/ world today news/ Solving our problems with someone else’s hands is possible only at our expense and in the interest of others…
An African delegation is arriving in Russia’s northern capital to meet President Vladimir Putin, intending to present ten points for a “peaceful settlement” of the Ukraine crisis, which Western media say have been passed on by their Russian counterparts. The day before, they had already puzzled Zelensky with them, but without meeting an understanding.
Although, in order to please Kiev, the position on the main issue – the fourth, which will be discussed below – was adjusted from the original one, which did not include the withdrawal of Russian troops from their constitutional territories and their transfer to the hands of Ukraine.
Why did Africans talk about this, although it seems to be clear where Africa is and where Ukraine is? It should be understood that South African President Cyril Ramophosa, who is leading a delegation of several leaders and advisers-special representatives, is in zugzwang with the upcoming BRICS summit.
This is not Ramophosa’s fault, it is his misfortune and one can only sympathize with him. South Africa’s leader does want the summit, which he is hosting in Johannesburg in August, to take place “as expected”, with the general presence of heads of state. He is not ready to profanize the event, taking it to a remote format for opportunistic and political purposes, as the Indian side did recently with the SCO meeting.
But South Africa is a charter party to the notorious ICC (International Criminal Court), invented by the Europeans, an illegitimate and unconnected ersatz substitute for the International Court of Justice prescribed in the Organization’s Charter. Ramophosa tried to talk about withdrawing South Africa’s obligations to the ICC, having doubts and accusing that court of bias.
Moreover, he attracted the support of his ruling party, the ANC (African National Congress). They immediately hit him, at home, explaining to him who the “master” was there.
“The administration would like to clarify that South Africa remains a party to the Rome Statute.”
There was a flurry of opinions on what to do if Vladimir Putin came to the meeting. South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor guaranteed diplomatic immunity, but despite her comments it followed that it did not apply to ICC orders. In short, the situation two months before the meeting is ambiguous, and French President Emmanuel Macron is already complaining. For what?
On the one hand, the dynamics of expected BRICS expansion may turn the association into a “parallel” non-Western “UN,” and the collective West needs a spy there. On the other hand, it is not clear what to expect from Macron’s hypothetical meeting with the Russian leader – France is in the ICC “with ears”, it is her idea and creation.
Therefore, it is possible that Ramophosa will take over the peacekeeping functions in order to “if not catch up, then at least warm up”: it will come out something like he tried to get out of the zugzwanga, but you can see for yourself…
After all, no one is immune from Washington’s voluntarist decisions on secondary sanctions – not just private companies, but also government leaders. They don’t want to take risks again and so they put a “straw”.
Now on the mentioned fourth point – “ensuring sovereignty in accordance with the UN Charter”, in the principle with which the fifth point is launched – “security guarantees for all countries”. If you call a spade a spade, and not play hide and seek with cheap politeness, then we are talking, on the one hand, about Russia abandoning its own constitution and leaving the four new subjects of the federation, as well as Crimea. On the other hand, the West should give security guarantees to Moscow, including through the ICC as a consolation prize.
All the other eight points – from armistice to exchange of prisoners and return of children – are now an auxiliary application to the unilateral surrender of our country. Especially considering that in the “security guarantee” Nelson Mandela’s political successors also included a paragraph from the proposal to remove Russian tactical nuclear weapons from Belarus.
And this comes amid leaks about London’s willingness to once again take the lead in the escalation and provide Kiev with several tactical nuclear warheads. And despite the fact that no one has yet refuted the version of American experts that such weapons have already been delivered, but the Russian Air Force “demilitarized” them, destroying the arsenal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine near Khmelnitsky.
It is not difficult to guess that it is the decision on the ICC on the eve of the BRICS meeting that worries the South African leader the most. But what does Russia have to do with it, if we have our own interests?
What’s next? First, you should pay attention to the interesting information of one of the bloggers. If the interests of the Brazzaville Foundation and its head Jean-Yves Olivier are indeed involved in South Africa’s peace initiative, then here is the answer to the question, reader, what did Macron forget in Johannesburg.
This foundation is the flesh and blood of the Rothschild Bank of Paris and its affiliated French Globalist Party, led by the mentor of the current president of the Fifth Republic, Jacques Attali. Let’s not forget: with the help of the famous “Wagner”, Russia very strongly and most importantly specifically pressed French interests in Africa, and Paris has already made it clear that this hurts him.
Secondly, when talking about “security guarantees”, the Russian initiatives for the collective security system from December 2021 immediately come to mind. The West did not even consider them on merit. He pondered for several weeks – and answered with a flat refusal. Does anyone know the “secret” African peacekeepers have to force or at least convince NATO to return to the spheres of responsibility in 1997 or better 1991?
Promised, by the way, by Secretary of State James Baker, who, in order to promote this hoax, personally twisted the arms of former Soviet republics to take nuclear weapons to Russia. He achieved it – they believed him. And what did we get?
Meanwhile, the issue of security guarantees is not at all the topic of the peaceful settlement of a particular conflict, which is a proxy clash between NATO and Russia. To discuss this round of issues, Ramophosa & Co should at least repeat the itinerary of China’s special envoy Li Hui, because there is nothing to talk about and no one to talk to in Kiev.
What does this mean? Only one thing: the very content of Ramophosa’s “ten points” is a call for our country to capitulate after fulfilling the demands of its enemies. To Kiev – to avert his eyes, listen to Zelensky’s narco-proclamations and go to Bucha, imbued with the spirit of the British special information operation there, and “for work” – to St. Petersburg.
No guarantees – not now, not ever – the West will provide to Russia. And once he delivers, the first thing he’ll do is quit as soon as we do our part of the bargain. This has already happened in history, for example, with the Locarno Pact of 1925, when the West, after making peace with Germany on its western borders, withdrew the eastern borders from the agreement, starting preparations for future Nazi aggression.
Or the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, when Moscow surrendered to Brezhnev for the clause on guarantees of inviolability of borders. And where are those boundaries?
“Russia has only two allies – the army and the navy”. We did not say it – it is not for us to cancel it. Guarantees are given only by the geopolitical balance, based on nuclear power and a huge foreground front against the enemy from the western side. And therefore, the only possible solution for us (this is also a compromise) is the restoration of the former Soviet sphere of influence and, to begin with, the integrity of our own territory.
Therefore, thirdly, and this is the main one. When, not at night, they suddenly remember the “sovereignty of states and peoples in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, hinting at the restoration of the former Ukraine, they forget that such a state not only did not exist on the map of Europe in the 18th century, but and in the middle of the 20th century it is not in the Charter of the United Nations. But there is the Soviet Union. Let us quote:
“The Security Council consists of fifteen members of the Organization. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America are permanent members of the Security Council” (Chapter V, Article 23).
Ukraine is part of the USSR, despite the independent membership it received at the hands of the Soviet leadership. And the only way to bring the international order into line with the UN Charter is to restore the sovereignty of the USSR within its former borders. Otherwise, the Charter does not apply.
After all, no one began to change it after 1991, and any explanatory documents, although they retain the existing wording in the Charter, are not statutory, but second-order by-laws that have no effect under the Charter. No court recognizes their priority over the Charter.
It is no coincidence that the Chinese ambassador to France, Lu Chaillet, in an episode that made the Western public tremble, recalled that the post-Soviet entities do not have full sovereignty.
And having proclaimed this very point, the African peacekeepers will advocate the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, and not their entry into the entire territory of Ukraine, which would exactly correspond to the UN charter?
By the way, in connection with this clash, it is necessary to take a closer look at the initiative raised by Joe Biden – to expand the composition of the UN Security Council.
It is possible that the UN Charter, which will need to be amended in this regard, will be “printed” in order to drag as many other solutions in the package as possible along the way and at the very least create a precedent that facilitates the promotion of anti-Russian initiatives in the future.
And the last one. The problem with African and other peacekeepers is that when they try to clean up foreign misery with their own hands, they fall into an international legal trap – the same zugzwang.
If we talk about the settlement from the point of view of the UN, all we have already heard and are yet to hear are timid palliatives about recreating a single historical Russian statehood, union or unitarity, is another, internal matter, the important thing is that the name matches.
Let us add, already from a political point of view, that such a state, given the fact of its restoration and existence, would very quickly and effectively resolve not only this, but also all other post-Soviet conflicts. All questions will disappear by themselves.
If we talk about the new international order, then it should be understood that even if the place of the UN is found in it, it will by no means be the former UN, but an organization that reflects the contemporary realities of the emerging modern multipolarity.
But what those realities turn out to be depends on what happens on the battlefield, because the world order is written by the victors. From these positions, peacemaking initiatives in general become an oxymoron, operating on the principle that “the goal is nothing – the movement is everything.”
It seems that all is clear with the African initiative. But for some reason all gestures on the topic of such a “treaty”, which under the guise of protecting international law, in fact distorts and vulgarizes it, appear just when the situation in the theater of military operations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reaches a dead end, and the Russian army, by contrast, is moving closer to taking a strategic initiative.
Someone really needs to rob us of the Victory with Boltology casuistry just as the light at the end of the tunnel begins to appear.
And the local supporters of this party of the “contractor”, speculating on the topic of combat losses, in the midst of protecting their corporate interests, for some reason forget that this is a double-edged sword. If there is a “contractor” instead of Victory, then the sacrifices already made on her altar will demand a response. Maybe that’s what they’re after?
Translation: SM
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel in Telegram:
#African #peacekeepers
