So,
looking at the mess in Ukraine, what's my take?
The
upside:
Putin is apparently not the type for strategic surprise attacks. This
calms my fears for NATO, as Russia could only hope to succeed with an
aggression in the Baltic if it attacks by surprise. I am very
pleasantly surprised about this.
Why
did Western policy fail in Ukraine? In short; it was half-assed.
No great power signed and ratified a bilateral alliance treaty with
Ukraine to cover it until a much longer (and more overt from the
beginning) NATO accession process could be concluded. Either draw
Ukraine into the West or don't, half-assed measures are prone to
disappoint.
So
what did Russia do?
The Russian Federation with Putin as de facto dictator (voting him
out of office is not really an option for Russians) violated
international law (Charter of the United Nations and more) by
becoming aggressive against Ukraine in 2014 and occupying parts
of its territory. It's thus an aggressor and occupier comparable to
Iraq 90/91, Israel since 1967, Turkey since 1974 (a NATO member and I
don't see any sanctions), Morocco since 1975, the U.S., UK and Poland
in 2003 for a difficult to determine duration.
As
you might have spotted, only one country on that list was beaten up
(repeatedly) for the offence. All others officially got away,
typically due to protection courtesy by the UNSC veto feature.
This
is the problem:
The West routinely expects non-Western countries (especially
governments it doesn't like) to adhere to international law and
paints them as evil when they don't (and often does so even only
because there are expectations such as Iran never having violated the
NPT, but still being assailed constantly). Yet International Law
doesn't seem to feel all that binding and imperative to Western great
power policy, or even only to its proxies.
Do
as I say, not as I do.
A
great attempt was made to build a world based on international law
and order in 1944 with the founding of the United Nations. The 1991
war to hand back Kuwait to its kleptocrat-tyrant was widely perceived
as a most promising effort to enforce such a rule of international
law in the post-Cold War era.
Yet
the Americans did not scale back their (since the trigger-happiness
of Reagan in the 1980's) habitual aggressions; they bombed
Afghanistan, Bosnian Serbs (with Brits and Frenchmen), Sudan and Iraq
(repeatedly, but with little munitions) in the short 1992-1998 time
frame. None of this was legal under international law, and there
wasn't even the slightest hint of fig leaf legality in the bombing of
the Bosnian Serbs around Sarajevo.
Meanwhile,
the NATO bureaucrats and allied politicians worked hard to keep NATO
"relevant" after its original purpose became obsolete; a
defensive alliance was re-worked into an intervention/war adventure
club.
Then
came the 1999 Kosovo Air War, preceded by a multinational campaign
of lies. There was no genocide, period. The Kosovars' intent to
become independent was legitimate, but the Serbs-run governments'
police, paramilitary and military actions against the violent
independence movement were legal under international law and an
ordinary response. The conflict happened in the context of the
earlier genocidal massacre committed by Serbs at Srebrenica in Bosnia
and thus the Western public was fairly easily convinced and swayed by
the lie of an alleged ethnic cleansing/genocide in Kosovo (I was
fooled back then as well, and never again since).
Almost
all Western powers of note participated in this aggression against
Yugoslavia, which was blatantly against international law. The
recognition of Kosovo's independence years later and ongoing Western
troops presence to keep it that way provided blueprints that were
later used by Russia.
West
Germany/Reunited Germany had its original sin with this Kosovo affair
and our federal constitutional court threw officers under the bus who
had correctly and valiantly refused orders to participate in this
aggression.
Afghanistan
was invaded in 2001. It was no a clean self-defence by a long shot,
as the Taleban were never killing anyone outside of Afghanistan and
Pakistan, but most if not all countries kinda understood and
tolerated the American rage.
Once
more, NATO was brought into the conflict for absolutely no need, and
very contrary to the North Atlantic Treaty, but by this point nobody
seemed to care about the treaty any more. The idea of what NATO is or
should be had been warped beyond recognition. The craze about the
Taleban who had merely granted hospitality to UBL who helped them in
their civil war lasted for two decades and very recently the U.S.
government stole billions of dollars owned by the Afghan government.
It appears as if they are bound to multi-generational anger about
Afghanistan comparable to how they still hate Iran's government for
the 1979 embassy crisis.
The
Kosovo Air War blueprint of massive campaign of lies, deception and vilification was replayed by
the Neocons to lie the U.S. (and the UK under the fool Blair, plus
Poland) into a completely unjustified war of aggression against Iraq
in 2003 (this time I didn't fall for it at all). Again, they got away
with it in the UNSC, but this time the Iraqis made it very expensive
for them. The American wars in the Mid East including Afghanistan
total exceeds USD 6.5 trillion expenses including long-term costs.
The
lying moron did "cruise missile diplomacy" (an aggression)
against Syria, and most Americans seem to think he was a peacenik who
abstained from aggressions. That's how badly their perception of what
constitutes aggression was warped.
Now
let's skip the South Ossetia War of 2008 (the Russian Federation was
and is an aggressor in both South Ossetia and Abchasia, similar to
what the West did in Kosovo), and look at the Russia-Ukraine
conflict:
By
international law, Ukraine is a sovereign country, including Donezk,
Lugansk, Crimea. Its government is legal and legitimate, but that's
not even of importance. Even dictatorships are sovereign countries
and shall not be attacked under international law.
By
international law, Russia is waging a (most of the time limited, as
for example no air power was used until 2022) war of aggression
against Ukraine.
The
outrage is huge in the West.
How
could Russia do this? Russia is evil!
Sure,
it's evil, but so are we Westerners.
The
problem is that the West did not only fail to bolster International
law, it systematically disregarded it and preferred "might makes
right" for itself.
The
U.S. and UK are just as evil as Russia.*
Other
European countries stood by, supported or tolerated or sometimes
called for the aggressions of the U.S. and UK. Most of "the
West" is guilty by association, as much as Germany was involved
in starting the First World War by giving the aggressive
Austria-Hungary a "blank cheque" that it'll support it in
the summer 1914 crisis. Austria-Hungary's behaviour in summer of 1914
was accurately replayed by the Neocons in 2002/2003. All those
politicians who like to give speeches about learning from history are
cherry pickers.
Now
we live in a world where Westerners understand that they aren't the
only ones who can exploit such international lawlessness and play
"might makes right".
This
is a failure of Western foreign policy, and a well-deserved disgrace
on the Western world. Putin would have had much more to fear if he ruled Russia in a world that had become accustomed to international law being followed by great powers for three decades. Now instead, he can rest assured that Western hypocrisy has dulled the blade of international law and his aggression will be tolerated by most of the world just as were Western aggressions.
Maybe
we can push back the warmongers and launch another push for
international law (for real), but it will be too late for Ukraine.
Russia will at the very least (in my opinion) keep parts of Ukraine
occupied and an open wound that very much prevents its accession into
NATO, similar to what it does to Georgia.
It's
much more likely that the warmongers who in large part got us into
this messy, lawless world will feel an updraft and there will be more
interventions and more military spending.
I
hate warmongers and defense with an "s" hawks.
S
O
defence_and_freedom@gmx.de
*:
France is a trickier case, and I dismiss Poland's participation in
the war of aggression against Iraq as a one-off.
