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 3 4 5 6
  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    Hirbie (PS to)

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

    Interesting but rather short on specifics. Some names, perhaps? Ta!

  • old mark

    Evil stuff in the Torygraph by the state asset, Con Coughlin.

    Mary, you forget that CC is a graduate, First Class Honours, from the Kenny Everett School of Diplomacy (Est. 1983 after his storming performance at the Tories’ pre-election jamboree that summer!)

  • BrianFujisan

    Mary.

    Touching wee Poem for Rachel Corrie… thanks.

    Barely a woman, twenty three years old–
    Soft, vulnerable…. Surely, the Monster
    Will stop in its tracks!

    She steels her will,
    Thinks of the tank in Tiananmen Square–
    One little man stopping a tank!

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    “Mary, you forget that CC is a graduate, First Class Honours, from the Kenny Everett School of Diplomacy (Est. 1983”
    _________________-

    He also served, and was decorated : got a VD and scar.

  • John Goss

    Mary, the Rachel Corrie poem was read outside the drone engine factory at Shenstone, UAV Engines Ltd, at a vigil I was on. It was moving then. It is moving now. But you cannot move the military. Killing innocents is part of their mindset.

  • Herbie

    “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.”

    Habby, that form of words is still troubling.

    You see, I don’t imagine that these heads of state and foreign ministers came together and decided that their official position was that the Crimean referendum was a “so-called” referendum. I’m sure you’d agree that’s rather unlikely.

    This is very clearly her own choice of words, and therefore everything I said about them remains valid.

    That’s a fair assessment, isn’t it.

  • technicolour

    Canspeccy: carry on with your most entertaining, if twisted, dreams, but not on this thread, please.

    John Goss: “But you cannot move the military. Killing innocents is part of their mindset” – this is such a sad generalisation, which includes people, including 16 year olds, who’ve signed up under duress, or through desperation, that I can’t believe anyone who believes it.

  • John Goss

    Technicolour, if you had seen some of the aftermath of drone killings:
    “My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
    To children ardent for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
    Pro patria mori.”

  • technicolour

    John Goss: Sorry, how does quoting Owen address my point, except in so far that Owen actually proves my point: he understands, as you apparently do not, the tragedy of young men forced to fight and die in pointless horror. The young men he speaks of do not remain unmoved, good grief, he was a soldier himself. Was ‘killing innocents’ part of his ‘mindset’?

    I have seen civilian and military casualties, and I’m pretty shocked by your dismissal of the later as though they were all some kind of sub-human.

  • John Goss

    Herbie, you cannot make shallow thinkers understand a complex argument like Catherine Ashton had never been elected to anything in her life yet she can still call a vote made under the full scrutiny of the world “illegal”.

    We all know as well, thanks to the leaked call between Ashton and Urmas Paet, (still not reported on mainstream media) that she is fully aware that the real illegality is in an unelected government which will not hold an enquiry into who started the sniping on Maiden. Which in effect makes her a liar too. Don’t waste your energy.

  • John Goss

    Technicolour, the military makes people obey orders, including children, they develop the mindset that however immoral it is more important to obey orders than their sense of decency. So when they sit behind the wheel of a tank it does not matter that a concerned girl is in the way, they obey orders without question. When they sit behind a joystick killing people thousands of miles away, including children, in extra-judicial killings, they are obeying orders. 16 year olds might start off innocent but the military mindset is to preach the old lie. Hope that explains. And also the Owen quote.

  • technicolour

    John Goss: Yes, but that makes it even more important to differentiate between the military machine and the actual humans caught up in the machinery – which you did not, in your original comment.

  • John Goss

    Technicolour I’ve seen the Democracy Now video before. I am glad that soldier eventually obeyed his conscience rather than his superiors. I suppose when you’ve seen a man “bleed out” it does affect you. But the best time not to obey orders is before they’re issued. Because when your go down the road of killing, after the first, in most cases, the soldier becomes inured, and like Tony Blair, ends up with a total lack of conscience. He still believes that the War in Iraq was right.

  • John Goss

    Although I know very few I do know there are a lot who seek psychiatric help for their traumas and many have difficulty finding work in civilian life.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    herbie

    “That’s a fair assessment, isn’t it.”
    ________________

    No, it isn’t. You obviously have no idea of how Catherine Ashton’s statements are drafted, on what basis, and of how Heads and their Foreign Ministers and officials are involved in that drafting. I do.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    Tovarish Goss

    “Herbie, you cannot make shallow thinkers understand a complex argument like Catherine Ashton had never been elected to anything in her life yet she can still call a vote made under the full scrutiny of the world “illegal”.”
    _________________

    You’re still conflating away. Please refer again to my post at 16h13 earlier today.

    BTW – what’s this bit about “under the full scrutiny of the world”? I suppose that’s why OSCE observers weren’t allowed in? Instead we had “observers” from the
    “Eurasian Observatory for Democracy and Elections”, the organisation which is so open and transparent that its website carefully omits giving the membership of its Board of Directors and Scientific Council.

    I’ll grant you that the voting in the polling stations was under full scrutiny, thanks inter alia to the transparent voting boxes.

    LOL

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    Technicolour

    “John: I get the impression you don’t know many ex-soldiers.”
    _________________________

    That’s for sure. Neither has the Tovarish – unlike some of us here – ever served. The nearest he’s got to people who have is probably at a demonstration outside a military base.

    And that’s probably also why he always talks so tough. An keyboard warrior in the fight against the the satanic West where he was born, which “educated” him and where he still lives despite its iniquities.

  • Herbie

    “No, it isn’t. You obviously have no idea of how Catherine Ashton’s statements are drafted, on what basis, and of how Heads and their Foreign Ministers and officials are involved in that drafting. I do.”

    Habby

    I see. So what you’re saying is that the agreed official EU language on the Crimean referendum is that it’s a “so-called referendum”.

    And you’ve been involved in that process.

    Are you all teenagers?

    I honesty don’t see that language going very far in any judicial process, to be fair.

    But you have at least explained why the whole EU project has turned into a 14 y o boy’s bedroom.

    Thanks for that.

  • Herbie

    It’s all coming out tonight.

    So habby is a former EU civil servant, and he served. I presume he means military.

    On second thoughts, he may be ex FCO, and know Craig. Yeah, I think that’s more likely.

    But habby certainly has an interest. I’d suggest it’s more an institutional interest than a human interest, and his arguments to date will have confirmed that.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    ‘Erbert

    “I see.”
    ______________________

    You don’t – as usual. Were you born blind or are you just wilfully blind?

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    Herby

    “So what you’re saying is that the agreed official EU language on the Crimean referendum is that it’s a “so-called referendum”.”
    ___________________

    I am saying that that language would have been approved by Member States before she said it.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “I honesty don’t see that language going very far in any judicial process, to be fair.”

    Which is precisely why Tovarish Goss’s conflation – in which you could substitute unelected judges for unelected Catherine Ashtons – is so ridiculous.

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

  • Herbie

    Habby

    “I suppose that’s why OSCE observers weren’t allowed in?”

    I’ve corrected you on this previously.

    Please respect the facts.

    OSCE declined their invitation.

  • Resident Dissident

    “Perhaps the Neocon eminences, Habba & Res Diss, can explain why Russia’s actions in Crimea in 2014 are so much more heinous than those of Turkey in northern Cyprus in 1974.”

    Not sure they are – they are both heinous unjustifiable invasions, with quite a lot of similarities – wasn’t the Turkish justification that Cyprus was being taken over by Greek fascists when no such thing was happening? Northern Cyprus was of course treated as an International pariah for many years.

  • Resident Dissident

    OSCE declined their invitation.

    They worked out they could stay at home when the ballot did not allow a vote for remaining in the Ukraine, was conducted under the auspices of an invading army and with insufficient time or opportunity for debate of the alternatives. Given that 40% of ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars are supposed to have voted to join Russia – given the Yes vote and the turnout – I suspect that it would have been to hard to find a little bit of vote rigging even if they had turned up, although the fascist observers invited by Putin were obviously too thick to do so.

  • Resident Dissident

    “Earlier, Mr Putin told Russia’s parliament that Crimea had “always been part of Russia” and in signing the treaty he was righting a “historical injustice”.”

    The man just cannot stop lying.

  • Herbie

    Res Diss

    Thanks for confirming that OSCE declined, rather than as habby claimed, “weren’t invited”.

    I’d corrected this factual error previously and was very disappointed he repeated it.

    I’m sure as a former military, FCO/EU civil servant he’ll be along shortly to apologise.

  • Peter

    Craig, you are not even a smart person, your article is that typical of the Nazi propaganda machine, you can write rubbish all you want, but we the people (most of us) don’t swallow your one sided article, the fact remains that the west is trying to choke of Russia and China and wants to rule the world through their zionist masters, Crimea was handed to the ukraines by the Russians, all they are doing now is taking it back.

  • CanSpeccy

    Peter, don’t try talking sense here. you’ll be swarmed by PC clones and clowns and semi-intelligent bots like Techie telling lies, or if you stick at it, they’ll tell you to go and post some place else.

    And since Techie asked me to post elsewhere, here’s the link.

1 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.