By Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor -December 21, 2022
By the Intel Drop
The population of Crimea, in accordance with the UN Charter, in the course of a free expression of their position at the all-Crimean referendum on March 16, 2014, voted by an absolute majority in favor of joining Russia.
Unlike Russia, China and many other countries that prefer to follow the world order based on international law and the UN Charter, since the early 1990s, i.e. after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in public speeches by Americans, and by several other Western politicians, there were persistent calls for a “rules-based international order,” representing the so-called exclusively “Western values.”
Thus, the United States began to actively oppose the legal order mutually agreed upon, based on the UN Charter in the international arena, in favor of a set of “rules” unilaterally established by Washington. Moreover, the heralds of the “rules-based international order” doctrine do not give explanations about what specific “rules” underlie their ideas about the world order, adjusting them to the current geostrategic interests of the White House and preferring only to inflate criticism, contradictions, and conflicts regarding specific countries, accusing them of allegedly violating the established world order.
And a striking example of such tactics of the White House was the statement on December 16 by the Coordinator for Strategic Communications at the US National Security Council, John Kirby, that the American authorities recognize the right of Ukraine to plan and conduct military operations in Crimea, given that the peninsula is its territory.
Not only the legal but also the political and cultural illiteracy of current US political officials is already well known to the world community. And therefore, it seems appropriate to give the necessary explanations to representatives of today’s US political establishment, who carefully read the materials of “New Eastern Outlook,” whose objective coverage of international events has led to America’s desire to impose restrictions on it.
First of all, it is necessary to recall that the population of Crimea, in accordance with the UN Charter, in the course of a free expression of their position at the all-Crimean referendum on March 16, 2014, voted by an absolute majority in favor of joining Russia. Therefore, it is simply absurd to consider Crimea and the city of Sevastopol Ukrainian.
From the history of the UN, John Kirby &Co. should be well aware that the best approach to resolving any conflict and consolidating peace is to respect the Charter of the United Nations. For it is not self-determination that causes wars, but the unfair denial of it, which is confirmed by armed conflicts in countless cases in recent decades.
Not “wishlists” or “rules” of the White House, but the functions of the UN and the Security Council are the basis for preventing threats and violations of the peace provided for in Article 39 of the United Nations Charter. Therefore, the only function of the UN is to ensure the realization of the right to self-determination as a conflict prevention strategy.
Since 2014, the Kyiv regime, with the direct support of Washington, has grossly violated the rights of the Russian-speaking population of the East of the country to freedom of expression, due to Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by resolution 2200 A (XXI) of the UN General Assembly, which prohibits both propaganda of war and incitement to hatred and discrimination. The systematic bombing of settlements in Donbas carried out by the Western-backed neo-Nazi authorities in Ukraine since 2014 (!) were war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But the United States and its Western allies, in the midst of Russophobic hysteria, defiantly refused to discuss this on any international platform. Just like the birthright of the population of this region to speak their own language and express their own opinion, which is protected by Articles 2 and 27 of the ICCPR, as well as Articles 2 and 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Moreover, with their position, the United States and the Kyiv regime violate Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR, which provides for the right to self-determination of ALL peoples, which also applies to the Russian-speaking population of Crimea and Donbas.
The ongoing shelling of cities and the resulting killings of thousands of Donbas civilians by the Kyiv regime since 2014, documented by the OSCE, constitute Ukraine’s repeated violations of Article 2 (clause 4) of the UN Charter. Russia’s repeated attempts to hold peace talks within the framework of the OSCE and the Normandy format to resolve the Ukrainian conflict were ignored by the West.
Moreover, in December 2021, Russia submitted two draft treaties to the United States and its Western allies for consideration, which would form the basis for a fruitful dialogue in accordance with clause 3 of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. Once again, however, the United States and NATO rejected these peace initiatives.
For more than three decades, Russia has been trying to convey to the West its political will for international cooperation and friendly relations with all countries, as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 2625. Moscow put forward substantiated proposals for cooperation and the construction of a common European home based on sovereign equality and comprehensive national security.
However, following in the footsteps of Russophobia of the current US political establishment, Western leaders ignored these initiatives, as well as Gorbachev’s earlier peace initiatives and the promises made to him in 1989-1991 that NATO would not move eastward.
Under these conditions, the “revelations” made by John Kirby on December 16, the incessant pumping of the Kyiv regime with new batches of weapons are, without a doubt, not just an example of unceremonious interference in the course of a military conflict and escalating hostilities in Ukraine. This is also evidence of Kyiv’s incitement to military action and can even be interpreted as Washington’s declaration of war on Russia by proxy.
By frankly supporting the undisguised Nazi Kyiv regime, including by financing more and more foreign mercenaries, the United States is becoming more and more established every day as one of the obvious parties to an armed confrontation with Russia. The situation is aggravated by the fact that Washington, as even numerous Western media outlets have already noted, was complicit in openly terrorist anti-Russian acts to undermine the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea unwanted for the United States, as well as the Crimean bridge.
However, such provocations and actions by Washington do not contribute to strengthening its position in the international arena and in the UN, as well as to the further existence of a unipolar world built on “US rules.”
As for the right declared by John Kirby to plan and conduct military operations against the invaders on the territory of an independent state, the author would like to know: do these words mean the authorization by the White House for Syria to conduct military operations against American military personnel who illegally invaded Syria in 2014? Robbing this country, its oil, grain, and support, according to Ankara, terrorist groups in Syria?
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy.