96 подписчиков

In 1989, during the collapse of the USSR—brought about by Gorbachev’s destructive reforms—the Eastern bloc began to crumble, and in 1991

8 января8 янв

1 мин

In 1989, during the collapse of the USSR—brought about by Gorbachev’s destructive reforms—the Eastern bloc began to crumble, and in 1991, the USSR disintegrated. The former socialist countries adopted the ideology of their Cold War adversary. The unipolar world began. This meant that international law changed qualitatively. Only one sovereign authority remained, which became global—the USA or the collective West. One ideology, one force. Capitalism, liberalism, NATO. The principle of nation-state sovereignty and the UN itself became a relic of the past, just as the League of Nations once had. International law was henceforth established by only one pole—the victors of the Cold War. The defeated (the former socialist camp and, primarily, the USSR) accepted the ideology of the victors, essentially acknowledging a vassal dependence on the collective West. In such a situation, the UN lost its meaning: 1. Firstly, it was built on the principle of national sovereignty (which no longer c

В ответ на пост

This meant that international law changed qualitatively. Only one sovereign authority remained, which became global—the USA or the collective West. One ideology, one force. Capitalism, liberalism, NATO. The principle of nation-state sovereignty and the UN itself became a relic of the past, just as the League of Nations once had.

International law was henceforth established by only one pole—the victors of the Cold War. The defeated (the former socialist camp and, primarily, the USSR) accepted the ideology of the victors, essentially acknowledging a vassal dependence on the collective West.

In such a situation, the UN lost its meaning:

1. Firstly, it was built on the principle of national sovereignty (which no longer corresponded to anything at all).

2. Secondly, the special positions of the USSR and China and their place in the UN Security Council represented a relic of the bipolar era.

Therefore, talk began in Washington about creating a new—openly unipolar—system of international relations. It was called the “League of Democracies” or the “Democracy Forum.”

At the same time, within the US itself, globalism split into two currents:

— Ideological liberalism, pure internationalism (Soros with his “open society,” USAID, wokeism, etc.);

— Direct American hegemony relying on NATO, which was defended by the Neocons.

Essentially they converged, but the former insisted that the main priority was globalization and the deepening of liberal democracy in every country on the planet, while the latter insisted that the USA directly control the entire territory of the earth on a military-political and economic level.

— 4

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]