in

The Lying Propaganda-Phrase “Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine”

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

Eric Zuesse

Here is why Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 was actually legal under international law:

No one maintains that U.S. President John F. Kennedy lacked international legal authorization to invade the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union were to place American nuclear-warheaded missiles in Cuba 1,131 miles from Washington DC. Everyone recognized that if the Soviet Union and Cuba were to do that, it would constitute an act of aggression against the United States, because those missiles would be so close to America’s command-center in DC as to enable a blitz nuclear attack by the Soviet Union so fast as to possibly prohibit America’s strategic command to recognize the attack in time to launch its own, retaliatory, missiles.

This is the principle, that any major world power possesses the national self-defense right to prohibit any bordering nation from allowing weaponry and forces of a major world power that is hostile to this major world power to be placed in that bordering nation.

Whereas Cuba is 1,131 miles away from DC, Ukraine is only 300 miles away from The Kremlin.

JFK demanded from both Cuba and the Soviet Union that there will NEVER be Soviet missiles placed in Cuba, and the Soviet Union then promised that they would comply with that national-security demand by the U.S.; thus, WW III was averted.

This time around, the aggressors were America and Ukraine; and Russia imposed the same demand as JFK did, but its enemies were/are determined and clear aggressor nations — refused to comply.

Why does ANYONE allege that allowing the United States to place its missiles only 300 miles (a 5-minute missile-flight away) from The Kremlin would not constitute aggression by the U.S. and Ukraine against Russia? Allowing Ukraine into NATO would grant the Governments of U.S. and Ukraine a right to place U.S. missiles 300 miles from The Kremlin — something that no rational Government of Russia would ever allow to happen.

The Cuban-Missile-Crisis precedent acknowledged that Russia now has a national-defense right to demand that Ukraine NEVER be allowed into NATO.

On 17 December 2021, Russia demanded from both the U.S. and its anti-Russian military alliance NATO, promises in writing that Ukraine WILL NOT BE ALLOWED INTO NATO. On 7 January 2022, America and its NATO aggression-alliance both said no.

That left Russia either to capitulate to America and its NATO, or else to invade Ukraine in order to prevent that aggressor — America — from doing essentially what JFK had gotten the Soviet Union to do: to agree to the defending major world power’s extremely reasonable (actually necessary) demand and so promise NEVER to allow Ukraine into NATO.

America (and its NATO) forced Russia to invade Ukraine, in order to prevent nuclear “Checkmate!” by the U.S. regime.

All of the U.S.-and-allied propaganda organs (including academic ones) that use the lying phrase “Russia’s illegal invasion of ukraine” must therefore be recognized as being the liars that they actually are. (Otherwise: they must declare JFK to have been violating international law by threatening Khrushchev with an American invasion if Soviet missiles would be placed in Cuba.)

What the Cuban-Missile-Crisis example displays is a more detailed statement of the Westphalian Principle or “Westphalian State System” as Oxford Reference defines that:

OVERVIEW

Westphalian state system

QUICK REFERENCE

Term used in international relations, supposedly arising from the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War. It is generally held to mean a system of states or international society comprising sovereign state entities possessing the monopoly of force within their mutually recognized territories. Relations between states are conducted by means of formal diplomatic ties between heads of state and governments, and international law consists of treaties made (and broken) by those sovereign entities. The term implies a separation of the domestic and international spheres, such that states may not legitimately intervene in the domestic affairs of another, whether in the pursuit of self‐interest or by appeal to a higher notion of sovereignty, be it religion, ideology, or other supranational ideal. In this sense the term differentiates the ‘modern’ state system from earlier models, such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire.

Richard Coggins

RTC

From:  Westphalian state system  in  The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics

That cites two “Empires” — Holy Roman, and Ottoman — but actually ALL empires violate Westphalianism. That includes today’s American empire.

During WW II, the advocates of Westphalianism were FDR and Stalin, and the opponents of Westphalianism were Churchill, Hirohito, Mussolini, and Hitler. Truman and his personal hero Eisenhower became FDR’s successors, and both of them were opponents iof Westphalianism. This was the reason why the Cold War started: both of the first two American Presidents after FDR were imperialists. They created today’s military-industrial-complex-controlled America, the international American dictatorship that now exists and which has replaced FDR’s democracy.

An interesting sidelight to this is that whereas Sunni Islam, and the passion that some of them have for establishing an international “Caliphate,” accept imperialism or even advocate it (as Caliphate-proponents do), Shiite Islam opposes imperialism, and this has been one of the major reasons why Shiite Iran is rejected by all imperialistic Governments. Here is how Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei phrased this in his 21 October 2006 “Leader’s Speech in Meeting with Soldiers and Commanders of the Sacred Defense Era”:

There are two major differences between a defensive and an offensive war in terms of meaning and content. One difference is that an offensive war is based on transgression and aggression, but this is not the case with a defensive war. The second difference is that a defensive war is a place where zeal, courage and deep loyalty to ideals emerge. These ideals may be related to one’s country or … one’s religion. …. This does not exist in an offensive war. For example, when America attacks Iraq, an American soldier cannot claim that he is doing it for the love of his country. What does Iraq have to do with his country? This war is at the service of other goals, but if an Iraqi person resists this military invasion and presence inside his country, this means showing resistance and defending one’s country, national identity and those values that one believes in. …

Since the day the regime of Saddam attacked Tehran and struck the airport until the day Imam (r.a.) accepted the resolution – was a glorious era. And it continued to be a glorious era until Saddam attacked again and our revolutionary and mujahid people took over the entire desert. Basiji youth from throughout the country participated in the war and they put in an astonishing performance. This time – the second time that Iraq had attacked – they managed to make it retreat.

Between 1953 and 1979, Iran had been part of (i.e., a vassal of) the then-growing American empire, and Khamenei in that speech made a principled repudiation of THAT America. But that America is now bipartisan in both of America’s political Parties, and is at war against the anti-imperialist nations of today, mainly Russia, China, and Iran — but also against any nation that is friendly toward any of those three. The anti-imperialist nations are pro-Westphalian; the imperialist nations are (and always have been) anti-Westphalian.

Today’s international law doesn’t mention the Westphalian Principle, because FDR had died and the U.N. (which he invented and named) became created in Truman’s image, not in FDR’s; and so it accepts imperialism (which FDR passionately despised and loathed). That’s part of the gutting of FDR’s envisioned U.N., which has resulted.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

13 Points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
penrose
penrose
November 23, 2022

I did not see any mention of the fact that before the Soviet Union tried to put missiles in Cuba, America put Jupiter missiles in Turkey which could hit Moscow, Did I miss something? That was the original provocation. And the quid pro quo was to remove the missiles from both Turkey and Cuba. This information is a critical part of the “Cuban Missile Crisis” which must be told in full. To summarize: America started it.

steve_brown
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
November 23, 2022

Ooooh…! well surely the Pharisees are a sore point for Eric

penrose
penrose
Reply to  steve_brown
November 23, 2022

Without a doubt. And the Sadducees probably would appreciate his precise logical relevance.

penrose
penrose
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
November 23, 2022

But it would in fact have built a stronger foundation for your case. John Kennedy did not violate international law even though the situation came about because America initiated “The closer the better” missile strategy. This makes your defense of Putin and the Russian Federation’s actions even better, since they did not start this game. Do you understand the logical relevance, Eric? Or is that too subtle for you? And since you are presenting your materials here, I don’t worry whether or not you “care about” me at all. As one person has remarked, if the msm is attacking you,… Read more »

Jarno P
Jarno P
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
November 23, 2022

“some billionaires are Jews. So what?–some are not” For some yet unknown reason this author is defending jews in every turn, and I have to ask WHY ? You seriously think these jews has nothing to do with what shit happen these days ? WEF KLAUS SCHWAB IS JEW – co-founder GEORGE SOROS IS JEW – finanzier HENRY KISSINGER IS JEW – co-founder Yuval Noah and “her husband” are JEWS – Schwab’s advisers “Who are the people behind the coronavirus vaccines?” Jew Rochelle Walensky CDC Director Jew Jeff Zients Pres. Biden’s COVID Czar Jew Tal Zaks Moderna Chief Medical Officer… Read more »

Dual-Citizens-in-Congress-Dual-cunts.jpg
Steve
Steve
Reply to  Jarno P
November 23, 2022

You wrote: “For some yet unknown reason this author is defending jews in every turn, and I have to ask WHY ?” I don’t know whether Eric Zuesse “is defending jews [sic] in every turn”, but I do know that some/certain people blame the Jews for much of what is wrong in the world. I also know that this has nothing to do with being a Jew. Assuming that it has would be tantamount to the asinine belief that Jews — all Jews, any Jew — are part of some secret conspiracy based on their Jewishness and bent on causing… Read more »

Jarno P
Jarno P
Reply to  Steve
November 23, 2022

I say “jew” because those Khazarians call themselves jews, which they ARE NOT. It’s just every time you use ‘Khazarian jews’, or ‘fake khazarian jews’ people without any knowledge start whining “conspiracy theorist”.

There’s max REAL Abrahamic bloodline ‘Israelis’ 2% of those who call themselves jews. Those others mentioned kill most of them during WWII.

Crypto Jews_Himmler_Hess_Mengele_Eichmann.jpg
Jarno P
Jarno P
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
November 23, 2022

With Mel Gibson’s words “I’m not apologizing to anyone. I’ll apologize when hell freezes over.

Steve
Steve
November 23, 2022

invade Ukraine in order to prevent that aggressor — America — from doing essentially what JFK had gotten the Soviet Union to do”
This says the opposite of the intended meaning, which was probably this:
“invade Ukraine in order to force that aggressor — America — to do essentially what JFK had gotten the Soviet Union to do”.
Apologies for the nitpicking.

Steve
Steve
November 23, 2022

The author writes: “Between 1953 and 1979, Iran had been part of (i.e., a vassal of) the then-growing American empire, and Khamenei in that speech made a principled repudiation of THAT America.” While what Khamenei said in his quoted speech about defensive and offensive war may sound like a “principled repudiation”, what he in fact did was state what the Koran says. More specifically, the Meccan (peaceful) verses of the Koran that allow Muslims to fight only if attacked. Examples (all quotes from “The Qur’an — English Meanings — English Revised and Edited by Saheeh International”): Koran 22:39. Permission [to… Read more »

Steve
Steve
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
November 26, 2022

Mr Zuesse,
I started this sidetrack (apologies), and I’d rather stop here than further extend it by going into the so-called “Abrahamic religions” you mentioned, especially since it has been explained by Robert Spencer. Searching for the exact phrase “Rabbi Schloss, Texas Taqiyya, and A Shabbat That’s Fairly Shalom” will take you to this explanation, including, as you wrote, “it incites bigotry. But so too do both the Old Testament and the New Testament“.
Based on personal experience, getting to know Islam is full of pitfalls.
Thank you for your thoughts.

Last edited 9 days ago by Steve
JerryBear
JerryBear
November 23, 2022

Very good article. Some extremely pertinent and useful facts and thoughts to remember when challenging the Russophobes on various forums – which I frequently do.

Russia Reports More Advances in Marinka and Vuhledar, Ukraine Struggles in Kherson; Europe Braces for Refugee Flood

Q & A: Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes’