MEMES OVER GENES

  WHY ARE WE SLEEPWALKING INTO ARMAGEDDON? Russia's President Putin has now said that if NATO forces assist Ukraine by providing long-range missiles that can strike deep into Russia, it will mean the NATO allies are at war with Russia, and he will respond in kind. And without any other framing context, he is perfectly entitled to do so. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and NATO has no business in getting involved beyond the ancient code of war: act in your own interest; might is right.  But in the context of war with Russia, this is the counsel of fools. Russia is a nuclear power, and although it has thus far hesitated to use nukes, there is no doubt it would do so if it ever felt its territory and defence capabilities were being seriously threatened. And even if the current conflict only continues on a tit-for-tat basis, NATO cannot defeat Putin without risking the ultimate option, and bringing on Armageddon. So why are they playing this dangerous game, one that cannot be won? Why

The signing of the UN Charter in San Francisco, on June 26, 1945 As Russia's invasion of Ukraine rolls into its second grim year, we should of course recognise and applaud the extraordinary efforts and sacrifice the Ukrainians have made in defending their country. If there is any glory to be had in such a brutal and unforgiving conflict, it most certainly belongs to them.  But we should also recognise and deplore what has not been achieved. Despite warm words of support, the international community has been dilatory in its response, and incremental in its actions. Russian aggression has not been stopped, and the war looks set to drag on, at great cost to Ukraine. Though buttressed by supplies of 'lethal aid' from the West, the Ukrainians have largely been left to fend for themselves. Their allies are not dirtying their boots on the ground.  If this were business as usual, just another regional squabble between neighbours over territory and resources, that might be understan

Results of the UN General Assembly vote on the aggression against Ukraine, March 2, 2022 As social and mainstream media go into overdrive with ever more frenzied speculation about how the Ukraine crisis might best be resolved – or even just what could be sensibly done to help – there is one conspicuous absentee from the parameters of the discussion: the United Nations. Almost all the talk focusses on what response ‘the West’ or NATO might make, and under what circumstances, and yet to the extent that this would bring regional actors into conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia, there's an understandable hesitance to press the case. And rightly so: neither the West nor NATO has any more right to take matters into their own hands than Russia does in invading Ukraine. That's important, because if we want to avoid escalating this into a full-scale war, we need to be clear about the rationale for making any intervention. Though a case can certainly be made that both the US and the UK

The General Assembly of the United Nations adopting the 'Uniting For Peace'   Resolution 377 A (V), o n 3 November 1950 [Note: The following is an extract from the last chapter of my book  SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human , originally written with the terrible events of the Syrian Civil War in mind (another truly international crisis). However, it applies equally to what is happening now in Ukraine. Executive summary: The UN has the power, the means and the responsibility to stop the war in Ukraine. To do so would be an act of peace, not war.] The UN was set up with the best of intentions. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, the victors of the struggle felt the need to do something to prevent another world war from ever happening. The UN Charter, the founding document of the United Nations, was created for that sole purpose, and 193 countries of the world are now signatories to a legal agreement, in which they pledge to “ maintain international peace and securit

Boris Yeltsin, P resident Bill Clinton, Leonid Kuchma  and John Major signing the Budapest Memorandum in December 1994 Let’s just get this straight. At the last count Vladimir Putin was in violation of at least three international treaties that the Russian Federation is signed up to. First, the UN Charter, which amongst other things prohibits signatories from using force – or even the threat of it – in the settlement of international disputes. Second, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which commits them to respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine within its existing borders. And third, the protocol of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits attacks on “installations containing dangerous forces” – such as the nuclear power station they’ve been shelling. Not to mention that the intentional targeting of civilians and civilian buildings also constitutes a crime under international humanitarian law. No matter what the justification, Putin is way out of line. Yet so far, he's getting away with i

So here we go again. Another blatant violation of international law, unfolding in full view of the world – not only in the mainstream media, but streamed live to every cell phone on the planet. We can all see what's happening, up close and personal – the distress of the Ukrainian people, the terror of war, the incomprehension of citizens uprooted from comfortable, 21st century lives in a large, civilized European city, watching their world being blown apart around them. And yet the United Nations, charged above all with "maintaining peace and international security" seems not only powerless to do anything about it, but unable even to call the situation for what it is. For the time is long past for 'deploring'. People are dying now, and this is only the start of it. What Russia is doing, whatever the provocation, the grievance, the justification in the mind of Vladimir Putin, is clearly against everything that the United Nations stands for. No matter that Russia wo