44
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
44 points (76.8% liked)
World News
32363 readers
550 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Everything except building trust, it seems.
And who said anything about not achieving objectives? Unless the objective is to get people, both Russians and Ukrainians killed, I guess.
"Building trust" is an abstraction that covers many many activities. The fact that Russia did many things that could have built trust but didn't is completely lost on you, so you have no ability to question WHY trust wasn't built as a result of the actions taken. Because if you DID question why, you would see that Ukraine's transition to a right-wing Euro-centric government entailed it being Russophobic and part of the European project to dominate Russia.
Building trust from whom, pretty much everybody outside west is on Russia's side:
The global majority understands why this war happened and the role the west played in creating the conditions for the war, as well as the role it plays in perpetuating it today.
The objective is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes a threat to Russia and that NATO expansion stops. that's the objective that is being achieved.
https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/das_eda/aktuell/dossiers/konferenz-zum-frieden-ukraine/Summit-on-Peace-in-ukraine-joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework.html
Quite a lot of non-western countries on that list, including the global south.
And yet as links I provided clearly show vast majority of the global south supports Russia. You keep on coping though.
Your links actualy don't show that the "vast majority" spports Russia. And the reason is simple: because they don't. As can also clearly be seen in e.g. UN votes: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/24/un-tells-russia-to-leave-ukraine-how-did-countries-vote.
I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point, but that should be no surprise at this point.
The reality of the situation is that the west finds itself completely isolated.
Ah, you define support as "not actively opposed"? That is an incredibly low bar.
Again, the UN vote clearly shows that the countries don't support Russia or think what the country does is right.
The fact that poor countries arw in no position to sanction anyone does not mean they support Russia.
I define support in tangible terms. The only countries that took any actual action against Russia are burgerland and its vassals. The action the rest of the world has been taking is to increase trade with Russia and to masively apply to BRICS.
The UN vote doesn't show much of anything, especially given that most populous countries abstained. If you think that poor countries support the west over Russia after what the west has been doing to them, then you're utterly delusional. Maybe you should ask yourself why African countries are kicking out the west with Russian help.
I'm not, and nowhere did I claim that. I said they don't support Russia. What kind of depressing world do you live in where you have to support either the West or Russia. Countries are free to do their own thing, and do not need to support either. To spell it out: A country can oppose Russia, while at the same time also not support the West.
The UN resolution clearly shows: The vssz majority of countries, including the global south, think what Russia is doing is wrong. Many of them continue to trade with Russia despite the attack on Ukraine, not because of it. It should come as no surprise that especially poorer coutries can not pick and choose who they trade with.
It's pretty obvious from all the actions the global majority countries have taken that they do in fact support Russia. And the reason they support Russia is very simple, they understand why this war started and which party is the problem.
Except that it doesn't show anything of the sort. You can repeat this until you're blue in the face, it won't make it true. In fact, even educated people in the west know who is doing wrong. People like Chomsky, Mearsheimer, and many others have explained in great detail how the west is responsible for what's happening in Ukraine. Just a couple of examples
This is well understood by anybody who hasn't been brainwashed by western media for the past two years.
Is that why they keep codemning Russia in various UN resolutions? The numbers speak for themselves.
It does't matter if educated westeners think Russia is right: that's not what's being discussed. Unless you think the opinions of white westeners like Chomsky override the actual position of poorer countries? "Oh, Chomsky agrees with Russia? Sorry Botswana, you have to also support Russia now, Chomsky said so. Better fire your UN ambassador, they forgot to ask Chomsky what he thought, before voting to condemn Russia".
I haven't heard anything so patronizing and colonoalistic in a long time.
Except they're not doing that, the global majority countries are at best abstaining. And the only reason they're doing that is not to piss off the US further. Go look up where most people in the world actually live.
What educated westerners think matches what people living outside the west think.
That's because all you've got is a straw man that has nothing to do with what I was saying. What was actually said to you is that even educated people in the west understand what the rest of the world understands. You just flipped that around because you're intellectually dishonest.
Wow, just wow. So we don't actually need to ask e.g indiginous people of their opinions, it's enough to ask "educated westeners". Which century are we living in?
Really need to work on your reading comprehension there. This is frankly embarrassing. Let me try using simpler language that you might have a hope of understanding.
The people in the global south, e.g. indigenous people, have opinions that are entirely independent of what ignoramuses in the west think. Their majority opinion aligns with Russia.
However, a handful of educated westerners are able to reach this same understanding that the rest of the world has instead of just guzzling propaganda the way people such as yourself do.
Let me know if you're still struggling with this and need me to chew it up for you a bit more.
Why are you bringing up westeners at all, as if that somehow strengthens the point? It reveals your inner biases. "The opinions of the south is not enough, I have to bring in westeners to give my argument some weight".
Sometimes peple reveal more than they intended when they write.
You keep repeating that, but the data does not support it.
I'm bringing up westerners to illustrate that this position isn't controversial for anybody who has a clue. Since people in the west have been the primary subjects of western propaganda about the conflict, it's remarkable that there are people in the west who are able to see past that.
You certainly are doing that here.
It does, but it's obvious that you'll never acknowledge that.
Sorry @yogthos@lemmy.ml, but I'm with @twinnie@feddit.uk on this one.
He clearly intellectually bested you with his superior, meritocratic, totally sound and valid argument of you being a Russian bot.
😆
Yeah, sure NATO expanded altruistically to protect Russia's neighbours. Imagine actually believing that.
Remind me again how many member states NATO had before the invasion, and how many it has now?
Sweden and Finnland, both already being de facto NATO members beforehand... You're not too informed baout this international politic thingy, aren't you?
There is no such thing as "de facto" NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.
Buddy, if some organisation exists that has members, there will always exist "de facto" members (ones that support the organisation to a large extent, but are not also de jure members), de jure members (members that don't do anything) and both (the rest).
The organisation can make PR about how it has "partners" and the like, but that does not change a thing.
Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a "de facto" member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?
NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous "de facto" members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a "de facto" member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.
The question is which states, but having no clue regarding the subject you're opining on it's not surprising that you wouldn't understand that. Maybe if you spent your time actually learning things instead of trolling then you'd understand the strategic importance of Ukraine. Maybe go read up on WW2 sometime and see which path the nazis took to Russia then.
Russia was building trust for years beforehand. Putin spoke twice in the Bundestag for example, the goal was a free trade zone from Lisabon to Wladiwostok. Russia also asked to join NATO. It got declined both times. Even when the coup happened in Ukraine, Russia attempted multiple diplomatic initiatives to deescalate the situation.
Do you know who always escalated? Who was always pushing for conflict? Hint: It wasn't Russia.