Russia’s gradual advance in the Donbass region appears to be forming an operational encirclement of Ukraine’s last major defensive line—its “fortress belt”—a development that could decide not only the fate of the war but also the shape of the emerging global order.
Related:
Russia’s Swift March Forward in Donbass [Pokrovsk is the prize]
A recent op-ed appearing in Foreign Affairs titled, “The Taiwan Catastrophe,” helps paint a clear picture of US motivations behind its growing confrontation with China and the increasingly unrealistic nature of Washington’s desired outcome.
Washington’s True Fear of China: An Obstacle to American Hegemony
[Quote : no model of governance is universal, and no single country should dictate the international order]
Forging Ahead to Open a New Chapter of China-Russia Friendship, Cooperation and Common Development – Xi Jinping, RIA Novosti
Washington’s Fraudulent, Rules-Based International Order: Among the many deceptive arguments that Joe Biden’s administration has made about the Ukraine war is that Russia’s invasion is an attack of unprecedented severity on the liberal, “rules-based international order” established at the end of World War II. That allegation has been a constant theme of administration officials and their allies in the news media and the foreign policy blob. Proponents argue that the war is a global existential struggle between order and chaos, free societies and unprincipled aggressors. Biden has stated the thesis succinctly that the Ukraine war is nothing less than “a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules‐based order and one governed by brute force.”
Ukraine: A War To Save The Rules-Based International Order?
Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman just reaffirmed that Washington would maintain first use to protect ‘our allies.’
When the US threatens to use nuclear weapons
H/T: Unorthodox Truth
It’s okay when we do it, because we’re the good guys! /s
[World War I] Pro-war statements and speeches—as well as more coercive measures—gradually captured American public discourse in 1917. Fairly quickly, those who rejected the rationales for United States participation in the war found themselves increasingly isolated. Liberals, intellectuals, and even many socialists soon supported American intervention. A youthful critic in his twenties, Randolph Bourne wrote a bitter essay in the intellectual magazine Seven Arts, lambasting his fellow intellectuals for lining up so readily behind the war effort.
The War and the Intellectuals
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.