal commitments no longer rate a mention.
Readers will note that AC pins his final hope of emerging from this discussion with a tiny semblance of integrity, on a statement made in 2002.
Why did AC not make reference to that date?
Because the date provides context, and if there’s one thing that AC hates, it’s context.
So what’s happened now is that AC has continued to fabricate.
He is fabricating by omission.
Because that date is of great significance.
At that time, Russia was on good terms with NATO and with Europe as a whole.
Russia was also on good terms with Ukraine.
It was five years later in 2007 that Russia was forced to take a hard line against NATO expansion.
And it was not until the violent coup in 2014 when Ukraine adopted a belligerent line against Russian-speaking Ukrainians and against Russia itself, that Russia realised that its cooperative relationship with Ukraine was over.
The aggression by Ukraine against its own citizens, and its documented intention to make war on Russia, changed the political landscape irretrievably. That’s what is behind the weirdness that we see here. Faced with military aggression by a neighbour armed, trained and financed by NATO, Russia was under no obligation to feel bound by a mere response to a journalist in 2002.
But now AC has had his last throw of the dice.
Russia’s action was legal.
The response to a journalist is irrelevant.
The show is over.
Hmm…
I don’t know.
If there’s one thing a fabricator hates, it’s irrelevance.
Except now, that’s two things.
Here’s what Steve (and Jeffrey Sachs) can’t reconcile-
• There were verbal exchanges about NATO expansion in 1990.
• they were with the Soviet Union
• Putin (as the president of one of the 15 former Soviet countries) in the early 2000s made several statements and adopted positions that were directly contrary to those exchanges
• in fact he sought to procure the expansion of NATO beyond Russia’s borders, he sought its expansion directly into Russia
• he didn’t refer to those commitments or demonstrate any misgivings at that time, nor did he make any qualification to his statement – Ukraine joining NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO
• his statements, on the record, demonstrate that a dozen years later he wasn’t pressing or even interested in maintenance of the verbal commitments
• he completely changed his position, and brutally imposes limitations on sovereign nations that he had personally sought to break, ignore or overlook in his own nation
This is rarely referenced-
••••••••••
The International Association of Genocide Scholars Executive Board (IAGSEB) strongly condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the justification for this sttack.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed that the invasion is justified under an allegation of Ukraine committing genocide against Russian-speaking citizens. Putin is misappropriating and misusing the term ‘genocide’ to justify invading a sovereign state. There is no evidence of genocide being committed by Ukraine against Russian-speaking citizens, and such claims have been exposed by independent observers as baseless and even fabricated. These claims are a further abuse of the principles of the Responsibility to Protect.
Putin’s justification is another example of the manipulation by government officials and political leaders of the term ‘genocide’ to serve political purposes.
Misappropriation of the term serves to diminish the experience of genuine victims and survivors of genocide. Ukrainian populations have faced genocide in the 20th Century, in the form of the Holodomor (the Ukrainian famine-extermination in 1932-33 by Stalin) and the Holocaust (under Operation Barbarossa and including the Babyn Yar massacre), survivors of which live in Ukraine today. IAGSEB notes that the invasion of a sovereign state is contrary to fundamental principles of international law such as state sovereignty and the prohibition of the crime of aggression. IAGSEB also notes that such a violation of international law may also lead to the commission of further atrocity crimes, such as war crimes, and thus calls upon Russia to respect international humanitarian law.
IAGSEB declares its solidarity with the Ukrainian people, and urges Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine and seek a peaceful solution in accordance with international law.
February, 28, 2022
Yes indeed, irrelevance is a distressing affliction.
AC was reduced to repeating his earlier fabrications that were exposed as nonsense.
He then realised the gravity of what had happened. By the time he saw how bad he now looked, it was too late to make a correction, or withdraw the comment.
So he came up with a cunning plan — deflection.
But how to deflect?
After a frantic internet search the deflection gods, recognising AC as one of their own, a true deflector for whom no stoop was too low, smiled upon him.
They offered him an obscure article about the Holocaust that had nothing to do with the conflict today but which tried to manufacture a connection.
He grabbed it without hesitation, because it contained a little gem that was right up AC’s alley.
An accusation that the Russian intervention in an ongoing crime against humanity was not legal.
Why was this right up his alley?
Because like every line that AC pushes on this, it had no context.
No mention of the right to pre-emptive defence.
No mention of the shelling of the Donbass by Ukraine for eight years. In fact, so blatant was the article on that point that it deflected into a meaningless argument as to whether the Ukrainian attack was a genocide.
Why was that blatant? Because it ended up implying that the attack by Ukraine on its own people did not happen at all. As here — “such claims have been exposed by independent observers as baseless and even fabricated.”
In effect, the argument put by the article was this — the murder of its own citizens by Ukraine was not a justification for intervention because it was not genocide.
Yep.
That’s the standard of debate that AC loves.
The show must go on.
I suppose I could have pointed out an excuse for the invasion of Ukraine used by both Putin and Daniel Kovalik (and you?) was “genocide” by Ukraine.
In seeking to justify his claim, Daniel Kovalik used a link, that took readers to the International Crisis Group.
However the ICG made no mention or finding of “genocide”
So rather than hunt up an opinion of an unqualified activist to support my position (as is your preference in claiming Daniel Kovalik is a respected international law scholar/expert)… I decided to post a statement by the most eminent international group of scholars regarding genocide.
I provided the finding/statement to refute the claim of Putin and Kovalik (and you?) that Ukraine had committed genocide.
In my earlier comment I was able the demonstrate the nonsense of Jeffrey Sachs and Putin (and you) regarding the status of the 1990 verbal exchange.
Yes indeed, the deflection gods were correct in their assessment of AC — there has never been a stoop too low for him — the fabrication show must go on.
The problem with repeating fabrications is that this does not change reality.
Reality is that which persists no matter what one thinks.
Or how many fabrications one can concoct.
If Putin or Kovalik or anyone else wants to use the word genocide, it’s of no consequence to me, or to the substance of the matter.
The word has not come up in these discussions.
So why raise it?
It’s a deflection by AC from the ugly reality he cannot face.
The reality is that Ukraine attacked its own citizens.
Ukraine killed its own citizens.
If people want to say that the killing was not genocide that’s fine.
But let’s have a bit of honesty here and call it for what it was. (I know, I know, that’s a big ask.)
It was murder.
Is this where AC comes in with a meaningless discussion of what constitutes murder?
Because I can feel a deflection coming on.
Or maybe, because AC is in full stride now, has thrown caution to the wind, he could go for the BIG ONE.
You know the one.
The really really BIG ONE.
He could claim that the deaths that followed the Ukraine attack on the Donbass for eight years never happened. Just as his genocide “experts” suggest.
I mean to say, if yer gunna fabricate, why stuff around?
Go in hard!
Make a name fer yerself!
For those who might not have followed the full thread here, Daniel Kovalik is an American lawyer and Human Rights advocate who has taught International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law where he is or has been an Adjunct Professor of International Human Rights.
Kovalik was the recipient of the Project Censored Award for his article exposing the unprecedented killing of trade unionists in Colombia. That award, and his work with the United Steelworkers Union, makes him an enemy in the eyes of mindless supporters of US imperialism.
If anyone is qualified to comment on international law as it impacts on human rights, it’s Kovalik.
However, I believe that he once had to pay a fine for an overdue library book, so this brings into question any opinion he might express regarding Ukraine.
Steve can’t find a reputable international law scholar/practitioner/expert to support his claims.
Not a single one. Nil. None. Zero
So he posts a opinion piece by an activist qualified and experienced in another discipline.
Has Daniel Kovalik practiced or published peer reviewed material in international law?
Has he critiqued the findings of the ICJ that there was no genocide by Ukraine?
Has he rebutted the court’s decision directing that Russia cease its military actions against Ukraine (as it was contrary to international law)?
I’ve already debunked a significant part if his (and Putin’s and Steve’s) narrative/rationale.
Predictably Steve gets annoyed by this .
How completely unsurprising.
Deflection and fabrication, what a great mix.
So character building.
“Has he critiqued the findings of the ICJ that there was no genocide by Ukraine?”
There’s no need to.
Murder is murder no matter what fancy label some might want to put on it.
Calling the killings by another name does not excuse the crime.
“Has he rebutted the court’s decision directing that Russia cease its military actions against Ukraine (as it was contrary to international law)?”
Here we see one of the problems that arise when fabrication becomes habitual. Serial fabricators need to have a very good memory.
There’s no need for Kovalik to deal with that (I assume he’s referring to Kovalik, with AC you can never be sure.) Because the fact is, that I have dealt with that before.
It was a non-issue when AC brought it up in Nov ‘23, and it’s still a non-issue. So why bring it up?
I suppose… desperate times and all that.
Let’s go over it again, just for the entertainment value.
AC implied back then that the ICJ finding was of great legal significance, as he does here.
My reply was, “The order of the ICJ is not a legal decision. It is a standard response to any outbreak of armed hostilities.”
ACs response to that, after he got his bearings was, (he had somehow, in the excitement of it all, ended up on the wrong thread) “You on the other hard, dismiss the findings of the ICJ,…”
I dismissed the finding because even a non-lawyer like me could see that it was not a finding, it was merely an order, a standard response.
As can be seen here from the ICJ—“The Court further reaffirms that the decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the Application or to the merits themselves. It leaves unaffected the right of the Governments of Ukraine and of the Russian Federation to submit arguments in respect of those questions. For these reasons,The Court Indicates the following provisional measures: The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine.”*
Does AC see the key words? “in no way prejudges”, “leaves unaffected”, “provisional measures”.
At that point AC went AWOL, to resurface 3 months later, throw a couple of jabs and scurry away again.
It should be clear now to the casual observer, that nothing AC presents can be taken at face value.
And once again, as before, I feel a deflection coming on.
• Dont blame me for the fact that you are walking away from your so called expert. He used the term genocide, so did Putin. It was a significant part of the rationale of both.
You used the opinion piece of Daniel Kovalik to support your claims.
Is he (and Putin) wrong?
• if the ICJ decision was standard, why wasn’t Ukraine also directed to cease military operations?
• Steve, I travel frequently, as I am now, often for extended vacations. There are occasions where I don’t bother to follow into your nonsense.
At times I wonder if anyone apart from Steve Davis and AC read these protracted exchanges. The never-ending duel of opinions seems reminiscent of a dysfunctional display of codependency, a cosplay of sorts, a futile battle of wits destined to never end, and losers all.
Not that either of the protagonists are, but it calls to mind the advice to never get into an argument with an idiot, given it’s debasing and arguably not a wise move. Surely both of these men have better things to do than slang off at each other interminably, given that, when it’s all said and done, who cares?, and if he said this and they said that, so what? The sun still rises and sets, we move through the rhythm of our days, and despite Omar Khayyám’s well-known observation, that “the moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it,” these interminable exchanges ooze futility and pointlessness.
Just saying. Do feel free to disagree.
Well Canguro, I’ll simply observe that around the time I started to participate on this particular site, I observed Steve’s unrelenting efforts to get the last reply in every exchange he was involved in.
If anyone dared complain about his tactics he would always reply – “blogging isn’t for the faint hearted”
It wasn’t that Steve was the most logical, informed, articulate or well written. It was that he proved to possess a relentless and mindless determination to get the last word.
I observed a number of thoughtful contributors discontinue as regularly.
I decided that I’d give Steve a taste of his own tactics.
But (unlike Steve) I limit my comments to subjects I’m informed about.
Hope that’s OK with you.
Kanga, I’m surprised that you have not seen the big picture here.
I would have thought that you would support any attempt to expose the propaganda of US imperialism, even an attempt as feeble as mine.
Let’s be honest, one of the reasons that the world is in chaos now is because too many are happy to sit back and do nothing.
And hey, at least I try to feed fresh info into the discussion — it might not be high level entertainment, but I do my best. 🙂
But back to business.
“Dont blame me for the fact that you are walking away from your so called expert.”
Oh, have no doubt, there’s no walking away from me.
I reckon his analysis was excellent.
And if he wants to call the killings genocide, I have no problem with that because the killings were still a crime of massive proportions.
“if the ICJ decision was standard, why wasn’t Ukraine also directed to cease military operations?”
That’s a very good question.
The court hearing was in 2022, and so the court would have had in hand a UN report on killings in Ukraine (from both sides) from 2014-2016 that referred to Ukrainian forces targeting people based on their alleged support for “pro-Russian” views, numerous allegations of executions of rebels who had surrendered or were incapacitated, a widespread lack of discipline in hastily assembled armed groups and within the Ukrainian forces, Ukraine government investigations of summary executions from its own ranks that were slow or protracted deliberately so that alleged perpetrators were provided with opportunities to escape justice, and documented killings within Government forces that includes at least 121 cases of “intentional homicide” of Ukrainian servicemen, some of whom were whistle-blowers who revealed the misconduct of Ukrainian forces in the conflict zone.
The fact that the court did not act on or refer to these matters is troubling, and would be seen by some as an anti-Russia bias on the part of the ICJ.
But this is just another deflection by AC — the court made no decision. It’s all of no significance.
And it’s not all bad news on the legal front.
On March 13, 2025 the European Court of Human Rights delivered a scathing ruling, holding Ukraine responsible for the massacre of scores of anti-Maidan activists in Odessa on May 2, 2014.
This ruling has received limited coverage in Western media outlets, as it confirms the Ukrainian regime’s support of the neo-Nazis through its inaction and refusal to take any measures against the killers.
On that day, nearly 50 anti-fascists were massacred. Activists were attacked by a racist neo-Nazi mob and driven into the House of Trade Unions, which was then set afire. Some anti-fascists were burned alive; others were shot or beaten to death as they tried to escape the blaze. The youngest victim was just 17.
This solves one riddle.
Those who are unhappy with the word ‘genocide’ to describe Ukraine’s campaign of organised killing now have another option — massacre.
3rd Rule of Blogging — Never ask a question unless you know the answer.
Steve, re. “I would have thought that you would support any attempt to expose the propaganda of US imperialism”… absolutely, in spades.
I’ve just finished watching the 18hr Ken Burns documentary series The Vietnam War, a marathon of invested time and energy, given the emotional toll extracted as I sat through the appalling imagery and testimonies of Americans, Nth & Sth Vietnamese, Viet Cong, journalists, soldiers, nurses; the essential takeaway being the duplicity of the American top brass and the politicians and their various associates, in particular Robert McNamara and Henry Kissinger. All presidents of that time, from Kennedy to Johnson then Nixon lied and lied and lied about the state of play in Vietnam. Nixon in particular placed his political future at the forefront and in conspiracy with Kissinger extracted an extraordinary toll on civilian populations in Vietnam, Laos & Cambodia.
If one ever had any suspicion about the treachery of the American political class, this documetary series blows away any lingering affection for that imperialist nation that likes to call itself the indispensable country. Their pathological indifference to human suffering is appalling, gut-wrenching, awful.
So yes, all strength to your pen, Steve, and shine the light where it’s needed.
Cheers old mate, I appreciate that.
Steve, I see you’re providing a lengthy quote without providing a link, was the statement a direct quote from the Court?
Given that the last opinion piece you linked proved to contain false information, I suppose you now might be reluctant to provide the links.
I see you’re now using the term “anti Russian bias” regarding the ICJ
This has now replaced the previous term – “pro western bias”, this is a natural progression for those looking for weird excuses – since the charging of Netanyahu has proved those claims were false.
So let’s recap-
• the only reputable international law scholar/expert you were able to find isn’t a a scholar in international law.
• you used his opinion piece
• I’ve demonstrated his claims don’t withstand some basic analysis
• Can you find an international law scholar who specifically calls Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “legal”? No.
You’re posting only your own opinions. Are you an international law scholar?
•••••••
Please excuse the delay in replying, having a Mediterranean vacation this time of year can be a distraction
Has the ICJ seen the light?
Consider this from Reuters–
World Court dismisses much of Ukraine’s case against Russia
THE HAGUE, Jan 31 2025 – Judges at the top U.N. court on Wednesday found that Russia violated elements of a U.N. anti-terrorism treaty, but declined to rule on allegations brought by Kyiv that Moscow was responsible for the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014.
In the same ruling, judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that Russia had breached an anti-discrimination treaty by failing to support Ukrainian language education in Crimea after its 2014 annexation of the peninsula.
The decisions were a legal setback for Kyiv. The court rejected Ukraine’s requests to order reparations for both violations and only ordered Russia to comply with the treaties…
Ukraine had filed the lawsuit at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, in 2017, accusing Russia of violating an anti-terrorism treaty by funding pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine.
The court’s judges said Moscow violated the U.N.’s anti-terrorism treaty by not investigating plausible allegations that some funds were sent from Russia to Ukraine to possibly fund terrorist activities.
The 16-judge panel ordered Russia to investigate any plausible allegations of terrorism financing but turned down a request by Kyiv for reparations…
In Crimea, Ukraine had said Russia was trying to erase the culture of ethnic Tatars and Ukrainians. The court dismissed all of the claims related to the Tatars but found Moscow did not do enough to support Ukrainian language education.
The court’s judgments are final and without appeal, but it has no way to enforce its rulings.
On Friday, the ICJ will rule in another case in which Ukraine has accused Moscow of falsely applying the 1948 Genocide Convention to justify its Feb. 24, 2022, invasion.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/world-court-rule-whether-russia-violated-international-treaties-ukraine-2024-01-31/
MintPressNews has a slightly different take on the outcome.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a pair of legal body blows to Ukraine and its Western backers. First, on January 31, it ruled on a case brought by Kiev against Russia in 2017, which accused Moscow of presiding over a campaign of “terrorism” in Donbas, including the July 2014 downing of MH17. It (Ukraine) also charged that Russia racially discriminated against Ukrainian and Tatar residents of Crimea following its reunification with Moscow.
The ICJ summarily rejected most charges. Then, on February 2, the Court made a preliminary judgment in a case where Kiev accused Moscow of exploiting false claims of an ongoing genocide of Russians and Russian speakers in Donbas to justify its invasion. Ukraine further charged that the Special Military Operation breached the Genocide Convention despite not itself constituting genocide. Almost unanimously, ICJ judges rejected these arguments.
Western media universally ignored or distorted the substance of the ICJ rulings. When outlets did acknowledge the judgments, they misrepresented the first by focusing prominently on the accepted charges while downplaying all dismissed allegations. The second was wildly spun as a significant loss for Moscow. The BBC and others focused on how the Court agreed that “part” of Ukraine’s case could proceed. That this “part” is the question of whether Kiev ITSELF committed genocide in Donbas post-2014 was unmentioned.
Ukraine’s failed lawfare effort was backed by 47 EU and NATO member states, leading to the farce of 32 separate international legal teams submitting representations… Among other things, they supported Kiev’s bizarre contention that the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics were comparable to Al-Qaeda. Judges comprehensively rejected that assertion.
A closer inspection of the Court’s rulings comprehensively discredits the established mainstream narrative of what transpired in Crimea and Donbas following the Western-orchestrated Maidan coup in February 2014.
In sum, the judgments raise serious questions about Kiev’s eight-year-long “anti-terrorist operation” against “pro-Russian separatists,” following months of vast protests and violent clashes throughout eastern Ukraine between Russian-speaking pro-federal activists and authorities.
In its first judgment, the ICJ ruled the Donbas and Lugansk People’s Republics were not “terrorist” entities, as “[neither] group has previously been characterized as being terrorist in nature by an organ of the United Nations” and could not be branded such simply because Kiev labeled them so. This gravely undermined Ukraine’s allegations of Russia “funding…terrorist groups” in Donbas, let alone committing “terrorist” acts there itself…
The ICJ ruled that Moscow had failed “to investigate allegations of the commission of terrorism financing offenses by alleged offenders present in its territory.” This was due to the Kremlin not providing “additional information” upon Kiev’s request and failing to “specify to Ukraine what further information may have been required.” Ironically, judges conversely condemned Kiev’s allegations of “terrorism” by Russia as “vague and highly generalized,” based on highly dubious evidence and documentation, including – strikingly – Western media reports. The Court has held that certain materials, such as press articles and extracts from publications, are regarded ‘not as evidence capable of proving facts…’ (Ouch! MPNews left out that the court found that such material was only useful as corroboration “in some circumstances”. SD)
The ICJ has now effectively confirmed that the entire mainstream narrative of what happened in Crimea and Donbas over the previous decade was fraudulent.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/failed-icj-case-against-russia-backfires-paves-way-for-genocide-charges-against-ukraine/287028/
…………………………………………………………………………
This really is a body-blow for Ukraine and supporters of US imperialism. Because the justification manufactured by Ukraine and NATO for attacking Ukrainian citizens was the allegation that the Donbass republics were terrorist entities. The court found that to not be the case. The way is now open for Ukraine to be charged with who-knows-how-many breaches of international law.
This would explain the determination of European leaders to prolong the war. If charges against Ukraine are successful, European leaders will be implicated.
And with even Western news outlets conceding now that the outcome of the war will be decided on the battlefield where Russia is well on top, there will be a lot of concern at NATO headquarters.
If legal charges against Ukraine are successful, NATO will not survive.
Even if charges against Ukraine are not ultimately successful, a situation in which Russia has significant influence in future European security arrangements, will see NATO unable to survive in its current form.
So the war will continue.
Steve, I imagine you’re familiar with the Dickens quote I posted elsewhere? Given the default mammalian response to danger is either fight, flight or freeze, and given the default human reaction to being whacked is to whack back tenfold, there’s really no point in hand-wringing and hoping for resolution. Satisfaction will only be achieved when everything is ash, cinders, rubble, all pervaded by the stench of death. Quote per link…Beardy Chaz says…
Thanks Kanga — good stuff
The really sickening thing for me is that these monsters do not care how many Ukrainians die among the “ash, cinders and rubble” as the monsters scramble to protect their miserable hides.
And of course, as you imply, if this gets out of hand, as it may, the monsters also will be left among the rubble.
What I see developing here is frustration trickling out, from within the comments.
Steve, NEVER trust the English courts, after Assange.
Steve speaks from the heart, but I like Cangaru’s more nuanced comments.
Steve I did you post the link to the quote you provided?
In any event, the evidence during the prosecution of the MH17 atrocity demonstrated that Russian backed separatists used Russian supplied missiles.
But you’ll probably excuse that to.
That can go along with you reputable international law scholar who isn’t an expert in international law making false claims about genocide.
You’re also unable to explain why Putin was entitled to seek an invitation for Russia to join NATO (in breach of a verbal exchange), but subsequently demand adherence to it and (brutally and violently) deny this option to other former Soviet countries.
And that’s only your record on this thread!
Hey, did everyone see what just happened???
The International Court of Justice just disappeared off the face of the earth!!
What’s more, we can no longer speak its name! 🙂
Did anyone see what just happened?
Steve doesn’t like the following facts-
• the prosecutions regarding MH17 demonstrated that Russian backed separatists used Russian supplied missiles to shoot down a civilian aircraft
• the quoted reputable international law scholar isn’t one
• his opinion piece contains proven false information
• Putin violently opposes other former Soviet countries from exercising the NATO membership option he sought (in breach of a prior verbal exchange).
• Putin deliberately walked away from the verbal exchange, but years later insists on other countries observing it
…thank you for allowing me the opportunity to again demonstrate the nonsense of your position
A Commenter has slipped to unconscious employ of straw-person stuff.
Please…
The article was about the monopoly, a few states carrying weapons no one else can afford and how these states employ these to intimidate other states into accepting unnacceptable existential terms(Gaza).
Russia, in this postion to an extent after Biden/NATO wanting to put nukes near the border with it, lashed out at those who seemed to be intimidating it.
provocations need not work when the victim has ttheir arse against wall.
The example of Gaza demonstrates wht happens when these people get on top.
Perhaps the same thing applies to the Ukraine also. Either way, the screw-up involves many forces and Iran and Russia have reacted to encirclement, in a perverse way Israel claims it has also.
But it is not white hats/ black hats stuff.
Hobbes the philosopher could have clapped his hands and said ” I told you so, red in tooth and claw is arguably the natural order of things”.
This is really “human nature”?
What place in our world for folk like Francesa Albanese, aboard the sinking ship Enlightenment project.
These folk have realised we us intellignce to solve issues, or we stay interminably in a state of pointless barbarism
I’ve simply pointed out some actual facts that Steve has disputed.
You’re welcome to post some evidence that Biden sought to place nuclear weapons in Ukraine
And thank you for providing me with the opportunity to correct you
The reason some want to plough over ground that’s been ploughed a thousand times already is that the conflict will be decided on the ground.
Some cannot deal with that reality.
The West trampled on Russia’s trust for so long that the trust is no longer there. As a result, Russia has made it clear that top-level meetings will only take place after preliminary discussions to establish a core agenda. Establish “root causes” as Russia puts it.
The ICJ decisions of 2024 mean that Ukraine and NATO are on shaky ground with respect to root causes. This means that the war will continue.
The West does not want to discuss root causes.
Russia intends to reconstruct European security in such a manner that its interests are not ignored. The way things are going on the ground at the moment, it appears that Russia will be in a position to do just that.
NATO had the opportunity to weigh historical considerations, to permit historical considerations to influence outcomes, but chose to not do so.
That opportunity has disappeared because Russia is writing the history now.
The West trampled on Russia’s trust for so long that the trust is no longer there.
Ignoring the fact that Putin said Russia had no plans to invade Ukraine, just 3 days before invading.
Ignoring the fact that Putin said Ukraine joining NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO
Ignoring the fact that Putin sought an invitation to join NATO, breaching the commitment he now insisists on violently imposing on others.
Thanks Steve, for the opportunity to correct your vacuous assertion
Some people just love ploughing.
But ploughing old ground that’s still full of pitfalls changes nothing.
Russia is writing the history of European security.
There’s an irony to this that would be amusing if it was not so tragic.
When NATO and Ukraine ignored Russia’s repeated attempts to be included in security arrangements for Europe, when Clinton publicly humiliated Russia for those attempts, they thought it was them who were writing the history.
Ain’t karma a bitch.
In my first comment 9 days ago (it seems like a lifetime) I linked the cult-like protection of Israel (mentioned in the article) to the cult-like denigration of Russia, because both projects serve the same purpose.
Both serve the same select group, both protect the economic status quo.
And what is the economic status quo?
It’s the global financial system set up by the former colonial masters to protect the wealth they amassed by plunder.
Even in the short time since that comment was posted, tensions have mounted in Gaza/Israel, and in Ukraine.
What has stimulated the tension?
The declining influence of the West that has been starkly evident in the last couple of weeks.
First we saw the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation annual summit in Tianjin China, quickly followed by the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok Russia.
The economic and infrastructure development plans that have been put in place by and for the Global South are impressive, but even more impressive is the determination of all the participating countries to see that economic development and global trade is cooperative, peaceful, and protective of national cultures.
This is the ultimate expression of soft power — the power of a good example.
And how’s this for soft power with a twist — Narendra Modi ignoring phone calls from Trump.
No matter what we might think of Modi, (and there’s plenty of down-side) he has more in the way of spine than all the European lick-spittles in total.
Of interest, the SCO was attended by 10 member countries, 3 observer countries, and 15 Dialogue Partners representing about half of the world’s population and a quarter of the global economy.
The 10th Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in Vladivostok drew 8,400 participants from 75 Countries. The largest delegations came from China, Mongolia, India, Japan, Laos.
Result?
Neo-colonialism (the liberal order) is dying.
Soon there will be no-one left to plunder.
This amplifies the need for the West to cling to those areas where it can still exercise its considerable power over trade routes and resources. (Israel, Eastern Europe for example.)
It’s influence is waning, but its power is considerable.
The wars will continue.
New wars will begin.
Few things are more dangerous and unpredictable than a dying empire.
Neo-colonialism –
‘the use of economic, political, cultural, or other pressures to control or influence other countries, especially former dependencies.”
Steve likes to bandy around terms, without reflecting on his hypocrisy.
When Russia seeks to brutally impose its demands on another country, I wonder whether he reflects that this looks like the neo colonialism he is so critical of
But Steve has never been one for reflection on Putin lack of honesty and transparency or his own.
I’ve observed in the past that Steve used the CS Lewis standard of English language. Words means whatever Steve chooses them to mean.
Examples abound on this thread alone.
And remember-
• When challenged to provide a few international law scholars who stated Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is legal, Steve has been unable to provide any. No a single one
• The non peer reviewed opinion piece of the non international lawyer he used has proved to contain false information
There are plenty more example of Steve’s threadbare and tainted opinion, that I’m entirely comfortable with pointing out
Still no mention from AC of the 2024 ICJ decisions.
The question on everyone’s lips is — Where did they disappear to?
So I asked Grok — Is the disappearance of the International Court of Justice a body-blow for supporters of US imperialism?
The answer came back — Supporters of US imperialism are in deep shock over recent decisions, but they intend to cope in moments of distress by mulling over decisions from 2022.
Grok needs to get its act together.
Supporters of US imperialism don’t even refer to 2022 decisions anymore.
When he is continually proved to be misleading and disingenuous, Steve tries to change the subject.
But I’m happy to continue to remind him of his record
• can’t post a single statement by a reputable international law scholar who specifically says Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is legal.
• instead uses an opinion piece by someone who isn’t an international law expert , that has proven to contain false information
• can’t reconcile Putin’s previous breach of a verbal exchange/commitment with his current brutal insistence on others complying with it.
• changes his narrative about the ICJ bias
And among his previous oddball assertions…
• made the bizarre and unqualified statement that economic facts and data is irrelevant to a discussion about economics
• has claimed separatists aren’t separatists
• false equivalence and misrepresentation about Merkel’s comments on the Minsk Agreements
• doesn’t deal with the fact that Putin has justified Hitler’s rationale for starting WW2
Thank you again for the opportunity to point out your record.
So I asked Grok — Do you have any advice or comforting words for supporters of US imperialism, they’ve had a tough time lately.
The answer came back —They can be confident that with supporters in Europe like NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte who refers to Donald Trump as “daddy”, the US has allies of the very highest calibre.
We can rest easy.
The world is in capable hands.
Steve, I remain perplexed as to why you believe you should be taken seriously (particularly about this issue) given your proven record of posting false information, misrepresentation and disingenuity.
As I’ve demonstrated on a number of occasions, under challenge, you try to change the subject, exaggerate, quote biased, obscure and unqualified opinion, backtrack on your assertions and invent new meaning for words
It really is hilarious
So I asked Grok, — Do you have any advice for bloggers who deflect back to extraneous trivia when confronted with the awful reality of ICJ decisions?
The answer came back — If they think that the ICJ decisions were bad, how will they handle Russia writing the history of European security?
I’ve demonstrated on a number of occasions, under challenge, you try to change the subject, exaggerate, quote biased, obscure and unqualified opinion, backtrack on your assertions and invent new meaning for words
And have a mindless obsession with getting the last word
It really is hilarious
Well, that clearly didn’t work — more meaningless trivia.
So I asked Grok — What advice can you give to those who introduce ICJ decisions to the discussion, then don’t want to talk about them at all?
The answer came back — Disjointed arguments are a feature of those who regularly use a dot-point format to disguise a lack of purpose. Their sudden jump from item to item, often with several disconnected points appearing in the one comment, adds to the incoherence. Robotic repetition of the phrase “it really is hilarious” is often associated with this affliction. Scientific studies have been unable to determine if the dot-point format is a symptom of an underlying problem, or the cause. Some patients, desperate for a cure, have taken the extreme measure of a Mediterranean holiday to break the cycle, but success has been limited. Until a cure is found, the best advice is to take a Bex and have good lie down.
The article notes that in regard to efforts for non-proliferation, “After eight decades, we have two diametrically opposed trends, babbling in separate halls. Non-nuclear weapons states, for the most part, are showing fortitude and resolve in stigmatising the nuclear bomb…Others such as a neutered, heavily vassalized Australia, prefer the comfort of extended deterrence offered by the US nuclear deterrent. But the aristocrats and landed gentry of the nuclear club continue to retain their prized assets, seeking to modernise and refurbish them.”
The point only briefly touched upon in the article is that legalistic measures such as non-proliferation treaties do not provide security in an environment of continual de-stabilisation and conquest. As in — “The North Koreans, having witnessed the demise of the regimes of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya to foreign invasion and interventions despite both having abandoned their nuclear programs, studied that lesson with avid keenness.”
The only path to a world free of nuclear threats is to dismantle the global economic system that facilitates and encourages a dog-eat-dog approach to international affairs.
Our economic system produces uncertainty.
Uncertainty produces anxiety.
Anxiety leads to fear when real or imagined threats appear.
Physical threats, as we see currently being enacted against Venezuela, lead to nuclear proliferation. If the threats against Venezuela continue, its leaders could decide that only the possession of a nuclear deterrent will stop the threats.
And what’s behind the US threats?
Yep. You guessed it.
With the world’s largest economy being built on perpetual war, nuclear threats will be a constant until we dismantle the economic system.
It’s quite simple Steve
You made a series of assertions without any supporting evidence, it was just your biased (false) narrative.
Several times I challenged you to provide evidence of support from a reputable international law scholar/expert.
You avoided this, and just repeated the nonsense/false narcissist.
Eventually you posted an opinion piece by someone unrecognised in the international law discipline.
I demonstrated that the opinion piece contained false information.
I’ve now done that several times in this thread and others.
The fact is you don’t show any ability to look for material, articles if information that challenges your bias and preconceptions.
This is known as the need for cognitive reinforcement.
Wh3n combined with an obsession to get the last word, it is a deep problem (for you)
But the good news is that we now know where you have procured your (false) narrative
…false narrative
(although “narcissist” does seem reasonable as well)
What’s going on?
Usually Bex works a treat!
I’ve heard of circular reasoning before, but circular blogging is something entirely new.
So I asked Grok — What advice can I give to bloggers who do not respond to issues raised in articles, instead using the blog to go round in circles?
The answer came back — Keep giving ‘em an off-ramp, so that when they persist with meaningless trivia they look like try-hards who have nothin’.
I think you’ll find artificial intelligence is more reliable than the (non) experts you have quoted on this thread, and others.
On the positive side we can now see where you procured/plagiarised your false narrative.
More circular blogging — still defaming my impeccable sources!
Hmm…
Grok needs to up his game.
He hasn’t woken up yet, that the patient is treatment-resistant!
Perhaps the questions need more focus, more, I don’t know, back to “root causes”?
So I asked Grok — Do you have any advice for those who object to the word “genocide” to describe Ukraine’s 8 year campaign of killing its own citizens?
The answer came back — Tell ‘em to try “massacre” instead.
That was a bit abrupt, I thought.
Sounds like Grok’s had it up to the eyeballs with US imperialism!
Your “impeccable sources” provide false information.
But it’s great that you have stopped trying to justify Daniel Kovalik’s claims and credibility as a “reputable international law scholar”
So I said to Grok — The word “massacre” to describe 8 years of killing made no impression at all. Is there any way to get those who divert attention from the killing by arguing over the definition of genocide, to think clearly on this?
The answer came back — It’s not easy to get some people to think in a humane way. Try telling ‘em to form a mental image of a Ukrainian mum, holding her dying child, its legs torn off by shrapnel, and the mother saying “Thank God, it could be worse, at least it’s not genocide.”
Don’t blame me Steve, it was you (non) “expert” (and Putin) who used the term genocide as a rationale for invasion.
You can wriggle as much as you like, but despite your reliance on a (non) international law scholar to provide both your narrative and your justification, you get an E-
Plagiarism and false information always results in a failure, the combination of both in a single debate is an abject failure
I’ve just about had it with Grok.
They call it intelligent? None of its crappy advice made any impression at all!
Time for a different tack.
I asked — With the adventure in Ukraine turning into a disaster, do supporters of US imperialism have anything at all to look forward to?
The answer came back — You mean apart from WW3? Tell the ungrateful short-sighted ninnies to look at the big picture.
Is the article in The Lancet stating an average 564, 258 deaths from Western sanctions every year not good enough for ‘em? How much death and destruction do these ghouls want? Sanctions kill the same number of people each year as warfare, and they’re still not happy?
The aim in Ukraine was not to win, the aim was perpetual war. As soon as the Ukraine war impacts on the US economy, they’ll start another one elsewhere.
Venezuela’s looking good, heaps of oil to steal, and the place is run by socialist fools who insist on using oil profits to raise living standards. A coup there would be divine retribution for Venezuela’s blatant disregard for the rights of oil cartels.
Artificial intelligence is about as capable as you and your “experts”