But these systems largely don't originate from the "unipolar" phase (I.e. post 1990) but from the Cold war, mostly the 70s. — Echarmion
It's not like the US somehow tricked everyone into accepting their leadership role. — Echarmion
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
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
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.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
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
So it was in accordance with the "rules based order". — Echarmion
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 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 fact that there was a security council resolution changes nothing about that. — Tzeentch
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
We can look at Gaddafi to see what happens to people who make that mistake. — Tzeentch
The fact that Gaddafi sought to establish the gold dinar as a new African currency is not a 'conspiracy' - it's common knowledge. — Tzeentch
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.
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
Literally the only clear, unequivocal justification for the use of force under international law is irrelevant according to you? — Echarmion
US resolutions get vetoed in the SC all the time, before and after 2011. This is 100% bullshit. — Echarmion
But this is supposed to be about the US abusing the international system, not just directly using it's power. — Echarmion
State practice, and thus R2P, is part of international law, and thus of the rules-based order. — Tzeentch
And clearly the US abused the UN to provide a casus belli for an unjust invasion and coup. — Tzeentch
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
So the best sources are an eMail allegedly by Clinton and a supposed russian article reported by hearsay twice removed. — Echarmion
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.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
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
Why are not these nations of the East ever so grateful? — boagie
America is so caring, they just want everyone to be free, don't they? — boagie
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
... the US then in some unspecified way caused the Arab spring... — Echarmion
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
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
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
Russian soldiers had been told by Putin and others that they’d be welcomed by their brothers and sisters in Ukraine as liberators.
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 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.
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.
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 peace deal was all but finished when Boris Johnson flew in to announce Ukraine would not be signing any deals with the Russians. — Tzeentch
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.