this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
37 points (95.1% liked)
GenZedong
4913 readers
118 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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. ___
Unilateral sanctions are definitely illegal.
As for the General Assembly voting to condemn Russia, they did so under extreme pressure from the West in 2022. The same goes for rulings by international institutions like the ICJ. All are vulnerable to threats, blackmail, political and media pressure. More recent UN votes have actually swung in favor of Russia. The global south is clearly on Russia's side.
The fact remains that Russia's intervention is legal according to article 51 of the UN charter pertaining to collective self-defense. Russia invoked this article when they accepted the call for aid from the newly recognized Donbass republics in 2022, which had the right to secede according to the internationally enshrined right of all people to self-determination, and which were clearly under attack by Ukrainian forces.
This is one-to-one NATO's Kosovo playbook, except it was actually legitimate this time and not backed by false claims. The West calling Russia's intervention illegal is tantamount to calling their own actions in Serbia illegal. The global south can see the hypocrisy.
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 :)
It's the good old point about the West having "rules for thee...". I just surprised you with the angle, I guess.
I see what you are saying about the five untouchables, but cases against them happened. Just as political statements, with no hope of result. No one even tried sanctions this time though.
ICJ case was a circus on three levels: Ukraine literally did a strawman by claiming that Russia justifies the invasion with Genocide Convention, when Russia openly invoked article 51 of the UN charter; the ruling had little to nothing to do with the application; was unintentional self-trolling by the US diplomats that no doubt worked on the case, because... I'll save it for Christmas.
That is...not at all how law works. Mob justice is a criminal offence in most countries. Probably in all countries.
I'm not saying Russia had UN mandate to invade. What I am saying is that Russia made all the moves and got diametrically opposed results to those of NATO. Russia recognised LPR and DPR, signed agreements with them, even the blind OSCE monkeys in Donbass registered hundreds of ceasefire violations by Ukraine and only about two weeks later Putin came out with his stand up bit.
Which brings me to Christmas. The UN didn't sanction Yugoslavia bombings. But ICJ ruled they were humanitarian intervention. Under what? Under Genocide Convention. ~~Need I remind that Milošević was aquited by Hague tribunal after death?~~
Neither spirit nor the letter are broken. Rulings of an organization headquartered in NYC that can't give a straight answer when asked about the US blatantly stealing oil in Syria are another matter.
So no new talking points for you, comrade) Not really. Just another angle to ridicule the so called rules based order.
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.)
My thoughts are that international law is such a mess now that it doesn't matter at all any more. It was selectively disregarded for years by the West, Russia, China and some others have been proving both that it doesn't work as written and that precedents set by the West somehow don't apply to others, and now all we're waiting for is complete breakdown.
I don't know if the UN goes the way of the League of Nations as a result of WWIII or if this breakdown takes some other form, but I also think it's too soon to be developing the next system. The current patient formally isn't six feet under yet and formalities matter with law.