THE FAILURE OF THE ENGINEERS’ REPUBLIC : ROMANIA’’S CASE

I have published the article below in 2007.Before that and since then Romania’s situation deteriorated further.The country and its politicians are limping from crisis to crisis, as the current developments testify.

Truth be told, engineers and their talents are essential when it comes to technological progress, industrialisation or economic development. Unfortunately, the engineers’ involvement in politics, directly or indirectly, can and often does have tragic consequences.

         *       *       *       *        *      *     *       *     *     *    *    *

Following the abortive action to suspend the president, Victor Ponta (finally) spelled it out : the serious political problems in Romanian society and in the PSD party are due to the engineers who lead both the economy and most of Romania’s political parties.

From an economic point of view, a communist state was organized as a command-and-control society. The main beneficiaries of this system were, in our country, the engineers. Trained in faculties and institutes founded during Stalinism, they came to represent not only the economic elite of the communist regime, but since 1989, the political elite as well.

The chief engineer of the republic that emerged 17 years ago is, of course, Ion Iliescu. Most of the main political parties’ leaders are, in turn, engineers. Calin Popescu Tariceanu and Mircea Geoana are construction engineers, Ion Diaconescu from PNTCD party is an engineer by training, as are Gheorghe Ciuhandu, Petre Roman, and the examples can go on and on.

If someone were curious, for example, to research the qualifications of the Romanian embassy officials in the US, they would notice that almost all of them are engineers by profession, having been trained in diplomacy through short-term courses. In other words, under the leadership of Sorin Ducaru (currently NATO ambassador to Brussels), himself a telecommunications engineer, the embassy could have been transformed at any time into a mini-factory, with technical and economic management able to be easily provided by the embassy staff.

Leaving aside the example of the Romanian embassy staff in the US, chosen at random due to the good quality of information to be found about this institution on its website, let's consider briefly the very notion of engineer.

Unfortunately, the meaning differs between our world and the Western one. In Romania, most engineers were and still are disconnected from the practicality or hands-on experience in the fields in which they specialize, preferring the briefcase and the white collar to the screwdriver and overalls. 

Most were taught how to use imported equipment and were qualified to instruct others how to pull levers and press buttons, limiting themselves to reporting and competing for management positions (let's not forget that communist Romania did not train its engineers in industrial management, for example). 

In the West, but also in the Far East, so to speak, an engineer who does not know how to tune an engine (engineer = the one who deals with engines) whatever that engine may be, in his field, is completely useless . The typical Romanian engineer, therefore, excels in creativity and theoretical knowledge, but usually lacks any practical skills.

Returning to the political situation in the country, I think it is obvious to any informed observer that since May 19, the political system has finally entered a deadlock. Both the replacement of the current constitution and the fundamental rebuilding of the political system (introduction of the uninominal vote, reduction of the number of parliamentarians, changes in the electoral law) are urgently needed. 

More skilled at financial engineering than at engineering proper, many of the Romanian engineers who entered Parliament have contributed with their lack of political knowledge and imagination to the current disaster. 

Thus, it matters less to which party our disoriented politicians belong, than to the fact that they belong to a trans-party fraternity of communist-type engineers. That means an incompetent fraternity, but one focused on getting rich quickly and - perhaps unconsciously but certainly - motivated by the "free corridor" left open by other categories of intellectuals (lawyers, teachers, sociologists, artists, writers, etc.).  These categories of intellectuals were less inclined to manifest themselves as a professional guild with political aspirations and become involved in the public affairs of the country, and less focused on the monopolization of state structures on behalf of the professional group they belong to.

The "golden age" of the republic of engineers was the period 1992-1996, when Nicolae Vacaroiu was at the helm of the Romanian government. During this period, Romania's bankrupt factories and plants passed into the ownership of those who had brought them into bankruptcy. Banks, which for specialists trained in the school of communism are nothing more than simple institutions for allocating credits, were forced to grant unprofitable loans to unprofitable enterprises. The state budget became the piggy bank of enterprises that continued to be veritable black holes of the Romanian economy. 

Foreign competition was eliminated with the help of miners' bats and a corrupt and hostile bureaucracy. This was the period when the Petromidia refinery, for example, despite its huge losses, was modernized to a Nelson factor of 9.8, i.e. one of the most advanced in Europe. After that, it was ceded to Mr. Patriciu. ( PNL party)

Starting with 1989, the same “specialists” - who failed to produce a truck that brakes equally on all four wheels, a tractor that does not break down frequently in the field, or to build the roads from Transylvania to the rest of Romania that can be used all year round- have also built the current republic, at our expense and taxing everybody’s patience. 

It should come as no surprise, then, that the republic is dysfunctional and has now gone bankrupt. Probably if I had been asked to become a section chief or a factory manager, as a historian I would have been incapable of fulfilling this obligation competently. Unlike our engineers, however, I would have declined the “honor “ of undertaking tasks for which I have no skills or specialized training.

Notes

With rare exceptions, Eastern European engineers lack any talent and understanding for politics. This fact was acknowledged with great honesty by former President Yeltsin, who confessed that he could not sleep at night because he did not know what decisions to take the next day.

Evidence of this political ineptitude is abundant in our country. Thus, in 1995 5e PNTCD party was taken over by Eng. Ion Diaconescu (an engineer ) from Corneliu Coposu, who had managed to bring the party to an electoral representation exceeding 30%. Today, opinion polls give PNTCD a maximum of 2% of the electorate's preferences…

In 2004, when Calin Popescu Tariceanu ( an engineer ) took over PNL from Theodor Stolojan ( an economist )and Valeriu Stoica (a lawyer ) , the Liberals attracted over 20% of the electorate's preferences. Today, this share has dropped in the polls to approximately 10%, and the downward trend continues.

In 2004, Mircea Geoana ( another engineer ) took over a PSD that was at the forefront of Romanians' electoral preferences, halving the number of its supporters (from 34% to approximately 14% today).

TRUMP’S SECOND PRESIDENTIAL BID

 I wrote the following post on the 11th of April 2023 on Facebook. Unfortunately, subsequent events proved my professional intuition right.

I wasn't a Trump fan in 2016, I'm not now one either.

It is true that during Trump's first presidency no new war broke out, like now in Ukraine. This does not mean that he has abandoned the expansion policy of NATO or the economic expansionism of the USA in Europe. On the contrary, although he threatened to dissolve NATO, he increased the budget of the American army and courted the Poles, who inaugurated a base in Poland called "Fort Trump".

Trump urged the Poles to give up Russian gas and import LNG from the US, which actually happened during Biden's time. Trump also decided to send offensive weapons to Ukraine, an aid denied to them during the years of Obama's presidency.

But the most important promise made to the American electorate by Trump was that of "the draining of the swamp in Washington". Well, although he claimed the opposite, Trump  also favoured politically and from an economic point of view (tax reductions)  big business and his cronies.

IT'S TIME FOR AN AMERICAN GORBACHEV ?

 This at least is the opinion shared by the foreign news editor of Cotidianul daily from Romania

I think however that a much more appropriate analogy for the current situation the US finds itself in is not with the USSR in its last decade, but with Yeltsin's Russia.

Consider  this . By 1999, Boris Yeltsin was to ill to fulfill his duties as president, same as Biden is now. Both Yeltsin and  Biden  worked for decades as high-ranking officials in their parties, Yeltsin for the CPSU, Biden for the Democratic party. They were both elected presidents at the end of their careers, when they proved unable to adapt to a rapidly changing international environment. 

Moreover, the two were accused of allowing their children to profit from their positions in the state by taking bribes from foreign business people. And finally, given their medical condition , they were both unable in the end  to work for more than a few hours daily and we're eased out of their positions by their political allies and / or family.

A Demented Alliance Serving A Gerontocratic Elite

 

“NATO will stand up for the rights of LGBTQ people.” (source: Chronicles Magazine)

“On the International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia, and every day: all love is equal. LGBTQ+ people deserve respect & dignity, and I am proud to call myself your ally.”(source: X 2024 @jensstoltenberg)

[…] we always need to do more [for LGBTQ+ people]. To push forward with ambition.” (May 17, 2023 speech of NATO Secretary General)

https://florianpantazi.substack.com/p/a-demented-alliance-serving-a-gerontocratic 

HOW US. HEGEMONY SHOULD END

In a world dominated by democracies, American hegemonism should not be decided by its military might, but submitted to a vote in the UN General Assembly.

https://florianpantazi.substack.com/p/how-us-hegemony-should-end

FROM ATLANTIC WAVE TO REVOLUTIONARY CONTAGION

 

"  Palmer and Godechot presented the challenge of an Atlantic history at the Tenth International History Congress in 1955. It fell flat, dismissed by revolutionary historians as a poorly cloaked Cold War attempt to bolster NATO " 

Click here to read the full post:

Https://florianpantazi.substack.com/p/from-atlantic-wave-to-revolutionary. 

THE POLITICS OF HALF-MEASURES

 A document  circulating in American conservative  foreign policy circles for some time now proposes a dormant NATO as a solution to the alliance's current crisis of credibility.

 Paradoxically, although the number of members of the alliance has increased recently, NATO's credibility as a peacekeeping force in Europe has all but evaporated.

According to the document, the burden of the EU's common defense would pass from the US to the Europeans, with the Americans only providing the continent's nuclear protection, the rest of the military obligations falling entirely to the Europeans.

In actual fact , the American nuclear umbrella is not even needed, as France can simply beef up its nuclear arsenal already at its disposal. Accordingly , we arrive at the logical conclusion that the proposal in question is meaningless, as it's generally the case with similar American proposals . In truth , NATO should not be sent "to sleep", but rather dissolved as an alliance .

ON KISSINGER'S PASSING

 I happened to have a brief exchange of views with Kissinger about China in 2000. At the time, I was alarmed by the laxity of the Clinton administration in policing the exports of dual-use high techology to China, which I deemed reckless. Kissinger asked his director of Kissinger Associates, Paul Bremer III – the future governor of Iraq – to answer on his behalf . In it, Bremer wrote that Kissinger told him that he shared my concerns, which were not however shared by the Washington elite at the time.

Whilst in my view he was less important and competent – among US top foreign policy experts – than George Kennan, Kissinger knew how to successfully make the transition from academic life to the corridors of power in Washington DC. I say that he was less competent than Kennan because he never really understood the USSR as Kennan did, nor could he get the better of Soviet diplomats the way he did with Zhou Enlai or Mao of China.

The book that launched his career was not about Metternich, but his 1957 " Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy”, in which he made the case for the feasability of limited nuclear wars among superpowers. The book made him one of the darlings of the military-industrial complex and impressed both Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

Kissinger also knew how to deal with political leaders -from Ceaușescu to Nixon- who had oversized egos, if not downright megalomania, like the Romanian dictator. Nixon did not like Kissinger much, he just used him. For his part, Kissinger was singing praises to Nixon during working hours, whilst calling him unstable and a drunk in evening meetings with his friends.

Kissinger honestly acknowledged that at the origin of his success in China was the chief of the Czechoslovak secret service, which was the first to bring to his attention the existence of the Sino-Soviet split. Chancellor Adenauer of Germany also helped, giving him a book on the subject written by a German intelligence official.

Kissinger was an enormously ambitious individual. He wanted a big success in China and to get it, he made the error of agreeing to the demands of the Chinese to formally consider Taiwan as part of China. He did so without informing Nixon first or indeed without having his approval. Critics contend that he did in effect hand over Taiwan to China.

Finally, unlike Kennan, Kissinger was not known to oppose NATO’s eastern expansion, nor advocate for its dissolution . His last proposal was not to keep Ukraine neutral, but to convince Kiev to give up part of Ukraine’s territory in exchange for NATO membership. Sad but true.

What is BRICS' Global Agenda ?

 BRICS is putting together the world's biggest balance of power mechanism to date.

*

By now we all know who was the ‘godfather’ of BRICS. In 2001 as chief economist at Goldman Sachs, Jim O’Neill used the acronym BRIC in a research paper. At the time, grouping together Brazil, Russia, India and China made a lot of sense, as Western capitals were eager to invest in faster-growing developing economies. 

The launch of BRICS unfortunately coincided with the launch of America’s Athenian-styled informal empire, which aimed to become the sole global hegemon economically, politically and militarily. 

Such hubristic ambitions greatly alarmed most emerging economic powerhouses, like China and Brazil, as well as India and Russia. Two decades later, BRICS’ combined share of global GDP is already higher than that of the G7 nations. The US, the leader of G7 , has these days a share of only 16 percent of global GDP, a far cry from the 50 percent it enjoyed back in 1945. 

Undaunted, the Americans are willing to risk an all-out war with the leading members of BRICS, China and Russia, in the hope of clinging to the self-appointed position of global hegemon. With this objective in mind, the US is dragging along both G7 and the members of the NATO alliance, a fact which actually elevates the importance of BRICS even more, according to the same Jim O’Neill:

“I think if I go right back to my initial paper, I cannot believe how narrow-minded or naïve leaders in the G7 countries are. The whole idea that this group of seven “industrialised” or “more developed” or “earlier developed” countries can run the world is embarrassing. Because, first of all, their share of the world GDP has declined. Japan’s not shown any net increase in its GDP for 20 years. Italy virtually never grows. So, this idea that they are some kind of thing for the whole world to follow is erroneous.

And then on top of it, G7 is effectively a hostage to whatever Washington wants. So how do you solve the mammoth global issues of our time with just those guys ? I mean, it’s embarrassing and that’s quite depressing, because the whole reason why I created the BRICS was to suggest we needed a better form of global governance than the G7.” (interview in African Business, June 1st, 2023)

After more than 20 years, from an economic grouping meant to rival the G7, BRICS morphed into an alliance of countries determined to thwart, in any way possible, the US’ drive for global hegemony. 

Not too many experts are clear about this, and quite possibly not even most BRICS members realise the fact that they actually helped put together a classic, European-style balance of power mechanism, meant to contain and defeat America’s global leadership ambitions.

Sure, there are many differences and even frictions among the leading BRICS countries. These, however, do not interfere with the main item on the 

BRICS’ agenda, namely that of stopping American hegemonism in its tracks. 

This is the key to understanding why more than 20 countries on all continents have expressed a desire to join the group at the recent BRICS summit in Johannesburg. Tired of being bullied by the US and to have their sovereignty diminished, these aspiring countries have decided to side with the BRICS in its quest to contain and defeat America’s hegemonic designs. 

To be sure, the size of this balance of power mechanism put together by BRICS under own eyes is unprecedented as far as size goes and is global in scope, as well. It includes not only Russia and China – the world’s largest and the world’s most populous countries, but also leading countries from Africa and South America. 

With its great economic and human resources , BRICS is fully able - economically and militarily - to tilt the balance in favour of developing countries for good, and thus put a stop to the absurd hegemonic ambitions of the US and its Western allies.

Europe for Europeans

Two hundred years years ago, President Monroe asked the European powers of the time to stop interfering in the affairs of their former colonies, in the Americas. It is now time Europeans ask the US to reciprocate, in order for the EU to be able to build its own security architecture on the continent.

*

In his speech before the US Congress on the 2nd of December 1823, US President Monroe outlined what has since become known the "America for Americans" doctrine:

"It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course..."

By and large, European powers heeded Monroe's call. Now it is  European leaders who need to call on the Americans to reciprocate and to dissolve the NATO alliance,  thus enabling European countries to make their own security arrangements.

At the end of the Cold War, German Foreign Minister Genscher, French President Mitterrand and Soviet leader Gorbachev fully expected NATO to be dismantled, as the Warsaw Pact was. They intended to create a new European security architecture, which would have included Russia, but excluded NATO and the United States. The project was rejected out of hand by American leaders, who decided to not only keep NATO going, but opted for its eastward expansion after the implosion of the USSR.

Since 1999, NATO ceased to be a guarantor of peace on the European continent. It started a series of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now, by proxy, in Ukraine.

As of two years ago, NATO even intends to drag European nations into military confrontations in the Indo-Pacific with China, a drive which leading European nations oppose. 

Although most leading IR specialists believe that the current war in Ukraine is a result of NATO's expansion, the fact remains that this is but a consequence of not dismantling NATO in 1991.

Accordingly, today's European leaders should collectively push for the dissolution of the Alliance and for its replacement by a collective security arrangement, not only autonomous but independent of the United States.

In truth, stopping NATO's expansion and the neutrality of Ukraine will not address the root cause of Europe's security woes and will not guarantee that Europe can become again a peaceful continent.

As matters now stand, European nations are captive to a military alliance  emulating  Athens' ancient Delian League, which has become toxic to most of its members. It is therefore not in the interest of Europeans to continue to be part of an alliance that has been redefined after 2000 as an instrument of American global hegemonism.

An Agenda for NATO's 2024 Washington Summit

"The most serious danger to the security of the world right now ? The United States itself. The United States has become the most profound source of instability and an uncertain exemplar of democracy." (Richard Haass, former President, Council on Foreign Relations, July 2023)

*

It is not by accident that I decided to write this post on the national day of France. 

Since NATO's foundation, the French have always been ill-at-ease with the US' leadership style of the alliance. In 1949, 13 American senators were also opposed to its foundation. Senator Robert A Taft, the son of the 27th American president, William Taft, refused to vote in favour because 

: “If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia from Norway on the north to Turkey on the south, and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and … Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable…. How would we feel if Russia undertook to arm a country on our border; Mexico, for instance?”

To be sure, NATO's recent enlargement around the Baltic Sea cannot obscure the fact that this alliance has outlived its usefulness by some two decades and that it has, unfortunately, become the main war provocateur and a menace to global peace. 

No European expert or politician of note really believes that EU nations are under threat of invasion from Russia. By contrast, Russia has rightfully complained for years about NATO's expansion from Central Europe eastwards, to no avail. Its misgivings were proven prescient, as NATO has expanded right up to Russia's borders.

Since 1999, NATO has become an offensive alliance, as the wars in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and the bombing campaigns in Syria and Libya have demonstrated. Gone are the days when NATO tasked itself with preserving peace in Europe. Nowadays there is even talk of dragging European NATO allies into the Indo-Pacific, presumably to deter China from invading Taiwan. American policymakers cannot truly hope to enlist NATO's European allies to participate in a conflict with China: in 2003 the US was unable to convince them to take part in the invasion of Iraq - a much less dangerous adversary.

These are only a few reasons why the upcoming NATO 2024 summit in Washington should have only one item on its agenda: the peaceful dissolution of this alliance. It can no longer justify its existence in geostrategic terms, and it has become toxic to its European allies. NATO officials should forget about building expensive new headquarters in Europe, opening liaison offices in Japan or pressing its members to increase their military spending. The US is no longer in a position to be the global hegemon, since it now lacks a strong industrial base and its budget deficits have become unbearable for the average American taxpayers. Putting its fiscal house in order should be the main priority for the US. Nowadays it can ill-afford to maintain its 750 military bases worldwide and to simultaneously finance NATO's European allies' defence, as well as Ukraine.

As in our nuclear age the dismantling of NATO is the only rational choice, the entire US political class should give their full support to the executive branch and back a decision to curtail the agony of an alliance which lacks a solid geostrategic justification for its existence. In other words, NATO's main preoccupation in 2024 should not be Ukraine or Russia, but how to fold its war tents from Europe as peacefully as the Soviets did in 1991.

The Avoidable War

It's not that the US lacks competent experts. It's the fact that nobody in Washington heeds their advice.

*

The war in Ukraine is still raging 16 months after its start. Sadly, a totally neglected aspect of the conflict is being deliberately brushed aside by mainstream American politicians and military brass alike.

I am referring to the fact that for the United States this was very clearly an avoidable war. It took Russia 8 years and two abortive Minsk agreements to decide to put a military stop to NATO's designs in Ukraine, which were perceived by Moscow as an imminent threat to its security. During all this time no major American diplomatic initiative took place to lessen the tensions in the region and to avoid the outbreak of a war. This, to be sure, is a first in the diplomatic relations between the US and Russia.

Connected to all this is the fact that for almost a decade the bureaucrats in charge of framing American foreign policy have ignored their own experts' warnings about the high probability of an outbreak of hostilities with Moscow. 

Thus, James W Carden, former adviser to the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission at the State Department during the Obama administration, explains in a recent article how the current impasse was reached:

 "For years, the U.S. national security establishment was warned by voices from the right, left, and center that America needed to change its policy toward Russia. It was warned that Russia could not be defeated in their near abroad. It was warned that Kiev—by launching an “anti-terrorist” campaign against its Russian speaking citizens—was recklessly antagonizing Russia. It was warned that making a semi-deity out of a corrupt tool of Ukrainian oligarchs was an obvious mistake. It was warned against conflating the interests of ethno-nationalist far-right factions in Kiev and Lviv (and their allies in Warsaw, Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius) with U.S. national interests. It was warned to take President Putin’s numerous protestations against NATO expansion seriously. Yet America’s bipartisan ruling elite decided to ignore these warnings, and the results speak for themselves."

This geopolitical entanglement in Europe is not only unnecessary for the US, but it has the potential, if unchecked in a timely fashion, to lead to an all-out nuclear war between America and Russia. 

The wisdom of reversing course in Ukraine and starting peace negotiations with Russia is clear for all to see. Alas, to date no one can claim that the current US administration has the required statecraft skills and political wisdom to come up with a negotiated solution.

How and Why the Democrats Botched the "Reset" with Russia

 Every American administration since Ronald Reagan has attempted to get on the Russians' good side and normalise diplomatic relations with Moscow. 

Some presidents, most notably Bill Clinton but also Donald Trump, have been more successful than others in this endeavour. The worst performer in this area -until now- has been president Obama with his ill-inspired choice of advisers and Russia policies.

The key actor responsible for Obama's failure was Stanford professor Michael McFaul, a mediocre Russia expert. In 2007 he was approached by then-senator Obama and was subsequently put in charge of the Russian Department in the National Security Council after 2008. In this capacity he initiated the ill-fated policy of the "reset" of relations between the two countries. 

McFaul's main helper was Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State at the time. Together with the neocons still lurking within the State Department's structures after the Iraq debacle, McFaul and Hillary Clinton tried to torpedo Vladimir Putin's 2012 presidential campaign through a plethora of American-backed NGOs. 

Such gross interference in Russia's internal affairs was quite unprecedented, save for the brief Yeltsin interlude during the 1990s. 

For all McFaul's multiple academic credentials, he failed to grasp a basic fact, namely that liberal democracy is totally ill-suited for a country like Russia.

All Obama's intended "reset" policy achieved in practical terms, therefore, was a near-total breakdown of relations between Washington and Moscow.

Obama's vice-president at the time, Joe Biden, took over from McFaul and since 2014 until today he oversaw the Maidan Square coup d'etat and the gradual but relentless escalation of US and Nato conflict with Russia.

As much as his political enemies would like to assign all the blame on Joe Biden's administration for the disastrous state of America's relationship with Russia, the truth is that the seeds of the discord were planted more than a decade ago by Obama's decision to appoint McFaul as his top Russia affairs adviser. 

The Weaponisation of the International Criminal Court

When it comes to crimes against humanity in Ukraine, one should start looking for culprits in one's own backyard.

*

As American readers might recall, Daniel Ellsberg had been a leading military expert working for Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara during the Vietnam war. He became famous after leaking to the press secret DOD memos which proved to the public the fact that four US presidents lied regarding the extent of the US military involvement in Vietnam.

Ellsberg has recently commented on the war in Ukraine, accusing British prime minister Boris Johnson and US State Department officials of crimes against humanity there:

[Ellsberg] added that the alleged decision of Boris Johnson and other Western leaders to dissuade Volodymyr Zelenskyy from signing a peace deal in April 2022 was a 'crime against humanity':

"Zelenskyy and Putin essentially had an agreement, were very close to an agreement, returning to a prewar status quo in Crimea and the Donbas, in relation to Nato and everything else, but the US and the British, Boris Johnson, went over and said, 'We are not ready for that. We want the war to continue. We will not accept a negotiation.' I would say that was a crime against humanity. And I say that, with all seriousness, the idea that we needed to see people killed on both sides in order, quote, 'to weaken the Russians', not for the benefit of the Ukrainians, but for an overall geopolitical strategy, was wicked."

The weaponisation of the ICC in The Hague in order to serve the US's hegemonic geopolitical objectives makes a mockery of the Court's latest ruling targeting Vladimir Putin. 

As the Ellsberg interview demonstrates, the originators of crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine could be found much closer to home, working for administrations of countries claiming to be global champions of democracy.