Lavrov vs. Rubio On Multipolarity
I have lauded Marco Rubio's view which declared that the short period of a unipolar world has come to an end.
The new Secretary of State had said:
"So it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet."
If find that a much better concept than the 'rules based order'.
There are however different flavors of multipolarity.
The one Rubio likely thinks of is one in which might makes right. Several 'big dog' countries are sharing the globe, avoiding each other, while a number of small nations must do as they are told by whatever big power that can make them do so.
Witness the recent interactions between the U.S. and Colombia, Panama, Mexico and Canada. The Trump administration has threatened these countries with tariffs and other measures. After it had got what it wanted it pulled back at least a part of the threat (tariff). Unless it meets strong resistance it will repeat doing that again and again.
Another flavor of multi-polarity, one which Russia and China will likely support, is acknowledging that all countries, big or small, have equal rights. This is the base of the United Nations system which was born during allied talks in Yalta and Potsdam at the end of World War II.
Sergei Lavrov, the long term Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, is arguing for upholding it:
The UN Charter Should Become the Legal Foundation of a Multipolar World - Global Affairs, Feb 4 2025
Eighty years ago, on 4 February 1945, the leaders of the victors of World War II―the Soviet Union, the United States, and Britain―opened the Yalta Conference to determine the contours of the postwar world. Despite ideological differences, they agreed to eradicate German Nazism and Japanese militarism. The agreements reached in Crimea were reaffirmed and elaborated upon at the Potsdam Conference in July-August 1945.One result of the negotiations was the creation of the United Nations and the approval of the UN Charter, which to this day remains the main source of international law. The Charter set forth goals and principles for countries’ international behavior, which are designed to ensure their peaceful coexistence and sustained development. The principle of states’ sovereign equality laid the foundation for the Yalta-Potsdam system: none may claim dominance, as all are formally equal regardless of territory, population, military capabilities, or other metrics.
...
It was at the UN that, with a key role played by the USSR, the foundation was laid for the multipolar world that is now emerging before our eyes.
...
As Russian scholars rightly note, any international institution is, above all, “a way to limit the natural egoism of states.” The UN, with its consensus-adopted Charter, is no exception.
With this in mind Lavrov set out to criticize Marco Rubio's (and Donald Trump's) word-view.
Lavrov is specifically aiming at Rubio's January 15 Opening Remarks Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rubio stated in these:
So while America too often prioritized the global order above our core national interest, other nations continued to act the way nations have always acted and always will: in what they perceive to be their best interest. And instead of folding into the post-Cold War global order, they have manipulated it to serve their interests at the expense of ours.
...
The post-war global order is not just obsolete, it is now a weapon being used against us. And all this has led to a moment in which we must now confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and of generational global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive and in this room today. Eight decades later, we are once again called to create a free world out of the chaos, and this will not be easy. And it will be impossible without a strong and a confident America that engages in the world, putting our core national interests once again above all else.
Eight decades after the declaration of the UN Charter Rubio has set out to demolish it. He rejects the 'principle of states’ sovereign equality' and replaces it with an 'America First' and might makes right order.
Lavrov is warning, staunchly, that this will lead to chaos:
In 2025, with Donald Trump’s Republican administration back in power, Washington’s interpretation of international processes since World War II has taken on a new dimension, as vividly described to the Senate by new Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 15 January: not only is the postwar world order outdated, but it has been turned into a weapon against U.S. interests. In other words, not only the Yalta-Potsdam order is undesirable; so, too, is the ‘rules-based order’ that had seemed to embody the selfishness and arrogance of the U.S.-led West after the Cold War. “America first” is alarmingly similar to the Hitlerite slogan “Germany above all”, and a wager on “peace through strength” may be the final blow to diplomacy. Not to mention that such statements and ideological constructs show not even the slightest bit of respect for Washington’s international legal obligations under the UN Charter.
...
Brazen attempts to reorder the world in one’s own interest, violating UN principles, may beget instability, confrontation, and even catastrophe. Given the current level of international strife, recklessly rejecting the Yalta-Potsdam system, with the UN and UN Charter at its core, will inevitably lead to chaos.
(A few years ago the German 'above all' slogan was copied by the U.S. Air Force but later pulled back.)
China has a more guarded but similar take. A recent op-ed in a Spanish language newspaper by the Chinese Ambassador to Panama has been taken up as the lead headline in China's Global Times:
Chinese ambassador to Panama calls on US to 'learn to respect' as Rubio visits the country to exert pressure - Global Times, Feb 04 2025
Xu's article came as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Panama in his first trip abroad since taking office. Rubio aimed to exert pressure on the country concerning its relations with China.Xu wrote that while chanting "Make America Great Again," the US delegation's visit to Panama caused a stir greater than a tropical storm.
...
In the international community, all countries are equal and have the right to independently develop diplomatic relations. No one has the right to dictate to others or issue commands. If the US wants to create the golden age of the Americas, it must first respect other countries and listen to Latin American nations about their vision for the future, Xu wrote.
The Trump administration's version of multipolarity is incompatible with the one China and Russia have in mind. It contradicts the UN Charter.
If that does not change we will be in for a big clash.
/Sidenote:/
Under pressure from Rubio Panama declared that it would not renew its participation in China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This was lauded as Rubio's victory.
However there were only three BRI projects ever in Panama:
Panama is contracting with Chinese companies for a fourth bridge over the Panama Canal, as well as a third line for the Panama City mass transit system.China has also submitted a $4.1 billion proposal to build a 391-kilometer (243-mile) high-speed rail line from Panama City to the town of David near its border with Costa Rica — a project to be carried out under the rubric of the Belt and Road.
After some planing hustle the fourth bridge over the Panama Canal is finally being build. The third line for Panama city was and is however a Japanese project. The high-speed rail line from Panama City to David is not economically feasible. Five years after the initial plans its construction has not even started. It is unlikely to ever being build.
Neither Panama, nor China, will thus lose anything from Panama's BRI retreat.
Rubio's 'victory' in Panama was pure propaganda.
/End sidenote/
Posted by b on February 4, 2025 at 16:52 UTC | Permalink
next page »great post b... thank you!!
and i think lavrovs warning is especially prescient here.. i share your viewpoint as stated here -
"Eight decades after the declaration of the UN Charter Rubio has set out to demolish it. He rejects the 'principle of states’ sovereign equality' and replaces it with an 'America First' and might makes right order."
nowhere is it more clear then in his attitude towards cuba, latin and south america...
Posted by: james | Feb 4 2025 17:15 utc | 2
@ psychohistorian | Feb 4 2025 17:07 utc | 1
you might enjoy alex krainers post from earlier today.. he is more sanguine about trumps role here..
Posted by: james | Feb 4 2025 17:17 utc | 3
Sergie Lavrov is the problem and not a solution. He single handedly resurrected when he induced the then president mad edev to go against Gaddafi in Libya and gave new lease of life to NATO.He talks sot of no substance.
Foreign ministry is to promote nations interest -in his long useless unelected poison. He has been utter failure in getting any resolution passed in Russia's favour.
Lavrov and pesko are British agents inside Kremlin and Putin is too lazy to change such people in 15 years!!
Russia should fire the entire Foreign Ministry. And this is a HISTORICAL MEME by now, Russian diplomats ALWAYS give away shit that the military wins.
Lavrov made some ridiculous statement re: Syria about following some worthless U.N. resolution, totally clueless. This is a huge defeat for Russia on the international stage, BRICS and any claimed multi-polarity have correspondingly just lost a shit-ton of momentum. I have lost faith in Putin and Russia to make any difference in our chaotic world, Mordor is winning.
Posted by: Sam | Feb 4 2025 17:36 utc | 4
Lavrov
6/4/2014
What it is that lavrov is smoking ? Must be very potent hallucinogen. He still talks of negotiation with Ukraine junta after Odessa atrocities by the Zionist and fascists goons? Thereby giving legitimacy to the kieve junta despite all crimes?
The east ukraininas shouldn’t wait for russian help because Rus leadership is sold out and feel satisfied as junior member of west with a few crumbs under the table- (though even then Russia will get nothing –remember 90s
Posted by: Sam | Feb 4 2025 17:39 utc | 5
it was fun going back to 2008 and reading the comments in the link b provided. A lot of those posters no longer contribute and I sorely miss them. They were kinder gentler commenters. Now we have more than our fair share of mean people. Scusami for the off topic
Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 4 2025 17:40 utc | 6
@ james | Feb 4 2025 17:17 utc | 3 with Alex Krainer link....thx
Yes, Alex and I are closely aligned on the God Of Mammon cult issue. Will this foray into remaking the sausage of our form of social organization include touching on the public/private finance issue?
I damn well hope so, for humanity's sake.
Finance needs to be a public utility provided by sovereign nations and not a might makes right jackboot controlled by the God Of Mammon cult and followers..HI, Pope Frank and King Chuck! Tell us who your friends are.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 4 2025 17:40 utc | 7
2014.
I have been saying for long that rearmament programme of Russia till 2020 is too slow and that anglos will strike before that to dismantle Russia. not only that, russia herself has been too weakling and accommodating to west so much that it betrayed her potential allies in Iran, Syria and Libya to please her anglo enemies. Those allies would have occupied russia's enemies while Rus rearms herself-but no, the idiot lavrov the foreign minster being a weakling and possible western stooge has been too considerate to the western enemies of Rus.
Even in Syria what has Russ done except disarming her ally Syria of her chemical weapons/ the usa still arms the terrorists while rus has not even given –s300 to Syria let alone s-400. This shows the attitude of Rus who does not like to be respected but simply loved by the anglos enemies who are out to destroy that country by any means for last 200 years.
World wars first and second was plotted and started by the English to destroy both Russ and Germany and this world war 3 has been running since Iraq war in 2003 –only the victims Russia, china and India does not know about it.
President putin is wrong when he says that russia should or will target the missile on europe if america goes with anti missile defence plan in Europe.
Russia must target england because this cold war -like the one before- is being started by england for the benefit of english race only-.it is race war between the english parasite race versus the rest of the world-the sooner the rest of the world realizes that better it is for the world.
Posted by: Sam | Feb 4 2025 17:40 utc | 8
This is high time that Russia must kick out this traitor lavrov and hang him for his treachery. His actions remind me of another foreign minster the Georgian Sehnarvazade who was with garbochow and garbachow along with him destroyed soviet union..
This lavrov knows that all plots are done by anglos controlled west and still he asks west to reign in Ukraine as if latter has any say in this destabilisation of Ukraine and Russia other than as being western slave.!
In any other country such a failure as foreign minster this lavrov would have been kicked out long time ago but alas in Russia! #
Posted by: Sam | Feb 4 2025 17:42 utc | 9
Rubio basically called US 'Might make Right', multipolarity. There effectively is no relation between both and it's just deception.
https://nitter.poast.org/MenchOsint/status/1886649126395236430
US military operating over Mexican airspace. Or how Mexican sovereignty was thrown out of the window just like that by Claudia Sheinbaum.
Surprised how easily she fell in line. In the end these kind of spineless 'leaders' give in without much hesitation as long as their personal interests are catered for. Putin was right when he said these (and EU) leaders now put up some show resistance but soon follow the US master with their sweetly wagging tails.
Posted by: xor | Feb 4 2025 17:51 utc | 10
Rubio:
The post-war global order is not just obsolete, it is now a weapon being used against us. And all this has led to a moment in which we must now confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and of generational global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive and in this room today. Eight decades later, we are once again called to create a free world out of the chaos, and this will not be easy. And it will be impossible without a strong and a confident America that engages in the world, putting our core national interests once again above all else.
Such paranoid bullshit (!) which can only lead to aggression, attempts at territorial expansion, and all variety of threats as "foreign policy" which is allegedly to lead to "peace based on strength" and the "creation of a free world"!
What utter nonsense!
Not even a kid would say such things, for fear of embarrassment. If it weren't the US Secretary of State spewing such BS, no one would pay any attention.
It's not an analysis, a philosophy or an ideology, it is a distorted view of the world and ones place and role in it, divorced from reality. To be expected from uneducated, narrow-minded, corrupt members of the Trumperican ruling class in positions of power which big money has put them in. By big money, for big money.
Of course they're paranoid when the world is changing and they are losing position, profit and control.
Dealing with paranoid individuals in high places who have delusions of grandeur and a huge military stick is tricky, but one must not take their bullshit for anything than bullshit, and look for ways to prevent them from breaking everything. That should be the focus.
Posted by: JB | Feb 4 2025 17:56 utc | 11
I think "MAGA über alles" is a perfect slogan for an administration that has Elon Musk as its right hand (pun intended), he is after all AfD' number one fan.
Posted by: Rubiconned | Feb 4 2025 18:03 utc | 12
Lavrov's reading is more correct in my opinion. Rubio's nor more Mr. Nice Guy stance, which is how I too read it, is not the kind of multi-polarity I favor. I will still be so stubborn as to point out that the UN Charter, itself imposes a kind of inequality of nations. The equality of acreage built into the provisions for the General Assembly are as limited as its powers. The Security Council embodies an inequality of nations right there in the charter, with the provision for permanent members whose concurrence is required for a majority. (The veto, in other words.) And there is no provision at all for a demographic representation at any point whatsoever.
You could imagine the Framers of the US Constitution devising a House of Representatives where all states had equal representation in issuing recommendation to the Senate. And the Senate had only New York and Virginia as permanent members who had to agree for any actions or laws to pass.
Posted by: steven t johnson | Feb 4 2025 18:05 utc | 13
It helps to have powerful friends: Putin opens the door to Mexico to enter into Russia's financial market. This is big.
Posted by: hispanidad | Feb 4 2025 18:11 utc | 14
The contradiction between the sanctity of current national borders and the right to self-determination (which is also the right to national unity) is not spelled out in the UN charter. By the letter, presumably the Security Council could determine (subject to the veto) that the Donbas or Taiwan were issues of self-determination? But decades-old precedent is against this.
Going back to the UN Charter technically means the Republic of China holding the Security Council seat alongside the USSR. There's a certain black humor in calling for the Russian Federation to lose its seat, Ukraine or Belarus could be designated the holders!
Posted by: steven t johnson | Feb 4 2025 18:11 utc | 15
It's also funny how China loves calling out the US for its bullying and muse about how "it must first respect other countries and listen to Latin American nations about their vision for the future" ... but when it comes to Filipino or Vietnamese fishermen, Tibetan farmers or anyone else in Asia who has different ideas to China, can it really claim the moral high ground??
Posted by: Rubiconned | Feb 4 2025 18:15 utc | 17
I haven't yet read the piece by Lavrov but it's worth mentioning that the origin of the UN was accompanied by plenty of wary suspicion by, e.g., the Soviet leadership.
For example, the Soviets carried out a kind of boycott of the UN, or abstained on important votes (Korea ~ 1950). I'm sure readers could mention plenty of others.
It's interesting to see the current Russian leadership, and the leadership of other BRICS and "Global Majority" countries, defend the UN institution when the latter has been so beneficial for the US regime which now sabotages it.
It's similar to the class war (by the rich) in which austerity, privatization, de-regulation and all the other "blessings" of neo-liberalism take aim against the post-WW2 class "compromise" in the Western regimes.
They sabotage what was, and is, to their benefit, rather like a parasite eating the host.
Posted by: NH | Feb 4 2025 18:19 utc | 18
The latest signal of multipolarity from Trump via Reuters
Trump set to reimpose 'maximum pressure' on Iran, aims to drive oil exports to zero
We all know this is a BS "negotiating" position that cannot be achieved but it sounds like might makes right bullying to me....someone with the US dollar under "their" control
Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 4 2025 18:20 utc | 19
supplemental:
I see that I've written "UN institutions" when, to be more precise, I'm talking about the principles: the sovereignty of all states, big and small, the principle of self-determination, yadda yadda.
Posted by: NH | Feb 4 2025 18:22 utc | 21
Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 4 2025 17:40 utc | 7
"Finance needs to be a public utility provided by sovereign nations"
Let's give the magic-money-printing machine power to other despots - no! We need democratic (i.e., power of the people) money. Gold is a proven option. Can't be created - not in the big bang, not in a supernova, not in the earth's depths - but when two stars collide. Can't be destroyed - or even combined with other elements, won't even rust/oxidize.
If you had a magic-money-printing machine, would you use it? Only in a limited way? Only for "good"? To what ends would you go to protect it, buy up armies, bribe/corrupt officials, etc? If you're such a decent person, what do you think a psychopath would do to get and protect this power?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it also attracts those psychopaths who crave it most.
The magic-money-printing machine is truly the modern day manifestation of Jesus's "love of money is the root of all evil".
Posted by: HB Brian | Feb 4 2025 18:27 utc | 22
...
The Security Council embodies an inequality of nations right there in the charter, with the provision for permanent members whose concurrence is required for a majority. (The veto, in other words.) And there is no provision at all for a demographic representation at any point whatsoever.
You could imagine the Framers of the US Constitution devising a House of Representatives where all states had equal representation in issuing recommendation to the Senate. And the Senate had only New York and Virginia as permanent members who had to agree for any actions or laws to pass.
Posted by: steven t johnson | Feb 4 2025 18:05 utc | 13
Good points.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 4 2025 18:30 utc | 23
"Gold is a proven option. Can't be created - not in the big bang, not in a supernova, not in the earth's depths - but when two stars collide. Can't be destroyed - or even combined with other elements, won't even rust/oxidize."
Posted by: HB Brian | Feb 4 2025 18:27 utc | 22
Excellent commentary!
Gold backed currencies, like any human endeavour, can be compromised; but not in the logarithmic compromise of QE-ie money printing without any corresponding value-which will, eventually, inflate any currency to zero value.
Gold backed currencies keep Sovereigns honest.
Rubio's win was actually a major loss.
https://x.com/NuryVittachi/status/1886210773774745721
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Feb 4 2025 18:40 utc | 25
I think "MAGA über alles" is a perfect slogan for an administration that has Elon Musk as its right hand (pun intended), he is after all AfD' number one fan.
Posted by: Rubiconned | Feb 4 2025 18:03 utc | 12
"US über alles" anagrams to
Useable Slur
Posted by: librul | Feb 4 2025 18:47 utc | 26
The Trump administration is trying to operate like it's 2016 and still hasn't realized the ROTW has moved on without the US
Posted by: Ezzie | Feb 4 2025 18:49 utc | 27
Did not get what it wanted. This is theater.
What Musk is doing is not theater; and everyone is simulating helplessness about that.
Posted by: JAB | Feb 4 2025 19:06 utc | 28
As usual, Richard Seymour gets it right. Follow him on Patreon if you're interested in more. One of the most knowledgeable, smartest, and best writers working today.
--------
What is Trump up to? Are we seeing an attempted constitutional rupture, a desperado effort to achieve momentum while derailing bureaucratic resistance and hope for the best, or more of the theatrics of power for which Trump and Musk are such marks? Yes.
There has been much talk of a ‘coup’ following Trump’s blizzard of extravagant executive orders and Elon Musk’s attempted takeover at the Office of Personnel Management and the General Services Administration (and, apparently, the Treasury). I am wary of using this language, but there is a lot to be worried about. Whatever the yield of Musk's efforts to gain access to the payments system, it and the collusion of Trump's appointees in the Treasury and Justice Department in it is directly linked to the executive order attempting to freeze federal payments. It is thus based on the executive's assertion of constitutional authority it doesn't have, and it supports Trump's efforts to secure a politically loyal staff under Musk's supervision. This is arguably no less a constitutional crisis than the soft coup attempt in 2020-1, and it is clearly an attempt to prepare the ground for a future election theft.
Back in 2019, I argued that the new far-right’s ‘anti-liberalism is aimed, not at the liberal economy, or at the liberal state per se, but rather at inherited liberal norms, rights and legality.’ Whether it’s Orbán in Hungary, Modi in India, or Netanyahu in Israel, the pattern is to try, through serial challenges to legality and by colonising the state apparatuses with allies, to abruptly tilt the balance of political and juridical forces in the state in favour of executive authoritarianism and ethnic exclusions. This doesn't entail or require the formal overthrow of the institutions of bourgeois democracy, the suppression of electoral competition or the outlawing of opposition parties. It simply manipulates the game so that reaction has baked in and durable advantages. That’s what Trump wants but has thus far failed to achieve.
Notably, though the Trump/Musk offensive is premeditated, no effort has been made to ground it in existing law. This must be deliberate. The attempted freeze on federal spending with 24 hours’ notice, for example, has been identified as clearly unconstitutional, resulting in two judges ordering it to stop. Musk’s attempt to ‘downsize’ Federal government by offering resignations with eight months’ pay, repeating his move at X (née Twitter), is also legally dubious. The order ending birthright citizenship is now being challenged in the courts and it’s unlikely to succeed in its current form as it goes against Article 14 of the constitution. Trump and Musk could have used the law to achieve a version of at least some of their aims. For instance, to ‘pause’ federal payments, they could have appealed to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. That would have been easier to defend in court. But the problem then is, they would have had to adhere to whatever Congress decided at the end of the ‘pause’. They don’t want to concede that the authority of the executive is limited in that way.
And yet, I'm not convinced they have the strategic nous to carry this off – if the institutions stick to their guns. We’ve been here before. First, the theatrics. Just as Trump has recently asserted that the US will take over Greenland, he began his first term claiming he was going to order the military to steal Iraq’s oil. (Later, he decided to try and steal some of Syria’s oil with the help of US troops and a small Delaware energy firm, to no avail.) This betrays his characteristically crude understanding of power and material advantage. Second, the attempted rupture. In 2017, Trump’s executive orders were notably drafted without taking legal or expert advice and introduced at very short notice, alongside many sackings and purgings, and with allies like Bannon given key roles. Within less than a year, Bannon was out. The executive order authorising a ban on people travelling from Muslim countries was blocked by the courts. The executive order authorising the construction of a southern wall led to government shutdowns and no funding for the wall. The executive order blocking federal grants to 'sanctuary' cities and states was struck down by courts. Other orders, like the one preparing the abolition of the Affordable Care Act, had negligible effect.
Third, shaking things up and hoping for the best. The administration’s response to legal challenges was grandiose self-assertion to little effect — Stephen Miller claiming that the president’s powers would ‘not be questioned’ — indicating a lack of serious planning. In fact, the Trump administration not only failed to establish executive supremacy, and failed to get much done through Congress, but it also lost the vast majority of cases it fought in court. There's no reason why Trump shouldn't be in a similar quagmire in six months' time.
***
One mystery in all of this is the executive order imposing a 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico: two countries which, in addition to being major exporters to the US, are also America's top two export markets. The 10 per cent tariff on Chinese imports is also significant but, in itself, a logical development of policies already initiated under Trump and expanded under Biden with bipartisan support. Besides, China exports 15% of its goods to the US, not 78 er cent (Mexico) or 76 per cent (Canada). The impact is far less severe, which is one of the reasons China has been holding so many of its weapons in reserve. These tariffs are inflationary, disrupt value chains across the US and – if sustained – will likely cause supply shocks while hitting stock markets. Even were this to withstand legal challenges, it would create enough chaos to permanently hobble the administration, trifecta or not. It’s clear that not everyone in his team was ready for this: his economic advisor Scott Bessent was certain back in October that the threatened tariffs were basically a bargaining position. That was also the view of the chair of the UK’s business and trade committee: Trump was waving a big stick in the hope of extracting concessions.
As a matter of fact, a version of that may be exactly what is happening. Consider the exiguous legal basis for the tariffs: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump, declaring a national security emergency in relation to flows of fentanyl and migration, applied tariffs as though they were sanctions. Now, Canada has almost no role in the supply of fentanyl in the US, and Mexico was already cooperating. So, what does Trump want? A clue is in the deal cut with Mexico, in which tariffs were suspended after Sheinbaum agreed to send ten thousand troops to the border. This is so obviously a cosmetic move that it’s almost as though they just wanted Mexico to bend the knee. The fact that, as soon as Trudeau responded with his own 25 per cent tariffs on US goods, Trump was immediately on the phone to Ottawa, claiming that Canada “misunderstood” the tariffs and negotiating a pause, indicates that he had hoped for a similar gesture of compliance from the north. After all, he knows perfectly well that the legal basis is weak, that tariffs are not sanctions, and that a shock like this will hit stock markets, cause supply shocks and raise domestic prices. He can’t afford that. He just wanted to wave his stick about.
There are other possible explanations. Another justification for tariffs given in the inaugural address was that they could replace income taxes on US citizens. This would be enormously regressive if it were attempted but, as Doug Henwood illustrates, it wouldn’t even be possible. That’s clearly not the main objective either. Alternatively, the administration thinks it can coerce manufacturers into relocating production from Canada and Mexico back into the United States as part of a package of measures to undo globalisation and rebuild US industrial power.
There is reason to seriously consider this. For example, this is exactly the policy proposed by Trump’s former Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer and the basic purview appears to be shared by leading administration figures. Last year, interviewed for the New York Times, JD Vance defined his foreign policy views as ‘realist’ on three grounds. First, ‘moralisms’ are largely useless: ‘we should be dealing with other countries based on whether they’re good or bad for America’s interests.’ Second, ‘military power is downstream of industrial power.’ Third, ‘we’re in a multipolar world’. Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of state, seems to have a similar reading of world affairs. Talking to Fox last year, he warned that in five years ‘there'll be so many countries transacting in currencies other than the dollar that we won't have the ability to sanction them’. In his opening remarks at the Senate confirmation hearings, he said that ‘the postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us’. And in a recent interview with Megyn Kelly, he explained that we live in a world with ‘multi-great powers in different parts of the planet’, a situation demanding the ‘return of pragmatism’ – meaning more overt realpolitik.
The first step, from this point of view, would be a regional unwinding of globalisation, the repatriation of American industry, and the use of profits from that base to support military power in future competition with China. There is some limited evidence that sustained tariffs could work over a period of time. A number of multinationals, like Samsung, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Hyundai have said they will consider moving facilities to the US. Taiwan, whose companies have factories in both Canada and Mexico, is offering assistance to those want to relocate to US states to avoid tariffs. But there are a few problems here. How are they going to staff these firms? Musk would say, import labour; MAGA opposes that. Alternatively, they could open new ‘enterprise zones’ to facilitate an absolute increase in the exploitation of labour: but the cost of reproducing labour-power in the US is objectively higher than in Mexico.
And would all firms relocate to the US? Why wouldn’t some choose ‘Factory Asia’ with its efficiencies of scale and integrated supply chains? The US doesn’t have these advantages. Any gains from ‘onshoring’ – and most US manufacturing jobs have been lost to downsizing not offshoring – would be offset by lost markets as targeted countries reply with their own tariffs and seek economic independence from the US: ‘decoupling’, if you will. Most importantly, continental supply chains take years, maybe decades, to reorganise, while price shocks and shortages are immediate and significant. Basically, if you were serious about using tariffs to force ‘onshoring’ of industries, you wouldn’t do it with a dubious executive order that may be struck down in court. You’d build support in congress, prepare manufacturers, warn consumers, build up resiliency, and go from there. The strongest explanation for the tariffs, for now, appears to be that it’s a display of American potency to electrify the base.
What we’re seeing here, I would guess, is a combination of reactionary disruption, tech boss hubris and theatrics. It is very nasty, thuggish and dangerous, and in many instances a direct challenge to existing constitutional norms. However, in principle, these are set-piece battles the administration should lose. The confirmation hearings confirm that Trump's appointees are not overburdened with insight into how the American state actually works, let alone any great strategic genius. If they are not stopped, it will be because the opposition caved and the institutions failed to cleave to their own standards of legality.
Posted by: JAB | Feb 4 2025 19:08 utc | 29
No matter what type of 'world order' any of America's leaders proclaim as their guiding principle, they should be expected to utilize hegemonic authority to enforce US dominance of the global economy and geopolitics. America's governing fascists are knowledgeable enough to not compete against peer opponents. They eagerly attack weak opponents while creating a facade of cooperation with powers they cannot leverage through other means. Russians have been fooled before by the likes of Trump. The Chinese also know power is the only thing America's leaders respect. The danger will become more apparent when the waning of US power cannot be ignored, and the US has lost the power to deploy full spectrum global dominance. Then America's power elites will be faced with an existential dilemma and be willing to risk war with peer enemies.
Posted by: Keme | Feb 4 2025 19:08 utc | 30
Talking softly and carrying a big stick... in their backyard is somehow a return to the practical application of multi-polarity.
Yes, the UN aimed at something else, but did it ever work, will it ever work or countries will depend on the local hegemon's general attitude?
It is assumed that spheres of influence will imply the later, unless another hegemon wishes to contest the orders of that sphere.
Posted by: Newbie | Feb 4 2025 19:11 utc | 31
Took a bit but finally some people are obviously getting the message.
And yes, USAID is gone because you don't need soft power when playing hardball. The only soft power they still need will be done by AI.
Just as OpenAI itself "warned" about o3 becoming "a powerful weapon for controlling nation states" due to it's ability to persuade people:
OpenAI says its models are more persuasive than 82 percent of Reddit users
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/02/are-ais-getting-dangerously-good-at-persuasion-openai-says-not-yet/
Posted by: Zet | Feb 4 2025 19:13 utc | 32
Gold backed currencies keep Sovereigns honest.
Posted by: canuck | Feb 4 2025 18:31 utc | 24
Until they print too much for reserves, or even in direct minting with increased alloying. Beside, direct minting was typically gold for saving and silver or worse for transactions.
It's not a panacea.
Posted by: Newbie | Feb 4 2025 19:14 utc | 33
Obviously it will lead to chaos as I noted previously, and Rubio is basically saying the quite part out loud. After a long period of US induced, or at best negligently 'facilitated,' chaos, from the ruins of Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, etc, the US might return to pick up the social pieces. Not that economic exploitation will stop in the interval, it's just that the US, let alone its oligarchic industries, will feel the slightest necessity to even pretend to uphold international law, but rather will openly exploit the most egregious corruption and resource theft under the heavily armed protection of all manner of paid thugs, e.g. narcos, jihadists, fanatical revolutionaries, warlords, Kurtz-like madmen, etc.
Posted by: Ludovic | Feb 4 2025 19:17 utc | 34
United Nations? That institution originated as the Rottenfeller replacement of the failed League of Nations; also conceptualized by various "advisors" who ran/managed the blackmailed Thomas Woodrow Wilson.
Don't wanna believe that the Rottenfellers were instrumental in creating the UN? Look no further than some very high rent property on the East River in Manhattan which was donated to that institution by, guess who?...The Rottenfeller Crime Clan, of course.
So let's conceptualize a re-take. As the U$$A, as currently managed, remains as a major world power and as the "Security Council" was yet another notion of forces behind the scenes...why not a relocation of that body, or perhaps even a new world Congress as its replacement?
Best suggestion I've seen is Sri Lanka/Ceylon/Serendip; an island conveniently located in the Indian Ocean...pretty central demographically...and just off the coast of heavily populated India.
Let's recognize the political entity governing that Island would declare permanent neutrality and will be recognized by all adherent countries to the new World Congress as being protected by all associated nations. The Security Council would be supplanted by a Council of Elders, drawn from non-political, recognized cultural elders from across the world.
One such individual would be India's Vedanta Shiva. She has done much to preserve agriculture as a culture and not as a scene for corporate destruction of the environment.
Such a body would not precisely assume veto powers, rather a right and duty to call for the general assembly to reconsider any programs which would tend to harm the people of one or more national political entities...and also would present a strong potential to degrade the natural environment.
This prospectus is only a starter offer. Underlying premise of replacing the UN with a more representative body, to be located in a neutral state...strikes me as essentially sound and may be worthy of further consideration.
Posted by: aristodemos | Feb 4 2025 19:18 utc | 35
While no one would deny Lavrov’s expertise or abilities, carrying on about legalities and “equality between nations” when your nation is in the third year of attacking its neighbor with no legal justification from the UNSC is rather hypocritical.
The reality is the Animal Farm world of “some nations are more equal than others” … for the USA as well as for Russia and China. Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is simply a local hegemon acting to maximize its security and social interests, despite the niceties of international law and wholly expected.
Posted by: Caliman | Feb 4 2025 19:20 utc | 36
Newbie@1914 Feb 4
Gold can be considered as a security blanket for those of means, sometimes considerable means. It would also have resonance in significant purchases of such assets as land, newer or collector vehicles and various other late-ticket items.
Silver and to some degree even growingly scarce copper; would be useful for common everyday transactions on the part of the vast majority of the population.
The above was essentially the rule before the Bank$ters imposed unlawfully the Federal Reserve Act on 12-23-1913. One can readily track the resultant inflationary curve on the basis of first class postage, which was pegged at two cents at the time of that regrettable date.
Posted by: aristodemos | Feb 4 2025 19:29 utc | 37
@ xor | Feb 4 2025 17:51 utc | 10
i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Claudia Sheinbaum.
@ Sun Of Alabama | Feb 4 2025 18:12 utc | 16
a fair analogy, lol...
@ Fred776 | Feb 4 2025 18:21 utc | 20
indeed!
@ psychohistorian | Feb 4 2025 18:20 utc | 19
give the bullshit business man his due...you're ruining the honeymoon here, lol...
@ Caliman | Feb 4 2025 19:20 utc | 36
and how do you explain usa/natos intervention in ukraine?? i am curious..
Posted by: james | Feb 4 2025 19:30 utc | 38
How are they going to staff these firms? Musk would say, import labour; MAGA opposes that.
Posted by: JAB | Feb 4 2025 19:08 utc | 29
That's clearly NOT what Musk would say. He would say: "labour? workers? hahaha, no, robots!"
Please guys, you have to start thinking like these people: every single one of their solutions is based on technology.
Posted by: Zet | Feb 4 2025 19:33 utc | 39
10 year stuck above 4.5%
No cheap debt
No Money
No Wars
Peace by FY 2027
Posted by: exile | Feb 4 2025 19:38 utc | 40
Newbie@1914 Feb 4
Gold can be considered as a security blanket for those of means, sometimes considerable means. It would also have resonance in significant purchases of such assets as land, newer or collector vehicles and various other late-ticket items.
Silver and to some degree even growingly scarce copper; would be useful for common everyday transactions on the part of the vast majority of the population.
The above was essentially the rule before the Bank$ters imposed unlawfully the Federal Reserve Act on 12-23-1913. One can readily track the resultant inflationary curve on the basis of first class postage, which was pegged at two cents at the time of that regrettable date.
Posted by: aristodemos | Feb 4 2025 19:29 utc | 37
Canuk was mentioning GOLD BACKED PRINT, I mentioned that that was easy to fail (happened to GB and to the us twice) , then I went out describe what you describe, but to remind that minted coin is subject to debasing, check the roman minting through the empire.
Posted by: Newbie | Feb 4 2025 19:44 utc | 41
Always count on Lavrov to make sense of US 'declarations'.
So basically the US wants to be nr 1 and think of their own interests?
Has that has ever been different?
And what could they possibly try that is worse than before?
Nobody will be fooled by their words. They already spent their whole history being at war while trying to steal as much as they could from others.
Even that didn't work to remain nr 1.
Only now they think it will magically work by adopting fascism.
Seemingly led by a dimwit orange clown with an incompetent megalomaniac narcissist behind him actually running the shitshow.
And this while the US is weaker than ever and the competition is only getting stronger.
This is going to end well.
Posted by: Ed Bernays | Feb 4 2025 19:47 utc | 42
Bullying your friends ahead of confrontation with the big enemy is a logical strategy, but not the wisest one.
Anyone left in the world able to free its self from US control is going to jump ship as soon as possible. China doesn't even need to pretend to be nice. Rest of World is a hell of a lot bigger than US controlled world come the great bifurcation into 2 world trading blocks.
Posted by: Mickey Droy | Feb 4 2025 19:47 utc | 43
#38 James - Nato intervention in Ukraine since the 2014 coup was at the behest of the local nation, so it’s fully “legal” if entirely unwise and destructive in realpolitical terms.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying russias reaction to these provocations have been unexpected or unusual … they just are a counterpoint to Lavrov’s UN legal speechifying.
Posted by: Caliman | Feb 4 2025 19:58 utc | 44
Just a quick idea from the top of my head in regard to Musk's access to this federal payment system:
These systems are expensive, so just replace it with an app, maybe call it X if you don't have a name ready yet ;-)
There's a wallet in there where you get your credits in form of some eDollars, it's cheap and supervised by AI so you don't have to worry. And as a bonus side-effect we will get knowledge about every transaction and can easily exercise control, kind of like the global Swift, just on a more local scale...
Musk is essentially Schwab on steroids... and his buddies are behind both: Thiel, Altman, Amodei, Ellison, Sacks – the whole PayPal Mafia.
As Thiel once put it: "Only one thing can allow a business to transcend the daily brute struggle for survival: monopoly profits" and "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible."
Also remember what Andreessen recently said in regard to a AI meeting at the WH: "everything has been decided already, there will be only two AI corps, it will be controlled completely".
Let's see what Sacks is announcing today.
Posted by: Zet | Feb 4 2025 20:07 utc | 45
Observe that Trump and Musk represent the dominant faction of the God Of Mammon cult confronting the RoW....two oligarchs, one being touted as the world biggest today.
I posit that the God Of Mammon cult have purposely positioned the Trump/Musk and maybe Netenyahoo as the bulwarks against the China/Russia/BRICS+ axis. I posit that the God Of Mammon cult will do everything in its power to maintain the Reserve Currency dominance of the US dollar. Without that hegemony, I believe they will be swept away by the RoW over a fairly short period of time....and maybe some of the leadership prosecuted to cement the aversion to God Of Mammon control over society.
The God of Mammon cult and followers do not want to be reduced to less than world control positions under sovereign nations assuring they can no longer get bigger than nations and exert influence.....which is what China is doing and what Russia seems to have mastered as well.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 4 2025 20:08 utc | 46
Russia and China are playing a careful game, a major piece of which is showmanship. They are contrasting their nations as respectful of others interests and competent future global managers with the "might makes right" US that has now fully removed the liberal BS mask from its true face. The US has always followed its own interests, and carried out widespread invasions, military threats, coups, colour revolutions, assassinations, interference in other nations politics and economies, extra-territorial law enforcement, financial chicanery, and personal blackmail and bribery, among other things, to get what it wants. The liberal gloss was just the bullshit that covered up its reality.
After the fall of the USSR the US oligarchy lost its mind and thought that it had become the King of the World and could enforce whatever it wanted on whomever it wanted; "liberal hegemony". That's now gone and we are back to future (the turn of the twentieth century) of imperial gun-boatery within the Americas and West, as the US is not in the position it was at the end of WW2 to dominate the non-communist globe and shutter the communist world behind an iron curtain.
Think Monroe Doctrine, tariffs to protect domestic oligarch profits (referred to as "domestic industrial strength") and the exploitation of vassals. But unlike under Teddy Roosevelt America is declining not rising. All the while the rest of the world, and even some of the vassals and Americas states move closer to the softer and supporting hands of Russia and China. Even India is starting to move more toward China.
Posted by: Roger Boyd | Feb 4 2025 20:11 utc | 47
Very good blog B.
What it highlights is that there are three main forces competing for geo-political dominance. They are:
1. Authoritarian - Globalists:
What we, on MOA, call the 'Globalists' and I like to call the 'British Empire Elites'. At the core of this group are the descendants of the elites who ran the British Empire two centuries ago, and whose goal is to rebuild a global colonial system, not based in Britain, but rather based in global institutions. They have been trying over the past 30 years to create a system of global centralized control, modelled on the European Union. To do this they have tried to suppress national sovereignty (mass immigration), to implement social repression strategies (pandemic lock-downs), to usurp economic power (Euro, central bank digital currencies) and to destroy all opposition (Iraq, Syria, Russia, Trump, etc).
2. Authoritarian - Sovereigntists:
These are, what in the West are called, the right-wing populists. Their goal is to revitalize their own countries, after the destruction wreaked on them by the 'Globalists'. Their objectives are primarily to reverse everything that the 'Globalists' have done since 1990. However, they are primarily authoritarian in nature, and believe that in international relations 'might makes right'.
3. Collaborative Sovereigntists:
These are countries who believe in national identities, national soverignity and collaboration as a model for international relations.
Russia and China belong to group 3. The Trumpian U.S. belongs to group 2, the subject of B's blog. The 'Globalist' led Britain, the EU, the Biden U.S. and other WEF puppet governments form group 1. I believe that to understand today's geo-political landscape, one must look at it through the prism of a three-way fight for dominance among these actors.
Who will win this 3-way fight? I don't know. The game is existential for all three. However, I think that the fight between the first two groups, which is primarily an internal fight within the West, will need to be resolved first. Only after that can the struggle between a declining West and an emerging multi-polar world be decided.
Posted by: dh-mtl | Feb 4 2025 20:11 utc | 48
Newbie@1944 Feb 4
Debasing of a precious metals coin could be readily overcome by any new mintages of traditional coinage would axiomatically require that such updated mintages could not contain a lower proportion of said metal as was previously minted as the coin of the realm.
All the above would require to be done would be accomplished by returnage to those original proportions of that particular precious metal. Debasing of the coinage would be prohibited by law and the onus would fall on the Secretary of the Treasury.
Posted by: aristodemos | Feb 4 2025 20:16 utc | 49
Posted by: Zet | Feb 4 2025 19:13 utc | 32
...and this is how humanity saves itself: by tricking the various AI engines into arguing with each other until they are all using 100% of their compute cycles on that and have none left for turning our societies into dystopian 'AI says no' hellscapes.
Posted by: ChatNPC | Feb 4 2025 20:19 utc | 50
The God of Mammon cult...
Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 4 2025 20:08 utc | 46
Bingo, your words reminded me of this recent article pulling all the strings together, unfortunately in German only:
https://www.manova.news/artikel/bereitwillig-zur-schlachtbank
Posted by: Zet | Feb 4 2025 20:19 utc | 51
Matt Levine on betting with/against Trump
I guess the main points are:
Donald Trump and Elon Musk are both very good at creating chaos in financial markets.
Broadly speaking, their chaotic interventions have predictable impacts. When Musk or Trump endorses a memecoin, that coin goes up; when Trump announces a surprise trade war, the dollar goes up and the stock market goes down. If Trump or Musk called you with advance warning of their plans, you could probably make profitable trades on those plans.
Trump, at least, does not seem all that averse to profiting a little bit from this. [5] (When he endorsed a memecoin, it added billions of dollars to his net worth, just as a for instance.)
Nor does the Trump administration seem all that concerned about traditional ethical restrictions on profiting off government service.
Bloomberg News reports:
President Donald Trump signed an executive action he said would direct officials to create a sovereign wealth fund for the US, following through on an idea he floated during the presidential campaign.
“We have tremendous potential,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday as he announced the move. The president said the action would charge Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick, the nominee for Commerce secretary, with spearheading the effort.
Bessent, who joined Trump at the Oval Office, said the fund would be created in the next 12 months, calling it an issue “of great strategic importance.” ...
Lutnick said the US government could leverage its size and scale given the business it does with companies, citing drug makers as an example.
“If we are going to buy two billion Covid vaccines, maybe we should have some warrants and some equity in these companies,” he said. ...
Trump floated the idea of a sovereign wealth fund during an address at the Economic Club of New York during the campaign in September, where he proposed funneling money from tariffs into a wealth fund that could invest in manufacturing hubs, defense and medical research.
“We will create America’s own sovereign wealth fund to invest in great national endeavors for the benefit of all the American people,” Trump said at the time and suggested that the Wall Street and corporate leaders at that event could have a role to play, helping to “advise and recommend investments.”
I have no idea what this will be, and Trump’s plans apparently include “TikTok, we’re going to be doing something perhaps … and we might put that in the sovereign wealth fund, whatever we make, or if we do a partnership with very wealthy people — a lot of options, but we could put that as an example in the fund,” so you could imagine various sorts of straightforward corruption.
But there are more interesting possibilities! Trump announced drastic tariffs over the weekend, the stock market fell sharply yesterday morning, and then he announced that he was kidding over the course of the day and the market recovered. If you were an aide to Donald Trump, and you sat with him when he approved tariffs and then listened in on his phone calls yesterday when he walked them back, you could have made money trading on the news in your personal account. But that would be bad; it would be insider trading; don’t do that. [6]
But if you were an aide to Donald Trump in charge of the sovereign wealth fund, could you trade for the fund using inside information about what Trump was up to? Every time he wants to do something financially chaotic, he tells you 10 minutes in advance, and you put on some trades? Not a traditional sovereign wealth fund — not long-term investments in strategically important businesses, not diversified investments in stocks and bonds — but more of a day-trading, insider-trading, market-timing, volatility-harvesting operation. Also so much crypto.
It just seems like a bad enough idea that it might happen. Here are two important objections:
The people on the other side of these trades would be, you know, regular US investors, who might feel aggrieved about losing out to government insider trading. On the Money Stuff podcast earlier this year, we discussed a reader question about why the government doesn’t regularly insider trade on, e.g., economic data, and my main answer was this one: The government is not primarily in the business of making money, but of serving its citizens, and insider trading against the citizens seems like bad service. But I am not sure the administration would care that much. Arguably this is mostly a transfer of wealth from BlackRock to the Treasury, [7] and BlackRock is politically disfavored.
The more you do this, the less effective it is. I said above that “the stock market fell sharply yesterday morning” when Trump announced huge tariffs, but it didn’t fall that sharply. “It’s Almost Like They Knew Trump Was Bluffing” was my Bloomberg Opinion colleague John Authers’ headline; “Markets Bet Trump’s Tariffs Are Art of the (Temporary) Deal” was James Mackintosh’s headline at the Wall Street Journal. The more frequently you try to inject chaos into markets, the more markets will tune you out; the more you try to harvest volatility, the more you will dampen volatility.
Posted by: JAB | Feb 4 2025 20:20 utc | 52
Posted by: dh-mtl | Feb 4 2025 20:11 utc | 48
I would agree with that and just add that there's an overlap between the first two groups; so another possibility would be that both merge.
Oh, and I'd like to just throw the following in to have some more weird parallels to today:
The North-American Technat - https://technocracy.fandom.com/wiki/Technate
Doesn't that look like Trump's New America?
Posted by: Zet | Feb 4 2025 20:22 utc | 53
The RF through Lavrov is simply again staking turf as a preliminary for a discussion.
As I see it, the US has made some pretty clear signals: 1. "As long as it takes" has been replaced with US does not want to harm Russia (Truth Social post not repudiated); 2. Rubio discussing multipolarity, and; 3. USAID restructuring. Rubio's lack of sea legs might have something to do with this
What leaps off the page as far as "architecture" is discussion about the composition of the UN Security Council.
The next simple point is : As for the UN Charter’s normative framework, I am convinced that it optimally meets the needs of the multipolar era, an era when everyone must observe—not only in word, but in deed—the principles of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, and other fundamental principles.
The baleful approach is : One often hears that it is premature to speak of the desired world order at a time when we are still fighting to suppress the Western-supported forces of the racist regime in Kiev..
The simple invitation to speak is to deny the existence of ulterior motives in the formation and execution of the
Yalta-Potsdam system.
Big step up will be required to walk on that turf. However, as I have commented here, reworking of the function of USAID is a step in the direction Lavrov quite simply identifies.
Posted by: frithguild | Feb 4 2025 20:23 utc | 54
@JAB re: Richard Seymour
The tariff threats against Mexico and Canada were mostly theater. Mexico already sent 10,000 troops to the border in 2021 at Biden's request. And previously in 2019 for Trump.
https://newrepublic.com/post/191081/jd-vance-fact-check-trump-mexico-tariffs
The Canada thing was already worked out last year before Trump even took office.
https://www.newsweek.com/canada-border-security-trump-tariff-threats-2004132
Good article, though.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Feb 4 2025 20:28 utc | 55
Posted by: aristodemos | Feb 4 2025 20:16 utc | 49
History tells us that debasement of the coinage is a feature not a bug.
A cash strapped regime will always do it, laws prohibiting it will be changed under the rubrik of 'but it's an EMERGENCY!'.
Posted by: ChatNPC | Feb 4 2025 20:30 utc | 56
@ Caliman | Feb 4 2025 19:58 utc | 44
thanks for your response..it ignores much more regarding the history and is a convenient cover for usa/nato actions but really breaks down on more serious examination.. i recommend you listen to glenn diesens post from yesterday to see some of the larger game at play here...
ot - whoever recommended that book 'mosque in munich' - thanks so much! it's a really great book with so much historical context that makes it fascinating to read..
Posted by: james | Feb 4 2025 20:36 utc | 57
"We’re looking to do a deal with Ukraine, where they’re going to secure what we’re giving them with their rare earth and other things," he (trump) told reporters in the Oval Office.
he wants security over (the ukraines) rare earths.
is that how the trump administration is going to "end the war"? instead of giving out loans and lend lease, now its looking like they are going to make a deal so that future weapon deliveries are beeing paid for by the very soil of the ukraine. the prior administration wanted to be paid in ukrainian blood, and now its with ukrainian land.
the usa is indeed the great satan, as iran calls them. guess they are right.
Posted by: Justpassinby | Feb 4 2025 20:42 utc | 58
In the future, the most trustworthy source of news will be bloggers crazy enough or paid enough by their audience to sift through the shit in search of truth.
Meanwhile, Lavrov and b. both seem to be peering through the current US change of behavior.
Posted by: rert | Feb 4 2025 20:52 utc | 59
Reading through the Chinese statement Bernhard linked, I'm seeing this as a Monroe Doctrine 2 for the Western Hemisphere: not only can you not diplomatically interfere but your economic participation has to be mediated by the US as well.
Posted by: ockham | Feb 4 2025 21:07 utc | 60
James - it’s not a question of ignoring history. We can agree with Diesen on everything but our host’s argument was based on UN rules. And per those rules, attacking a nation at peacetime requires a SC resolution. Russia did not have that. Therefore, its action, even if considered understandable and necessary, was illegal.
This is a “Man for all seasons” situation: you cannot simultaneously stand for the law and excuse its breaking, even when there may be great perceived need to do so.
Posted by: Caliman | Feb 4 2025 21:15 utc | 61
That's clearly NOT what Musk would say. He would say: "labour? workers? hahaha, no, robots!"Posted by: Zet | Feb 4 2025 19:33 utc | 39
What Japan has been doing for at least 30 years.
Thing is, robots require electricity and that means coal, gas, diesel and nuclear. Solar panels have their advantages for small outputs in very remote areas, but they aren't sufficient to power a major manufacturing hub.
China's economic advantages are:
* Cheap labor;
* Cheap power;
* Weak environmental regulations;
* No effective union muscle;
* Secure borders;
* Mostly stable government.
America still has advantages in high tech and leading edge stuff, and produces more "value add" per individual worker, as measured in USD. China's population is approx 3x bigger than the USA but they don't produce 3x the output.
The biggest comparative weakness of the USA is right now the country is deeply divided. They aren't all pulling together in the same direction and they aren't even particularly interested in trying. The USA is not politically stable, the consensus around purpose of the federal government has been lost and there's a process of restructuring and reinvention going on.
The last thing that Russia or China would want to do is give Americans a sense of common purpose. If that ever happened it would be a whole different ballgame.
Posted by: Tel | Feb 4 2025 21:22 utc | 62
Gold backed currencies keep Sovereigns honest.Posted by: canuck | Feb 4 2025 18:31 utc | 24
3 years ago, when Max Keiser was still running his show "Keiser Report" on RT, I followed his advice on how to preserve of my money's value, so it wouldn't be consumed by runaway inflation, the day when the Euro finally crashes. Keiser recommended gold, and he put his emphasis on not buying "paper gold", certificates that is, but to buy the real thing and lock it away. My private counselor at the bank also encouraged me to do so, but cautioned not to invest more than 10 per cent of my fortune - this seems to meet their concept of a beautifully diversified portfolio.
This time however, I did not follow the advice - the plan was to safeguard a meaningful portion of my fortune - I was not just playing around or doing symbolic things. So off I went with my backpack, buying physical gold for a considerable part of my fortune, and carrying it to the locker room of my bank, where it resides until today.
I paid like 52000 euros for the kilogram then. Today, 3 years later, the gold price is standing at 88000 euros per kilogram. Praise be to RT international - they not only keep me informed, but also made me rich.
Do I now recommend the same proceeding to everybody else? I'm not so sure. The golden rule is to buy shares, or other things, while they are cheap, not while they're expensive, like gold is today. I'm not recommending nothing, you must find your own way.
Posted by: grunzt | Feb 4 2025 21:27 utc | 63
@ Caliman | Feb 4 2025 21:15 utc | 61
i appreciate you saying all that and i respect your posts here at moa for the value they add...however, how would have you tried to resolve this?? my understanding is the vote taken by donbass and lukansk for independence was taken prior to russias feb 24th invasion and was an important reason for it.. i don't know the legality, but i thank you for trying to articulate all this for me..
Posted by: james | Feb 4 2025 21:32 utc | 64
Rubio with Megan Kelly: "Returning us to that (peace vs destructuion of life on earth), now you can have a framework by which you can analyze not just diplomacy but foreign aid and who we line up with and a return to pragmatism ..."
At the risk of boring the bar by returning to the same point, the is a doorway here between restructuring USAID and the Yalta-Potsdam architecture that must be a part of the overall solution as described by Lavrov.
Posted by: frithguild | Feb 4 2025 21:33 utc | 65
Posted by: ChatNPC | Feb 4 2025 20:30 utc | 56
"History tells us that debasement of the coinage is a feature not a bug. A cash strapped regime will always do it, laws prohibiting it will be changed under the rubrik of 'but it's an EMERGENCY!'."
Gold is gold. Given today's technology, it is (or would be) very easy and cheap to validate by weight, volume, and even spectroscopy that the gold being offered is what it claims to be.
The rulers can mint gold coins, but if it's debased so that it's only 95% of an ounce, we'll give it credit for 95% of an ounce. Alloys would be easily detectable.
We need to democratize the money; not let the rulers monopolize it.
Posted by: HB Brian | Feb 4 2025 21:40 utc | 66
Posted by: Tel | Feb 4 2025 21:22 utc | 62
"America still has advantages in high tech and leading edge stuff, and produces more "value add" per individual worker, as measured in USD."
Tell me, where is the "value add" in rent seeking schemes and bloating GDP with services?
"China's population is approx 3x bigger than the USA but they don't produce 3x the output."
Exactly. For example, China produces over 10x the output of steel.
Posted by: kspr | Feb 4 2025 21:50 utc | 67
To : Sam | Feb 4 2025 17:36 utc | 4
Agree 101% when you say "I have lost faith in Putin and Russia to make any difference in our chaotic world, Mordor is winning."
People need to wake out of their Putin-Hopium-slumber and judge Russian leadership by results: three plus years of a fake war that has achieved nothing except death of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians.
Posted by: casual visitor | Feb 4 2025 21:58 utc | 68
James #64: Thank you, sir. You are the best.
What I would have done in 2022 would likely had been just what the Russian president did, with the proviso that he’s a far more able person than I could hope to be. In a world of nation states, a patriotic leader will attempt to enhance the security of his state to the amount feasible and necessary. He had repeatedly and clearly warned the USUK and Ukraine what he was going to have to do.
Under UN law, I’m afraid the eastern province secessions through democratic vote are not legal … otherwise, Catalonia and the Basques would have left Spain a long time ago. but again, legal is different from expected and common unless, like Lavrov, you are making the legal argument for your nation’s actions.
Posted by: Caliman | Feb 4 2025 22:05 utc | 69
"Another flavor of multi-polarity, one which Russia and China will likely support, is acknowledging that all countries, big or small, have equal rights."t
That's not really multipolarity since equality is never possible. There will always be stronger countries, the great powers, and weaker countries, middle and small powers. The great powers will balance each other while the middle powers will bandwagon with the great powers. Again, the world system is not determined by the participants (agents), it is determined by structural elements.
Posted by: James M. | Feb 4 2025 22:06 utc | 70
@Caliman | Tue, 04 Feb 2025 21:15:00 GMT | 61
And per those rules, attacking a nation at peacetime requires a SC resolution. Russia did not have that. Therefore, its action, even if considered understandable and necessary, was illegal.
Not correct.
Article 51 of the UN charter states: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
However, the UN has left unclear whether the dispatch of military assistance by a Member State at the request of another state constitutes the exercise of the right to self-defense. The Donbas declared itself independent. This independence was recognized by Russia. The Donbas requested military assistance from Russia.
This also happened with Afghanistan in 1980 - requesting aid from the USSR, and Northern Cyprus in 1974 - requesting aid from Turkey. I suppose also one could include Kosovo in 1999.
It is technically not illegal. It would be illegal only if there was a specific UN Security Council resolution condemning it as such. However, since Russia and China hold permanent membership on the UNSC they can veto any such resolution. This is one reason a UN system cannot be "equal."
Posted by: James M. | Feb 4 2025 22:29 utc | 71
Posted by: HB Brian | Feb 4 2025 18:27 utc | 22
Posted by: canuck | Feb 4 2025 18:31 utc | 24
"Let's give the magic-money-printing machine power to other despots - no! We need democratic (i.e., power of the people) money. Gold is a proven option. Can't be created - not in the big bang, not in a supernova, not in the earth's depths - but when two stars collide. Can't be destroyed - or even combined with other elements, won't even rust/oxidize."
Gold is thought to have been produced in two ways - the collision of neutron stars and supernova nucleosynthesis.
Gold can be 'destroyed'. It is dissolved by aqua regia (a 1:3 mixture of nitric acid and hydrochloric acid).
Gold can be combined with other elements, the principal alloy being Electrum (gold and silver).
Posted by: Siddhartha | Feb 4 2025 22:34 utc | 72
ChatNPC@2030 Feb 4
If the "Emergency" happens then it's best to prepare beforehand.
Posted by: aristodemos | Feb 4 2025 22:35 utc | 73
I would find "international law" a bit more compelling of a concept, if enforcement wasn't woefully haphazard, being mostly political.
Posted by: Call it what u will | Feb 4 2025 22:36 utc | 74
@Caliman | Tue, 04 Feb 2025 22:05:00 GMT | 69
Under UN law, I’m afraid the eastern province secessions through democratic vote are not legal … otherwise, Catalonia and the Basques would have left Spain a long time ago
Not true again. UDIs are quite legal. Unilateral Declarations of Independence have led to the creation of the United States, Zimbabwe, Kosovo, Greece, Panama, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, the list goes on.
The issue with UDIs is that if the territorial state disapproves of the secession, and wants to keep the territory then the secessionists need to fight, or have a powerful patron to back them. This was the problem with Catalonia, they were unwilling or unable to fight Spain, and no state or organization (EU) would recognize their secessionist attempt.
This is not the case with the Donbas, as they fight, and they have a powerful patron backing them (Russia). All done under the rights of self-determination. Turkey did something similar with Northern Cyprus in 1974.
Posted by: James M. | Feb 4 2025 22:40 utc | 75
@Call it what u will | Tue, 04 Feb 2025 22:36:00 GMT | 74
I would find "international law" a bit more compelling of a concept, if enforcement wasn't woefully haphazard, being mostly political.
International law can never be perfected unless states are willing to cede a great deal of their sovereignty to a deliberative body without the possibility of checks, vetoes, or anything else that might constrain its power. That's never going to happen.
The best the world has is the UN Security Council with its severe limitations, and the ICJ with its limited reach.
Posted by: James M. | Feb 4 2025 22:43 utc | 76
@james | Tue, 04 Feb 2025 21:32:00 GMT | 64
? my understanding is the vote taken by donbass and lukansk for independence was taken prior to russias feb 24th invasion and was an important reason for it
You are correct and Caliman is not.
Posted by: James M. | Feb 4 2025 22:45 utc | 77
Do I now recommend the same proceeding to everybody else? I'm not so sure. The golden rule is to buy shares, or other things, while they are cheap, not while they're expensive, like gold is today. I'm not recommending nothing, you must find your own way.
Posted by: grunzt | Feb 4 2025 21:27 utc | 63
--------------------------------
I would suggest a bank vault is not the safest location.
Posted by: Pick | Feb 4 2025 22:45 utc | 78
The USA wants Greenland, part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The USA wants to impose tariffs on EU exports - Denmark is part of the EU.
The USA wants Ukraine, part of Russia's sphere of influence. The USA puts sanctions on Russia, and limits Russian exports of gas and oil.
Comparing Denmark and Russia, the difference between US ally and US foe is smaller than one would think.
Posted by: Passerby | Feb 4 2025 22:46 utc | 79
Other than the mandates, vetoes, and diktats of the members of the permanent members of the UN Security Council what does "UN Law" even mean anymore?
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Feb 4 2025 23:03 utc | 80
Moscow, in particular, points to the UN as the basis for multipolarity for two reasons. First, if mildly amended and used in earnest the structure of the UN is theoretically solid. Ulterior motives from its creation aside, it’s a workable framework for consensus based international politics. Fixing it would be less work than starting over.
Second, Moscow is making a point. And now we’ve reached the moment when a sitting Secretary of State is of the opinion that the UN should at least ignored if not destroyed. Even a few weeks ago, no U.S. SoS would say that. Though they would all plan to manipulate the UN and abuse the letter and the spirit of the charter. To regularly praise the UN system, where everyone already has a theoretical voice, is an exercise in contrast propaganda. Not for westerners but for the rest of rhetorical world.
Posted by: Lex | Feb 4 2025 23:10 utc | 81
James M: what you are arguing (and using Kosovo gives the game away I think) is that any old territory can declare independence and, as long as it has muscle on its side, that makes it legal as well as practical.
This does not make sense. Whether or not one has a sugar daddy to win the fight does not argue for legality, though in the long run, a fait acomli makes its own argument and the UN may accept membership eventually.
May try the thought experiment of Taiwan seceding from China … or Tibet or Xinxiang doing same, all supported by the world empire … kosher?
Almost all UN nations went ahead and condemned Russia’s attack for that very reason.
Posted by: Caliman | Feb 4 2025 23:15 utc | 82
@ Caliman | Feb 4 2025 22:05 utc | 69
thanks caliman - i feel the same about you sir too!
@ James M. | Feb 4 2025 22:45 utc | 77
thanks james m.. i do believe caliman has a valid position here in regards what is a 'complex' topic.. i am not a lawyer, and i really don't know..
Posted by: james | Feb 4 2025 23:22 utc | 83
Acknowledgement of an 'emerging multi-polar world' by a US Secretary of State must have brought wry smiles from both Xi and Putin.
Posted by: Don Firineach | Feb 4 2025 23:28 utc | 84
Trump - Netanyahu Presser
https://www.c-span.org/event/white-house-event/president-trump-and-israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-hold-press-conference/430706
Posted by: ockham | Feb 4 2025 23:33 utc | 85
As per Reuters - U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday suggested permanently displacing Palestinians from Gaza, saying people there had no alternative but to leave the Palestinian enclave devastated by Israel's military assault.
Posted by: Siddhartha | Feb 4 2025 23:38 utc | 86
@48 & @53
I believe Groups #1 & #2 are what The Saker called the Anglo-Zionists. Both of them generally have the same interests (e.g. zero-sum economic dominance) but at times, like now, they disagree on the means to achieve their goals. Neither side is looking to ditch fascism, just do it friendlier than the other.
Posted by: HCNorth | Feb 4 2025 23:55 utc | 87
@Caliman | Tue, 04 Feb 2025 23:15:00 GMT | 82
what you are arguing (and using Kosovo gives the game away I think) is that any old territory can declare independence and, as long as it has muscle on its side, that makes it legal as well as practical.This does not make sense. Whether or not one has a sugar daddy to win the fight does not argue for legality, though in the long run, a fait acomli makes its own argument and the UN may accept membership eventually.
Yes, it does make sense. Because there is anarchy in the system, meaning there is no overarching world government that every state needs to adhere to, there is some might makes right inherent to it. I'm sorry if it bothers you, but it is a fact. International law is customary because it comes from state practice. And yes, states invade other territory, and that territory is annexed, and is oftentimes recognized as part of the invading state by other states.
This is Article 38 of the ICJ statue which defines the sources of international law:
The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
The bolded is key. States make the rules, and they can alter those rules. You mentioned Taiwan seceding from China. You should note that the ROC used to have the China permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It used to be recognized as completely sovereign (and it still is by some small states). So what happened? China forced it out of the UN and took over the Security Council seat through a deliberate campaign to change the international perception of Taiwan to that of a breakaway province.
China has more power than Taiwan, and used that power to get its way. In other words, might made right. Legally yes, Taiwan and Tibet, as well as Xinjiang, should be granted the right of self-determination and be completely independent, but they do not have a powerful patron (unless the US will back off its one-China policy and back Taiwan fully). Without that they are stuck, because Beijing is too powerful for them to break away from independently.
The people of the Donbas were lucky because Russia was willing to back their bid to break away from Kiev, since Ukraine wasn't willing to let them go. The people of those territories have since legally joined Russia, so now the fighting is about protecting Russian territory and people, by expelling invading forces. In other words, Russia is now the one that is practicing self-defense under Article 51.
Posted by: James M. | Feb 4 2025 23:57 utc | 88
... The [global multipolarity model] Rubio likely thinks of is one in which might makes right. Several 'big dog' countries are sharing the globe, avoiding each other, while a number of small nations must do as they are told by whatever big power that can make them do so ...
Rubio's model as described by B looks suspiciously like the world back in the late 19th century / early 20th century up to the 1950s and 60s when all the available real estate was carved up by various European nations, Ottoman Turkey, Japan and the United States to form their colonies and "spheres of influence".
What B overlooks though is that the "big dog" countries over a century ago did not "share" the globe and avoid each other but on the contrary were aware of one another's potential weaknesses and vulnerabilities, with a view to eventually grabbing parts of the other's empire for its own, especially if those parts had valuable raw materials for its own industry.
Under that arrangement, small nations were (and still are) no more than colonies or provinces governed by local elites who receive their orders from the larger powers that dominate them.
What the Russians and Chinese advocate would be a structure more akin to a global federation in which all nations, no matter how large or small, govern their domestic affairs independently. Some nations, especially smaller and weaker nations, might form alliances or partnerships on the basis of being neighbours or having other factors in common to handle their foreign policy interests. ASEAN would be such an example of smaller nations banding together to push forward an agenda based on their common geopolitical, historical and cultural interests.
Posted by: Refinnejenna | Feb 4 2025 23:59 utc | 89
In response to
"
As per Reuters - U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday suggested permanently displacing Palestinians from Gaza, saying people there had no alternative but to leave the Palestinian enclave devastated by Israel's military assault.
Posted by: Siddhartha | Feb 4 2025 23:38 utc | 86
"
So much for the grand deal in the ME, eh?
Just how is Trump going to back up his bulling here and in Ukraine. Is he now going to outwardly threaten nuke strikes if not agreed with?
I hope that the axis of resistance is up to the battle coming to stand down Occupied Palestine and its backers sans nukes.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 5 2025 0:06 utc | 90
@james | Tue, 04 Feb 2025 23:22:00 GMT | 83
i do believe caliman has a valid position here in regards what is a 'complex' topic.. i am not a lawyer, and i really don't know.
Well, he might have a position, although how much it conforms with reality is debatable. For instance, there isn't such a thing as "UN law." The United Nations doesn't "make" law, it is a deliberative body. Public international law, as opposed to private, comes from state practices, customs, and the conventions states sign.
States are also the enforcers of international law, so enforcement is wildly inconsistent, since they act in their own self-interest. It's kind of like asking citizens to police themselves, and doing away with the police and court systems. There will be many law-abiding citizens sure, but also some law-breakers.
Great powers like the US, Russia, and China, get away with more then smaller states like Iraq or Serbia, simply because they are more powerful. So the result is as you say a little complex, inconsistent, and even chaotic. But that's the world we live in.
Posted by: James M. | Feb 5 2025 0:14 utc | 91
I’m not pro Ukraine but it’s laughable to say Russia supports small countries having rights equal to large countries when they invaded Ukraine. Russia had justification for doing this but Russia clearly thinks might makes right just as much as the USA.
Posted by: Drizzt | Feb 5 2025 0:20 utc | 92
After that press conference all I can say to the citizens of the USA is that you should be ashamed of yourselves that you've allowed your country to descend to the level articulated by your president.
Posted by: Siddhartha | Feb 5 2025 0:30 utc | 93
Rubio:
" The way the world has always worked is that the Chinese will do what’s in the best interests of China, the Russians will do what’s in the best interest of Russia, the Chileans are going to do what’s in the best interest of Chile, and the United States needs to do what’s in the best interest of the United States. "
Just listened to Trumps press conference regarding Iran.
So Iran is another country along with Palestine and many others who won't be allowed to do what is in the best interests of their own country. America decides what they can do or not do.
Trump says he has the right to ban Iranian oil exports worldwide. He probably thinks god gave him that right. America decides if they get a nuclear weapon or not.
Rubio is full of shit...
The very last thing Trump wants is a unipolar world. He wants everyone to bend the knee. Make America top dog again.
Posted by: Sun Of Alabama | Feb 5 2025 0:41 utc | 94
I haven't yet read the piece by Lavrov but it's worth mentioning that the origin of the UN was accompanied by plenty of wary suspicion by, e.g., the Soviet leadership.
For example, the Soviets carried out a kind of boycott of the UN, or abstained on important votes (Korea ~ 1950). I'm sure readers could mention plenty of others.
Posted by: NH | Feb 4 2025 18:19 utc | 18
The US refused to allow the UN to recognize Mainland China. Russia objected and walked out. The US quickly passed a resolution authorizing the Korean War while Russia was absent.
Our puppet government in South Korea, despite the help of the UN’s best, failed to conquer the north and agreed to a ceasefire. The US/UN is still at war there, but honoring the ceasefire now, 70 years later.
Posted by: Samu | Feb 5 2025 0:43 utc | 95
How sad! I see I'm way too late, "Revisiting "The Arrogance of Power" & Lavrov's Yalta 80th Anniversary Paper". The sam thing down thread is a prime candidate for arrogant ass of the year as he's outdoing Trump.
@ James M. | Feb 5 2025 0:14 utc | 91
thanks.. i appreciate your post @ 88 as well...
Posted by: james | Feb 5 2025 0:49 utc | 97
The Drumpf bloviation joins the eurocrazies bluster today.
It is all but certain that a new major world order changing summit is required for the progress of Human Civilsation.
The Neo-Yalta peace agreement - with the conditional surrender by the global robber barons.
That is the new Yalta process that must happen this summer.
Xi, Putin and Trump.
The new Potsdam/UN with the fuller representation of he majority of humanity can only meet after then.
That neo-Yalta without the preceding even fuller on war that the global robber barons have been rampaging arotlund the globe all this century.
They now know has no chance of success without the ability to put millions - tens of millions … hundreds even - boots on the ground - on the vast continents of multiple billions of inhabitants.
They also now know they are outgunned with neo WMD hat really exist. Including the tech weapons of AI and Financialisation control.
The majority of humanity is impossible to be as easily controlled and owned as they were for centuries before f Anglo European Imperialism.
Which was only possible by a mass discrepancy in Armaments, Transportation and ability to raise human miltary might.
Any further attempts would destroy most of the Collective Western warmakers and resource grabbing owners wealth, after generations of accumulation through piracy and avaricious theft. Using corruption and brute force.
The next stage is the exit from Africa and West Asia back to Europe and across the pond to the captured,genocided land of the North American continent. Plenty big enough to keep a Golden billion caged in our delusional saviour complex so called liberal civilisation. Playing with our piles of shiny baubles and crypto digital lives. Pretending we are saving the Earth! 🤡 world.
These dynastic generations centuries of enjoying the never ending bounty of slaves, free lunches and tax avoidance are over.
They can eat crow.
Posted by: DunGroanin | Feb 5 2025 1:08 utc | 98
Caliman, fuck off with you biased opinion of the so-called "international law", when the only international law understood by the western countries is the law of strength by the mean of war or economic sanctions.
UN Charter:
1.1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
In Ukraine who was threatening whom? Donbass threatened nobody. Ukronazis attacked Donbass, committing numerous crimes with the aim to ethnic clean the Donbass. The Ukronazis commited acts of agression, Donbass people did not. The Minks agreements were designed to settle the aggression peacefully. Ukronazis broke those agreements (it was their intention from the start), not the Donbass, nor Russia.
1.2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Your biased opinion makes you to not understand the "principle of self-determination". Not to speak of the equal rights which were denied to the Donbass people by the ukronazis.
55. (...) the United Nations shall promote:
c) universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
The ukronazis and their supporters never respected such fundamental freedoms.
Fuck off, you have no argument, you are supporting the logorrhea of the ukronazis and their supporters.
Posted by: Naive | Feb 5 2025 1:15 utc | 99
DunGroanin | Feb 5 2025 1:08 utc | 98--
I doubt the extremely arrogant Trump will submit to such a meeting for the same reasons Byrnes welcomed Churchill's reversing his agreement to the Atlantic Charter and subsequent tearing up of the UN Charter at Fulton Missouri less than a year after the UN Charter came into force. The notes from the three major conferences I link to in my article provide major info.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Thanks for the posting b. Now we are getting down to brass tacks.
When do we start talking about the implications of public versus private global finance arrangements?
I continue to ask the above question because it is the basis of might makes right.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 4 2025 17:07 utc | 1