Brasilia, Aug 2 (EFE).- The war in Ukraine proves that the world needs a new system of global governance, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Wednesday. In his first press conference with foreign journalists since he took office on January 1, Lula said the United Nations had failed to assume its “responsibility” because …
  • @[email protected]
    54•1 year ago

    What an impressively bad take, I’m almost impressed. The UN is bad for not stopping the war and is warmongering by supplying weapons to Ukraine, but of course we shouldn’t criticize Russia for… oh I don’t know… starting the fucking war or continuing it for over a year for no defensible reason?

    • @[email protected]
      8•1 year ago

      Especially given the fact that France tried talking Russia out of invading before the war and they still went ahead with it. So it’s not like the security council sat around and watched it happen.

      • Pili
        8•1 year ago

        What does that even mean? What was said during that meeting? What guarantees did France offer Russia?

        • Kata1yst
          2•1 year ago

          Why did Russia need guarantees to NOT invade a sovereign nation they had existing “guarantees” to not invade?

          • albigu
            -2•1 year ago

            Maybe this

            It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

            Or this

            Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not let this happen.

            Might be some subjects in which guarantees would’ve averted the SMO.

            Source

            • Kata1yst
              6•1 year ago

              Citing Putin’s own speech like a valid source is pretty hilarious. Thanks for the giggle.

              • albigu
                2•1 year ago

                I mean, it’s the speech in which he lays out to his people why they’re going to war. He’d be hard pressed to justify the SMO to all the soldiers if they didn’t have all those well known grievances, don’t you think?

                Edit: wait, aren’t things government officials say not valid sources for what the government thinks or wants now? I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this one. Do you know of a valid-er source for what the Russian government and military wanted as guarantees to not have this war?

                • Kata1yst
                  3•1 year ago

                  Well known grievances? I simply cannot agree with you there. Those are points for which we only have the Russian governments word, and dozens of denials from other governments across the globe.

                  Not to mention, the reasoning for the war has changed dramatically over and over, from “stop the Nazis!” To “oh they were totally going to join NATO and attack us!!!” To “The security of Europe!” And now “they were gonna get nukes!”

                  Never mind the fact that the Ukraine already gave up their nukes in exchange for Russia’s assurances they wouldn’t do exactly this. Or the fact that NATO obviously doesn’t need the Ukraine as members since Russia can’t even win a land war with a military a fraction of their size right across the border. Or any of the other facts Russia has bald faced lied about repeatedly.

                  Given the above factors I find it highly unlikely Putin was looking for or interested in any diplomatic out. He was looking for an excuse.

                  • @[email protected]
                    3•1 year ago

                    Not to mention, the reasoning for the war has changed dramatically

                    • Refuses to read Russia’s official justification for war
                    • Claims not only to know Russia’s justification, but that it’s repeatedly changed
                  • albigu
                    -1•1 year ago

                    Not to mention, the reasoning for the war has changed dramatically over and over, from “stop the Nazis!” To “oh they were totally going to join NATO and attack us!!!” To “The security of Europe!” And now “they were gonna get nukes!”

                    All three are on the speech from the very beginning, no change there. But here’s some English sources in order.

                    Nazis: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-has-nazi-problem-vladimir-putin-s-denazification-claim-war-ncna1290946

                    Join NATO: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-nato-has-become-flash-point-russia-ukraine

                    Nukes: https://ria-ru.translate.goog/20220301/ukraina-1775795745.html

                    You’re free to believe those grievances are not based in reality, but to claim that those grievances were not well known ever since beginning of the war to the Russian public is either dishonest or just lazy.

                    Russia can’t win a land war

                    You people keep saying that, and yet Russia seems to be winning this war for like 16 months now. Ukraine in NATO means nukes within minutes of Moscow and Russia completely surrounded on the western borders except for Belarus, it is definitely something I would want if I were NATO.

                    Putin was looking for an excuse

                    An excuse for what, exactly? What, in your perspective, does Russia, both the government and the people, gain from taking part in this war that is so much more important to them that what was officially in the speech declaring the SMO in the first place?

                    Even if you believe Putin personally hates Ukrainian people or something and would risk his entire government just for that, those grievances are the basis of the rhetoric used for justifying the war internally, and guarantees from NATO about those (remember why we started this discussion?) would take a lot of the wind out of the sails of any war effort. War is just the extension of politics.