Hey Poturica, I though that you have the exact same genes as Serbs as you are descendants of converts to Islam? BTW, Albanian liars are also competing with you in trying to steal Serbian Illyrian roots/heritage. Also, what happened to your lie about about being Bogomils? You need to make up your mind about which lie to pursue. Even Nazi Croats were lying at some point about being Illyrians, but abandoned it for some more believable lies with fake maps and some “Croatian” Kings fiction. You are all converts, as you know, supported 100% by Contemporary Nazi Germany in it’s sick revenge against the Serbian people as we messed up their plans in both WW1 and WW2.
As you know, Poturica lies even more than a Turk! Your lies about Vinca DNA and pseudo-Porphyrogennetos are making it obvious.
You are/were the victims? Weren’t you WW2 partners of Nazi Germany just like the rest of the 90s “victims”: Nazi Catholic Croats, primitive Muslim Shqiptars/Albanians, Catholic Slovenians? As you know, even your separatist leader, Alija Izetbegovic, was a Nazi soldier [1], and Jihadist post-WW2. Below are your Muslim priest giving Nazi salute [2]. So much for your victimhood.
[1] Alija Izetbegović as a member of the 13th mountain division of the SS “Handschar” | source: The New York Times
—
[2] November 1943 al-Husseini greeting Bosnian Waffen-SS volunteers with a Nazi salute. On the right is SS General Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig. Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1980-036-05 / Unknown / CC-BY-SA 3.0
—
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
500+ Anon001 comments archive @ The Unz Review | TUR
https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=anon001
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which institution did you run away from?
I hope you’re wearing that protective outfit like Antony Hopkins in The Silence of Lambs.
Serbian aggressive baboons lies as always and is not the wonder, considering their forth bringing for being in today Ukraine, as part of evil imbecile fake Jews, or belonging to their tribes of tribal not evolving culture, better known as Khazar.
Serbians are hoodlum tribal monster arrived in the region after 6th century, where the King Heracles of Roman empire offered them Christianity (in their image, after sociopath Constantine Emperor known for killing own son en boiling his wife in oil, as well as killing and torturing seven thousands other Chatars during purge in 235 AD in Ikea today Turkey) as well as territory of today Serbia, previously belonging to ancient Illyrians.
Bosnian are ancient Illyrians, the solemn and real owners of much today Balkan and 100% of ex Yugoslavia territory, before arrival of Rome, that was more than forty times attacking its sovereign ancient people with the oldest DNA material on the world. Serbian DNA material as per Vincha Institute of 2019 consist of 49% Turks DNA material, confirming Khazar background while Bosnia’s DNA material showed to belong to Illyrian descent; 40% (the highest percentage of anybody) while 20% Teutons or Germans. Only 15-20% belongs to Slavic/Khazar DNA.
There is no Serbian republic in Bosnia. That what they call”smrda republic” is on genocide and with illegal army of paramilitaries and after genocide, both in 1992 and 1995 gained territory they assuming to belong to them. That was genocide third in a row; from 1912-1924, 1943 and 1992-1995. Watch this and be own judge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOUzMpZhgMc
Video Link
Watch the Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing of the city of the Zvornik: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QJFlvRoPjg
Video Link
That is fantasy supported by Russia and their 200 years long influence there. Serbs are useful idiots for Russian Geo-strategic goals and their claim is Adriatic See as well as Baltic countries. All these land masses was belonging to Christian Cathars, vegetarian as Lord Jesus Christ mass of people roaming in freedom till moment Constantine/Vatican, Turks, Serbs and Russian killed them all.
Irish ethnic women as a whole are quite attractive. Consider Norah O’Donnell.
The point is not whether or not Saddam caused the deaths of 500K Iraqi children. The fact is that pre-war Iraq was a very rich country with large oil production and good public services, including healthcare.
At the moment when Albright was asked if it was worth causing the death of 500K Iraqi children (the exact number may not have been known at the time, but the approximate scale was), Albright replied – it was worth it.
That’s the point, that she and the neocon team in power at the time thought that number was quite realistic, and even if it wasn’t completely accurate – they would be ready to achieve that number – because it would be worth their goal.
Not to support the insufferable Madelaine Albright, the “Saddam caused the death of 500,000 Iraqi children” story is patently false. There was a retired UN worker making the rounds with the story to justify the US attack on Iraq. He was coming to speak at the U of Texas in Austin and some outraged friends told me about him and the number claim, which, if true, was a serious charge. So I looked for his source; none given. Then I turned to the UN Numbers; if he had dome such a thing it would be reflected in the population pyramid and the UN demographic figures.
It turned out that this was the UN number for the total number of Iraqi children under the age of five that had died during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq had a high infant mortality rate before the war and it didn’t come down during the war, partly, I suspect, because of wartime spending. But to suggest that he murdered 500,000 kids is like claiming the US President murders a million kids every four years because there is infant (UN under age 5) mortality in the US.
I handed him the Xerox copies of the UN numbers after his speech and asked where he got his numbers. He looked at the UN numbers and he said “interesting, I’ll get back to you”. Of course he never did. Anyone who doubts me can simply look up the UN mortality numbers- this is not a “maybe”; it appears top be an outright lie. The big questions are: Who sponsored and paid for his trips to universities?; Why didn’t the press catch this obvious falsehood?; Who was he and how did he become the spokesperson- is there a back story?
Who knows what happened? Here we are now in 2024 and there is an OBVIOUS genocide against the Palestinians happening in real time that many, and “official reports” , and even the World Court won’t APPROPRIATELY acknowledge and STOP. So as to what happened in 1993, when we didn’t have social media and eyewitness reports, well, even the people who WERE there who didn’t also have an agenda were likely to have it wrong, as they are today. So…. I don’t know. I happen to respect Professor Francis Boyle who represented the Bosnian Mothers. I have listened to many interviews by him which caused me to admire him. He has written many books, which I have though yet to read. He won against Slobodovan Milosevic. Slob did die before he could do any time, though Rat and Rad did get prosecuted, and are serving time. People who have dined on a steady diet of the destruction of others do tend to degenerate and self destruct at some point, very frequently, especially when PROVEN wrong. One thing is for sure, when governments use atrocities to further harm in the name of help, and do so illegally, the individuals in them should be held accountable and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and not just their military generals or presstitites, even if they are the President. I haven’t seen this so far. But I believe Professor Francis Boyle, International Human Rights lawyer and author has attempted to get real justice and has made strides in making this happen.
Thsnk you for that important-if-true account of the neo-cons motives.
If? Straight from the horses mouth… excerpt from The Neoconservative Cabal by Joshua Muravchik:
Neoconservatives sought action in Bosnia above all out of the conviction that, however remote the Balkans may be geographically and strategically, allowing a dictator like Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic to get away with aggression, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder in Europe would tempt other malign men to do likewise elsewhere, and other avatars of virulent ultranationalism to ride this ticket to power.
https://www.commentary.org/articles/joshua-muravchik/the-neoconservative-cabal/
Sorry, no time to work out what you are saying. I hope to make time later.
You may be interested in this recent Spectator article on Rwanda and Kagame’s rule more generally:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-the-rwandan-genocide/
It is not, as the title implies, the whole truth, but it contains a number of admissions that are rarely made in mainstream Western outlets.
Did you receive confirmation of my earlier comment in this text or in its continuation (Diana Johnson) or from your colleagues at work? I am interested in that so that I know if you will continue to read my comments, so that I can properly customize them.
“to those who NEED education” Sorry about typo.
Barack Obama ‘s cabinet member told 1 To ignore Human rights unless it can be used to advance US interests 2 To name the violators if that included Iran,China,Russia, or Syria and ignored it is were Israel and vassals.
I have been inspired by this article and thread to take an interest in the R2P which has plainly been abused and badly needs an oversight structure which might, for example, determine that, yes, at this stage, you can enter the country, if necessary using the minimum necessary force, and rescue people who need it and house and feed them in safe zones within the country. No use of bombing at this stage etc…..
Beyond that I think you are plausibly suggesting that the shooting down of the Burandi and Rwanda President’s plane was very likely the work of Kagame’s forces but you go over the top when you seem to suggest that the horrifying massacre of Tutsis and allied Hutus that began immediately using primitive weapons in a blood thirsty way was not planned and set off by Hutsi government people. Was anything like that done, even just as part of immediate revenge? You don’t indicate that it was so and it seems unlikely that Tuts soldiers did anything like that. So whatever the precise number of Tutsis slaughtered savagely, primitively, and by deliberate Hutu policy it was 10s or 100s of thousands, even a million or more, and it was what reporters like Fergal Keane saw the evidence of at the time and it is no scandal that it is the kind of savagery that has dominated Westerners feelings of guilt and determination (if that is not too strong a word) that it should be “never again”.
You may care to read or listen to this balanced FT piece, and if you disagree …. why not take on the FT in its own columns and/or comments?
The lessons and legacy of Rwanda’s genocide – https://on.ft.com/3VOigzP via @FT
To be reread and circulated to need education
I bet you were never made aware of the Balkan Action Committee (BAC)… neither was I until I read Prof. Stephen Sniegoski’s The Transparent Cabal. In it, the good professor brings to light the existence of the BAC and the composition of its members:
I participated in the Balkan Wars.
�
While it is rather surprising to find our favourite neoconservatives behind an organization pushing for war against Serbia, Prof. Sniegoski explains their motivation:
Members of the interventionist Balkan Action Committee, which advocated NATO ground troops for Kosovo, included such prominent neoconservative mainstays as Richard Perle, Max M. Kampelman, Morton Abramowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz. Other neoconservative proponents of a tougher war included Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Norman Podhoretz.
�
Replies: @Wizard of Oz
The attack on Serbia, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, provided the intellectual groundwork for the attack on Iraq, the neocons’ fundamental target, since it set the precedent of violating international law’s prohibition against initiating offensive wars.
�
Thsnk you for that important-if-true account of the neo-cons motives.
If? Straight from the horses mouth… excerpt from The Neoconservative Cabal by Joshua Muravchik:
Thsnk you for that important-if-true account of the neo-cons motives.
�
Neoconservatives sought action in Bosnia above all out of the conviction that, however remote the Balkans may be geographically and strategically, allowing a dictator like Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic to get away with aggression, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder in Europe would tempt other malign men to do likewise elsewhere, and other avatars of virulent ultranationalism to ride this ticket to power.https://www.commentary.org/articles/joshua-muravchik/the-neoconservative-cabal/
�
As I emphasized in my article, most of the material I discussed was new to me and until a couple of weeks ago I’d had only a vague impression of Samantha Power or the Balkan wars of the 1990s. Therefore, it’s hardly surprising that I may have made a few mistakes.
I’d been very impressed with Diana Johnstone’s book on the subject and I was very pleased that she dropped me a note correcting some of my errors, and now has written an article focusing directly on Power and certain aspects of the “humanitarian” ideological movement she played a major role in launching. I’d highly recommend it:
https://www.unz.com/article/samantha-power-and-the-power-of-a-word/
I also learned that quite a few elements of Johnstone’s (rather hostile) Wikipedia that I’d relied upon were erroneous, and this even included the year of her birth, which was actually 1931.
More importantly, although it had been heavily discussed in her memoirs, which I’d read a couple of years ago, I’d forgotten to mention that she’d actually spent nearly a year in Yugoslavia during the early 1950s, then also lived in Paris with her journalist husband for much of that decade. So her background both in Yugoslavian and general European issues was even stronger than I’d indicated.
On this day in 1941, Hungarian Prime Minister Pal Teleky committed suicide in protest over his inability to prevent the decision for his country to support the German invasion of Yugoslavia.
Teleky was a member of the delegation that signed the Treaty of Eternal Friendship and Peace between Yugoslavia and Hungary, and with his act he discredited the anti-Serb propaganda campaign as a false pretext for the invasion.
Glory to the brave hero Teleky.
It wasn't just Chinese - and the targets were communists - but non-Chinese, and it was half a million or maybe a bit over one million.
Large-scale killings and civil unrest primarily targeting members of the Communist Party (PKI) were carried out in Indonesia from 1965 to 1966. Other affected groups included alleged communist sympathisers, Gerwani women, trade unionists,[14] ethnic Javanese Abangan,[1] ethnic Chinese, atheists, so-called "unbelievers", and alleged leftists in general. According to the most widely published estimates at least 500,000 to 1.2 million people were killed,[3]: 3 [4][5][7] with some estimates going as high as two to three million.[15][16]
�
Genocide denial was never so banal.
There was no "coup" in 2014, just a legitimate parliamentary vote, with an overwhelming majority, to change the executive government after the corrupt and widely reviled leader Yanukovich and his entourage had fled upon realizing that he could not win the early elections he had consented to a few hours before.
The Ukraine stopped existing as a sovereign nation in 2014 after the coup orchestrated by the US. It became a US satellite/puppet nation.
�
Thank you for exposing the extreme hypocrisy of the Russian position so clearly for all to understand. You are essentially saying that if Ukraine were led by Yankovich, who maintained a private zoo and had become "a pro-Russian puppet", then it would be sovereign, but if the parliament chose otherwise, it would somehow lose this status. Are you one of his zoo animals?
The intentions were to stage a military coup in Kiev and install a pro-Russian puppet government with Yanukovich and Medvedchuk. That would not result in any change of the Ukraine’s de facto sovereignty.
�
Prior to negotiations the stipulation was that all the points of contention had to be agreed to for there to be a comprehensive deal. However, only some of the disagreements had been resolved. Therefore, it is just silly to try to make Boris Johnson the scapegoat and thereby justify Putin's continued war of aggression.Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
...conditions agreed with the Ukraine by early April 2024...
�
As ever, as is in his Integrity Initiative contract, Has Been lies effortlessly. The fascist putsch the whole world saw in Kiev in 2014, never happened. Yanukovich, in REALITY, fled because Has Been’s Nazi idols threatened to kill him, as they killed eighty in Odessa and thousands in Donbass before Russia commenced kicking their Nazi arses back to Canada, Australia, the UK and USA.
The Turks, intermediaries for the peace talks between Russia and the puppet Zelensky regime, stated that agreement had been made, but, as was well known quickly, BoJo was sent as lick-spittle of the USA to threaten Zelensky, the deranged Atlanticists actually believing that their puppets could defeat Russia, and their sanctions bring Russia down. Stiff cheese, troll-the only ones collapsing are the Banderites and the EU slaves. Karma is a bitch.
Is this Rabbi Shmuely Boteach?
I’ve been to Rwanda (and several other african countries). A close friend of mine is one of a few white people that can speak Kinyawandan (Rwandan language) fluently and is well connected there. Kagame obviously shot down the plane. For the already stated reasons, as well as the fact that the tutsis are the only locals that have the average IQ necessary to pull it off. Frankly, it was probably better that Kagame did that and seize power than go along with the Ashora Accords which would have resulted in a prolonged mess, including plenty of massacres (see Burundi). Regarding defectors like Nyamwasa, they don’t claim more Hutus died… (which is what you seem to be suggesting). Thats just the UofM researchers. The people I’ve met who were soldiers in the Rwandan Patriotic Front in 1994 were actually upset that the RPF restricted them from doing counter massacres (although these certainly happened) and actually executed Tutsi soldiers for it. Several of these guys are anti-Kagame (and have even been arrested) and their comments seem genuine. This is anecdotal of course, so take it for what it is (not definite proof of anything). Regarding numbers I don’t know why you’d take the counter “hutu genocide” report as being more accurate than the official one (not rhetorical, I’m seriously asking what about the U of M report make its more compelling in your opinion Mr. Unz). In any case Rwanda is one of, if not the best country in sub saharan africa and much better off under Kagames rule…
That vile thing is USian, explains alot amigo-amiga.
She’s an example of evil. Makes me wonder if the Rwanda caper has a Zionist angle.
As she watches the terrible events unfolding in Gaza, somewhere in the back of her mind she might begin to wonder whether the Nazi Holocaust—surely a central pillar of her entire world-view and belief system—may have merely represented an extreme example of Jewish psychological projection.
That was a huge case of psychological projection, as is the notion that if Hamas wins, they will kill all the Jews of Israel. The reality is that the Jews of Israel are in the process of killing or displacing all the Palestinians of Gaza. If Hamas wins, then the Jews of Israel will have to coexist in a country with the descendants of the Palestinians who were kicked out of their homes by the Israeli Jews’ parents and grandparents. That would be justice.
Ron Unz is not sufficiently critical of Powers. I am the same age as she, and was her class at HLS. I was friendly with her, since one of my friends at the business school was her class at Yale (I’m a Harvard College grad) and we all played a lot of squash together both at Yale for undergrad and at Harvard while in grad school. You pick up a lot of scuttlebutt when you are studying and partying with these people as peers.
Samantha was treated like a star at the law school because of her war reporting and interest in human rights law. Everyone saw the special access she had to the political heavies at HLS and Harvard University, which paves the way into the Establishment, since Harvard is the ultimate finishing school of that Establishment. And she was not alone.
One of the five leaders of the Tiananmen Square Massacre (Chai Ling) achieved the same celebrity and special treatment at HBS. I remember being nauseated by her exploitation of that event and her questionable leadership within in, all in an effort to gain access to powerful Wall Street and corporate America.
The most famous example of this, however, was Barach Obama’s rapid rise out of HLS, after falling under the wing of Laurence Tribe, who supplied him with strong support in his effort to write onto the prestigious Law Review (nb: he had no chance of grading on).
What’s critical to understand in these cases is that extremely well connected professors, with the kind of pull that lands a student on the fast track into Bain Capital or the State Department or into Congress is afforded not to the smartest students, but to the most useful. In each of these cases, there were powerful forces beating the career paths of each of these individuals, and that was known to many students and classmates of these three individuals.
Barach Obama told his personal story, a completely fabricated myth of overcoming racism that even his maternal grandparents had displayed, as well as the absence of his father, and he played this story up while adopting the language snd cadence of an African American with a “Black†Chicago accent every chance he had. The reality, of course, is the exact opposite. Barach was the product of a meeting between a female CIA operative studying in a government language program in Hawaii, and an African counterpart invited by either State or CIA for the same purpose during the height of the Cold War, when the US and the USSR were both recruiting talented prospective African leaders or spies. Barach’s maternal grandfather was also in the CIA and led a key Middle East spy outpost out of Lebanon. The killing of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia—and this occurred in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as well—was an official CIA anti-communist operation during which anthropologists, doctors or public health officials from the West would serve as spies to identify families who either were communist or believed to be sympathetic to communism in SE Asia. Barach’s mother, who the former President has only referred to as a scholar of anthropology, was one of these spies sent to Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia to identify individuals , often ethnic Chinese, that later would be killed. At least two million people were killed in this way, and Barach’s mother was a part of this. So our first Black President was as well ensconced into the prerogative of our Deep State as George H W Bush even if his cover story was far more effective precisely because it was the exact opposite of reality.
Looking back, it is clear to me that Obama was guided through HLS by powerful individuals for that reason. He could attract the very groups that had historically fought against the DoD or CIA, even as his inner motivations were perfectly aligned with the forever war Bushes.
This very same pattern applies to Samantha. She had a big leg up as a young journalist working for Marty Peretz’s publication. And Marty, like Tribe, has serious pull. His small seminar at Harvard was one of the most coveted tutorials to land—alongside the freshman econ seminar taught by Marty Feldstein or the government one led by Henry Rosovsky. So Marty had Samantha under the same special wing that Tribe some years earlier had afforded Obama.
When you see these patterns and then follow the rapid ascent of these individuals later, it starts to make sense. Samantha was never going to report the narrative on Rwanda that ran counter to what our CIA had planned for that country. To wit, it has long been a strategem of our Deep State to elevate a minority over a majority in order to stoke class or racial tensions and resentment. Divide and conquer. It informed our long-standing strategy in Iraq (Sunni minority over Shia majority), as well as in Rwanda. This explains why the US is selectively outraged by human rights violations only where it suits our empire’s goals of the moment, and Samantha, who was already drunk on fame and special treatment even before her famous book was released a few years after graduation, was never going to question much less critique our Deep State’s gross hypocrisy—especially at a time when its own power relative to rivals was so large and its ambitions so vaulting that the arrogance had been perverted into virtue, hence the horrible mistakes under Clinton in the Balkans and under Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No, the story of how we end up with psychopaths in our highest levels of government is always the same: Napoleon was not the only smart grunt in the French army’s artillery (where ability to run quick calculations was a necessity so the clever soldiers clustered there), but he was the one willing to fire cannonballs into crowds of innocent, starving citizens, and so his willingness to step over the cadavers was handsomely rewarded. And so it was for Barach and Samantha insofar as each knew how to present a compelling but also false cover story to achieve mass popularity via a totally false narrative that provides convenient cover for the darker plans that they know and willingly accede to. Power not only corrupts. Power only allows entrance to those who’ve proven their corruption. (Like the gangs or mafias requiring you kill before they trust you with real work inside their criminal network.)
This is what I have observed first hand, and through my own study of history and current events as they have unfolded. And in light of these observations, I find that Ron is either a tad bit naive or a great deal forgiving of individuals that deserve much more scorn than they receive from a public that never can penetrate beyond the cover story and mythology that is invariably the opposite of reality. But for those who can and do penetrate into the underlying reality, it is critical not to pretend that the ugliness found there is an accident or a bug, as opposed to the enduring feature or goal of the system.
A hyper-power will not be constrained by a system of international law that requires agnosticism with respect to the internal policies of other countries with different values or demands, but it needs a cover story or mythology to show that its breaking of centuries old practice and legal or diplomatic tradition is actually an honorable act. What better way to accomplish that than to invent a duty to protect that is selectively applied? Jeff Sachs currently complains that the US doesn’t do diplomacy but only regime change, and that was going on from the US empire while Samantha was still an undergrad, and even earlier as a Cold War rival. It seems a bridge too far to believe that Samantha didn’t know upon which side her bread would be buttered by writing only enough on human rights violations to create the CIA’s amd DoD’s pretext for endless war and imperial expansion but not enough to systematically and completely characterize the problem. If Samantha subscribed to the “mistake†school of governance (ie, seek all of the accurate knowledge currently missing in order to fix the problem), as opposed to the “conflict†school of governance (ie, mischaracterise facts as propagandist truth to reinforce power on a given side), then she would never have been plucked out of her Yale undergrad class and placed on the fast track. It was never an accident that she rose so fast and far on so little by way of analytical merit. And that’s how it’s always been.
The Ukraine stopped existing as a sovereign nation in 2014 after the coup orchestrated by the US. It became a US satellite/puppet nation.
The opportunistic invasion that was launched from Belarus was clearly intended to stage a military coup in Kiev and then take control of the entire country, which Putin had decided did not have a right to exist as a sovereign nation.
�
The Ukraine stopped existing as a sovereign nation in 2014 after the coup orchestrated by the US. It became a US satellite/puppet nation.
There was no “coup” in 2014, just a legitimate parliamentary vote, with an overwhelming majority, to change the executive government after the corrupt and widely reviled leader Yanukovich and his entourage had fled upon realizing that he could not win the early elections he had consented to a few hours before.
The intentions were to stage a military coup in Kiev and install a pro-Russian puppet government with Yanukovich and Medvedchuk. That would not result in any change of the Ukraine’s de facto sovereignty.
Thank you for exposing the extreme hypocrisy of the Russian position so clearly for all to understand. You are essentially saying that if Ukraine were led by Yankovich, who maintained a private zoo and had become “a pro-Russian puppet“, then it would be sovereign, but if the parliament chose otherwise, it would somehow lose this status. Are you one of his zoo animals?
…conditions agreed with the Ukraine by early April 2024…
Prior to negotiations the stipulation was that all the points of contention had to be agreed to for there to be a comprehensive deal. However, only some of the disagreements had been resolved. Therefore, it is just silly to try to make Boris Johnson the scapegoat and thereby justify Putin’s continued war of aggression.
Staged by the US and their puppets, who are absolutely 100% sure this was a real terror attack by ISIS-K?
It appears you are trying to suggest hypocrisy. However, Putin's aggressive attack and subsequent war in Ukraine was definitely not a "humanitarian military intervention" because it initially focused primarily on regions that were not involved in the conflict with the separatist rebels, where the population purportedly needed to be protected form the Ukrainian forces. The opportunistic invasion that was launched from Belarus was clearly intended to stage a military coup in Kiev and then take control of the entire country, which Putin had decided did not have a right to exist as a sovereign nation. (Less than four days prior to the invasion a Russian spokesperson proclaimed that nobody intends to invade Ukraine.) This military expedition might have appeared to be "humanitarian" only to those who were poorly informed and also reflexively inclined to believe whatever unfounded and nonsensical claims Russian media and spokespeople propagate.The Wikipedia article about the R2P doctrine that was cited above with regard to its three pillars also mentioned the following:
"Meanwhile, we and our NATO allies have harshly condemned the Russian action as a grossly illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. So what appears like a humanitarian military intervention to some observers seems more like an illegal foreign invasion to others."
�
Less than two days ago (March 23, 2024 at 4:55 pm GMT) I pointed this out in a parallel thread, in response to somebody who had insinuated that Russia's invasion was justified:
The Responsibility to Protect differs from humanitarian intervention in four important ways.
...The use of force may only be carried out as a measure of last resort, when all other non-coercive measures have failed, and only when it is authorized by the UN Security Council.
�
In light of these facts it is truly annoying that there continue to be efforts on this site to trot out bogus assertions or flawed arguments attempting to justify the Russian war of aggression, which has been repeatedly condemned in the United Nations along with Russian attempts to illegally annex territory currently it currently occupies.Replies: @PJ London, @Sorel McRae, @Derer, @Anonymous
"If there was a case to be made for intervention and Russia had been genuinely concerned, its representative could have brought the conflict to the attention of the UN in order to invoke the R2P doctrine, but this was not even attempted."
�
The opportunistic invasion that was launched from Belarus was clearly intended to stage a military coup in Kiev and then take control of the entire country, which Putin had decided did not have a right to exist as a sovereign nation.
The Ukraine stopped existing as a sovereign nation in 2014 after the coup orchestrated by the US. It became a US satellite/puppet nation.
If you were implying that Putin’s intentions were to annex all of the Ukraine, there’s zero evidence to support such a claim.
The intentions were to stage a military coup in Kiev and install a pro-Russian puppet government with Yanukovich and Medvedchuk. That would not result in any change of the Ukraine’s de facto sovereignty. Instead of being America’s puppet state it would be Russia’s puppet state. That also would result in achieving a humanitarian goal of ending the civil war in the Donbass.
When a military coup didn’t work out, Putin was happy to settle on conditions agreed with the Ukraine by early April 2024, which were no NATO membership for the Ukraine, limitations on Ukrainian Armed Forces size and capabilities, freezing the discussion of the status of Crimea, and implementing the Ukraine’s obligations under Minsk II agreements that were ignored and sabotaged by the Ukraine for years.
Then, in April 2024 Boris Johnson had a surprise visit to Kiev and instructed them to fight to the last Ukrainian, betting on the sanctions weakening the Russian economy and Western military aid allowing the Ukraine to defend and possibly retake lost territory. That’s where they’re at now, still fighting to the last Ukrainian and losing, with their recent “victories” comprised of acts of terror against civilians.
There was no "coup" in 2014, just a legitimate parliamentary vote, with an overwhelming majority, to change the executive government after the corrupt and widely reviled leader Yanukovich and his entourage had fled upon realizing that he could not win the early elections he had consented to a few hours before.
The Ukraine stopped existing as a sovereign nation in 2014 after the coup orchestrated by the US. It became a US satellite/puppet nation.
�
Thank you for exposing the extreme hypocrisy of the Russian position so clearly for all to understand. You are essentially saying that if Ukraine were led by Yankovich, who maintained a private zoo and had become "a pro-Russian puppet", then it would be sovereign, but if the parliament chose otherwise, it would somehow lose this status. Are you one of his zoo animals?
The intentions were to stage a military coup in Kiev and install a pro-Russian puppet government with Yanukovich and Medvedchuk. That would not result in any change of the Ukraine’s de facto sovereignty.
�
Prior to negotiations the stipulation was that all the points of contention had to be agreed to for there to be a comprehensive deal. However, only some of the disagreements had been resolved. Therefore, it is just silly to try to make Boris Johnson the scapegoat and thereby justify Putin's continued war of aggression.Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
...conditions agreed with the Ukraine by early April 2024...
�
Damn. If I was a woman, I would seek out Unz to have his baby. No ties, no fuss, no muss. Sadly, have the wrong genitals. Such is life.
They did the same during the bombing of Belgrade. They demolished almost all bridges, factories and other infrastructure.
For the first time, they used graphite bombs to destroy the electricity supply and everything that uses electricity, including the water supply. Workers used long brushes to clean the graffiti from the power lines, which caused short circuits and system crashes. That is why the Americans threw graphite bombs in remote and inaccessible areas to make it difficult to clean the power lines.
Since the waterworks did not work due to the lack of electricity, people waited in long lines in front of several natural springs in the city itself. Nato spokesman O’Shay gloated that the propaganda of MiloÅ¡ević’s television was shut down, ignoring that all hospitals were also left without electricity.
Ron Unz states this because it is true, aka common sense. Had the USA not launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, there would be no collateral victims. Had the USA not intervened in Vietnam and attempted to establish a puppet state in the south, there would be no collateral victims.
In this bit Ron Unz states that 500,000 children died in Iraq and 3,000,000 people died in Vietnam, “because of our military involvementâ€, that is like many propagandists do (and I think better of Ron Unz than of them) he counts all collateral victims (hunger, famine) of a war as the dole and direct responsibility of one side. This propaganda argument is used to claim that each and every death in a war, collateral or deliberate, was the sole responsibility of the aggressor party,
�
Didn’t the US bomb the water system of Bagdad on the first day of its bombing campaign?
IMO if you target essential civilian infrastructure like the water system of a desert country you lose any right to assign deaths as “collateral damage”
Unz says that three million Chinese were killed in Indonesia. But the Wikipedia link he provides for this says this:
Large-scale killings and civil unrest primarily targeting members of the Communist Party (PKI) were carried out in Indonesia from 1965 to 1966. Other affected groups included alleged communist sympathisers, Gerwani women, trade unionists,[14] ethnic Javanese Abangan,[1] ethnic Chinese, atheists, so-called “unbelievers”, and alleged leftists in general. According to the most widely published estimates at least 500,000 to 1.2 million people were killed,[3]: 3 [4][5][7] with some estimates going as high as two to three million.[15][16]
It wasn’t just Chinese – and the targets were communists – but non-Chinese, and it was half a million or maybe a bit over one million.
“Some estimates” go higher, so Unz says it was the highest guessed figure, three million.
Talk about picking and choosing what you want to believe.
Likewise, believing in one book that claims one thing about Rwanda (that it was Tutsis killing Hutus, not Hutus killing Tutsis). And backing this up by referring to a documentary that aired on BBC only once. What about all the other books – and eyewitness reports – that say the Hutus did the killings? What about all the other BBC documentaries that also show the Hutus were the killers?
Talk about picking and choosing what you want to believe.
In this article and the earlier one, Unz questions the veracity of mainstream sources. But not when they say what he wants to believe. BBC is a bad source if it says Hutus killed Tutsis. But BBC is a good source if it just once airs someone’s documentary saying Tutsis killed Hutus.
And in this very article he says Wikipedia is an unreliable source. But then links to Wikipedia as his source for saying three million Chinese were killed in Indonesia.
…But when you click on the link, it doesn’t actually say that.
Talk about picking and choosing what you want to believe!
“Inflamed by genocidal radio broadcasts, Hutu mobs often armed merely with simple machetes soon killed many hundreds of thousands of Tutsis and moderate Hutus.”
Regardless of how many true and heterodox things Mr. Unz says, do any of them undermine that?
And if not, then regardless of whether the RPF shot down the plane, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of non-combatant Hutus, and whether globalist cunts used “Rwanda” to promote decades of military adventurism that killed even more innocents, it simply IS NOT THE CASE that Ron has shown the truth to be the complete opposite of the “official story”.
Joe Biden (1999): “I suggested we bomb Belgrade… send American pilots and blow up all the bridges on the Drina… Our victory is not complete, we need to go in with the infantry. Let’s enter Belgrade and occupy that country in the Japanese-German style… because they can’t heal from the disease of being victims… Because of the liberation – which they need – to look the devil in the eye”!
Former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, in a meeting with the then Slovenian president Milan KuÄan, said at the beginning of the bombing of Serbia: “Old bills from the beginning of the century are due”!
MB: ‘On the anniversary of the bombing of Serbia – exactly on March 24 (2024) – NATO members “congratulated” us by accepting Kosovo as an associate member of the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO (Council of Europe)! Well done! And malice, and hatred, and corruption, and… – yes, it’s evil, but it’s an emotion! Good for you if you have any! There is hope, psychiatrists would say!’
The plan of Western countries is for the UN to officially declare – the genocide in Srebrenica. The very next day they would come out with the view that ‘genocidal creations’ cannot exist. It is a plan to destroy the Serbian Republic (Serbian half of Bosnia). There is also a plan to arrest the RS president (because he is close to Putin and because he signed the law that the German colonial governor cannot confiscate all the property of the Serbs) and to kill him on the spot in order to renew the conflicts in Bosnia and divert attention from Ukraine and Gaza.
Yes, I agree, but he’s all they’ve got and they overwhelmingly voted for him, while the opposition is worse. Serbia is in a tight spot surrounded by NATO.
A message from Deputy Head of the Main Directorate of the Russian Guard for the DPR, Alexander Khodakovsky
There wasnt never signs of hostility from Russia towards Finland until very recently, after Finlands american, british, swedish and elite jewish banker-bought puppet government started to increasingly first collaborate with the Nato-alliance and elite jews and then publicly and intentionally provoke Russia for aggressions and responses, so that it would appear that Russia started it. The Nato and elite jewish narrative is always that american, british, swedish, Israel etc. are always the moral good, representing “western values” and “democracy” and that they always do everything right and Russia and China are always the opposite. Another tactic that they push is that they polarize that you are with them or at war against them.
Russia first took over Crimea, Georgia and now much of Ukraine after american, british and elite jews increasingly expanding the Nato-alliance towards east and building bases and weapon systems all along their, as well as on Chinas border. Now they are literally surrounded with Nato-weapons all along their border and aimed at them, with aggressive and false propaganda being pushed, as well as first illegal sanctions and theft of property being implemented.
We need to do same to american and british that they have done to others for hundreds of years now, or this never stops. These animals only understand legal force and nothing else.
Video Link
“If the ICC will be serious about what Israel has done, it will be busy for decades.”.
Theres very few, if any admirable and good anglo-saxon origin people in history. Most of the truly admirable and good people in history have had other ethnic origins. It seems satanism and evil has always ran in their blood.
Thank-you, but I rise more than once.
I’ll see you, and raise it to 110%. Look out, or I’ll bring in my mate, Georg Cantor.
Since you cannot back up your silly cliché phrases with actual facts and could not answer the specific question that logically from them, you desperately resorted to stupid comments like the one above, an obvious admission of having lost the argument that you provoked, yet again.
...something wrong with your thinking.
�
From this information it is obvious that Russian policy has been intentionally threatening to the security of the Finnish people. On the other hand, Finland does not threaten Russians.
Aljazeera News
December 14, 2023
Finland set to again shut its entire border with Russia
The decision comes amid renewed asylum seekers arrivals that Helsinki has labelled a Russian hybrid attack.
Approximately 900 asylum seekers from nations such as Kenya, Morocco, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen entered Finland from Russia in November, an increase from fewer than one per day previously, according to the Border Guard.
�
Excellent effort by Russia, if true. Russia never threatened Finland, the border was safe and frequently crossed by both sides, then some scum bought by the West decided that aggression and enmity were prime ‘Western values’ and pissed it all away-squatting if I remember correctly. While pissed and on drugs. As EVER, you lying TROLL, you invert reality with cynical facility.
Unfortunately (for Serbs), VuÄić is a deeply corrupt and blackmailed politician. As such it is ideal for those who rule the (Western) world. He started as a young nationalist and spent his whole life in politics. The backward masses still consider him a Russophile and a defender of Serbian interests, but they did not notice his overnight change of direction by 180 degrees (equivalent to Analena’s 360).
His current ideology is only money and the main tactic is demagoguery with which he tries to extract the maximum (for himself) from both the West and the East. Some think that he is Orbán, but he is much more similar to Scholz, only that he is incomparably more corrupt and has many more elements for blackmail. He is the most dangerous for Serbian interests, even more than the American ambassador who is his virtual superior. What they failed to do with bombs, the Americans achieved with ‘democratic’ changes.
Just listened to this while working. I loved the note on which it ended.
This globalist tool Power was recently in Hungary, which has long been a target of the GloboHomo-Invite/Invade matrix, which abhors a patriotic nationalist like Viktor Orban. She’s definitely not a person that should be admired.
The establishment’s propaganda and legal support of the guilty party’s lies, might leave a different flavour to the inaction of the UN forces on the ground at the beginning.
Thanks, Odyssey.
There is evidence that the latest US Goliath vs Yemen David is also failing. Not from any BRICS etc source but from USA’s own Bloomberg. Btw, there is talk that Yemen may apply and be accepted into BRICS … also Rus warships today entered Red Sea.
“Yet for all the costly hardware the US and its allies have thrown at the Islamist group from northwest Yemen, they haven’t been able to stop the attacks on civilian freighters and warships. As a result, the world’s biggest shipping companies are still largely avoiding a route that once carried 15% of global commerce,†the outlet lamented.
“A detachment of Pacific Fleet warships, including the Varyag missile cruiser and Marshal Shaposhnikov frigate, has crossed the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait and entered the Red Sea,” authorities stated.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240328/russian-pacific-fleet-warships-arrive-in-red-sea-1117598030.html
Analysis of important events past and present.
…something wrong with your thinking.
Since you cannot back up your silly cliché phrases with actual facts and could not answer the specific question that logically from them, you desperately resorted to stupid comments like the one above, an obvious admission of having lost the argument that you provoked, yet again.
However, I had already backed up my claim about Finland being invaded by migrants weeks ago (February 11, 2024 at 4:46 pm GMT):
Aljazeera News
December 14, 2023Finland set to again shut its entire border with Russia
The decision comes amid renewed asylum seekers arrivals that Helsinki has labelled a Russian hybrid attack.Approximately 900 asylum seekers from nations such as Kenya, Morocco, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen entered Finland from Russia in November, an increase from fewer than one per day previously, according to the Border Guard.
From this information it is obvious that Russian policy has been intentionally threatening to the security of the Finnish people. On the other hand, Finland does not threaten Russians.
The challenge you face is to liberate yourself from the Russian financed brainwashing campaign being reflected in the alternative English language media. Struggling journalists, publishers and influencers will spew out almost any counterfactual stories in return for some Bitcoin fractions.
100% an understatement? 105%?
Thanks!
Time heals all wounds: The remarkable friendship between a U.S. stealth fighter pilot and the Serbian who shot him down
Leon Watson
6 November 2012
Exactly what was this mysterious "security threat" on Russia's border even supposed to be, which you left unspecified in your claim? At the time of the invasion of Ukraine, NATO countries had borders with Russian territory only in Estonia and Latvia. You seem to be geographically challenged and are merely repeating vague clichés that you have read somewhere.
...the security threat posed by NATO on Russia’s border.
�
I knew t here was something wrong with your thinking.
LOL + Troll
Since you cannot back up your silly cliché phrases with actual facts and could not answer the specific question that logically from them, you desperately resorted to stupid comments like the one above, an obvious admission of having lost the argument that you provoked, yet again.
...something wrong with your thinking.
�
From this information it is obvious that Russian policy has been intentionally threatening to the security of the Finnish people. On the other hand, Finland does not threaten Russians.
Aljazeera News
December 14, 2023
Finland set to again shut its entire border with Russia
The decision comes amid renewed asylum seekers arrivals that Helsinki has labelled a Russian hybrid attack.
Approximately 900 asylum seekers from nations such as Kenya, Morocco, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen entered Finland from Russia in November, an increase from fewer than one per day previously, according to the Border Guard.
�
Exactly 25 years ago, the American “invisible” F-117 “Night Hawk” bomber, which represented the pride of the American Air Force, and the aircraft around which stories from the realm of science fiction were spun, crashed into the muddy fields of the village of Budjanovci.
Thanks to the application of “stealth” technology, which at that time represented a kind of mystery, an advanced attack-navigation complex and high-precision aerial bombs of great destructive power, this aircraft was a real enigma for a large number of military experts and journalists, whose superiority on the battlefield field in “inspirational” texts often compared to UFOs.
After successful combat use in the war operations of the US Army in Panama, and especially in Iraq, the US command engaged these aircraft in the NATO aggression against FR Yugoslavia.
These aircraft were tasked with targeting land targets of the Yugoslav Army of strategic importance, command posts, communication systems, radio hubs, but also industrial facilities and elements of critical infrastructure. For this purpose, one or two aviation squadrons were engaged, in which there were 22-25 aircraft of this type.
According to the official data of the US Army, this aircraft made almost 1,300 sorties in Iraq, where about 2,000 tons of ordnance were used, with an accuracy rate of even 80 percent. The frequency of the use of these aircraft in the total number of airstrikes against Iraqi positions is evidenced by the fact that a group of 42 “stealth” F-117 bombers, which constituted barely 2.5 percent of the engaged fighter-bomber forces of the coalition, carried out 31 percent of the attacks during the first 24 hours. Despite the massive use of these aircraft in the opening part of the campaign, when the enemy’s air defence was intact, no losses or damage to these aircraft were registered.
The American military was soon faced with the problem of an uncontrolled outflow of military secrets of the first priority, which was the result of the downing of an “invisible” bomber by the Yugoslav Air Force. Unofficially, vital parts of the downed plane fell into the hands of Russian and Chinese aviation specialists. This knowledge was used for the development of their aviation program of 5th generation fighters, but also for the modifications and further development of missile air defence systems and radar-surveillance stations of different types.
The fabulous amount of money that was spent on the development and production program, as well as the purchase of new aircraft with “stealth” characteristics, started numerous discussions in professional circles about the effectiveness of “invisible” aircraft, compared to standard aircraft. The arguments also cited negative experiences in the war against the FRY, where information appeared that despite strong electronic jamming, several more “night hawks” were affected.
The Serbian army did not have Russian anti-aircraft weapons (e.g. S300), so the vertical range was limited and the Americans bombed from a higher altitude. The downed American pilot visited Serbia with his family after the war and befriended the Serbian officer who shot him down.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240327/humbling-a-goliath-us-led-no-fail-mission-against-the-houthis-is-failing-1117586684.html
“Yet for all the costly hardware the US and its allies have thrown at the Islamist group from northwest Yemen, they haven’t been able to stop the attacks on civilian freighters and warships. As a result, the world’s biggest shipping companies are still largely avoiding a route that once carried 15% of global commerce,†the outlet lamented.
�
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240328/russian-pacific-fleet-warships-arrive-in-red-sea-1117598030.html
"A detachment of Pacific Fleet warships, including the Varyag missile cruiser and Marshal Shaposhnikov frigate, has crossed the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait and entered the Red Sea," authorities stated.
�
ICTY also indicted a Serbian leader of one political party (Vojislav Seselj) for his political speeches, claiming that he, himself, conducted war crimes against Croats. He immediately and voluntarily came to Hague to attend the so-called ‘tribunal hearing’. They did not know what to do with him because they did not have any evidence of his war crimes. ICTY kept him for seven years without any hearing, trying to find some evidence, including the finding false and paid witnesses. After 10 years in jail, they had to release him because they could not prove any of his crimes and because he suffered from cancer and life-threatening hearth problems.
He was persecuted several times for the disrespect of the court, in total – 10 years (!!!) in prison, exactly the same time he already spent in the prison. The idea of those who created this tribunal was to keep him out of the country during the time when US/Nato countries were trying to make Serbia a total colony which would accept the secession of Kosovo and that would be impossible if he was there.
What Seselj said to the ICTY and their prosecutor Geoffrey Nice:
Video Link(3 min)
I’ve done ok, IMHO.
Yeah, I wouldn’t touch her with a ten foot pole, but please, be my guest. 😆
Your tough guy talk no doubt betrays a keyboard Rambo who’s a little wanker in person, but you missed my point, “Z-man,†and in any case she’d probably take a bath if you touched her.
Unz.com has a many articles debunking or at least seriously correcting the official narrative of the 1995 “Srebrenica massacre”:
https://www.unz.com/article/srebrenica-fifteen-years-later-the-question-of-evidence/
https://www.unz.com/article/srebrenica-narrative-responsibly-challenged/
https://www.unz.com/tsaker/special-report-the-truth-about-srebrenica-20-years-later/
https://www.unz.com/pcockburn/the-spectre-of-srebrenica-hangs-over-besieged-old-city-of-homs-in-syria-warns-william-hague/
The 30th year anniversary of that event is coming up in 2025, so expect to see many articles in the mainstream media about it.
I wonder if the MSM will continue to parrot discredited narratives and misinformation, or will they quietly allow the anniversary to pass with little fanfare, like they did with Tiananmen square. What was once termed the tiananmen square massacre was quietly rebranded the Tiananment square crackdown, when it became all but impossible for the media to continue parroting the false claims of a government sponsored massacre of “democracy-loving peaceful student protesters” (See the CJR article about that https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php)
Said the coolie who hates whites.
If one is going to be so pedantic, then we should say that Hitler started the war on March 15 when he occupied Czechia in violation of the Munich Agreement. This was what led to the Allied guarantee over Poland and insured that a German invasion of Poland would be followed by an Allied declaration of war. It also meant that no sane Polish government would ever sign an agreement over Danzig that resembled the Munich Pact.
Interesting. Thank you.
Perhaps you might prepare a paper on these Serbian matters that you comment on. Ron Unz might publish it. From what little I know, I agree ref Slobodan Milosevic who it seems was railroaded then killed by the Evil Empire.
That is a telling contrast you have drawn between the pragmatists
and the fanatics. The fanatics seem to have a death wish since they
won’t accept the 99% victory which they regard as a failure.
Samantha Power is the neocon frontline for ‘color revolutobs’. She hides under the umbrella of an NGO, going into countries the US dislikes in order to stir up trouble and promote chaos that leads to regime change. Most recently she was active in Hungary, going after the government of Victor Orban, who the West detests because he is a proud nationalist who is against mass immigration of niggers and brownies, instead opting to keep Hungary for Hungarians, i.e. maintain it as a White Christian nation. The West, or should I say the Jews who are behind the aggression, hate Christians and despises Orbans relationship with Russia, where Hungary maintains a neutral posture.
Samantha Power is one evil bitch, doing the bidding of the Jews whose goal is to destroy all White nations and replacing them with third world trash. Thus far the Jews have been successful and it is up to the native Europeans and Americans to fight back. Hopefully they will wake up, organize, and prevail.
Old friend: You are in top form, this eve. Enjoyable. Like a perfect peach soufflé.
Bravo.
Absolutely. The Serbs have been demonized by the West and the US simply for protecting themselves from the violent Muslims. The NATO atrocities unleashed on Serbia were horrific. Slick Willy is a war criminal for pushing NATO into murdering innocent Serbian citizens.
Did he say “I was wrong”?
I haven’t heard his entire spiel but what I did hear sounded a lot more to me like “I was right but those scum bags wouldn’t listen to me”.
I thought about this later and the closest I could come up with was maybe Daniel Ellsberg or Edward Snowden. It’s a little blurred though because in both cases they might have been sponsored by one deep state faction to wage war on another.
Now, if you had a colonel in uniform light himself on fire in front of the Israel Embassy that would definitely meet the criteria. Bradley Manning definitely does not count for this hypothetical. I don’t remember even Robert McNamara saying his blunders were willful bad conduct.
The idea that we would ever hear Samantha Powers renounce her evil ways seems like it’s pretty close to impossible. It would be very very very unusual.
Hitler did not “start: WW2”. Quick multiple choice test for us all:
a war between Poland and Germany in September 1939 is
A) a war between Poland and Germany
B) a European War
C) a World War
if you chose “A”, you are correct.
it did not become a European War until the Anglo-French backstabbed Germany by declaring war on the Reich, whereupon French troops invaded Germany and Brit aircraft began bombing Germany. Also note that that altho the Red Empire also attacked Poland in September 1939, no Anglo-French declaration against communist Russia was forthcoming. Probably U can figure out Y.
it did not become a World War until 7 December 1941 when Japan, cornered by Churchill and FDR, attacked Pearl Harbor.
Sure. Under the persuasive Herman/Peterson reconstruction something like 100,000 to 200,000 Tutsis were massacred by Hutus, but several times more Hutus were massacred by Tutsis, perhaps as many as a million or more.
Mr. Unz, isn’t it possible both sides were partly correct? Could it be both Hutus and Tutsis are violent savages who massacred the other side when they held the upper hand?
�
here’s a touchstone:
beware of any book/author that wins a (((Pulitzer))) Prize.
I seem to recall that a mendacious (((NY Times))) Holodomor-denialist named Walter Duranty got one as well.
….Haxo checks ‘net: yup.
But in your world view NATO is pure evil. Yet your implicit argument seems to be that Russia should be even more evil than NATO, especially since Russia is already regularly emulating Israeli rogue state behavior. This is the ultimate chauvinist attitude: Russia should be the world's most evil country.Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
"If NATO can do it so can Russia."
�
Has Been, if you tote up the aggressions, invasions, subversions, murderous sanctions and civilians murdered, the USA is, indeed, Number One in the world. By far. Pip-squeak Britain and the other Five Eyes pygmies follow close behind.
Russia is far behind, and only involved on its borders in reaction to US provocation ie Afghanistan to avert a jihadist takeover, Georgia after attacked by the psychopath Saakashvilli, The Ukraine after the fascist putsch, and Chechnya after the US infiltrated salafist butchers. Syria is a bit of a stretch, geographically, but the salafist butchers deserved extirpation, and they got it. Next for the chopping-block-your beloved Banderites.
That the Western MSM is 100% propaganda and lies for the ruling elites is, if anything, an understatement. You know it, Ooze, I know it, the judge knows it, the jury knows it. I refer mostly to the ‘news’ and op-eds, although ‘culture’, life-style’ and even the sport is increasingly propagandised. And hasn’t it grown worse in a mere fifty years, thanks to one sulphurous figure-Satan Murdoch.
We should not forget the current Serbian prisoners of war who were sentenced to life imprisonment by the kangaroo court in The Hague for defending their country against a coalition of Islamic fundamentalists and Western aggressors and who are imprisoned in the UK together with Arab Muslims who try to kill them every day.
The picture shows Serbian heroes from Serbian Republic (RS – Serbian half of Bosnia) – President of the RS Radovan Karadzic, a psychiatrist and poet, general Ratko Mladic, commander of the RS Army, and other ordinary, nameless defenders of the Serbian homeland.
The great debt that the Russians and Putin owe to the Serbs is to free the Serbian heroes from captivity.
Video Link (1 min)
Exactly what was this mysterious "security threat" on Russia's border even supposed to be, which you left unspecified in your claim? At the time of the invasion of Ukraine, NATO countries had borders with Russian territory only in Estonia and Latvia. You seem to be geographically challenged and are merely repeating vague clichés that you have read somewhere.
...the security threat posed by NATO on Russia’s border.
�
Has Been treats his audience as ignorant fools. I suppose that’s his social circle, as they say. Brainwashed trolls. NATO is an aggressive hit-squad for Western global Full Spectrum Dominance. It not only threatens Russia with destruction and vivisection in numerous articles, conferences and doctrines, but also China, apparently de facto on the ‘North Atlantic’. It’s ALL about Western ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ over humanity, forever.
After all, as Western states decay and collapse, only good old Imperial looting will keep the wheels turning. Russia is just a stepping stone, rich with resources, towards the ultimate cause, for now, the destruction of China. I bet you hate those Yellow Bastards, don’t you troll.
Putin is a race and civilizational traitor in his alliance with the race enemy. Thank God there are good, White, men left, like Aleksey Danilov, in Ukraine, who do not hide their detestation of the ‘Chinks’ with their stupid names. He must be a real hero of yours-after all he represents Banderism, even physically, so perfectly.
During WW2 American planes took off from Italy and bombed oil facilities in Romania that supplied the German army. They flew over occupied Serbia, and many planes were shot down by the German army. Serbian peasants rushed to save the surviving American pilots and hide them from the Germans. They saved a total of 506 American pilots who later founded their own association.
Serbian peasants built a temporary airport on the mountain and were expecting allied, American and British planes, with weapons to fight Germans. At that time, there were almost no communist partisans in Serbia and the only anti-fascist movement was the Yugoslav Royalist Army (Chetniks). The Partisans/Communists were mostly in the future communist provinces – Bosnia and Croatia, where they used the genocide of Serbs by Croats and Muslims to recruit soldiers from those Serbs who escaped death.
Now, the secret agreement of the communists with the Croatian Ustasha and the German occupier to jointly fight against the Serbs is gradually being revealed. Although the Chetniks were promised help with weapons, the British and Churchill decided to change British policy (YU/Serbian king and refugee government were in London) and to arm the communists.
The Chetniks were left without weapons and although they had been the dominant army until then, they lost the war because of this (especially when at the very end of the war, seeing the outcome of the war, thousands of Croatian Ustasha and Home Guards joined the communist ranks) and post-war Yugoslavia thus became communist under the administration Tito’s communists. One can guess why Churchill betrayed the Serbs and armed the communists instead of supporting the legal government and the king.
The rescue of American pilots by the Chetniks was the subject of a movie called ‘Heroes of Halliard’, which was recently shown on Capitol Hill in Washington. Heroes of Halliard, had the honour of being the first Serbian film in history to be shown in the US Congress on Capitol Hill.
https://www.fcs.rs/en/heroes-of-halliard-screened-at-capitol-hill/
Namely, in that very place, on Tuesday, March 5th 2024, this film inspired by the rescue operation of allied pilots behind enemy lines in war-torn Yugoslavia, had a special screening in front of high-ranking U.S. dignitaries and representatives of the Serbian embassy.
The film also shows the betrayal of the Serbs by the British, who sent them empty planes and previously delivered weapons to the communists. Books have been written about the rescue of American pilots – Betrayed Valor: The Unknown Heroes of Mission Halyard (The little-known story of the largest rescue mission of World War II…Based on the testimony of hundreds of American Airmen comes a story of bravery, betrayal, and hope…By the summer of 1943, Hitler had ruthlessly occupied most of Europe. Determined to stop him, the Allies are stepping up their attacks on the Romanian Ploesti Oil Fields…)
At the invitation of the Communists, the Allies (American and British planes) brutally bombed Serbian cities at the very end of the war, even though there were no Germans in them. Thousands of civilians died just like at the beginning of the war from the German bombing. Not a single Croatian city was bombed, even though Germans and Croatian Ustasha were still there.
55 years later, 1000 of American and NATO planes again bombed Serbian cities and civilians.
Movie trailer (2 min):
…the security threat posed by NATO on Russia’s border.
Exactly what was this mysterious “security threat” on Russia’s border even supposed to be, which you left unspecified in your claim? At the time of the invasion of Ukraine, NATO countries had borders with Russian territory only in Estonia and Latvia. You seem to be geographically challenged and are merely repeating vague clichés that you have read somewhere.
However, now that Putin’s attempt to take over Ukraine has backfired, it now has a long border with the new NATO country Finland. In response he has attempted to invade Finland with criminal migrants from Africa and the Middle East. Do you also advocate a full scale invasion of Finland and Baltic countries with Russian troops for the sake of Russia’s “security“?
If a group has to hide their true intentions it shows a limitation and possibly is a sign of major weakness. Some groups may believe they are only strong and righteous if they can do anything without negative consequences. If so, they are willing to risk everything to gain the last bit of control which may seem insignificant to others. This “shooting oneself in the foot” has happened so many times I suspect there may be a powerful cultural impulse to be absolutely dominant. Part of the puzzle we see in the real world may be due to fights between very powerful factions. Some of these factions may be happy to settle for 99% control, while the others are perfectly willing to risk the 99% for everyone in order to reach the 100%. This is a do or die paradigm and anything less than full control is failure.
In other words, certain people want the world to recognize they killed all the people in Gaza gratuitously. The more practical factions generally support the 100% group, but are eventually forced to say, “Oh no, you lunatics are going too far…again.” The Ukraine mess seems similar except that it only works because the Ukrainians are tragically gullible.
Overall, a pretty good article with a fresh perspective on recent events that shatters the propaganda narrative that has ruled for decades. A new look at the events in the former Yugoslavia, which were the subject of the biggest propaganda ever seen, is particularly interesting, and we are slowly uncovering the reasons for that and concluding that it was not a local matter but part of a global project.
Related to this, we will specify a couple of things that seem local but shed light on much wider things, many of which are right before our eyes right now.
First, it was not just any conflict between Serbs and Croats and mutual killings during WWII, but a planned genocide against Serbs that has been carried out for centuries and reached its peak during the German occupation of Yugoslavia. That ‘conflict’ should not be relativised, but it should be emphasised that it was a genocide which monstrosity has not been seen anywhere in human history. Croats killed about 1.5 million Serbs in thousands of execution sites, sadistically, with unprecedented hatred, and in just one camp, Jasenovac, 700,000 Serbs (as well as a number of Roma and Jews) were killed.
That genocide was covered up by the communist authorities after the war, hidden and prevented from being presented in school textbooks. Now the attempt to reduce the number of victims and even deny Jasenovac, because it was bigger than Auschwitz, on which the whole narrative is based, which tries to establish control over the whole world, is topical. Catholics and Zionists are on the same task.
Therefore, there was not some tavern conflict between two drunken groups, but a systematically planned genocide of the Serbs, especially from the moment when the Serbian Church at the last moment, by not attending the Vatican Council of Florence, prevented the destruction of Orthodoxy, when all other Orthodox churches had already agreed to self-destruction and when the Catholic Church’s service was already performed in all the churches in Constantinople.
Secondly, due to ignorance of older history, there is talk of a certain Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, etc. that became part of Yugoslavia. This is not true. These are all communist fabrications. As early as the Dresden Congress of the Comintern, they had the task of destroying the Serbian corpus, and for this purpose, new nations were invented, Serbian territories were assigned to them, and those communist non-ethnic borders were declared by the West to be internationally recognised borders in accordance with their rules, which they called – international law.
This was the source of 90-ies conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. At the beginning of WWI, there was only Serbia and the Serbian territories occupied by the AU. The regions inhabited by Croats and Slovenes begged the Serbs to accept them into Yugoslavia because they knew that through assimilation they would disappear in one generation, as happened, for example, with Slovenes in Austrian Carinthia, Serbs in Bulgaria and Greece.
At the time of the Roman Empire, only the Serbs existed as a people from the Peloponnese to the Baltic, while the rest were created over time by historical engineering. So, we have that the Bulgarians, Hungarians and Croats were created by the Avar-Hun-Bulgarian Asian warriors coming to the territories of the native Serbs (Romanians are also Jesuit engineering of the natives under the name of the project Eastern Latins).
PS – I see that the old text appeared on the front page (What Race Were the Greeks and Romans? The evidence is clear — but often ignored), which I have not seen before and which is worth re-reading and establishing some of the things that started many current events.
Third, it is wrong to consider Slobodan Milošević a Serbian nationalist. He was a very intelligent man, a good politician and tactician, an excellent speaker, but he remained a Yugoslav for too long when all artificial nations were encouraged by the West (divide and rule) to turn against the Serbs.
He was trying to save Yugoslavia because in that way the Serbs would remain in one country and would not be broken into seven parts. Even after the departure of the Slovenes and Croats, he offered a Muslim president to be the president of this smaller Yugoslavia, but he, as an Islamic fundamentalist under the influence of the West, refused.
Milošević tried to prevent a conflict with America at all costs and establish normal relations. It is known that at a wider joint meeting with American politicians, he gave a sheet of paper to the Americans to write down everything that Serbs need to do in order for relations with America to be normal.
Caspar Weinberger answered him – You didn’t understand at all. You need to do everything that is asked of you at all times, now and in the future.
I think that Milosevic only understood the whole game in The Hague, which he thought would be conducted according to the rules of international law and that he would be one of the partners in it. He was subjected to torture in prison (for example, during his entire stay, the light was on during the night in his cell), he defended himself without a lawyer and was buried with tens of thousands of pages of court material.
When they could not find a single offence against him, they killed him with the drugs they forcibly prescribed him. If Milosevic had been a nationalist, things would have been resolved militarily very quickly and the Serbs would have avoided many troubles that happened to them later.
What do you think of Jeffrey Sachs?
You are missing an important point to understand a key premise in this conflict. The correct substitution would be United Staes for Ukraine and Mexico for Russia, applied in the following scenario, as a thought experiment:
"Just substitute “United States†for Russia and “Mexico†for Ukraine..."
�
You have changed the goal posts.
Where is NATO in your new thought experiment?
Your thought experiment leaves out the main issue posed, which is the security threat posed by NATO on Russia’s border.
Exactly what was this mysterious "security threat" on Russia's border even supposed to be, which you left unspecified in your claim? At the time of the invasion of Ukraine, NATO countries had borders with Russian territory only in Estonia and Latvia. You seem to be geographically challenged and are merely repeating vague clichés that you have read somewhere.
...the security threat posed by NATO on Russia’s border.
�
You are obviously very knowledgeable and thoughtful, but when I got to your 100% below I knew you had been carried away by your own rhetoric and/or indignation.
You shouldn’t forget those with a regualar column/place in the media which just has to be filled and doesn’t have to pass a rigorous test at least in te short term. That includes those who are regularly published as what would have been, though they have long been naned, “Our correspondent in/at……”
«Fwiw, I worked for some decades in the MSM. My observation was that, during my years of involvement, 80% of what was produced by the MSM was propaganda for the powers-that-be/the-Establishment/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, while 20% of what was printed or broadcast was pretty good and reasonably truthful. These days it looks to me like 100% of what the MSM produces and sells is propaganda for the powers that be.»
Many, probably not a majority, of journalists try to put interesting actual news in the inner pages, in small side articles, where they are not likely to be noticed, and to escape the “spike” of the editor.
But it is nothing new, my usual quotes:
H. MacMillan, 1963: «It is wonderful not to read the newspapers — except a rapid glance through The Times. It makes such a difference. One feels better, mentally and morally, not to be absorbing unconsciously, all that steady stream of falsehood, innuendo, poison which makes up the Press today, apart from purely informative sections.»
G. Orwell “Looking Back on the Spanish War”, 1943
«Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie.
I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as gcowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’»
T. Jefferson, 1814: «I deplore with you the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity, & mendacious spirit of those who write for them: and I inclose you a recent sample, the production of a New-England judge, as a proof of the abyss of degradation into which we are fallen. these ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste, and lessening it’s relish for sound food. as vehicles of information, and a curb on our functionaries they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief.»
It appears you are trying to suggest hypocrisy. However, Putin's aggressive attack and subsequent war in Ukraine was definitely not a "humanitarian military intervention" because it initially focused primarily on regions that were not involved in the conflict with the separatist rebels, where the population purportedly needed to be protected form the Ukrainian forces. The opportunistic invasion that was launched from Belarus was clearly intended to stage a military coup in Kiev and then take control of the entire country, which Putin had decided did not have a right to exist as a sovereign nation. (Less than four days prior to the invasion a Russian spokesperson proclaimed that nobody intends to invade Ukraine.) This military expedition might have appeared to be "humanitarian" only to those who were poorly informed and also reflexively inclined to believe whatever unfounded and nonsensical claims Russian media and spokespeople propagate.The Wikipedia article about the R2P doctrine that was cited above with regard to its three pillars also mentioned the following:
"Meanwhile, we and our NATO allies have harshly condemned the Russian action as a grossly illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. So what appears like a humanitarian military intervention to some observers seems more like an illegal foreign invasion to others."
�
Less than two days ago (March 23, 2024 at 4:55 pm GMT) I pointed this out in a parallel thread, in response to somebody who had insinuated that Russia's invasion was justified:
The Responsibility to Protect differs from humanitarian intervention in four important ways.
...The use of force may only be carried out as a measure of last resort, when all other non-coercive measures have failed, and only when it is authorized by the UN Security Council.
�
In light of these facts it is truly annoying that there continue to be efforts on this site to trot out bogus assertions or flawed arguments attempting to justify the Russian war of aggression, which has been repeatedly condemned in the United Nations along with Russian attempts to illegally annex territory currently it currently occupies.Replies: @PJ London, @Sorel McRae, @Derer, @Anonymous
"If there was a case to be made for intervention and Russia had been genuinely concerned, its representative could have brought the conflict to the attention of the UN in order to invoke the R2P doctrine, but this was not even attempted."
�
You been_nowhere_done_nothing, because you are in a straight jacket.
In fact Ukienazi were committing genocide or cleansing Donbas from ethnic Russians when Putin rightfully applied R2P in 2022.
You are missing an important point to understand a key premise in this conflict. The correct substitution would be United Staes for Ukraine and Mexico for Russia, applied in the following scenario, as a thought experiment:
"Just substitute “United States†for Russia and “Mexico†for Ukraine..."
�
Perfect. I too have implicitly made that same analogy.
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-198/#comment-5589916
In that comment I reminded Ron Unz of his ‘English for the Children’ initiative.
https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/opinion/rwanda--it-s-not-the-elections--it-s-the-crimesYes, but the day of "African democracy" with western-supported monsters like Paul Kagame may be drawing to a close, most recently in Senegal.Replies: @Arthur MacBride
Rwanda has in its government the main instigator and the one responsible for the 1994 genocide. It has in its government a man and a group who slaughter innocent people every day in the Democratic Republic of Congo and plunder its resources.�
JFYI
Looks like another ex french colony has voted for change following recent events in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso .. may not be the last …
Senegal has big oil/gas deposits and poor population, standard Africa. Faye promises to renegotiate the contracts. Another nail in francophone-CFA coffin …
This is preliminary but seems smooth transition if confirmed.
Seems no problems from ex-Pres Macky Sall so far.
Senegalese Politician Faye Wins Country’s Presidential Election, According to Preliminary Results
This comment responds to your “LOL” responding to my comment # 93, https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-samantha-power-r2p-and-the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-6484731
I cannot know whether you read my comment that cured the non-functioning link problem of my comment # 93. That comment is # 102, https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-samantha-power-r2p-and-the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-6484814
With my comment # 105, https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-samantha-power-r2p-and-the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-6484844
I directed you to my comment # 102.
Here I assume that you read my comment # 105, then read my comment # 102, so that you read the document linked in my comment # 102. If that assumption is correct — if you did read the document linked in my comment # 102 — then your “LOL” shows that you do not know how to construct a legal argument.
Not even just Mexico. It would be like Texas and the southern states finally seceding from the Union yet China/Russia/Brazil/Iran/etc using Texas, Florida, and smaller Gulf states as hostile anti-US entities and staging grounds for continued destabilization efforts against core USA. Mexico would be like Poland. Texas like Ukraine.
…just a Jewish Supremacist who can’t stop lying.
Just another one of your cheap attacks featuring a convenient blanket allegation, of course without mentioning exactly what was purportedly a lie and why.
“If NATO can do it so can Russia.”
But in your world view NATO is pure evil. Yet your implicit argument seems to be that Russia should be even more evil than NATO, especially since Russia is already regularly emulating Israeli rogue state behavior. This is the ultimate chauvinist attitude: Russia should be the world’s most evil country.
“Just substitute “United States†for Russia and “Mexico†for Ukraine…”
You are missing an important point to understand a key premise in this conflict. The correct substitution would be United Staes for Ukraine and Mexico for Russia, applied in the following scenario, as a thought experiment:
What if the US Congress decreed, by law, signed by the president, that English would be the only official language allowed to be used by the federal, state and local governments, for the sake of unity, in efforts to reduce divisiveness? In response, Spanish speaking groups in the southwestern states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas), organized by Hispanic Azlan activists, drawing upon military support from Mexico, would then begin a violent uprising, demanding a separation. They would sabotage infrastructure in big cities like Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, and San Diego, and kill many (“White“) people there who do not support their cause.
Should the US federal government be entitled to quell the uprising with force or should it simply give in to the activist demands and “sell out” the minority “White” population?
Powers is one of the greatest warmongers alive today. If she had her way, American forces would be all over the globe involved in many stupid wars. Following her logic, Hitler was justified in starting world war II.
You are incorrect. Since the R2P doctrine was not endorsed by the UN until 2005 (see photo above), it could not have pertained to the NATO conflict with Serbia in 1999, six years earlier. The intervention in Libya in 2011 was based on UN authorization for a no-fly zone. Both interventions were basically limited to aerial bombing campaigns and did not involve any invading ground troops with tanks and howitzers. Your false analogies cannot serve as a pretext for what Russia has been doing to Ukrainians for the past two years.More importantly, even leaving these points aside, Russia has clearly forfeited any such right that you wish to claim on its behalf because of the other flawed rationales that Russia has presented to justify its war, for instance the ridiculous reference to Prince Vladimir being baptized in 988 in Kiev, or the imaginary threat to Russia's territorial integrity, or the so-called "de-nazification" agenda, which is a transparent revenge measure against Ukraine for its parliamentary vote to change its government eight years earlier.Replies: @Commentator Mike
"Under the R2P precedent set by NATO in its wars against Yugoslavia and Libya, Russia has every right to go to war against the Ukraine."
�
I was not talking about UN authorisation but by precedent. If NATO can do it so can Russia.
But in your world view NATO is pure evil. Yet your implicit argument seems to be that Russia should be even more evil than NATO, especially since Russia is already regularly emulating Israeli rogue state behavior. This is the ultimate chauvinist attitude: Russia should be the world's most evil country.Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
"If NATO can do it so can Russia."
�
Of course Power was after power.
Why else would she marry a creep like Cass Sunnstein?
To become one half of a power couple.
I am not aware that they have children.
Sez it all, but willing to be corrected.
Your "preemptive self-defense" argument is also highly flawed. Since NATO had not even undertaken any serious efforts (which would have been preceded by an information campaign) to expel Russia from the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region that it has been illegally occupying for many decades – from which Russia should also have withdrawn by 1994, as it did in the rest of the immediate Baltic region where its military had been stationed – then it is even more far-fetched that NATO would have had any ambitions to invade Russian territory in the future. A NATO attack on Russia is neither "immanent" nor imminent, and the supposition that it is "clearly only a matter of time" cannot be supported by any rational explanation; it is pure fantasy, so trying to draw analogies to the Cuban missile crisis more than half a century ago is inappropriate.Russia began to threaten Baltic countries with nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in 2018 around the same time Putin proclaimed that he would want to undo the breakup of the Soviet Union if he had the chance, so it has been millions of Europeans, who have been threatened by Russia, but of course Russian propaganda is always keen to invert reality and play up the paranoid victim trope. You are essentially trying to invoke the "at our doorstep" cliché from two years ago, which was rightfully ridiculed because the concern about NATO stationing nuclear missiles new Russian territory was already addressed in the 1997 Paris agreement between Russia and NATO, nor had anyone even threatened to station such offensive missiles near the eastern border to Russia. There was no actual or future threat to Russian population centers coming from NATO, neither from a troop invasion nor a missile attack, so there cannot have been any reason for a "preemptive self-defense." This construct is simply an Israeli talking point used to try to rationalize its aggressive attacks against neighboring regions yet sounds even more ridiculous when invoked on behalf of Russia. In conjunction with the realities of the ongoing Russia's threat against Europe, the imaginary threat against Russian territory also reeks of sheer hypocrisy. In summary, Russia and its supporters have no legitimate arguments to justify Putin's war of aggression. The initial attack, two years ago, was an opportunistic gambit that tried to exploit NATO's weakness to quickly overthrow the entire Ukrainian government and take control over the country. Not only did it fail in its intended goal, it also backfired inasmuch as Finland and Sweden were thereby compelled to join NATO, so surely there will be somebody now willing to accuse them of being "Banderites" too.Replies: @Poupon Marx, @Sorel McRae, @Commentator Mike, @Skeptikal
"...preemptive self-defense.
Although the threat of direct NATO attack on Russian soil was arguably not immanent, it was clearly only a matter of time..."
�
This all sounds like pilpul.
Just substitute “United States” for Russia and “Mexico” for Ukraine and the Baltic states and see how much sense your comment makes.
You are missing an important point to understand a key premise in this conflict. The correct substitution would be United Staes for Ukraine and Mexico for Russia, applied in the following scenario, as a thought experiment:
"Just substitute “United States†for Russia and “Mexico†for Ukraine..."
�
“Under the R2P precedent set by NATO in its wars against Yugoslavia and Libya, Russia has every right to go to war against the Ukraine.”
You are incorrect. Since the R2P doctrine was not endorsed by the UN until 2005 (see photo above), it could not have pertained to the NATO conflict with Serbia in 1999, six years earlier. The intervention in Libya in 2011 was based on UN authorization for a no-fly zone. Both interventions were basically limited to aerial bombing campaigns and did not involve any invading ground troops with tanks and howitzers. Your false analogies cannot serve as a pretext for what Russia has been doing to Ukrainians for the past two years.
More importantly, even leaving these points aside, Russia has clearly forfeited any such right that you wish to claim on its behalf because of the other flawed rationales that Russia has presented to justify its war, for instance the ridiculous reference to Prince Vladimir being baptized in 988 in Kiev, or the imaginary threat to Russia’s territorial integrity, or the so-called “de-nazification” agenda, which is a transparent revenge measure against Ukraine for its parliamentary vote to change its government eight years earlier.
Like the song says: “Your Time Is Gonna Come”
“It’s coming back home to you”. Karma, The Eternal Equation has to be balanced. One side is getting smaller and smaller. The other side, The USA must also. There are numbers less than zero.
…spoils of victory ratified by force of arms.
This concept became more explicitly invalid in 1945 than even before, with the formulation and subsequent adoption of the United Nations charter and its principles, so there was no ratification that you are imagining. Russia’s occupation of the region, which had previously never been a part of Russia, still remains illegal, just like that odd Jerusalem by Israel. Resorting to antiquated notions of international conduct, as if thought they were legitimate, to justify aggressive behavior, as you have tried to do, will be widely rejected.
The reason behind Washington’s strange disinterest is quite simple – Rwanda had no valuable resources that needed liberating.
It was worse than that it was stupid!
Border re-drawing isn’t something you do willy nilly or want to give anybody any ideas. The aggression against Serbia led direct to the acquisition of Crimea &c.
Your "preemptive self-defense" argument is also highly flawed. Since NATO had not even undertaken any serious efforts (which would have been preceded by an information campaign) to expel Russia from the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region that it has been illegally occupying for many decades – from which Russia should also have withdrawn by 1994, as it did in the rest of the immediate Baltic region where its military had been stationed – then it is even more far-fetched that NATO would have had any ambitions to invade Russian territory in the future. A NATO attack on Russia is neither "immanent" nor imminent, and the supposition that it is "clearly only a matter of time" cannot be supported by any rational explanation; it is pure fantasy, so trying to draw analogies to the Cuban missile crisis more than half a century ago is inappropriate.Russia began to threaten Baltic countries with nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in 2018 around the same time Putin proclaimed that he would want to undo the breakup of the Soviet Union if he had the chance, so it has been millions of Europeans, who have been threatened by Russia, but of course Russian propaganda is always keen to invert reality and play up the paranoid victim trope. You are essentially trying to invoke the "at our doorstep" cliché from two years ago, which was rightfully ridiculed because the concern about NATO stationing nuclear missiles new Russian territory was already addressed in the 1997 Paris agreement between Russia and NATO, nor had anyone even threatened to station such offensive missiles near the eastern border to Russia. There was no actual or future threat to Russian population centers coming from NATO, neither from a troop invasion nor a missile attack, so there cannot have been any reason for a "preemptive self-defense." This construct is simply an Israeli talking point used to try to rationalize its aggressive attacks against neighboring regions yet sounds even more ridiculous when invoked on behalf of Russia. In conjunction with the realities of the ongoing Russia's threat against Europe, the imaginary threat against Russian territory also reeks of sheer hypocrisy. In summary, Russia and its supporters have no legitimate arguments to justify Putin's war of aggression. The initial attack, two years ago, was an opportunistic gambit that tried to exploit NATO's weakness to quickly overthrow the entire Ukrainian government and take control over the country. Not only did it fail in its intended goal, it also backfired inasmuch as Finland and Sweden were thereby compelled to join NATO, so surely there will be somebody now willing to accuse them of being "Banderites" too.Replies: @Poupon Marx, @Sorel McRae, @Commentator Mike, @Skeptikal
"...preemptive self-defense.
Although the threat of direct NATO attack on Russian soil was arguably not immanent, it was clearly only a matter of time..."
�
Under the R2P precedent set by NATO in its wars against Yugoslavia and Libya, Russia has every right to go to war against the Ukraine. And those Baltic states better be careful how they treat their Russian minorities as Russians have the R2P their minorities in those countries, and it’s just a matter of time before they decide to implement it as it’s well overdue.
You are incorrect. Since the R2P doctrine was not endorsed by the UN until 2005 (see photo above), it could not have pertained to the NATO conflict with Serbia in 1999, six years earlier. The intervention in Libya in 2011 was based on UN authorization for a no-fly zone. Both interventions were basically limited to aerial bombing campaigns and did not involve any invading ground troops with tanks and howitzers. Your false analogies cannot serve as a pretext for what Russia has been doing to Ukrainians for the past two years.More importantly, even leaving these points aside, Russia has clearly forfeited any such right that you wish to claim on its behalf because of the other flawed rationales that Russia has presented to justify its war, for instance the ridiculous reference to Prince Vladimir being baptized in 988 in Kiev, or the imaginary threat to Russia's territorial integrity, or the so-called "de-nazification" agenda, which is a transparent revenge measure against Ukraine for its parliamentary vote to change its government eight years earlier.Replies: @Commentator Mike
"Under the R2P precedent set by NATO in its wars against Yugoslavia and Libya, Russia has every right to go to war against the Ukraine."
�
Ron *very important* this justifies a post of its own. The whole Moscow attack was staged.
Extremely convincing footage of coordinated action by “men in blue” inside the hall here
Blanks and possibly manikins were used https://swprs.org/the-moscow-concert-hall-attack-may-have-been-a-staged-event/
Your "preemptive self-defense" argument is also highly flawed. Since NATO had not even undertaken any serious efforts (which would have been preceded by an information campaign) to expel Russia from the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region that it has been illegally occupying for many decades – from which Russia should also have withdrawn by 1994, as it did in the rest of the immediate Baltic region where its military had been stationed – then it is even more far-fetched that NATO would have had any ambitions to invade Russian territory in the future. A NATO attack on Russia is neither "immanent" nor imminent, and the supposition that it is "clearly only a matter of time" cannot be supported by any rational explanation; it is pure fantasy, so trying to draw analogies to the Cuban missile crisis more than half a century ago is inappropriate.Russia began to threaten Baltic countries with nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in 2018 around the same time Putin proclaimed that he would want to undo the breakup of the Soviet Union if he had the chance, so it has been millions of Europeans, who have been threatened by Russia, but of course Russian propaganda is always keen to invert reality and play up the paranoid victim trope. You are essentially trying to invoke the "at our doorstep" cliché from two years ago, which was rightfully ridiculed because the concern about NATO stationing nuclear missiles new Russian territory was already addressed in the 1997 Paris agreement between Russia and NATO, nor had anyone even threatened to station such offensive missiles near the eastern border to Russia. There was no actual or future threat to Russian population centers coming from NATO, neither from a troop invasion nor a missile attack, so there cannot have been any reason for a "preemptive self-defense." This construct is simply an Israeli talking point used to try to rationalize its aggressive attacks against neighboring regions yet sounds even more ridiculous when invoked on behalf of Russia. In conjunction with the realities of the ongoing Russia's threat against Europe, the imaginary threat against Russian territory also reeks of sheer hypocrisy. In summary, Russia and its supporters have no legitimate arguments to justify Putin's war of aggression. The initial attack, two years ago, was an opportunistic gambit that tried to exploit NATO's weakness to quickly overthrow the entire Ukrainian government and take control over the country. Not only did it fail in its intended goal, it also backfired inasmuch as Finland and Sweden were thereby compelled to join NATO, so surely there will be somebody now willing to accuse them of being "Banderites" too.Replies: @Poupon Marx, @Sorel McRae, @Commentator Mike, @Skeptikal
"...preemptive self-defense.
Although the threat of direct NATO attack on Russian soil was arguably not immanent, it was clearly only a matter of time..."
�
Yeah, and China is clearly the one with aggressive intent in the “Indo-Pacific.” Look how they placed their country right in the middle of all our military bases!
BTW, thanks for correcting my “immanent” typo. In fact, while not militarily imminent in any immediate sense, NATO aggression against Russia was and remains clearly immanent, in the sense of being intrinsic or indwelling to NATO’s very mission (and the ancestral vengeance of the powers behind it).
Also, the borders of Kaliningrad are about as legal/illegal as any others remaining from WWII, including those of Poland–in other words, spoils of victory ratified by force of arms. You really want to re-litigate that outcome?
This concept became more explicitly invalid in 1945 than even before, with the formulation and subsequent adoption of the United Nations charter and its principles, so there was no ratification that you are imagining. Russia's occupation of the region, which had previously never been a part of Russia, still remains illegal, just like that odd Jerusalem by Israel. Resorting to antiquated notions of international conduct, as if thought they were legitimate, to justify aggressive behavior, as you have tried to do, will be widely rejected.
...spoils of victory ratified by force of arms.
�
Your "preemptive self-defense" argument is also highly flawed. Since NATO had not even undertaken any serious efforts (which would have been preceded by an information campaign) to expel Russia from the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region that it has been illegally occupying for many decades – from which Russia should also have withdrawn by 1994, as it did in the rest of the immediate Baltic region where its military had been stationed – then it is even more far-fetched that NATO would have had any ambitions to invade Russian territory in the future. A NATO attack on Russia is neither "immanent" nor imminent, and the supposition that it is "clearly only a matter of time" cannot be supported by any rational explanation; it is pure fantasy, so trying to draw analogies to the Cuban missile crisis more than half a century ago is inappropriate.Russia began to threaten Baltic countries with nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in 2018 around the same time Putin proclaimed that he would want to undo the breakup of the Soviet Union if he had the chance, so it has been millions of Europeans, who have been threatened by Russia, but of course Russian propaganda is always keen to invert reality and play up the paranoid victim trope. You are essentially trying to invoke the "at our doorstep" cliché from two years ago, which was rightfully ridiculed because the concern about NATO stationing nuclear missiles new Russian territory was already addressed in the 1997 Paris agreement between Russia and NATO, nor had anyone even threatened to station such offensive missiles near the eastern border to Russia. There was no actual or future threat to Russian population centers coming from NATO, neither from a troop invasion nor a missile attack, so there cannot have been any reason for a "preemptive self-defense." This construct is simply an Israeli talking point used to try to rationalize its aggressive attacks against neighboring regions yet sounds even more ridiculous when invoked on behalf of Russia. In conjunction with the realities of the ongoing Russia's threat against Europe, the imaginary threat against Russian territory also reeks of sheer hypocrisy. In summary, Russia and its supporters have no legitimate arguments to justify Putin's war of aggression. The initial attack, two years ago, was an opportunistic gambit that tried to exploit NATO's weakness to quickly overthrow the entire Ukrainian government and take control over the country. Not only did it fail in its intended goal, it also backfired inasmuch as Finland and Sweden were thereby compelled to join NATO, so surely there will be somebody now willing to accuse them of being "Banderites" too.Replies: @Poupon Marx, @Sorel McRae, @Commentator Mike, @Skeptikal
"...preemptive self-defense.
Although the threat of direct NATO attack on Russian soil was arguably not immanent, it was clearly only a matter of time..."
�
You must be a New York Times Hasbara Sayanim, or just a Jewish Supremacist who can’t stop lying. You stink of decay and putrefaction. Detail in lying makes them no less invalid and fodder for the ignorant and incapable.
Just another one of your cheap attacks featuring a convenient blanket allegation, of course without mentioning exactly what was purportedly a lie and why.
...just a Jewish Supremacist who can’t stop lying.
�