Is the rules-based international order worth fighting for?

In a recent interview on MSNBC, neocon and serial war monger Max Boot says that US needs to continue the fight to defend the sacred “rules-based international order”.

Of course definitions for the rules and how they are interpreted are hard to come by. The closest thing I found was description from the US State Department about how Russia has been violating the rules in Ukraine:

Moscow’s actions in Ukraine threaten to set new precedents on European soil, undermining these basic international principles vital to peace and security:

  • The borders and territorial integrity of a state cannot be changed by force.
  • Citizens in a democracy have an inherent right to determine their country’s future.
  • All members of the international community are bound by common rules and must face consequences if they break their solemn commitments.
    https://www.state.gov/united-with-ukraine/

As far as interpreting the rules, actions of the US speak louder than words. Here are a few examples from recent history:

Rule 1: In 1999 the US bombed Yugoslavia and created an independent Kosovo from their territory. We even lobbed a missile into the Chinese embassy. The US continues to occupy oil fields in Syria. How does that reconcile with respecting territorial integrity?

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/rockets-fired-at-syrias-largest-oil-field-controlled-by-us/2601320

Rule 2: The US orchestrated the violent overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine in 2014. How does that reconcile with allowing democracy determine a country’s future?

Rule 3: The US has consistently ignored agreements related to eastward expansion of NATO and the 2015 peace agreement in Ukraine. How does that agree with rule 3 about keeping solemn commitments?

Does the rules-based international order mean that elements within the US government make the rules and then break them whenever it is expedient?

Or is Russia just following the example of the US in interpreting the rules?

Is keeping the rules-based international order worth fighting for?

It simply comes down to this.

Are you willing to sacrifice your son or daughter to protect the Democrats Money Laundrying operation in the Ukraine?

It’s your children’s lives that are at stake.

4 Likes

Yes, there is the risk that the war could escalate so American troops will be dying on the fields of Ukraine.

For now, the question is whether Americans should sacrifice their livelihoods to support a war that is killing tens of thousands of the sons and daughters of Ukraine. US is spending a $130 million per day on the war. NATO military leaders are saying the war could last for years.

In addition, the US economy is moving into recession while inflation is at the highest levels in 40 years. Mortage rates have doubled since the beginning of the year, and they continue to head upward. NATO’s self-imposed embargos on energy and food from Russia are contributing to the looming economic crisis in the US and its allies.

Territorial borders have changed throughout all of recorded history. The rules based international order is a myth, nothing but a short lived social construct.

1 Like

Yes, I doubt many people are willing to die to defend the “rules-based international order”.

The most basic motivation is to protect homes and families not some abstract concept.

The post WW II order is dead.

Sooner countries realize this, the better off we all will be.

1 Like

I’m not willing to sacrifice anyone’s child in Ukraine.

2 Likes