It is one year exactly since Putin decided to kill hundreds of thousands of people in needless slaughter. His troops have tortured and raped their way into Ukraine under the pretext of liberating the Ukrainians. How many times have we heard this kind of lie from totalitarian dictators?
In the UN he has been utterly castigated.
The UN held a vote on whether Russia should stop its war and get the hell out of Ukraine.
The voting was clear. 141 countries out of 180 voted for Putin to get the hell out of Ukraine
Of course, there were countries which with voted against the motion and obviously thought it was OK to invade other countries and kill lots of people or abstained from voting as if they weren’t sure if it was OK to kill civilians, torture, rape and invade.
Which countries voted against Ukraine?
The seven countries that voted against the UN motion to condemn Russia’s invasion and demand the withdrawal of troops from Ukraine were:
- Belarus
- Eritrea
- Mali
- Nicaragua
- North Korea
- Russia
- Syria
No surprises there then! All countries with blood on their hands ruled by warmongering despots! Some with civil wars raging who think that death and torture are every day events.
Which countries abstained?
The 32 countries that abstained from the vote were:
- Algeria
- Angola
- Armenia
- Bangladesh
- Bolivia
- Burundi
- Central African Republic
- China
- Congo
- Cuba
- El Salvador
- Ethiopia
- Gabon
- Guinea
- India
- Iran
- Kazakhstan
- Kyrgyzstan
- Laos
- Mongolia
- Mozambique
- Namibia
- Pakistan
- South Africa
- Sri Lanka
- Sudan
- Tajikistan
- Togo
- Uganda
- Uzbekistan
- Vietnam
- Zimbabwe
A significant minority – mainly in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East – once again chose to abstain in this vote. Three Commonwealth states – South Africa, Pakistan, and India – did not take a side.
Maybe next time they come asking for aid or moaning about being invaded or colonialism we can point out that they obviously think that invasion, torture, slaughter and totalitarian control are all OK.
Shame on all those warmongering or warmonger supporting nations! A curse on them all!!
WAR IS NEVER RIGHT!!!!
Of course aggressive war is never right, Opher. The war in Syria is wrong. The war in Iraq was wrong. The series of wars in Afghanistan have all been wrong. The only case I can think of in which military action that was neither defensive nor retaliatory was in any way justified, was the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in (if I remember right) 1979.
The UK is at least as culpable as any other country, and more than most. But it’s the USA that is responsible for more conflicts since the second world war than any other country. They are the ones that have set out to draw Putin into rash action, by cosying up to Ukraine and threatening to put missiles on their soil. Putin, like a typical politician, took the bait. So the poor Ukrainians are now caught in the middle.
That’s how the nation-state works, Opher. War is built into its basic structure – along with bad laws, heavy taxation and cronyism. We have to get rid of it. That’s why Brexit was so important. We got away (for a time, at least) from the EU blob. Next, we have to get away from the UN blob and its dash for control over the policies of governments all over the world. Then, at last, we will be able to concentrate on getting rid of the Westminster blob, and the state that supports them.
I agree. The USA has been a real warmonger. Britain has joined in much too often. All those wars and others were wrong. Mind you, I think that ISIS definitely needed dealing with. The NATO move into Ukraine was definitely provocative. America is full of too many nutcases. But I don’t think you can lay that on the nation-state system. It’s more complex than that. Tribalism is the bane of human beings. I still contend that we should do away with nations and go global. I can’t see an alternative that would work.
Opher, I certainly want to do away with nations! But a global super-state – like Orwell’s Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia all rolled into one – is precisely the wrong direction to be moving in. It would rapidly become a completely inescapable tyranny.
Tyranny, war, heavy taxation and favouritism, not to mention irresponsibility (and tribalism), are built in to the foundations of the political system we are forced to live in, which was devised by a 16th-century French monarchist. What we need, in my view, is to get rid of the state, and move to a form of governance that does a lot less than governments do today (mainly refereeing disputes, stopping the bad guys getting away with harming people, and maintaining a capability for military defence). It needs to be based on small-scale units – human-sized communities, of a few hundred up to a few tens of thousands – and networked rather than hierarchical.
I like the idea Neil but I cannot see how it could possibly work or how you could get there.
At present we have a cabal of the rich running the world for their own benefit. How would you prevent them from doing what they want?
Yes, the problems with a global government are as you outline – tyranny and favouritism being the two big threats. That is what a system needs to counter. I think we can produce a system with accountability and scrutiny to prevent such things.
The problems we have are global. The solutions need to be global. I cannot see networks dealing with any of those global issues. – poverty, war, pollution, environmental issues, crime, religion……… How would the networking address those?
Opher, I’m more than a bit tight for time at the moment (responding to a government consultation with a hard deadline in 3 days!), so I’ll just give a very few brief bullets on these things.
The main cause of poverty is the actions of the political class (including a lot of the rich). They obstruct people’s access to the market, regulate people so they can’t work in the way that best suits them and their customers, and take away and use for their own purposes most of the fruits of what people earn. In the new way, there won’t be a political class any more. So everyone who is willing to put in the effort will be free to lift themselves out of poverty through work and trade.
War is a built-in feature of the state. In the new way, anyone that starts a war would be signing their own death warrant, at the hands of those they attacked and those who have joined in to help to defend them.
Pollution is a matter of accountability and “polluter pays.” In the new way, polluters (whether individuals or groups) will be required to compensate all those affected by their pollution. The only part for governance in this would be to assess the compensation in the first place, and to collect and route it to those who deserve the compensation.
As to environmental issues beyond pollution, people will be able to set up their own voluntary schemes to address these. If you want to conserve a particular species, for example, you can get together with like-minded people and create a reservation for that species.
As to crime, real crimes such as murder, physical violence, rape, theft, fraud and violations of human rights or freedoms would be just as much condemned in the new system as in the old. The difference is that, in the new system, the justice will be objective and honest, not politicized or biased.
I don’t think religion will be really much of an issue. People who want to club together to take part in a particular religion (including atheism!) will be able to do so. Some neighbourhoods, and even some communities, may include a majority of religious people. But they won’t be allowed to compel or to browbeat anyone to follow any of the precepts of their religion against their wills – that will be a real crime.
The cause of poverty is the wealthy elite buying politicians and laws.
I don’t think war is anything to do with the state. It’s a primitive tribal thing. The wealthy use it to gain more wealth and despots use it to gain more power.
And who polices this on a global basis and makes Big Business pay?
Environmental issues simply cannot be treated this way. Big Business runs over everyone if there are profits to be made. They’ll pollute to cut corners. Little groups of concerned environmentalists will have no power.
I’m looking at organised crime here – the mafia, the drugs gangs, the Russian mafia – the ones who kill, buy politicians and terrorise towns and cities. They launder money on an international basis and have immense power. The South American cartels have bigger armies and more weapons that their governments.
The religious nutcases of the likes of ISIS, Jewish orthodox, Souther Baptists and the like, as we see with Trump, will take away anybody’s freedom. Their misogyny and wish to control is absolute. They won’t buy into any local scheme to network.
All of this is way beyond cosy networks Neil. These people need real power to control their activities. They are mean, powerful, global and evil.