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?
It almost seems as if the West snd the Global South have completely different understandings of who is being the imperialist in the war. I don’t understand.
Is this sarcasm or an honest question?
Sarcasm.
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.
What does that even mean? What was said during that meeting? What guarantees did France offer Russia?
Why did Russia need guarantees to NOT invade a sovereign nation they had existing “guarantees” to not invade?
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.
Citing Putin’s own speech like a valid source is pretty hilarious. Thanks for the giggle.
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?
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.
Okay, but he was right about this part:
"Lula said the United Nations had failed to assume its “responsibility” because permanent members of the Security Council “are the ones who foment wars.”
The UN security council is a joke and there shouldn’t be permanent members. It’s just neo imperialism.
I imagine that when it was formed there were two options - allow permanent members or form without the most important members.
This is it. How to do bring super powers to a group of nations and tell them they’ll have the same voice as tiny countries. Why would they bother showing up?
The world has changed since then, though. I dont think it makes much sense anymore to have France and the UK as permanent members though. Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought…
Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought…
Russia is currently stalemated in a limited war against a substantial (but similarly limited) chunk of the NATO arsenal. As a point of comparison, in the last 20 years the U.S. has lost two wars against non-state actors where it used everything but nukes.
The U.S. hasn’t fought a war like the Russian-Ukranian War since Vietnam or Korea, and the results there weren’t a lot better than what Russia is seeing now (despite the U.S. doing far more indiscriminate strategic bombing).
Irak?
The permanent members are, or at least were so powerful that if they didn’t agree nothing could stop them .
The point of the permanent members of security council was to bring superpowers to the table and keep them there. Otherwise they could play their games and the smaller countries would all suffer for it.
Of course there are still problems, but through the security council and MAD we now have proxy wars and culture wars rather than a World War every couple decades.
In the perspective of actually preventing a new World War by drawing lines between superpowers instead of appeasement, I believe that the UN actually fulfills its role the best they can. Unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations, which went so much into the “appeasement against war” from its founding members (Britain and France) that it functionally collapsed in thw wake of WW2
I thought we were done with “slamming” in headlines. At least it felt like I didn’t see any of those here on Lemmy until now…
It always makes political statements read like Pokemon battles.
Lula uses SLAM on UN!
…it’s not very effective.
Unfortunately, it seems most politicians are Ghost types, since it never seems to affect them.
Reading terms like “slammed” instead of terms like “criticized” in a headline always makes me think the author must be an uncultured, uneducated and very ordinary person.
In order to be accurate, most of the news communities want the headline of the post to be the same as the one in the article. And as the news sites use “slam”, well…
lmao they’re impersonating prensa-latina.cu, and I can’t even find the “bilingual” section.
He’s right, that’s why Brasil has been trying to get into the permanent security council since like 2002. The current majority members are either inept at avoiding wars or more likely complicit in starting as many as they can to create demands for their military complexes. They don’t even have permanent members from Africa or Latin America. Latin America, and in this particular case Brasil, wants nothing to do with this war except for helping creating a ceasefire, but one of the belligerents really hates the notion of pausing the war for negotiations.
And brazil should get that seat from russia’s. Remove an imperialist warmongering nation, replace it with one that still clearly isn’t directly aligned with western interests, as evidenced by the fact that lula can say this kind of thing freely and the worst that can happen to him as a consequence is some raised eyebrows. But his take is still insane and naive, and the brasilian people deserve better than « not bolsonaro » as the only option. I’m starting to see a pattern here: « not trump », « not le pen »… Global democracy is not doing well. Granted, as far as I understand it, he has had some actual progressive positions and policies in the past, and I can’t speak for his domestic impact, but he’s not being a leader on the world stage here, and it shows.
Remove an imperialist warmongering nation
By that I hope you mean the USA, the world’s leading imperialist nation. Brasil has been so aligned with “western” interests that they had some fashy president until last year who sold a lot of our industry to gringos of the north for discount prices. Just because Lula is a bit different and a complete pacifist, doesn’t mean the country is free of imperialism at all, just look at the headlines of acquisitions of land by foreign-owned corporations to exploit our resources. Russia is in there for historical and material reasons and to remove them from the council would only serve to discredit the same council’s representation power. It should be expanded to include Brasil without downgrading anybody.
But his take is still insane and naive
Care to elaborate or should we just take your word that “demanding a ceasefire” is naïve?
and the brasilian people deserve better than « not bolsonaro » as the only option.
How’s that UN’s problem? Or related to this at all? Although I agree, I don’t see why this is being brought up here when Ukraine’s war wasn’t even an issue in the election.
but he’s not being a leader on the world stage here
He’s being a leader. He’s on the world stage. Pedantism aside, this is not about domestic policy, it’s specifically about Brasil’s opinion on this war, which is that it should be stopped ASAP. I have no idea what you’re even trying to say other than randomly spouting whatever little you know of Brasil, and pretending that somehow discredits one of the biggest countries in the world.
Sure, we can boot the US too. That works. But russia needs to go. Those « historical and material reasons » you speak of aren’t justification enough in light of their recent actions. It wasn’t even their seat, but the ussr’s. Which they are not the continuation of in any real way.
Yes, of course, no country is free from imperialism. That doesn’t make brazil imperialist or western aligned, what are you talking about?
I’m a pacifist, but, and I cannot believe I am saying this, you can’t use a ceasefire against someone unilaterally invading another sovereign nation. Does this actually need to be stated? The only ceasefire that would make sense is one that’s conditioned on putin getting the fuck out of ukraine. Anything else is tantamount to simply giving him the land that he seized illegally for his own benefit and letting him get away with war crimes. Russia has the power to make the war stop unilaterally at any point, by simply getting out of there. But they won’t, because they don’t want to. Which is why no amounts of peace talks will ever work: they are proving through their actions that they are not after a compromise. There is no compromise between a thief and it’s victim; « just » talking half of your life savings instead of all of it is no compromise at all.
I’m talking about lula because I believe his heart is in the right place, but that he is ineffectual in practice. That’s what my criticism is aimed at. Obviously that’s not the un’s problem, are we not allowed tangential discussion anymore? It’s relevant because it speaks for his motivations. But, like in many other democracies, there is no choice at all if the choice is between any candidate and a neofascist. Meaning: we in the international community don’t know what he’s doing out of representation for his people’s sovereignty of expression, and what he is doing out of his own will. Democracy should not depend on blind trust of public officials, not matter how well-intentioned. I simply believe that this should be solved organically by the citizens of brazil and I trust that they will empower some actually solid leadership in the un. This can be things I disagree with, sure, but global democracy depends on internal democracy. When macron or biden make a geopolitical move, can we say with any degree of certainty that they speaking on behalf of their citizens? Obviously not. The same applies here.
I am personally quite worried that lula would express some opinions that show a clear lack of solidarity for the ukrainian people when talking about a situation that is a gauge of global relations between democracies and autocracies everwhere. It’s no coincidence that there has been increased activity around taiwan. It’s also no coincidence that far-right populists have been having their way in the ballot box in many countries. And it’s no coincidence that there have been putches in central africa, which, mind you, are supported by wagner mercenaries, and we have seen russian flags fly there.
True solidarity is solidarity everywhere, because true authoritarianism is increased vulnerability to further authoritarianism everywhere.
I’m not in the mood for
stuff, so I’ll be brief.Those « historical and material reasons » you speak of aren’t justification enough in light of their recent actions. It wasn’t even their seat, but the ussr’s. Which they are not the continuation of in any real way.
One of the country with the most nukes. It’s not about deserving or justifying anything, it’s because either Russia is talking in there, or they’re on the outside looking in. I don’t think any nuclear superpower should be on the outside looking in. The USA comment was made in jest because they have by far done worse crimes than Russia worldwide.
I’m a pacifist, but, and I cannot believe I am saying this, you can’t use a ceasefire against someone unilaterally invading another sovereign nation. Does this actually need to be stated?
I also can’t believe you’re saying this as it is so obviously wrong. By that measure every single American settler state should be militarily opposed by their original nations. Of course they don’t do it though, because at this point this level of moral stubbornness and lack of pragmatism would be self-genocidal.
Democracy should not depend on blind trust of public officials, not matter how well-intentioned.
This whole thing is completely irrelevant since you probably think the exact same thing of every other security council member. I can’t find a single polling on the Ukraine situation in Brasil, probably because we generally don’t care that much if Europeans are killing Europeans in Europe. That’s their problem not our problem and his inaction there at least represents our lack of interest. I would rather have a communist proletarian government (as you probably can tell), but to make this about Lula in a discussion about the security council reeks of European.
I am personally quite worried that lula would express some opinions that show a clear lack of solidarity for the ukrainian people
That’s where you’re mistaken, there’s solidarity, we send a lot of aid and the main foreign policy on that area is for an immediate unconditional ceasefire. This is probably the point where you’re going to reply with “but a ceasefire is unrealistic!” and that’s the part where Lula and NATO disagree on what will save the most Ukrainian/Russian lives.
It’s no coincidence that there has been increased activity around taiwan. It’s also no coincidence that far-right populists have been having their way in the ballot box in many countries. And it’s no coincidence that there have been putches in central africa, which, mind you, are supported by wagner mercenaries, and we have seen russian flags fly there.
Yes, Lula wanting a ceasefire and not wanting in on this war is what caused all of this. Not even going to explore the differences of all those events because if you come here to try and peg this on a completely unrelated Brazilian president just because he doesn’t support your pet war, you probably don’t care that much about those events either.
True solidarity is solidarity everywhere, because true authoritarianism is increased vulnerability to further authoritarianism everywhere.
Which is why we should dismantle the USA and EU since they’re the most authoritarian authorities to ever author authoritarianisms. True solidarity is solidarity everywhere, where was that solidarity during the 2015 coup in Brazil from Ukraine or your other favourite countries?
Funny how it’s so obviously wrong: https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-rejects-peace-says-war-to-continue-for-forseeable-future-2023-8?r=US&IR=T
I could say I told you so, but… you know what, sure: I told you so.
Also, I can’t be arsed to respond to your clear lack of reading comprehension skills, but I’m not pinning shit on lula, and this article is literally about him, so I’m really not sure where you’re going with this.
And, yes, I understand why russia has a seat, and I’m not saying this will happen (it won’t), simply that it should.
How am I supposed to know that something you said with no context and in a 100% deadpan serious tone is jest? Cause it sounds exactly like what you were saying.
And, I’m sorry, what do you think « the internationale » means? It’s not « the regionale » for a reason. Don’t care about europeans killing other europeans my ass. People are people, dictators are dictators, invasion is invasion, and it affects everyone, whether you like it or not.
I’m not even going to comment on the EU being « authoritarian ».
I’m not even going to comment on the EU being « authoritarian ».
As one small and simple example, ask the people in Niger if it doesn’t feel authoritarian that they can’t enjoy the material wealth of their country because France steals 80% of their Uranium, paying peanuts for it. Go ask France’s former colonies how democratic it is for a foreign central bank to control their currency, artificially keeping it favorable for France to steal Uranium for peanuts. How nice it is for them that the material wealth that should be making their country rich, is going to subsidize the electrical bill of someone’s fancy apartment in Paris.
Go ask people who live near mines owned by Swedish mining companies how much those companies bribed the local governments to allow them to pollute the fuck out of their countries, deregulate the fuck out of their labor laws, etc. See if they consider this democracy.
Go ask someone in Libya how democratic it was when a government that provided them with the best standards of living in the whole continent was bombed and removed from power because some French and American folks decided that it was time for his counter-hegemonic ass to go. And left a fucking mess of warlords and civil war in his place. Super democratic I guess. Not authoritarian at all.
The EU can only maintain itself relatively open and prosperous by fucking over their former colonies in ways their population mostly ignore. If your democracy at home depends on autocracy and destruction elsewhere to be maintained, how is it real democracy?
Ok, but that wasn’t the point being made here… the EU has internal democracy. Russia does not. That’s the comparison.
Can’t say I fully understand his position on this, but I’d still rather have him running Brazil than the other guy.
“The world needs a new system of global governance.” Let me counter that part with “any long term system of governance inevitably becomes corrupt (assuming it wasn’t corrupt to begin with).”
It may be true that the (subjectively) important UN countries’ support of Ukraine in the conflict might not be for reasons that are completely aligned with those of Ukraine itself, but the fact Ukraine is being supported has - shall we say: ironically - prevented the governance of that country from being replaced by a more corrupt one.
Of course, pro-Russia folks will have the opposite opinion there.
It may be true that the (subjectively) important UN countries’ support of Ukraine in the conflict might not be for reasons that are completely aligned with those of Ukraine itself, but the fact Ukraine is being supported has - shall we say: ironically - prevented the governance of that country from being replaced by a more corrupt one.
More importantly, it’s not the UN involved in the conflict. It’s several countries who are members of the UN, these countries are independently feeding arms into Ukraine and also stimulating their arms production industry. The UN itself is explicitly not involved in the conflict. UN weapons do not go to Ukraine, weapons from specific nations (UK, US, Germany, everyone else) are going to Ukraine.
Lula’s position of not getting involved with the war and “slamming” the UN is further propagating the myth that the UN is involved in the war. Instead, it’s merely a 2 party war between Russia and Ukraine, where Russia is getting arms from places like China and Iran and Ukraine is getting things from the west.
Guys I’m sure appeasement will work this time, right?
Right?
