Germany Is Lying: Chinese Arms Shipments To Russia Wouldn’t Violate International Law
Keep up to Date & Bypass the Big Tech Censorship
Get uncensored news and updates, subscribe to our daily FREE newsletter!
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s latest remarks to national media can be interpreted as indirectly reaffirming that her country would indeed punish China for arming Russia on the pretext that Beijing supposedly violated international law by dispatching weapons to a country that’s allegedly waging “a war of aggression”. It doesn’t matter that the basis upon which these sanctions would be imposed is purely subjective and ironically illegal in the international sense since all that’s important to her is that the public supports it.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock flat-out lied in her latest remarks to national media claiming that possible Chinese arms shipments to Russia would violate international law. The basis upon which she pushed this disinformation is that Russia’s special operation is allegedly “a war of aggression that violates international law”, ergo why any arms shipments to that country would also violate the same. The problem with this perspective is that it’s purely subjective and driven by ulterior motives.
To explain, regardless of one’s opinion about this latest phase of the nearly decade-long Ukrainian Conflict, Russia hasn’t been found guilty of waging “a war of aggression that violates international law” and likely never will be due to the improbability of it supporting any moves in that direction at the UN. It’s unimportant whether one regards this as fair or unfair since it’s simply a reflection of international legal reality as it objectively exists, which applies to all UNSC members equally, including the US.
| Recommended Books [ see all ] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 |  |  |  |
 |
Precisely because of this legal improbability, the European Parliament overwhelmingly voted in late January to create a so-called “special tribunal” for investigating alleged Russian war crimes. In the larger context, this will serve the purpose of concocting a pseudo-legal pretext at the international level for pushing Baerbock’s subjective conclusion about the illegitimacy of Russia’s special operation, which she’s weaponizing in a desperate attempt to deter China from potentially arming its strategic partner.
About that scenario, “China Compellingly Appears To Be Recalibrating Its Approach To The NATO-Russian Proxy War” as explained at length in the preceding analysis. In short, Beijing might arm Moscow as a last resort to preemptively ensure its national security interests related to averting the possibility of Russia’s “Balkanization” in the event that NATO flips the military-strategic dynamics of their proxy war in Ukraine and proverbially goes for the geopolitical kill by attempting to shatter that country into pieces.
Incumbent Russian President Vladimir Putin’s latest warning about this scenario, which followed his predecessor Dmitry Medvedev’s, adds credence to these Chinese concerns. Accordingly, the People’s Republic might therefore seriously be considering this course of action, in which case it’ll certainly be sanctioned by the US and Germany just like their representatives already strongly implied would happen.
Baerbock’s latest remarks to national media can be interpreted as indirectly reaffirming that her country would indeed punish China for arming Russia on the pretext that Beijing supposedly violated international law by dispatching weapons to a country that’s allegedly waging “a war of aggression”. It doesn’t matter that the basis upon which these restrictions would be imposed is purely subjective and ironically illegal in the international sense since all that’s important to her is that the public supports it.
The only possible way in which to spin this unilateral step aimed at advancing the US’ grand strategic goal of “decoupling” China and the EU is to falsely claim that it’s a principled response in defense of international law even though that wouldn’t be the case whatsoever at all. Rather, it’s not only a violation thereof since it would be imposed outside the authority of the UNSC, but arguably also a perversion of international law too since it would embody the so-called “rules-based order” concept.
Public perceptions of this term have been manipulated to mislead folks into thinking that it refers to upholding the UN Charter even though it’s really just a euphemism for the US’ arbitrary implementation of double standards in violation of international law aimed at advancing its interests at others’ expense. Sanctioning China on the false basis that Baerbock once again strongly implied that Germany would rely upon in the scenario of Beijing arming Russia is a perfect example of this concept in practice.
Should events unfold in such a way that China feels compelled by NATO-shaped circumstances into arming Russia and is sanctioned by the US-led West’s Golden Billion in response, then International Relations are expected to drastically change if these illegal restrictions against it are significant. That de facto New Cold War bloc and the Sino-Russian Entente would further bifurcate to the point of collapsing the previously globalized system into a decentralized and regionally-driven non-Western-centric one.
The only remaining factor standing in the way of that future is the continued trade and investment ties between China and the West, which could be greatly reduced in record time if the US exploits Beijing’s possible arming of Russia in order to catalyze that aforementioned chain reaction. Baerbock’s latest remarks to national media very strongly suggest that the EU’s de facto German leader would comply with any related demands from its American patron, which should seriously concern all Europeans.
Source: Germany Is Lying: Chinese Arms Shipments To Russia Wouldn’t Violate International Law (substack.com)
