By Dr Strobe Driver
Introduction
The war-of choice-that the Russian Federation has launched against Ukraine and similarly, the war the United States of America (US) and Israel are pursuing against Iran have evolved into attrition-based warfare as the defenders, Ukraine in the first instance and Iran in the second, have refused to surrender. Thus, war seldom goes in the ‘direction’ that it is supposed to, and this is especially relevant in both the aforementioned as the expectation of surrender has not been adhered to. History is littered with wars that should have gone in a particular ‘direction,’ and the Second World War (WWII) (1939 – 1945), has numerous examples of grand supposedly-successful strategies that have ended in failure. Nazi Germany’s charge toward Stalingrad; and the Japanese Imperial Army’s (JIA) advance through Southeast Asia are examples of grand plans that ended in abject disaster – or in other words, the war not going in the direction it ‘should have.’ Germany was incapable of sustaining personnel, materiél and the replacement of assets in the face of the Russian military remaining committed and responsive to the advances of the German army; and in the Pacific phase of WWII, the JIA was severely overstretched, their supply lines were consistently harassed and destroyed; and all of their capital ships, in this case aircraft carriers, were either sunk or had to return to Japan for repairs and as a result, mobile air cover for the JIA became virtually non-existent.
Grand strategies then, as now, are underpinned by a single aspect and although it is more ardent on the part of the initiator/s, it nevertheless is present in the defender/s. The aspect alluded to exists on the part of the aggressor/s and defender/s and whether it involves blitzkrieg (lightning war) advances of one actor or a robust and deadly response of a defending actor it is and remains, that defeat is unintended (1). Therefore, the war tends to rage on and continue to escalate. With this in mind an analysis is able to be made.
The ‘direction’ of war and its discontent
Strategies that failed did not end with WWII. Post-WWII there are two prime examples of failure and by definition a particular war not going in the ‘direction’ it was planned. The two offered here are relevant as they represent a powerful nation-state which was ‘supposed to’ be victorious because they were more ‘developed’ militarily, and within this construct should not have been subdued and then defeated by a lesser-power. ‘Direction’ therefore it can be safely argued, is predicated on the assumption that the most powerful actor is somehow and in some way, able to ‘control’ said direction of a war and after a prescribed time become victorious. As ludicrous as this concept is, it remains vibrant and is exhibited in the aforementioned twenty-first century wars-of-choice. Notwithstanding the current hostilities it is pertinent to introduce the French incursion into Algeria (1954 – 1962), in order to suppress opposition to its colonization of the country. The fighting would be driven by the Algerian Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN), which was opposing the ongoing rule of the French military. The French forces would become increasingly incapable of suppressing the guerrilla actions of the ALN, and would be finally overwhelmed and defeated. This type of tactics would alter the direction of the war; and eventually break French would be due to the French military having to be in a constant state of hyper-alertness; the relentless feelings of being unsafe by the French people residing in Algeria; and consistent guerrilla and rear-guard actions of the ALN.
This is writ large in the following tactic:
[S]mall, highly trained packets, taking advantage of electric storms … Using its increasing fire-power the A.L.N would harass the French Army with repeated painful “pin pricks,” shelling and mortaring units from the relative safety of their Tunisian and Moroccan sanctuaries … [and] just to keep the pot simmering with an occasional grenade thrown into a café here [in the capital El-Jazair or a main town such as Oman] a burst of machine gun fire on the beach there (2).
In keeping with the notion of being able to ‘direct’ a war and as severe as the French defeat was, it would do nothing to alter the prescribed historical edict that a powerful military is able to overcome lesser-powers. Hence, there is no greater twentieth century example of the ‘direction’ a war ‘should have gone’ than the Vietnam War (1963 – 1975) – the Vietnamese people refer to the war as the ‘American War’(3). The war would evolve with the ground war fighting becoming more sustained and intense, and would result in the defeat of the South Vietnamese forces, and the US and its allies (including Australia). The war was expected to be swift, as it was ‘designed to last six weeks’ (4), simply because the collision would be between a developed ‘first world’ nation-state and an undeveloped ‘third world’ divided nation-state. This did not go to plan for the South Vietnamese government and its allies – especially, the US. The important issue is the war that was ‘designed’ to last six weeks was in its sixth year, referred to by Clark Clifford, the US Secretary of Defense as a, ‘sorry, sorry enterprise’ (5). The attacks by the NVA would continue in frequency and intensity and a breaking point would be reached. The point alluded to, would be the 1968 Tet (New Year) offensive by North Vietnamese infiltrators who had reached far into the hinterland of the south of the country (Nam). The battles that raged, whilst indubitably resulting in a military failure on the part of the NVA infiltrators, this factor would pale into insignificance as the ferocity and surprise elements of the attacks took hold. A significant factor that turned the American people against the war and thus, turned the overall tide of the war, is writ large in the following news report:
‘WAR HITS SAIGON,’ screamed the front-page headline of Washington’s afternoon tabloid The News. But newspaper accounts paled beside the television coverage, which that evening projected the episode in all its vivid confusion, into the living rooms of fifty million Americans. There, on color screens, dead bodies lay amid the rubble and the rattle of automatic gunfire as dazed American soldiers and civilians ran back and forth trying to flush out the assailants (6).
The sheer destruction of assets and the multiple deaths of US military personnel in the offensive would prompt Senator McCarthy in a post-Tet hearing to exclaim
In 1963 we were told we were winning the war … in 1964, we were told the corner had been turned. In 1965, we were told the enemy was being brought to his knees. In 1966, in 1967, and now again in 1968, we hear the same hollow claims of programs and victory … Only a few months ago we were told that 65 percent of the [Vietnamese] population was secure. Now we know that not even the American embassy [in Saigon] is secure (7).
The North Vietnamese government had remained steadfast in its uniting of the country and adopted a strategy of controlling and thereby, allowing the war to become, ‘a prolonged and bloody stalemate [for the United States]’ (8). And this factor ultimately became their winning strategy in changing the ‘direction’ of the war in their favour, as it eventually turned the American populace against the war. To be sure, the Tet offensive was a military failure, although a political victory. Furthermore, and as per current events, emphasises the point that wars do not necessarily have to be won on the battlefield.
Here and now: a war-of-choice and its discontents
Returning to more contemporary times, all of the abovementioned does have an element of a military and chronological deja vu. The direction: a war would be initiated; the Iranian government and military would be overwhelmed, the the Iranian military would not and could not fight back for a myriad of reasons; and the government would surrender and/or the populace would rebel and overthrow the government. Thus, the direction of the war could be controlled. Simple really! That stipulated and concentrating on broader issues, it beggars belief that the US and Israel would retain the historical baggage of their (supposed) superiority, which in and of itself, would render Iran incapable of defending its territory. The hyper-vigilance Iran has exhibited in previous regional conflicts in the past – especially the Iran – Iraq War (1980 – 1988), has obviously gone completely unnoticed by the US and Israel.
This factor would it is safe to argue, involve though not be limited to hubris, arrogance and superciliousness on the part of the initiators; and of having leaders’ whose comprehension of history is low; and the repercussions of what a hostile defence and retaliation involves are naïve in the extreme. More to the point, the regime that has a population of 90+ million people; and for all intents and purposes, is in control of their population (despite recent civil unrest), and has called upon the populace to remain resolute. The incursion – as with the Vietnam War and the Russian invasion of Ukraine – has immediately evolved to one of the defender having significant control over the direction the war is taking. This is not the way it was supposed to be! Whatsmore the war is taking on the making of a regional ‘total’ war,’ or a war with few restraints (9); and in tandem with this aspect, Iran is viewing the attack as a ‘zero-sum-game’ (10) collision – which is colloquially referred to as, a ‘fight to the finish.’ The evidence is clear in the sheer volume of missiles Iran has fired in to Israel and US military assets in the region. Furthermore and concomitant to the retaliation, the US and Israel are continually being questioned in a broader political capacity in their audacity of beginning a war-of-choice, of it escalating, of it to seemingly being ‘allowed’ to spiral out of control and of there being no end in sight. In simpler terms, this factor – as per the North Vietnamese government in times past – has allowed the Iranian government to control the narrative and it (to date), it appears to be winning in the contested spaces of the military-, politico-, regional- and global-arenas.
War as an opportunistic happening
Further than the physical death and destruction the war has reached so far, there is a wider cause playing out. For Iran an opportunity has developed – or at the very least a window of opportunity – for the Middle East to divest itself of the hyper-influence of the post-WWII era global domination of and by, the West – and the US in particular – and of tempering the military- and politico-influence cum dominance of and by Israel, in the post-1967 era. The level with which Iran evolves these factors to, is yet to be seen. Such a state-of-affairs is by definition driven by the actual level of response by Iran and in doing so it has shattered the myth that non-Western countries have been ‘sitting on their hands’ and doing nothing, in the face of the almighty US; and its allies – in this case and in particular, Israel. The sophistication of Iranian military assets and the accuracy with which they are being utilised means the Iranians have been consistently gaining science and intelligence since the end of the Iran – Iraq War (1980 – 1988). This aspect has been obviously largely ignored by the US and Israel.
More striking however, is the politico-fallout by the US as Iran has managed to turn the direction of its war as a jus ad bellum (just war) and whilst what a ‘just war’ actually comprises, it has nonetheless, caught the US and Israel completely off guard. Notwithstanding the direction of the war it is and remains, that there is a danger within any war is that it will become total and this remains to the current conflict. At this point however, and because only several regional actors have displayed their discontent it is relevant to observe at this point, Iran holds the politico-advantage of being the victim; of its retaliation being part of its just war; and of it continuing to develop and retain a heightened military- and politico-credibility.
In closing: whether the current war escalates or de-escalates the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ is and remains a ‘much bigger picture’ associated with any outcomes. Most importantly, if Iran defers to the demands of the US and Israel, the politico-backlash from China, the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) will be severe. The three aforementioned are main though passive actors, and thus, will observe any submission on the part of Iran as a surrender-by-proxy; an increase in the US-Israel power balance within the Middle East region; a subjugation of their interests in the region; an insult to their scientific-, military- and political-input into the Iranian cause; and of their unified cause in constraining Western influence in the region to have been wasted. These factors, as unseen as they may be in in the day-to-day machinations of war are however, what will dominate any move to escalation or de-escalation. Iran will have to stay the course until all three of its most ardent supporters are satisfied; and their opportunistic gains are (somewhat or completely) fulfilled. This is no longer a war between three actors. Militarily it presents as the case although politically, there are already many more ‘seats at the table.’ Whether the current war-of-choice escalates or de-escalates is not confined to what Iran wants, as the US and Israel will eventually become beholden to an oppositional quad – and at this point in time, this can only offer escalation. Iran will not back down without the blessing of its three closest and main allies cum mentors. This is the final direction the war will take and the US and Israel will need to pay close attention to Iran’s allies, as much as they will Iran proper. The grand strategy or ‘direction’ on the part of the US and Israel to destroy Iran politically, militarily and literally has nonetheless, already failed.
References
(1) Geoffrey Blainey. The Causes Of War. Melbourne: The MacMillan Company, 1998, 249.
(2) Alistair Horne. A Savage War of Peace. Algeria 1954-1962. New York: New York Review Books, 2006, 413.
(3) The Vietnam War is ‘known as the “American War” in Vietnam.’ See: British Broadcasting Corporation. Timeline: Vietnam.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1243686.stm
(4) The Ten Thousand Day War: To the Bitter End. Produced by Ian McLeod. Middlesex: A Cinequity Production. 1985. [Videorecording 5].
(5) The Ten Thousand Day War, [Videorecording 4].
(6) The Vietnam Experience. Nineteen Sixty-Eight. By Clark Dougan, Stephen Weiss and the Editors of the Boston Publishing Company. Boston: Boston Publishing Company, 1983, 104-105.
(7) Stanley Karnow. Vietnam: A History. The First Complete account of the Vietnam War. New York: Penguin Books, 1984, 256.
(8) Jeffrey Record. ‘How America’s own Military Performance in Vietnam Aided and Abetted the North’s Victory.’ Why The North Won The Vietnam War. Edited by Marc Gilbert. New York: Palgrave, 2002, 133.
(9) Total wars involve a high mobilization of society … Because total wars take on the characteristics of a fight for survival, they tend to mobilize resources and means to wage battle with few restraints …The goals in total wars are much more open-ended and often expand as the war progresses. Total wars often demand the complete overthrow of the leadership of the other side whether through demand of unconditional surrender as in World War II, or complete annihilation, as in the Third Punic War. See: John Vasquez. The War Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 67.
(10) According to Cohen a ‘zero-sum-game’ or ‘zero-end-sum-game’ is the polarized ‘win-lose’ environment that is dictated by the extreme of the hostilities and is summed up ‘when one state wins the other must lose.’ See: Benjamin Cohen. ‘International Finance.’ Handbook of International Relations, 441. Emphasis added.
Dr Strobe Driver is a freelance writer and commentator on war and conflict. He completed a PhD in war studies approximately 15 years ago and has been writing ever since. He published a book on the coming Asia-Pacific war in 2024 (and has since had a science-fiction novel published). The international relations book can be found at:
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/the-brink-of-2036-why-there-must-be-a-war-in-the-asia-pacific
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.
Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
“Dr Strobe Driver is a freelance writer and commentator on war and conflict. He completed a PhD in war studies approximately 15 years ago and has been writing ever since.”
And yet he has not studied enough to know that “The war-of choice-that the Russian Federation has launched against Ukraine” of which he speaks, is a classic piece of Western propaganda.
The good doctor is blissfully unaware that Russia pleaded with the West for years to establish a security pact that would provide for security and prosperity for all the nations of Europe, and was treated with contempt for its efforts.
That a scholar could present such trite nonsense is to be frank, astonishing.
Good to see you again, Strobe.
The news is not all bad.
This from Fortune:
The Treasury just declared the U.S. insolvent. The media missed it
March 23, 2026,
The U.S. government is insolvent. That’s not hyperbole — it’s the conclusion drawn directly from the Treasury Department’s own consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2025, released last week to near-total media silence. The numbers: $6.06 trillion in total assets against $47.78 trillion in total liabilities as of September 30, 2025.
Importantly, the $47.78 trillion in reported liabilities does not include the unfunded obligations of social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare — those are disclosed separately in the off-balance-sheet Statement of Social Insurance (SOSI).
https://fortune.com/2026/03/23/us-government-insolvent-fiscal-crisis-fix/
To Steve, good day sir. I wrote only to acknowledge what the UN has stipulated. A war must be given status by the UN. Of course Russia did demand NATO should not progress eastward. It did and Russia reacted.lt is the fault of the UN that the war happened. However, according to the Treaty of Westphalia, no nation-state should impinge on another. Therefore, it is illegal.
Strobe, many thanks for responding, I appreciate that very much.
However, I cannot follow your reasoning regarding the UN.
You’re right, it did not operate as it should, but then, when has it?
The veto provision prevents positive outcomes.
Israel for example, has been defying UN resolutions for decades, and now feels safe enough to carry out a genocide.
The UN is past its use-by date.
You acknowledge NATO’s eastward push, and there lies the problem.
International law does not prevent nations protecting themselves from threats. The law provides for such protection.
International law also acknowledges the Responsibility to Protect, in this case, to protect the people of the Donbass who protested at their legal and ethnic status being diminished by legislation immediately after the 2014 coup, and were subsequently attacked by Kiev for 8 years.
The legislation that discriminated against the Donbass residents was the first legislative act by the new government, so this was a deliberate targeting of a minority group.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
The war stops when the septics leave NATO and the nuclear threat disappears.
Vietnam and Cuba survived and prospered, despite the septic petulant economic campaign.
Whilst there is plenty of votes in trump’s bellicose prattle it wont win midterms nor would he survive another war.
Hello again Sam,
I agree with much of what you say however, the current UN (as antiquated an institution as it is), follows what the Treaty of Westphalia instigated — and does to this day. Whether or not the UN Security Council respects the TofW tenets is a long and arid argument. Nonetheless, it does state (from Memory something to the effect of ‘a sovereign nation-state shall not impinge on another regardless of the asymmetries of power,’ and therein lies the problem — in recent times the Russian Federation and now US/Israel have done so. What I am stipulating is the incursions (they are not ‘wars’ as the UNSC has not deemed them so), are fundamentally illegal regardless of the motivations of invading said nation-states. The UN should be heavily involved in sanctioning all three yet they do not. It is a failed institution because it has stepped back from its original peace-keeping obligations.
Hello again Roswell,
Very good to be back. My book is done and the AIMN is fab.
Regards, Strobe
Strobe, thanks for your response.
You state — What I am stipulating is the incursions (by Russia, US, Israel)… are fundamentally illegal regardless of the motivations of invading said nation-states. The UN should be heavily involved in sanctioning all three yet they do not.
That view renders irrelevant the right to pre-emptive defence and the Responsibility to Protect. Both of those are provided for in international law.
Because the UN is unable to carry out its intended purpose, all we are left with is deciding in our own minds if any of the three parties you mention as having carried out incursions, did so within the limits of the UN Charter and international law in general.
It’s clear to me that Russia did act within those limits and the US and Israel did not.
Others might have a different view.
In regard to Strobe Driver’s continued position that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal, it’s worth pointing out that those who make that claim, never (to my knowledge) refer in their analysis to the prior disregard by Ukraine and NATO for Article 2.4 of the UN Charter.
Article 2 (4) provides that ‘all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations’.
Significance of Article 2.4 (from Co-pilot)
Article 2(4) is considered a cornerstone of the UN Charter and the modern international legal order. It underpins the principle of sovereign equality and the prohibition of aggression, forming the legal basis for peaceful dispute resolution and international cooperation. Despite enforcement challenges, it remains a critical reference in international law and diplomacy.
In other words, Article 2.4 could be said to have more relevance to the Ukraine matter than Article 51.
The Donbass republics were seeking autonomy within Ukraine; that was the basis of the Minsk Accords. (Point 3 in Minsk 1, Points 4 and 12 in Minsk 2) In other words, the signatories had committed to an agreed political solution — all that remained was to finalise the details.
In that situation, as the details were being negotiated, Ukraine had a responsibility to protect its people of the Donbass.
It did not.
It evaded that responsibility for 8 years and engaged in civil war.
It was Russia’s position from the start that the finalising of the autonomy negotiations was an internal matter for Ukraine, as was indeed the case.
So at the beginning of February 2022, with the Ukrainian forces preparing a larger attack, the Russians decided that the political solution was now dead and that it was necessary to move to a military solution.
Vladimir Putin finally agreed to recognize the independence of the two republics so that he could sign treaties of friendship and legally provide assistance in case of danger.
On February 23rd both republics requested military assistance from Russia.
And so, in coalition with the two republics, Russia intervened under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Two months prior to the intervention Putin had warned that if the established, documented, agreed upon political process that had dragged on for 7 years was not followed through, a military process would ensue.
Russia had followed the legal/political path in line with the Minsk Accords.
Ukraine and its European partners had no interest in that course.
This was later admitted by Merkel and Hollande.
So the “unprovoked invasion” claim that we hear so often is false.
Strobe Driver made no such claim, but to draw an analogy as he has, between the legal Russian action and those of the US and Israel is at the very least, misleading.
Steve, you’ve proven to be unable to cite a single international law scholar, expert or academic who supports your position.
A couple of days ago you claimed I had repeatedly misrepresented a United Nations report. You proved to be unable to cite evidence of this too.
You’re now challenging someone with actual qualifications and experience in the subject.
Can you explain what exactly makes you an expert?
I just found one thing out.
Links to individual comments don’t come through.
I’ll try the old way.
A couple of days ago you claimed I had repeatedly misrepresented a United Nations report. You proved to be unable to cite evidence of this too.
AC wants his dishonesty on display for all the world to see?
Sometimes the wise course is to walk away.
Because my patience has worn thin with serial fabricators.
Does that sound a bit harsh?
A bit too judgmental?
Go back to his original request for a link.
https://theaimn.net/the-place-of-dates/
24 March 2026 at 11:16 am
That was not the response of someone outraged at being accused of malpractice. It was the response of one who fabricates habitually, but thought he could bluff his way out of this one.
It could be that AC genuinely cannot remember the instances I mentioned, but that’s just more evidence of habitual practice.
If I had been accused of falsifying a document and shown proof of that, I would remember it for the rest of my life.
But for a serial offender, the individual cases are like shopping lists from weeks ago — a dream-like blurry stream. For serial offenders, getting caught has no lasting consequences because they have no ethical foundation. It’s just a cost of doing business.
Sometimes they can bluff their way out of it; sometimes they can’t. When they can’t, they change the subject, as we saw with the extraordinary episode of the “little green men”.
That one gave a whole new meaning to “covering one’s tracks.”
https://theaimn.net/a-dramatic-development-in-the-ukraine-situation/
21 February 2025 at 10:21 pm
The wise course would be to walk away.
I see you remain determined to embarrass yourself Steve.
I replied (over a year ago) to the following comment
“Over 14,000 Russian speaking and culturally aligned Ukranians were killed by the Nazi inspired Azove battalion.”
So, please demonstrate –
• 14,000 were all Russian speakers and culturally aligned with Russia
• that they were all killed by the “Azove battalion”
• that the 300 who died on MH17 were Russian speakers
• and exactly which part of the United Nations report did I misrepresent?
And by the way, are you yet able to find a single international law scholar or expert or academic who supports your contention?
Also by the way, you’ve taken this argument to someone who highly regarded, so may I ask exactly what your qualifications are in the subject?
So the first step to establish his credentials for what is really an extraordinary “fabricational consistency”, saw AC complain about alleged misrepresentation of a UN report, then proceed to misrepresent the report.
He stated This figure is a misrepresentation of a United Nations report. The report found that during the civil war, a total of approx 14000 died, comprising, 6500 Russian backed separatist militia, 4500 Ukrainian military, 3000 civilians that were split between areas occupied by Russian backed separatists and those under Ukrainian control.
https://theaimn.net/a-dramatic-development-in-the-ukraine-situation/
19 February 2025 at 9:43 am
That contained a fabrication.
The report made no mention of “Russian backed separatist militia”. The term used was “armed groups”.
How crude was that?
That’s not a mistake.
That’s deliberate. And presented in dot-point form to give the appearance of copy and paste.
AC removed text from the UN report and inserted in its place, false information. Just as he did in another instance.
Even the term “Russian backed separatist militia” is a fabrication in itself, because for the period in question there were no Russian arms or personnel sent to the Donbass.
But that’s not all.
A more serious instance occurred where a UN document had text removed and false information inserted.
Remember my reference to “fabricational consistency”?
It would be of significant interest to a psycho-analyst that in both instances of AC misrepresenting a UN document, the fabrication came immediately after an allegation by AC of fabrication by others.
On the second occasion I was the lucky target, but I hasten to add that no evidence of fabrication was provided. It was just tossed into the mix because hey, it’s just a blog, who cares about ethics?
If yer care about right and wrong yer just a mug.
It went like this:
One of Steve’s specialties is misrepresentation.
The relevant clause in the Budapest Memorandum states– Avoid economic coercion aimed at subordinating Ukraine’s sovereign rights.
See it here — https://theaimn.net/why-my-work-is-clearly-biased/
18 November 2025 at 2:03 pm
You will note the word “states”.
Not only is the “stated” clause not relevant as AC claimed, it does not exist.
It never did exist.
It was fabricated.
The intent of this deception was to divert attention from the US breaching the Budapest Memorandum, because the actual clause required the parties to “refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.”
That requirement, needless to say, was ignored by the US.
It was treated with contempt by the US before, during, and after the Ukraine coup. (See the US admit this at:
https://theaimn.net/why-my-work-is-clearly-biased/
18 November 2025 at 4:02 pm )
In other words, multiple breaches by the US over time.
This pattern of breaches over years meant that when Russia was forced to act, (for reasons explained above) the Memorandum no longer existed.
We know that this misrepresentation of the document was deliberate because it was not retracted, nor was there an apology for what could have been a mere error. We all make mistakes; mistakes are no big deal.
Instead the matter was over-ridden by AC as though nothing of note had occurred.
The falsification of the document came up in subsequent exchanges with other posters, but at no point did AC explain or justify.
So, misrepresenting a UN document is “hilarious”?
It is not.
Is it disturbing?
Definitely.
Sometimes its best to just walk away.
Steve said links to individual comments don’t come through.
Although he is usually accurate in his observations, on this occasion he’s not. It’s actually very simple… click the Date & Time record under the poster’s name, (it’s unique), and copy/paste the URL from the address bar into your HTML code along with the relevant comment/text.
Click the embedded links in this post, Steve, for dynamic examples.
This figure is a misrepresentation of a United Nations report
[Caveat: Only full posts can be linked, not comments within posts]
Thanks Kanga.
I never would have worked that one out.
What was it Arnd called you?
The WordPress Whisperer?
You’re typically splitting hairs Steve.
But I’m entirely willing to acknowledge that the United Nations didn’t use the term “Russian backed”
However, my use of the term is a long way from misrepresentation of the report, particularly in the context of the comment I replied to.
I’ll simply point out that there is plenty of evidence that separatists used Russian supplied Buk missiles to shoot down MH17 and kill 300 civilians that weren’t Russian speakers.
There is plenty of evidence that active Russian military were directly involved in the military conflict/civil war.
Active Russian military personnel were captured, including members of military intelligence
But… the key point is that the claim I replied to regarding 14,000 deaths due to Asov, or the Ukrainian government, this is an absolutely outrageous misrepresentation of the United Nations report.
You ignore that
Do readers see what happened there?
AC has thrown up a lot of diversionary flack over the least significant of his distortions of UN documents, to divert attention from the most egregious instance.
And in a touch of masterly comic relief, he accuses another commenter of “an absolutely outrageous misrepresentation of the United Nations report”.
Fair dinkum, yer couldn’t make this stuff up.
So Steve, your entire contention about my “misrepresentation” isn’t that you disagree with the breakdown of the fatalities (ie my correct characterisation vs the ridiculous misrepresentation of the 14000 all being Russian speakers and culturally Russian)
It is that I differentiated that the 14000 were comprised of-
• 4500 Ukrainian military
• 3000 civilians that were split between areas occupied by separatists and those under Ukrainian control
• 300 were killed when separatists used Russian supplied missiles to shoot down a civilian aircraft… and
• 6500 were part of armed militia groups, fighting against the Ukrainian military, where there is evidence of the involvement and assistance of Russian military personnel, as well as evidence of the use of Russian military equipment, and who used military means to seek incorporation into Russia
At this point I’m just about lost for words.
Ivan Pavlov would be looking down approvingly.
Automatic responses in a constant stream.
Readers will recall what I said about AC’s first response to the accusation of misrepresentation — That was not the response of someone outraged at being accused of malpractice. It was the response of one who fabricates habitually, but thought he could bluff his way out of this one.
That’s what we are seeing again.
No contrition, just an automated response.
I further stated — “For serial offenders, getting caught has no lasting consequences because they have no ethical foundation. It’s just a cost of doing business. Sometimes they can bluff their way out of it; sometimes they can’t. When they can’t, they change the subject.”
Just as we see now.
The discussion about numbers killed is a bluff, a sideshow, a changing of the subject — just as I described.
AC has been doing this for so long that it’s Pavlov’s dogs all over again.
The accusation of misrepresentation was not about numbers killed. That’s a diversion. The accusation concerned removing text from a UN document and replacing it with false information. That issue was so clear cut that it had to be admitted.
A “Clayton’s admission”, but at this point I’ll take whatever I can get.
But that malpractice was later repeated, in identical fashion, in discussing a second UN document.
A document and falsification that has somehow fallen off the radar.
We can safely conclude from this farce that no effort at reform will be undertaken, and further, that “fabricational consistency” will continue to be a feature of his offerings here.
Just by the way, eagle-eyed readers will have picked up from https://theaimn.net/a-dramatic-development-in-the-ukraine-situation/
that in response to ajogrady, AC stated There is far too much repetition of false information.
Yer gotta admit it — He’s always good for some comic relief.
Steve, did I ever suggest I was quoting directly from the United Nations report?
Although I certainly think using the term “Russian backed” is reasonable in the context that as far back as 2015 Putin stated-
“We never said there were no people there who were carrying out certain tasks, including in the military sphere.”
So Putin accepts that military personnel were present in Donbass and carryout out “tasks”
Additionally the evidence is overwhelming that Russian missiles were used to shoot down MH17 and kill 300 civilians.
There’s pleny more too.
I don’t consider the term “Russian backed” in providing a summary of fatalities in Donbass to be unreasonable.
It is certainly far more accurate than the comment I replied to, which you chose to overlook- that the 14,000 fatalities were all Russian speakers and all culturally Russian. You continue to ignore those that post those absolute falsehoods
There seems to be an element of obfuscation largely coming from the Whitehouse with a demented Trump threatening to devastate the Iranian electric power grid water desalinisation plants – thus potentially depriving a population of some ninety million people (who were looking to the US as a friendly force) of electricity and clean water. His condition being that the remaining leaders in Iran must capitulate.
In the meantime, Trump’s collaborator in this war, Benji Netanyahu, is stating quite clearly that no matter what, Israel will not cease bombing Tehran and other major population areas in Iran.
There is lunacy at work here!
AC is barely hanging on here.
“did I ever suggest I was quoting directly from the United Nations report?”
Yeeeesss, he did .
He stated “This figure is a misrepresentation of a United Nations report. The report found that during the civil war, a total of …”
The give-away is “The report found.”
Words have meanings.
But putting to one side that further evidence of bluffing as a tactic, (did I mention that AC tries to bluff his way out of trouble? 🙂 ) AC has turned over a new leaf.
Instead of deleting passages from documents and inserting his own, he’s decided it’s far easier to omit relevant details.
Lying by omission.
He somehow forgot to add the final section of the Putin quote — “But that does not mean there are Russian (regular) troops there, feel the difference.”
Putin was obviously responding to a suggestion that Russian troops were in Ukraine.
That statement from Putin is totally in line with Russia’s consistent position that the Minsk Accords were an internal matter for Ukraine to finalise.
But the more significant aspect to this discussion is that instead of mounting an indignant defence of his reputation and credibility, which sits in tatters at the moment, AC’s priority is to argue over irrelevant details, eg, what language the dying spoke as they gasped their final prayers.
In other words, AC knows that he is a serial fabricator and he accepts that. He just does not care.
Sometimes it’s best to just walk away.
Now you’re definitely embarrassing yourself Steve.
1/. Do you seriously think anyone would believe I was quoting a United Nations report when I said – “300 civilians were killed when Russian backed separatists used Russian supplied missiles to shoot down a civilian aircraft “?
No one would believe that the United Nations would use such language about a security council member.
Those are clearly my words and they are in fact, supported by plenty of evidence.
The United Nations simply included the MH17 deaths in the 14,000.
You’re pretending people here are gullible enough to be persuaded into believing that’s language the UN would use. You’re underestimating people here.
2/. Please advise me of which part of “Russian backed” requires Russia to supply troops.
Putin has admitted to providing Russians to engage in military activities. I call that “backing”.
How isn’t it?
Prior to the recent example of Trump’s middle eastern debacle, the US backed Israel. They supplied weapons, training, advisors.
Are you suggesting that they weren’t “backing” Israel because they weren’t supplying troops?
3/. If I reply to a demonstrably false claim that 14,000 Russia speakers, people were culturally Russian, were killed by Asov, don’t you think that ridiculous fabrication should be corrected?
4/. Steve, this would have to rank in your top 5 most embarrassing arguments.
A Commentator, unless the aim is to troll and stalk people, you are not doing yourself a service in my opinion.
Having looked back over the links that Steve, wisely provided, it is clear that you blatantly misrepresented that report and fabricated misinformation. After being called out for doing so, you’ve simply gaslit, used whataboutism, obfuscated, shifted goal posts and applied a double standard of demanding proof or citations for things like ‘Russian speakers’ whilst dismissing your clear misrepresentation of “armed groups” as basically what else could it have been other than what you claimed.
There is a pattern of that behaviour in your posting – and it is utterly boring and counterproductive.
Also, I doubt very much whether your use of ‘Hilarious’, which is a frequent feature of your arguments, as a substitute for an argument, cuts it on this forum. I would suggest saving that for the playground.
Thommo has cut through the fog nicely.
The accusation of misrepresentation was not about numbers killed.
It was not about MH17.
It was not about Russian backed personnel in Ukraine.
It was not about the US backing Israel.
Those are all diversions.
AC’s feigned outrage is a desperate bluff.
The accusation concerned removing text from a UN document and replacing it with false information. I provided the actual text to show the substitution.
That issue was so clear cut that it had to be admitted.
Admitted two or three times now.
There’s no point in AC feigning outrage — he’s already admitted the substitution.
But why this fake outrage over the first substitution?
Why is AC flogging this one to death?
It’s to draw attention away from the second substitution.
The first malpractice was later repeated in discussing a second UN document. A document and falsification that has somehow fallen off the radar.
Why?
Because there’s no wriggle room with this one.
Remember this?
The relevant clause in the Budapest Memorandum states…
At which point a fabricated clause was inserted.
The first substitution is so meaningless that I would not have raised it at this late stage, but when followed by the second, a disturbing pattern of behaviour became apparent.
It’s actually quite a sad story, because we must ask ourselves what it is that drives someone to fabricate a clause in an official document, let alone a clause in a document that can be accessed with ease.
Why would anyone think that to be a good idea?
Why would anyone exposed for such a devious ploy, then think it’s a good idea to bluff, to bluster, to evade responsibility?
The strange thing is that there was no need for this ongoing farce. The accusation was made days ago. If AC had copped it on the chin it would all be forgotten now.
The question that remains is — Is AC a principle-free zone?
We are about to find out.
I don’t agree.
In the link referred to, I replied to another comment. Steve then initiated the exchange by replying to me. Did you notice that?
On this occasion, Steve has chosen to press his view with an actual expert in the subject, and I decided to point out that Steve has been completely unable to cite a single international law scholar or expert who supports his claim (that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is legal)
By way of background-
• for some time (prior to commenting here), I would read articles and comments. I observed a number of participants would become frustrated with Steve’s insistence/obsession with getting the last word in every exchange.
• Steve would routinely reply that “blogging isn’t for the faint hearted” . That was a mantra repeated dozens of times
• I let Steve know he wouldn’t get the last word in an exchange with me. I don’t recall that he has expressed a problem with this. Nor should he, given his oft repeated manta and the volume of his comments.
I’ve also said that if people choose to post contentious, provocative comments, they shouldn’t be surprised if they get a reply.
But if you don’t like my comments, please scroll past.
I’m aware that plenty do.
A Commentator, the first words you said to Steve on this thread were “you’ve proven to be unable to cite a single international law scholar, expert or academic who supports your position.” You start the conversation off with misdirection.
Since when is the onus on someone who holds a position to come up with an expert or academic supporting that position, or themselves be a recognized expert in that field?
Greta Thunberg delivered one of the greatest speeches of all time, imo, to the UN. Since when does she need to come up with an academic paper showing the world leaders as having stolen the future of Greta’s generation. Since when does Nelson Mandela need to come up with an academic paper showing that the West assumes that the West’s enemies are South Africa’s enemies, when he responds to a question as to why he doesn’t condemn the PLO.
You are free to use expert opinion and academic papers to support your own opinions, as we all are. But if you disagree with someone’s interpretation of, or application of International law as in this case, then the onus, I believe, is on you to rebut their position, not for them to disprove your position that all knowledge of this matter rests in recognized experts and academics.
If you genuinely wanted to rebut Steve’s position then you should come up with your own expert, or academic paper that addresses his position precisely and rebuts it. Where is your evidence?
Your last comment is just more whataboutism and distraction.
Feel free to have the last word if that’s what floats your boat, but I’ll add this: your smearing of a councilor in a recent post, to which she quite possibly wouldn’t have even known about let alone respond to, relied on your word entirely for what was supposed to have transpired. Exposing yourself as a fabricator of misinformation doesn’t serve to give me, for one, any confidence in what you said about her behind her back.
Specious framing and pedantry in the abstract to create narratives that avoid reality and facts on the ground…..?
Interesting how onshore faux anti-imperialist tankies, desperate to show they are centre of left, but on Europe & Mid East share dubious US offshore allies or influencers, with the far right…..ignorance and deflection abounds, while making specious claims to run protection for Putin (indirectly rewards Trump & Netnayhu).
However, those trying to ameliorate Putin and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine crosses over with Tony Abott’s ecosystem in Central Europe, showing both ignorance and a lack of empathy, never explained?
While eg. focus upon Mid East, Trump and Australian government, nada about actual, perpetrators and victims (& Epstein too), just wordy deflections?
Meanwhile the faux anti-imperialist tankies of the alleged left opposing Ukraine follow Mearsheimer (Koch & Putin), Sachs (Rockefeller/Exxon), George Galloway, Nigel Farage etc.; the anti-imperialist lefty Goegeous GeorgerGalloway celebrated at an event in Kazakhstan with Steve Bannon when another alleged Russian asset Boris Johnson became PM, wtf?
Worse, all the above cross over with Tony Abbott’s friends and ecosystem in Hungary of PM ‘mini Putin’ Orbán anti-EU, anti-Ukraine, anti-liberal demomracy and anti-media (his Russian speaking advisor has disappeared, as has their social media history & now acct. too).
Presently an independent Hungarian journalist (Szabolc Panyi) is under the kosh and espionage charges for daring to uncover Russian espionage and interference in Hungary with cooperation of the anti-Ukraine and anti-west Hungarian regime.
However, those claiming to be anti-imperialist of the left in Oz in support of war victims, avert their gaze from illiberal right wing regimes and good journalism?
Have you never heard of credibility, or ‘academic integrity’ and conversely how eg. fossil fueled Koch Network promoted climate science denial, or at least help create doubts, how?
By this ‘Since when is the onus on someone who holds a position to come up with an expert or academic supporting that position, or themselves be a recognized expert in that field?’
We can try the Socratic method ie. Ethos, Logos and Pathos, but most Australians like Americans prefer ‘Pathos’ over facts and analysis by experts, too easily…..
You seem to support and justify pathos of sentiments or beliefs, classic RW MSM avoidance tactic eg. Fox/Sky News ‘fair and balanced’ on climate science by matching up any bona fide expert with a non expert PR sock puppet or presenter to disrupt any narrative or analysis?
This is not just deeply conservative, but anti-science & enlightenment, to stymie progress or transition away from fossil fuels, and dodgy demographic analysis to create antipathy towards ‘the other’, through repetitive non expert comments…. which attack any dissent, revealing authoritarian attitudes.
PS We’re you the Gongoroche or similar who tangled with aggro Dr. Smithy on Crikey?
Yep, a gambit or tactic, one has observed in comments sections herea delsewhere where ppl use it to offer &/or protect sentiments and beliefs, while disrupting others’ narratives and analysis.
Includes switching topics, denigrating, asking questions but not responding to others etc. to avoid anything grounded and evident…..reeks of manipulation, astroturfing, conservatism and narcissism……
Thommo, well done Sir!
All I can do is stand and applaud.
Two comments of great depth and breadth.
What was the word Thommo used earlier?
“Obfuscated.”
Spot on.
What we see now from AC is an object lesson in obfuscation.
A litany of complaints about my writing style, but not a link provided to check for veracity. And with AC, the first thing you have to do is check for veracity.
Let’s go to the start.
“In the link referred to”
No-one knows what that’s about, and no-one can check because there’s no link.
“I replied to another comment.”
Again, no link to another comment.
“Steve then initiated the exchange by replying to me.”
Where? No-one knows.
This is the very definition of obfuscation.
It got worse.
Because that was followed by a lie.
“Steve has been completely unable to cite a single international law scholar or expert who supports his claim (that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is legal)”
That is false. One more example of “fabricational consistency” from this serial offender.
I have previously quoted the position of the eminent lawyer David Bethlehem QC in regard to the right under international law to pre-emptive defence, that paper being published in the American Journal of International Law, and because of its significance, is also available from the UN law archive.
But the onus of course, is on those making the claim that the Russian action was illegal, to prove that.
So far, in that regard, all I’ve seen quoted/shouted since 2022 is “Article 51!” as though that’s all that’s required.
I’ve shown here that Article 51 is what Russia complied with.
Russia was meticulous in ensuring that it did comply.
The onus is on others to show that the intervention did not comply.
AC concluded with “But if you don’t like my comments, please scroll past.”
A Get-out-of-jail-free card?
Not good enough.
Not nearly good enough.
When an obvious lie, or misrepresentation, or falsification, or substitution is posted in a comment, it must be exposed for what it is.
I concluded my previous comment with this — The question that remains is — Is AC a principle-free zone? We are about to find out.
Well, we found out.
In the background… envoy, property developer and investment fund manager Kushner, his old mentor Murdoch, with Netanyahu, Putin too via Kushner & Murdoch’s links to Moscow &/or oligarch elites; very murky……
Wagging the dog, PR and BS was evident early last week or weekend from only the NYT (remember WMDs? Ukraine will collapse anyday etc.?) blaming/claiming Saudi’s MBS was encouraging this war, based on one unnamed source, then bookended by The Guardian based on same NYT story last Friday.
Not only does this defy facts on the ground around Saudi which is dependent upon oil flows for income and had been building bridges with Iran, it seems to be deflection for Netanyahu, a ‘wedged’ Trump and Kushner? Would be delicious to see Saudi and Gulf States demand a refund of their investments with Kushner?
Correction.
The lawyer I referred to was Daniel Bethlehem.