Elizabeth Lane v spodnjem komentarju zagovarja stališče, da so ZDA s svojimi dejanji v zadnjih dveh desetletjih – kot so spremembe režimov, ugrabitve in atentati na tuje voditelje, selektivna uporaba mednarodnega prava ter priznanje neustavnih oblasti – ustvarile precedense, ki so po njenem mnenju razgradili obstoječe mednarodne norme in jih nadomestili z logiko gole moči. Na tej podlagi sklepa, da Rusija ne deluje več v okviru trdnih pravil, temveč v okolju, kjer so suverenost, meje in legitimnost oblasti postale pogojne, zato ima pravico uporabiti enake pristope, kot jih je Zahod uporabljal drugod. Ukrajino razume kot eksistencialno geostrateško vprašanje za Rusijo zaradi širitve Nata, energetike in zgodovinsko-geografskih povezav ter trdi, da je Zahod z lastnimi praksami Rusiji dejansko dal implicitno legitimacijo za odločnejše ukrepanje, tudi za popoln vojaški in administrativni prevzem države. Kot utemeljitev navaja še, da dolgotrajen konflikt slabi Evropo, krepi vpliv neizvoljenih transnacionalnih finančnih interesov ter Rusijo potiska v večjo odvisnost od Kitajske, kar ocenjuje kot strateško škodljivo. Po njenem mnenju bi se stabilnost lahko vzpostavila šele ob priznanju sfer vpliva, pri čemer vidi ruski nadzor nad Ukrajino kot manj tvegano in dolgoročno bolj stabilno možnost kot nadaljnje zahodno upravljanje ali rast kitajske geopolitične prevlade.

Da se razumemo – jaz tega osebno niti slučajno ne odobravam. Toda očitno smo pristali v svetu grde realnosti razmerja moči, kjer velja pravilo močnejšega in kjer ameriška dejanja dajejo legitimacijo za enaka dejanja drugim velikim silam. Ko so ostale (manjše) zahodne države zaradi selektivne ideološke pristranosti legitimirale ameriška izvenpravna dejanja, so dale legitimacijo tudi ostalim velikim silam, močnejšim od združene Evrope. Ko so ostale zahodne države legitimirale ameriški de facto prevzem Iraka, Afganistana in izraelski prevzem Gaze ter zdaj še Venezuele, so legitimirale bodoči ameriški prevzem Grenlandije. Morda tudi Kanade, če se bo Trumpu to zahotelo.

Selektivna ideološka pristranost je nevaren in dvorezen bumerang.

I’m a journalist and I do political analysis. I usually analyze and condemn reckless or illegal state behavior rather than offer advice to Political leaders, that’s not my job. But given the precedents already set mainly by the United States I’m going to break that rule and give an advice to Russians. Today I was asked four separate times what I think Russia will do next, or what China will do. I don’t pretend to read minds or predict decisions made behind closed doors, so I don’t know what they will do. What I can tell you is what Russia should do!

Over the last two decades, Washington has normalized actions that were once considered unthinkable under international law: regime change operations (Iraq 2003, Libya 2011), targeted assassinations of senior officials (Soleimani, 2020), recognition and support of unconstitutional power transfers (Ukraine, 2014), and de-facto occupations justified with elastic legal theories. None of this is disputed; it’s documented.

Once those precedents are established and enforced selectively, they stop being “rules” and start being permissions and desires. So it is safe to say there are no rules anymore.

From that standpoint, Russia is no longer operating in a vacuum of norms. The United States has demonstrated, repeatedly, that sovereignty is conditional, leaders are expendable, and borders are negotiable if framed correctly.

Complaining about those same tactics when others adopt them is not law, it’s theater. If Washington believes it can shape neighboring states through coercion, proxy warfare, and political engineering in the name of “security,” then Moscow will logically conclude it is entitled to do the same within what it considers its vital security perimeter.

Ukraine, sitting at the center of NATO expansion, energy transit, and military forward deployment, is not a peripheral issue for Russia, it is existential. That is not ideology; it is geography. Western corporate interests BlackRock being the most visible example, are already positioned to extract value from Ukraine’s land, infrastructure, and reconstruction contracts.

This is public information. If Ukraine’s resources are going to be absorbed by someone else other than Ukrainians, Russia should be that someone! Ukraine was part of Russia after all. Russia will understandably question why that “someone” should be foreign financial institutions rather than regional actors with historical, industrial, and logistical integration.

Meanwhile, the claim that this conflict weakens China is fantasy. Prolonging war in Eastern Europe objectively accelerates multipolar realignment and drives Russia further into economic and strategic dependence on Beijing, stupid move on the US front! something smart U.S. strategists openly warned against for years and then proceeded to cause anyway.

A rational great-power outcome would be stable U.S. Russia relations, even friendly, that prevent Chinese over-consolidation of influence across Eurasia. That requires realism, not moral cosplay. Russia is culturally, economically, and historically closer to Europe than to China.  Americans don’t understand china culturally or otherwise, they are far away from us and we simply do not get them!

Burning the bridge called Russia guarantees a world Washington itself claims to fear. The alternative allowing unelected global transnational financial interests to dominate Europe (So called Globalist elites) while a single-party state dominates Asia – China! – STUPID!

If the Western Hemisphere is militarily secured by the United States under the Monroe Doctrine logic which is still very much alive, then it is intellectually dishonest to deny Russia a comparable security doctrine in Eastern Europe. You cannot claim monopoly rights over power politics and expect others to play by church rules. Sorry but you can’t!

This conflict will not be resolved by slogans, sanctions theater, or proxy escalation. It will end when spheres of influence are acknowledged, not denied. Every year this reality is postponed, Europe becomes poorer, less sovereign, and more governed by actors no one voted for.

Under that reality and Maduro’s case, I say Russia has been effectively given the green light to act decisively. If the United States can kidnap foreign presidents, Govern foreign countries as Trump mentioned, assassinate senior officials, and openly support the removal of governments it finds inconvenient, then Moscow has the absolute right to conclude it can move directly against the Ukrainian leadership. Arresting Volodymyr Zelensky and fully securing Ukraine, militarily and administratively, that would follow the same logic Washington has applied elsewhere, including Iraq and Afghanistan, where “temporary governance” lasted decades. My advice to Russias –  Go for it! take Ukraine completely save American tax payers money, we will thank you later.

I’d much rather see Russia in charge of the Eastern Hemisphere than China dominating it. Chinese dominance can never be in the best interest of the American people. Kennedy understood that. He understood Russia and the United States are natural allies, he was even willing to put up with Soviet Union to make that happen, that’s how important he knew it was and if it weren’t for a global financial cabal, that reality would be obvious.

Moreover, allowing Ukraine to remain a fragmented, externally managed territory only ensures permanent instability. If control is exercised, it will be exercised either by Russia or by Western financial and military institutions and I would say Russia is a safe bet.