Russia's Medvedev: Time to Declare "Rebus sic stantibus" on Hague Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War!

Source: Hal Turner

---

Sometimes in life, it is not so important WHAT is said as it is WHO said it.  Today is such a day.

Russia's Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council, Dmitry Medvedev, said something yesterday that should send shivers up your spine.  Medvedev publicly wrote:

Given the massive terrorist attacks of the enemy on our cities, the intensity of which is increasing and will obviously continue to increase, it's time to openly declare that there are no more rules regarding neo-Nazi Kiev and there can't be any. The only thing that should remain beyond our acceptable limits is the deliberate destruction of civilians. I emphasize: deliberate, that is, intentionally. Everything else is quite acceptable, no matter how disgusting the scumbag from Bankovaya Street and his pathetic European sidekicks may be.By the way, this also applies to the Hague Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War. They are no longer needed. Wars have changed too much over the past hundred years. Back then, it was unacceptable to steal or kill even the leaders of enemy countries. Moreover, the throwing of bombs from air balloons has been replaced by missiles and drones. So the invocation of the rebus sic stantibus clause is quite appropriate here.

What the Heck is "rebus sic stantibus?"

Rebus sic stantibus (Latin for "things thus standing") is a legal doctrine allowing parties to void or renegotiate a contract or treaty if there has been a fundamental, unforeseen change in circumstances. It serves as an exception to the rule that agreements must be strictly honored.

Core Legal Principles

·        The Rule vs. The Exception: It contrasts directly with pacta sunt servanda—the foundational legal principle that promises must be kept.

·        The Threshold: It cannot be invoked simply because a deal became less profitable. The change must be completely unforeseeable, render performance radically burdensome, or destroy the fundamental basis of the agreement.

Where It Applies

·        International Law: Often used to terminate or suspend state treaties. It is recognized under customary international law and codified in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

·        Civil Contract Law: Many civil law jurisdictions (and increasingly common law doctrines of frustration/hardship) allow courts to alter or terminate private contracts if extraordinary events (like pandemics or wars) cause extreme and unanticipated financial hardship.

How It Works

When successfully invoked, it does not just automatically cancel an agreement. Depending on the jurisdiction or treaty, it can result in:

1.     1) Complete termination of the contract or treaty.

2.      2) Judicial modification of the terms (such as adjusting timelines, prices, or scope) to fit the new reality.

HAL TURNER ANALYSIS

The Deputy Chairman of Russia's Federation Council just dusted off an arcane phrase in Latin, from  Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to publicly say no more rules of war for the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Stop for a moment and truly absorb what that means: Unlimited Warfare.   

Unlimited.

This isn't some nobody from a tiny, insignificant country saying this.  It's a former President of Russia and now the CURRENT Deputy Chairman of Russia's Federation Council.  

He is arguing the Hague Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War are, in his words "no longer needed" because, he says "Wars have changed too much over the past hundred years."

He mentions that nowadays, aircraft with missiles and bombs do what the convention long ago outlawed: Dropping explosives from hot air balloons.  He also explicitly mentions ". . . Killing enemy leaders." a concept of war brought to all of us by Israel intentionally bombing Palestinian leaders like Ismail Heniyah (Bombed in a Tehran Hotel by Israel) and Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei, whose personal home was hit with upwards of eight, 2,000 pound, air-dropped, bombs.

Thanks to the Israelis, the word threw out a long prohibited act of war - killing the leaders of a country!

It seems to me that what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.   If it is OK for Israel - and arguably the United States -- to kill the leaders of other countries, then we Americans had better get used to the idea that other countries might just decide to kill OUR leaders.

While it wouldn't bother me a bit to see some present Democrats (and a few RINOs) get whacked by some foreign government, it certainly would offend our sensibilities here in the USA.  In fact, we'd likely go to declared war over it.

But nuances aside, it is we in the US, through our maniacal proxy Israel, that has brought this to the world. 

Worse, the US and our vassals in Europe, have so viciously supplied Ukraine, that for all intents and purposes, Russia is already at war with Europe and the US.   If Medvedev's argument is followed to its logical conclusion, Russia can simply declare that we are already at war with them, and use that as the basis to attack European manufacturing facilities supplying Ukraine with weapons, and European/US Military bases being used as logistics hubs to supply Ukraine to attack Russia.

I don't know what kind of morons think a war with Russia is worth fighting, but apparently we here in the United States (and for certain, in Europe) have quite a number of psychotic ego maniacs  who think exactly that.   These same psychopaths seem to think a nuclear war in winnable.

In any event, the fact that a guy like Medvedev utilized the Latin phrase, codified in Treaty law, to justify abrogating or withdrawing from the Hague Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War shows how serious things have gotten.

The blame for all this falls squarely on the shoulders of very specific people.  So should accountability if their efforts cause a nuclear war. But it won't.  There's never accountability.

A Formula You Need to Know

It is said that "al the world's a stage."   That "politics is theater."   Think about that: Theater.

The clap when the curtain rises. The clap when it falls.

Everything in between, you pay to sit in the dark.

If POLITICS = THEATRE, then the POLITICIANS are the ACTORS.

You, therefore are the AUDIENCE. And the Audience has one function, split across two moments: applause at the open, applause at the close.

Between those two claps you are silent. Not heard. Not seen. And what is not heard and not seen does not matter. If this is true, that means you do not matter to the theatre or the politicians because you are only useful for the clap or the vote.

Beyond that, you’re useless.

My math…

You matter at beat zero and the final beat. You pay at every beat between them with your time and enthusiasm.

Ticket. Parking. Popcorn.

Two claps of value. A full show of cost.

My reading of what we are seeing…

They do not need your voice. They need your applause to begin, and your applause to feel earned at the end. The silence in the middle is not a flaw in the performance. It is the design.

This is signal that the voting class was never written as a character. It was written as a constant. Needed at the open, needed at the close, billed for the entire run.

You were sold a seat and told it was a stake.

Don’t expect your opinion on stopping overseas wars and inflation to matter. This is reality and reality is brutal.

Bookmark this to digest it over and over until you know. If you know, you know.