Trajectory of unguided missile

Am I the only one who has the persistent impression that our allies from the anti-Putin coalition occasionally fall into illusions and dubious hopes? Or does their right hand not know what the left hand's doing? If I'm wrong - ok, it will benefit Ukraine.  As, for example, the last aid package, including Patriot, provided by America just before Zelenskyy's visit.

But logic, especially on the diplomatic front, still rather resembles a not clearly drawn line for the victory of Ukraine, but rather zigzags in the snow, drawn by a not too sober caroler... Or, closer to wartime, the trajectory of an unguided missile.

A few days ago, as I wrote, the US submitted a resolution to the Congress proposing to exclude Russia from the UN Security Council.  The resolution is bipartisan, which indicates a complete consensus on this issue.  If it happens that the document gets enough votes in a formal vote, then it is obvious that the UN will be forced to respond (US is not only the official address of the headquarters of the Organization, but also the most important sponsor of the UN when it comes to annual contributions to its budget).

“Ritual dances continue around the recognition of Putin's sub-empire as a sponsor of terrorism, although here both parties of the US are unanimous. Perhaps President Zelenskyy will be able to convince Secretary of State Anthony Blinken during his visit to Washington that his "hunker down" and demagogic rhetoric is already perceived as a moveton.”

On the other hand, ritual dances continue around the recognition of Putin's sub-empire as a sponsor of terrorism, although here both parties of the US are unanimous. Perhaps President Zelenskyy will be able to convince Secretary of State Anthony Blinken during his visit to Washington that his "hunker down" and demagogic rhetoric is already perceived as a moveton.  Well, because since the summer, Blinken has been convincing the world community and American citizens of the impracticality of granting Russia this "honorary status."  At first, they feared that such a step could lead to a stop of food exports from Ukraine and, accordingly, world hunger. Therefore, the Secretary of State suddenly turned sharply in the opposite direction: in early December, he announced that the administration was working with Congress on amendments that would allow the Russian Federation to be recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism. This happened, probably, under the impression of the fireworks of the decisions of the European countries’ parliaments, and eventually the entire European Parliament, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, about just such a status for Russia.

And here it is again... According to reports in the American media, Washington is working on calling Russia... an "aggressor state".  It's great to call a spade a spade, but this status on the banks of the Potomac River is at least 9 years too late.

And Blinken says that it will "help us get around some of the problems associated with using the definition of a 'state sponsor of terrorism,' which ... has some unintended consequences."

But it seems that by "bypassing other problems" new ones can appear. First, the concept of "aggressor state" does not exist either in international or in American law. Having made such a decision, it is necessary to make a lot of others, which would not only explain the very definition of "aggressor state", but also reveal a complex of consequences for the country honored with this status. Of course, this will take a lot of time, which in the conditions of the Russian total war "against everyone" is truly invaluable. Because, among other things, it costs hundreds of lives of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians.

“By "bypassing other problems" new ones can appear. First, the concept of "aggressor state" does not exist either in international or in American law. Having made such a decision, it is necessary to make a lot of others, which would not only explain the very definition of "aggressor state", but also reveal a complex of consequences for the country honored with this status.”

And since when did Russia become so "predictable" that in its case one should beware of "unpredictable" consequences?  It behaves like an unguided missile, dozens of which have already fallen on Ukrainian cities (because there is a lack of new ones), starting with Putin's Munich speech in 2007 and the invasion of Georgia in 2008.  Having declared Russia's privilege to "conduct an independent foreign policy", Putin has kept his promise to this day: "We are not going to change this tradition even today."

Okay, I am writing this as a biased person who cares first of all about the misfortunes of Ukraine.  But let's remember Syria, migration operations against the European Union, let's remember terrorist acts on the territories of sovereign states (Great Britain, Germany, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Montenegro, etc.).  And Moscow's economic aggression in the history of the Nord Streams, which ended with a terrorist explosion just before winter, in order to drive the EU into the stall of the Russian energy market.

This is not aggression, because this concept is too narrow.  It is included as a component in the definition of a more global and threatening phenomenon - terrorism. US is very well aware of it after the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011 and the following years of war with Al Qaeda.  With the only difference: Bin Laden dreamed of a global caliphate, while Putin dreamed of a "Russian world without borders."

Therefore, in my opinion, the three scenarios of the end of the war, which are being actively discussed in the American government offices, should take this detail into account. Because negotiations with someone who does not want to negotiate and continues to do his own thing is a fiction, with further war in mind.

And, to be honest, it would be better for American lawyers in cooperation with colleagues from all over the world to work precisely on the definition of the term "terrorist state", which also still does not exist.  And not to be limited to the effective, in my opinion, tool "sponsor of terrorism".

But to begin with, it is worth getting rid of all illusions about the "governance of Russia".  Otherwise, their still unguided Soviet missiles will fly not only to Ukraine, but a little further, for example, to the Schengen zone.  Without visas... Not to mention Iskanders, X-101 and other, more modern weapons.

About the author. Ihor Hulyk is a journalist, Editor-in-Chief of the  Espreso. Zahid website. 

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.