It's easy to understand why those suffering from the crime may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected...
There is nothing to say about Putin's attempt to offer legal justification for his aggression. Its merit is zero.
Of course, it is true that the U.S. and its allies violate international law without a blink of an eye, but that provides no extenuation for Putin's crimes. Kosovo, Iraq and Libya did, however, have direct implications for the conflict over Ukraine.
The Iraq invasion was a textbook example of the crimes for which Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg, pure unprovoked aggression. And a punch in Russia's face..
In the case of Kosovo, NATO aggression (meaning U.S. aggression) was claimed to be "illegal but justified" (for example, by the International Commission on Kosovo chaired by Richard Goldstone) on grounds that the bombing was undertaken to terminate ongoing atrocities. That judgment required reversal of the chronology. The evidence is overwhelming that the flood of atrocities was the consequence of the invasion: predictable, predicted, anticipated. Furthermore, diplomatic options were available, [but] as usual, ignored in favor of violence.
High U.S. officials confirm that it was primarily the bombing of Russian ally Serbia - without even informing them in advance - that reversed Russian efforts to work together with the U.S. somehow to construct a post-Cold War European security order, a reversal accelerated with the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Libya after Russia agreed not to veto a UN Security Council Resolution that NATO at once violated.
The status of international law did not change in the post-Cold War period. President Clinton made it clear that the U.S. had no intention of abiding by it. The Clinton Doctrine declared that the U.S. reserves the right to act "unilaterally when necessary," including "unilateral use of military power" to defend such vital interests as "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources." His successors as well, and anyone else who can violate the law with impunity.
... no matter what happens, Ukraine is facing a daunting future for its decision to become a pawn in Washington's geostrategic games. In that context, how likely is it that economic sanctions will cause Russia to change its stance toward Ukraine - or do the economic sanctions aim at something bigger, such as undermining Putin's control inside Russia and ties with countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and possibly even China itself?"
Although it has been referred to in many articles over the years, it is worth mentioning again retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark revealing a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense he was told about just a few weeks after 9/11. It revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran". Clark argued this strategy was fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.
Part of the battle for the public's hearts and minds is to convince people to regard these wars and conflicts as a disconnected array of events, not the planned machinations of empire. And for the last decade, the ongoing narrative about Russian aggression has been part of the strategy.
It didn't take more than a few years after the collapse USSR before the government of the superpower USA (made super wealthy by the 2nd World War) began to cite the new Russian Federation as its adversary (a nuclear weapons armed adversary), though like the Chinese, the other designated major adversary, the Russians have never threatened the USA. Russians have never forgotten that in 1918, the US had invaded Russia with two armies, killing its citizens in trying to overthrow the newly proclaimed Soviet Russian revolutionary government, while the Chinese have not forgotten the destruction, sacking and looting of Beijing and other sites by the Americans and British in 1900.
Anglo-American financial-corporate interests have long been seeking to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia to prevent closer economic alignment. Aside from the expansion of NATO and installation of missile systems in Eastern Europe targeting Russia, there has also been the ever-tightening economic sanctions which the EU has largely been compelled to go along with. In 2021 it was a NATO spokesperson who was even warning Russia of NATO's nuclear arsenal.
Dec. 1, 2021, Moscow (AP) - Russia's top diplomat warned NATO against redeploying U.S. atomic weapons to Eastern Europe if Germany refuses to keep hosting them.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was responding to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's comment that the alliance would need to consider relocating nuclear weapons east if the new German government changes the country's policy on nuclear sharing.
The day before the invasion of Ukraine, Putin frighteningly stated on Russian TV:
"Whoever tries to get in our way and create further threats to our country and our people must know that Russia's response will come immediately and will lead to consequences without precedent in history. All the necessary decisions have been taken."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
