November 28th, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
– Op-ed by Joaquin Flores –
Sometimes the obvious just has to be pointed out. Today we covered an SVPressa story. Cutting to the chase, the gist of it was this:
“What we see is Russian special services are now going inside the country. Our opponents expect that power in Kiev can be changed from within by bribery, and such work is taking place in preparation for elections in 2019”, – Kononenko stated. Bribery, we’re pretty sure, is taking place all on its own without the requirement for “Russia’s work.”
So let’s get this straight. A government presently occupying positions of power in Kiev, which was installed by the US in a bloody coup that saw the full mobilization of the military, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and resulted in Ukraine’s loss of several territories and a more-than halving of its per capita GDP, the looting of public services, and the continued take-over of all sectors of life by a crony-pet elite under US tutelage – these are the guys now telling the world that they are concerned about ‘Russian bribery’ that may ‘change Kiev’.
Well, we can certainly say that they know from experience, and this fault of theirs may indeed work in their favor in terms of articulating the case. They’ve certainly been on the US dole and so they understand how that works.
Certainly all’s fair in love and war, and no one loves to be bribed more than Ukrainian politicians – really American levels of basic bribery here. If it’s true that bribery is being used by Russians on Ukrainian ‘statesmen’, then at least it shows that Russians understand the Ukrainian way of doing things.
Then there’s Theresa May’s idiotic talking point, regurgitated again recently. Also mentioned in the SVPressa short, so let’s also point out the obvious.
On November 14, British Prime Minister Teresa May accused Russia of trying to change the established world order through interference in the election of other states, as well as in the use of information as a weapon.
Needless to say, but I’ll say it – it’s very dangerous when not only fringe party representatives but in fact the heads of states confuse the political jargon and internal reality meant to pander to their base during election season, for official public statements to the outside world regarding what the actual orientation of states is with each other in the post-WWII order.
Imagine if the US suddenly began to conjure to existence a view of the ‘established world order’ that saw itself still involved in the Vietnam war. That would entirely ignore an actual document of the actual established world order, called the Paris Peace Accords. The reality of US defeat, however, is what lays the ground-work for the treaty. Not good will. That the US has it’s own internal process for failing to ratify treaties doesn’t mean that the rest of the world doesn’t have the right or will to hold it to account.
In brief, a few things. The ‘established world order’ refers to any number of agreements and treaties, which are multi-lateral and consent based in nature, that have been rather clearly spelled out and are often written about. Experts know about these things, because it’s what people study for years when they go to school for diplomacy and international relations, and so on. The established world order isn’t just a concept that one can high-jack or claim for their own willy-nilly, using whatever arbitrary and capricious reasoning one desires. We don’t just get to define or own words.
Or if we do, we realize that then one is simply asking for a fight. The result of that fight is how the ‘established world order’ gets established. The last fight saw some 80 million dead.
So we don’t get to just play fast and loose with these sensitive terms that ought to denote a pretty clear reality.
This is why we live in such a dangerous time. There isn’t consensus about what the ‘established world order’ is apparently.
The Russians are looking at the post WWII order and saying, if there’s an established one, it’s this one. If we’re going to change it, then let’s have it reflect the existing reality – that there are spheres of influence. An apparent ‘reversion’ to the pre-war era, and one that also forces us to consider or reconsider the causes of WWI, the subsequent Paris Peace Conference, and then finally the ‘failure’ of the League of Nations.
Given how sticky that can get, both parties generally agree – when speaking sanely and rationally at the level of the UN (though for the last decade, US reps have been bizarre, to the say the least), that the order which is reflected in Geneva and the UN is what stands.
Yet the US insists that the Russians lost the cold war, and that NATO advancement into Eastern Europe and the Middle-east is the now ‘established order’.
Russia is saying, hey we were badly injured, but we’re more or less back on our feet – you didn’t win big or win quick enough to declare things into existence, since the reality of our push-back is precisely the reality you’re up in arms about.
Election meddling is an interesting concept, in terms of the actually established world order, we can refer firstly to the UN Charter, Article 2, where it states: ” Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.”
But it’s this 1965 UN document which is more clear and spells out what it all means. Interestingly, it’s directed as an admonition against England and the other colonial powers in this, then new, post-colonial, post-WWII reality – one which the victory of the USSR brought about. (“Mindful that violation of the principle of non-intervention poses a threat to the independence, freedom and normal political, economic, social and cultural development of countries, particularly those which have freed themselves from colonialism, and can pose a serious threat to the maintenance of peace,”)
So, Ukraine’s fears about Russian meddling are one thing – England’s protestations border on bizarre. Let’s remember what the reality of the ‘established world order’ is – it’s one thing on paper (this and that treaty), another thing in practice (what actors can get away with doing in reality).
Russia’s policy is based on a reciprocity of observance. If any hostile state actor wants to declare a new reality into existence – that since Russia lost the cold-war, it must accept a perpetual German-like condition of ongoing consequences – then it can only enforce this by winning the next war.
Given that England lost to the Irish in 1921, and barely managed to lick the Argentinians in 1982, they aren’t in the position to start declaring new realities into existence. At the same time it seems to never fail that it’s usually the fly sitting on the chariot wheel of history that loves to yell ‘charge!