Correct. International “law” does spell the end of national sovereignty that’s why all so-called international laws must be rejected by Americans. This is not a debating point.
You are missing the point. Those small nations have already been swallowed up by an empire which is willing to fight bravely to the last drop of their citizens blood to swallow up Russia a well. There is a difference between this free-floating illusion of 'international law' which dissolves sovereignty, and a mutual defense pact between free and independent peoples.
Auron MacIntyre thinks he’s cracked the code: if a country needs help, it’s not really sovereign. Ukraine relies on U.S. support, so its independence is a “façade.” Case closed.
This is the kind of argument that sounds profound if you don’t think about it. By this logic, America wasn’t sovereign in 1776 because it needed French ships. Britain in 1940? A puppet state, propped up by American lend-lease. South Korea? Taiwan? Israel? All illusions. Meanwhile, Russia, utterly dependent on Chinese trade and smuggled Western parts, somehow escapes this definition. Convenient.
Sovereignty isn’t about being an island; it’s about being able to act. Ukraine isn’t begging for permission to exist—it’s securing the alliances that let it fight. Power is never solo; it’s built on networks, on influence, on the ability to rally others. The Founders knew this. The Romans knew this. The only people who don’t seem to know this are those who think “realism” means pretending history never happened.
If Auron actually believed his own argument, he’d be calling Russia a façade, too. But that’s not the point, is it? The point is to dress up surrender as insight.
I thought you were better than this, but then again you're American. You probably can not help it. Betraying your so called allies is not new to you. I pray Jesus has mercy on you.
There is nothing honorable in defending, what has transpired and is transpiring. There is nothing virtuous in betrayal. There is nothing smart in humiliating your so called allies in public. There is no utility in being regarded as untrustworthy morons.
I suppose even Machiavelli or Schmitt could recognize that it's not in the interest of power, or your own self interest for that matter, to be viewed as incompotent, amateurish, cowardly, greedy, untrustworthy and brutish by your populace, your allies and your enemies.
Regarding your points: They are straw man arguments and some fallacious lies. What transpired in the Oval Office and afterwards wasn't about international law or who is sovereign. The ancients knew what an oath is and what promises are. What allies are for and how to treat them. Even the small ones. You clearly do not.
Some examples of falsehoods: Ukraine is not in NATO. This is not NATO fighting Russia. NATOs Budget is not 1.3 trillion (https://www.nato.int/cps/uk/natohq/topics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en). How can you claim the threat of Russia has vanished, when clearly Russia is the aggressor?
This narrative of the USA being taken advantage of by the other NATO Members and being unfairly constricted by international law is a fallacious lie.
Your argument boils down to: Might makes right. Good look with that. It's not only unchristian. It is anti-civilizational. You choose this path, there is no turning back. You'll watch the collapse of your american empire and civilization. God have mercy on us all, if that happens.
The ancients knew that pride and betrayal are the worst sins. I'm pretty sure all your heroes you love to cite so much, even your namesake, would feel nothing but disgust by the utter stupidity, cowardliness and vainglory displayed by your leaders.
The vast majority of NATO funding comes from the US, but NATO troops have not been directly deployed in Ukraine. Most of the humanitarian aid and about 50% of military assistance to Ukraine has already come from Europe.
It's also a tad evasive to characterise NATO as 'having outlived its purpose' when Russia was obviously the primary architect of and successor-state to the USSR, and when Putin's 2021 ultimatum basically said "bring back the Warsaw pact".
An apt, long-winded title for this article would be “the leviathan of sovereignty spells the end to the (dei)llusion of the liberal humanitarian fantasy that is international law” (which is really just a sanctioned simulacrum of court of international appeals bestowed upon the world by the great powers)
Auron, if you will, please look at this article I wrote, titled “A New Galactic Order: The USA, Russia, and Asimov’s Foundations in a Post-Clown World Era”. Many thanks!
Correct. International “law” does spell the end of national sovereignty that’s why all so-called international laws must be rejected by Americans. This is not a debating point.
I hope you're ready to live in a world where every small nation is up for the taking.
Wait, you're some sort of Amerimutt living in some sort of diversity-ridden empire already, protected by some oceans and nukes.
No wonder you couldn't care less about what happens with those small, near-ethnostates in East Europe. Just feed them to Russia, another mutt entity.
At least it's Christian! And trad! So is alleged.
You are missing the point. Those small nations have already been swallowed up by an empire which is willing to fight bravely to the last drop of their citizens blood to swallow up Russia a well. There is a difference between this free-floating illusion of 'international law' which dissolves sovereignty, and a mutual defense pact between free and independent peoples.
Auron MacIntyre thinks he’s cracked the code: if a country needs help, it’s not really sovereign. Ukraine relies on U.S. support, so its independence is a “façade.” Case closed.
This is the kind of argument that sounds profound if you don’t think about it. By this logic, America wasn’t sovereign in 1776 because it needed French ships. Britain in 1940? A puppet state, propped up by American lend-lease. South Korea? Taiwan? Israel? All illusions. Meanwhile, Russia, utterly dependent on Chinese trade and smuggled Western parts, somehow escapes this definition. Convenient.
Sovereignty isn’t about being an island; it’s about being able to act. Ukraine isn’t begging for permission to exist—it’s securing the alliances that let it fight. Power is never solo; it’s built on networks, on influence, on the ability to rally others. The Founders knew this. The Romans knew this. The only people who don’t seem to know this are those who think “realism” means pretending history never happened.
If Auron actually believed his own argument, he’d be calling Russia a façade, too. But that’s not the point, is it? The point is to dress up surrender as insight.
I thought you were better than this, but then again you're American. You probably can not help it. Betraying your so called allies is not new to you. I pray Jesus has mercy on you.
There is nothing honorable in defending, what has transpired and is transpiring. There is nothing virtuous in betrayal. There is nothing smart in humiliating your so called allies in public. There is no utility in being regarded as untrustworthy morons.
I suppose even Machiavelli or Schmitt could recognize that it's not in the interest of power, or your own self interest for that matter, to be viewed as incompotent, amateurish, cowardly, greedy, untrustworthy and brutish by your populace, your allies and your enemies.
Regarding your points: They are straw man arguments and some fallacious lies. What transpired in the Oval Office and afterwards wasn't about international law or who is sovereign. The ancients knew what an oath is and what promises are. What allies are for and how to treat them. Even the small ones. You clearly do not.
Some examples of falsehoods: Ukraine is not in NATO. This is not NATO fighting Russia. NATOs Budget is not 1.3 trillion (https://www.nato.int/cps/uk/natohq/topics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en). How can you claim the threat of Russia has vanished, when clearly Russia is the aggressor?
This narrative of the USA being taken advantage of by the other NATO Members and being unfairly constricted by international law is a fallacious lie.
Your argument boils down to: Might makes right. Good look with that. It's not only unchristian. It is anti-civilizational. You choose this path, there is no turning back. You'll watch the collapse of your american empire and civilization. God have mercy on us all, if that happens.
The ancients knew that pride and betrayal are the worst sins. I'm pretty sure all your heroes you love to cite so much, even your namesake, would feel nothing but disgust by the utter stupidity, cowardliness and vainglory displayed by your leaders.
The vast majority of NATO funding comes from the US, but NATO troops have not been directly deployed in Ukraine. Most of the humanitarian aid and about 50% of military assistance to Ukraine has already come from Europe.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
It's also a tad evasive to characterise NATO as 'having outlived its purpose' when Russia was obviously the primary architect of and successor-state to the USSR, and when Putin's 2021 ultimatum basically said "bring back the Warsaw pact".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2021_Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO#Contents
An apt, long-winded title for this article would be “the leviathan of sovereignty spells the end to the (dei)llusion of the liberal humanitarian fantasy that is international law” (which is really just a sanctioned simulacrum of court of international appeals bestowed upon the world by the great powers)
Auron, if you will, please look at this article I wrote, titled “A New Galactic Order: The USA, Russia, and Asimov’s Foundations in a Post-Clown World Era”. Many thanks!
Link: https://open.substack.com/pub/eperytos/p/a-new-galactic-order-the-usa-russia?r=5b24i6&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=post-publish
Excellent.