Ask me about, law, travel and money! it's all about problem-solving! I'm a lawyer, editor and a travel writer. I love the Sea, the Soil and the Sky... and you!
@DmytroKuleba Did Kyiv produce them or every1 now found a way to masquerade foreign tech as Ukrainians' for deniability? Budanov said this much sometime ago. the targeting data & surveillance clearly aren't Ukrainian. Good that Russia doesn't escalate like Iran. Things would have been worse.
Introducing Passmark: an open-source AI agent purpose-built for regression testing at scale.
Built on Playwright: natural language tests, multi-model assertions, smart caching, telemetry, AI gateway support and more!
github: bug0inc/passmark
We are told that security in the Middle East requires defeating Iran, security in East Asia requires defeating China, and security in Europe requires defeating Russia. We never discuss security in terms of how to learn to live together by harmonising interests and managing competition. This is by design. This is hegemonic peace, in which security depends on defeating rivals rather than managing a balance of power.
Subsequently, security relies solely on deterrence rather than reassurance; diplomacy is dismissed as appeasement; peace agreements are temporary and deceptive; and war is peace. Our rivals do not have legitimate security concerns, as their policies are allegedly always motivated by aggressive, irrational, or expansionist behaviour.
We have convinced ourselves that our liberal hegemony is a force for good, and that our opponents oppose our dominance because they reject our benign values of freedom. Discussing the security concerns of adversaries is believed to “legitimise” their policies, which is treasonous. The world is divided into good guys (liberal democracies) and bad guys (autocracies). We should not ask how defeating Russia, as the world's largest nuclear power, is a rational security strategy, or why our governments refuse to even speak with Moscow to discuss the European security architecture and end the war. Our governments have relabelled nuclear deterrence as nuclear blackmail to signal that there can be no more constraints.
All empires can become irrational during decline. Leaders take greater risks to avoid decline, legitimacy crises at home must be distracted with enemies abroad, outdated strategies from a bygone era of strength are still embraced, and there is a tendency to double down on narratives of being indispensable, representing universal values, and dismissing all opposition as illegitimate and dangerous. Are we the fanatics?
@CanadaUN Nobody condemns the aggression on Iran but every idiot is running to take a queue to condemn for blocking international navigation. Is the aggression on Iran not a serious violation of the UN charter, the very foundation of the current world order! Hypocrites!
@AimenDean I hate to say this, but Europe disrespect Russia bcos Russia doesn't implement its redlines like iran. u're crying bcos Iran chooses to be its own hegemony & not genuflect to ur masters. whine all u want, Iran earned d respect, though I hate their theocracy & extremism
@markomihkelson If Ukraine decides to kill its youth in pursuit of a proxy war it cannot win, that's its choice. If Spain considers it its national interest to keep its gas price low by buying from the cheapest seller in the market, it's their choice, why are you crying about it?
@EmmanuelMacron I'm happy that France is not silent, but why is France talking about the Iran ballistic missile while ignoring Israeli aggression and disregard for international law!
@RnaudBertrand It doesn't become the law because the prosecutor says so or the parliament passed it. The judge still has to test its constitutionality! Your interpretation will literally make every legal adviser on this topic guilty. That's not possible at least in France!
@husainhaqqani Iran didn't need to sign LOSC, d provision is already a customary international law. Iran has acted in compliance with it without challenging the legality of the rule. So the argument is irrelevant. The real question is, do customary International law change? Simple answer, yes!
@RnaudBertrand Iran didn't need to sign LOSC, d provision is already a customary international law. Iran has acted in compliance with it without challenging the legality of the rule. So the argument is irrelevant. The real question is, do customary International law change? Simple answer, yes!
@pritipatel Jokes, jokers! Clowns! They want the PM to emphasize international law in the strait of Hormuz but disregard the same law in the British channel! Can we at least take a clear position and show we still have sense?
@amjadt25 How convenient to talk about international law now. Did the law permit u to allow ur territory to be used to commit aggression against Iran? Iran &the US are not parties to LOSC. If you meant customary IL, customs change. Rather than insults, join in logical debate &negotiation.
@huffinpuff123@IRanMediaco Funny how you conveniently didn't see Israel breaching the ceasefire by blowing up Lebanon and well some extra Iranian oil field. I don't enjoy Iranian style but if we criticise others we should at least be honest. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
@eucopresident@drpezeshkian It is very difficult, but no EU leader has indeed directly cautioned the US - Israeli side on the perfidy that occurred in killing Iranian leaders when both parties had reached a deal. A call for negotiation that ignores this makes us look unserious or like a bias & fearful party
@HanShawnity Could it mean the regime's claim, that d protesters were sponsored by external forces is true? Maybe there's no means to sponsor internal revolt now bcs d regime dismantled it? In contrast, Iranians in d West always talk about how people badly fear d regime and want to leave iran