This is why i love this community! A great quality resource, added to my reading list

deleted by creator

Upvoted :)

So yeah i totally agree with your angle here. So my reasoning to strictly adhering to international law is because, in a perfect world, a country which violates it is punished. And because the US commits the overwhelming majority of the war crimes, it would face the most sanctions under such a system. Feel free to let me know if you disagree, I am far from an expert on this conflict so I’m not gonna pretend to be :)

Upvoted :)

I get what you’re saying! My approach to this is to carefully craft the narrative so that it can not be used to excuse the war crimes committed by the West. So for example I think BRICS should unilaterally impose sanctions on the US for its war crimes, and I don’t think that should be illegal for this to happen. Even if it means once in a while the US can sanction and isolate itself more on the world stage, whatever.

So the reasoning is, if we say the sanctions on Russia are unilateral and therefore illegal, then wouldn’t we also have to concede that the US can commit a crime and not be subject to unilateral sanctions from China / Russia because the UNSC does not vote in favor of it (bc of US veto)? Adhering to this narrative also benefits in the long term, because the US commits many more crimes than Russia / China and therefore would be subject to the most sanctions under this reasoning.

What are your thoughts on this? Also a disclaimer but I do admit ignorance on the Russo Ukraine conflict so I’m not going to pretend to be an authority here.

(And yeah, sounds like the UN is compromised. I totally agree there.)

How sure are we that Russia’s SMO isn’t violating international law? This caught my eye, because this would be an chef’s kiss talking point against the Russophobic liberals if it were true, but unfortunately all the evidence I could find didn’t point in that direction.

A UN general assembly voted 141-5 (35 abstentions) to demand Russia withdraw all military forces. As well as the ICJ ordering Russia to “immediately suspend” military operations in Ukraine.

The lack of UN sanctions on Russia is because Russia has veto power in the UNSC and has exercised it, so theoretically any of the 5 permanent members can commit crimes without being sanctioned as long as they use their veto power. Note that while the general assembly has condemned it, their actions are generally not legally binding. A better example is the general assembly of US ongoing blockade of Cuba, but nothing happens because US veto power on the UNSC.

As for the unilateral sanctions, there is ongoing debate over whether those are illegal, with some bodies like the Hague claiming they are illegal, as they bypass the UNSC, but there’s obviously the issue of one of the UNSC members themselves committing the initial crime unilaterally and vetoing resulting sanctions.

All of this to say that NATO of course is the ultimate evil in this tragic scenario, but I don’t think you could objectively say that the Russian SMO is within international law, even if it’s hand was illegally forced by NATO. If the point can be argued, however, then I’d be very curious to learn! Because that would be an excellent talking point against Russophobic liberals. ___

Well in the First world, marxism can be argued to not be populism, but in the global south it definitely is populism. The idea that the global north has lost its revolutionary potential due to wealth and imperialism is called “Third Worldism.”

He said: ‘Today, you’re already a Nazi if you order a gypsy schnitzel.’

The shopowner said he put up the sign in opposition of those who support the war in Israel.

lol

Idk what to think about this, sounds like he meant “Zionists” but didn’t know the term for it.

That’s another reason I am very skeptical of “Western Leftists”, by which I mean dem-socs and anarchists. They are often the “Ben Shapiros” of the Left, just arguing for entertainment, and this makes them quick to abandon as they get older and less interested in drama. I think this camp is excessively idealistic as well, I’ve heard claims like:

“Socialism is just workers voting in the work place”

or that “you can vote away the capitalism”

or that “USSR wasn’t real socialism,”

or “Successful socialism is Scandinavia and Universal Healthcare.”

Whenever I hear these claims I instinctively get suspicious of the person. I feel like these are the people that are eventually saying “you’ll be left in your younger years and move right as you age,” because they didn’t read any theory and just hopped on a bandwagon to be contrarian, it could have easily been ben shapiro politics too.