Military Review

Can international organizations be objective in principle?

32
Can international organizations be objective in principle?
Photo: Juliet Kozaeva, Cominf.org


Have you ever thought about your own attitude to international structures that are designed to stand above states and help people fight for their rights and against lawlessness in their own countries? I mean the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other similar organizations. Not about the attitude of the state, government, society, but about your personal attitude?

In discussions, we often use some decisions of these organizations, statements by their leaders and other documents as arguments in favor of one or another statement. And at the same time, somewhere out there, inside our own I, we are very skeptical about these decisions and statements.

To be honest, the overwhelming majority of people know that all these international organizations are not at all independent and decide, most often not justly, but on the basis of political, economic or some other considerations. I cannot say that most Russians think so. I have not conducted any research on this issue. This is my own assessment of the situation.

A dream come true or a utopia that hurts the world


Humanity has quite a lot of experience in using international organizations and structures to solve some problems. Probably the most indicative in this respect is the Nuremberg Tribunal and the conferences of the leaders of the victorious countries in the war.

The victors condemned and punished the vanquished. At the meetings of the leaders of the victorious countries, a system of international relations was created. The allies and the vanquished made decisions without any special pretensions. Everyone was happy with the fact that several countries took responsibility for the planet.

The world was divided into the USSR and its allies and the USA, Great Britain and France and their allies. The fate of the vanquished was more deplorable. Depending on their geographic location, they have become either pro-American or pro-Soviet. Why? Yes, simply because all decisions of the conferences and the tribunal were backed up by powerful victorious armies.

The UN has become the organization that resolves global issues of peace. While maintaining the leadership of the victorious countries, in the UN, global issues of war and peace, ecology, hunger, relations between states are decided by universal suffrage. At the same time, the Security Council retains exclusive rights to impose any sanctions against countries, including the introduction of armies of UN member states.

And it was here that the idea of ​​creating other international organizations was born that would solve problems of a smaller scale than the UN. Simply put, specialized international organizations that would deal with specific issues. I started with the ECHR and the ICC, so I will continue to cite these organizations as an example.

So let's start with the ICC. Simply because it is the first international criminal justice body. What questions does he consider? The list is not long. The International Criminal Court is called upon to legally prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In 2008, another area of ​​responsibility was added - the crimes of aggression. Some confuse the ICC and the UN Hague International Criminal Court.

The ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg Court, ECHR), whose powers apply only to member states of the Council of Europe (not to be confused with the EU) and which have ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Sometimes the ECHR is confused with the International Court of Justice, and the European Convention is confused with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The ECHR considers complaints of individuals and legal entities only for the violation of their rights provided for by the Convention, exclusively by the state, state bodies and officials of a state that is a member of the Council of Europe and / or has accepted the Convention.

Okay? The idea is really great. Even its incarnation in the initial period was quite worthy. But what happened next? Why was this idea utopian? Why do most Russians have doubts about the objectivity of these international institutions?

I believe that the turning point was the events in Yugoslavia and the subsequent actions of international courts and organizations. Remember the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY)? Temporarily created tribunal, which was supposed to punish all those responsible for the murders of civilians in Yugoslavia until 2010. But, let me remind you, the tribunal worked right up to 2017.

And what decisions were made by the "international community"? Almost all the military and civilian command of Serbia ended up in the prison in The Hague, but all the Croatian generals were acquitted! For some reason 60% of those arrested were from Serbs and Montenegrins. Croats, on the other hand, accounted for only 18% of those arrested. Isn't it a typical picture from a children's fairy tale about the struggle between good and evil?

The modern world differs from the old in a sufficient openness of information. So those who wanted to see the events in the former Yugoslavia objectively could do it with the help of not only the media, but also independent sources from the Internet. This picture was very different from the one created by the ICTY. This is where the skepticism that exists today, including in our heads, came from.

The idea of ​​an objective judgment in a politically divided world, where the leading powers oppose each other, is practically impossible! This is a utopia. All the more so at a time when relations between the great powers are almost at zero. A judge and a prosecutor cannot be independent of the policy of their own state, bloc of states or ideology.

"Russians attacked South Ossetia and killed peaceful Georgians just like that"


What you just read above is not nonsense. This lie is an early perspective of our modern reality. And I took the 08.08.08 war as an example, simply because a couple of months ago, information appeared in the republican media of North and South Ossetia about the biased work of ICC investigators in the case of the 2008 war.

Over the past 13 years after these events, the ICC has made statements many times through the mouth of its officials. The essence of these statements was so vague that an ordinary man in the street simply could not understand them. Who is guilty? Who started the war? Was the attack on the Russian peacekeepers who were legally in the RSO a crime?

If you “wash off the foam” from all these statements, then it turns out banal - an investigation is underway. And the statements themselves fit perfectly into the version of Georgia's surprise attack on the Republic of South Ossetia, and into the version about the sudden attack by Georgians on Russian peacekeepers and civilians in the Republic of South Ossetia. I remembered the wonderful expression of one of the Ossetian journalists - "the predictions of an old, wise gypsy woman who knows how to save face in any development of events."

How is this very consequence going? In late March - early April, a lot of materials on this matter were published on local information resources. For example, here is a quote from the information portal RNO-Alania "15th region" from the material published on April 1 this year:

“We learned about the attempts of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to carry out an unofficial collection of tendentious information about the tragic events of August 2008 on the territory of the Republic of South Ossetia. He prefers “not to notice” that the Georgian-Ossetian armed political conflict that led to the five-day war in 2008 was a direct consequence of the policy of radical nationalism that the Georgian leadership has been pursuing towards South Ossetia for a long time. ”

This is not the position of the editorial board of the portal or some journalist. This is a quote from a joint statement of South Ossetian public organizations "Adamy Nyfs" and "United Alania". It is these organizations that monitor the actions of the Georgian side and the ICC on the territory of the Republic of South Ossetia and Georgia, as well as the work of the ICC investigators. And it was they who sounded the alarm after some facts of the unscrupulous work of the ICC members were revealed.

The question may arise as to why the Ossetians follow the International Criminal Court so closely? The answer is simple enough. In 2008, they also believed in the objectivity of international organizations, in justice. At that time, over 3000 applications were sent to the ICC from citizens of the RSO.

Moreover, it is worth noting that most of these statements contained not so much material claims against Georgia as a desire for international legal protection in order to prevent a repetition of the war.

But I will continue to quote the editions "United Alania" and "Adamy Nyfs":

“Imagine our disappointment when we realized that the ICC actually ignored them. Moreover, when the question of starting an investigation of the case was raised again in 2016, ICC prosecutor Fatu Bensouda accused the South Ossetians of “war crimes”, “organized exile of tens of thousands of Georgians”, as well as “attacks on peacekeepers”.

At the same time, the Russian peacekeepers themselves, whom the Georgian Tanks and the artillery was shot at point-blank range, the prosecutor accused of ... "manifestation of passivity" and even "complicity in the crimes of the Ossetians."

When you start to understand some issue, most often you don't pay much attention to the first pages of documents. The usual common phrases are not very interesting. But in the criminal case of the 2008 five-day war, there is a "trifle" that is worth paying attention to. These are the dates when the criminal offenses were committed.

"... crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the ICC and allegedly committed in South Ossetia and Georgia between July 1 and October 10, 2008 are subject to investigation."

And what about the shelling of the RSO territory since 2004? What about the almost daily shelling of residential areas of Tskhinvali, Ossetian villages and transport communications in the territory controlled by the legitimate government of South Ossetia from July 29, 2004 to July 1, 2008?

Are these actions outside the jurisdiction of the ICC?

Again I will quote the statement of "Adamy Nyfs" and "United Alania":

“Until recently, the South Ossetians had little hope that the ICC would enter into the consideration of the case on the merits and mark the fact that the war of August 2008 was being prepared by Mikheil Saakashvili for 4 years. In the period from 2004 to 2008. hundreds of South Ossetian citizens became victims of the so-called “unfreezing” of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and the policy of state terrorism pursued by the Georgian authorities. ”

You can find a witness, but you can buy


This is exactly what the ICC does. Public activists of the RSO give examples of the work of court investigators in South Ossetia. Examples that are straightforward would not beautify any international organization.

“Investigators of the court establish unofficial contacts with the residents of South Ossetia, open in Georgia the“ ICC Victims Fund ”, which provides for the implementation of the program of assistance to the victims of the“ August 2008 war ” for a total amount of 600 thousand euros, they are trying to collect and document information about the illegal actions of citizens of South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers, offer citizens of the Republic of South Ossetia under the guise of "compensation" for providing information of interest to the ICC. "

It is interesting that the actions of the Georgian side of the ICC are not particularly interested. And there is no such work with witnesses in Georgia. As well as the fact that for some reason the investigators are very interested in the secret documents of the Ossetian side, but are not interested in the same documents of the Georgian side.

Don't you think that there is a lot of banal espionage here?

You don't need to be a great specialist to understand the fact that the ICC is of little interest to the South Ossetian army, but another army participating in the war is really interesting.

There is an interesting tendency - to turn over history wars upside down. Make the aggressor the victim and the victim the aggressor.

The war is not over, it's just frozen


We began to forget that war. Everything seems to be clear. All accents are highlighted. It is clear who attacked and who defended. But this is not a fact. This is understandable for us, it is understandable for the people of South Ossetia. For those who fought in that war, it's understandable. But, as can be seen from the actions of the same ICC, this is not a fact for the West. A peaceful Caucasus is not needed. Moreover, the peaceful Caucasus is harmful for the West.

“We believe that instead of peacekeeping, the ICC, stirring up the events of 2008, is actually fueling a faded conflict in the region. And this cannot contribute to stability in any way. Instability in the modern world affects all countries, including those that recognize the Rome Statute, on the basis of which the International Criminal Court operates ”.

Of course, they will object to me: Georgians are an intelligent people and understand that the conflict cannot be resolved by military means. I agree completely. Only Ukrainians are also smart people, but ... You should not exaggerate the importance of the people in international relations. Yes, today Georgians do not want to fight. And what will happen when, God forbid, radical nationalists somehow come to power in Tbilisi, again, according to the Ukrainian version?

Will the militant Georgian nationalists remember South Ossetia, Abkhazia? Is this option possible? Why not? Of course, I am drawing the most negative scenario for the development of events. Simply because I consider it necessary to warn about such a possibility a priori.

International organizations, including even the UN, more and more often demonstrate their inability to solve emerging problems. Moreover, they act in the interests of some political forces or states. Moreover, without even hiding it. We see this in Donbass, South Ossetia, Afghanistan, Syria and further down the list ...

It seems to me that today it is already possible to speak with confidence about the collapse of the institutions of such organizations. You don't have to go far for an example. Recent events in the Middle East show this perfectly. The world community has no methods to curb the war. For kindling - there is, but for "extinguishing the fire" - no ...

This means that we need some kind of reforms, some kind of new construction of supranational structures that will have not only the opportunity to discuss, but also the ability to punish. What it should be is not clear to me yet.

We must either return to the Yalta-Potsdam system, or go further and form a fundamentally new system of international relations.
Author:
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Finches
    Finches 21 May 2021 11: 14
    +3
    "Utopia is a novel about how great good people could live if they drove away all the bad ones!" laughing
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 21 May 2021 11: 37
      +7
      It was the UN, and it became IT, whoever gives more is right.
      1. Anachoret
        Anachoret 21 May 2021 11: 44
        +2
        Political games have come to a standstill) it is, and international organizations are only working to back up with their decisions groundless attacks on the fan by Western politicians in the style of "highlighted"))
        moreover, what is possible Kosovo is not possible for Crimea or Catalonia) precedent law in the international legal field died without being born)
        1. Machito
          Machito 21 May 2021 12: 23
          +4
          There is no International Law. There is the Right of the Strong. China and the Russian Federation have a veto at the UN. But all countries put on the decisions of the UN with the device.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 21 May 2021 13: 31
            +3
            Quote: Bearded
            There is no International Law. There is the Right of the Strong. China and the Russian Federation have a veto at the UN. But all countries put on the decisions of the UN with the device.

            I absolutely agree.

            At the meetings of the leaders of the victorious countries, a system of international relations was created. The allies and the vanquished made decisions without any special pretensions. Everyone was happy with the fact that several countries took responsibility for the planet.

            Not just "several countries", but the leading countries, powerful states, in all respects, which mutually balanced the power of each other.
            And now there is no balance. One pole of power is dominant in all respects. So why does he need international institutions? Oh yes, democracy ... Well then, let the institutions be ... but what can they ...
      2. knn54
        knn54 21 May 2021 13: 21
        +2
        The comparison may not be entirely correct, but the mafia and the triad were originally created to fight the invaders, but today.
        And what a long way to go. T.N. UN troops in the Korean War (mid-50s) fought on the side of the United States.
        The Hague Tribunal, due to threats from the Anglo-Saxons, terminated the investigation of the coalition's actions in Iraq. It justified the Croatian generals who killed Serbs in the enclaves.
        Israel ignores the decisions of the UN Security Council.
        Etc
        1. Monster_Fat
          Monster_Fat 23 May 2021 13: 46
          +1
          It cannot be objective. No one. Until they move away from the jingoistic or liberal-democratic nonsense and start operating only with bare facts. In Russia, they even made the Constitution impossible to deviate from the “ideologically verified and“ correct ”" interpretation of history, while again classifying the archives of the Second World War, so to speak, so as not to destroy this “correct, ideological" reconciliation. " in the west, there the people were brought up in their "truth", in assessing all events with their "ideologically correct" assessment of events and absorbed this view with their mother's milk, because they expect them to change their views, well, such ... as from the Russians to expect changes in their views, despite the fact that it is also fraught with the Russians to go against the Constitution.However, the people are still smarter than politicians who are stupefied in imposing their tightness, regardless of where they are - in the east or in the west - the people, especially young people in general, began to lay on history, on licking and combing old grievances and wounds.Young people in general, became apolitical, as they understand that this tightness imposed from above was created to divide peoples in the interests of those in power structures, to incite hatred, so that the peoples constantly hate someone, constantly accuse someone else, ... behind which all the failures of the native rulers would not be visible, that under the plausible pretext of "protection" from treacherous neighbors, they are limited in rights and freedoms, they are being driven into the "convenient" and "safe" framework of the digital concentration camp.
  2. Vadim Ananyin
    Vadim Ananyin 21 May 2021 11: 20
    0
    In general, the article summarized some of the work of international organizations.
    But much was known even before that, many of them have long been not humanitarian but intelligence and provocative.
    If we compare in detail the work of these organizations, then the opposite will turn out.
    So I completely agree with the author.
  3. parma
    parma 21 May 2021 11: 23
    +3
    The author raised a difficult and dirty question, but raised it unsuccessfully - it is incorrect to talk about the subjectivity of international organizations, referring to one's own or a neighbor's subjective opinion ...
    And as for when the decisions of all these international organizations became questionable for our understanding, as soon as they diverged from our subjectivity and the point of view of our leaders (ideas broadcast by the media) ...
    Let's leave the war on 08.08.08 (everything is complicated there, but it's too close to us), consider the Yugoslav war - the Serbs did not agree with the collapse of Yugoslavia, with the loss of their dominant position in it (what was the name of Serbia after the collapse of Yugoslavia?) And began to fight with those who disagree (who also expressed their point of view far from the language of classical literature) with a red-hot iron, but it didn't work out ... so + - they didn't have enough, and then the international community (including us), led by the United States, climbed in ... Who is right who is to blame for those events? Everyone is wrong, everyone is to blame ... who is guilty and how right are international tribunals, etc.? The opinion is subjective ...
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 21 May 2021 12: 04
      +5
      The section, in principle, is called "opinions".

      It is more interesting, in my opinion, that the broadcast position of our leaders is at odds with their deeds, and they, unlike the author, have the opportunity not only to have an opinion, but also to pursue a specific policy regarding participation in international treaties. And when things are at odds with words, it makes sense to take a critical look at the words spoken first.
      1. parma
        parma 21 May 2021 13: 12
        +2
        Quote: military_cat
        The section, in principle, is called "opinions".

        It is more interesting, in my opinion, that the broadcast position of our leaders is at odds with their deeds, and they, unlike the author, have the opportunity not only to have an opinion, but also to pursue a specific policy regarding participation in international treaties. And when things are at odds with words, it makes sense to take a critical look at the words spoken first.

        Well, there are two options why the words of the media are at odds with the actions of the authorities:
        1) in reality, even the authorities recognize the objectivity of these cases, but the subject society should be considered differently
        2) refusal from signed agreements will entail consequences
        I think the truth is somewhere in the middle - as long as the decisions do not concern individual people personally, they do not care, playing against the existing system does not benefit them (their fate is tied to Russia in direct proportion to the power and interests in Russia, there will be no one and the other). ... when the punishing hand has already touched, it is pointless to resist, because their peace and comfortable stay outside Russia will suffer even more, and in Russia they have no desire to stay forever ...
  4. Ruslan Sulima
    Ruslan Sulima 21 May 2021 11: 45
    +4
    We began to forget that war.

    The game continued with us.
    And the world community doesn't see our problems, they don't care ...
  5. SERGE ANT
    SERGE ANT 21 May 2021 11: 57
    +7
    The ECHR considers complaints of individuals and legal entities only for the violation of their rights provided for by the Convention, exclusively by the state, state bodies and officials of a state that is a member of the Council of Europe and / or has accepted the Convention.

    Okay? The idea is really great. Even its incarnation in the initial period was quite worthy. But what happened next? Why was this idea utopian? Why do most Russians have doubts about the objectivity of these international institutions?
    Only the author modestly kept silent that in recent years it was from our country that the largest number of appeals to the ECHR was received, this, of course, from great doubts about the objectivity of the ECHR and faith in our court, the most objective and humane court in the world.
    1. Aleksandre
      Aleksandre 21 May 2021 12: 08
      +8
      Quote: SERGE ANT
      Only the author modestly kept silent that in recent years it was from our country that the greatest number of appeals to the ECHR was received, this, of course, from great doubts about the objectivity of the ECHR and faith in our court, the most objective and humane court in the world.

      Yes, no one argues that the very idea, when he did not achieve his legally at home, can appeal to an impartial arbitration court, whose decisions are binding, was very tempting. Here are just the loot and politics instantly defeated the good, as usual.
    2. domokl
      21 May 2021 12: 57
      +3
      Quote: SERGE ant
      Only the author modestly kept silent that in recent years it was from our country that the largest number of appeals to the ECHR was received, this, of course, from great doubts about the objectivity of the ECHR and faith in our court, the most objective and humane court in the world.

      And why did you write this? I wrote exactly what I wanted to write. And about the number of complaints ... Where did you get the information? If you want to talk about how bad we live, tell us, and do not talk nonsense. Opinion section is open to any opinion
      1. SERGE ANT
        SERGE ANT 21 May 2021 14: 00
        +6
        Quote: domokl
        I wrote exactly what I wanted to write.

        Likewise, because, as you rightly noted,
        Opinion section is open to any opinion
        And with regards to
        And about the number of complaints ... Where did you get the information?
        Elementary, everything is in the public domain and is not a great secret
        Russia in 2019 remained the leader in the number of complaints filed against it to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), according to the organization's annual report. According to statistics, at the end of the year there were 59,8 thousand complaints pending before the court, of which more than 15 thousand (25,2%) were in Russia.
        In previous years, Russia also ranked first in terms of the number of complaints pending production. At the end of 2017, their number amounted to almost 8 thousand out of 63,4 thousand, and in 2018 - 11,7 thousand out of 56 thousand.Thus, in two years the number of complaints almost doubled.
        Read more at RBC:
        https://www.rbc.ru/politics/30/01/2020/5e3285719a79472002e2da0b
        As for 20 and this year, the Ministry of Justice of Russia was pleased to report a decrease in the number of complaints from our country to the European Court of Human Rights. After the introduction of the appropriate amendment, the appeal of a citizen who has not found justice at home to the international court loses all meaning. " peasant to go? "©
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 21 May 2021 12: 45
    +3
    The League of Nations, too, somehow did not save from the fire of the Second World War, but was created for these purposes. And guess why the current UN is similar to the LN?
    1. domokl
      21 May 2021 13: 04
      +3
      It is not the organization's fault. It's just that the system was organized for 4 police officers and a sheriff. When in 91 one of the policemen dropped out due to death, the sheriff and two of the three police officers decided that they were the law. And the third sat on the shore and waited for the enemy's corpse to swim. And then the deceased's son appeared and began to stir up trouble. I started talking about the law. Hence all the gimmick today.
      In principle, I told about this. Either we will agree and everything will go back to normal, in which I have huge doubts, or we need to drive the sheriff to hell and change the police station
      1. parma
        parma 21 May 2021 13: 21
        +3
        Quote: domokl
        It is not the organization's fault. It's just that the system was organized for 4 police officers and a sheriff. When in 91 one of the policemen dropped out due to death, the sheriff and two of the three police officers decided that they were the law. And the third sat on the shore and waited for the enemy's corpse to swim. And then the deceased's son appeared and began to stir up trouble. I started talking about the law. Hence all the gimmick today.
        In principle, I told about this. Either we will agree and everything will go back to normal, in which I have huge doubts, or we need to drive the sheriff to hell and change the police station

        Initially, there was no "sheriff", and the "son" began not to talk about the law, but to interpret it according to his understanding .... maybe the entire site is smeared with corruption, there are two ways - or to agree, recognizing that the senior chosen by everyone and the senior for us , or arrange a shootout, but for us this duel is not even Mexican ...
  7. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 21 May 2021 13: 05
    +3
    Law and Justice are two different things. In the case of the ECHR, they operate there, as a rule, with international laws, which are far from ideal in terms of interpretation, like any laws in fact. To a lesser extent, they have to make subjective decisions, both due to imperfect legislation and due to political engagement - without this, nowhere. There has always been public pressure on the judicial systems, and political pressure as well. Any "international" institutions, one way or another, are located somewhere, their functionaries live somewhere, pay taxes, raise children - their biographies may not be ideal. All these are additional levers of influence and "corrections", which, in principle, cannot be eliminated.
    Often, the question can look completely different in the plane of international legal order and in the context of relations between states that existed before the formation of this international legal order. At these moments, the clash of idealized "spherical-vacuum" legislation and what is called "Life-Life", as a rule, such annoying situations arise in which everyone is unhappy.

    However, I will note that humanity has already passed from those times when even such imperfect international institutions did not exist - in those days it was impossible to call a good life, due to the absence of the term "war crimes" or "genocide" or "violation of human rights" - these phenomena existed as well as after the formation of these terms. Moreover, they bloomed and smelled. So in an imperfect world, imperfect instruments are better than none.
  8. smaug78
    smaug78 21 May 2021 13: 21
    +3
    ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda
    right to the nail
  9. north 2
    north 2 21 May 2021 13: 36
    +5
    from the very beginning, one must be objective about international law and
    to the articles of your own Constitution, and then you will already have the moral right to demand that international institutions are objective in principle. And then the USSR, a subject of international law with the borders of the state fixed at the Tehran, Yalta and Helsinki conferences, abolished and destroyed with their signatures three drunks without having a mandate of international law for this, and even without having the mandate of citizens of their own country. in a referendum they voted for the preservation of the USSR. And that Russia has not raised at least in itself the question that the USSR was liquidated with gross, total and criminal violations of international law and these signatures in Belovezhskaya Pushcha should be called not valid, and the liquidation of the USSR should be annulled. Moreover, when leaving the USSR, many republics brazenly took with them and from time immemorial Russia belonged to the lands. Where are the lawsuits on this matter, where, if not the campaigns, then at least the efforts to return everything to yourself! So, first you have to be objective about the destruction of your own country, the USSR, because this objectivity corresponds to international law and then it will be possible to check for compliance with international law and international organizations, If they support Russia in the fact that the liquidation of the USSR was produced by criminal methods and therefore it is invalid, then it is possible to deal with such organizations and understand not only the criminal liquidation of the USSR, but also Yugoslavia, the destruction of Libya and Iraq ...
    And in those organizations that will not support Russia in its claims about the crime of liquidating the USSR not under international law, Russia has nothing to be in such organizations. For a long time it was necessary to get out of them and not appear there until they correspond to the status of international law ..
  10. Lynx2000
    Lynx2000 21 May 2021 13: 50
    +4
    We must either return to the Yalta-Potsdam system, or go further and form a fundamentally new system of international relations.

    Will not work!
    At that time, the Soviet Union made a number of successful offensives, which ended in the defeat of part of the groupings of German troops and their allies, had (despite deliveries under the Lend-Lease agreement as the main contribution to the victory of the USSR from the point of view of some "historians") considerable authority, backed by political will , military potential, military experience. Britain and the United States were forced to reckon with the USSR.
    It seems that at present such negotiations and reaching agreements are not possible.
    First, modern Russia, its political structure and leadership, the moral qualities of its citizens differ from the USSR in 1944-45.
    Secondly, the level of leaders of all countries in terms of moral and volitional qualities is significantly lower than in 1944-45.
    Macron is not D'Goll
    Johnson is not Churchill
    Baydon is not Roosevelt or Truman
    Putin is not Stalin
    Merkel - for all her attempts to show Germany's independence in European affairs, she is not even drawn to the mini-Fuhrer, the people will not lead.
  11. Conjurer
    Conjurer 21 May 2021 15: 28
    +3
    The so-called "International Organizations" are just a way to "legitimize", that is, to make it seem to be generally recognized, the actions / desires of the subjects actually controlling them, and this understanding sounds in many comments, and in the article itself, just a conclusion in it not clear. I must say bluntly - they cannot. Just because in any meeting there are managers (in the sense, the most influential, on whose opinions the decisions of the meeting depend) subjects, they have their own subjective interests, therefore the decisions of the meeting will always be subjective.
  12. iouris
    iouris 21 May 2021 18: 16
    +1
    Forget international. "International organizations" are organizations that only work for the United States. There are no "foreign agents". All agents are US agents.
    This is the question of their objectivity.
  13. moody
    moody 21 May 2021 23: 39
    0
    This means that we need some kind of reforms, some kind of new construction of supranational structures that will have not only the opportunity to discuss, but also the ability to punish.


    The question is who these structures will serve and who will be punished. It is clear that they will serve the strongest, the rest will be punished at his command. The fact that the strongest is not Russia (in its current state) is also obvious. So does Russia need to participate in this booth, if benefits from it are not expected by definition?
    1. domokl
      22 May 2021 05: 15
      0
      Quote: morose
      The question is who these structures will serve and who will be punished.

      Read about the system created at the end of World War II.
  14. Avior
    Avior 21 May 2021 23: 47
    -1
    this is the author
    For some reason 60% of those arrested were from Serbs and Montenegrins. Croats, on the other hand, accounted for only 18% of those arrested. Isn't it a typical picture from a children's fairy tale about the struggle between good and evil?

    and this is wikipedia
    60% of the accused are Serbs and Montenegrins, in the Hague prison was practically all the military and civilian command of Serbia [16]. Croats accounted for only 18% of all accused, but all Croatian generals were fully acquitted [17]. As a result, according to the judges, during the four-year war, crimes were committed exclusively by the Serbs, which turns the conflict into a “fight between good and evil” [16].

    read means the author.
    look beyond the author
    all Croatian generals were acquitted!

    Strong statement!
    and now we look at the same Wikipedia, which, as we found out, the author read, and we choose the Croatian leadership, condemned by the tribunal
    Tihomir Blaskic, General of the Croatian Army
    Mirko Norac, General of the Croatian Army
    Milivoj Petkovic, Commander-in-Chief of the Croatian Army
    Slobodan Praljak, General of the Croatian Army
    Berislav Pushic, Commander-in-Chief of the Croatian Army
    Valentin Coric, Chief of the Military Police of the Croatian Army.
    Let's add more
    Dario Kordic, one of the leaders of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
    Jadranko Prlic, one of the leaders of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
    and we understand that the article is designed strictly for emotional perception in the hope that no one will check what is stated in it.
    And this is not good: ((...
    hi
    1. agond
      agond 22 May 2021 12: 52
      0
      And let's put the question more broadly, how objective a person can be in general, for example, a boss, an employee, an entrepreneur, a clergyman, a journalist, a scientist ... they are all different, but there is one common feature, everything they do work, they think, they say everything for the sake of money., and objectivity later.
      1. Avior
        Avior 22 May 2021 12: 54
        -1
        And what does this have to do with the fact that the author uses deliberately false statements for his argumentation?
  15. Old man
    Old man 24 May 2021 13: 54
    0
    Here you need to understand that there are PERFECTLY OBJECTIVE worldviews of the Core and the Periphery. ("Concept of the Core and Periphery" https://www.proza.ru/2018/12/17/810). They are as objective as, for example, the worldview of a man and a woman (the Law of Similarity). If this is not taken into account, then stupidity in the relationship is inevitable. At the moment the West (led by the USA) is the periphery of this Process and in this sense they are the chosen ones.
    And Russia is the NUCLEUS. And this is her chosenness and messianism.
    That is why it is so difficult for the West to understand Russia. That is why, with all the desire of our democrats, Russia cannot be converted into the West. And, for this very reason, Russia not only can, but also SHOULD be big and strong. This will only make the whole world better. This is not a whim of the Russians, these are the requirements of the Unified Primordial Laws (https://www.proza.ru/2014/03/11/2006) - the balance must be observed!
    1. agond
      agond 28 May 2021 09: 50
      0
      Everything is much simpler, one side parasitized, parasitizes and intends to parasitize further at the expense of the other, and parasitism and objectivity are incompatible things.