[Salon] A FURTHER THOUGHT: Anatol Lieven: "Don’t kick the can: two key US proposals for upcoming Russia talks"

[Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>]

FM: John Whitbeck

A "news anaysis" article in today's NEW YORK TIMES (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/world/europe/us-russia-cold-war-ukraine.html) begins: "To the Biden administration, the direct talks that began in earnest on Monday in Geneva are about defusing the chances of a major war in Europe -- potentially ignited by a Russian invasion of Ukraine -- and upholding the principle that nations cannot redraw international borders by force."

Kosovo? Has anyone in the Biden administration or at the NEW YORK TIMES ever heard of Kosovo?

A FURTHER THOUGHT (regarding the "only meaningful difference" between the separations of Kosovo and Crimea cited in my message of January 9, [not] retransmitted below):

Imagine a "blind tasting" at which experts on international law (real international law, anchored to the UN Charter, not the "rules-based international order" unilaterally determined by the United States) were not asked to taste fine wines and rate and compare them for color, aroma and taste but, rather, to evaluate certain international acts and rate and compare them for compliance or non-compliance with international law. As in any "blind tasting", the identities of the contestants would not be disclosed.

One contestant would be the separation of an autonomous region from the state to which it was previously attached achieved through a bloodless five-step process comprising a referendum among the population of the autonomous region, a declaration of independence by the legislature of the autonomous region, diplomatic recognition of the independence of the previously autonomous region by a neighboring state to which it had previously been attached, an application for reintegration into the neighboring state and acceptance of the application for reintegration by the neighboring state.

The other contestant would be the separation of a territory from the state to which it was previously attached as the result of a 77-day bombing campaign, not authorized by the UN Security Council, conducted by an alliance of states of which none had been attacked by the state being subjected to the bombing campaign and to the amputation of a portion of its sovereign territory, so recognized by the United Nations and relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

Rating and comparing the two contestants for compliance or non-compliance with international law would not be difficult, and, if the judges were asked whether international sanctions were justified in either case, there can be no doubt that they would deem them more justified against the member states of the NATO alliance than against Russia.

As always in international relations, it is not the nature of the act that matters but, rather, who is doing it to whom.