> The international order is often called the 'US-led rules-based interntional order'.

There's the actual international law (and the UN) and there's the US-led rules-based international order (ie, what the US wants basically). They're completely at odds - often times the US (and Israel or a couple of other minor countries) vote against or simply flout whatever the rest of the UN wants.

The US is king of Grey zone actions. Random drone strikes, funding insurgency and terror groups, invading countries without international approval, blockading Cuba, etc. - the list is very long.

So when the US complains about Russia doing similar things (often responding to provocation by the US or NATO), the complaints can easily be filed in the "hypocrisy bin".

https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/the-u-s-ma...

> There's the actual international law (and the UN) and there's the US-led rules-based international order (ie, what the US wants basically).

Those are the same 'order', the same thing. The UN and international law are unquestionable, essential parts of the international order.

> often times the US (and Israel or a couple of other minor countries) vote against or simply flout whatever the rest of the UN wants.

Agreed, as I discussed in the GP: the US and its partners often violate those rules and let themselves off the hook, as status quo powers tend to do. It doesn't excuse it at all, but that's not inconsistent with the rules-based order.

Also, with a veto on UN Security Council decisions, if the US votes against something then it's not law.

Russia engages in random drone strikes, funding insurgency and terror groups, invading countries without international approval, blockading Ukraine, etc. - the list is very long. Indeed, russia appears to be king of grey zone actions.

So when russia complains about the US doing similar things (often responding to provocation by russia), the complaints can easily be filed in the "hypocrisy bin".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...