The Same Story We Heard Before the Wars

I did not plan to write about politics, but lately my attention has been drawn to some events in the world that make me worry and feel how the confidence in tomorrow is shaking. And this will probably continue as long as radical psychopaths rule countries. Today I accidentally read news about a new draft law in Russia. Honestly when you read things like this, it becomes a little disturbing.I am not an expert in politics and not an analyst, but some things look too familiar.

The idea there is roughly this: the Russian Ministry of Defense prepared a law that would allow using the army outside the country to “protect russian citizens” in case of detention or criminal prosecution. That means if somewhere abroad a Russian citizen is arrested or put on trial, and the Russian authorities decide that this is wrong or that the court has no right to do this, then theoretically it could become a reason for intervention. If the law is adopted, the decision about using the army will be made by the president.

On paper it sounds like protection of their citizens. It may seem like nothing unusual, it would be naive to think so. Any state says it must protect its people. But personally I immediately get an unpleasant feeling, because similar wording has already been used before. Before the war against Ukraine they also talked about protecting people. First for many years they gave out Russian passports in Donbas. Then they started saying that Russian citizens live there and they must be protected. Then in February 2022 the parliament allowed the use of the army outside the country. And two days later the full-scale invasion began.

I am not saying that the same thing will happen now. I cannot know this and nobody can know. But when you see such coincidences, you automatically start remembering how everything happened back then.

Similar stories happened earlier too. In 2008 during the war with Georgia they also said that Russian citizens in South Ossetia must be protected. There too Russian passports were given out in advance. Then the war began. So when now a new law appears with almost the same wording, many people start asking: what is it really for.

Another thing that worries me is that the wording is very vague. “Protection of citizens” can mean anything. It can mean evacuation of people from a dangerous place, it can be protection from rape, from an attack of wild animals or insects. Here I added a bit of sarcasm. But it can also mean a military operation. Everything depends on how the authorities interpret it.

In the explanation to the draft law it is said about courts whose jurisdiction is not recognized by Russia, and this can also relate to international courts. For exmple, the International Criminal Court has already іssued arrest warrants for some Russian officials (the president).

I don't know if this is directly connected. Maybe yes, maybe not. But the fact itself that such things are written into law looks very strange . Often it happens that first a law is adopted and only later events happen. The law is like prepared in advance. When some crisis appears, it is simply used. That is why many countries now look at such things with concern. Even if the law is never used, its appearance itself is already a signal, a “red light”.

I may be wrong. But looking at the last years makes you treat such initiatives with a lot of distrust. Too often words about protection and humanitarian goals ended with destruction and wars. Sometimes warning signs appear long before big events. And it is better to pay attention to them than later say that nobody noticed anything. Especially when we talk about Russia, a country and a people that bring to the world only lies, pain and death.

• Image: AI, ChatGPT.

_{Posted using SteemX}