Excellent translation and analysis. Professor Zheng's framing of counterinsurgency law as a tool to downgrade sovereign states into "insurgent organiztions" is sharp. The observation about how the U.S. transforms military interventions into domestic law enforcement really captures somthing I've seen play out in security policy discussions. That pivot from Westphalian sovereignty to "responsibility to protect" rhetoric basically lets the strongest player redefine legitimacy at will, which is super destabilizing long-term.
Interestingly China does something similar with its militarised coastguard in the SCS, and Russia with its various Kremlin-aligned criminal organisations (recall the Wagner Group). It seems the great powers are interested in blurring the military distinction altogether. As a trend, that would culminate in total war.
idk mate, i think thats a bit of cope- these are orders of magnitude different. I certainly think wagner group is horrific, but there have long been these sorts of quasi governmental private militias operating throughout the global south. I remember a french company operating in cote d'ivoire when i was youth there. you cant even find said agency on the internet lol
What am I supposedly coping about? I’m not in favour of any of these states. Also, this post isn’t about clandestine ops but about the blurring of the distinction between military and law enforcement, which is precisely what’s going on with China’s coastguard (though Wagner was more like a clandestine op).
Scholars tend to miss the simple fact that Trump is, has, and will always be a simple street thug, enabled by his inheritance of a vast fortune. Law isn’t something that’s ever entered into Trump’s head.
Excellent translation and analysis. Professor Zheng's framing of counterinsurgency law as a tool to downgrade sovereign states into "insurgent organiztions" is sharp. The observation about how the U.S. transforms military interventions into domestic law enforcement really captures somthing I've seen play out in security policy discussions. That pivot from Westphalian sovereignty to "responsibility to protect" rhetoric basically lets the strongest player redefine legitimacy at will, which is super destabilizing long-term.
This is a sharp articulation of something broader: power now operates by reclassification.
War becomes “law enforcement.” Sovereignty becomes “conditional legitimacy.” Politics becomes jurisdiction.
Once an actor is downgraded across categories, escalation becomes procedural rather than political.
Interestingly China does something similar with its militarised coastguard in the SCS, and Russia with its various Kremlin-aligned criminal organisations (recall the Wagner Group). It seems the great powers are interested in blurring the military distinction altogether. As a trend, that would culminate in total war.
idk mate, i think thats a bit of cope- these are orders of magnitude different. I certainly think wagner group is horrific, but there have long been these sorts of quasi governmental private militias operating throughout the global south. I remember a french company operating in cote d'ivoire when i was youth there. you cant even find said agency on the internet lol
What am I supposedly coping about? I’m not in favour of any of these states. Also, this post isn’t about clandestine ops but about the blurring of the distinction between military and law enforcement, which is precisely what’s going on with China’s coastguard (though Wagner was more like a clandestine op).
Why not call the US a rogue nation and just disqualify any US veto from the Security Council?
Brilliant Analysis
Scholars tend to miss the simple fact that Trump is, has, and will always be a simple street thug, enabled by his inheritance of a vast fortune. Law isn’t something that’s ever entered into Trump’s head.