Does Mexico have the Sovereign ‘Right’ to join and host a Chinese-led Military Alliance and Bases? The US would invade and destroy. . Does Ukraine have the ‘Right’ to join and host US-led NATO on Russia’s border?
by thefreeonline on 8th July 2024 info with thanks- Glenn Diesen at HomeRussia — (on Telegram: t.me/thefreeonline)
The conflict is about NATO and its expansion, and Moscow sees Kiev as a proxy for the bloc
By Glenn Diesen, editor at ‘Russia in Global Affairs’ journal. Follow on Substack.
Political realism is commonly and mistakenly portrayed as immoral because its principal focus is on an inescapable security competition, and it thus rejects idealist efforts to transcend power politics.
Radical masked protestor among the burning of Kiev, Ukraine. © Getty Images /
Because states cannot break away from security competition, morality for the realist entails acting in accordance with the balance of power logic as the foundation for stability and peace.
Idealist efforts to break with power politics can then be defined as immoral, as they undermine the management of the security competition as the foundation of peace.
As Raymond Aron expressed in 1966: “The idealist, believing he has broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes.”
Ukraine’s “Sovereign Right to join NATO”
The most appealing and dangerous idealist argument that has destroyed Ukraine is that it has the right to join any military alliance it desires. It is a very attractive statement that easily won support from the public, as it affirms the freedom and sovereignty of Ukraine, and the alternative is seemingly that Russia should be allowed to dictate Ukraine’s policies.
However, arguing that Ukraine should be allowed to join any military alliance is an idealist argument, as it appeals to how we would like the world to be, not how the world actually works.
US Armageddon Nukes coming to Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany- NATO Generals Ecstatic
The principle that peace is derived from the expansion of military alliances without taking into account the security interests of other great powers has never existed in reality.
States such as Ukraine that border a great power have every reason to express legitimate security concerns, but inviting a rival great power such as the US into its territory intensifies the security competition.
Is it moral to insist on how the world ought to be when brutal massacring war is the consequence of ignoring how the world actually works?
The alternative to expanding NATO is not to accept a Russian sphere of influence, which denotes a zone of exclusive influence. Peace is derived from recognizing a Russian sphere of interests, which is an area where Russian security interests must be recognized and incorporated rather than excluded.
It did not use to be controversial to argue that Russian security interests must be taken into account when operating on its borders.
This is why Europe had a belt of neutral states as a buffer between East and West during the Cold War to mitigate the security competition.
Mexico, for example, has plenty of freedoms in the international system, but it does not have the freedom to join a Chinese-led military alliance or to host Chinese military bases.
The idealist argument that Mexico can do as it pleases implies ignoring US security concerns, and the result would likely be the US destruction of Mexico.
If Scotland secedes from the UK and then joins a Russian-led military alliance and hosts Russian missiles, would the English still champion the principle of consent?
When we live in a realist world and recognize that security competition must be mitigated for peace, then we accept a security system based on mutual constraints.
Continue reading “How hypocritical idealism justifies the slaughter of Ukraine for a CIA/MI5 proxy war on Russia”
The Free 