by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
Vladimir Putin’s Basic Disagreement with The West
Vladimir Putin’s basic view has been expressed so many times, in so many different contexts, and it’s always the same: that the only people who have a sovereign right to any land, are the people who live on that land — nobody who lives outside that land does. In other words, his basic view is a repudiation — a total rejection — of the very concept of empire: it’s a rejection of the right of foreigners to control any country, anywhere, anytime. Residence is determinative. According to Putin, the only justification that a country can ever have for invading another country is if and when that invasion is in direct and immediate response to that other country’s having invaded their land — purely defensive. Other than this, no invasion of any land by foreigners is acceptable.
The U.S. and its allies endorse empires — endorse conquest. This view was first extensively promoted during 1877-1902 by the founder of the Rhodes Trust, Cecil Rhodes, a self-avowed racist who passionately advocated that all “races” be subordinated to “the first race”: the British. However, he was willing that, if necessary, this empire would fly the U.S. flag instead of the English flag.
In more recent times, George Soros has championed this view, but giving different (non-racialist) words to it. Soros has stated his view of this important matter in mainly two places, and both times he has opposed national sovereignty and asserted instead “the people’s sovereignty” as being something that can justify a foreign invasion into a country by “the international community” in order to protect “the people’s sovereignty” there. He argues for a (what he claims would be) beneficent empire of “the international community,” which fights around the world ‘protecting’ “the people’s sovereignty,” wherever and whenever “the international community” decides that the local government is violating “the people’s sovereignty.”
That’s the basic difference between their views — Putin asserting no foreigner has any right to invade, versus Soros asserting that “the international community” has an obligation to invade (to protect “the people’s sovereignty” there), whenever and wherever it decides to invade and gives some ‘reason’ (truthful or not) ‘justifying’ this ‘protection’ of ‘the people’s sovereignty’, over that land.
At least two separate academic studies have been done (both by Americans) of what Soros’s proposal comes down to in actual practice; and both conclude that what it does in actual practice is to polarize and maybe ultimately destroy (make irrelevant) the U.N., and to enhance international imperialism. (Neither of the two studies connects the issue to the international armanents business, which relies almost exclusively upon imperialism in order to grow its profits — scholars try to avoid motivation and present purely statutory analyses, so as to be inoffensive to extremely wealthy people, who might have non-statutory motives and who heavily endow scholarly institutions in order to have control over the careers of their relevant ‘experts’.)
So, first: here will be statements by Soros, in which he defends his view; and then will be statements by the two scholarly studies finding that Soros’s view is actually just a veiled support for might-makes-right international imperialism — grabbing of one country by other countries. Then, the original systematic statement of the modern imperialist view will be presented, from Rhodes himself, along with sympathetic interpretation of it by Rhodes’s transcriber and close personal friend, W.T. Stead. And, to close here, will be presented the cardinal issue alleged to be the basis for most of the economic sanctions against Russia and for virtually all of NATO’s war games in preparation for a possible ‘defensive’ invasion of Russia: Russia’s reintegrating the briefly Ukrainian land Crimea back into Russia. The West calls that a ‘seizure’ and an ‘invasion,’ and Russia calls it not anything like that, and not even a topic that’s relevant in international law, but purely a matter that the residents of Crimea have the right to decide, on their own — relevant only to law within nations not between nations. So, that issue will be included as a practical application of this basic ideological difference regarding the good or evil of imperialism. Closing this cardinal issue will be Mr. Soros’s personal funding and propagandizing for this coup that he had helped to fund in Ukraine.
Then a PS will be added at the very end, to indicate the deep historical roots that Putin’s rejection of the acceptability of empire has, going back at least as far as the Russia of 1948, when Albert Einstein — a champion of world government as being the only means to avoid a third world war — debated (but not really) against that view, in the February 1948 issue of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. (He debated there not as a conservative, such as Rhodes; nor as a liberal, such as Soros; but as a progressive, whose overriding concern was to prevent a World War III, and whose aim was to disarm all nations and to have all military armaments transferred to a democratic global government.)
George Soros, 2003 The Bubble of American Supremacy.
p. 100: “Sovereignty is a historic[al] concept born of an era when society consisted of rulers and subjects, not citizens. It became the cornerstone of international relations with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, after thirty years of religious wars.”
p. 101: “Anachronistic or not, sovereignty remains the basis of the current international order.”
p. 102: “The principle of sovereignty needs to be reconsidered. Sovereignty belongs to the people: the people are supposed to delegate it to the government through the electoral process. But not all governments are democratically elected and even democratic governments may abuse the authority thus entrusted to them. If the abuses of power are severe enough and the people are deprived of opportunities to correct them, outside interference is justified. International intervention is often the only lifeline available to the oppressed.”
p. 112: “I have no right to call the promotion of open societies the Soros Doctrine. The idea was endorsed in a little-known document, the Warsaw Declaration. [“The Warsaw Declaration Toward a Community of Democracies”, 27 June 2000, listing 16 human “rights” and the obligations of governments to fill them] This document proclaimed that it is in the interest of all democratic countries taken as a group to foster the development of democracy in all other countries. The declaration was signed by 107 states (a greater number than the number of democracies in the world), including the United States, at a conference held in Warsaw in 2000. The conference was sponsored by Madeleine Albright’s State Department.”
p. 118: “The Community of Democracies established by the Warsaw Declaration in 2000 could offer a source of legitimacy for intervening in the internal affairs of nondemocratic states.”
p. 146: “There is another major area where the principle of the people’s sovereignty has important implications: revenues from the exploitation of natural resources. … The natural resources of a country ought to belong to the people, but the rulers often exploit the resources for their own personal benefit. This violates the sovereignty of the people and calls for external intervention.”
p. 167: “To regain the identity it enjoyed during the Cold War, the United States ought to become the leader of a community of democracies and change its behavior accordingly. It ought to lead by building genuine partnerships and abiding by the rules that it seeks to impose on others. Since peaceful cooperative efforts do not necessarily succeed, the United States would still need to retain its military might, but this strength would serve to protect a just world order and would be seen as such by the rest of the world. This vision goes against the grain of the Bush administration’s ideology, which I have described as a crude form of social Darwinism: the survival of the fittest as determined by competition, not cooperation.”
The People’s Sovereignty
How a new twist on an old idea can protect the world’s most vulnerable populations.
BY GEORGE SOROS | OCTOBER 28, 2009, 6:33 PM
Sovereignty is an anachronistic concept originating in bygone times when society consisted of rulers and subjects, not citizens. It became the cornerstone of international relations with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. During the French Revolution, the king was overthrown and the people assumed sovereignty. But a nationalist concept of sovereignty soon superseded the dynastic version. Today, though not all nation-states are democratically accountable to their citizens, the principle of sovereignty stands in the way of outside intervention in the internal affairs of nation-states.
But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments. If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens. In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.
… the rulers of a sovereign state have a responsibility to protect the state’s citizens. When they fail to do so, the responsibility is transferred to the international community. Global attention is often the only lifeline available to the oppressed.
NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COMMERCIAL REGULATION
Volume 40, Number 1 (Fall 2014)
“No Responsibility for the Responsibility to Protect: How Powerful States Abuse the Doctrine, and Why Misuse Will Lead to Disuse”
… the decision whether or not to intervene and the way in which intervention itself is carried out do not truly turn on humanitarian concerns, but rather are guided by strategic and economic interests. While the doctrine does not preclude weighing of strategic and economic interests,12 it does require that the primary purpose of intervention be to end human suffering.1 …
The inconsistent application of responsibility-to-protect principles in the thirteen years since its inception shows that responsibility-to-protect intervention does not, in fact, turn on humanitarian principles, but on some combination of power dynamics, political strategy, and economic gain.
In the past, the doctrine has been abused and misapplied.354 Unjustified attacks have been launched in violation of the U.N. Charter; interventions justified by the responsibility to protect at the outset have been executed in violation of the principles underlying the doctrine; and situations warranting international action have been ignored due to the economic and strategic interests of states with the power to prevent intervention.355
TEMPLE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL
Volume 26, Number 2 (Fall 2012)
“Responsibility to Protect: Moral Triumph or Gateway to Allowing Powerful States to Invade Weaker States in Violation of the U.N. Charter?”
[In 2011,] NATO forces helped the rebel Libyan army overthrow Colonel Muammar Gadhafi’s regime.13 This Note will argue that, as shown by the intervention in Libya, the standard that the [U.N.] General Assembly created to determine when humanitarian interventions are authorized is too flexible, allowing states to invade sovereign nations under the pretext that the invasion is a humanitarian intervention.
THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF CECIL JOHN RHODES WITH ELUCIDATORY NOTES TO WHICH ARE ADDED SOME CHAPTERS DESCRIBING THE POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF THE TESTATOR, Edited by W.T. Stead, 1902
p. 52: Mr. Rhodes’s last Will and Testament reveals him to the world as the first distinguished British statesman whose Imperialism was that of Race and not that of Empire. The one specific object defined in the Will as that to which his wealth is to be applied proclaims with the simple eloquence of a deed that Mr. Rhodes was colour-blind between the British Empire and the American Republic. His fatherland, like that of the poet Arndt, is coterminous with the use of the tongue of his native land. In his Will he aimed at making Oxford University the educational centre of the English-speaking race. He did this of set purpose, and in providing the funds necessary for the achievement of this great idea he specifically prescribed that every American State and Territory shall share with the British Colonies in his patriotic benefaction. Once every year “Founder’s Day” will be celebrated at Oxford; and not at Oxford only, but wherever on the broad world’s surface half-a-dozen old “Rhodes scholars” come together they will celebrate the great ideal of Cecil Rhodes the first of modern statesmen to grasp the sublime conception of the essential unity of the race. Thirty years hereafter there will be between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each one of whom will have had impressed upon his mind in the most susceptible period of his life the dream of the Founder. It is, therefore, well to put on record in accessible form all available evidence as to the nature of his dream. What manner of man was this Cecil Rhodes.
p. 59 [“His Writings” at around 1877] “I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this, the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars. … [He then discusses his main goals:] The furtherance of the British Empire, for the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. What a dream! but yet it is probable. It is possible. … I once heard it argued, so low have we fallen in my own college [Oxford], I am sorry to own it, by Englishmen, that it was a good thing for us that we have lost the United States. There are some subjects on which there can be no argument, and to an Englishman this is one of them. But even from an American’s point of view just picture what they have lost. All this we have lost and that country has lost owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant, pigheaded statesmen in the last century [1700s]. At their door is the blame. Do you ever feel mad, do you ever feel murderous? I think I do with these men [supporters of the U.S. Constitution].”
pp. 73-74 [“His Writings” date unclear] “What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity! We could hold your federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object. There is Hirsch with twenty millions, very soon to cross the unknown border, and struggling in the dark to know what to do with his money; and so one might go on ad infinitum … a scheme to take the government of the whole world!”
pp. 147-149 [“Political and Religious Ideas” dated 1884] “The proposed settlement of Bechuanaland is based on the exclusion of colonists of Dutch descent. I raise my voice in most solemn protest against such a course, and it is the duty of every Englishman in the House to record his solemn protest against it. In conclusion, I wish to say that the breach of solemn pledges and the introduction of race distinctions must result in bringing calamity on this country; and if such a policy is pursued it will endanger the whole of our social relationships with colonists of Dutch descent, and endanger the supremacy of Her Majesty in this country. … I have made up my mind that there must be class legislation, that there must be Pass Laws and Peace Preservation Acts, and that we have got to treat natives, where they are in a state of barbarism, in a different way to ourselves. We are to be lords over them. These are my politics on native affairs, and these are the politics of South Africa. Treat the natives as a subject people as long as they continue in a state of barbarism and communal tenure; be the lords over them, and let them be a subject race and keep the liquor from them.”
p. 114 — Stead, the friend of Rhodes, sums up Rhodes’s view as: “To be a Rhodesian, then, of the true stamp, you must be a Home Ruler [a proponent of federated republic, like in the U.S.] and something more. You must be an Imperialist, not from mere lust of dominion or pride of race, but because you believe the Empire is the best available instrument for diffusing the principles of Justice, Liberty, and Peace throughout the world. Whenever Imperialism involves the perpetration of Injustice, the suppression of Freedom, and the waging of wars other than those of self-defence, the true Rhodesian must cease to be an Imperialist [must cease fighting for more land, and instead fight only for principles]. But a Home Ruler and Federalist, according to the principles of the American Constitution, he can never cease to be [Stead accepted the republicanism of the U.S. Constitution, though his hero had condemned America’s Founders], for Home Rule is a fundamental principle, whereas the maintenance and extension of the Empire are only means to an end, and may be changed, as Mr. Rhodes was willing to change them. If, for instance, the realisation of the greater ideal of Race Unity could only be brought about by merging the British Empire in the American Republic, Mr. Rhodes was prepared to advocate that radical measure. The question that now arises is whether in the Englishs-speaking world there are to be found men of faith adequate to furnish forth materials for the Society of which Mr. Rhodes dreamed: ‘Still through our paltry stir and strife Glows down the wished Ideal. And Longing moulds in clay what Life Carves in the marble Real.’ We have the clay mould of Mr. Rhodes’s longed-for Society. Have we got the stuff, in the Empire and the Republic, to carve it in marble?”
UKRAINE & CRIMEA
“Crimea Crisis before International Law”
Riccardo Murgia, Università degli Studi di Cagliari
… The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a conflict between two of the most important principles of International Law: the principle of self-determination statuted by Article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter, which can bring justification to the Russian actions, and the principle of respecting each state’s territorial integrity and political independence, statuted by Article 2, paragraph 4 of the same charter.
A precedent for Russia’s actions in Crimea can be found in relation with NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1998.
[His study doesn’t mention the coup, which preceded the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. Nor its illegality — the fact that Obama had seized Ukraine via a bloody and thoroughly illegal coup, and that this seizure sparked Crimea’s breaking away from Ukraine and seeking Russia’s protection. Also, Murgia’s study fails to note here that by saying “A precedent for Russia’s actions in Crimea can be found in relation with NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1998” Murgia is validating Putin’s repeated assertions that this “precedent” was introduced by the U.S. itself, and was accepted by the Court, and is now being disowned by the U.S. in order for the U.S. to be able to argue that ‘Putin seized Crimea’ and that therefore the U.S.-imposed sanctions and NATO buildup are somehow justified, instead of being simply aggressive acts against Russia.]
International Law 341
“Research Thesis: Validity of the Russian Annexation of Crimea in terms of International Law”
JJ Arries [student at Stellenbosch University School of Law]
The second ground on which Ukraine’s argument is flawed relating to the validity of the referendum is that in terms of international law, and as far as it is concerned, no prohibitions exists on unilateral declarations of independence by sub-divisions of a state, and this position is supported by the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the matter Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008. The Russian President quoted submissions made by the United States to the ICJ, that repeat their position, “declarations of independence may and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.”
Given the arguments made by both parties to the matter, it is clear that in some aspects, Russia did violate international law with regards to the annexation of the Crimean territory. Their arguments on the use of force do not fall in line with the international standards, and thus are invalid. They are however correct in quoting precedents, such as the Kosovo independence matter, as grounds for acting in defence of minorities. The validity of the referendum may be invalid in terms of the domestic law in Ukraine; however, in terms of international law, no prohibition currently exists with regards to declaration of independence by sub-divisions of a state.
“Written Statement of the United States of America”
[argues that international law does not pertain to revolutions or to declarations of independence, but that all acts forming new nations, including breaking away from any existing nation, are purely internal matters pertaining to the people who live there, nobody else’s business]
United States Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 www.state.gov April 17, 2009 Pursuant to the Court’s Order of 17 October 2008, I have the honor to enclose thirty copies of the Written Statement of the United States of America concerning the request of the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion on the question of the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo. I have also enclosed a diskette containing the text of the Statement. Accept, sir, the assurances of my highest consideration. Joan E. Donoghue [“an American jurist, and a Judge on the International Court of Justice. She was elected to that post in 2010 and re-elected in 2014.”], Acting Legal Adviser. Enclosures: As stated Mr. Philippe Couvreur, Registrar, International Court of Justice, Peace Palace, The Hague
“Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo” …
Statement of the United States of America  April 2009 …
Section I. International Law Does Not As A General Matter Regulate Declarations Of Independence
lt is widely accepted that declarations of independence, standing alone, present matters of fact, which are neither authorized nor prohibited by international law.202 Neither the United Nations Charter, nor other general international afeements, nor customary international law regulate the act of declaring independence. 20 The fact that international law does not address declarations of independence is not surprising. As a general rule, international law governs the relations between States, not the conduct of entities within States.204 There are certain exceptions, such as those found in international humanitarian law,205 but declarations of independence do not by themselves fall into these exceptions. “Events leading to the creation of a new State generally entail matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a State.”206 [not matters within the jurisdiction of international law]
It is certainly the case that declarations of independence may — and in their nature often do — violate domestic law. However, that does not mean that there has been a violation of international law.207 As Oppenheim has observed in the context of rebellion: “Although a rebellion will involve a breach of the law of the state concerned, no breach of international law occurs through the mere fact of a rebel regime attempting to overthrow the govemment of the state or to secede from the state.”208 Thus, it is widely accepted that, from the standpoint of international law, the process of State formation presents a matter of fact.209 A declaration of independence is an expression of a will or desire by an entity to be accepted as a State by the members of the international community. There may be other events associated with a particular declaration of independence that can be regulated by international law, but as one commentator has remarked:
[T]he State in the contemplation of international law is not a mere legal or ‘juristic’ person (personne morale), whose process of coming into being is prescribed by law. lt is rather a ‘primary fact’, i.e. a fact that precedes the law, and which the law acknowledges only once it has materialised, by attributing certain effects to it, including a certain legal status.210
In this case, the question before the Court is not whether any of these associated events — such as the subsequent recognitions of Kosovo’ s statehood by other States — are permissible under international law, but rather whether the declaration itself was consistent with international law. The fact that international law does not generally seek to regulate the act of declaring independence means that this declaration must be deemed to be in accordance with international law.211
George Soros helped to fund this coup in Ukraine, and afterward he propagandized for the U.S. and its allies to spend $50 billion more in order to help to defeat (and to kill as many as possible of) the residents in the portion of Ukraine where the Ukrainian President whom Obama overthrew had won 90% of the vote. This is how much Soros supports “the people’s sovereignty” and “human rights.” He wanted $50B more of Western taxpayers’ money spent on killing these people.
And that’s the difference of opinion, between Vladimir Putin and The West.
PS: The following excerpts, from Albert Einstein, present a very different position than either the imperialist one or the nationalist one — he clearly and passionately endorsed the formation of a democratic world government being formed whose legislature would be composed of representatives of equalitarian anti-elitist democratic national governments, and he failed to recognize how corrupt the aristocracies are in every country and how likely they would be to take control over any world government that might ultimately emerge:
“Looking Ahead with Albert Einstein”
The Rotarian, June 1948, pp. 8-10
“What urgent message have you for The Rotarian’s world-wide audience of business and professional men?”
That question was put to Dr. Einstein. It resulted, at his suggestion, in these excerpts from his public statements, and a direct answer in a summarizing query. …
“Security Demands Sacrifice”
29 May 1945
A world government must be created which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. This government must be based on a clear-cut constitution which is approved by the governments and the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it is ready to cede its military force to the international authorities and to renounce every attempt or even means of achieving its interests abroad by the use of force.
“U.S.S.R. and U.S.A.”
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [no date, but actually February 1948], responding to Soviet scientists [the entire exchange being on pp. 34-38 in that month’s issue, and later on pp. 134-146 of Ideas and Opinions:]
You are such passionate opponents of anarchy in the economic sphere, and yet equally passionate advocates of anarchy — e.g., unlimited [national] sovereignty — in the sphere of international politics. The proposition to curtail the sovereignty of individual States appears to you in itself reprehensible, as a kind of violation of a natural right. In addition, you try to prove that behind the idea of curtailing sovereignty the United States is hiding her intention of economic domination and exploitation of the rest of the world without going to war. … [Omitted here, but included in the complete versions, was: ”If we hold fast to the concept and practice of unlimited sovereignty of nations, it only means that each country reserves the right for itself of pursuing its objectives through warlike means.” ]
I advocate world government because I am convinced that there is no other possible way of eliminating the most terrible danger. … The objective of avoiding total destruction must have priority over any other objective.
“A Question and an Answer”
[June 1948, here, Einstein’s direct answer to the Rotarians]
The longer we continue to march ahead on this fateful road, the more difficult it will be to leave it. … Each day’s postponement diminishes the probability that the patient will come out alive.
“Albert Einstein, Citizen, Princeton, New Jersey”
Recently he was asked what weapons would be used in a third world war. Dr. Einstein’s reply was characteristic: “I don’t know. But I can tell you what they will use in the fourth. They’ll use rocks!”
Whereas it seems to me that Einstein sincerely supported democracy and opposed any dictatorship by the aristocracy or by any other entity, I have the impression that Rhodes sincerely supported dictatorship by a racist aristocracy (this being an extremely conservative government), and that Soros deceitfully supports whatever he thinks will most efficiently serve the interests of America’s aristocracy (against other aristocracies, and against all publics) (and his view represents traditional liberalism).
Vladimir Putin has not yet made clear precisely where he stands on this entire matter, other than via his actions and decisions in public office (plus a few side-comments he has made). Perhaps he thinks that he has made himself clear to everyone by his actions and decisions. And his underlying presumption, that actions and decisions can be trusted far more than any mere words can, makes sense. However, I think that the time has now come when he needs to state publicly, how he views things, explaining that the basic difference is between himself and The West (both Rhodes’s conservative The West, and Soros’s liberal The West), and also regarding Einstein’s advocacy for a global and all-encompassing democratic world government, to be comprised of representatives from all national governments. Perhaps Putin thinks that the latter is impossible; if so, he should explain his position on it, and on the possibility that (and means by which) the U.N. might evolve into that. It needs to enter the public discussion.
My personal view of the matter has been set forth in two articles, which complement (not compliment) one-another: “Liberals Don’t Respect a Nation’s Sovereignty” (which argues that the basic difference between liberals and progressives is that only progressives respect a nation’s sovereignty), and “The Two Contending Visions of World Government” (which argues that the vision of world government that FDR intended, became defeated at the first meeting of the Bilderbergs in 1954, because they were all closeted fascists and controlled NATO). The date when the U.S. Government secretly instructed its allies that the goal going forward would be to conquer Russia, was 24 February 1990, and this plan is now at an advanced stage. All of this would have shocked and demoralized Albert Einstein. He was not a liberal; he was a progressive, but he — like millions of other American progressives — was fooled by closeted fascists, such as the CIA. The issue, in his view, wasn’t isolationism versus internationalism; it was fascism versus progressivism; and fascism (including both the conservative and the liberal sorts) has definitely been winning.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
“That’s the basic difference between their views — Putin asserting no foreigner has any right to invade, versus Soros asserting that “the international community” has an obligation to invade (to protect “the people’s sovereignty” there)…… At least two separate academic studies have been done of what Soros’s proposal comes down to in actual practice; and both conclude that what it does in actual practice is to polarize and maybe ultimately destroy (make irrelevant) the U.N., and to enhance international imperialism.”
Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace” (1795), reached the same conclusion from rational (basically, Christian) ethics: we ought to respect the autonomy of every individual person, and treat every sovereign state as though it were an individual person; otherwise, the only perpetual peace we can look forward to will be the peace of the cemetery. But, in our empirical age, I suppose people must needs go out and experimentally test the result of transgressing the UN principle of sovereignty by invading country after country under dubious and freshly cooked-up Liberal Interventions and Rights to Protect, then holding a couple of Academic Studies to assess the ensuing death, destruction, loss, confusion and insecurity.
The type that Soros represents, the Western civilizational supremacist, being xenophobic, racist and culturally contemptuous, regard all other civilizations and cultures as inferior and only fit to be ‘civilised’ by the superior Western type. Even great and ancient civilizations like China and India are regarded with undisguised disdain. Here in Austfailure at present we are in a newly vicious phase of a Sinophobic hate-campaign directed at China, that the USA ordered of its stooges after Obama outlined his ‘pivot to Asia’ ie war-plans, in 2011. The entire political and fakestream media menageries are united, as ever, in 100% Groupthink abusing China, often, increasingly often, in undisguised racist terms. This for a country that has done us no harm, offered friendship, sends us tens of thousands of students and over one million tourists per year, and helped finance research at our otherwise cash-strapped universities, research that the racist bully-boys are demanding must cease. And not just the Chinese state, but the long-established Chinese community, many anti-Communists, are also being slandered as potential Fifth Columnists, by filthy racists whose swinish abuse draws not a word of protest or dissent. It is the Free World, and we all think alike, after all.
Great essay and argument. Many Thanks!
Brother Vlad strikes me as a very sensible, morally straight, cop/boy scout who is if not entirely non-delusional, then about as close to non-delusional as a man may reasonably be.
It also seems to me that in order to do his duty to Russia, he will be obliged to try to help salvage as much of Murka as possible from the present zuswang-like condition, as did Czar Nick in 1860-65 episode of Brit intrigues, which are controlling. Not a matter of will, but of logic and necessity… I do not know how that’s going to go…. a delicate matter, eh?
I am going to dig deeply into the implications of the posted paper. It will be fun!
The thing about Putin is that, while he is not necessarily a pro-American traitor… I mean Atlantic Integrationist, he is not really a Eurasian Sovereigntist either.
Putin’s game is to manage and play off both groups.
Here is an interesting take on Putin from John Helmer. The immediate concern is the Putin-Trump summit, but the more important issue is that Eurasian sovereigntists in Russia don’t quite trust Putin and indeed are wary that he will make some sell-out concessions to the Americans that might prove disastrous:
“During the Kremlin meeting last week between Putin and Trump’s national security advisor, John Bolton, one clue was visible. This was the appearance of the Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu on the Russian side of table, alongside the president’s foreign affairs advisor Yury Ushakov and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Shoigu wasn’t matched by a military officer or Pentagon counterpart on the American side of the table. So Shoigu wasn’t present to speak. He was there to listen, and to report to the General Staff what the US side is proposing – and not less significant, what Putin had to say. Shoigu’s presence was a signal that on the Russian side, the military do not quite trust the president — their own, not the other one.
The problem for the Russian military is that they believe US military undertakings at the field level, and at the political level, cannot be trusted. Consequently, they doubt Trump or his White House staff can command, even if they wish to control, the operations in Syria of the CIA or the Israelis. In such a situation, Shoigu’s post at the meeting with Bolton was to ensure that Putin left no opening for a US offer that may lead to Russian casualties in the field.”
THE SALE OF ANOTHER CENTURY – THE PUTIN-TRUMP SUMMIT
Helmer is an idiot if thinks there is a sliver of daylight between Shoigu and Putin and Putin and the Military.
Throughout his Presidency, from Chechnya onward, for two decades, there isn’t a hint of separation.
To posit this crapola of Shoigu being there as a “keeper” in behalf of a different point of view would be the end of Putin’s power. Expect removal shortly.
Total amateurish stuff from Helmer.
There was a signal by Shoigu’s presence. It was a signal to the US that the Russian politicians and military were together. There may also be a secondary issue, possibly the grooming of SHoigu as Putin’s successor.
Helmer sometimes let his personal animus get in the way. This applies to Peskov particularly. Helmer seems to regard him as a Rasputin figure, secretly controlling Putin.
This borders on paranoid. If I have a specialist with me to evaluate an offer it doesn’t mean that I would intentionally (removed language,MOD) over myself in the deal, it just means I want the best person possible to help me make a beneficial deal.
Why do people like you immediately come to these kinds of conclusions? Does Putin have to be a specialist in every single field? Or should the specialists in his government be fools and just let him decide whatever enters his mind first without consultation?
What exactly is wrong about having Shoigu present?
“The immediate concern is the Putin-Trump summit, but the more important issue is that Eurasian sovereigntists in Russia don’t quite trust Putin and indeed are wary that he will make some sell-out concessions to the Americans that might prove disastrous:”
“Shoigu’s presence was a signal that on the Russian side, the military do not quite trust the president — their own, not the other one.” “What exactly is wrong about having Shoigu present?”
You tell me why you make a statement regarding ‘trust’ and when called on it you try to change the direction of your statement by asking a question. Where do you anonymous posters get this foolishness? Have you ever heard of President Putin making a sell-out concession to anyone? And the military not trusting President Putin? Get real.
Never The Last One https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK A Deep Look In To Russia, Her Culture And Her Armed Forces
An Incident On Simonka https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ERKH3IU NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.
There’s a misunderstanding here, I’m not the same guy who made the first paranoid comment, I’ve been criticising him.
Auslander, isn’t it normal for military generals to mistrust those in political office? I frequently read commentary that talks of (rumors) disagreements between military leaders and the political representatives, including with the Russian troops in Syria.
Anonymous 1:13 EST/EDT
No. An army that has lost faith in it’s political leadership will not fight for the country and will disintegrate. I see zero signs of this in the Russian Army, Navy and VDV, and I see both almost daily.
The pride in our units is the likes of which I’ve never seen, they trust the troika that runs this country. Do they trust the underlings in the political establishment? In general, yes, but this is not groveling subservience for either the troika or the underlings, today’s soldiers are not stupid nor are they uneducated, and they fully understand that not all politicians are good, just like not all politicians are evil. They are motivated by patriotism for The Motherland and they completely understand that it was and is the Troika that makes Russia what she is today, ergo makes their lives and the lives of their friends and families what they are today.
Never The Last One https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK A Deep Look In To Russia, Her Culture And Her Armed Forces
An Incident On Simonka https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ERKH3IU NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.
I stopped reading when I saw Helmer’s name.
To be honest, I don’t know who he is. Just that the propagandists love to cite him. And, for someone in the West, that’s a familar story. Some nobody comes along and his highly hyped by all the propagandists.
In this case, apparently Putin is being slagged for daring to have an advisor smarter than John Bolton attend a meeting. OMG!
Extensive interview with Shoigu…good to hear from him
Agreed completely with the assessment of J.Helmer. Actually to think otherwise is quite naive and foolish IMO. There are other interesting articles of J.Helmer highlighting the intricate oligarchic power structure of the Russian State. Putin has always been close to oligarchic power circles and he owes his long term staying in power obviously to this fact. He is not at all an Eurasian Sovereignist but quite on contrary more likely a pragmatic opportunist. All his actions so far prove this fact abundantly IMO. Euroasian Integration is led by Russia and China is a pipe dream and rather a smokescreen perception management. There is only one real super power for the Euroasian project which is China (SCO, OBOR, China Development Bank). Russia seems to be just a useful tool in the hands of the western elites.
Respect for sovereignty should be regarded as the highest value of international politics.Imperialism and interventions lead to complete lawlessness and chaos, not just on a national scale but on a international scale.Of course Western Imperialist are quite happy with everywhere other than where they live being lawless and chaotic.
Let me provide a more accurate headline:
Vladimir Putin’s basic disagreement with Leftist Globalism
The author correctly identifies the anti-Christian, Soros backed, Globalists are in opposition to Putin. Where the author misses the mark is that Globalists are a threat to both the Christian “West” including the U.S. and the Christian “East” including Russia.
Trump’s America, Putin’s Russia, Orban’s Hungary, and other sovereign states in similar circumstances are all Christian nations that could become allies against anti-Christian forces that dominate far too much of the world.
Post WW II thinking about “West vs. East” is no longer relevant. Today’s global divide that separates the world into polar camps is Christians vs. anti-Christians.
Well, he is analysing Putins disagreements with Western liberalism, he is not analysing the damage the Western elite does to it’s own people. (which today probably everyone, even people in remote places like Afghanistan recognise)
Should Russia intervene in the US like a colonialist in order to supposedly save US citizens?
It can hardly be moral to do this. And there is no chance that Russia will ever do this, at least they never did so in the past.
Russia will help for example Syrians who are invaded by foreigners (as far as it is possible with their resources) but who is invading the US or the West without explicit invitation by the Western elites or what foreign power is imposing their will on their people?
People from the West will have to deal with their leadership themselves like everyone else had to do in the past when things went very wrong.
If you start wars (or otherwise interfere internally) to change the internal order of a sovereign nation for any other reason than to stop foreign aggressors then you are doing exactly the same thing the US/West/Israel is doing.
I bet people like Soros genuinely believe what they are doing is for the benefit of their societies, so does Putin.
My choice here would be obviously Putin but who is he to say that the US cannot remodel their internal order according to the ideology of Soros and vice versa?
The West tries to do this but it will fail anyway because their ideology is not based in reality. The question is only how much suffering they will produce internally before people will put an end to it.
I’m not saying though that we shouldn’t help individually where it is legal, possible and necessary, whether it is Christians helping other Christians or Muslims doing the same.
We absolutely should do this.
I still think a member of the Adams family got it right once upon a time.
“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
— speech by John Quincy Adams, then Speaker of the US House of Representatives, future President of the United states, given on July 4, 1821 http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-independence-day/
WOW! I hadn’t know of that one! Terrific find! THANKS!
Brilliant oratory, but many of the Founding Fathers, the richest men in the thirteen colonies and great advocates of eliminating the Indigenous, openly spoke of the USA becoming a ‘New Rome’. That ambition was pretty plain by the time of the Monroe Doctrine in the 1820s, and has only ever grown more determined, brutal and destructive ever since.
The Soros type of globalists are ‘Left’ only in the debased usage of the monocultural West, where all acceptable politics are Rightist, pro-capitalist and Western Imperialist. The Identity Politics utilised by the Sorosians is solely a smoke-screen to promote Divide and Rule policies to set the populace against each other, the easier for the ruling parasites to rip everybody else off.
Christians vs. anti-Christians? Mod: Insult deleted. Christians have a wide range of social and political views. The Anglican church or Canada’s United Church have very different positions from American Baptists and similar US-style fundamentalists; the Catholic church is schizophrenic internally, with Catholic movements that range from fascist to socialist; The Saker would certainly want to say that Orthodoxy is quite politically different from all of the above.
Putin’s Disagreement with the West.
The West says “Kneel Slave.”
Putin says “No.”
Best synopsis of an article I’ve ever seen. Well done, and how true.
The basic disagreement about Crimea is: who is going to control it – Russians or Americans? The rest is a theory.
Few things have only one cause – life is usually a little more complex.
Whilst I dont’ disagree with Mr. Zuesse here, there is another major contributor to this issue: that there are, in fact, two major differences that President Putin has with the AngloSaxon Fascist Empire rulers, in addition to the one discussed above. This is that, from comments made over and over down the years, that President Putin has an absolute adherence to the primacy of the Rule of Law.
He has said, one thing absolutely pertains; that “The Law is the Law”. If there is a bad law, change that law. He is not only part of a Law making system, but a trained Lawyer. He is clearly aware of the value of a system of Laws to which everybody subscribes and abides by.
One of his oft repeated statements of American sanctions is that they break the laws of the WTO to which all the members have signed agreement. He has also repeated often regarding his presidency; that the Constitution of Russia [i.e. the over-riding group of laws by which Russia is governed] only allows for 2 consecutive terms of office, and he has no intention of breaking that law. He has cited International Law over and over in re Crimea and Independence.
The thing is, this is the prime disagreement, actually; it is his absolute belief in primacy of Law, because if America subscribed to that requirement for ALL people, Everybody, Everywhere, then they could entertain themselves with any other beliefs they wanted. They could believe that they have the Soros “right of the community to invade a sovereign state to protect it’s inhabitants” and they could either believe this truly as an ideology, or as we have no doubt, Mr Soros does, as a useful excuse and clever manipulation of words and concepts just to prevent opposition to their Fascist land grabs.
They could talk of it, believe in it, but do nothing about it, because there are international laws forbidding it. Did their subservience to International Law come first, as it should, then their beliefs would mean nothing – Law would protect innocent unarmed countries from Empire invasions.
What is prime, is that these people reject they need to obey any Law,.
They think they are above the Law, when these days, it is generally accepted that even Kings are subject to law: no-one is “above the Law”
It’s a group think common to the AngloSaxons of a certain mind-set, for they also believe they are above the reality based requirement for evidence; thus they accept and promote an unprovable and unproven philosophic non-science such as Darwins’ Natural Selection ” it’s so because I like the sound of it, it’s useful, and I say it’s so. Who needs evidence”.
This is why the UK outrage of accusing and punishing Russia without a scrap of evidence comes naturally to them. They’ve been doing this in many fields for years – decades, generations – and have the concept ground into them: that they are “above the Law; above the need for evidence, proof. Their word and desires are enough”.
Did they not hold this deep down conviction, they would never have invaded and destroyed – because there are Laws which forbid it.
The ‘open society’ that Soros and his tribal and economic class colleagues desire is one ‘open’ for financialised looting. Once a country has undergone the, often forced, transition to a neo-liberal, Free Market, oligarchy with an ‘independent’ Central Bank staffed by Goldman Sachs alumni, the economy is in their hands, and those of their foreign fellows, and local political stooges. Then the pillage can commence, education, health, transport, power etc be privatised for looting and malign neglect, and austerity imposed, forever, on the ‘useless eaters’ that Soros and his ilk so utterly despise. And thus money will flow from the country, the economy will be taken over by foreigners and local compradores, the environment trashed to the point of irreversible (for centuries) devastation, and any resistance will be crushed by police forces armed by the USA and trained in Israel. Mass surveillance will grow, and, no doubt, if required, those favourite institutions of ‘Free World’ oligarchies, the death-squads, will liquidate trouble-makers. And the reptilian Soros and his peers, insatiable in their greed and egomania, will pile up ever greater fortunes.
Yes, this is an accurate description of what Soros’ “open society” means in practice. Putin is well aware of it.
Soros’ vision does not apply to Israel. He is more than happy for it to expand its borders as it wishes.
Just as Ukraine sought independence from the USSR in 1991, the Crimeans sought independence from Ukraine. The Ukraine regime rejected that even then.
Agree with Putin’s view of things.
Globalists must be smashed, especially Soros.
They are like leaches.
And I think most people in every country would support him.
Go for it Vladimir & team !
cecil rhodes might have promoted the british empire but he was a rothschild boy. lord nathan rothschild was the first trustee of the rhodes scholarship.
i guess the british empire was actually the rothschild empire.
britain got shares in the east india company for (among other things) supplying it prestige and its people as cannon fodder. then it became the british east india company.
a few other institutions like the round table followed the establishment of the scholarship.
only people who can go along with global empire get selected. its also why it is open to the world, to get lunatics who like that idea further brainwashed and give them the prestige to climb up on top of the people in their own countries.
rhodesia was basically self governing. when britain decide to end white rule the rhodesians rightly said no. black africans couldnt and still cant manage business or govt to the standard of europeans. look at every country in africa not just zimbabwe….. rhodesia used to be referred to as the bread basket of africa. now it relies on aid and there are over a million unwanted refugees in south africa.
also note ian smith also ran a farm which contributed to rhodesia while mugabe had palaces around the world and siphoned wealth from rhodesia. that is africa and for anyone who wants to reference nelson mandela. he could have been released from jail any time if he renounced violence but he wouldnt. his wife and her football team thugs were very nice people. rip stompy.