A refreshing, thorough analysis of current international political thinking. Instead of simply reciting the protestations of the Left, the article examines the Left’s underlying assumptions. Why does it go so far as to support a tyrannical military regime that seizes power by blatantly subverting a democratic election, raises money by drug trafficking, allies with other tyrannical regimes (Iran and China), and destroys a formerly vibrant economy? In short, because it reviles and rejects any assertion of US power — even in the Western hemisphere. And why is that? For the reasons set forth in this piece. This is a lucid explanation of the strange positions and presuppositions of the Left today. An explanation sorely needed to understand our world.
This is very well done. It occurs to me that this analysis also resonates powerfully when applied to Israel, which faces a strikingly similar presumption of illegitimacy. Like American power in your piece, Israeli sovereignty is perpetually on trial—not for specific policies but for existing and acting at all.
The same dual framework applies. Through the decolonial lens, Israel is cast as an inherently colonial project whose every assertion of power reinforces structures of oppression. Through the European legalist lens, Israeli military action is condemned for procedural deficiencies even when responding to existential threats that admit no time for multilateral deliberation. The result is identical: any exertion of Israeli power is treated as ab initio illegitimate, while the threats Israel faces are minimized or contextualized as understandable resistance.
The same contradictions emerge. International law is simultaneously dismissed as Western-colonial when it protects Israeli rights, yet invoked as authoritative when constraining Israeli action. Hamas's use of human shields and embedding military infrastructure in civilian areas is excused as asymmetric resistance, while Israeli responses are judged by standards applied to no other nation facing comparable threats. The procedural concern for "proportionality" and "authorization" matters more than the underlying reality: a democratic state defending its citizens against organizations explicitly committed to its annihilation.
Great point. It is very fashionable at the moment to condemn everything Israel does, while excusing every action by their enemies. Same philosophy at work. Witness the Islamification of Europe happening in real time. Apparently the globalist leadership wishes to use Islamic nations to destroy the West, so no one can be allowed to oppose any action by those nations, including Israel. Thanks for the insightful comment.
Great article, thank you. The critical piece of the problem is the hypocrisy of the left. Their complaints are always rooted in a double standard because all leftist philosophy is an attempt to justify theft from the successful to redistribute wealth to the so-called poor. In their minds, anyone who has anything they do not is somehow “priviledged”, so they should be allowed to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want from those who have worked hard and succeeded. International law is applied selectively to fit their framework, as you describe.
May I suggest, though, that the Russia - Ukraine situation is different. The Russians have legitimate grievances against the West since the collapse of the USSR. NATO was not supposed to expand to Russia itself. Western leaders have openly stated their goal of destroying Russia and taking its resources. Also, the Ukrainian fascists have severely persecuted the Russian population in eastern Ukraine. All of this should have been resolvable under international law, but since previous US presidents were part of the problem, it left Russia in the position of needing to push back on its own. I think the US would be justified in acting similarly if the roles were reversed. In other words, the West gave Russia the excuse it needed to invade and expand.
China, though, has no legitimate claim on Taiwan. The CCP is dedicated to conquest and expansion and cannot stand that Taiwan presents an alternative example for Chinese people. Taiwan is no physical threat to mainland China. The US could make a good argument that the West should actively defend Taiwan against Chinese invasion, under international law.
This is a terrible example to make a reasonable point, that any and all American action will be rejected by ideologies that have grown over the last 25 years or so.
It’s already clear that nothing about the regime in Venezuela will change, as the Venezualan people still have no voice in government. More desperate migrants, more drugs, just now more oil to American companies, with Papa Trump getting to wet his beak.
“……Decolonial thinking is absorbed early, taught in classrooms and lecture halls where American power is introduced less as a historical actor than as a moral problem. By the time students graduate into newsrooms, NGOs, and policy circles, suspicion of U.S. action no longer needs to be argued…..”
Which is partly why Trump acts without giving a s..t what anybody else thinks.
What the developed World currently sees as a destabilisation of the rules based order built up since WW2, is actually just a recognition that America is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t, so it might as well overtly pursue MAGA ends.
My oh my, I am so happy, this is what I have been looking for: an actual discussion of how the world works.
So much noise, so little signal, but now hope; hope for understanding. For me this is a starting point, a breath of fresh air; it is a pleasure to meet you, dear author.
My favourite is Curtis Yarvin but he is a complete bastard, he goes out of his way to be unintelligible. Funny as hell though.
My favourite quote :
“So you ask your Priest: if not God King and Church what would I believe? Who is against God and King and Church? And your priest said: Satan. And so thinking logically you became a Satanist. This probably happened to you except it wasn’t a priest but a guidance counselor. The way the world works, never changes.”
Riboua’s argument is sharp, but it concedes more than it intends. American intervention tracks value, not virtue. Venezuela and Iran command urgency; the Sahel and Myanmar drift. That is not morality at work. It is prioritisation dressed as principle.
Democracy, in this register, travels well when accompanied by oil, chokepoints, or strategic rivalry. Stephen Krasner (1999) called it organised hypocrisy. The vocabulary has improved; the pattern has not.
Washington still does the opening act better than anyone. Shock, awe, precision, speed. But the harder question always arrives after the strike. Who governs, on what terms, and for how long?
Afghanistan was not a failure of entry. It was a failure of duration.
Riboua is right about action. The United States can act, decisively and at scale. But action is the easy part. Traction is the test, and that is where the script keeps fraying.
Krasner, S. D. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nuanced take on this event & clarifying too. International law not withstanding Trump had good reasons to extract Maduro. for instance, he had long enabled Iran's terror/sanction work arounds plus Russia in the U.S. backyard. More important, however, were Impacts for U.S.regional affairs like interdicting Drug/sex/gang trafficking into the U.S, from Venezuela, Columbia, plus Cuba. The latter will now enter an economic tail spin losing its last oil support line. Cuba's military/security guarantees to Venezuela, it's essential client state, now lie smoking in the ruins of the Maduro raid. Regime change was not sought but the U.S. controls the coast line & remaining narco state "revolutionary" poseurs are inclined to comply to keep their drug money & avoid US prosecution. Impacts on Russia, Iran and China are merely a bonus.
A refreshing, thorough analysis of current international political thinking. Instead of simply reciting the protestations of the Left, the article examines the Left’s underlying assumptions. Why does it go so far as to support a tyrannical military regime that seizes power by blatantly subverting a democratic election, raises money by drug trafficking, allies with other tyrannical regimes (Iran and China), and destroys a formerly vibrant economy? In short, because it reviles and rejects any assertion of US power — even in the Western hemisphere. And why is that? For the reasons set forth in this piece. This is a lucid explanation of the strange positions and presuppositions of the Left today. An explanation sorely needed to understand our world.
Excellent essay!
This is very well done. It occurs to me that this analysis also resonates powerfully when applied to Israel, which faces a strikingly similar presumption of illegitimacy. Like American power in your piece, Israeli sovereignty is perpetually on trial—not for specific policies but for existing and acting at all.
The same dual framework applies. Through the decolonial lens, Israel is cast as an inherently colonial project whose every assertion of power reinforces structures of oppression. Through the European legalist lens, Israeli military action is condemned for procedural deficiencies even when responding to existential threats that admit no time for multilateral deliberation. The result is identical: any exertion of Israeli power is treated as ab initio illegitimate, while the threats Israel faces are minimized or contextualized as understandable resistance.
The same contradictions emerge. International law is simultaneously dismissed as Western-colonial when it protects Israeli rights, yet invoked as authoritative when constraining Israeli action. Hamas's use of human shields and embedding military infrastructure in civilian areas is excused as asymmetric resistance, while Israeli responses are judged by standards applied to no other nation facing comparable threats. The procedural concern for "proportionality" and "authorization" matters more than the underlying reality: a democratic state defending its citizens against organizations explicitly committed to its annihilation.
Great point. It is very fashionable at the moment to condemn everything Israel does, while excusing every action by their enemies. Same philosophy at work. Witness the Islamification of Europe happening in real time. Apparently the globalist leadership wishes to use Islamic nations to destroy the West, so no one can be allowed to oppose any action by those nations, including Israel. Thanks for the insightful comment.
Great article, thank you. The critical piece of the problem is the hypocrisy of the left. Their complaints are always rooted in a double standard because all leftist philosophy is an attempt to justify theft from the successful to redistribute wealth to the so-called poor. In their minds, anyone who has anything they do not is somehow “priviledged”, so they should be allowed to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want from those who have worked hard and succeeded. International law is applied selectively to fit their framework, as you describe.
May I suggest, though, that the Russia - Ukraine situation is different. The Russians have legitimate grievances against the West since the collapse of the USSR. NATO was not supposed to expand to Russia itself. Western leaders have openly stated their goal of destroying Russia and taking its resources. Also, the Ukrainian fascists have severely persecuted the Russian population in eastern Ukraine. All of this should have been resolvable under international law, but since previous US presidents were part of the problem, it left Russia in the position of needing to push back on its own. I think the US would be justified in acting similarly if the roles were reversed. In other words, the West gave Russia the excuse it needed to invade and expand.
China, though, has no legitimate claim on Taiwan. The CCP is dedicated to conquest and expansion and cannot stand that Taiwan presents an alternative example for Chinese people. Taiwan is no physical threat to mainland China. The US could make a good argument that the West should actively defend Taiwan against Chinese invasion, under international law.
Pure cynism. The cynism of a cretin.
Such solid analysis.
So right…
Brilliant
This is a terrible example to make a reasonable point, that any and all American action will be rejected by ideologies that have grown over the last 25 years or so.
It’s already clear that nothing about the regime in Venezuela will change, as the Venezualan people still have no voice in government. More desperate migrants, more drugs, just now more oil to American companies, with Papa Trump getting to wet his beak.
“……Decolonial thinking is absorbed early, taught in classrooms and lecture halls where American power is introduced less as a historical actor than as a moral problem. By the time students graduate into newsrooms, NGOs, and policy circles, suspicion of U.S. action no longer needs to be argued…..”
Which is partly why Trump acts without giving a s..t what anybody else thinks.
What the developed World currently sees as a destabilisation of the rules based order built up since WW2, is actually just a recognition that America is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t, so it might as well overtly pursue MAGA ends.
My oh my, I am so happy, this is what I have been looking for: an actual discussion of how the world works.
So much noise, so little signal, but now hope; hope for understanding. For me this is a starting point, a breath of fresh air; it is a pleasure to meet you, dear author.
My favourite is Curtis Yarvin but he is a complete bastard, he goes out of his way to be unintelligible. Funny as hell though.
My favourite quote :
“So you ask your Priest: if not God King and Church what would I believe? Who is against God and King and Church? And your priest said: Satan. And so thinking logically you became a Satanist. This probably happened to you except it wasn’t a priest but a guidance counselor. The way the world works, never changes.”
How can’t you love that!
Riboua’s argument is sharp, but it concedes more than it intends. American intervention tracks value, not virtue. Venezuela and Iran command urgency; the Sahel and Myanmar drift. That is not morality at work. It is prioritisation dressed as principle.
Democracy, in this register, travels well when accompanied by oil, chokepoints, or strategic rivalry. Stephen Krasner (1999) called it organised hypocrisy. The vocabulary has improved; the pattern has not.
Washington still does the opening act better than anyone. Shock, awe, precision, speed. But the harder question always arrives after the strike. Who governs, on what terms, and for how long?
Afghanistan was not a failure of entry. It was a failure of duration.
Riboua is right about action. The United States can act, decisively and at scale. But action is the easy part. Traction is the test, and that is where the script keeps fraying.
Krasner, S. D. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Good. Keeps the power powered.
I so love the clarity of reasoning here. Well done!
Nuanced take on this event & clarifying too. International law not withstanding Trump had good reasons to extract Maduro. for instance, he had long enabled Iran's terror/sanction work arounds plus Russia in the U.S. backyard. More important, however, were Impacts for U.S.regional affairs like interdicting Drug/sex/gang trafficking into the U.S, from Venezuela, Columbia, plus Cuba. The latter will now enter an economic tail spin losing its last oil support line. Cuba's military/security guarantees to Venezuela, it's essential client state, now lie smoking in the ruins of the Maduro raid. Regime change was not sought but the U.S. controls the coast line & remaining narco state "revolutionary" poseurs are inclined to comply to keep their drug money & avoid US prosecution. Impacts on Russia, Iran and China are merely a bonus.
You would enjoy these two essays by the American Civil Rights Leader Bayard Rustin
Africa, Soviet Imperialism & the Retreat of American Power
https://www.commentary.org/articles/bayard-rustin-2/africa-soviet-imperialism-the-retreat-of-american-power/
The War Against Zimbabwe
https://www.commentary.org/articles/bayard-rustin-2/the-war-against-zimbabwe/
Thank you, Zina. Quite clarifying, indeed. Call me, babe. ;)