this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
49 points (86.6% liked)

World News

32082 readers
1009 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (30 children)

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

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It almost seems as if the West snd the Global South have completely different understandings of who is being the imperialist in the war. I don't understand.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this sarcasm or an honest question?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Okay, but he was right about this part:

"Lula said the United Nations had failed to assume its “responsibility” because permanent members of the Security Council “are the ones who foment wars.”

The UN security council is a joke and there shouldn't be permanent members. It's just neo imperialism.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I imagine that when it was formed there were two options - allow permanent members or form without the most important members.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is it. How to do bring super powers to a group of nations and tell them they'll have the same voice as tiny countries. Why would they bother showing up?

The world has changed since then, though. I dont think it makes much sense anymore to have France and the UK as permanent members though. Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Nukes. That's all it is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought…

Russia is currently stalemated in a limited war against a substantial (but similarly limited) chunk of the NATO arsenal. As a point of comparison, in the last 20 years the U.S. has lost two wars against non-state actors where they used everything but nukes.

The U.S. hasn't fought a war like the Russian-Ukranian War since Vietnam or Korea, and the results there weren't a lot better than what Russia is seeing now (despite the U.S. doing far more indiscriminate strategic bombing).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

The permanent members are, or at least were so powerful that if they didn't agree nothing could stop them .

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The point of the permanent members of security council was to bring superpowers to the table and keep them there. Otherwise they could play their games and the smaller countries would all suffer for it.

Of course there are still problems, but through the security council and MAD we now have proxy wars and culture wars rather than a World War every couple decades.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I thought we were done with "slamming" in headlines. At least it felt like I didn't see any of those here on Lemmy until now…

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It always makes political statements read like Pokemon battles.

Lula uses SLAM on UN!

...it's not very effective.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, it seems most politicians are Ghost types, since it never seems to affect them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

lmao they're impersonating prensa-latina.cu, and I can't even find the "bilingual" section.

He's right, that's why Brasil has been trying to get into the permanent security council since like 2002. The current majority members are either inept at avoiding wars or more likely complicit in starting as many as they can to create demands for their military complexes. They don't even have permanent members from Africa or Latin America. Latin America, and in this particular case Brasil, wants nothing to do with this war except for helping creating a ceasefire, but one of the belligerents really hates the notion of pausing the war for negotiations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And brazil should get that seat from russia’s. Remove an imperialist warmongering nation, replace it with one that still clearly isn’t directly aligned with western interests, as evidenced by the fact that lula can say this kind of thing freely and the worst that can happen to him as a consequence is some raised eyebrows. But his take is still insane and naive, and the brasilian people deserve better than « not bolsonaro » as the only option. I’m starting to see a pattern here: « not trump », « not le pen »… Global democracy is not doing well. Granted, as far as I understand it, he has had some actual progressive positions and policies in the past, and I can’t speak for his domestic impact, but he’s not being a leader on the world stage here, and it shows.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Remove an imperialist warmongering nation

By that I hope you mean the USA, the world's leading imperialist nation. Brasil has been so aligned with "western" interests that they had some fashy president until last year who sold a lot of our industry to gringos of the north for discount prices. Just because Lula is a bit different and a complete pacifist, doesn't mean the country is free of imperialism at all, just look at the headlines of acquisitions of land by foreign-owned corporations to exploit our resources. Russia is in there for historical and material reasons and to remove them from the council would only serve to discredit the same council's representation power. It should be expanded to include Brasil without downgrading anybody.

But his take is still insane and naive

Care to elaborate or should we just take your word that "demanding a ceasefire" is naïve?

and the brasilian people deserve better than « not bolsonaro » as the only option.

How's that UN's problem? Or related to this at all? Although I agree, I don't see why this is being brought up here when Ukraine's war wasn't even an issue in the election.

but he’s not being a leader on the world stage here

He's being a leader. He's on the world stage. Pedantism aside, this is not about domestic policy, it's specifically about Brasil's opinion on this war, which is that it should be stopped ASAP. I have no idea what you're even trying to say other than randomly spouting whatever little you know of Brasil, and pretending that somehow discredits one of the biggest countries in the world.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can't say I fully understand his position on this, but I'd still rather have him running Brazil than the other guy.

"The world needs a new system of global governance." Let me counter that part with "any long term system of governance inevitably becomes corrupt (assuming it wasn't corrupt to begin with)."

It may be true that the (subjectively) important UN countries' support of Ukraine in the conflict might not be for reasons that are completely aligned with those of Ukraine itself, but the fact Ukraine is being supported has - shall we say: ironically - prevented the governance of that country from being replaced by a more corrupt one.

Of course, pro-Russia folks will have the opposite opinion there.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

It may be true that the (subjectively) important UN countries’ support of Ukraine in the conflict might not be for reasons that are completely aligned with those of Ukraine itself, but the fact Ukraine is being supported has - shall we say: ironically - prevented the governance of that country from being replaced by a more corrupt one.

More importantly, it's not the UN involved in the conflict. It's several countries who are members of the UN, these countries are independently feeding arms into Ukraine and also stimulating their arms production industry. The UN itself is explicitly not involved in the conflict. UN weapons do not go to Ukraine, weapons from specific nations (UK, US, Germany, everyone else) are going to Ukraine.

Lula's position of not getting involved with the war and "slamming" the UN is further propagating the myth that the UN is involved in the war. Instead, it's merely a 2 party war between Russia and Ukraine, where Russia is getting arms from places like China and Iran and Ukraine is getting things from the west.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Guys I’m sure appeasement will work this time, right?

Right?

load more comments
view more: next ›