Okay, now tell us, right-wing smartasses, why Vladimir Putin is such an excellent role model. Really. We're listening.
Or did you already forget the praise you heaped upon him when his murderous troops began their invasion of Ukraine in February? Are you trying to find a place to hide?
That would include ex-, who referred to Putin as a "genius." What kind of genius does it take to tell your troops to kill people indiscriminately? To torture them? What kind of strategist would do that? Someone who didn't care about any human form, because if I were a Russian soldier, I'd be pretty scared of being captured by Ukrainians about now.
That would also include Tucker Carlson, whose rantings on Fox News are beyond rational. I want to hear him rationalize them now. I want to hear him double down on his support for this monster.
Ukrainian President Zelensky is right: The Russians will continue to try to hide the traces of their atrocities. They will utilize misinformation to confuse and fog the airwaves. They will try to make Ukraine look like the barbarians that the Russians are.
There is one, and only one way to make a sufficient statement against this: To kick Russia out of the United Nations. It's not enough to sanction it. It's not enough to subject it to ridicule. It's not enough to censure Putin and his band of thugs. Based on its propaganda, the whole country's in denial anyhow.
What's that you say--that throwing Russia out of the U.N. would allow it to become an international rogue nation, operating with no rules except coercion? And this isn't happening already?
Put another way: What possible good does it do to have Russia in the U.N.? It's not interested in world peace anymore. It's certainly not interested in someone, anyone, else's rights. It's not trying to clarify anything like that. It's marking time. I don't think it will threaten NATO. It has plenty of other former territory in Asia--Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and the like--to invade. If that happens, will the West care about them as much? Will this become a protracted half-war all over the place?
At least throw Russia out of the Security Council, made up of the five original members--the U.S., Russia, China (used to be Taiwan, but the big China, the one with 1.4 billion people, has that title now), the United Kingdom, and France--and ten other members on a rotating basis. That group is the core of deciding, for instance, whether or not to send peacekeeping troops. And the five original members have a permanent veto, meaning that a 14-1 vote against any of them cannot be overridden.
The former Soviet Union, now Russia, would have blocked U.N. intervention in Korea in 1950, except its representative was boycotting the meetings because of the U.S.'s opposition to the above mentioned China, conquered by the Communists under Mao Zedong just the year before. Without that veto, the U.S. could take the lead in stopping the invasion of the peninsula and turning it into a stalemate. That created the Republic of South Korea. We still have troops there. That buildup may still have disastrous consequences, with Kim Jong Il launching nuclear weapons tests here and there. Should that come to a head, will it do any good at all to have Russia in the U.N., gumming up the works with its veto?
Belonging to the Security Council implies an ultimate responsibility. Russia no longer deserves to be given any responsibility. Its goal seems to be to upset the apple cart of world peace, destroy a neighboring country and, if necessary, all of its people, and return its size to the empire that it once had before 1991.
What advantages does the U.N. have to keep Russia within it, especially while Vladimir Putin rules it with his iron fist? I can't see any.
Please send suggestions.
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment