Connect with us

Russia

Syria and the return of ‘Soviet’ Russia

Published

on

In order to deny Russia its due place in world affairs and contain it from all possible sides, the USA and its imperialist allies keep raising the bogey of Russian “intention” to revive the Soviet empire, even as the USA, NATO and EU make strenuous efforts to keep the former Socialist bloc of nations under its political and military control.

As Russia ventured military action in Ukraine and Syria, the Western powers cry oud about the return of Soviet empire under a “dictator” Putin. Russia annexed Crimea because it had been a part of Russia even before Soviet Union came into existence by adding neighboring nations and it did so in order to teach a lesson to Ukraine trying to be a part of western military alliance to target Russia.

Russia’s intervention in European Ukraine, followed by its annexation of Crimea, now direct intervention in West Asian Syria, among other Russo-US conflictual seeds,   have sent unmistaken signals to USA and EU that Russia is back to reassert its super power status. In its military intervention in Syria, which is not a part of its backyard zone of former Soviet space, Russia has clearly let the USA know that it can’t , in order for securing its energy requirements on permanent basis , go on invading energy rich Arab nations like wild beast in modern times.

Most Russians feel Russian non-interference policy pursued since the end of the so-called Cold War did embolden the USA and its NATO allies to step up its unilateral military actions leading to invasions in Mideast after success in Afghanistan following the Sept-11 hoax. Russia’s reassertion of its military prowess now under strongman President Putin is meant to reveal its resolve to come out its “neutral” position of avoiding direct confrontational approach towards USA and reinvigorate the cold war phase.

The Kremlin has a point to make: it does not fear US military prowess as it is capable of directly challenging it easily but it perhaps expected if it stayed out of confrontation with the West international peace as consequence of ending Cold war could take shape. Now that USA and NATO team nations have clearly established full control over the world and its military plus energy resources in the absence of any other super power, Moscow has also decided to reactivate and step up its military presence by entering into the Syrian conflict.  

Ever since Vladimir Putin became Russia’s president first in 2000 he has pursued aggressive foreign as well as domestic policy. Putin’s military intervention into Syria to support President Bashar al Assad’s failing regime against a broad US supported opposition, including the ISIS and al-Qaeda, certainly surprised many on both sides of the Atlantic. While that deployment is militarily modest so far politically, psychologically and geostrategically it has had far greater impact. And its launch of several dozen Kaliber cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea to attack Syrian opposition targets nine hundred miles away surely made certain political statements.

Russian antagonism against US military arrogance is well known but its military adventures in West Asia, besides Ukraine and earlier Georgia before that, expressed through a series of military actions, does not in any way indicate its love for Islamic or Arab world or it wants to defend energy rich Arab world its enemies in favor of Islam or Islamic world facing civilizational threat.

Not at all! Russian is not even protecting Syria or Assad in the real sense. It just challenges US/NATO militarism, though some experts feel USA and Russia coordinate their military operations in Syria and around with help from Israel. Russia just wants to showcase its military muscle to its former chief Cold war foe by trying to restrict the US/NATO military operations. Russia wants the West to know that it can intervene if the USA continues with its unchecked military interventions and invasions globally.

Russia does this mainly because USA, as per the secret agreement among veto members, would not attack Russia directly.

There is a fundamental difference between Soviet and Russian policies: while fighting USA, Soviet Russia also defended other weak nations, helped freedom movement in third world leading to independence of countries like Pakistan and India against the will of USA and UK; Russia today pursues its military operations only to announce its return to world stage as a virtual super power and to increase its military trade volumes. While earlier it has provided economic assistance to the needy nations, Russia only sells today and seeks service charges for any service it renders to another nation. This also explains Russian move today to strike economic and military deals with Pakistan, a traditional American ally. Moscow-Islamabad ties make both USA and India nervous and would coerce India to strike more military deals with Russia without hesitation. Putin’s message is loud and clear: consider Russia as a credible equal partner face our military opposition where necessary.

Not long ago (Soviet) Russia was a super power very actively opposing capitalist-imperialist policies of the other super power USA and its allies. In fact, USA then saw Russia as being a serious problem for capitalism and obstruction for the imperialist bloc of countries and sought to end socialist construction process globally. Western world succeeded in dismantling Soviet and socialist system as corrupt elements in Soviet Union deliberately spoiled the system, aided the Western efforts to destabilize Soviet Union and East Europe. Not only the Berlin Wall fell, but even the mighty Soviet Union broke into pieces- most of them now are with USA and NATO.

When Vladimir Putin assumed power in the Kremlin in 2000 following the incapacitation conditions, the first ever popularly elected president of new of Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin, by cruelly dealing stock and barrel with the Chechen Muslim youths seeking freedom from Russian yoke, he, a former KGB man in civil dress, began reasserting Russian prowess lost with the collapse of USSR and socialist system, though he never initiated steps to revisit Socialist aspirations of many Russians. Putin does not want to annoy the West.

Not impressed by Russian efforts for “democracy” USA has not accepted Moscow as a truly equal partner because , according Washington, Russians do not share core “values” of USA and it wants to use Russia when needed and for which some “concessions” are readily provided off and on to Moscow. But USA refused to treat Russia either as an equal partner or a new super power. In fact, USA would never accept any power as its equal, not even the United Kingdom but Moscow refuses to accept that truth.

Today Russia and USA share terror values. Russian leaders have with enthusiasm made efforts to oblige and appease Washington. When a new Russia was born out of the collapse of the mighty Soviet Union, the new President Boris Yeltsin went all out to embrace western capitalism and even ready to share military based imperialist values. Later, following the Sept-11 hoax, Russia was quick to come forward to “stand” by the affected America and south US opposition to the Chechen problem and support for the action of the Putin government in Chechnya. However, while supporting Russia on Chechnya issue, USA was certainly not impressed by Russian support for USA and NATO military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That the USA still refuses to treat Russia as a trusted strategic partner sharing “values” annoys Russia which has, since the end of Cold War, made strenuous efforts to come closer to Washington by making maximum use of all available opportunities after the collapse of USSR. Both found a common enemy in Islam and Moscow sought US support to crush the Chechens seeking freedom. Disappointed by US cold attitude, eventually Yeltsin talked about US-Russia relations as being based on “Hot Peace” in place of cold war.

It might look strange that Russia has not yet come out of shame feelings that it had lost the WW-II to USA and then lost the Cold War also to USA again. Possibly, therefore, many Americans believe Russia has taught a valuable lesson to them by the Sept-11 hoax and they think Russia had engineered as part of winning the ideological and military rivalry with USA. Accordingly, the attacks well inside the USA would have given Russia the much needed victory and overall moral advantages. Although there were reports of terror attacks inside Russia a few years after the Sept-11 hoax, those were considered less important as they could not make Sept-11small or meaningless. Even the blasts in India, an emerging strategic partner of USA, particularly in Mumbai could not outwit the Sept-11 hoax.

Very important information should be shared here to explain the new post-cold war superpower rivalry clear. Russia is gradually making its arrival known to USA as a new super power. There is a clear agreement among the veto powers not to wage war against one another and each should, in case of mutual tensions, use diplomatic channels and threats along with hot lines to resolve them. Both USA and Russia use proxy wars in a third country by getting their allies on board to fight one another. That is why USA has never attacked Russia – or vice versa – over the Sept-II attack or tensions they create elsewhere even if it was convinced of American or Moscow’s role in it. For instance, USA did not attack Russia over Cuban missile crisis during the cold war or when Russia annexed Crimea deliberately; Moscow knows well USA can never attack Russia for whatever reason as it would never directly breach the Russian boundaries. Seemingly, USA does not seek to annoy Russia and rekindle the cold war rivalry.

The NATO is planning to expand its strength in Europe by getting more East European nations. The final decision is expected to be a priority for its Warsaw Summit in July. Russia has repeatedly opposed the NATO move to expand itself eastward by taking into its fold more East European states, thereby bringing its military directly to Russian borders.

Russia is genuinely concerned that the NATO has not given up its containment policy towards Russia. Even while expanding itself to reach the Russian borders, NATO tells Russia it does not have any hidden agenda against Russia.

One consequence of Putin’s expansive strategy has been a direct challenge to the West and to NATO and not just in Europe. So far, NATO responses to Russia’s increasingly active involvement in Europe and West Asia have been just tactical, not strategic.

USA uses former allies of Russia in East Europe to challenge the Kremlin and threaten Russia’s empire ambitions, if any, by taking them into NATO. In order to deter Russia, the Baltic States as well as Poland repeatedly asked for permanent NATO alliance’s forces deployment on their soil. From the strategic point of view provoking Russia with such steps may have serious consequences for the Baltic region and Europe as a whole. However, NATO is opposed to additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces, maybe to assure the Kremlin of any European aggression.

Poland and the Baltic States drive themselves into a corner insisting on permanent NATO troops’ deployment on their territories and create conditions under which NATO could even frustrate some of its short-sighted member-states preferring to calm Russia in order to prevent the new Cold War. Three small Baltic nations Lithuania that border Russian territory, Latvia and Estonia joined NATO in 2004 for gaining protection from any possible attacks from Russia. The Baltic States will willfully continue to urge the need for permanent of NATO forces regardless on possible political implications.

What does Russian president Putin’s challenge mean for NATO today? Do Russian incursions in Middle East through intervention in Syria mean anything significant for NATO? Is NATO ready or prepared to deal strategically with Russia in Europe and, as after the end of the Cold War, is the alliance prepared to look beyond Europe’s borders to the south and east and take a larger role in promoting global stability?

At times it appears Russia is aiming at a closer alliance with NATO. But Russia’s annexation of Crimea and intrusion into Ukraine, and now Syria indicate their tensions. Russia is trying to assure the NATO that Crimea was just one time affair and it does not have other agenda in store.

Continue Reading
Comments

Russia

Why We Need to Acknowledge Russia’s Security Concerns

Published

on

Image source: kremlin.ru

At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the United States was able to avoid nuclear war over the placement in Cuba of nuclear Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM), and Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM).  This was done by giving the then Soviet Union a private assurance that the United States would remove its IRBMs from Turkey, 6 months after the missiles in Cuba were removed.  The United States kept its promise. 

In 1990, the United States gave the Soviet Union another private assurance, much like the private assurance given in 1962.  The United States promised the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand one inch eastward if the Soviet Union would allow West and East Germany to reunite, and that the newly united Germany would be able to remain in NATO.

The website National Security Archive goes further than the LA Times article cited above.  Several leaders of the NATO alliance made private and public promises that NATO would not expand towards the East.

While other news stories and articles decry this promise, the National Archives provides both public statements and written memoranda between NATO members about not expanding NATO eastward.

The Soviet Union relying on the history of the United States in keeping its word, agreed to German unification.   

Unlike the private assurance given the Soviet Union in 1962 however, the United States broke its word, and advanced NATO to the very frontiers of Russia.  It is this duplicity that is the seminal moment that resulted in the war between Russia and Ukraine.

Russia’s Paranoia

Russia is the world’s most invaded country in the world.  But the worst invasion was the Mongol invasion which lasted from 1240 AD until 1480 AD.  For 240 years the Mongol Horde brutalized the Russia people beyond belief.  Every spring, the Mongols would raid the Russian countryside, kidnapping your Russian women and young Russian boys for sale in the slave markets of Constantinople.  Indeed, the word slave comes from the root word, Slavic.

It was only by the Duchy of Moscow becoming more brutal than the Horde, were the Russian people able to throw off the yoke of the Tartars.  Ivan the Third, the Prince of Moscow, refused to pay the Tartar tax in 1480, and prevented the Mongol Horde from crossing the Ugra River.  Akmet of the Golden Hordes was supposed to be supported by troops from Lithuania, who had been promised Russian territory by the Tartars.  However, Ivan the Third had thoughtfully provided discontented nobles in Lithuania money and troops, which forced the ruler of Lithuania to stay at home fighting off a rebellion inside his own country rather than invading Russia.

This event, the Battle of the Ugra River, marked the end of Tartar rule of Russia.

In the last 225 years, Russia has been invaded by the West 4 times.  3 of these invasions were of an existential nature.  It should then be no surprise that Russia is sensitive to a large military force near her borders.

The Euromaidan Movement and Overthrow

Of a Democratically Elected Government in Ukraine

After years of watching NATO forces inch closer to her natural, and undefendable, borders, the Euromaidan movement overthrew a democratically elected government over the government’s decision to move into the Russian economic orbit, rather than to the orbit of the European Union.  With the loss of the Crimea to a possible member of NATO and Russia’s last defensible natural obstacle to a government hostile to Russia, Vladimir Putin sent troops to occupy the Crimea, beginning the countdown to war.

The War in Ukraine

To say that Russia has botched its invasion plans would be an understatement.  While Russia planned for a quick knockout blow, the bungling of its logistical abilities has allowed Ukraine to fend off Russia’s initial assault, and Russia has had to reorient its offense to the eastern part of Ukraine, and abandon for the moment Russia’s attempt to capture and occupy the Ukrainian capital Kiev.

However, given Russia’s immense advantage in terms of the number of soldiers, armor, and superior resources, eventually Russia will be able to defeat Ukraine, despite the tremendous amount of military and financial aid being given to Ukraine.  Russia will never give up this fight as it sees the advance of NATO as an existential threat.  And Russia sees a Ukraine tied to the West as a threat to its polity.

World Economic Consequences

The economic damage to the world economy is just now beginning to be felt.  The price for a barrel of oil has skyrocketed and averages well over $100 a barrel, with no end in sight to higher increases.  Grain shipments from Russia and Ukraine have been disrupted.  This is going to cause a serious shortage of grain available to the Middle East and to parts of Southeast Asia in late 2022 and in 2023.  The shortage of grain will cause famine conditions throughout the developing world, fueling violence and political instability with consequences no one can foresee. 

In addition, with Russia being a major exporter of fertilizer, many countries who depend on the fertilizer to feed their populations will not be able to do so.  This is also going to cause major economic and political upheavals world-wide.

Russia is beginning to cut of the supply of natural gas to some European Union countries, and more are sure to follow.  Russia has announced the cut off of gas to Finland after Finland made application to join NATO.

These economic challenges will only spread worldwide, bringing about a global recession that was completely avoidable.

While Russia is not blameless in the worldwide disruptions happening now, the arrogance of the political elite of the West is just as much to blame.

A larger country attacking a smaller country in search of national security is old news in world history.  As recent as 2003, a large country attacked a small one in what it believed was in its interests on national security.  I am speaking of the attack on Iraq in 2003 by the United States.  If the United States can attack a smaller country far from its borders in the name of national security, than why is it wrong for Russia to do the same?

How Russia Moving Closer to China May Cause War in the Indo-Pacific Region

A more serious consequence is Russia moving closer to China, even though China is Russia’s more serious threat in the future.  China has never given up her claim of the territory lost to Russia due to the Treaty of Aigun signed by Russia and China in 1858.

With the United States providing large amounts of military equipment, ammunition and other military aid, the stockpile of munitions for the United States military is being depleted, particularly in Javelins, Stingers, and howitzers (along with ammunition).

China at this time appears to be waiting patiently and observing the trends underway in Ukraine.  If China feels that the military supplies available to the United States military has been depleted, China may copy the Japanese aggression in World War Two in taking advantage of a momentary weakness on the part of Western powers preoccupied with Russia and the war in Ukraine.

A Possible Political Solution to the Crisis

One of the prerequisites of any treaty ending this war has to accept the realpolitik fact that Russia is not going to give up the Crimea, nor the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics.  Russia sees the Crimea as its last natural obstacle to any invasion of southern Russia. 

The people in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions are overwhelmingly in favor of uniting with Russia, and broke away from Ukraine after a democratically elected government was overthrown by violence.   A UN supervised election in these areas would give legitimacy to the political absorption of these areas into Russia.

Compensation to Ukraine should be offered by Russia, with the proviso that Russia respects Ukraine’s decision to turn her face towards the West.

Dr. Julian Spencer-Churchill, an associate professor of international relations at Concordia University at Montreal Canada recently published his views on a political settlement of the Russian-Ukraine War.  This link will take the reader to the article published in RealClearDefense.com.

The reader should keep in mind that China is the real danger to world democracy, not Russia.  An attempt must be made to bring Russia into the European family.  It is imperative that Russia be wooed, not forced to come to terms with the West.  With Russia firmly tied to the West, both economically and politically, the chance for war in the Indo-Pacific Region is reduced significantly.

A case in point for such a policy is the political union between England and Scotland in 1707.

A noble English Lord observed several Scottish Lords celebrating the Act of Union in 1707.  The English Lord approached the Scottish Lords and asked why they seemed to be so happy with the Union.  The English Lord knew some of these Scotsman had fought bitterly for Scottish Independence.  A Scottish Lord replied: “Twas not the marriage we objected to, twas the wooing.”

Continue Reading

Russia

The U.S. doesn’t want to protect Ukraine; it wants to defeat Russia

Published

on

If the U.S. (and its allies) wanted to protect Ukraine, then it (they) would not be doing all they can to prolong Russia’s invasion and destruction of Ukraine. They would not be flooding Ukraine with their weapons to kill Russians. They would not be demanding that Ukraine fight on, which destroys Ukraine even more. But this is what they are doing. 

Is this because they are so stupid that they don’t know that they are destroying Ukraine? Or is it instead because they don’t care about their destroying Ukraine but do care about their defeating Russia?

The U.S. (and its allies) are doing everything they can to defeat Russia. They are also doing everything they can to increase the sales, and profits, and stock-market valuations, of Lockheed Martin and the other corporations whose only or main customers are the U.S. Government and its allied governments which buy their weapons — buy them increasingly now in order for those weapons to be used even more now by their vassal-nations such as Ukraine, and Israel, and Saudi Arabia, against the nations that they also are wanting to defeat, such as Palestine and Yemen, and other countries that the U.S. and its allied governments care nothing about except that they want them to be defeated — to be punished for NOT caving to the U.S. Government and its allied governments, and which nations they condemn while calling themselves ‘the free world’.

How evil is this? Let’s see:

On May 19th, U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law an additional $40.1 billion to Ukraine in order to continue its war against Russia, which Biden and his boss Barack Obama, and Obama’s organizer of the 2014 U.S. coup in Ukraine Victoria Nuland had begun by means of that coup, which had transformed Ukraine from being a peaceful neutralist country on Russia’s border, into becoming promptly a rabidly anti-Russian and pro-U.S. country on Russia’s border that’s in a civil war and that is a prospective future basing-area for U.S. nuclear missiles there (like a 1962 Cuban-Missile-Crisis in reverse) to hit Moscow only a 7-minute flight-time away. It would be a checkmate in the U.S. regime’s long war to add Russia to its conquered prizes, if the plan would succeed.

To place that $40.1B additional expenditure into perspective, the comedian Jimmy Dore headlined on May 19th “ALL DEMOCRATS Vote [in Senate] To Send $40 Billion To Ukraine”, and Dore said “That’s more than three times what the entire U.S. music industry makes in a year,” and he called it “a wealth-transfer to the military-industrial complex.” He said that if this $40.1B addition to the current year’s expenditure on Ukraine’s war were instead to be spent domestically, “that would stop homelessness.” 

I checked those allegations. Here’s what I found:  

The entire U.S. music-recording industry is $11B retail sales per year. (That’s sales; profits would be some percentage of sales, but even if it were ALL of sales, then this $40.1B would be “more than three times” it.)

Annual cost to eliminate homeless in U.S.=$30B.

He wasn’t exaggerating; he was under-stating. This is how evil the U.S. Government actually is.

Mr. Dore also noted that all Democratic Party U.S. Senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted for this additional $40.1B expenditure, and that the overwhelming majority of the Republican ones also did. Are Republicans now even more neoconservative than Democrats are? Not really: it is always the case that a neoconservative bill in the U.S. Congress gets virtually 100% support from the Party in power, and gets an overwhelming majority of the votes of the Party that doesn’t happen to be in power at the time. All the while, America’s ‘defense’-contractors increase their sales and profits and stock-market valuations. So, Dore expressed anger that in the Senate, even Bernie Sanders voted for this. And Glenn Greenwald presented a scathing condemnation of the hypocritical ‘progressive’ Democrat Octavio Ocasio-Cortez’s “complete reversal of everything that she pretended to believe in for years”. He attributed this contradiction of herself to “In 2016, when Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, … instead of accepting responsibility because they themselves had nominated one of the most destructive and outright hated political candidates in modern American history in Hillary Clinton, … they decided to blame everybody else, … especially Putin and Russia. … And so Democrats have been feeding on this anti-Russia antipathy and hatred” ever since. And, so, “there is no viable anti-war [political] left in the United States.”

Though I enormously respect Glenn Greenwald, and everything that he said is true, I think that his analyses suffer from shallowness due to his apparent ignorance of history — his excessive focus on the obvious and recent news, outside of the broader context that’s required in order for there to be a deeper analysis, a scientific understanding, which identifies actual historical causes behind current events. This is not to deny that what Greenwald says is true, but to assert that it lacks the wisdom that ONLY an authentic historical analysis can bring to current events and to public-policy issues. Only by understanding causes can one move forward into the future (if there will be a future) so as to control future events in a constructive way, that will benefit future generations, instead of for future events to continue to degenerate even further into a hell which comes closer with every passing day.

I documented at Greanville Post, on May 19th, “The Secret U.S.-&-UK War Against Europe”, showing that BOTH American political Parties are controlled, at the very top, by a cabal of very closely connected individuals who are basically servants of the billionaire controlling owners of firms (such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics), which corporations’ major or even ONLY customers are the U.S. Government and its allied governments, but especially these controlling individuals are an organization that was started in 1877 by the British aristocrat Cecil Rhodes, and which finally took control over the U.S. Government itself on 25 July 1945, just three months after U.S. President FDR died and became replaced by the naive and manipulable Harry S. Truman, who set America’s Government irrevocably onto its control by “the military-industrial complex” and in league with Britain’s aristocracy, to ultimately control the entire world and obviate altogether the United Nations that FDR had started planning and hoping for back in 1941. (The Republican Dwight Eisenhower was also a key part of the Rhodesists’ American operation.)

This organization by the Rhodesists is the source of the evilness that pervades today’s U.S. Government, and it cannot be overcome unless and until it first becomes widely known-about, and then condemned so that all of today’s U.S. Government becomes replaced, because the corruptness of America’s (and UK’s) Government has, by now, become virtually 100%. And if this assertion doesn’t seem credible, then check the links in this report, which explains (and those links document) the actual source for the 19 May 2022 law to pour an additional $40.1B into Ukraine, which after the 2014 coup is a U.S. vassal-nation that’s self-destructing in order to serve as today’s main battleground (and U.S.-proxy) in the American (and British) aristocracy’s long war to conquer not only Russia, but also Europe, and the entire world.

First, the entire world (especially in Europe) has to recognize and publicly acknowledge the unacceptability of America’s Government, so as to condemn it and to order all of its troops out, ASAP. It is a hostile power, to the publics, everywhere — even in places where its stooges and hangers-on-billionaires are in political control (like a cancer) (such as in Europe). America’s Government is NO DEMOCRACY. No empire can be, and America’s most assuredly IS NOT a democracy. (Nor is UK’s.) It is a hostile occupying alien force, even inside the United States. (And this is widely suspected to be true, even by the American people.) In fact: the U.S. is the world’s #1 police-state. It is a cancer, everywhere that it occupies, and needs to be rooted-out everywhere. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and the majority of America’s Founders, would have viewed this nation, today’s U.S. Government, to be their enemy, because it violates everything that they believed in, and hoped for, about America’s future, and the world’s. Everything.

Continue Reading

Russia

NYT Presents Strong Case for a War-Crimes Prosecution Against Russia

Published

on

Dozens of bodies near the cemetery in Bucha. Photo By Rodrigo Abd. Image source: war.ukraine.ua

Whereas numerous instances of U.S. war-crimes have been documented in some news-reports well enough to be successfully prosecuted in international war-crimes tribunals (but the U.N.-authorized agency the International Criminal Court cannot prosecute U.S. war-crimes but only war-crimes by third-world countries’ leaders), such well-evidenced instances by Russia are far rarer. However, on May 19th the New York Times presented precisely such an instance, under the headline “New Evidence Shows How Russian Soldiers Executed Men in Bucha”. Local security-cameras there recorded the frog-marching to their death of nine Ukrainian men who weren’t in Ukraine’s official armed forces but who had become armed to fight against the invading Russian soldiers in Bucha, and who were then executed by specifically identified Russian soldiers and their corpses abandoned on the ground as Russia’s soldiers left Bucha. Locals also told the NYT’s reporters what they had seen, and it fit with what those security cameras showed. The NYT reported:

The execution of the captured fighters and the homeowner in Bucha “is the kind of incident that could become a strong case for war crimes prosecution,” said Stephen Rapp, former United States ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues. The captives, having been disarmed and taken into custody by the Russians, were “outside of combat,” under the laws of war, Mr. Rapp said. According to the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, such laws mean that prisoners must be treated humanely and protected from mistreatment in all circumstances.

In addition to the soldiers who shot the men, their commanders could be charged if they knew about the killings and failed to act to prevent or punish the conduct, Mr. Rapp said.  

However, Ellen Ioanes at Vox posted on April 9th an excellent article, “Here’s what the ICC can actually do about Putin’s war crimes”, and documented in detail that the consequence would be nothing except bad publicity which the U.S. and its allies could exploit, but even that would entail “a lot of hypocrisy” because:

one of the most vocal nations suggesting Putin be tried at the Hague — the United States — isn’t itself a party to the ICC. The US government voted against the ICC during the Rome Conference in 1998; former President Bill Clinton signed on to the Rome Statute in 2000 but never submitted it to Congress for ratification. Former President George W. Bush in 2002 notified then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the US would not ratify the Rome Statute and didn’t have to abide by any of its provisions.

The U.S. Government, and many of its allies (such as the post-U.S.-coup-in-Ukraine’s government ever since 2014) perpetrate war-crimes (such as this) far more heinous than what the NYT reports there, but that doesn’t excuse what these Russian soldiers did. None of these war-crimes will be able to be successfully prosecuted.  

Here is the reason why the ICC, and the U.N. itself, turned out to be this way (Ioanes’s article provided only a superficial account regarding that matter — “A permanent international court is still relatively new,” etc. — but the actual cause, or reason, goes all the way back to answering how and why that has turned out to be the case, and this requires history going back to the 1940s):

Though the United Nations had first been conceived by U.S. President FDR in 1941 only shortly before the U.S. itself famously entered WW II on “a date which will live in infamy”; and though FDR developed, prior to his death on 12 April 1945, a remarkably detailed plan for what the U.N. would be and for what its Charter would need to include, his immediate successor, Harry S. Truman, while he was at the Potsdam Conference with Churchill and Stalin in July 1945, became persuaded by his hero, General Dwight David Eisenhower, that if the U.S. would not conquer the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would conquer the United States; and, so, on 25 July 1945, Truman made the decision (which soon thereafter became irrevocable) to set the U.S. Government onto the path of world-domination, to conquering the Soviet Union, and he even decided to demand of Stalin, regarding eastern European countries that the Soviet Union had freed from Hitler’s grip, that “I told Stalin until we had free access to those countries and our nationals had their property rights restored, so far as we were concerned ther’d never be recognition. He seems to like it when I hit him with a hammer.” Stalin was shocked at this turn of events, because he knew, in general terms, what FDR had been intending for the U.N. to be — a democratic federation of all nations which would terminate all imperialisms and be restricted to addressing only international relations (thereby excluding anything that pertains to intranational matters, such as Truman insisted upon) — and he still hoped, even for a few months afterwards, that Truman wouldn’t turn out to be a 180-degree reversal of what FDR had been, but thereafter Stalin gave up altogether on any such hope, and knew that the U.S. was now at war against the Soviet Union. Tragically, Truman, instead of FDR, oversaw, and basically dominated, the creation of the U.N., and so it turned out to be a toothless tiger, nothing like what FDR had intended, which would have been the international democracy of nations and possessed of a practical monopoly of geostrategic weaponry and international armed force, and also including, at the earliest practicable date, an international criminal court, which would try not only the international crimes by the former Axis powers, but the international crimes by the former Allied powers. The U.N. would have been fundamentally different than it is.

And, so, though there do exist international war-crimes cases regarding which the solidly documented historical record is sufficiently complete for an unprejudiced and trustworthy conviction to be possible, it cannot happen unless and until all of the bad history since 12 April 1945 (FDR’s death) has become effectively condemned, repudiated, and reversed, by enough of the world’s nations, so that the needed type of world government (international laws and their enforcement and juridical handling), replacing all of the existing imperialisms, becomes finally instituted (which was FDR’s obsession from 1941 on). However, even today — after all of these many decades of bad history — no one is even so much as talking about this.

One of the experts that Ioanes quoted said “‘It really shows a lot of hypocrisy,’ and encourages the perception of ‘justice for thee, not for me’.” And that (“for thee, not for me”) is, really, a pervasive and total impossibility of justice, for anyone. In its place can only be hypocrisy. Perhaps that’s what “liberalism” (which is certainly NOT progressivism) comes down to: hypocritical conservatism. Rule by the aristocracy (the super-rich), everywhere.

What is bad in the past must be publicly acknowledged (no longer lied about), if ever we are to go forward to an authentically better world. If that fails to happen, the world will only continue to get even worse.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

World News51 mins ago

African nations leading the way on ‘food systems transformation’

African countries are at the vanguard of a vital transformation of food systems to simultaneously address food security, nutrition, social...

Defense3 hours ago

AUKUS: A Harbinger to Nuclear Race between India and Pakistan

In the latter half of the 2021, Washington initiated strategic trilateral defence pact with the UK and Australia, colloquially called...

Middle East5 hours ago

Israel admits involvement in the killing of an Iranian army officer

Col. Sayad Khodayee, 50, was fatally shot outside his home in Tehran on Sunday when two gunmen on motorcycles approached...

South Asia7 hours ago

Economic And Political Reform Is Needed In Sri Lanka, Not State Violence

Sri Lanka’s worst economic crisis since independence has highlighted years of political and economic mismanagement and a reliance on state-sanctioned...

Economy9 hours ago

The Waning Supremacy of the Petrodollar Economy

Since the 1970s, the US dollar has been the undisputed reserve currency around the globe. Agreements with Saudi Arabia (and...

Economy11 hours ago

Chinese Maritime Strategy: Further Expansion and Progress

The Belt and Road Initiative represents a shift in China’s global perspective as well as an update to its role...

Health & Wellness13 hours ago

World’s richest countries damaging child health worldwide

Over-consumption in the world’s richest countries is creating unhealthy, dangerous, and toxic conditions for children globally, according to a new...

Trending