Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said that Russian leader Vladimir Putin will not be arrested in Brazil if he attends the Group of 20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro next year.

Lula, speaking to the Firstpost news show at the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Delhi on Saturday, said Putin would be invited to next year’s event.

He added that he himself planned to attend a BRICS bloc of developing nations meeting due in Russia before the Rio meeting.

“I believe that Putin can go easily to Brazil,” Lula said. “What I can say to you is that if I’m president of Brazil, and he comes to Brazil, there’s no way he will be arrested.”

The statement comes after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against Putin in March, accusing him of the war crime of illegally deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    10
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    World war 3 is going to be a total downer for everyone, most countries will want to avoid it, or at least try not to be the one to start it.

    Not to mention the president of a country travels as a diplomat. Arresting diplomats is something that’s frowned upon internationally.

    Arresting the president of a country, or kidnapping the president of a country, is a pretty clear declaration of war.

    Let’s say by some miracle war doesn’t immediately break out, well the country you’ve just pissed off has a bunch of hostages immediately available, all of your diplomats and citizens in their borders. As much as we want to talk about rule of law, at the international level between countries it’s all about capabilities.

    • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß
      link
      fedilink
      English
      361 year ago

      It is a false narrative that doing anything against russian aggression automatically means WW3.

      And this false narrative is deliberately spread by pro russian channels so that Russia gets challenged as little as possible.

      Putin is a war criminal and should be arrested, if Russia then chooses to go to war (which I doubt) they will see how it serves them.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        You mean a false narrative that has been US policy since 1940? This isn’t “just doing something”, this is a direct act of war. Removing a head of state is quite literally referred to as a decapitation strike.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -171 year ago

        If the president of Russia is flying to Brazil for an economic summit, and has engine trouble and has to land in Spain for instance. Spain arrests him. That is a de facto state of war between NATO and Russia.

        That’s not a false narrative, that’s not apologistic.

        • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß
          link
          fedilink
          English
          191 year ago

          That is a de facto state of war between NATO and Russia.

          Repeating this doesn’t make it any more true.
          Which Russian politician would throw away his new reign for an attack on NATO which might mean WW3, but which definitely will mean the total and utter destruction of Russia as a nation.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Fair enough. We don’t know what will happen until it happens. I’m just trying to provide some rationale for why countries won’t be exercising that particular option.

            Fun fact, in Russia the president can declare war unilaterally. I wonder what incentives a imprisoned Russian president have to prevent them from ordering a military rescue, military intervention, full-fledged war.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              5
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Another fun thought experiment: The United Nations is headquartered in New York City. If the Russian president wants to address the United Nations personally. The UN requires free passage for diplomats to visit the UN. The United States is a signatory of the UN charter. So the United States is obligated to allow freedom of movement to and from the UN by Russian diplomats including the president to address the UN.

              If the US breaks the UN charter, things get really interesting very fast.

              This will definitely never happen, for many reasons, but not inconsequentially because the US is not a signatory to the ICC

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                If the US breaks the UN charter, things get really interesting very fast.

                Not because “they broke the UN charter”. International laws and diplomatic agreements are game of power and alliances. The US hosts and is the largest funder of the UN, closely allied to most of the other major supporters, and has some form of power over most of the other nations. There are no higher authorities enforcing international laws.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Having thought about it let’s do a thought experiment. The United States president has engine trouble and has to land in Iran. The Iranians arrest the US president for illegal sanctions against the Iranian State.

              What happens next?

              Does the US allow the Iranian legal system time to follow its due process and come to a conclusion? Or does something else happen?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                I take your point but I think the power dynamic there makes it pretty different. The US has a much greater ability to damage Iran than Iran has the US. While that may also be true to some extent between NATO and Russia, nuclear weapons make everyone extra wary of such a conflict. Let’s say Putin or his lieutenant declare war in response. Do the foot-soldiers follow through knowing it may lead to nuclear annihilation? That’s unclear.

                But even actions that have a chance of leading to that outcome will be avoided, which is why Putin will not be arrested. It’s also not clear he would be replaced by anyone who would improve the situation, so there’s really no incentive to do this at all.