But these systems largely don't originate from the "unipolar" phase (I.e. post 1990) but from the Cold war, mostly the 70s. — Echarmion

During the unipolar moment the US used many of these systems to instate the so-called 'rules based international order', which in the case of the US usually meant: "Rules for thee, but not for me."

Before that, the US had to contend with the Soviet Union as a counterbalancing force. If the US misbehaved too much, countries would instead align with the Soviet Union. That counterbalance disappeared during the unipolar moment.

It's not like the US somehow tricked everyone into accepting their leadership role. — Echarmion

Trickery, but mostly coercion. That pretty much sums it up.

Much of the world is incredibly naive when it comes to accepting US "leadership". Especially Europe.

Everyone wants to be the leader and set the rules to their advantage. But noone is there yet. I see little reason to suspect India would grant China the privilege or vice versa. Neither Brasil nor Russia are serious contenders. — Echarmion

We are not moving to a new unipolar system. We're moving towards multipolarity (in fact, we are already quite a ways there) which functions completely differently.

During the unipolar moment the US used many of these systems to instate the so-called 'rules based international order', which in the case of the US usually meant: "Rules for thee, but not for me." — Tzeentch

Can you give some example for this?

Or am I just the too ignorant for you to explain further? :wink:

Yet, it's been shaky of late: 'There is only so much patience one can have’: Biden appears to back off vow to punish Saudi Arabia — Tzeentch

That the Saudi's cut oil production hardly is here something that is weakening this alliance: OPEC embargo hit the US far more back in the 1970's, yet the US came to help in the 1990's. First of all, the US itself isn't anymore dependent on Saudi oil thanks to the fracking revolution. That's the major geopolitical shift that has happened.

I think more of a recent rift happened when Iran (even the Houthis claimed it was them, yet the cruise missiles came from the north, not from Yemen) attacked Saudi oil facilities in attacked Saudi oil facilities in 2019 (and later in 2022) and the US did nothing.

Hence the warming of relations between Saudi-Arabia and Iran (lead by China) is notable. Saudi-Arabia cannot rely that the US will come to it's help, then it has to look at other options. After all, many Americans would just love to put Saudi-Arabia in the axis of evil.

Sure.

For example, the US carried out its 2011 invasion of Libya under the banner of R2P, even though its goal was to despose Muammar Gaddafi - a person they themselves had helped to power in 1969 - for his ambitions to create a gold-backed alternative to the dollar.

US history is rampacked with examples like these, where the US pretends to uphold principles of international law, but is in fact itself the worst perpetrator of international crime and goes around invading sovereign nations whenever it pleases: "Rules of thee, but not for me."

I think we're mostly in agreement - there are notable shifts going on and the Persian Gulf is moving away from the US, though how fast and how far remains to be seen.

One thing in your comment I would put a serious question mark under though, is the the assertion that the US is no longer dependent on Saudi (or lets say, foreign) oil.

The US doesn't possess that much oil.

This matters very little in peace time, but in war it is crucial. This is why the Persian Gulf has been the most important area to the US outside the western hemisphere after Europe.

For example, the US carried out its 2011 invasion of Libya under the banner of R2P, even though its goal was to despose Muammar Gaddafi - a person they themselves had helped to power in 1969 - for his ambitions to create a gold-backed alternative to the dollar. — Tzeentch

This seems like a really bad example because that "invasion", the no-fly-zone was backed by a resolution of the security council. One of only three (?) examples where such a sanction could actually be obtained.

So it was in accordance with the "rules based order".

There's plenty of examples of unilateral US military force of course. But then these are also not examples of the US abusing a system of control build through international institutions. They were pretty blatantly unilateral actions, justified by the responsibility to protect.

This behaviour certainly had negative effects (it also deserves to be listed as an indirect contributing factor to the Ukraine war IMHO), but seems to have little to do with the dollar or international organisations.

Just a small world on the "gold backed alternative to the USD": There's not a single source on this from any official channel, not even statements by Gaddafi himself. It seem like a conspiracy theory invented entirely from an offhand mention in an email allegedly from Hillary Clinton's server.

So it was in accordance with the "rules based order". — Echarmion

The point is that the 'rules-based order' is not an instrument for peace and stability, but an instrument the US uses to pursue its own objectives. In this case, it used R2P as a casus belli to invade.

The fact that there was a security council resolution changes nothing about that. Sometimes the US plays according to the rules of the game, but the game was rigged from the start. What nation is going to stick their neck out for poor ol' Libya and invite Washington's ire?

We can look at Gaddafi to see what happens to people who make that mistake.

Just a small world on the "gold backed alternative to the USD": There's not a single source on this from any official channel, not even statements by Gaddafi himself. It seem like a conspiracy theory invented entirely from an offhand mention in an email allegedly from Hillary Clinton's server. — Echarmion

The fact that Gaddafi sought to establish the gold dinar as a new African currency is not a 'conspiracy' - it's common knowledge.

The point is that the 'rules-based order' is not an instrument for peace and stability, but an instrument the US uses to pursue its own objectives. In this case, it used R2P as a casus belli to invade. — Tzeentch

The problem is that R2P is not part of the rules based order, is not widely accepted as a principle and is not part of international law. Even the West is by now clearly recognising it as a failure.

The fact that there was a security council resolution changes nothing about that. — Tzeentch

Literally the only clear, unequivocal justification for the use of force under international law is irrelevant according to you?

Sometimes the US plays according to the rules of the game, but the game was rigged from the start. What nation is going to stick their neck out for poor ol' Libya and invite Washington's ire? — Tzeentch

US resolutions get vetoed in the SC all the time, before and after 2011. This is 100% bullshit.

We can look at Gaddafi to see what happens to people who make that mistake. — Tzeentch

Plenty of examples of what happens if a major power decides it rather wants you gone. But this is supposed to be about the US abusing the international system, not just directly using it's power.

The fact that Gaddafi sought to establish the gold dinar as a new African currency is not a 'conspiracy' - it's common knowledge. — Tzeentch

No it's not. The article has this to say on it:

According to a Russian article titled 'Bombing of Libya – Punishment for Gaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar', Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States.

And this quote comes from a book, which is then cited by the article.

No source for the article is given and no information is otherwise available about the scheme, let alone any kind of statement by the countries supposedly involved.

So the best sources are an eMail allegedly by Clinton and a supposed russian article reported by hearsay twice removed. There's more evidence that Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings than for this scheme being real.

The problem is that R2P is not part of the rules based order, is not widely accepted as a principle and is not part of international law. — Echarmion

State practice, and thus R2P, is part of international law, and thus of the rules-based order.

Literally the only clear, unequivocal justification for the use of force under international law is irrelevant according to you? — Echarmion

Of course. The US sought an excuse to invade Libya for reasons that had nothing to do with the humanitarian situation. Shame on the international community for going along with it, and in essence proving my point.

US resolutions get vetoed in the SC all the time, before and after 2011. This is 100% bullshit. — Echarmion

No idea what this is even a response to.

But this is supposed to be about the US abusing the international system, not just directly using it's power. — Echarmion

And clearly the US abused the UN to provide a casus belli for an unjust invasion and coup.


You can stick your head in the sand all you like. There's no shortage of information about why the US invaded Libya (and they all have to do with Gaddafi's resistance to, you guessed it, the American led "rules-based" order). I could link you articles, books, but you've already made up your mind, and such would be a waste of time on my part.

There's no point in trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

State practice, and thus R2P, is part of international law, and thus of the rules-based order. — Tzeentch

That's not how that works. You need consistend practice by the vast majority of states, which certainly was not the case with R2P. Plus there were consistend objectors, which would also prevent it from becoming custom.

And clearly the US abused the UN to provide a casus belli for an unjust invasion and coup. — Tzeentch

Yeah? How? How do we tell a "normal" UN resolution from one gained by the US by abusing the system?

You can stick your head in the sand all you like. There's no shortage of information about why the US invaded Libya (and they all have to do with Gaddafi's resistance to, you guessed it, the American led "rules-based" order). I could link you articles, books, but you've already made up your mind, and such would be a waste of time on my part. — Tzeentch

This is just sad now.

So the best sources are an eMail allegedly by Clinton and a supposed russian article reported by hearsay twice removed. — Echarmion

Clinton's email wasn't about Gaddafi's "ambitions to create a gold-backed alternative to the dollar"
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide, the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12659

One thing in your comment I would put a serious question mark under though, is the the assertion that the US is no longer dependent on Saudi (or lets say, foreign) oil.

The US doesn't possess that much oil.

This matters very little in peace time, but in war it is crucial. This is why the Persian Gulf has been the most important area to the US outside the western hemisphere after Europe. — Tzeentch

Here's US oil production and consumption. You can see that net imports have taken a dramatic fall after the the shell oil / fracking revolution. Now they are at the level of the 1960's, when the size of the economy was far smaller.



Saudi-Arabia's importance is in that it can influence what the price of oil is. Secondly, a lot of US allies are dependent on Saudi oil. And Saudi-Arabia is very important to China too:

Right, so the story isn't even consistent. At least the gold seems to have been actually real.

Yes, because America is a pig, more powerful than the Third Reich ever dreamt of being, and the world is tired of America's abuse. America and Europe still have a colonial mentality, and America is rat shit crazy to dominate. Today is wakeup time, the world is changing. — boagie

Dude, you ain't gonna impress nobody with your foul mouth.

Why are not these nations of the East ever so grateful? — boagie

Because BRICS countries may have their own hegemonic ambitions, particularly China and Russia.

America is so caring, they just want everyone to be free, don't they? — boagie

America is caring for its own national interest, of course, and I find it rather naive and myopic to blame the US for it. Other countries' concern for freedom, civil rights, economic wealth, and democracy is instrumental to preserve the US hegemony, of course. If China and Russia invested the wealth accumulated with the globalization to support health, education, economic well being and civil rights for their own people, instead of investing in their coercive system to oppress their own people and support military projection overseas, they would have less military means and will to violently pursue hegemonic ambitions abroad. Germany and Japan after WW2 are successful examples of this strategy.

What was your question or objection? — boagie

Again? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/868183

What is sad is how intent you are on wasting other people's time.

There's no point in conversation, because evidently you are only interested in affirming your own world view. That much is clear by the way you've handled the information I've presented to you.

One more for the list of clowns.

The US sought an excuse to invade Libya for reasons that had nothing to do with the humanitarian situation. Shame on the international community for going along with it, and in essence proving my point. — Tzeentch

Does "shame" express a moral, colloquial, legal, or strategic claim?

The sheer disgust you feel towards some of the clowns that inhabit the spheres of international politics is not enlightening but clouding your mind. Taking denouncing self-interest of a hegemonic country, like the US, and deconstructing propaganda hiding it as the best expression of a rational and intellectually honest task, EVEN WHEN ACCURATE, is still a myopic and populist prejudice. That is what is wasting your time on this thread in this philosophy forum.

You're neck-deep into conspiratorial thinking. That is unfortunate, but you'll hardly listen to me so I'm not in a position to help you get out of that swamp.

I can only tell you to check your confirmation bias yourself and try to think clearly about why you believe what you believe.

check your confirmation bias — Echarmion

He said while dismissing all evidence and arguments as "conspiracy theories". :lol:

Look, you cannot really suppose that a mention in Hillary's emails about a gold dinar and a supposed (but unsourced) russian article constitute sufficient evidence to conclude that not only had the dictator of Lybia somehow set up a functioning scheme to set up a pan-African gold currency, but also that this currency was a threat to the US dollar, and that furthermore the US then in some unspecified way caused the Arab spring to get a SC resolution to bomb Lybia.

This is an insanely complex theory. It's also fundamentally unlikely given Lybia's resources and Gaddafi's personality and known propensity for grand fanciful schemes.

It is what Sagan would have called an "extraordinary claim". More generally, the more complex the supposed scheme, the more evidence you need to support it.

Ask yourself (I'm not expecting a public answer): do you really have the evidence to support that conclusion?

... the US then in some unspecified way caused the Arab spring... — Echarmion

:chin:

Again, in what part of the informed world is the US role in the Arab Spring even remotely controversial?

The fact that the US jumped at the opportunity to secure its own interests isn't even up for debate. That's established fact. Whether it knowingly or unknowingly caused the Arab Spring is contested, but not really part of my argument.

To answer your question, clearly there is evidence supporting my position. The fact that you're not even willing to look at it is your problem, not mine - your knee-jerk "CONSPIRACY!" reaction tells me all I need to know.

Are you an American?

To answer your question, clearly there is evidence supporting my position. The fact that you're not even willing to look at it is your problem, not mine - your knee-jerk "CONSPIRACY!" reaction tells me all I need to know. — Tzeentch

But I did look. And came up empty. And you clearly don't have any more either or you could have simply posted it and thus exposed me as an ignorant fool.

in some unspecified way

:ok:

Also, continuously demanding more evidence while simultaneously refusing to take it seriously is exactly the type of dishonesty I'm talking about.

Well, as I said, you won't listen to me.

Should one take the Kremlin's irredentist promotions seriously ...

• Putin: Russians, Ukrainians are ‘one people’
  ^{— AP · Jul 20, 2019}

I believe that Russians and Ukrainians are one people ... one nation, in fact. When these lands that are now the core of Ukraine joined Russia ... nobody thought of themselves as anything but Russians. [...] we can use this as our competitive advantage during some form of integration. — Vladimir Putin · Jun 19, 2019

• On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians
  ^{— Vladimir Putin · Jul 12, 2021}

• ‘Russification’ erodes Ukraine’s sovereignty in occupied Kherson
  ^{— Mehul Srivastava, Veronika Samborska · Financial Times · Aug 5, 2022}

this has included road signs exhorting Ukrainians to believe they are “One People . . . With Russia”

In this video from a liberated town in #Kharkiv region, east #Ukraine, Ukrainian soldiers removed a Russian propaganda poster saying “We are one people with Russia”. Only to reveal a poster with national poet Shevchenko’s verse “Fight and you will win”. — Alex Kokcharov · Sep 10, 2022

• ‘Never saw such hell': Russian soldiers in Ukraine call home
  ^{— Erika Kinetz, Solomiia Hera, Anna Pavlova · AP · Feb 24, 2023}

Russian soldiers had been told by Putin and others that they’d be welcomed by their brothers and sisters in Ukraine as liberators.

... then their impressive destruction and killing nonetheless tell a different story. Whether miscalculation, delusion, honest false belief, or something else, land grab fits the bill. The swift opaque referendums suggest the same. Land grab, influence, control, power, "Ukrainian brothers and sisters be dɐmnɘd".

Ukrainians and Russians as ‘One People’: An Ideologeme and its Genesis
^{— Pål Kolstø · Taylor and Francis · Aug 23, 2023}

Well done :D

Inviolability, life support and protection: guarantees for Lukashenka after the presidency have been determined (in Belarusian)
^{— Radio Svaboda · Dec 23, 2023}
President of Belarus gives himself immunity from prosecution and limits potential challengers
^{— Yuras Karmanau · AP · Jan 4, 2024} — Jan 4, 2024

Belarus refuses to invite OSCE observers to monitor this year’s parliamentary election
^{— Yuras Karmanau · AP · Jan 8, 2024}

Belarus is a member of the OSCE, and members of its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights have been the only international observers at Belarusian elections for decades.

“Belarus holds the election for itself first and foremost,” Karpenka said, adding that Belarusian authorities will invite observers from Russia and Central Asian nations.

Since 1995, all elections and referendums in Belarus have been deemed by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE as not conforming to the organization’s standards and being neither transparent nor fair. Meanwhile, observers from Russia and countries allied with Belarus view all the votes within the country as democratic.

I guess they bother at all ... for appearances, to appease certain sensibilities, like a ritual, ... Have to wonder what results genuine democratic elections (with free press and such) would give.

Up until now, there have been some folks who refused to accept the realities of the negotiations that took place in March/April 2022.

Recently Oleksandr Chalyi went on a panel at the Geneva Center for Security Policy in which he provided more insight into what took place. Chalyi is a former diplomat and Ukrainian ambassador, and was part of the delegation that conducted the peace negotiations in question. In other words, he's giving a first-hand account from the Ukrainian point of view. He also shares some of his own views on the conflict.

Here are some quotes (paraphrased, because his English isn't fluent):

When I try to answer your first question: what are the roots of the Ukrainian war? [...] To my mind this the key roots are firstly geopolitics. Namely, the hard confrontation between the United States and Russia over Ukraine.

This is the main trigger to me for full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2022.

[...]

To my mind, very quickly after the invasion of February 24th last year, [Putin] understood his historical mistake.

I was in that moment in the group of Ukrainian negotiators. We negotiated with the Russian delegation for practically two months, March and April, a possible peaceful settlement between Ukraine and Russia.

We, as you remember, concluded the so-called Istanbul communiqué, and we were very close in the middle of April to finalize the war with a peaceful settlement.

For some reason it was postponed.

[...]

To my mind, this is my personal view, Putin within one week of the start of his aggression on 24th February very quickly understood he had made a mistake, and tried to do everything possible to conclude an agreement with Ukraine.

It was his personal decision to accept the text of the Istanbul communiqué. It was totally different from the initial ultimatum proposal of Russia which they put before the Ukrainian delegation in Minsk.

So we managed to find a very real compromise.

Putin really wanted to reach a peaceful settlement with Ukraine.

[...]

The Ukrainian-Russian hot war is an integral part of a full-scale cold war between the collective West and Russia over Ukraine. In other words, NATO and the EU are not international security actors or some neutral parties, but real participants in the cold war with Russia over Ukraine. This is my strong belief.

[...]

In general, I am convinced that the key action in ending the war in Ukraine must be taken by the collective West.

It's about their strategic view.

Because now the West, first of all United States, and Germany, France, are in a very special position. [They say:] "We are far away, and ready to do what you ask."

But when I directly ask some decision maker from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United States, Germany, France:

"If, in three months, President Zelensky asks you, together with us, as independent partners, to start some negotiations with Russia on a cease-fire. I will be ready to participate."

You know their first reaction? "No, no! This is your war!"

But then I ask them: "Look boys. But you promised us to do what we asked."

And after this - silence.

It's a very popular slogan: "The key to stop this war is in Moscow." But, I agree, but the key to stop this war is also in Washington, Berlin, Brussels and Paris.

What were the Ukrainians promised and not given by the West? NATO membership probably, Art. 5 guarantees, etc. - but Chalyi does not specify so we're left to ponder.

And what possible reason could the West have for blocking negotiations when the Ukrainians themselves felt they had found a real compromise with Russia? Unbelievable.

In an extensive policy brief he wrote in July 2023 he goes into some more detail, which again paints a bleak picture of the West's role in this war, continuously leading Ukraine along by dangling security guarantees infront of them, but never actually providing them with anything.

And that's of course what we've been arguing here for months. Chalk up another one for team realism.

It was his personal decision to accept the text of the Istanbul communiqué. It was totally different from the initial ultimatum proposal of Russia which they put before the Ukrainian delegation in Minsk.

So we managed to find a very real compromise.

Putin really wanted to reach a peaceful settlement with Ukraine.

This seems to conflict with any other source on the negotiations I have looked at so far. They all stress that a high level meeting of the two leaders was a sticking point and that without such a meeting, Ukraine was unwilling to rely on the communiqué.

That meeting - and this Putin's possible acceptance, is what was postponed and ended up never happening.

So I wonder where this insistence that Putin "personally accepted" the Istanbul communiqué comes from.

Dude, what you actually claimed is the following:

The peace deal was all but finished when Boris Johnson flew in to announce Ukraine would not be signing any deals with the Russians. — Tzeentch

"

To such rhetoric manipulation of yours and your sidekicks I commented:

Russia and Ukraine can agree on whatever ceasefire proposal, but if this proposal requires security guarantees from foreign guarantors, and foreign guarantors are not willing to provide them, then there won’t be a deal. — neomac

Concerning the Istanbul Communiqué, two points remain predictably uneasy to settle: the territorial claims over Donbas and Crimea, the security guarantees. Concerning the security guarantees, either they exclude Russia so they become a version of NATO which Russia couldn’t possibly like if that’s Putin’s issue, or they include Russia (the aggressor) which can at the very least sabotage any effort of Ukrainian Westernisation (as much as it happens with resolutions that go against Russian interest in the UN) while being spared economic and diplomatic sanctions. — neomac

So Chalyi's article confirms more what I argued than what you argued. You are dishonestly framing everything as to stress the MORAL responsibility of the West without even considering the reasons of the West. Even though you believe that states have no moral responsibility (since they are not moral agents) only legal and yet:

I think every insurgency fought against a foreign occupation can be justified. That doesn't mean the insurgents are the 'good guys', but a foreign occupier has no right to be there in the first place and are by definition in the wrong. — Tzeentch

BTW here some quotes from a year ago about security guarantees:

But the idea that guarantees are needed to enter into an international agreement is just a high school level and completely ignorant understanding of international relations. There is never any guarantees. — boethius


My impression is that you have no clue what you are talking about:

- International relations include a legal framework based on voluntary acceptance by acknowledged independent nations. Within this legal framework one can implement “security guarantees” (https://www.academia.edu/16541504/Legal_Notion_of_the_Terms_Security_Assurances_Security_Guarantees_and_Reassurances_in_International_Security_Law).
- The primary involved parties in the Ukrainian war are clearly interested in such “security guarantees”: Putin urges West to act quickly to offer security guarantees. (https://www.npr.org/2021/12/23/1067188698/putin-urges-west-to-act-quickly-to-offer-security-guarantees). And Ukraine showed interest in having one, given the consequences of the Budapest Memorandum about “security assurances” (https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/stvorennya-mehanizmu-bezpekovih-garantij-dlya-ukrayini-stane-76129).
- To the extent there is an international law and rational agents engage in it, there must be some reasonable application for it, independently from any arbitrarily high standard of reliability and compatibly with power balance/struggle concerns. The reason to me is obvious: the international legal framework increases transparency and trust, given the coordinated and codified procedures/roadmap to monitor and measure commitment and implied costs. — neomac