THIS IS NOT A PLANETARY DICTATORSHIP RULED FROM THE WEST, RUSSIA ALSO HAS RIGHTS
There is a clear view among western political elites that what they say goes, or should do, that they are the sole established arbiters of all that is right and all that is wrong in international affairs.
With this attitude they feel empowered to undermine the United Nations whenever it suits them to do so. Their frustration with the United Nations when they sought UN permission to attack and invade Iraq was clear. As was their determination to do whatever was necessary to gain something that at least could be seen as the go-ahead, including tapping the phones of those delegates they wished to sway in their favour.
The United Nations has been essentially toothless since those moments in 2002 when the USA and UK went to war against Iraq on the basis of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 which had been previously recognized as NOT providing the authority to go to war.
‘While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:
[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.’
United Nations Secretary-General at the time, Kofi Annan:
“I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter from our point of view, from the chapter point of view, it was illegal.
"I hope we don't see another Iraq-type operation for a long time . . . without UN approval and much broader support from the international community."
After the illegal war and invasion of Iraq the USA and UK along with their allies began a systematic undermining of the United Nations by subsequently waging war against Libya and Syria without UN approval.
All of the above was presaged by the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 which was conducted without UN approval.
‘NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.’
The above began the concept within NATO that it could act with impunity when its primary funders the USA and UK deemed its actions justified outside of the context of the United Nations. The bombing of Serbia by NATO also brings into being the so-called justification mechanism to wage war based on humanitarian issues. This would be used time and time again to justify the initiation of mass slaughter and nation destabilisation in future years.
NATO has thus, since 1999, been protected from its dissolution that many expected upon the end of the Cold War. Indeed Mikhail Gorbachev was assured by multiple western leaders that NATO would not move further to the east if the Soviet Union agreed on the reunification of Germany.
Article: Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner.’
As we all know by now there have been five consecutive waves of NATO expansion all the way up to Russia’s border since the assurances were made to Gorbachev. And now the western powers want Georgia and Ukraine to be part of the NATO alliance also.
The attitude that only the western powers have a say in what happens in our world prevails, not the other members of the United Nations. If there are nations within the United Nations that disagree then means will be found to bypass them.
‘Modern international law recognizes only three lawful justifications for waging war: self-defence, defence of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, and approval by the United Nations.’
The USA, UK and their allies not only degrade the integrity of the United Nations in their activities but also International law. This was in large part the subject of Vladimir Putin’s address to the political elites of the West in his Munich speech of 2007. In this address he explained why Russia would not agree to the forming of a unipolar world dominated by one group of nations to rule over all others but emphasised the role of the United Nations. Putin explained in terms no one could misunderstand that Russia would move forward in the expectation of a multipolar world. These clear statements of intent made him a target for the western powers, a situation that has continued to the present day.
From all of the above we can see how the present confrontation with Russia has arisen:
The attitude that the West knows best, is global arbiter of right and wrong, and should have supreme control.
The constant abuse of western military and political power outside of the context of the United Nations.
The use of NATO as the primary weapon to wage aggression against Russia and any other states who resist western elite power.
The western powers, as seen clearly in the attitude of Jens Stoltenberg, the current secretary-general of NATO when he said that Russia had ‘no say’ in whether Ukraine became a member of NATO, is that they and only they rule on what is permitted and what is not.
Until in recent days and weeks, Vladimir Putin began reinforcing his words concerning these matters that he voiced so eloquently in Munich in 2007. That Russia is a sovereign nation that abides by international law under the auspices of the United Nations and none other.
Russia, willing to cooperate with all nations against the global threats that now face us all, will remain a sovereign nation with its security intact and will defend its sovereignty and security with every means at its disposal.
In short, that Russia cannot be dominated or isolated, that Russia has ‘red lines’ which cannot be crossed without resulting in catastrophic consequences and that Russia and the Russian people certainly DO have rights, inalienable rights, just as any other nation and will not be treated on any lesser basis by any western power.