Eric Zuesse – The Lying Propagand Phrase “Russia’s Illegal Invasion of Ukraine”

Gerard Terborch – The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) Marking the End of the Thirty Years War (foto History Today)
Westphalia (foto iSejarah Perjanjian)
Signing of the Treaty of Westphalia (foto Print Collector)

Peace of Westphalia (foto

The Origins of the State (foto )

Willem Verhelst – James Oglethorpe presenteert de Yamacraw Indianen aan de Georgia Trustees (1734)

Kaart Europa in 1648 bij Vredes van Münster en Westfalen (foto Pinterest)

Borders of the Holy Roman Empire (foto FNSP)

Peace of Westphalia was a Series of Peace Treaties Signed between May and October 1648 in the Westphalian Cities of Osnabrück and Münster (foto Quora)

Anton Mozart – Presentation of the Pomeranian Kunst Schrank to Duke Philip II of Pomerania Stettin (1606 – 1618) in 1617 (foto MeisterDrucke)

Map of 30 Years War (foto Slide Player)

Rheinbund of Rijnbond 1808 Political Map Confederatie van Vazal Staten van het Eerste Franse Keizerrijk (foto

Grenzen Europa ten tijde van de de Dertigjarige Oorlog (foto landenweb .nl)

De Europese Kaart van 1648 na de Vrede van Westfalen (foto

The Peace of Westphalia, Ideas that informed the American Founders (foto 60 Second Civics)

Westphalian Realism Characteristics, the Structure of the International System is Anarchic, there is No Authority above States Capable of Regulating their Interactions;, States must Arrive at Relations with Other States on their Own, Rather than being Dictated to by Some Higher Controlling Rntity. Sovereign States are the Principal Actors in the International System, International Institutions, Non Governmental Organizations, Multi National Corporations, Individuals and Other Sub State or Trans State Sctors are Viewed as Having Little Independent International Influence, States are Rational Unitary Actors each Moving towards their Own National Interest. They distrust Long Term Cooperation or Alliance

Westphalian State System (III) is The Perception of International Order thus Established as it Rests on Five Pillars
(1) National Actors are the Sole Holders of Sovereignty.
(2) Sovereignty is Exercised over Physical Territory
(3) National Actors are the Most Powerful Players of the World System
(4) The Only Enforceable International Law is Based on Treaties between Sovereign Actors
(5) War is a Legitimate Instrument of International Politics

Westphalia Critique, More recent Historiography (Exempli Gratia A Osiander) has Identified the Westphalian System as a Mental Construct,” () A Figment of Nine Teenth Century Imagination, Stylized Still Further, and Reified, by the Discipline of Itself in the Twentieth Century () (2001:284), The Point is Well Worth Debating, and would Provide Ample Ground for a Number of (De) Constructivist PhD Theses.,However, for My Present Purposes I would like to Draw Your Attention to a Different Train of Arguments
I will Leave Westphalia (foto

The Lying Propagand PhraseRussia’s Illegal Invasion of Ukraine

Here is why Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 was actually legal under international law:

No one maintains that U.S. President John F. Kennedy lacked international legal authorization to invade the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union were to place American nuclear-warheaded missiles in Cuba 1,131 miles from Washington DC. Everyone recognized that if the Soviet Union and Cuba were to do that, it would constitute an act of aggression against the United States, because those missiles would be so close to America’s command-center in DC as to enable a blitz nuclear attack by the Soviet Union so fast as to possibly prohibit America’s strategic command to recognize the attack in time to launch its own, retaliatory, missiles.

This is the principle, that any major world power possesses the national self-defense right to prohibit any bordering nation from allowing weaponry and forces of a major world power that is hostile to this major world power to be placed in that bordering nation.

Whereas Cuba is 1,131 miles away from DC, Ukraine is only 300 miles away from The Kremlin.

JFK demanded from both Cuba and the Soviet Union that there will NEVER be Soviet missiles placed in Cuba, and the Soviet Union then promised that they would comply with that national-security demand by the U.S.; thus, WW III was averted.

This time around, the aggressors were America and Ukraine; and Russia imposed the same demand as JFK did, but its enemies were/are determined and clear aggressor nations — refused to comply.

Why does ANYONE allege that allowing the United States to place its missiles only 300 miles (a 5-minute missile-flight away) from The Kremlin would not constitute aggression by the U.S. and Ukraine against Russia? Allowing Ukraine into NATO would grant the Governments of U.S. and Ukraine a right to place U.S. missiles 300 miles from The Kremlin — something that no rational Government of Russia would ever allow to happen.

The Cuban-Missile-Crisis precedent acknowledged that Russia now has a national-defense right to demand that Ukraine NEVER be allowed into NATO.

On 17 December 2021, Russia demanded from both the U.S. and its anti-Russian military alliance NATO, promises in writing that Ukraine WILL NOT BE ALLOWED INTO NATO. On 7 January 2022, America and its NATO aggression-alliance both said no.

That left Russia either to capitulate to America and its NATO, or else to invade Ukraine in order to prevent that aggressor — America — from doing essentially what JFK had gotten the Soviet Union to do: to agree to the defending major world power’s extremely reasonable (actually necessary) demand and so promise NEVER to allow Ukraine into NATO.

America (and its NATO) forced Russia to invade Ukraine, in order to prevent nuclear “Checkmate!” by the U.S. regime.

All of the U.S.-and-allied propaganda organs (including academic ones) that use the lying phrase “Russia’s illegal invasion of ukraine” must therefore be recognized as being the liars that they actually are. (Otherwise: they must declare JFK to have been violating international law by threatening Khrushchev with an American invasion if Soviet missiles would be placed in Cuba.)

What the Cuban-Missile-Crisis example displays is a more detailed statement of the Westphalian Principle or “Westphalian State System” as Oxford Reference defines that:


Westphalian state system


Term used in international relations, supposedly arising from the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War. It is generally held to mean a system of states or international society comprising sovereign state entities possessing the monopoly of force within their mutually recognized territories. Relations between states are conducted by means of formal diplomatic ties between heads of state and governments, and international law consists of treaties made (and broken) by those sovereign entities. The term implies a separation of the domestic and international spheres, such that states may not legitimately intervene in the domestic affairs of another, whether in the pursuit of self‐interest or by appeal to a higher notion of sovereignty, be it religion, ideology, or other supranational ideal. In this sense the term differentiates the ‘modern’ state system from earlier models, such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire.

Richard Coggins


From:  Westphalian state system  in  The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics 

That cites two “Empires” — Holy Roman, and Ottoman — but actually ALL empires violate Westphalianism. That includes today’s American empire.

During WW II, the advocates of Westphalianism were FDR and Stalin, and the opponents of Westphalianism were Churchill, Hirohito, Mussolini, and Hitler. Truman and his personal hero Eisenhower became FDR’s successors, and both of them were opponents iof Westphalianism. This was the reason why the Cold War started: both of the first two American Presidents after FDR were imperialists. They created today’s military-industrial-complex-controlled America, the international American dictatorship that now exists and which has replaced FDR’s democracy.

An interesting sidelight to this is that whereas Sunni Islam, and the passion that some of them have for establishing an international “Caliphate,” accept imperialism or even advocate it (as Caliphate-proponents do), Shiite Islam opposes imperialism, and this has been one of the major reasons why Shiite Iran is rejected by all imperialistic Governments. Here is how Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei phrased this in his 21 October 2006 “Leader’s Speech in Meeting with Soldiers and Commanders of the Sacred Defense Era”:

There are two major differences between a defensive and an offensive war in terms of meaning and content. One difference is that an offensive war is based on transgression and aggression, but this is not the case with a defensive war. The second difference is that a defensive war is a place where zeal, courage and deep loyalty to ideals emerge. These ideals may be related to one’s country or … one’s religion. …. This does not exist in an offensive war. For example, when America attacks Iraq, an American soldier cannot claim that he is doing it for the love of his country. What does Iraq have to do with his country? This war is at the service of other goals, but if an Iraqi person resists this military invasion and presence inside his country, this means showing resistance and defending one’s country, national identity and those values that one believes in. …

Since the day the regime of Saddam attacked Tehran and struck the airport until the day Imam (r.a.) accepted the resolution – was a glorious era. And it continued to be a glorious era until Saddam attacked again and our revolutionary and mujahid people took over the entire desert. Basiji youth from throughout the country participated in the war and they put in an astonishing performance. This time – the second time that Iraq had attacked – they managed to make it retreat.

Between 1953 and 1979, Iran had been part of (i.e., a vassal of) the then-growing American empire, and Khamenei in that speech made a principled repudiation of THAT America. But that America is now bipartisan in both of America’s political Parties, and is at war against the anti-imperialist nations of today, mainly Russia, China, and Iran — but also against any nation that is friendly toward any of those three. The anti-imperialist nations are pro-Westphalian; the imperialist nations are (and always have been) anti-Westphalian.

Today’s international law doesn’t mention the Westphalian Principle, because FDR had died and the U.N. (which he invented and named) became created in Truman’s image, not in FDR’s; and so it.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Sterling, James – The Post Westphalian State, National Security Cultures and Global Securuty Governance, EU GRASP Working Paper (15) August 2010
Niebedum, Anthonia CThe Emergence of Westphalian System
Wellman, Judith & Warren, Tanya | Historical New York Research AssociatesUnderground, Absolitionism and African American Life in Seneca, New York

Meer informatie

1 Comment

  1. The treaty of Westphalia ended the 80-year war, that created the country that is now The Netherlands, but was back than The Dutch Republic.
    I’ll proceed in Dutch now, since my country men are so terribly brainwashed, that I’d rather address them here. That the Treaty of Westphalia ended the 80-year war is not significant for folks abroad, but very significant for the people living over here. Please use Google or Bing translate, if you want to read it any ways.

    Dus het verdrag van Westfalen, eindigde onze “80-jarige oorlog”, aldus de historici. Zoals Eric Zuesse terecht schrijft, dit veranderde het staatsbestel van bepaalde Europese landen. Want voor dien tijd, was geheel Europa officieel Rooms Katholiek. De 80-jarige oorlog, zowel als de 30-jarige oorlog, waren het gevolg van de Reformatie. De Reformatie gaf de Republiek van de Lage Landen, de Staten, de Verenigde Provinciën, een nieuwe religie. Het werd “de nieuwe religie” genoemd. Dit was geen “calvinisme”, integendeel, de historici liegen, dit was integriteit ten aanzien van religie. Integriteit in die zin, dat het in de Lage Landen toegestaan was de Bijbel in de landstaal te lezen, terwijl daarvoor in de katholieke landen de doodstraf of stond. Het Vaticaan heeft dat verbod pas opgezegd in 1965, bij Vaticanum II. In praktijk, was Desiderius Erasmus dus veel belangrijker dan Johannes Calvijn, waarop het staatsbestel voor een groot deel ook op gebaseerd was. Dat staatsbestel is volledig vernietigd door jan Roothaan, wat hen een enorme steun gaf in zijn carrière, enige jaren later werd Jan Roothaan de zwarte paus.

    Koning Willem I werkte al samen met de katholieken, om het Koninkrijk de Nederlanden op te richten, waarvoor een volledig nieuw staatsbestel was opgezet: de monarchie van Lodewijk Napoleon.

    Aangezien de VS en de NAVO landen zich niets aantrekken van het verdrag van Westfalen, kan er slechts een conclusie zijn: Wij worden geregeerd door de katholieken. Ook de VS. Willem Frederik Hermans had dit ook ontdekt, ik meen omdat hij bij zijn debuutroman een rechtszaak aangespannen kreeg door de katholieken. Hij zal wel meer dingen ontdekt hebben.

    Ja, dat is geheim.
    Historici liegen, of verzwijgen de waarheid zo u wil, omdat de Jezuïeten, hoe dan ook, de leiding hebben over het onderwijs in Nederland. Dit sinds de stichting van het koninkrijk door Koning Willem I, die daarvoor zelfs een concordaat tekende met de prefect van de hellige inquisitie in 1827:–s2151
    Waarvan we dan gered werden door de Belgische Opstand (1830).

    Dat de congregatie van de voortplanting van het geloof, waarmee Koning Willem I dat concordat tekende, de nieuwe naam is voor de hellige inquisitie, vertelde Alberto Rivera.

Reacties zijn afgesloten bij dit onderwerp.