When Lavrov Was Right 169


When NATO forces attacked Serbia in 1999, killing many civilians, in order to establish the current disastrous mafia statelet of Kosovo, Sergei Lavrov spoke very wisely at the Security Council.  He said:

              Attempts to justify strikes as preventing humanitarian catastrophe were not recognized by international law, he said.  The use of unilateral force would lead to a situation with devastating humanitarian consequences.  No considerations of any kind could serve to justify aggression.  Violations of  law could only be combated on the solid basis of the law.

Attempts to apply other standards to international law and disregard other laws created a dangerous precedent, he said.  The virus of a unilateral approach could spread… the Council alone should decide the means to maintain or restore international security.  NATO’s attempt to enter the twenty-first century in the uniform of an international gendarme set a dangerous precedent.

He was of course absolutely right.  Liberal interventionism and the right to protect were extremely foolish and dangerous doctrines.  When propagated by useful idiots, even at their most high-minded they were never more that a repetition of the old imperialist “civilizing mission” of military attack to eradicate barbarous practices.  In fact they were brutally utilized as an excuse for resource grab and personal enrichment.

The Robert Coopers of this world have been hoist with their own petard, because it was always inevitable that others would use the same excuse in areas where they had power, to do what the US and its satellites were doing where they could.  If you promulgate that might is right, you cannot complain when someone punches you.

But that does not make Russia’s actions in the Ukraine right – rather it makes Lavrov a complete hypocrite.  As Lavrov said to the Security Council,  “the Council alone should decide the means to maintain or restore international security”, and the security council voted by 13 to 1 against the Crimea referendum.  It is beyond argument that the man is massively hypocritical.

The truth is that the western powers and Russia are both vicious in the field of foreign relations and have little real care for ordinary people and their rights. Russian actions in military occupation of Crimea (far beyond keeping an agreed number of troops stationed in agreed bases) are indeed illegitimate and illegal.

Let me add two more hypocrisies in the Russian position.  It is an offence carrying up to 22 years in jail to advocate the secession of any part of Russia.  There is no sign of any referendum on self-determination for the people of Chechnya and Dagestan.  I do not believe that in a genuinely democratic vote, there is any political proposition which would ever get 97% of the vote.  You couldn’t get 97% of any group of people to vote for free ice cream.  Interestingly enough, Putin is claiming in the Crimea precisely the same percentage – 97% – that Hitler claimed in his Plebiscite in Austria to ratify the Anschluss.

The other thing I thought wonderfully ironic is that I saw two representatives of the “international observer group” on Russia Today this morning, one Polish and one Hungarian, and both were from fully paid up genuine fascist organisations.  The Hungarian has been saying it is most unfortunate that the BNP couldn’t make it.

For the other side of this coin – western hypocrisy – see here.

 

 

 

 


169 thoughts on “When Lavrov Was Right

1 2 3 4 5 6
  • John Goss

    Those who suggest the UK and France should lose their seats as permanent members of the UN Security Council and be replaced by Germany and Japan are wrong. Germany and Japan had no chance of becoming permanent members when the UN was formed, for very good historical reasons. They were also prohibited from having a defence budget for the same reasons. Economically this worked out well for both countries because that portion of their GDEs could be spent on more important things. (There’s a big lesson there because, until they were allowed military expenditure, their economies were the strongest in the world.) When a replacement for the United Nations is enacted, the countries to go should again be the aggressors and warmongers, so yes, France and the UK, but also the US. They should be replaced by a South American country, Brazil for example, and an African country, South Africa for example, an Asian country, India for example, and a peace-loving Australasian country, like New Zealand for example. The UN is a geographical mess in terms of representation. But the main one to go should be the belligerent US.

  • Macky

    Habbuy; “as Dreoilin noticed quite a while ago when she said you weren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer”

    I always have a little chuckle everytime you post that, as I enjoy the delicious irony when I recall that Dreoilin said that iro of a very simple point I made, that went completely over her head.

  • fool

    Good post, but hypocrisy is what diplomacy and international relations is all about. It is the perfect illustration of how unfortunately the flaw in Rousseau’s social contract is that he who is best able to spin and disguise his lie wins.

    I have no idea how honesty and sticking to principles is supposed to work in the absence of a world policeman. We had a world policeman in America but over time more and more came to see them as increasingly self interested, and in any event they appear to have lost some of their former power.

    To some extent perhaps the Russians are slightly less hypocritical. If the west is behind Maidan in some sort of Gladio funding exercise it was nonetheless discrete, but Putin’s blatant use of unmarked Russian forces in Crimea whilst calling them local defence forces was far from discrete (i.e. slightly less hypocritical). There is an advantage in hypocrisy as the blatant act rings a bell for other s that its ok and from then that sort of conduct increases.

    For eg is it ok for security forces to assassinate or torture. We say its not and we have laws (or used to) to stop this but at the same time most of may say well sometimes in very particular circumstances it might be necessary, but we would rather not know, and trust that those who carry it out are restrained and act in our best interest etc. (reading John le Carre you have to doubt that though). If such conduct leaks out there is a fuss and rightly so because if it leaks out then we lose confidence in our morality, but moreover it risks becoming a norm.

    Putin’s use of unmarked defence soldiers only ups the risk of this in the west, which would be a very big step backwards. That is why whilst I recognize that Crimea going to Russia was an obvious consequence of the coup in Maidan the way in which is has occurred, whilst relatively peaceful (which is a blessing) is very worrying.

  • craig Post author

    Herbie, John Goss,

    Of course the UK should lose its seat at the security council. But the whole ides of permanent members with vetoes should be ditched as highly undemocratic. The Security Council as a deliberating body is a good idea: it should be selected by random ballot and operate on a system of qualified majorities (unanimity for Chapter 7).

    Dougie the Dug

    I think Ukraine has too much to lose in EU support if it turned towards nuclear weapons. I think Putin’s actions have been opportunist – he certainly wants to re-aggrandize Russia, and takes chances when they come. Long term, this one is a mistake.

  • John Goss

    Former US intelligence officer, Scott Rickard, talks about how historically the US has funded coups and how they are currently funding the current coup in Ukraine. He was asked would the US continue to fund Yatsenyuk.

    “Sadly, I think the Americans are going to foot this bill. There is no way that the EU is going to be able to come up with that kind of funding. Russians have already offered $30 billion and that was probably the best deal that they were going to get. Even John Hulsman said in last week’s interview that you did, that they weren’t playing honestly or they just weren’t being serious enough, but the fact is that they just can’t afford it in the EU.

    So the Americans will end up footing the bill with the economy that’s totally busted anyway. The only reason it’s still alive is because they were granted global currency rights by the British Empire, after the Bretton-Woods conference, but it is total farce at this point, because it’s all basically paper money that doesn’t really exist in this world. They are just adding another piece of debt to the American fallacy of an economy.”

    He was further asked:

    “If they don’t have the money, then what’s the point of promising it?”

    His answer:

    “I think the Americans are basically going to float a blank check to play their cards, and hopefully the Ukrainian people will wise up and realize that they are basically taking ‘funny money’.”

    http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/ukraine-revolution-usa-support-246/

  • John Goss

    Well, yes, I agree Craig, it would be better to remove all permanent members of the Security Council and get rid of the veto. Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were to blame, and the UN as a world administrative body is not fit for purpose in its current state. Unfortunately it’s what we’ve got.

  • Macky

    DougtheDug; “And what is the prize in Russia’s annexation of the Crimea? They gain territory and a permanent presence in a naval base they already held but it’s at a cost of western sanctions and Ukrainian hostility and a very probable rearming of most of Eastern Europe against Russia. It seems a big risk for not a huge gain”

    “Putin realizes that derailing Washington’s strategy to control the Crimea will have serious consequences. He must now prepare for the typical litany of asymmetrical attacks including covert operations, special ops, arming Tatar jihadis to incite violence in Crimea”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/18/obama-backs-down-on-crimea/

  • John Goss

    I think Craig would like this from Finian Cunningham’s article linked above.

    “European ministers met in Brussels on Monday to draw up punitive sanctions on senior Russian officials. EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton referred snidely to the «so-called referendum» and dismissed it as «illegal under international law». That’s rich coming from «Lady Ashton» who has never faced an election in her life and who owes her entire political career to secret decisions taken by privilege and patronage.”

  • guano

    Russophile

    No-no-no. We have a Hollywood world where Tzipi Livnis head can be digitally grafted onto a pornstar, dinosaurs ( considerably more elegant ) can digitally graze on the tropical forests of Jurassic park. But surely the leader of a high-tech nation like Germany would be wearing some kind of silver foil underwear to protect from thermal imaging. You project what you like where you like. I think our leaders know the score about IT capability by now. Don’t you think?

  • ESLO

    @Craig

    “Of course the UK should lose its seat at the security council. But the whole ides of permanent members with vetoes should be ditched as highly undemocratic. The Security Council as a deliberating body is a good idea: it should be selected by random ballot and operate on a system of qualified majorities (unanimity for Chapter 7).”

    I’d prefer them to be chosen based on their human rights records

    @John Goss

    “Another way of stating the results of the referendum:

    1 – 0 Freedom vs fascism”

    Yep – Russia the land of the free – you really are something of a joke – would you want to say that to Navalny and the other banned bloggers?

  • technicolour

    Macky: yep, missed it. As for letting a Chomsky quote speak for you, this from a review of ‘Hopes and Prospects’, which is on my reading list:

    “I was particularly pleased to see that Chomsky decided not to follow in the footsteps of most liberal commentators in their refusal to see that Russian imperialism is in no way “better” or more justified than the US imperialism. Chomsky qualifies Putin’s actions in Chechnya as “murderous”, which they most definitely are.”

    http://clarissasblog.com/2010/07/21/noam-chomskys-hopes-and-prospects-a-review-part-i/

  • ESLO

    I don’t know about Habba and Res Diss – but I find little difficulty in condemning both the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and Russia’s invasion of Crimea – neither had little rational purpose other than an illegal land grab – although I daresay the Turks could provide a little stronger argument in terms of violence against those that they sought to defend. Turkey and Nothern Cyprus went through a long period of sanctions as a result of the action – I hope that something similar is now put in place for Russia and the Crimea.

  • Herbie

    ESLO

    “Comical that Putin and his family are not on the sanctions list.”

    Absolutely.

    Though most observers of this neocon charade see these clowns for what they are.

    Evidently you take them seriously.

  • John Goss

    ESLO @ 1.35 pm.

    You’ve done it again. You’ve taken something totally out of context, that I did not write, which is clear from my comment, and ascribed it to me. You’re the joke. I’m sorry that you’re so upset by the referendum and our loss of face in this. But you have to grow up and accept defeat once in a while. We all do.

  • John Goss

    ESLO, I don’t know where you got the phrase “land grab” from. Only today I’ve heard the Americans use it, William Hague use it, the French and Polish use it. Very original.

    The Crimean people voted overwhelmingly for this “land grab” as you’re calling it. Land grab is where developers go in and kick out the natives to steal their land, like in the Chagos Islands (your favoured NATO gangsters again) against the will of the islanders, displacing the good people of the island of love (Jeju Island) against the will of the islanders to build a US base there (your lot again). That’s land grab. And this is land grab too.

    http://newsjunkiepost.com/2014/03/01/land-grab-at-ile-a-vache-haitis-peasants-fight-back/

    So please get your phraseology right before parroting what your idols say!

  • Loserenko

    Funny, ESLO making shit up about Russia’s imaginary invasion of Crimea.

    Remember the Russian invasion of Jan 20, 1991? There must have been, Right? cuz that time the referendum in the Crimea got >80% participation, and about 93.26% of them supported the “restoration of the Crimean ASSR as a subject of the USSR and as a party to the Union Treaty.”

    Poor ESLO, Russia’s taking no notice of NATO hysterics and doing what they want, and he can’t handle it.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    Another of Tovarish Goss’s egregious conflations:

    “EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton referred snidely to the «so-called referendum» and dismissed it as «illegal under international law». That’s rich coming from «Lady Ashton» who has never faced an election in her life and who owes her entire political career to secret decisions taken by privilege and patronage.””
    ______________________

    Lady Ashton is an EU Commissioner and head of the European External Action Service – in other words, a (European) civil servant, appointed by the Heads of State and Government of the EU (all elected) together with the European Parliament (the members of which are all elected).

    Civil servants everywhere are appointed and not elected.

    What is the connection between an unelected civil servant and “international law”?

    Is only an elected politician allowed to refer to international law?

    If so, presumably the Judges of various international courts (eg ICJ, ECHR…) – who are also appointed and not elected – would similarly not be allowed to refer to international law?

    ********************

    “Life is getting better, life is getting merrier!” (rasPutin’s grandfather, ca. 1932)

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    Tovarish Goss

    “ESLO @ 1.35 pm.

    You’ve done it again. You’ve taken something totally out of context, that I did not write, which is clear from my comment, and ascribed it to me. You’re the joke. I’m sorry that you’re so upset by the referendum and our loss of face in this. But you have to grow up and accept defeat once in a while. We all do.”
    _______________

    “We all do”. Hmmm – rasPutin’s reported view that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century might seem to indicate that he didn’t.

    ****************

    I’m interested to see how personally you seem to take the Crimea affair – as if it’s a “victory” for you personally and for the peculiar brand of politics you seem to represent.

  • ESLO

    “You’ve done it again. You’ve taken something totally out of context, that I did not write, which is clear from my comment, and ascribed it to me.”

    So you disagree with the post you reposted – why did you think it worthy of reposting what is your view on it rather than parroting a fellow traveller???

  • Herbie

    Habby

    When Ashton referred to a «so-called referendum», she reminded me of rather diffident teenager trying to be critical about something she’s aware she knows nothing about other than what bandwagon is currently popular.

    It was certainly a referendum. There’s nothing “so-called” about it.

    Perhaps she meant illegitimate or unlawful or illegal or something of that nature, but she’s obviously not sure, which would indicate that she’s not speaking her own mind.

    Precisely the sort of person you want in such a job, of course.

    And there do seem to be many of her ilk in what used to be thought of as very important positions.

  • ESLO

    “ESLO, I don’t know where you got the phrase “land grab””

    A factual description that others share apparently – what would you call it when you send in thousands of goons in uniforms without insignia on a flimsy pretext – invasion, illegal occupation also fit. I suppose you prefer invited in as liberators from fascism/imperialism or some other similar wording from 1958/1968?

  • ESLO

    PS Goss

    I’m not upset by the referendum – it was a foregone conclusion that anyone could see after the invasion took place – but I suppose you think the population of the Crimea were won over after a vigorous democratic debate or whatever guff RT are pushing at the moment.

  • John Goss

    “So you disagree with the post you reposted – why did you think it worthy of reposting what is your view on it rather than parroting a fellow traveller???”

    I just thought it was funny. That’s all. Not my view however. But you tried to make others think it was.

    As to “land grab” I thought I had tried to explain what I understand it to mean. But as you don’t to trust anything I say here is what Wikipedia says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_grab

  • CanSpeccy

    Techie,

    We dealt with the fate of the English in Leicester years ago and I proved you a liar.

    The facts are clear, as with the English in London, the capital or should one say the former capital of England, the English in Leicester have been made a minority in their own home.

    I even gave you the link to a scholarly thesis on the demographics of the city of Leicester, which confirmed that Leicester is now majority not English. And that is how England as a whole is going, as you must know, since you insist on debating the subject.

    In Birmingham, England’ second city, English children in primary school are not even the largest minority.

    Some even predict that Britain will be majority Muslim by 2050. Whether that proves to be the case seems uncertain but there is no doubt that the England as a racial, cultural and religious community is being destroyed. That is genocide as defined by Raphael Lemkin the Polish Jew and legal scholar who defined the term.

    “Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. …

    “More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.

    “Such terms as “denationalization” or “Germanization” which have been used till now do not adequately convey the full force of the new phenomenon of genocide. They signify only the substitution of the national pattern of the oppressor for the original national pattern but not the destruction of the biological and physical structure of the oppressed group.

    Today, the goal is not “Germanization” but “globalization,” i.e., US global hegemony, which will be a universal system of plutocracy operating via a bought pseudodemocracy of Etonians or whatever.

    The only real obstacle to the New World Order is the nation state. Hence universal genocide and the destruction of human biological and cultural diversity. And since they are all to be serfs, who cares if the unique qualities of the nations of the world are destroyed? The product of 100,000 years of genetic, cultural differentiation to be destroyed within a generation with the backing of cretins like Senator John McCain, the spade-work of people like Fuck-the-Eu Nuland and under the leadership such as that of Cameroon and Clogg, Obarmy Nicolas, Métissage-It’s-An-Obligation, Sarcozy.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    Hurbee

    “Perhaps she meant illegitimate or unlawful or illegal or something of that nature, but she’s obviously not sure, which would indicate that she’s not speaking her own mind.

    Precisely the sort of person you want in such a job, of course.”
    ____________________

    Hurbiy, I’ve already explained on several occasions that Catherine Ashton is an EU civil servant. As such, she is speaking the mind of the EU’s Heads of State and Government and that of the EU’s Foreign Ministers, who are indeed of the opinion that the referendum was a “so-called” referendum.

    So your response, although interesting, is nugatory.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.