No third option, or Who will rewrite UN Charter?
The initiative to hold a Global Summit on Zelenskyy’s "peace formula" envisages the participation of countries that have already voted to condemn Russian aggression at the UN General Assembly in March 2022.
Then 144 countries supported the victim of aggression, Ukraine, and condemned the aggressor, Russia.
So why return to the very question of the attitude of the world's countries to the act of aggression?
There is little excitement or hope in President Zelenskyy's declared official intention during the conference to find Ukraine's assistants among the participating countries who would undertake to implement three of the ten points of his "peace formula" by convincing them of their necessity and usefulness to Putin and the Rashka (RF).
It seems that the point of the summit, which was hosted by the hitherto neutral Switzerland, is something else.
And this is understood by the Kremlin, which, according to President Zelenskyy, is trying to disrupt the summit.
Unlike voting at the General Assembly, participation in the summit excludes the so-called neutral position of participants.
Switzerland will be visited by those who still support Ukraine as a victim of aggression, who have not fallen for the propaganda of the "two sides of the conflict" or "provoking an attack on the Russian Federation" by NATO and Ukraine.
There will be those who are going to work on ways to force the Russian Federation to return our territory, people, resources and peace.
This is a devaluation of the so-called artificial "neutrality" that Switzerland itself has embarked on, following the Nordic countries.
This is the elimination of a convenient niche for the so-called "non-aligned" countries.
Eliminating this option at this stage seems absolutely necessary, but also, of course, extremely difficult.
This is coercion to the positioning of subjects of international law.
This is similar to the way in which the exclusion of the "against all" option from the ballot paper is forced.
Or the transformation of a "friendly calf sucks two mothers" into a huge bull that would have already produced new calves with those mothers, but only through a deadly battle with other bulls...
It also highlights the formula "those who are not with us are against us" and divides the global community into two camps.
One camp is made up of those countries that will attend the forum, which will demonstrate their commitment to the UN Charter after two and a half years of the destruction of the world order by the Russian Federation.
The second camp - those who will ignore the support for the peace formula for Ukraine - will declare their disdain for the UN Charter with its basic principles of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of countries.
And belonging to this second camp, even if the country avoids being included in the so-called "axis of evil", will be demonstrated by the list of countries that may be approaching the abolition of these very universal principles of borders and sovereignty in the UN Charter.
When they have been trying to force Ukraine to the negotiating table with Russia for two and a half years to recognize the loss of its internationally recognized constitutional territories, they are trying to make this act of violation of the country's territorial integrity look like an unprecedented exception to the universal rule.
At the same time, the rule itself seems to have been preserved in this exclusive way.
But Ukraine itself, digging in its heels in this "exclusive" at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of its citizens, is in fact above all adhering to international law
By agreeing to surrender to the aggressor and giving up its territories, Ukraine will violate international law itself. And, by and large, it will be subject to some kind of sanctions.
Now it also defends the neighbouring borders.
And not just European ones.
In particular - do not be surprised - ruscists ones.
After all, our eastern border is also their western border.
And when Putin received permission for aggression from his Federation Council, it was just a resolution to allow the RF troops to be used outside the borders of their own country.
Back then, the RF still had a western border.
And now it no longer has such an internationally recognized border. It doesn't even have an unrecognized one.
After all, Putin's gang has managed to include in its illegitimate constitution Ukrainian lands whose borders their so-called army will never reach, and even more so, will never legally record...
At least according to current international law, state borders should be internationally recognized, not only by the victim of aggression and annexation, but also by the majority of the international community.
Well, at least China. Iran. THE DPRK.
Which of them recognized the "new borders" of the Russian Federation?
The maniac's latest visit to Beijing has just taken place.
Did it lead to the signing of an interstate agreement between the "strategic partners" on the recognition of the new borders of the Russian Federation by China?
By the way.
Russian legislation does not provide a legal definition of a "special military operation".
In other words, everything that is happening under this name in Ukraine is absolutely illegal and unconstitutional in the RF "law" itself. Which, as you know, is also considered superior to international law!
It is in order to plug the leaks in the perimeter of the Russian Federation that a certain Lavrov is already directly stating that the Russian Federation needs not some kind of temporary truce, but peace!
That is, a document in which, at last, the new borders of the Russian Federation are supposed to be recognized!
There's no denying that this diplomat, Lavrov, understands that without international recognition and without real borders, even an empire cannot exist in the same "geopolitical realities."
And the empire is in a hurry to demand this recording of its borders. Because very soon it will have to lose everything it has captured...
Accordingly, the task of those who are so interested in disposing of Ukraine's land to satisfy the appetites of the Russian Federation would be much easier if the UN Charter were first rewritten.
Remove from it these provisions on the inviolability of borders and sovereignty.
Then it might be much easier to force Ukraine to negotiate "based on the realities on the contact line".
Of course, it would also be much easier to repeat the precedent of disposing of territories on any other part of the earth's surface.
And China's belief that Taiwan is its territory would lose its force.
And those who had appetites for neighboring territories would have been happy to take advantage of such "emancipation" from mutual restraint.
But at the moment, the process of revising the UN Charter is only in the works, and the war is, of course, fuelling it.
And the upcoming peace summit in Switzerland is already a catalyst.
In particular, if China does not go to Switzerland, it confirms President Xi's own definition of the coming bipolar world.
Without the "multipolarity" dear to the Kremlin maniac's heart, in which the principle of non-alignment or waiting for the winner or neutrality or any other form of waiting out the crisis "above the battle" was still possible.
However, since the public motive for China's non-participation in the summit remains a reference to a certain mediating, i.e. "third" position, against the background of the declared bipolarity, Beijing's word and deed will clearly demonstrate to the world the fallacy, schizophrenia, rather than the steadfastness and balance of Chinese "peacekeeping".
In fact, China's famous millennial continuity, which allegedly provides Beijing with an extremely broad horizon for planning and projecting its own imperial interests onto the rest of the "barbaric" world, has long been suspected of being just a propaganda fog over the real marketplace bustle of a global consumer goods producer heavily dependent on Western markets.
Therefore, the manner in which the Chinese embassy is located in the very centre of the conflict, and whose inviolability and sovereignty Beijing has guaranteed along with other members of the UN Security Council, does not inspire sincere respect.
Therefore, China's non-participation in the Zelenskyy summit is Beijing's fixation in the aggressor's camp.
But whether it is at the head of this camp, i.e. as one of the two world poles, or subordinate to the poleless rashka, is a separate interesting question.
In the offing.
But this fixation of China's position is already prompting further rapid positioning of other non-aligned countries, mostly those in the so-called Global South.
An effective tool for this process is the summit in Switzerland, a recent sample of classical neutrality and a symbol of the geopolitical "third power".
The process cannot be fast, but it seems to be inevitable.
Therefore, in the foreseeable future, such a division of the world into two fairly defined camps will push and develop confrontation either to a world war or to the reform of the UN Charter.
If we consider the prospects and the need for reform, it is obvious that the "strategic uncertainty" dictated by the victors in World War II should be removed from the UN Charter.
Although they were allies against the greatest evil for some time, they remained fundamental ideological rivals, and they were all empires.
It was in their ideological and economic confrontation and decolonisation that the so-called "third world" emerged, which had a "roof" of the "non-aligned movement" and is now concentrated in the image of the "global south".
This "triangular" model is clearly outdated, but it had such a comfortable inertia that it also partially contributed to the current prolongation of the aggressive war.
Therefore, the reform of the UN Charter should also reflect the actual victory of one of the camps of the global confrontation - authoritarian or democratic.
The authoritarian version of the reform will be based on the so-called "right-wing forces".
The "right-wing forces" are nothing more than a fixation on the right to create rules for authoritarian rulers. It is the primacy of arbitrariness and voluntarism over the systemic nature of institutions and the primacy of human rights.
This reform may simply consist of removing recognition of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries without exception from the UN conceptual principles.
So that these borders and sovereignties are temporarily acquired by pariah states from the hands of one (who exactly?) global "big brother".
The UN reform, as a result of the victory of the democratic camp, is the embodiment of the so-called "power of law". As a guarantee of further security.
This is not a cancellation but, on the contrary, a supplement to the modern international legal field with the still missing tools for observing and implementing the system of rules, means of forcing violators to comply with them and punishing international crimes.
Force and law are inextricably linked, and law has historically been a projection of force. The only question is whose power, and therefore in what time, space, and with what tools, is exercised.
The absolute depravity of authoritarian power uses concentrated force haphazardly, everywhere, and only on the basis of the logic of subjective "rules" known to it.
The procedural and constitutional regulation of the democratic system tries to ensure that the cause-and-effect basis for the use of force is generally understood, that its scope is minimized, that the state monopoly on violence is publicly controlled, etc.
Until now, the correlation between the "power of law" and the "right of force" has remained a philosophical discussion for narrow circles of elites.
Nowadays, this is a matter of everyday practice for Ukrainians, primarily "due to" the aggression and war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.
But it is becoming increasingly relevant for Western democratic societies.
And now that China has made its choice, it is clear that authoritarian dictatorships are also making theirs.
Because they are not going to hide in their isolated shell.
The economy developed under Western globalism does not allow for isolation.
It demands the conquest of the "barbaric" democratic world.
Or through the "belt and road".
Or war.
Or by rewriting the UN Charter - instead of war, in the paradigm "all wars end at the negotiating table".
Given this inescapable prospect, the Zelenskyy summit in Switzerland is indeed a historic first step towards the formation of opposing camps and a clear self-determination of their participants.
It is also an application for the formulation of irresistible arguments for the "right of force" that will mark the beginning of the victory of the Ukrainian world camp.
Iryna Pohorielova, for Censor. NET
