You don’t get to make international law meaningless and then claim that an invasion is “illegal.”
U.S. Army Capt. James Hayes searches an Iraqi man during a patrol near the Syrian border on Aug. 10, 2005. (U.S. Army photo/ Staff Sgt. Kyle Davis) (Released)
By Caitlin Johnstone
CaitlinJohnstone.com
Australian whistleblower David McBride just made the following statement on Twitter:
“I’ve been asked if I think the invasion of Ukraine is illegal.
My answer is: If we don’t hold our own leaders to account, we can’t hold other leaders to account.
If the law is not applied consistently, it is not the law.
It is simply an excuse we use to target our enemies.
We will pay a heavy price for our hubris of 2003 in the future.
We didn’t just fail to punish Bush and Blair: we rewarded them. We re-elected them. We knighted them.
If you want to see Putin in his true light imagine him landing a jet and then saying ‘Mission Accomplished’.”
As far as I can tell this point is logically unassailable. International law is a meaningless concept when it only applies to people the U.S. power alliance doesn’t like. This point is driven home by the life of McBride himself, whose own government responded to his publicizing suppressed information about war crimes committed by Australian forces in Afghanistan by charging him as a criminal.
Neither George W. Bush nor Tony Blair are in prison cells at The Hague where international law says they ought to be. Bush is still painting away from the comfort of his home, issuing proclamations comparing Putin to Hitler and platforming arguments for more interventionism in Ukraine. Blair is still merrily warmongering his charred little heart out, saying NATO should not rule out directly attacking Russian forces in what amounts to a call for a thermonuclear world war.
They are free as birds, singing their same old demonic songs from the rooftops.
Tony Blair calls for NATO not to rule out military intervention against Russia in Ukraine
— Sky News (@SkyNews) March 15, 2022
When you point out this obvious plot hole in discussions about the legality of Vladimir Putin’s invasion you’ll often get accused of “whataboutism”, which is a noise that empire loyalists like to make when you have just highlighted damning evidence that their government’s behaviors entirely invalidate their position on an issue. This is not a “whataboutism”; it’s a direct accusation that is completely devastating to the argument being made, because there really is no counter-argument.
The Iraq invasion bypassed the laws and protocols for military action laid out in the founding charter of the United Nations. The current U.S. military occupation of Syria violates international law. International law only exists to the extent to which the nations of the world are willing and able to enforce it, and because of the U.S. empire’s military power — and more importantly because of its narrative control power — this means international law is only ever enforced with the approval of that empire.
Presidents of countries that refuse to join the Intl Criminal Court have nerve talking about war criminals
— corinna_barnard (@Corinna_Barnard) March 16, 2022
This is why the people indicted and detained by the International Criminal Court (ICC) are always from weaker nations — overwhelmingly African — while the USA can get away with actually sanctioning ICC personnel if they so much as talk about investigating American war crimes and suffer no consequences for it whatsoever. It is also why Noam Chomsky famously said that if the Nuremberg laws had continued to be applied with fairness and consistency, then every post-WWII U.S. president would have been hanged.
This is also why former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton once said that the U.S. war machine is “dealing in the anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply,” which “does require actions that in a normal business environment in the United States we would find unprofessional.”
Bolton would certainly know. In his bloodthirsty push to manufacture consent for the Iraq invasion he spearheaded the removal of the director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), a crucial institution for the enforcement of international law, using measures which included threatening the director-general’s children. The OPCW is now subject to the dictates of the U.S. government, as evidenced by the organisation’s coverup of a 2018 false flag incident in Syria which resulted in airstrikes by the U.S., UK and France during Bolton’s tenure as a senior Trump advisor.
The U.S. continually works to subvert international law enforcement institutions to advance its own interests. When the U.S. was seeking U.N. authorization for the Gulf War in 1991, Yemen dared to vote against it, after which a member of the U.S. delegation told Yemen’s ambassador, “That’s the most expensive vote you ever cast.” Yemen lost not just 70 million dollars in U.S. foreign aid but also a valuable labor contract with Saudi Arabia, and a million Yemeni immigrants were sent home by America’s Gulf state allies.
Simple observation of who is subject to international law enforcement and who is not makes it clear that the very concept of international law is now functionally nothing more than a narrative construct that’s used to bludgeon and undermine governments who disobey the U.S.-centralized empire. That’s why in the lead-up to this confrontation with Russia we saw a push among empire managers to swap out the term “international law” with “rules-based international order”, which can mean anything and is entirely up to the interpretation of the world’s dominant power structure.
It is entirely possible that we may see Putin ousted and brought before a war crimes tribunal one day, but that won’t make it valid. You can argue with logical consistency that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is wrong and will have disastrous consequences far beyond the bloodshed it has already inflicted, but what you can’t do with any logical consistency whatsoever is claim that it is illegal. Because there is no authentically enforced framework for such a concept to apply.
As U.S. law professor Dale Carpenter has said, “If citizens cannot trust that laws will be enforced in an evenhanded and honest fashion, they cannot be said to live under the rule of law. Instead, they live under the rule of men corrupted by the law.” This is all the more true of laws which would exist between nations.
You don’t get to make international law meaningless and then claim that an invasion is “illegal.” That’s not a legitimate thing to do. As long as we are living in a Wild West environment created by a murderous globe-spanning empire which benefits from it, claims about the legality of foreign invasions are just empty sounds.
Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium. Her work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking her on Facebook, following her antics on Twitter, checking out her podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following her on Steemit, throwing some money into her tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of her sweet merchandise, buying her books Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix, Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
This article is from CaitlinJohnstone.com and re-published with permission.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
“rules-based international order” = MY RULES.
Michael 888
You say: “One of the most powerful speeches in American history” then what’s the difference between those downtrodden American masses back then, to whom you are separating, by pointing your finger – Apartheid-like, and all of us other globally interbred homo-Sapiens – animal species, today; Black, White, Brown, Yellow and Green.
Years later, who/what was Martin Luther King exhorting all Americans to do, and why; before he was assassinated by the white racist American economic power structure?
He was bravely attempting to remind all of us, without racist exceptionalism, to stand up for ourselves, as one cooperative community of human beings, against the same tyranny, which today continues to screw us over, while we are distracted by ‘infighting’ against each other, for the scraps thrown from the table of overabundance.
Are the white Ukrainians and Russians slaughtering each purely because of white racist hatred?
No, it is still the same hegemonic power structure, who are now, as it always has, depended on the ‘worker ants’ to forfeit their lives on behalf of the faltering, waning, power structure.
WW III is looming on the horizon, if we don’t quickly begin to pay heed to all of those brave individuals who are speaking powerfully; Julian Assange being center stage in this era, who way back already, began to stand up, ‘color-blind’ beseeching all of us, to not depend on the Powerful, who continue to screw us over with deceitful lies.
Listening to a PBS report on Ukraine today it is clear that I’m listening to a script reader, not a reporter. The massive amount of omitted information, the grotesquely false conclusions, the self-assured voice, all combine into a portrait of a well-paid actor. There are no reporters in the corporate media. They have all been fired or fled. The news has been replaced by oligarchy commercials.
PBS is no better than all the other corporate beholden news sites. Stopped listening/watching years ago.
I had been a regular PBS and BBC watcher for years, knowing full well that they too have an agenda – I would regularly remind my wife of this bias during their programs when she seemed to get sucked into their brand of dis-information. What I read here at CN or the few other progressive / balanced news sources was always left out of what was presented. When the Ukraine situation became what it is, I could no longer tolerate either one of those networks due to the dangerously lopsided coverage that has the potential to wipe all of us off the face of this planet. My frustration reached its zenith when I chose to watch a PBS Frontline program about Vladimir Putin and how this entire nightmare is / was all his fault – I watched for approximately 20-minutes before I could no longer tolerate it. Considering how PBS is “the most trusted news” available (for faux-gressives) – we are in serious trouble.
Inane question:
When was it ever otherwise in a unipolar new world order powered with the backing of the U.S. MICC?
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
? Frederick Douglass
One of the most powerful speeches in American history. Although applied generally by many, Douglass was exhorting Blacks to stand up for themselves and not depend on the Powerful, who continually screwed them over:
hxxps://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress/
One doesn’t enjoy reading articles that put the brutal truth under the sharp light of closer scrutiny, but being made more conscious of the facts of life, as they really are, existentially, for those under the jackboot of hegemony, is highly beneficial.
Em , you are most certainly are correct great stuff! Caitlin has done it again.
Here she reveals the damage done by a county whose leadership is living in an alternate universe.
They have made this abundantly clear by their rationalization that because of WHO THEY ARE they are above the laws made for everyone else on the planet.
For sake of DOG!
Caitlin joins a very few others in being a National Treasure.
Thank you Mam and I don’t give a damn if I do date myself!
Thanks CN
It’s not just international law that is meaningless. The US is not obeying the fifth amendment of its own constitution when it applies sanctions on other nations (Andrew P. Napolitano, former Superior Court judge and senior judicial analyst at Fox News, “Sanctions on Russia Violate the Constitution” on Antiwar.com). Then again, applying general sanctions is collective punishment, itself a war crime.
If US governments openly flout their own laws then what hope is there for international law?
Ms. Johnstone,
Thank you for writing this important essay. You have stated the governing principles very well. I am glad to see that you mention the use of the intentionally deceptive term “Rules-Based International Order” by the U.S. The meaning of that fancy sounding name is that, according to the U.S., the rest of the world must follow its orders, without regard to international law or any other guiding principles of law or morality. By adopting that view, the U.S. has explicitly rejected international law. It is a rogue state without any principles of fairness or decency.
I am frustrated by some comments made by genuine journalists (which, of course, excludes the mainstream media) and scholars which condemn Russia for its Special Operation in Ukraine. Perhaps Russia would have fared better in the propaganda war if it had called its operation a “Responsibility To Protect” operation or “Humanitarian Intervention”, names employed by the U.S. for some of its illegal invasions of countries which posed no threat whatsoever to it – Syria, Libya, etc. I have great respect for some of those legitimate and honest writers who have condemned Russia for its operation, e.g. Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges. However, to say that Russia’s operation violates international law does not answer the one critical question which must be answered before reaching a conclusion in the matter. That question is – what options did Russia have under the circumstances?
We must remember and honestly acknowledge the circumstances which preceded Russia’s operation, summarized as follows:
1. In February, 2014, the U.S. orchestrated and effected a violent coup which overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. The U.S. then installed its puppet government. Since that time, the U.S. has been the de facto government of Ukraine and has made all major policy decisions for that Country. This process is known in Washington as “spreading democracy”. It does this a lot when some government fails to follow U.S. orders.
2. A large number of Ukrainian citizens were not pleased to have their democratically elected government overthrown and a new government chosen for them by the U.S. They decided to not recognize this illegitimate government. As a result of the division of loyalties stirred up by the U.S. coup, the people in Crimea voted to withdraw from Ukraine and become a part of Russia, to which Russia agreed. Other Ukrainians in the Donbass voted to become independent of Ukraine but were not made a part of Russia.
These actions greatly displeased the Hegemon.
3. The U.S./Ukrainian government decided to deal with the dissenters in the Donbass by attacking them with heavy weaponry. This assault did not go well at first because the majority of the Ukrainian military forces refused to kill their fellow Ukrainians. The U.S./Ukrainian government solved that problem by utilizing the numerous neo-Nazis who were on hand and were eager to kill the mostly ethnic Russians in the Donbass. Over the next eight years approximately 14,000 Ukrainians were killed by this operation, most of them civilians. As far as I know, there was not one tear shed or one word of sympathy expressed by the people in the U.S. for even one of the Ukrainian citizens murdered in the Donbass.
4. During the eight years following its 2014 coup, the U.S. armed and trained its neo-Nazis who were serving it so well in the war in the Donbass, as well as Ukrainian military regular troops. In that process, the U.S. did a good job of indoctrinating the troops into its way of thinking, thereby somewhat weakening the resolve of even the regulars (as opposed to the Nazis and other far right elements) to not kill other Ukrainians. The slaughter of civilians in the Donbass continued.
5. During this same eight-year period, Russia tried in every conceivable way to resolve the mess made by the U.S. coup by diplomacy and agreement. Two agreements were made (the “Minsk Agreements”) which would have resolved the matter. However, the U.S./Ukrainian government refused to implement the agreements. Russia appealed to the U.N. for help but received none. The U.S. steadfastly refused to negotiate in good faith to resolve the issues, including Russia’s legitimate and urgent security concerns.
6. Russia’s legitimate and urgent security concerns must be taken into account. No valid understanding of the current issues can be understood without doing so. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO had foolishly and provocatively expanded farther and farther to the east to the point that Russia was greatly threatened by NATO countries surrounding it. The goal of the U.S. was to make Ukraine into a client state, arm it to the teeth, including missiles which could reach Russia in three minutes or so, and to ultimately effect regime-change in Russia. The hyper aggression of the U.S. toward Russia was open and obvious.
7. In December, 2021, Russia presented detailed proposals to NATO and the U.S. for the peaceful resolution of the ongoing attacks by the U.S./Ukrainian government against the Ukrainians in the Donbass and Russia’s legitimate security concerns. The proposals were rejected out of hand, followed by a refusal to negotiate in good faith with Russia. Russia had made it clear that in that event, it had no option but to take matters into its own hands. The U.S. in fact wanted a proxy war with Russia, in which Ukraine would be used as its Cat’s paw. It got it.
I fail to see that Russia had any option other than to force the neutralization of Ukraine. Otherwise, it was perfectly clear that the U.S. was going to use Ukraine as a de facto military base and further encroach on and intimidate Russia. I would welcome Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges or anyone else to tell me another option available to Russia. The invocation of international law did not do Russia any good. This is particularly so because in this case Russia was dealing with an outlaw state which has not only rejected international law, but has a long history of conducting illegal wars of aggression and dealing in bad faith with other nations.
This is simply stellar writing with an intended audience of all the intellectuals, such as you mention, still defending Washington’s criminal behavior. Too bad circumstances absolutely required it.
I too have been wondering/would be interested in knowing what Chomsky, Hedges, Jonathan Cook etc. believe Russia should have done in light of all the above, rather than try to take matters into their own hands.
Jim, I too look forward to an answer to the question you pose.
I looked at an interview with Noam Chomsky and wonder what has happened to him…. his finding Zelensky’s March 7 remarks judicious and appropriate I find very odd indeed.
Great article, analyses like these are keeping me sane.
I agree with you and thanks for the good analysis to Caitlin Johnstone.
Caitlin, Whataboutism is an attempt to deny the validity of the biblical injunction – let he who is without sin cast the first stone. It’s even worse than you suggest. Back during the murderous Clinton regime, the US bombed the crap out of Serbia under the rubric of responsibility to protect (determined entirely by the US). Russia is claiming the same cover. They were asked by the heads of the Donbass republics to protect them from the Kiev regime’s murderous campaigns in the Donbass which have killed at least 14,000 people so far. Who could gainsay them?
What you really saw happen earlier when Putin put his nuclear forces on high alert was the equivalent of the snick of the bolt jacking a round into the chamber of a weapon. The Europeans, at least (but probably not the Americans), suddenly realized that they weren’t beating up on some relatively helpless country like Serbia, Bosnia, Libya, Iraq, Syria. Russia could turn most of what they call home into a glass parking lot as well as major segments of the US. Of course, the same thing would happen to Russia but the important point is that they would be dead, too.
The US had best be careful. The US started this with the 2014 coup. Russia can’t let the world forget that.
What Bush/U.S. did in 2003 was indefensible and evil.
What Putin/Russia is doing now is indefensible and evil.
Both were worthy of full-throated condemnation from the moment they started.
Do you agree?
No, you are covering up the clear distinctions:
1. The Russian action defends the Donbass victims of eight years of aggression with 14,000 casualties.
2. The US invasion of Iraq was based solely upon lies, defended no one, and had many times the casualties.
I do not agree that the actions of the US and Russia are in any way parallel. What do you think about what Obama/US (in reality the whole West) did in 2014 in Ukraine? That action started an 8-years long bloodbath in Donbass, with about 15,000 killed, most of them civilians. This war still goes on, by the way: just a few days ago the Ukrainian army fired a missile at the center of the city of Donetsk killing 20 people, all civilians, and wounding dozens. Russia tried every trick in the book to stop that war, to no avail. Russia recently gave the final hint to the West by giving away the Russian passports to the Donbass residents: They are our citizens now, and we are bound to defend them. Again, nobody listened. Instead, Ukraine started to prepare for an assault on Donbass. Why do you think half of its army ended up near Donbass?
So, honestly, I don’t know what else Russia could’ve done. The Americans are tenderhearted people, but they do have a tendency to classify some victims as more worthy than others.
Thank you for your dedicated investigative journalism. I agree, there is no comparison. This is not a ‘foreign adventure’ for Russian people, it is existential. The North American colonial state holds the whip but western colonial neo-liberal capitalism (freedom to plunder) is the driving force in this sad affair. We need new political economies that keep chattels (kit and coin) in their proper lowly place and explicitly value, celebrate and account for the country, community and culture that sustains us.
If it weren’t so dangerous, sad, and hypocritical, it would be almost funny hearing all those conservative and liberal pussy-boys talking all macho and tough like they know what it means to really suffer and fight in a real war.
Exactly right! As a US anti-war citizen, I agree wholeheartedly with CJ and D.McBride that it’s the international height of hypocrisy for the US to get all pious and self-righteous when for-a-change it’s NOT the US invading some smaller country, whereas what we did in Iraq in 2003 was worse by several magnitudes than what Russia is doing in Ukraine. We invented an imaginary WMDs scenario and used it as a pretext to launch a ‘Shock & Awe’ invasion in a country on the other side of the world that was no realistic threat to us, killing at least 100,000 people (some estimates as high as 1,000,000), created 2-3 million refugees, flattened certain cities like Falujah and Mosul. Although I condemn Russia’s invasion on moral grounds (killing innocent people in a pre-emptive war) and even strategically (they were already losing the propaganda war with the West — this just played-into the West’s stereotypes & memes) and wished they had gone on a more prolonged ‘truth campaign’ (a ‘charm offensive’?j to try to sway other countries (excluding the US, because we’re indoctrinated beyond redemption) of their legitimate concerns, and used their economic powers to influence world opinion, the facts remain that their Russian-speaking ethnic groups in Donbas were experiencing actual violence, and there was a potential threat of NATO missiles being eventually sited in Ukraine, so they weren’t exactly imaginary threats like ours were in Iraq. And Ukraine borders Russia, so the proximity factor was the reverse of the US/Iraq situation.
And the US’ rejection of the ICC, World Court, and treaties like the NPT give-lie to the idea that the US government (and most of its citizens) don’t care about international law in any real sense of the term.
Eddie S
Russia has used every diplomatic avenue trying to make the rest of the World see their point of view and understand their genuine concerns, but all the effort was in vain. US narrative is far louder and/or they hold EU to a ransom, so comes the time when you realise that your diplomatic or charm offensive will yield no results. One more day of charm offensive and no action, and NATO missiles would have been stationed in Ukraine, on Russia’s border…
The thing I fear the most is how much my fellow US citizens and I will have to suffer for the crimes of our Dear Leaders. They have lied, manipulated, exploited, and robbed us blind and it’s about to get worse. When President Demento uttered the phrase, “We have to suffer for our values” in his robo SOTU address . . . all I could think was, “I value food in my belly, a roof over my head, a living wage, affordable healthcare and roads without potholes and bridges that don’t fall down . . .and all you ever offer is Eternal War and Mindless Propaganda with a side dish of Lip Service to Democracy.” I wish they’d just shut up already.
Thank you, Natalie, for speaking my mind. Yet another comment offered here that I connect with.
So just what are the “RULES” of the rules based international order? Are they codified anywhere? At the UN? Does every country have a copy? Was there some sort of international gathering of some sort? Where’s my copy? Thanks Caitlin, keep us thinking!
My American government has become so brazen over the decades that it no longer even bothers crafting legal fig leaves to cover its unending litany of deceptions and quotidian capital crimes. It simply asserts a new list of lies every day and issues edicts, sentences and executions to suit its power mad agenda. Look, it bullies not only every foreign government or individual that gets in its way, but it does the same to its own citizenry.
No one really has any rights unless granted an ad hoc privilege by the psychopaths in Washington. Oh, sure, we can exercise our “right” to “free speech” and complain, even publicly through the mass media, about it, but few, if any, can really have an impact and actually change what the sadistic juggernaut in Washington desires. They secretly laugh at the speeches, articles and “demonstrations” (usually expediently deemed illegal) which do nothing more than amuse them, while they conjure up dire consequences to such rabble and whistle blowers.
Ask Assange, Snowden, Manning, Kiriakou, et al what happens to dissenters who expose government law breaking. Ask Hillary Clinton and most of her associates in the Obomber administration what the consequences for warmongering, shredding of the constitution, targeted assassinations, perjury, violation of national security laws, and personal embezzlement (just to scratch the surface) are.
Does it at least vaguely look like those on the inside have quite distinct advantages over the great mass of us on the outside? Does it look like there is any efficacious approach to remedying this? Does it look like the laws on the books will ever be applied appropriately and fairly to all citizens and whomever else is afforded such protections under our constitution and laws? Or, will the charade simply continue to “their” advantage and our detriment? I’m looking for the flimsiest jot or tittle of evidence and am still not seeing it. No joy in Mudville, eh? So, continuing this path we will truly all own nothing and “like it.” We will all perish in their thermonuclear war and not complain.
Ever wonder why the CIA can arrange a successful color revolution exploiting the misbehavior of a couple thousand or so disgruntled fifth columnists in any number of cultivated “enemy states” but even half the American public truly “mad as hell” and not intending to take it any longer can never accomplish anything in terms of changing their government or its hated policies? Why do we, the “exceptional” ones, have the least responsive government on the face of this earth when it comes to meeting our needs and effecting the changes we want? Could it be that said government is not really ours, but is undeniably owned by a small cadre of elites with very different priorities than most of us? Not always honorable or moral priorities. LOL, okay, hardly ever honorable or moral blah, blah, blah… I suspect that if the people really believed (or admitted) that, they would have to do something about it… or blame themselves for being remiss in not even trying.
Ms. Johnstone,
Thank you for writing this important essay. You have stated the governing principles very well. I am glad to see that you mention the use of the intentionally deceptive term “Rules-Based International Order” by the U.S. The meaning of that fancy sounding name is that, according to the U.S., the rest of the world must follow its orders, without regard to international law or any other guiding principles of law or morality. By adopting that view, the U.S. has explicitly rejected international law. It is a rogue state without any principles of fairness or decency.
I am frustrated by some comments made by genuine journalists (which, of course, excludes the mainstream media) and scholars which condemn Russia for its Special Operation in Ukraine. Perhaps Russia would have fared better in the propaganda war if it had called its operation a “Responsibility To Protect” operation or “Humanitarian Intervention”, names employed by the U.S. for some of its illegal invasions of countries which posed no threat whatsoever to it – Syria, Libya, etc. I have great respect for some of those legitimate and honest writers who have condemned Russia for its operation, e.g. Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges. However, to say that Russia’s operation violates international law does not answer the one critical question which must be answered before reaching a conclusion in the matter. That question is – what options did Russia have under the circumstances?
We must remember and honestly acknowledge the circumstances which preceded Russia’s operation, summarized as follows:
1. In February, 2014, the U.S. orchestrated and effected a violent coup which overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. The U.S. then installed its puppet government. Since that time, the U.S. has been the de facto government of Ukraine and has made all major policy decisions for that Country. This process is known in Washington as “spreading democracy”. It does this a lot when some government fails to follow U.S. orders.
2. A large number of Ukrainian citizens were not pleased to have their democratically elected government overthrown and a new government chosen for them by the U.S. They decided to not recognize this illegitimate government. As a result of the division of loyalties stirred up by the U.S. coup, the people in Crimea voted to withdraw from Ukraine and become a part of Russia, to which Russia agreed. Other Ukrainians in the Donbass voted to become independent of Ukraine but were not made a part of Russia.
These actions greatly displeased the Hegemon.
3. The U.S./Ukrainian government decided to deal with the dissenters in the Donbass by attacking them with heavy weaponry. This assault did not go well at first because the majority of the Ukrainian military forces refused to kill their fellow Ukrainians. The U.S./Ukrainian government solved that problem by utilizing the numerous neo-Nazis who were on hand and were eager to kill the mostly ethnic Russians in the Donbass. Over the next eight years approximately 14,000 Ukrainians were killed by this operation, most of them civilians. As far as I know, there was not one tear shed or one word of sympathy expressed by the people in the U.S. for even one of the Ukrainian citizens murdered in the Donbass.
4. During the eight years following its 2014 coup, the U.S. armed and trained its neo-Nazis who were serving it so well in the war in the Donbass, as well as Ukrainian military regular troops. In that process, the U.S. did a good job of indoctrinating the troops into its way of thinking, thereby somewhat weakening the resolve of even the regulars (as opposed to the Nazis and other far right elements) to not kill other Ukrainians. The slaughter of civilians in the Donbass continued.
5. During this same eight-year period, Russia tried in every conceivable way to resolve the mess made by the U.S. coup by diplomacy and agreement. Two agreements were made (the “Minsk Agreements”) which would have resolved the matter. However, the U.S./Ukrainian government refused to implement the agreements. Russia appealed to the U.N. for help but received none. The U.S. steadfastly refused to negotiate in good faith to resolve the issues, including Russia’s legitimate and urgent security concerns.
6. Russia’s legitimate and urgent security concerns must be taken into account. No valid understanding of the current issues can be understood without doing so. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO had foolishly and provocatively expanded farther and farther to the east to the point that Russia was greatly threatened by NATO countries surrounding it. The goal of the U.S. was to make Ukraine into a client state, arm it to the teeth, including missiles which could reach Russia in three minutes or so, and to ultimately effect regime-change in Russia. The hyper aggression of the U.S. toward Russia was open and obvious.
7. In December, 2021, Russia presented detailed proposals to NATO and the U.S. for the peaceful resolution of the ongoing attacks by the U.S./Ukrainian government against the Ukrainians in the Donbass and Russia’s legitimate security concerns. The proposals were rejected out of hand, followed by a refusal to negotiate in good faith with Russia. Russia had made it clear that in that event, it had no option but to take matters into its own hands. The U.S. in fact wanted a proxy war with Russia, in which Ukraine would be used as its Cat’s paw. It got it.
I fail to see that Russia had any option other than to force the neutralization of Ukraine. Otherwise, it was perfectly clear that the U.S. was going to use Ukraine as a de facto military base and further encroach on and intimidate Russia. I would welcome Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges or anyone else to tell me another option available to Russia. The invocation of international law did not do Russia any good. This is particularly so because in this case Russia was dealing with an outlaw state which has not only rejected international law, but has a long history of conducting illegal wars of aggression and dealing in bad faith with other nations.
Great column! Thank you.
It’s tough right now to scratch out examples of u.S. good deeds overseas. I suppose there must be a few schools being built somewhere, maybe some clinics, new wells on the outskirts of poor villages.
Does that offset the other side of the balance sheet? The money & weapons sent to fuel wars & insurrections. The cutting-off of humanitarian supplies to poor, sick & starving peoples, especially ones left in the wake of your military adventurism. The manufacturing of lies spread near & far to corrupt accurate understanding of what’s being done. Is this in any way a proportional response to perceived threats by the world’s (dying) hegemon?
And so, Ameirca, when others, outsiders, also begin to act within the lawless framework that you’ve constructed for yourself and your cronies, you cry foul & evil & inhuman? Big crocodile tears & righteous anger on behalf of those who truly suffer. The suffering you’ve helped to cause.
Your brand of realism has made the world unsafe for many millions of ordinary men, women & children whom you’ve been able to force to eat your dust at a personal cost to your immune masters that is (so far) nominal, deductible and, above all, profitable.
Bravo! Keep writing.
The winners write history — just think what usa/the west would be like today had they lost!