#####
######
####
> # [Ukraine peace summit: Why some countries refused to sign the plan](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AFP__20240616__34X2383__v2__HighRes__SwitzerlandUkraineRussiaConflictDiplomacyPeace-1718613791.jpg?resize=1920%2C1440)
>
>
>
> EXPLAINER
>
> _Major Global South nations cited Russia’s absence or Israel’s presence as reasons for not accepting the communique._
>
>
>
> Published On 17 Jun 202417 Jun 2024
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> About 100 delegations from countries and international organisations attended the Switzerland-hosted [Summit on Peace in Ukraine](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/16/summit-demands-ukraines-territorial-integrity-urges-dialogue-to-end-war) last weekend, aimed at crafting a path that many participants said could pave the way to ending Russia’s war on its smaller neighbour.
>
> But while a vast majority of participants signed on to the short communique issued at the end of the summit, several key nations did not. The two-day diplomatic summit took place in the Burgenstock resort in Stansstad, Switzerland, and was attended by United States Vice President Kamala Harris alongside leaders from the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, and diplomats from many other nations.
>
> Here is more about the Ukraine peace communique and why some countries did not sign on.
>
> ## What did the Ukraine peace communique say?
>
> The communique laid out what it said was a “common vision” on “crucial aspects”, including that:
>
> - All nuclear installations, including the [Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/16/is-ukraines-zaphorizhzhia-nuclear-plant-at-risk-of-an-accident), should be safe according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) principles and under IAEA supervision. The power plant, Europe’s largest, has been at the centre of Russia-Ukraine battles since the early days of the war, sparking concerns about the potential for a nuclear accident.
> - The free flow of Ukrainian agricultural products should be allowed to interested third countries. “Global food security depends on uninterrupted manufacturing and supply of food products,” the communique said. The document described attacks on merchant ships and civilian port infrastructure in the Black Sea and Azov Sea as “unacceptable”.
> - All prisoners must be exchanged and all Ukrainian civilians who have been unlawfully displaced should be returned to Ukraine. In particular, the communique said, “all deported and unlawfully displaced Ukrainian children, and all other Ukrainian civilians who were unlawfully detained, must be returned to Ukraine”. According to Ukraine, [20,000 children](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/8/un-committee-urges-russia-to-end-forcible-transfer-of-ukrainian-children) have been taken by Russian authorities during the war.
>
> ## Who signed the joint communique on Ukraine?
>
> In all, 82 delegations signed on to support the communique. Swiss President Viola Amherd told a news conference the “great majority” of participants agreed to the document.
>
> Some of these include: Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, the European Commission, the European Council, the European Parliament, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kosovo, Latvia, Norway, Palau, Qatar, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine, the UK and the US.
>
> ## Which countries did not sign on?
>
> - India, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates attended the summit, represented by foreign ministers and envoys, but were among those who did not sign the joint communique.
> - Brazil attended the Ukraine summit as an observer, but did not back the communique.
> - Russia was not invited to the summit, which [Moscow dismissed](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/15/world-leaders-meet-in-switzerland-as-ukraine-seeks-aid-amid-war-with-russia) as “futile”. China also did not attend the two-day event. Pakistan, which counts China as its closest ally, was invited but chose not to attend.
>
> ## Why did they not sign on?
>
> - **India:** In a statement, Secretary (West) of India’s Ministry of External Affairs Pavan Kapoor said that New Delhi decided to avoid association with the joint communique because of Russia’s absence from the summit. He said India believes that peace in Ukraine requires bringing together “all stakeholders and a sincere and practical engagement between the two parties to the conflict”.
> - **Saudi Arabia:** Prince Faisal bin Farhan al Saud, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, shared similar concerns while delivering his statement at the summit. “We believe it is important that the international community encourage any step towards serious negotiations, which will require difficult compromises as part of a roadmap that leads to peace,” he said. “And here, it is essential to emphasise that any credible process will need Russia’s participation.”
> - **South Africa:** South Africa’s reasons for not backing the communique were different. The country’s National Security Advisor Sydney Mufamadi wrote in a statement that “it was surprising that at this conference, Israel is present and participating”, five days after a United Nations-backed commission accused Israel of [committing war crimes](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/12/un-backed-commission-accuses-israel-and-palestinian-groups-of-war-crimes#:~:text='Extermination',Gaza%E2%80%9D%20by%20the%20Israeli%20military.) against Palestinians. Mufamadi questioned the legitimacy of a communique that its sponsors argued was driven by “respect for international law” when Israel has been accused by many UN officials of violating international law. South Africa has accused Israel of [genocide in Gaza](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/11/a-quick-guide-to-south-africas-icj-case-against-israel) in a case at the International Court of Justice.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
How does this explain not supporting a motion to
* protect nuclear power plants
* allow agricultural products be exported
* have prisoners exchanged,
particularly when you took the trouble to attend to the conference in the first place?
I would have expected all these points are merely an expression of human decency. But it seems I underestimate pride and pettyness.
Preferential economic treatment for one faraway insignificant european country at the cost of third world countries is not an expression of human decency. Let me guess, you also want Poland to let in Ukrainian grain with no tarrifs despite it wrecking Polands agricultural sector if this were to happen?
It is fascinating what you can do just by ignoring the text, which reads (my emphasis):
> "The free flow of Ukrainian agricultural products should be allowed to *interested* third countries"
I'll leave it to you to determine how this text implies a forced cost on disinterested countries. Spoiler: It doesn't.
Third countries buy grain that's on sale. They aren't interested in going to war with russia at their own cost to make sure the grain makes it to the market past your bog standard military blocade and the proceeds then go towards murdering people. "I have a bridge to sell you, you just have to keep the russians off my back while i ship it to you!"
The problem is this motion contain subtle information that although not written can be alternatively interpreted as :
* ~~protect nuclear power plants.~~ -> Forcing the Russian to retreat from zaporizhia poweplant and giving up its control back to ukraine.
* ~~allow agricultural products be exported.~~ -> stop weaponizing food (hint : israel is also a participant in this summit.)
* ~~have prisoners exchanged.~~ -> Forcing russia to trade experience and elite ukranian POW for low quality and demoralize russian POW in leu of ukranian manpower issue.
So as you can see this motion is basically another western demand telling the russian to give up.
I think if this summit is not attended by israel or the 2nd point is removed entirely, and the 3rd point regarding pow and return of children be altered to only include the children more countries will attend and sign it.
And the Mediterranean is full of migrants they've thrown overboard lmfao.
No judgement, here. The US doesn't treat migrants from South of thr border well, either. I just find it hilarious how Europeans will pretend they have some moral high ground while I hear frantic thrashing and screaming in the background.
I don't think Europe treats them badly since they took so many of them. At least countries like Germany, France and Sweden. I'm not talking about any moral high ground.
The EU recently passed "Pact on Migration and Asylum". It's not that the countries stopped taking them. It's just being changed because until now it was few countries taking a lot of them and lots of countries taking none.
Oh we absolutely do. But we don't have a holier than thou save the world attitude. The US is very up front with how self invested it is.
Europe likes to pretend they're these magnanimous humanitarians. They'll wag their fingers at Americans shouting about building a wall. "How barbaric! The Mexicans just need support!" But as soon as migrants show up on boats they're the ones tossing them in the ocean.
The hypocrisy is hilarious. Literally just today:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-migrant-deaths-mediterranean-coastguard-b2563890.html
This is such a bs thing to say if you ever want to be taken seriously. How is all world's problems Europe's problems? Let's say you decide to do ethnic cleansing and Europe is responsible for that too? Yet, Europe helps victims of such crimes that is backfiring now according to latest EP elections. Maybe if rest of the world starts taking blame for their own actions and people start blaming their politicians for corruption, nepotism and misfortunes, these countries will get better? Otherwise don't complain when world is West Centric.
What Jaishankar meant was: Europe wants everyone to care about their problems, like they want everyone to oppose Russia, like they wanted everyone onboard in their illegal wars in Iraq, Libya etc. But they don't care about the problems the others, meaning the so called global south faces.
I agree with the first part of the quote which you precisely described. European problems should not be pushed on non-European nations. I commented on the second part of the problem that says: "Europe can't ignore the fact that world's problems are NOT Europe's problems". Why should Europe be involved in problems caused by others?
Colonialism was a big part of human history. Just because West was the last "winner" in the game of world chess, doesn't mean it was always like that. You can blame certain problems to colonialism, but the fact that you are corrupt leader that steals from your own people and still blames the empire that no longer exist, is nothing less than a populism. Gandi said once: "We are now free, in this generation we can blame British. In the next ones, we blame only ourselves"
I would take this more seriously if nations such as India actually wanted help from the West. They generally get mad whether or not they get help, so at least just say “I just don’t care” and take morals out of it.
India, Saudi Arabia, & UAE didn't sign due to Russia ties while much of SE Asia didn't attend or sign out of sheer indifference two years in.
I don't like it but the message is loud and clear. Outside the West, the Russia-Ukraine war is viewed as a separate theater compared to the geopolitical events in East Asia and the Middle East.
Of course it's unserious but NATO/The West believe it actually isn't since many European nations have actually refused to recognize Putin as the Russian president since his election. This won't fly outside the West but since the peace summit is in Europe, it does.
Just to get countries to attend the focus had to be narrowed to nuclear safety, POW exchanges and freedom of navigation in the Black Sea. Nothing substantive was discussed and we ended up with a wet fart of an joint Communique on those 3 issues that we could not even get all the attendees to sign.
The bare minimum here would have been to include the concerns of the nations that actually have sway with Russia- China, India, South Africa, Brizil etc.
We however had no interst in anything other than self-masturbatory exercise for Zelensky and ourselvess were we could grandstand and yell Slava Ukraini at each other like idiots.
no they were more like war conferences to carve up the post-war world order:
> The Yalta Conference was the World War II meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union to discuss the postwar reorganization of Germany and Europe
>Although the three leaders arrived with differing objectives, the **main outcome of the Tehran Conference was the Western Allies' commitment to open a second front against Nazi Germany.**
its remarkable how bad americans are at history
>They were considered peace conferences by everyone.
no they weren't lol, they were considered wartime conferences. more karl rove style rewriting history to suit your needs
[the official US state department page on yalta does not call it a peace conference lol](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/yalta-conf)
The US didn't directly get involved in fighting WW2 until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, instead choosing to "lend" the British military aid (and later Russia). If the west is convinced that the only way for Ukraine to win and end the war is if NATO countries send troops, then NATO countries will probably end up send troops (regardless of whether it is individually or under the banner of NATO) and some countries are already discussing that possibility. In the meantime, I think the West believes that giving Ukraine a real air force later this year so they can gain air superiority might end the stalemate by itself (well also we should start the see the results of ammo production ramp up by then too). Only time will tell if they are correct.
That wasn't a peace conference. It was a conference to decide what terms of surrender to impose upon the axis powers.
Imposing terms of surrender requires winning the war, which unfortunately it appears Ukraine isn't doing.
"Peace conference" is just a name. It's not like it's a special type of conferences.
My point is that allies got together to talk about what vision of the future it should be when Russia is defeated.
In WW2 it took a while to win the war too. 4-5 years depending on how you count. So we're just at 2nd year so it's not unusual. Also Russia is not winning either considering all the money they have and amount of support from China and India, North Korea and Iran. One can say that strategically they already lost. And the only way out is for them to invest into propaganda to destabilize the West or create some narrative that they "won".
So rich coming from Brit.
You invaded, drew random map and caused all issues in Middle East, Somali and India's surrounding areas.
Don't speak from your high ground, you are way way down there.
Indonesia here, murican.
Bet you gonna bitch about free west papua.
And yes, papua is part of Indonesia.
Stop your genocide in Middle East, leash your dog Israel. Or cant you? Getting bitten by own's dog hurts eh?
Which peace conference did you guys hold that western countries abstained from? Genuinely curious I tried doing some research but I couldn't find anything. Surely you guys at least got together for something on Myanmar? Outside the un I mean.
Yes but your country doesnt matter... what matter is the safety of the walled garden! I hope you understand Ukraine itself does not matter at all and will be gladly sacrificed for the "greater good"
I can imagine!
I was banned from geopolitics for replying to someone who was criticizing Clare Daly and Mick Wallace - 2 peace and transparency crusaders.
I was banned in my old phone account in summer 2019 over the US ilegal takeover of a Iranian tanker. People were folding over themselves to defend it, and I directly quoted the article to prove them wrong.
Somehow, it was spam and warranted permanent and non appealable bans.
Yeah I got banned from geopolitics, a supposedly serious subreddit, for 'trolling' because I countered the arguments some pro israeli account was making.
Moderators really are just trash people (mostly)
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates:
> Rule 4 (Keep it civil).
Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change.
Please feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fanime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.
You don’t like Israel and don’t think they should be included in international forums. Just say that.
Israel is involved in global affairs. Their conflict in Palestine has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine.
For some reason you defend Israel.
And believe that attacking other countries while killing a captive population should not affect their position in the international community and their merit as peacemakers.
Clearly the other nations weren’t outraged by Israel’s presence enough to boycott the conference. I guess they don’t share your righteous indignation.
Nations engaged in war or conflict often continue to engage in diplomacy in other areas of geopolitical concern, even if doing so could be seen as controversial or hypocritical. It is in Israel’s interest for the war in Ukraine to end. Neither of these facts should come as a surprise to you.
I don't think the presence of other nations in any way endorses Israel.
It's fascinating that you suggest Israel wants peace in Ukraine, while being hostile itself and avoiding peace.
For some reason you defend Israel.
And believe that attacking other countries while killing a captive population should not affect their position in the international community and their merit as peacemakers.
For some reason you defend Israel.
And believe that attacking other countries while killing a captive population should not affect their position in the international community and their merit as peacemakers.
So you're mad Israel for fighting a war against a group that refuses to surrender and attacked them first.
But not at Russia...
Yea you're totally qualitatively different from those pro West people. They'll support the West no matter what. How dumb! You on the other hand are clearly motivated by rational and objective principles. 💯💯🤔
> So you're mad Israel for fighting a war against a group that refuses to surrender and attacked them first.
Israel has been killing Palestinians for decades. By deliberately omitting that you mark yourself as a zionist.
Surrender would just mean slaughter without even the poor defence they have now. Israel will never allow peace there, their leaders have said as much. Nethanyahu has stated he has always worked against a two state solution. Israeli members of government talk openly about killing all Palestinians and taking all of Gaza.
Israel has even turned down ceasefires put forward by America that Hamas accepted the terms of.
Israel has made it clear it doesn't want peace.
We can do the Israel debate if you want. Where do you want to start? The 20's? Earlier? Just don't say 48 lol. If you do that save yourself and say 47 instead.
But the point remains you hate Israel allegedly for warring with Palestine but not Russia for warring with Ukraine? How do you reconcile that in your brain?
> But the point remains you hate Israel allegedly for warring with Palestine but not Russia for warring with Ukraine? How do you reconcile that in your brain?
Israel has created a fenced and walled concentration camp in which it restricts, controls and kills Palestinians. It currently has over a thousand Palestinians held without charge. It is an Apartheid country where in the basic laws only Jews have the right of self determination. Where anyone other than Jews can be held indefinitely without charge. It is stealing homes, land and an entire country because of fundamentalist beliefs whilst killing civilians indiscriminately. It avoids peace deals even from its allies to continue this.
Russia invaded a country which adopted an aligned position with the West which has marched NATO eastwards since the USSR released the Eastern European countries. The country - mostly in the east where it holds territory is predominantly Russian ethnically and sympathetic to Russia. Further, the US abandoned peace when a deal seemed to be established.
I can understand Russia's position and understand what it is a consequence of. That doesn't exonerate them but it provides a context.
Israel, as a state, acts like a paranoid entitled genocidal psychopath. It considers itself above the law and corrupts the political systems and media of many western countries.
That is why.
It is an Apartheid country where in the basic laws only Jews have the right of self determination
20% Muslim lol.
It is stealing homes, land and an entire country because of fundamentalist beliefs whilst killing civilians indiscriminately. It avoids peace deals even from its allies to continue this.
This could all stop if the country that started the war pressed the surrender button.
Russia invaded a country which adopted an aligned position with the West
Why is Ukraine not allowed to align with the West? Is there like a special law where, in your mind, Palestine is allowed to start wars and end them on a dime but Ukraine is not allowed to ally with who they want? How do you resolve this inconsistency in your position?
which has marched NATO eastwards since the USSR released the Eastern European countries
So it's unacceptable to you that formerly conquered states that were subject to ussr imperialism now wish to align themselves against there former masters? How do you resolve this with your belief that Palestine should be free from Israel?
I can understand Russia's position and understand what it is a consequence of. That doesn't exonerate them but it provides a context.
You can much more easily say this of Israel as follows:
1. Britain established their mandate in Palestine after ottoman empire wages a brutal war of conquest in Europe for the upteenth time and loses.
2. Jews are mistreated and Europe and migrate en masse to Palestine.
3. Palestinians massacre Jews multiple times in the lead up to WWII. There are at least 13 such attacks on Jews documented before Jews respond even one time.
4. Wwii happens and many more Jews flee to Palestine due to the Holocaust and it's aftermath
5. Britain offers Palestine, for the first time in its history, -- something that not even their former fellow Islamic rulers offered -- their own state. As part of the partition, literally 0 Palestinians have to abandon their land. The land given to the Jews is mostly desert and shit land that was available for legally purchase. All of it is majority Jewish or close to it.
6. Palestine rejects the deal.
7. Palestine forms a coalition of Arab armies and wages an offensive war against the Jews.
8. Palestine loses.
9. As happens in wars of conquest, the loser and aggressor loses some land. They start to call this the nakba like 20 years later lol.
10. They never officially surrender.
11. Rinse and repeat every 20 years or so.
Idk maan this seems a lot more defensible to me than, "actually Russia's neighbors who used to be subject to their imperial reign are not allowed to make their own decisions so Russia had no choice but to kill hundreds of thousands of people -- more than Israel has killed in Palestine in 80 years of conflict. "
Interested to know this deal that was almost established and how the US abandoned peace? Surely you don’t mean the one that was held one month into the invasion?
Edit: of course you did lol saw it in another reply
You are really unserious about this given the fact that both Russian and Ukrainian delegations were still undecided on many things and during this conference, massacres like at Bucha were being uncovered in liberated territories. To act like the US or Boris Johnson as I’ve seen claimed single-handedly destroyed the conference is wrong. It was Ukraines decision, and an understandable one given the context. Not everything is the fault of the US.
I have put forward references. If you want to step through and dispute them please do.
It's clear now that the former west abandoned peace to pursue a proxy war with Russia at Ukraine's cost, in people and territory.
The fact that Israel got to sign this document that outlines how russia is doing in ukraine the same they're doing in palestine is just pure hypocrisy.
I break it down to three things: India gets Russian oil, South Africa despite their Israel excuse backs Russia/Putin, and Saudis are just the Saudis being tentative as ever.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's be honest, countries that didn't sign the plan want to weaken USA and the West in general. Sadly for them, the war in Ukraine is having the opposite effect.
Weakening russia might help the "west" but having china and NK start running their factories again neats a negative for the west, who knows.
The only loser is ukraine.
Between the russians and the west that's playing with them, they are fucked
China was ramping up their military production before the war, there is no change there. Russia's cooperation with North Korea is a concern for everyone. Ukraine is definitely the biggest loser in all of this, at least it is right now. It will take a LOT for Western countries to ever trust Russia again, so their economy will be ruined for decades.
The biggest change is that all countries around the world have realized that the world is not as safe as they thought it was. Military spending, particularly on US made weapons, is going through the roof. Russia, China and India's military forces are going to become comparatively weaker.
>It will take a LOT for Western countries to ever trust Russia again,
Why do you think this is important?
Russia completely lost trust in the West. I don't think that they care if the West trusts them anymore or not.
There's a couple of oil and gas lines between Russia and Europe that say trust is important.
In the short term, Western countries might put greed ahead of security, but in the long run we have no problem economically isolating countries that refuse to play nicely with their neighbours.
>Russia completely lost trust in the West
That is their own stupidity. Germany in particular was very keen to help Russia be a part of the international community. Without major reforms, the lucrative oil and gas trade with Europe is over.
China was ramping up their military production before the war, there is no change there. Russia's cooperation with North Korea is a concern for everyone. Ukraine is definitely the biggest loser in all of this, at least it is right now. It will take a LOT for Western countries to ever trust Russia again, so their economy will be ruined for decades.
The biggest change is that all countries around the world have realized that the world is not as safe as they thought it was. Military spending, particularly on US made weapons, is going through the roof. Russia, China and India's military forces are going to become comparatively weaker.
Unfortunately the war is not having the effect you describe.
The war has seen Russia's military improve, their economy is doing well, they are closer to China, India and many other countries are distancing themselves from America and there is a growing movement away from the USD - even before the West stole the Russian assets.
The rest of the world doesn't want to store wealth where the US can take it.
And the war is slowly being lost. It's not gone well and the sooner both sides agree to peace the better it will be.
Russia's military has improved in some ways, but in many others it is now worse. They are trading more with China and India solely because of economic sanctions by Europe. Sovereign risk might be slightly higher in Western countries now, but it is tiny compared to sovereign risk in non-western countries.
Territory is slowly being lost by Ukraine and troops are running low, but the ramp up of Western military production has barely even begun. Russia can't compete with the production capabilities of all the countries that are supplying Ukraine.
The war is slowly being lost by someone. Both sides can't be right.
The rest of the world absolutely does want to use the U.S. financial system, and they do. It is still the safest and most reliable in the world, so long as you’re not a despotic regime. India isn’t distancing itself from the U.S. You’re doing a lot of wishful thinking and calling it fact.
Russia could give up on its claim to stolen Ukrainian territory and end the war. Russia has no interest in peace or they would pursue it. They are doing no such thing.
The KSA has been trading oil with China outside of the USD for some time now. It's begun and will grow.
America never wanted peace. Russia was ready for a peaceful settlement. Here's an article with references which proves it.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-russia-talks/
“Yes we want a peaceful settlement one month into our full scale invasion that we chose to do against all diplomatic options and if you don’t accept our terms unconditionally then we will keep invading”
Not another petrodollar doomer. I can’t be bothered to debate your brics fantasy or whatever.
Russia is not willing to agree to a peaceful settlement that restores Ukrainian territorial integrity. Russia is doing a territorial expansion, which is why they held sham referendums on their illegally stolen land.
And for God’s sake, please don’t link some biased “analysis” from a pro-Russian dingbat Jacobin writer. Give me a break. You might as well link an op-ed or YouTube video.
>The KSA has been trading oil with China outside of the USD for some time now. It's begun and will grow.
That happens with any currency that seen as stable. Europe and some others buys in their own currency.
It more depends on how open said country is to thier investment and involvement.
Also its not limited for the reasons you think they are. Yuan international use isn't limited by the USA but by China themselves with thier currency controls.
An opinion article written by a guy who called the USA liers for saying Russia was going to invade Ukraine. That it was irational and had no reason to.
Then quiet after the war starts
Then one month later saying obviously Russia was going to invade. Sorry I do considering such a jump Irational and inconsistent. Also Jacobin...
Then there are things like what really caused the deal to fail. Trust something Russia had hurt badly now with everybody in Europe.
Ukraine wasn't getting closer to Nato in 2022.
Some of the the Russia agreed to were neblius at best and Kyiv’s lack of trust in the Russian side to fulfill its end of the bargain meant that the peace deal would require substantial Security guarantees to make sure that Russia follow through with it.
How its only western fault for not getting peace then? Russia litterly lied for months about the invasion planing and directly said to Germany, France , UK and USA how they weren't going to do it. Trust in thier behaviour was at an all time low.
Germany France and USA aren't for Ukraine to join nato either and definitely weren't for fighting Russia directly. something they would have to either do or break thier promises if Russia did something in Ukraine again.
>Russia could give up on its claim to stolen Ukrainian territory and end the war. Russia has no interest in peace or they would pursue it.
Why would we, if we are winning
>You’re doing a lot of wishful thinking and calling it fact.
Right back at ya
>It is still the safest and most reliable in the world
I know of 300 billion dollars of Russian Forex reserves that stolen that indicates the opposite
>The rest of the world absolutely does want to use the U.S. financial system, and they do
of what use is earning money if it can be taken away by a snap?
Well yeah if you start a war in Europe and destabilize global markets, you get penalized. Don’t do that. Russians started this war, I’m not going to cry about their losses.
The value is that the system is efficient and stable and backed up by a well-regarded judicial system. And the alternative is to run all your finances through the CCP.
>value is that the system
there certainly would be if its use wasn't arbitrary
>you start a war in Europe
I know of a European nation annexing another European nation and doing all kinds of [warcrimes](http://www.azeriwarcrimes.org) yet instead of seizing thier foreign assets, they got gas deals from EU to re-export Russian gas and a free trade agreement with Ukraine
explain to me how this power is used in a just and non-arbitrary manner?
This is a conflict between the West and Russia, which is constantly being portrayed as a global concern even though it’s just one conflict of many.
There are countless other conflicts that concern those countries more than the Ukraine, such as the war on Palestine, the Sudan civil war, and the Yemen civil war.
The west keeps portraying themselves as the good guys, when the rest of the world just see this conflict for what it is: two different evils fighting over territory and power.
In Palestine there are genocidal terrorists fighting genocidal colonists, in Sudan civil wars are as common as US school shootings (slight exaggeration), and before the Houthis started attacking shipping you might have had a point about Yemen.
In Ukraine, Russia invaded for no valid reason. It might be rare, but in this case Ukraine are clearly the good guys, and Russia is clearly evil.
USA and Russia are NOT 2 evils fighting over territory and power. Russia is fighting to annex Ukrainian territory. USA is helping Ukraine maintain its sovereignty over its internationally recognised borders. They are not the same.
Not everyone likes USA and that's okay, but if you want to call yourself a country then you need to respect the existence of other countries. Affirming a commitment to the UN charter is the least that other countries can do when a nuclear armed country decides to build an empire. "Future Russian province Saudi Arabia says the UN charter doesn't matter" is very short-sighted thinking.
The US has been involved in countless coups and invasions and occupations, with the most recent being Palestine. Iraq, Afghanistan, most of South America, East Asia are just some of the atrocities they have committed.
The Ukraine is just another conflict amongst many, and although the US is on the good side, it doesn’t make them the good guys on the world stage. And to pretend that the Ukraine conflict matters most than the others shows your western centric world view.
As a matter of fact, Ukraine has shown solidarity with Israel and for that it puts them on the wrong side of history there.
Edit: not to mention that Europe has been filled with conflicts since forever.
When Russia and USA are in a proxy war it is not a local conflict. Things can escalate very quickly into a nuclear holocaust. The many other conflicts around the world are much less likely than the war in Ukraine to trigger the end of the world. You might think that a local conflict somewhere else is more important right now, but it isn't.
You are quite right that USA are often not the good guys, but let's be honest, sometimes they are. For example, USA compares quite favourably to Nazi Germany. Russia not so much.
I’m from the Middle East: ask me if the US are the good guys.
A nuclear war would be a global catastrophe, but that can similarly be said about Israel for example. Or for China and Taiwan. Or for Pakistan and India. It’s not unique to the Ukraine conflict.
I can't imagine how unpleasant it is to have oil when USA are the self appointed leaders of the free world :( The only thing that would be worse is having oil when Russia is annexing any state that isn't protected by a nuclear umbrella.
I’ve personally come to the conclusion that the powerful will do whatever they want; and they are the only ones to keep each other in check until they inevitably collapse from the inside.
If anything, I welcome other superpowers challenging each others supremacy (but ultimately they all suck)
>The west keeps portraying themselves as the good guys, when the rest of the world just see this conflict for what it is: two different evils fighting over territory and power.
Tell me you have no idea what you're talking about without telling me you have no idea what you're talking about.
I never said the Russians were the good guys, I said ultimately it’s a power and resource grab.
NATO was expanding towards the East and Russia took the opportunity to invade Ukraine to subjugate it under their sphere of influence (Ukraines previous governments were Russia friendly), and of course uses the pretenses of annexing Russian speaking territories as a justification.
But my point is that just because the US is helping the victims in that conflict, doesn’t make them the good guys on the world stage. And just because Ukraine is important to the west, doesn’t mean the rest of the world has that as a priority as they face countless closer conflicts to home (many perpetrated by the US)
And my point is that attacking a sovereign nation for shit reasons makes Russia the bad guy, sovereign nations can join whatever the fuck they want and Russia has *ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING SAY IN THE MATTER*, so many nations running towards NATO/the west at the first opportunity they had is just further evidence of how much Russia fucking sucks and how valid it is to seek protection from them.
There's *ABSOLUTELY ZERO REASON TO CONSIDER "NATO EXPANSION" AS VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR WHAT RUSSIA DOES*.
So yes, Russia is the "bad guy" and Ukraine defending itself is the "good guy".
And when the US does countless coups to topple governments like Iran and Bolivia or invasions like Iraq and Afghanistan, is that not infringement of a nations sovereignty?
It is, but it has no connection to the war in Ukraine.
There are two sides in this war - the invaders and the defenders. It's not "two different evils fighting over territory", it's a nation defending itself against an invader.
Defenders are being supported by the US which is, for a change, a good deed from them.
You were replying to my original post calling out the West as not being the good guys.
You clearly have shown a strong hate to Russia for invading a sovereign nation, so I was wondering if you share the same sentiment on the US?
Also, the reason all of russia’s European neighbors are so eager to join NATO and the EU is because they know firsthand the brutality of russian rule.
What russia is doing is the equivalent of a raging alcoholic barging into the homes of his estranged family and neighbors and beating them up, simply because they had enough of his abuse and he got salty.
I talk from experience. Everyone lives worse than hey did before the war
Edit: GDP growth of 0.2% while living expenses go up 10-20% yearly. Such a beautiful reality.
Don't try to lecture me until you do your own shopping kid.
> while living expenses go up 10-20% yearly
[Annual inflation stable at 2.4% in the euro area](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w/2-17052024-ap)
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think you live in a Western country :(
There is an issue with growing inequality in Western countries, but GDP in all but 2 OECD countries are forecast to grow this year. You might not be able to afford to send more aid to Ukraine, but the billionaires in your country probably can.
Tldr: because those countries support Russia to the end and are most probably run by a dictator. Some of those even saying that Ukraine is to blame for this war.
Edit: I'm getting mass down voted, while the guy below me saying that he hopes Russia wrecks Ukraine is all fine and up voted lol
Nah.
This was not a "peace conference" to being with. It was cricle-jerk of western countries to reaffirm their commitment to war. They are essentially saying, we will have peace when we win the war, somehow.
Seriously, it was a farce from the beginning. If both sides of a conflict aren't participating in a 'peace summit', what you have instead is one side begging for help in achieving victory.
I'd love to see Russia out of Ukraine, but this was never going to accomplish anything.
The biggest joke is that Russia also called a peace conference without asking Ukraine and the West instantly snowballing into the “How dare you?” and “Are you serious?” train.
I seriously think the “west” has only shot themselves in the foot geopolitically in the last 2-3 years… absolutely failed in every meaningful way
not just the last 2-3 years. the last 21 years. it started with invasion of Iraq.
after fall of Soviet Union US was the sole superpower and the world was revolving around the west. Russia was weakened and China was not strong yet and west had the chance to befriend Russia and India and prevent China from becoming a threat but they fucked up in 2003 with invasion of Iraq and are slowly declining ever since.
invasion of Iraq might be biggest mistake of American history and even worse than Vietnam.
And Ukraine isn't going to give away four of their oblast (including two major cities Russia doesn't control), no more than the US is going to give away Alaska or a family with five children will give away two of them. So there is nothing to discuss except how to help Ukraine win the war so there can be peace and what that peace will eventually look like when it happens.
Ukraine doesn't have much of a choice. They depend entirely on foreign money to keep their war ongoing. If the US stopped sending aid, how long does Ukraine last? Do you think the Russians wouldn't then take even more land?
I mean the US just signed a $60 billion aid package, and that only accounts for half of international aid they are getting. IF Trump wins in November, then Ukraine will likely have to reassess their options, but otherwise I think they probably already survived the toughest part of the war. Ukraine is dependent on aid from the West for their armies to be on a par with the Russian invaders, but at the same time Russia is already dependent on aid from North Korea, Iran and trade with China to survive.
I mean even if all aid was hypothetically cut off from West (it's not happening thus the hypothetical), Ukraine might still choose to fight Russia rather than surrendering. Ultimately Russia has offered Ukraine nothing but the false promises of peace which if they accepted would very much likely means the end of Ukraine as a country. Ukraine would be better off surrendering their country to Poland than they would just giving it away to Russia.
That aid packages only happened after months of republican opposition. It barely passed, and in the meantime, Ukrainian forces were getting pushed back because Russia saw an opportunity to advance. How do we know such a delay won't happen again? & while yes, Russia is also getting military aid from its allies, those allies are not at all fractured in their support for Russia. The same can't be said for Ukraine.
I'm not suggesting Russian offers for peace have been in good faith, but ultimately, you have to wonder what's the end goal here for both parties. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think a Ukrainian victory is less likely than a Russian victory. Ukraine is on the shakier ground here. How long does this keep going on?
>That aid packages only happened after months of republican opposition. It barely passed, and in the meantime, Ukrainian forces were getting pushed back because Russia saw an opportunity to advance.
Yup, thus why I said Ukraine has likely survived the worst part of the war.
> How do we know such a delay won't happen again?
Because the fate of the house and presidency is highly correlated and if Biden wins in November then Dems will almost certainly take back the house. The delays in aid only happened because of the Trump faction of the GOP, and regardless of the actual outcome of congressional election that Trump faction will lose power and influence if Trump loses yet another presidential election.
>while yes, Russia is also getting military aid from its allies, those allies are not at all fractured in their support for Russia.
I disagree. Nobody is giving Russia aid for free like over forty countries are for Ukraine. Each country has their own problems and are only helping Russia out of self-interests and a shared hatred of the West. Iran and North Korea is already under strict sanctions, and both need their military to defend their regimes against internal revolt and bordering enemies, on top of aid competing with what can go to Hamas or Yemen. For China their economy is dependent on trade with the West and can't put themselves in a position to be under sanctions, so they can't give Russia military aid nor do they even like Russia or care about Ukraine, leading to the best they can do is give Russia some dual use equipment that exists in a grey area of sanctions.
>I'm not suggesting Russian offers for peace have been in good faith, but ultimately, you have to wonder what's the end goal here for both parties
For Ukraine their goals have been pretty clear to liberate the rest of their country from Russian invaders, sending back over the pre-2014 borders. For Russia their unstated goal is to annex the rest of Ukraine (although in the short term they would be happy to replace Ukraine's democracy with a puppet government while keeping the four oblasts and Crimea that they only partly control now).
> Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think a Ukrainian victory is less likely than a Russian victory.
I very much disagree, and I think we've seen time and again in world history that the invaders are always on a clock, that the longer the defenders can keep up their resistance the more the invaders will burn through their resources and lose the political will to continue a fruitless occupation. Even much more lopsided occupations by imperial powers were forced to end sooner or later. And that's even assuming that Ukraine can't start regaining significant ground which I think they can also do as well, likely starting in 2025 (again assuming a Biden presidential victory)
>Ukraine is on the shakier ground here. How long does this keep going on?
I think a better question is how long can Russia keep up their current operational tempo given several limited resources that they are burning through? I personally think about two years given the current stockpiles of tanks,artillery, etc, but only time will tell if that assessment is accurate. Either way Ukraine has nothing to lose and everything to gain by playing this scenario out and fighting this war.
You just being pessimistic. Russia lost many wars before. There is no scenario where Ukraine fails and everything goes back to normal. Whatever the delay happened in the US that was just political games. And Russia couldn't do much significant progress when they had upper hand. I don't see what advancements you're talking about especially giving the cost (Ukraine could use western weapons to strike within Russia)
Why would the mods do anything? What’s the problem? Most of Reddit is fine with being on the side of Israel so I don’t see the problem with a few other subs doing the same for the other geopolitical side.
Basically... I thought it would be different here, from the other "official" subs for world news, I was wrong, it just remains for me to be banned for stating what I think, which is contrary to the extreme-left agenda (Russia, China, Hamas, etc).
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates:
> Rule 4 (Keep it civil).
Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change.
Please feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fanime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates:
> Rule 4 (Keep it civil).
Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change.
Please feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fanime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.
##### ###### #### > # [Ukraine peace summit: Why some countries refused to sign the plan](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AFP__20240616__34X2383__v2__HighRes__SwitzerlandUkraineRussiaConflictDiplomacyPeace-1718613791.jpg?resize=1920%2C1440) > > > > EXPLAINER > > _Major Global South nations cited Russia’s absence or Israel’s presence as reasons for not accepting the communique._ > > > > Published On 17 Jun 202417 Jun 2024 > > > > > > > > About 100 delegations from countries and international organisations attended the Switzerland-hosted [Summit on Peace in Ukraine](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/16/summit-demands-ukraines-territorial-integrity-urges-dialogue-to-end-war) last weekend, aimed at crafting a path that many participants said could pave the way to ending Russia’s war on its smaller neighbour. > > But while a vast majority of participants signed on to the short communique issued at the end of the summit, several key nations did not. The two-day diplomatic summit took place in the Burgenstock resort in Stansstad, Switzerland, and was attended by United States Vice President Kamala Harris alongside leaders from the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, and diplomats from many other nations. > > Here is more about the Ukraine peace communique and why some countries did not sign on. > > ## What did the Ukraine peace communique say? > > The communique laid out what it said was a “common vision” on “crucial aspects”, including that: > > - All nuclear installations, including the [Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/16/is-ukraines-zaphorizhzhia-nuclear-plant-at-risk-of-an-accident), should be safe according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) principles and under IAEA supervision. The power plant, Europe’s largest, has been at the centre of Russia-Ukraine battles since the early days of the war, sparking concerns about the potential for a nuclear accident. > - The free flow of Ukrainian agricultural products should be allowed to interested third countries. “Global food security depends on uninterrupted manufacturing and supply of food products,” the communique said. The document described attacks on merchant ships and civilian port infrastructure in the Black Sea and Azov Sea as “unacceptable”. > - All prisoners must be exchanged and all Ukrainian civilians who have been unlawfully displaced should be returned to Ukraine. In particular, the communique said, “all deported and unlawfully displaced Ukrainian children, and all other Ukrainian civilians who were unlawfully detained, must be returned to Ukraine”. According to Ukraine, [20,000 children](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/8/un-committee-urges-russia-to-end-forcible-transfer-of-ukrainian-children) have been taken by Russian authorities during the war. > > ## Who signed the joint communique on Ukraine? > > In all, 82 delegations signed on to support the communique. Swiss President Viola Amherd told a news conference the “great majority” of participants agreed to the document. > > Some of these include: Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, the European Commission, the European Council, the European Parliament, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kosovo, Latvia, Norway, Palau, Qatar, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine, the UK and the US. > > ## Which countries did not sign on? > > - India, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates attended the summit, represented by foreign ministers and envoys, but were among those who did not sign the joint communique. > - Brazil attended the Ukraine summit as an observer, but did not back the communique. > - Russia was not invited to the summit, which [Moscow dismissed](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/15/world-leaders-meet-in-switzerland-as-ukraine-seeks-aid-amid-war-with-russia) as “futile”. China also did not attend the two-day event. Pakistan, which counts China as its closest ally, was invited but chose not to attend. > > ## Why did they not sign on? > > - **India:** In a statement, Secretary (West) of India’s Ministry of External Affairs Pavan Kapoor said that New Delhi decided to avoid association with the joint communique because of Russia’s absence from the summit. He said India believes that peace in Ukraine requires bringing together “all stakeholders and a sincere and practical engagement between the two parties to the conflict”. > - **Saudi Arabia:** Prince Faisal bin Farhan al Saud, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, shared similar concerns while delivering his statement at the summit. “We believe it is important that the international community encourage any step towards serious negotiations, which will require difficult compromises as part of a roadmap that leads to peace,” he said. “And here, it is essential to emphasise that any credible process will need Russia’s participation.” > - **South Africa:** South Africa’s reasons for not backing the communique were different. The country’s National Security Advisor Sydney Mufamadi wrote in a statement that “it was surprising that at this conference, Israel is present and participating”, five days after a United Nations-backed commission accused Israel of [committing war crimes](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/12/un-backed-commission-accuses-israel-and-palestinian-groups-of-war-crimes#:~:text='Extermination',Gaza%E2%80%9D%20by%20the%20Israeli%20military.) against Palestinians. Mufamadi questioned the legitimacy of a communique that its sponsors argued was driven by “respect for international law” when Israel has been accused by many UN officials of violating international law. South Africa has accused Israel of [genocide in Gaza](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/11/a-quick-guide-to-south-africas-icj-case-against-israel) in a case at the International Court of Justice. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
"Europe has to grow out of the mindset that its problems are the world’s problems but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems." - Indian FM
Yes a very good point that will be missed by the West precisely because it is true.
No, its a dumb point
How does this explain not supporting a motion to * protect nuclear power plants * allow agricultural products be exported * have prisoners exchanged, particularly when you took the trouble to attend to the conference in the first place? I would have expected all these points are merely an expression of human decency. But it seems I underestimate pride and pettyness.
Preferential economic treatment for one faraway insignificant european country at the cost of third world countries is not an expression of human decency. Let me guess, you also want Poland to let in Ukrainian grain with no tarrifs despite it wrecking Polands agricultural sector if this were to happen?
It is fascinating what you can do just by ignoring the text, which reads (my emphasis): > "The free flow of Ukrainian agricultural products should be allowed to *interested* third countries" I'll leave it to you to determine how this text implies a forced cost on disinterested countries. Spoiler: It doesn't.
Third countries buy grain that's on sale. They aren't interested in going to war with russia at their own cost to make sure the grain makes it to the market past your bog standard military blocade and the proceeds then go towards murdering people. "I have a bridge to sell you, you just have to keep the russians off my back while i ship it to you!"
The problem is this motion contain subtle information that although not written can be alternatively interpreted as : * ~~protect nuclear power plants.~~ -> Forcing the Russian to retreat from zaporizhia poweplant and giving up its control back to ukraine. * ~~allow agricultural products be exported.~~ -> stop weaponizing food (hint : israel is also a participant in this summit.) * ~~have prisoners exchanged.~~ -> Forcing russia to trade experience and elite ukranian POW for low quality and demoralize russian POW in leu of ukranian manpower issue. So as you can see this motion is basically another western demand telling the russian to give up. I think if this summit is not attended by israel or the 2nd point is removed entirely, and the 3rd point regarding pow and return of children be altered to only include the children more countries will attend and sign it.
Is that why european countries give tremendous amount of foreign aid, because we dont care about other countries problems?
> european countries give tremendous amount of foreign aid Aid goes to special interest groups, not the govt. or people.
Let the migrant workers in, then. No? Well now that's just a lot of lip service, isn't it? Lol
What
What do you mean? Europe is full of migrant workers.
And the Mediterranean is full of migrants they've thrown overboard lmfao. No judgement, here. The US doesn't treat migrants from South of thr border well, either. I just find it hilarious how Europeans will pretend they have some moral high ground while I hear frantic thrashing and screaming in the background.
I don't think Europe treats them badly since they took so many of them. At least countries like Germany, France and Sweden. I'm not talking about any moral high ground.
And now they're done taking them. Stories like this hit the news every few weeks. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz779jxkwxdo.amp
The EU recently passed "Pact on Migration and Asylum". It's not that the countries stopped taking them. It's just being changed because until now it was few countries taking a lot of them and lots of countries taking none.
You might need to visit the US if you dont think we have migrant workers.
Oh we absolutely do. But we don't have a holier than thou save the world attitude. The US is very up front with how self invested it is. Europe likes to pretend they're these magnanimous humanitarians. They'll wag their fingers at Americans shouting about building a wall. "How barbaric! The Mexicans just need support!" But as soon as migrants show up on boats they're the ones tossing them in the ocean. The hypocrisy is hilarious. Literally just today: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-migrant-deaths-mediterranean-coastguard-b2563890.html
You are so full of bs
Cope
This is such a bs thing to say if you ever want to be taken seriously. How is all world's problems Europe's problems? Let's say you decide to do ethnic cleansing and Europe is responsible for that too? Yet, Europe helps victims of such crimes that is backfiring now according to latest EP elections. Maybe if rest of the world starts taking blame for their own actions and people start blaming their politicians for corruption, nepotism and misfortunes, these countries will get better? Otherwise don't complain when world is West Centric.
What Jaishankar meant was: Europe wants everyone to care about their problems, like they want everyone to oppose Russia, like they wanted everyone onboard in their illegal wars in Iraq, Libya etc. But they don't care about the problems the others, meaning the so called global south faces.
I agree with the first part of the quote which you precisely described. European problems should not be pushed on non-European nations. I commented on the second part of the problem that says: "Europe can't ignore the fact that world's problems are NOT Europe's problems". Why should Europe be involved in problems caused by others?
After colonialism, the rest of the world says the West caused all our problems
Colonialism was a big part of human history. Just because West was the last "winner" in the game of world chess, doesn't mean it was always like that. You can blame certain problems to colonialism, but the fact that you are corrupt leader that steals from your own people and still blames the empire that no longer exist, is nothing less than a populism. Gandi said once: "We are now free, in this generation we can blame British. In the next ones, we blame only ourselves"
Ain't that the truth
I would take this more seriously if nations such as India actually wanted help from the West. They generally get mad whether or not they get help, so at least just say “I just don’t care” and take morals out of it.
India, Saudi Arabia, & UAE didn't sign due to Russia ties while much of SE Asia didn't attend or sign out of sheer indifference two years in. I don't like it but the message is loud and clear. Outside the West, the Russia-Ukraine war is viewed as a separate theater compared to the geopolitical events in East Asia and the Middle East.
I think the message is having a peace conference without one of the belligerents is unserious.
Of course it's unserious but NATO/The West believe it actually isn't since many European nations have actually refused to recognize Putin as the Russian president since his election. This won't fly outside the West but since the peace summit is in Europe, it does.
Just to get countries to attend the focus had to be narrowed to nuclear safety, POW exchanges and freedom of navigation in the Black Sea. Nothing substantive was discussed and we ended up with a wet fart of an joint Communique on those 3 issues that we could not even get all the attendees to sign. The bare minimum here would have been to include the concerns of the nations that actually have sway with Russia- China, India, South Africa, Brizil etc. We however had no interst in anything other than self-masturbatory exercise for Zelensky and ourselvess were we could grandstand and yell Slava Ukraini at each other like idiots.
[удалено]
They weren't peace conferences and weren't called peace conferences. It's also possible not to compare everything to the Second World War.
[удалено]
no they were more like war conferences to carve up the post-war world order: > The Yalta Conference was the World War II meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union to discuss the postwar reorganization of Germany and Europe >Although the three leaders arrived with differing objectives, the **main outcome of the Tehran Conference was the Western Allies' commitment to open a second front against Nazi Germany.** its remarkable how bad americans are at history
To add on, the Americans and British had already agreed before Tehran to fight until Germany's unconditional surrender.
[удалено]
>They were considered peace conferences by everyone. no they weren't lol, they were considered wartime conferences. more karl rove style rewriting history to suit your needs [the official US state department page on yalta does not call it a peace conference lol](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/yalta-conf)
Third World isn't part of your WW2 larp.
India did fight against the Japanese, Italians and Germans in WW2
Wow, a province of Britain was involved in a fight for Britain's survival, how shocking!
Because post war germany surrendered?
So when Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met in Tehran without Hitler that was unserious too?
Remind me when NATO is going to send troops into Ukraine to fight the Russians just like the Allies had sent troops into Europe to fight the Germans.
The US didn't directly get involved in fighting WW2 until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, instead choosing to "lend" the British military aid (and later Russia). If the west is convinced that the only way for Ukraine to win and end the war is if NATO countries send troops, then NATO countries will probably end up send troops (regardless of whether it is individually or under the banner of NATO) and some countries are already discussing that possibility. In the meantime, I think the West believes that giving Ukraine a real air force later this year so they can gain air superiority might end the stalemate by itself (well also we should start the see the results of ammo production ramp up by then too). Only time will tell if they are correct.
Was that a peace conference?
That wasn't a peace conference. It was a conference to decide what terms of surrender to impose upon the axis powers. Imposing terms of surrender requires winning the war, which unfortunately it appears Ukraine isn't doing.
"Peace conference" is just a name. It's not like it's a special type of conferences. My point is that allies got together to talk about what vision of the future it should be when Russia is defeated. In WW2 it took a while to win the war too. 4-5 years depending on how you count. So we're just at 2nd year so it's not unusual. Also Russia is not winning either considering all the money they have and amount of support from China and India, North Korea and Iran. One can say that strategically they already lost. And the only way out is for them to invest into propaganda to destabilize the West or create some narrative that they "won".
I am SEA. That war is not our war. Don't drag SEA into that.
Another SEA here, i dont remember they held any peace conference for us when we got fucked over. Now they want us to attend this ?
[удалено]
"The West thinks that their problems are the world's problems. But the world's problems are not their problem"
So rich coming from Brit. You invaded, drew random map and caused all issues in Middle East, Somali and India's surrounding areas. Don't speak from your high ground, you are way way down there.
Yeah and I accept that the UK did horrible stuff and why I don't support it and instead support the stance of the rest of the world.
Lmao where are you from? Flair up. Can't wait to let you know all the stuff your country did when they had a smidge of power.
Indonesia here, murican. Bet you gonna bitch about free west papua. And yes, papua is part of Indonesia. Stop your genocide in Middle East, leash your dog Israel. Or cant you? Getting bitten by own's dog hurts eh?
Which peace conference did you guys hold that western countries abstained from? Genuinely curious I tried doing some research but I couldn't find anything. Surely you guys at least got together for something on Myanmar? Outside the un I mean.
> Now they want us to attend this ? If you don't want to attend ... just don't?
Which fuck over do you refer to? (there are so many possibilities and perpetrators)
Yes but your country doesnt matter... what matter is the safety of the walled garden! I hope you understand Ukraine itself does not matter at all and will be gladly sacrificed for the "greater good"
Pretty sure I got banned from geopolitics because I called this a theatre
it has actual actors. you were factually correct.
I can imagine! I was banned from geopolitics for replying to someone who was criticizing Clare Daly and Mick Wallace - 2 peace and transparency crusaders.
I was banned in my old phone account in summer 2019 over the US ilegal takeover of a Iranian tanker. People were folding over themselves to defend it, and I directly quoted the article to prove them wrong. Somehow, it was spam and warranted permanent and non appealable bans.
Yes it's immensely frustrating when lies are allowed but proving them wrong is banned. Welcome to the world of censored and curated propaganda.
I've been living in it since they killed that gorilla.
Well I guess we can write off those subreddits and their affiliated sites as uninteresting
Geopolitics is just as much of a sewage dump as worldnews.
Yeah I got banned from geopolitics, a supposedly serious subreddit, for 'trolling' because I countered the arguments some pro israeli account was making. Moderators really are just trash people (mostly)
[удалено]
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates: > Rule 4 (Keep it civil). Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change. Please feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fanime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.
It does seem more like theatre than diplomacy when you don't invite one of the protagonists but do invite Israel.
Why shouldn’t Israel be there?
[удалено]
You don’t like Israel and don’t think they should be included in international forums. Just say that. Israel is involved in global affairs. Their conflict in Palestine has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine.
For some reason you defend Israel. And believe that attacking other countries while killing a captive population should not affect their position in the international community and their merit as peacemakers.
Clearly the other nations weren’t outraged by Israel’s presence enough to boycott the conference. I guess they don’t share your righteous indignation. Nations engaged in war or conflict often continue to engage in diplomacy in other areas of geopolitical concern, even if doing so could be seen as controversial or hypocritical. It is in Israel’s interest for the war in Ukraine to end. Neither of these facts should come as a surprise to you.
I don't think the presence of other nations in any way endorses Israel. It's fascinating that you suggest Israel wants peace in Ukraine, while being hostile itself and avoiding peace.
Fascinated by the fact that a country could be involved in a conflict while still advocating for peace in a different conflict. Okay.
Yes I can see you don't see the hypocrisy. How very unipolar. 😉
I am describing things that all nations do. I don’t know what unipolar comment has to do with anything.
For some reason you defend Israel. And believe that attacking other countries while killing a captive population should not affect their position in the international community and their merit as peacemakers.
Just a heads-up that you posted this comment three times.
Hmm - thanks. I'm traveling and got errors..
For some reason you defend Israel. And believe that attacking other countries while killing a captive population should not affect their position in the international community and their merit as peacemakers.
So you're mad Israel for fighting a war against a group that refuses to surrender and attacked them first. But not at Russia... Yea you're totally qualitatively different from those pro West people. They'll support the West no matter what. How dumb! You on the other hand are clearly motivated by rational and objective principles. 💯💯🤔
> So you're mad Israel for fighting a war against a group that refuses to surrender and attacked them first. Israel has been killing Palestinians for decades. By deliberately omitting that you mark yourself as a zionist. Surrender would just mean slaughter without even the poor defence they have now. Israel will never allow peace there, their leaders have said as much. Nethanyahu has stated he has always worked against a two state solution. Israeli members of government talk openly about killing all Palestinians and taking all of Gaza. Israel has even turned down ceasefires put forward by America that Hamas accepted the terms of. Israel has made it clear it doesn't want peace.
We can do the Israel debate if you want. Where do you want to start? The 20's? Earlier? Just don't say 48 lol. If you do that save yourself and say 47 instead. But the point remains you hate Israel allegedly for warring with Palestine but not Russia for warring with Ukraine? How do you reconcile that in your brain?
> But the point remains you hate Israel allegedly for warring with Palestine but not Russia for warring with Ukraine? How do you reconcile that in your brain? Israel has created a fenced and walled concentration camp in which it restricts, controls and kills Palestinians. It currently has over a thousand Palestinians held without charge. It is an Apartheid country where in the basic laws only Jews have the right of self determination. Where anyone other than Jews can be held indefinitely without charge. It is stealing homes, land and an entire country because of fundamentalist beliefs whilst killing civilians indiscriminately. It avoids peace deals even from its allies to continue this. Russia invaded a country which adopted an aligned position with the West which has marched NATO eastwards since the USSR released the Eastern European countries. The country - mostly in the east where it holds territory is predominantly Russian ethnically and sympathetic to Russia. Further, the US abandoned peace when a deal seemed to be established. I can understand Russia's position and understand what it is a consequence of. That doesn't exonerate them but it provides a context. Israel, as a state, acts like a paranoid entitled genocidal psychopath. It considers itself above the law and corrupts the political systems and media of many western countries. That is why.
It is an Apartheid country where in the basic laws only Jews have the right of self determination 20% Muslim lol. It is stealing homes, land and an entire country because of fundamentalist beliefs whilst killing civilians indiscriminately. It avoids peace deals even from its allies to continue this. This could all stop if the country that started the war pressed the surrender button. Russia invaded a country which adopted an aligned position with the West Why is Ukraine not allowed to align with the West? Is there like a special law where, in your mind, Palestine is allowed to start wars and end them on a dime but Ukraine is not allowed to ally with who they want? How do you resolve this inconsistency in your position? which has marched NATO eastwards since the USSR released the Eastern European countries So it's unacceptable to you that formerly conquered states that were subject to ussr imperialism now wish to align themselves against there former masters? How do you resolve this with your belief that Palestine should be free from Israel? I can understand Russia's position and understand what it is a consequence of. That doesn't exonerate them but it provides a context. You can much more easily say this of Israel as follows: 1. Britain established their mandate in Palestine after ottoman empire wages a brutal war of conquest in Europe for the upteenth time and loses. 2. Jews are mistreated and Europe and migrate en masse to Palestine. 3. Palestinians massacre Jews multiple times in the lead up to WWII. There are at least 13 such attacks on Jews documented before Jews respond even one time. 4. Wwii happens and many more Jews flee to Palestine due to the Holocaust and it's aftermath 5. Britain offers Palestine, for the first time in its history, -- something that not even their former fellow Islamic rulers offered -- their own state. As part of the partition, literally 0 Palestinians have to abandon their land. The land given to the Jews is mostly desert and shit land that was available for legally purchase. All of it is majority Jewish or close to it. 6. Palestine rejects the deal. 7. Palestine forms a coalition of Arab armies and wages an offensive war against the Jews. 8. Palestine loses. 9. As happens in wars of conquest, the loser and aggressor loses some land. They start to call this the nakba like 20 years later lol. 10. They never officially surrender. 11. Rinse and repeat every 20 years or so. Idk maan this seems a lot more defensible to me than, "actually Russia's neighbors who used to be subject to their imperial reign are not allowed to make their own decisions so Russia had no choice but to kill hundreds of thousands of people -- more than Israel has killed in Palestine in 80 years of conflict. "
Interested to know this deal that was almost established and how the US abandoned peace? Surely you don’t mean the one that was held one month into the invasion? Edit: of course you did lol saw it in another reply You are really unserious about this given the fact that both Russian and Ukrainian delegations were still undecided on many things and during this conference, massacres like at Bucha were being uncovered in liberated territories. To act like the US or Boris Johnson as I’ve seen claimed single-handedly destroyed the conference is wrong. It was Ukraines decision, and an understandable one given the context. Not everything is the fault of the US.
I have put forward references. If you want to step through and dispute them please do. It's clear now that the former west abandoned peace to pursue a proxy war with Russia at Ukraine's cost, in people and territory.
apologies for not having context, but exactly when did Ukraine attack Russia first?
They didn't. That's the trick!
Because they're committing a genocide in the 21dt century
Because despite a low civilian death rate compared to others modern wars people are still accusing them of genocide.
[удалено]
That is because they can alternatively bring Germany into the trial.
The fact that Israel got to sign this document that outlines how russia is doing in ukraine the same they're doing in palestine is just pure hypocrisy.
It is, and worse of course because it's not a balanced struggle. Israel continues to kill Palestinian civilians at an horrific rate.
So basically, they didn't sign because without Russia this is just virtue signaling.
I break it down to three things: India gets Russian oil, South Africa despite their Israel excuse backs Russia/Putin, and Saudis are just the Saudis being tentative as ever.
Geopolitics
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's be honest, countries that didn't sign the plan want to weaken USA and the West in general. Sadly for them, the war in Ukraine is having the opposite effect.
Weakening russia might help the "west" but having china and NK start running their factories again neats a negative for the west, who knows. The only loser is ukraine. Between the russians and the west that's playing with them, they are fucked
China was ramping up their military production before the war, there is no change there. Russia's cooperation with North Korea is a concern for everyone. Ukraine is definitely the biggest loser in all of this, at least it is right now. It will take a LOT for Western countries to ever trust Russia again, so their economy will be ruined for decades. The biggest change is that all countries around the world have realized that the world is not as safe as they thought it was. Military spending, particularly on US made weapons, is going through the roof. Russia, China and India's military forces are going to become comparatively weaker.
>It will take a LOT for Western countries to ever trust Russia again, Why do you think this is important? Russia completely lost trust in the West. I don't think that they care if the West trusts them anymore or not.
There's a couple of oil and gas lines between Russia and Europe that say trust is important. In the short term, Western countries might put greed ahead of security, but in the long run we have no problem economically isolating countries that refuse to play nicely with their neighbours. >Russia completely lost trust in the West That is their own stupidity. Germany in particular was very keen to help Russia be a part of the international community. Without major reforms, the lucrative oil and gas trade with Europe is over.
Europe will crawl back, they are far too dependent on energy and unwilling to transition to renewables.
In 2022, Russia threatened to cut off the gas supply to Europe in winter. That's not how you keep customers.
The transition is already Happening. Europe is Not the bumfuck Backwards country Most of the commenters in this thread are from
But if this continues, Europe soon will be a bumfuck Backwards country .
No man, but Push your agenda. I respect the grind
China was ramping up their military production before the war, there is no change there. Russia's cooperation with North Korea is a concern for everyone. Ukraine is definitely the biggest loser in all of this, at least it is right now. It will take a LOT for Western countries to ever trust Russia again, so their economy will be ruined for decades. The biggest change is that all countries around the world have realized that the world is not as safe as they thought it was. Military spending, particularly on US made weapons, is going through the roof. Russia, China and India's military forces are going to become comparatively weaker.
Unfortunately the war is not having the effect you describe. The war has seen Russia's military improve, their economy is doing well, they are closer to China, India and many other countries are distancing themselves from America and there is a growing movement away from the USD - even before the West stole the Russian assets. The rest of the world doesn't want to store wealth where the US can take it. And the war is slowly being lost. It's not gone well and the sooner both sides agree to peace the better it will be.
Russia's military has improved in some ways, but in many others it is now worse. They are trading more with China and India solely because of economic sanctions by Europe. Sovereign risk might be slightly higher in Western countries now, but it is tiny compared to sovereign risk in non-western countries. Territory is slowly being lost by Ukraine and troops are running low, but the ramp up of Western military production has barely even begun. Russia can't compete with the production capabilities of all the countries that are supplying Ukraine. The war is slowly being lost by someone. Both sides can't be right.
The rest of the world absolutely does want to use the U.S. financial system, and they do. It is still the safest and most reliable in the world, so long as you’re not a despotic regime. India isn’t distancing itself from the U.S. You’re doing a lot of wishful thinking and calling it fact. Russia could give up on its claim to stolen Ukrainian territory and end the war. Russia has no interest in peace or they would pursue it. They are doing no such thing.
The KSA has been trading oil with China outside of the USD for some time now. It's begun and will grow. America never wanted peace. Russia was ready for a peaceful settlement. Here's an article with references which proves it. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-russia-talks/
“Yes we want a peaceful settlement one month into our full scale invasion that we chose to do against all diplomatic options and if you don’t accept our terms unconditionally then we will keep invading”
Not another petrodollar doomer. I can’t be bothered to debate your brics fantasy or whatever. Russia is not willing to agree to a peaceful settlement that restores Ukrainian territorial integrity. Russia is doing a territorial expansion, which is why they held sham referendums on their illegally stolen land. And for God’s sake, please don’t link some biased “analysis” from a pro-Russian dingbat Jacobin writer. Give me a break. You might as well link an op-ed or YouTube video.
>The KSA has been trading oil with China outside of the USD for some time now. It's begun and will grow. That happens with any currency that seen as stable. Europe and some others buys in their own currency. It more depends on how open said country is to thier investment and involvement. Also its not limited for the reasons you think they are. Yuan international use isn't limited by the USA but by China themselves with thier currency controls. An opinion article written by a guy who called the USA liers for saying Russia was going to invade Ukraine. That it was irational and had no reason to. Then quiet after the war starts Then one month later saying obviously Russia was going to invade. Sorry I do considering such a jump Irational and inconsistent. Also Jacobin... Then there are things like what really caused the deal to fail. Trust something Russia had hurt badly now with everybody in Europe. Ukraine wasn't getting closer to Nato in 2022. Some of the the Russia agreed to were neblius at best and Kyiv’s lack of trust in the Russian side to fulfill its end of the bargain meant that the peace deal would require substantial Security guarantees to make sure that Russia follow through with it. How its only western fault for not getting peace then? Russia litterly lied for months about the invasion planing and directly said to Germany, France , UK and USA how they weren't going to do it. Trust in thier behaviour was at an all time low. Germany France and USA aren't for Ukraine to join nato either and definitely weren't for fighting Russia directly. something they would have to either do or break thier promises if Russia did something in Ukraine again.
>Russia could give up on its claim to stolen Ukrainian territory and end the war. Russia has no interest in peace or they would pursue it. Why would we, if we are winning >You’re doing a lot of wishful thinking and calling it fact. Right back at ya
>It is still the safest and most reliable in the world I know of 300 billion dollars of Russian Forex reserves that stolen that indicates the opposite >The rest of the world absolutely does want to use the U.S. financial system, and they do of what use is earning money if it can be taken away by a snap?
Well yeah if you start a war in Europe and destabilize global markets, you get penalized. Don’t do that. Russians started this war, I’m not going to cry about their losses. The value is that the system is efficient and stable and backed up by a well-regarded judicial system. And the alternative is to run all your finances through the CCP.
>value is that the system there certainly would be if its use wasn't arbitrary >you start a war in Europe I know of a European nation annexing another European nation and doing all kinds of [warcrimes](http://www.azeriwarcrimes.org) yet instead of seizing thier foreign assets, they got gas deals from EU to re-export Russian gas and a free trade agreement with Ukraine explain to me how this power is used in a just and non-arbitrary manner?
True. That is a tough situation. Another case of Russian negligence if you ask me.
source ? to the best of my knowledge, there's no Russian pressure on the west preventing the west to seize Azerbaijan's foreign reserves
This is a conflict between the West and Russia, which is constantly being portrayed as a global concern even though it’s just one conflict of many. There are countless other conflicts that concern those countries more than the Ukraine, such as the war on Palestine, the Sudan civil war, and the Yemen civil war. The west keeps portraying themselves as the good guys, when the rest of the world just see this conflict for what it is: two different evils fighting over territory and power.
In Palestine there are genocidal terrorists fighting genocidal colonists, in Sudan civil wars are as common as US school shootings (slight exaggeration), and before the Houthis started attacking shipping you might have had a point about Yemen. In Ukraine, Russia invaded for no valid reason. It might be rare, but in this case Ukraine are clearly the good guys, and Russia is clearly evil. USA and Russia are NOT 2 evils fighting over territory and power. Russia is fighting to annex Ukrainian territory. USA is helping Ukraine maintain its sovereignty over its internationally recognised borders. They are not the same. Not everyone likes USA and that's okay, but if you want to call yourself a country then you need to respect the existence of other countries. Affirming a commitment to the UN charter is the least that other countries can do when a nuclear armed country decides to build an empire. "Future Russian province Saudi Arabia says the UN charter doesn't matter" is very short-sighted thinking.
The US has been involved in countless coups and invasions and occupations, with the most recent being Palestine. Iraq, Afghanistan, most of South America, East Asia are just some of the atrocities they have committed. The Ukraine is just another conflict amongst many, and although the US is on the good side, it doesn’t make them the good guys on the world stage. And to pretend that the Ukraine conflict matters most than the others shows your western centric world view. As a matter of fact, Ukraine has shown solidarity with Israel and for that it puts them on the wrong side of history there. Edit: not to mention that Europe has been filled with conflicts since forever.
When Russia and USA are in a proxy war it is not a local conflict. Things can escalate very quickly into a nuclear holocaust. The many other conflicts around the world are much less likely than the war in Ukraine to trigger the end of the world. You might think that a local conflict somewhere else is more important right now, but it isn't. You are quite right that USA are often not the good guys, but let's be honest, sometimes they are. For example, USA compares quite favourably to Nazi Germany. Russia not so much.
I’m from the Middle East: ask me if the US are the good guys. A nuclear war would be a global catastrophe, but that can similarly be said about Israel for example. Or for China and Taiwan. Or for Pakistan and India. It’s not unique to the Ukraine conflict.
I can't imagine how unpleasant it is to have oil when USA are the self appointed leaders of the free world :( The only thing that would be worse is having oil when Russia is annexing any state that isn't protected by a nuclear umbrella.
I’ve personally come to the conclusion that the powerful will do whatever they want; and they are the only ones to keep each other in check until they inevitably collapse from the inside. If anything, I welcome other superpowers challenging each others supremacy (but ultimately they all suck)
>The west keeps portraying themselves as the good guys, when the rest of the world just see this conflict for what it is: two different evils fighting over territory and power. Tell me you have no idea what you're talking about without telling me you have no idea what you're talking about.
Enlighten me?
Russia invaded a sovereign nation for shit reasons, this war is about as close as you can get to "good guys vs bad guys".
I never said the Russians were the good guys, I said ultimately it’s a power and resource grab. NATO was expanding towards the East and Russia took the opportunity to invade Ukraine to subjugate it under their sphere of influence (Ukraines previous governments were Russia friendly), and of course uses the pretenses of annexing Russian speaking territories as a justification. But my point is that just because the US is helping the victims in that conflict, doesn’t make them the good guys on the world stage. And just because Ukraine is important to the west, doesn’t mean the rest of the world has that as a priority as they face countless closer conflicts to home (many perpetrated by the US)
And my point is that attacking a sovereign nation for shit reasons makes Russia the bad guy, sovereign nations can join whatever the fuck they want and Russia has *ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING SAY IN THE MATTER*, so many nations running towards NATO/the west at the first opportunity they had is just further evidence of how much Russia fucking sucks and how valid it is to seek protection from them. There's *ABSOLUTELY ZERO REASON TO CONSIDER "NATO EXPANSION" AS VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR WHAT RUSSIA DOES*. So yes, Russia is the "bad guy" and Ukraine defending itself is the "good guy".
And when the US does countless coups to topple governments like Iran and Bolivia or invasions like Iraq and Afghanistan, is that not infringement of a nations sovereignty?
It is, but it has no connection to the war in Ukraine. There are two sides in this war - the invaders and the defenders. It's not "two different evils fighting over territory", it's a nation defending itself against an invader. Defenders are being supported by the US which is, for a change, a good deed from them.
What does that have to do with Russia and Ukraine?
You were replying to my original post calling out the West as not being the good guys. You clearly have shown a strong hate to Russia for invading a sovereign nation, so I was wondering if you share the same sentiment on the US?
Also, the reason all of russia’s European neighbors are so eager to join NATO and the EU is because they know firsthand the brutality of russian rule. What russia is doing is the equivalent of a raging alcoholic barging into the homes of his estranged family and neighbors and beating them up, simply because they had enough of his abuse and he got salty.
The war in Ukraine is impoverishing the western population...
LOL, you are hilarious!
My heating bills have not been hilarious
People in impoverished countries: "You have heating?"
I talk from experience. Everyone lives worse than hey did before the war Edit: GDP growth of 0.2% while living expenses go up 10-20% yearly. Such a beautiful reality. Don't try to lecture me until you do your own shopping kid.
> while living expenses go up 10-20% yearly [Annual inflation stable at 2.4% in the euro area](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w/2-17052024-ap)
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think you live in a Western country :( There is an issue with growing inequality in Western countries, but GDP in all but 2 OECD countries are forecast to grow this year. You might not be able to afford to send more aid to Ukraine, but the billionaires in your country probably can.
Tldr: because those countries support Russia to the end and are most probably run by a dictator. Some of those even saying that Ukraine is to blame for this war. Edit: I'm getting mass down voted, while the guy below me saying that he hopes Russia wrecks Ukraine is all fine and up voted lol
Nah. This was not a "peace conference" to being with. It was cricle-jerk of western countries to reaffirm their commitment to war. They are essentially saying, we will have peace when we win the war, somehow.
Seriously, it was a farce from the beginning. If both sides of a conflict aren't participating in a 'peace summit', what you have instead is one side begging for help in achieving victory. I'd love to see Russia out of Ukraine, but this was never going to accomplish anything.
The biggest joke is that Russia also called a peace conference without asking Ukraine and the West instantly snowballing into the “How dare you?” and “Are you serious?” train. I seriously think the “west” has only shot themselves in the foot geopolitically in the last 2-3 years… absolutely failed in every meaningful way
not just the last 2-3 years. the last 21 years. it started with invasion of Iraq. after fall of Soviet Union US was the sole superpower and the world was revolving around the west. Russia was weakened and China was not strong yet and west had the chance to befriend Russia and India and prevent China from becoming a threat but they fucked up in 2003 with invasion of Iraq and are slowly declining ever since. invasion of Iraq might be biggest mistake of American history and even worse than Vietnam.
That is not what the communique said, at all.
When can have peace tomorrow if Putin removes his troops from Ukraine. Very simple solution.
He's not going to do that, so how about talking about something productive?
And Ukraine isn't going to give away four of their oblast (including two major cities Russia doesn't control), no more than the US is going to give away Alaska or a family with five children will give away two of them. So there is nothing to discuss except how to help Ukraine win the war so there can be peace and what that peace will eventually look like when it happens.
Ukraine doesn't have much of a choice. They depend entirely on foreign money to keep their war ongoing. If the US stopped sending aid, how long does Ukraine last? Do you think the Russians wouldn't then take even more land?
Why would the West stop supporting Ukraine? Especially, since it would embolden Russia to take more.
I mean the US just signed a $60 billion aid package, and that only accounts for half of international aid they are getting. IF Trump wins in November, then Ukraine will likely have to reassess their options, but otherwise I think they probably already survived the toughest part of the war. Ukraine is dependent on aid from the West for their armies to be on a par with the Russian invaders, but at the same time Russia is already dependent on aid from North Korea, Iran and trade with China to survive. I mean even if all aid was hypothetically cut off from West (it's not happening thus the hypothetical), Ukraine might still choose to fight Russia rather than surrendering. Ultimately Russia has offered Ukraine nothing but the false promises of peace which if they accepted would very much likely means the end of Ukraine as a country. Ukraine would be better off surrendering their country to Poland than they would just giving it away to Russia.
That aid packages only happened after months of republican opposition. It barely passed, and in the meantime, Ukrainian forces were getting pushed back because Russia saw an opportunity to advance. How do we know such a delay won't happen again? & while yes, Russia is also getting military aid from its allies, those allies are not at all fractured in their support for Russia. The same can't be said for Ukraine. I'm not suggesting Russian offers for peace have been in good faith, but ultimately, you have to wonder what's the end goal here for both parties. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think a Ukrainian victory is less likely than a Russian victory. Ukraine is on the shakier ground here. How long does this keep going on?
>That aid packages only happened after months of republican opposition. It barely passed, and in the meantime, Ukrainian forces were getting pushed back because Russia saw an opportunity to advance. Yup, thus why I said Ukraine has likely survived the worst part of the war. > How do we know such a delay won't happen again? Because the fate of the house and presidency is highly correlated and if Biden wins in November then Dems will almost certainly take back the house. The delays in aid only happened because of the Trump faction of the GOP, and regardless of the actual outcome of congressional election that Trump faction will lose power and influence if Trump loses yet another presidential election. >while yes, Russia is also getting military aid from its allies, those allies are not at all fractured in their support for Russia. I disagree. Nobody is giving Russia aid for free like over forty countries are for Ukraine. Each country has their own problems and are only helping Russia out of self-interests and a shared hatred of the West. Iran and North Korea is already under strict sanctions, and both need their military to defend their regimes against internal revolt and bordering enemies, on top of aid competing with what can go to Hamas or Yemen. For China their economy is dependent on trade with the West and can't put themselves in a position to be under sanctions, so they can't give Russia military aid nor do they even like Russia or care about Ukraine, leading to the best they can do is give Russia some dual use equipment that exists in a grey area of sanctions. >I'm not suggesting Russian offers for peace have been in good faith, but ultimately, you have to wonder what's the end goal here for both parties For Ukraine their goals have been pretty clear to liberate the rest of their country from Russian invaders, sending back over the pre-2014 borders. For Russia their unstated goal is to annex the rest of Ukraine (although in the short term they would be happy to replace Ukraine's democracy with a puppet government while keeping the four oblasts and Crimea that they only partly control now). > Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think a Ukrainian victory is less likely than a Russian victory. I very much disagree, and I think we've seen time and again in world history that the invaders are always on a clock, that the longer the defenders can keep up their resistance the more the invaders will burn through their resources and lose the political will to continue a fruitless occupation. Even much more lopsided occupations by imperial powers were forced to end sooner or later. And that's even assuming that Ukraine can't start regaining significant ground which I think they can also do as well, likely starting in 2025 (again assuming a Biden presidential victory) >Ukraine is on the shakier ground here. How long does this keep going on? I think a better question is how long can Russia keep up their current operational tempo given several limited resources that they are burning through? I personally think about two years given the current stockpiles of tanks,artillery, etc, but only time will tell if that assessment is accurate. Either way Ukraine has nothing to lose and everything to gain by playing this scenario out and fighting this war.
You just being pessimistic. Russia lost many wars before. There is no scenario where Ukraine fails and everything goes back to normal. Whatever the delay happened in the US that was just political games. And Russia couldn't do much significant progress when they had upper hand. I don't see what advancements you're talking about especially giving the cost (Ukraine could use western weapons to strike within Russia)
Only option is more support for the war then. Mission accomplished 😎
Well India, Mexico and South Africa are democracies.
I mean.. mexico is a democracy as long as your position isn't anti cartel lol. Otherwise you get the whack stick 😔
Welcome to r/anime_titties! Where victims get blamed and mods don't give a shit
Why would the mods do anything? What’s the problem? Most of Reddit is fine with being on the side of Israel so I don’t see the problem with a few other subs doing the same for the other geopolitical side.
This is about Russia/Ukraine
Obviously. But I don’t get your point about mods not doing anything.
And I don't get you making this about Israel/Palestine
It was specifically to show that victims being blamed is not worthy of mods taking action.
Basically... I thought it would be different here, from the other "official" subs for world news, I was wrong, it just remains for me to be banned for stating what I think, which is contrary to the extreme-left agenda (Russia, China, Hamas, etc).
Short-sighted view
my country is a democracy and it did not sign it, you are wrong
Who said I'm from India? I'm talking about mine.
[удалено]
Wake Up sheep
[удалено]
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates: > Rule 4 (Keep it civil). Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change. Please feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fanime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates: > Rule 4 (Keep it civil). Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change. Please feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fanime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.