Interesting in #Putin's speech was that the West would've created a rules-based order #Russia never agreed to. Appealing, I think, to non-Western, often former colonial states where this type of critique lands well. But USSR was frontrunner in establishing many of these rules. 1/ 
From 1950-1974, USSR led the campaign to define "aggression" in order to eliminate justifications for aggressive wars (A/C.1/608) while USA, FRA, CAN led the protests against any form of a fixed definition: they wanted to leave it up to UNSC, open for power play and ambiguity. 2/
The USSR wanted a detailed definition of this core norm in a rules-based order, aggression, that restricted the discretion of the UN Security Council. Despite meanwhile invading Hungary by the way: "to suppress a revolt", the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. 3/
In 1969 sessions of the Special Committee to define aggression, again USSR took a leadership role, submitting a proposal. USSR argued for instance for including that aggression is a crime against international peace; other proposals did not. A snippet of my PhD on this here. 4/
The USSR proposal also argued for including indirect aggression: i.e. the use of armed non-state actors to fight abroad. By then, the US/UK/AUS/CAN/ITA/JAP-coalition could agree with that. And so this became art 3(g) of the Definition of Aggression, UNGA Res 3314 (14-Dec 1974) /5
So this outcry that the rules-based order was created by the West and imposed onto #Russia is nonsense. So why do it? The speech (en.kremlin.ru/events/preside…) counted 13x the word colony/colonial and plenty of other references, to (falsely) align RUS with fate of colonised states. /6
For instance in this section. In a speech that's supposed to celebrate and legitimise the fake referenda & armed #annexation of parts of #Ukraine, he discusses the West's colonial policy and slave trade going back to the Middle Ages. And #Russia as protector and resistor. /7
Nothing in his speeches is unintended. This speech appeals to the rest of the world as much as his own people, to see #Russia as the benign resistor of the evil West, protector of human rights against Western aggression and colonisation, and to let RUS take parts of #Ukraine. /8
Absurd was also appeal to right to self-determination in Art 1 UN Ch, which says exact opposite of how Putin spins it: he refers to it to argue RUS had right to annex the territory, while art 1 connects it to friendly international relations and strengthening universal peace. /9
The right to self-determination makes it seem as if RUS is protecting people against human rights violations by UKR/West. Appeals to peoples that fought hard to escape their oppressors, many from the West. But the legal arguments and comparisons are distortions & simply false./10
And here’s more rules-based order that Russia co-created :)
https://twitter.com/ambdanfried/status/1575991997092855808
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
