Was Covid19 a Springboard for the West’s War Against Russia in Ukraine?

Russia/China war drills in Siberia.

“The result of a war (against Russia) would never result in the destruction of the main power of Russia, which rests upon millions of Russians of the Greek [Orthodox] confession. Even if separated by treaty, these would just as soon reunite, like the parts of a splattered drop of mercury.” – Otto Von Bismarck

“Whatever the rationale, it’s imperative that the United States suppress any lingering desire to bring Ukraine (and Georgia) into the NATO alliance. Nothing is more likely to bring large numbers of Russian boots onto the Ukrainian ground than the idea that Washington wants to have NATO troops right on the Russian border and in spitting distance of the country’s historic Black Sea naval base in Crimea.” – William Blum 2014 

“It would be impossible to list the promising areas of cooperation between Russia and China (…) when the West is most flagrantly eroding the entire bedrock that the international system stands on, we… two great powers have to think about our future in this world.” – Sergey Lavrov 2022

The world has been plunged into uncertainty and increased economic hardship in Europe since February 24th when Russia took the decision to push back against NATO expansionism and conduct an incursion into Ukraine. Since this date the Western-centric information war has been savage, deleting Russian or Russia-sympathetic channels from our media sphere in the very early days. The US-led economic/sanction war has been swift and unilaterally sadistic and with equally devastating rebound from Russia that will decimate the Global North energy markets and perhaps fatally wound global dollar supremacy.

In the early days of the Russian military operation debates raged over the legality of such action and many in the independent media were already dismissing the Russian military intervention as nothing more than another measure to further subjugate the “little people” and to ensure the “Great Reset” in the West following on from the demise of the Covid19 narrative and the rise of the Resistance, particularly the Truckers Freedom Rally 2022 originating in Canada that had thrown a spanner in the Great Reset wheel.

According to these pundits the West and Russia, China were all “in it together” to impose a technocratic tyranny that would erase nation state sovereignty and unify the transnational oligarchy cabal in the depopulation, AI, digital surveillance, ID2020, Agenda 2030 program.

My purpose in compiling the information in this series of articles or resource collection (this is part one of a two or three part series) will be to propose alternative theories to this “all one bloc” theory and to offer the idea that perhaps the Covid19 two year hiatus had a hybrid purpose – including the paving of the road to war with Russia by a Western-dominated health/technocratic and supremacist predator class.

In Part One I will explore the legality of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, the more recent origins and the historic background which will also be expanded upon in subsequent parts of the series.

The legality of the Russian military campaign in Ukraine

According to Christopher Black, international criminal and human rights lawyer who is Chair of the Legal Committee for the International Committee for the Defence of Slobodan Milosevic and vice-chair of the overall committee, and was Lead Defence Counsel, at the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal in the case of General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Chief of Staff, Rwanda Gendarmerie and won his acquittal on all charges in 2014 – Russia was operating within international law:

In my opinion Russia acted in accordance with international law under Article 51 of the UN Charter for the following reasons;

First, the Kiev regime was mounting a major offensive with NATO’s help against the Donbass Republics with the intent of destroying them. Intensive shelling had already begun days before Russia acted, the shelling of civilian buildings and infrastructure, which resulted in scores of thousands of civilians fleeing into Russia. During that period the Kiev regime also attempted to assassinate a leader of the Republics with a car bomb. Russia had no choice but to protect the Donbass peoples and since the Security Council could do nothing, and the EU and NATO were supporting the Kiev offensive against the Donbass, Russia was the only nation that could act.

Black points out the hypocrisy of NATO accusations that Russia was acting aggressively and without provocation detailing the lawlessness of US-dominated “rules based international order” that is beholden to US allied rules rather than to any true justice-based central jurisdiction that the UN ceased to provide long ago. Black argues:

Have any of the other American wars been legal? None of them All of them are in violation of Article 2(4). The list is long. When I first drafted this I set out all the invasions of nations the Americans conducted since then but to list them here would turn this into a thick book of American crimes, from Korea to Vietnam, from Cuba to Congo, from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Latin America, to Yugoslavia, Syria, Lebanon. But one crime must be added to all their war crimes and aggressions, the crime of hypocrisy. For all of their aggressions were conducted for reasons of domination and exploitation of resources and peoples, for profit. There was never any legal justification ever offered, as there were none. None of them were conducted in self-defence, whereas Russia’s action clearly is.

Black goes on to say that the Russian operation was justified under the auspices of the Caroline Doctrine established in 1837 by the US and UK to allow the right of a sovereign nation to self defence if the following two conditions were met:

 1. The use of force must be necessary because the threat is imminent and thus pursuing peaceful alternatives is not an option, and,2. The response must be proportionate to the threat.

In this case the threat was more than imminent. It was on-going and increasing. The only effective and proportional defensive response was to destroy the offensive forces being deployed. These forces include not only Kiev regime government forces but also the nationalist, Nazi brigades supporting and spearheading the Kiev offensive and all the NATO equipment being supplied to them to conduct the Kiev offensive.

Dmitry Orlov, Russian-American engineer and geopolitical analyst was equally convinced of Russia’s right to self-defence:

Russia had the full legal right to invade the Ukraine from several perspectives: to defend its allies in Donetsk and Lugansk; to defend itself against Ukrainian WMDs, which the Ukrainian president threatened to start producing at the Munich Security Conference; and to stop NATO from continuing its advance toward Russian borders in violation of its previous commitment of “not an inch to the east.” Russia exercised its right of self-defense under article 51 of part 7 of the UN Charter. The Ukraine had forfeited its right to territorial integrity under the 1970 UN Declaration by refusing to honor the rights of its Russian-speaking population. It also refused to renew its Friendship Treaty with Russia and therefore no longer had a defined border with Russia that Russia was obligated to honor.

Read the Whole Article