A criminal nation

The European Court of Human Rights has found Russia guilty of horrific human rights violations during its unlawful invasions of Ukraine:

Russia has committed flagrant and unprecedented abuses of human rights since it invaded Ukraine in 2014, including extrajudicial killings, sexual violence and forced labour, the European court of human rights has found.

The court’s grand chamber unanimously held that between 11 May 2014 and 16 September 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the European convention on human rights it had committed “manifestly unlawful conduct … on a massive scale”.

[...]

In its judgment, published on Wednesday, the court said there was evidence of widespread and systemic use of sexual violence, accompanied by acts of torture, such as beatings, strangling or electric shocks. Civilians and prisoners of war were subjected to mock executions, the severing of body parts and electric shocks, including to intimate areas of their bodies, the court said.

Finding repeated violations of the convention, many of which had taken place over a period of more than eight years, the court said: “These actions seek to undermine the very fabric of the democracy on which the Council of Europe and its member states are founded by their destruction of individual freedoms, their suppression of political liberties and their blatant disregard for the rule of law.

The court also found Russia guilty of shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, murdering 298 people.

Russia withdrew from the court in September 2022, so the ruling isn't directly enforceable. But its enforceable within Europe, and Russian assets frozen there could lawfully be seized to pay compensation. More importantly, if Russia ever wants to normalise its relationship with Europe, it is going to have to address this, accept the ruling, and make restitution. And until it does, the world is justified in treating it as a criminal nation.

United States of betrayal

As expected, Donald Trump just threw Ukraine under the bus, demanding that it accept Russia's illegal theft of land, while ruling out any future membership of NATO. Its a colossal betrayal, which effectively legitimises Russia's invasion, while laying the groundwork for the next one. But Trump is apparently fine with that too.

That's bad, but then it got worse, with US Defence Secretary (and chief drunk) Pete Hegseth effectively withdrawing the US from NATO, and telling Europe that it would not defend it:

Donald Trump’s newly appointed defence secretary told allies on his first international trip that the US was no longer “primarily focused” on European security and that Europe would have to take the lead in defending Ukraine.

[...]

The Pentagon chief said he was “here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe”, though the language was notably toned down from a draft briefed in advance to the press.

I'm not exactly a fan of NATO, given its recent use as American expeditionary foederatii. But I'm willing to acknowledge that its original mission of deterring war in Europe was a necessary evil during the cold war, and one that has unfortunately - thanks to Putin - become necessary again. So the US basically abandoning it, and telling Putin "go ahead; invade the Baltics!", is terrible. It makes the world a much less safe place. It also tells the world that America's word can't be trusted on anything, even things which have been considered absolutely crucial for 75 years, and so no-one should make any deals with them - but that really sounds like an "America" problem now.

But its terrible for another reason too. Because NATO served another important purpose: nuclear non-proliferation. As long as NATO members felt that the US would defend them, including by deterring nuclear attack, they did not need to develop their own nuclear deterrent. And now that the US has said "we will not deter for you", that sets a very unpleasant precedent. Putin's invasion of Ukraine - a country which voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons - sent a very clear message that if countries with aggressive neighbours wanted to be safe, they needed nukes. US support for Ukraine (and for NATO) may have kept a lid on that. But now that that support has been withdrawn, and no country can rely on US promises, there is a clear incentive for those countries to get their own bombs. And that means not just Ukraine and Poland, but also Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Nuclear weapons are dangerous. A world with more nuclear-armed states is a more dangerous world, with more trigger points for nuclear war, and a greater chance of nuclear famine. And the incentives set by nuclear weapons, to strike before your enemy can deter, leads to greater instability (just look at the last twenty years duelling between the US/Israel and Iran). So by betraying its allies and abandoning its commitments, the US has made the world a much more dangerous place for everybody. They've committed us to nuclear proliferation, regional arms races, and global instability. And as Eisenhower said, that has a cost: "every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed".

So, fuck Trump, and fuck America. And fuck their boss Putin, for starting this shitfest in the first place. They're wrecking the world. The quicker they're all run out of office, the better.

Justice for Ukraine?

Overnight, Russia launched more missiles against Ukraine, targeting apartment blocks and electricity facilities in an effort to terrise civilians and freeze them to death over winter. And there are more photos of Russian war crimes in occupied areas doing the rounds. So I'm glad to see some progress at the UN towards holding Russia's leadership to account for their crimes:

A draft resolution is circulating at the United Nations in New York for a Nuremberg-style tribunal to hold the Russian leadership accountable for crimes of aggression in Ukraine amid signs that US opposition to the proposal may be softening in the face of lobbying by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

[...]

The international criminal court has already started investigating war crimes in Ukraine, but Ukraine’s leadership argues that the ICC is hampered in that while it can try those charged with individual war crimes, it cannot prosecute the Kremlin leadership over the broader crime of aggression since Russia is not a signatory to the relevant statute.

Van Schaack, speaking in London at a Lawyers for Justice in Libya event, said the US had not taken a firm position on a special tribunal. However, she believed there was merit in holding trials in absentia of Russians accused of war crimes if it was not possible to extradite them.

The EU has already expressed support for such a tribunal, so the question here is whether its done by them or the UN. The latter obviously has more moral weight, and will be a stronger condemnation by the international community of Russia's crimes. And its in the interests of the international community to do it: non-aggression and human rights are the cornerstones of the modern international order (even if they are observed in the breach), and allowing aggression and war crimes to go unpunished will encourage them. Whereas trying aggressors and criminals protects everyone.

Whether Putin and his cronies actually end up before such a tribunal obviously depends on how the war ends (and what happens inside Russia in response). But at the least, this will make sure they can never set foot outside Russia or its tiny club of fellow tyrannies ever again. And that they'll never be able to enjoy their stolen wealth ever again.

Decarbonisation for peace

When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, people were quick to point out that his war was funded by fossil fuels. 60% of Russia's export revenue comes from oil and gas. Europe's dependence on Russian gas is effectively funding Putin's war to the tune of US$285 million a day. Cutting that revenue would limit Russia's ability to wage war and commit acts of aggression against its neighbours.

Meanwhile, we are in the middle of a climate crisis, and desperately need to reduce global emissions to avoid destroying our civilisation and making the planet uninhabitable. And suddenly, the solution to one of these problems is looking like the solution to the other. The US has banned Russian oil. The UK is doing the same. The EU is cutting its dependence on Russian gas. In all three cases, making things work is going to require crash investment in decarbonisation - renewables, energy efficiency and EVs - to avoid significant damage. Meaning a permanent shift away from fossil fuels, and permanent emissions reductions.

But its not just Russia: globally, some of our worst tyrannies - Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela - are petrocracies, and rely on oil revenues to fund their wars and repression. (The USA, the world's largest oil producer, also engages in wars of aggression, but it is not a petrostate like the others are). Again, cutting those revenues will make them less powerful, less capable of hurting their own people or others. Reducing emissions is a way of defunding war everywhere. Sadly, it has taken a major war of aggression to remind everyone of this. But now it has been bought to our attention, we should seize the opportunity, decarbonise, and watch the tyrants shrivel.

Send Putin to The Hague

The International Criminal Court has formally opened an investigation into war crimes in Ukraine, after being asked to by 39 countries:

The prosecutor of the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague has announced that he will launch an investigation into possible war crimes or crimes against humanity in Ukraine.

Karim Khan said that although Ukraine was not a member of the ICC, it had awarded jurisdiction to the court. He said that there was grounds to open an investigation based on a previous preliminary investigation on Crimea and the Donbas published last year, and on current events in Ukraine.

“I have already tasked my team to explore all evidence preservation opportunities,” Khan, a British lawyer, said.

Which is good, because war crimes and crimes against humanity are undoubtedly being committed by Russian forces in Ukraine, and they need to be prosecuted. But thanks to a quirk of the Rome Statute, the real crime here - the crime of aggression ( "the supreme international crime" which "contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole") - will not be part of the investigation. Neither Ukraine or Russia is a party to the Rome Statute (though Ukraine has accepted jurisdiction), so the ICC cannot prosecute for aggression. Which means firstly, that we need to reform the Rome Statute so that it can; and secondly, that until that happens, we will need a special-purpose tribunal to prosecute this crime and hold Putin accountable.

New Fisk

In the Middle East, Putin has a lot to thank Trump for right now

New Fisk

To Putin, Assad’s enemies in Syria are the same as Russia’s in Chechnya

New Fisk

Vladimir Putin is positioning himself as the main player in the Middle East

New Fisk

Is there truth in the conspiracy theories about who killed Russian Lieutenant General Valery Asapov in Syria?

New Fisk

The US air strikes say more about the Vladimir Putin-Donald Trump relationship than the Middle East

New Fisk

It's not Donald Trump who matters now in the Middle East – it's Putin

Russia heads back to the dark ages

A Russian MP wants to "decriminalise" domestic violence. Yes, really:

Ultra-conservative Russian MP Yelena Mizulina, best known for successfully introducing for the law banning so-called gay propaganda, introduced a new bill to the State Duma in July proposing the decriminalisation of violence within families.

“Battery carried out toward family members should be an administrative offence,” said Mizulina, who is chair of the Duma committee on family, women and children’s affairs and is now a senator in the Federation Council, Russia’s upper chamber of parliament. “You don’t want people to be imprisoned for two years and labelled a criminal for the rest of their lives for a slap.”

Except of course it's not "a slap": its serious, pervasive violence. 36,000 Russian women are abused by their partners every day. 40% of all violent crime in Russia is domestic violence. If an MP suggested that they "decriminalise" violence by organised crime, they'd be laughed at. And yet apparently the idea of decriminalising violence by men against women gets taken seriously.

The scary thing is that Russia is such a bigoted society at the moment that this could actually pass. The mere fact that it is being discussed tells you that there is something incredibly wrong with their society and their political system.

New Fisk

Erdogan’s meeting with Putin will tell us what the future holds for Syria

No freedom of religion in Russia

Being able to state your religious beliefs and pointlessly argue about them with other people is something we take for granted in New Zealand. But apparently, you can't do that in Russia:

A man in southern Russia faces a potential jail sentence after he was charged with insulting the feelings of religious believers over an internet exchange in which he wrote that “there is no God”.

Viktor Krasnov, 38, who appeared in court Wednesday, is being prosecuted under a controversial 2013 law that was introduced after punk art group Pussy Riots was jailed for a performance in Moscow’s main cathedral, his lawyer Andrei Sabinin told AFP.

The charges – which carry a maximum one-year jail sentence – centre on an internet exchange that Krasnov was involved in in 2014 on a humorous local website in his hometown of Stavropol.

“If I say that the collection of Jewish fairytales entitled the Bible is complete bullshit, that is that. At least for me,” Krasnov wrote, adding later “there is no God!”

One of the young people involved in the dispute with Krasnov then lodged a complaint against him accusing him of “offending the sentiments of Orthodox believers”.

As if prosecution wasn't enough, they tried to claim he was insane first (Russia having inherited the Soviet approach of politically abusing psychiatry). Because obviously, anyone who doesn't subscribe to legally enforced religious views must be mad. But if members of the dominant religion find the expression of dissent "offensive", it says more about their intolerance than anything else.

But before we feel too superior, remember: New Zealand still has a law against "blasphemous libel", which specifically protects the Anglican (and only the Anglican) religion, on the books. And our politicians have been too chickenshit to remove it, despite its obvious inconsistency with the right to freedom of religion affirmed by the BORA.

Syria, hypocrisy, and unusual honesty

Last year, the US started bombing Syria. As usual, there was no UN authorisation; they simply scraped together a bunch of vassals to form a new "coalition of the willing" and went ahead and did it. Unilateral action good!

Today, Russia started bombing Syria. They don't have UN permission either, but have just gone ahead and done it. The American reaction? Outrage, of course - complete with statements that Russia cannot act alone. Unilateral action bad!

American hypocrisy aside, I doubt this will do any good, any more than past bombing campaigns have. Sure, they'll spend millions of dollars, test their new weapons systems, get to play with their toys, and posture on the world stage by blowing up children - and the civil war will go on and people will continue fleeing and dying and there will be more chaos giving space to groups like ISIS and the atrocities will inspire a new generation of terrorists. Which will of course require more bombing in future. The only winners here are the people who sell bombs. I don't know what the answer to the Syrian problem is, but "more bombing" certainly isn't it.

And oddly, a US spokesperson seems to have come to some awareness of this:

Russia’s campaign in Syria will succeed no more than military solutions in Iraq or Afghanistan, press secretary Josh Earnest has told reporters in a briefing at the White House.

“Russia will not succeed in imposing a military solution any more than the United States was successful in imposing a military solution in Iraq a decade ago, and certainly any more than Russia was able to impose a military solution in Afghanistan three decades ago,” Earnest said.

Yes, the White House just called America's Glorious Military Endeavours in Iraq and Afghanistan - and by implication, the last 25 years of US foreign policy - a failure. Which is an unusually accurate assessment - but one which will no doubt result in Republicans calling for him to be prosecuted for treason or something.

New Fisk

What’s Putin up to in Syria? I would wager he’s after something big – retaking Palmyra

New Fisk

The superpowers are battling to be the biggest hypocrite

New Fisk

A meeting of minds in Cairo: Billion-dollar arms deal on table as Putin and Abdel Fattah al-Sisi seek closer trade links and alliance against 'terror'

The expected result

As expected, Crimea has voted to rejoin Russia:

Some 95.5% of voters in Crimea have supported joining Russia, officials say. after half the votes have been counted in a disputed referendum.

Crimea's leader says he will apply to join Russia on Monday. Russia's Vladimir Putin has said he will respect the Crimean people's wishes.

Which is exactly the result you get when you have a "vote" with no "Nyet" option happening under Russian guns. But Russia doesn't need the result to be internationally credible - all it needs is a number it can wave in its state-controlled press to "justify" annexation domestically.

The next question: will Russia now try the same scam of destabilisation and stealth invasion in Eastern Ukraine?

New Fisk

Western leaders cannot face a ‘looming’ war. So I guess they'll patch something up - and let Russia gobble part of Ukraine