BRICS leaders adopt Kazan Declaration— Key Points
Posted by Nethlem@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 332 comments
Posted by Nethlem@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 332 comments
flatulentbaboon@reddit
I'm sure the totally not insecure individuals who are certainly not perpetually intimidated by the idea of an alternative to the Western-led order have some ~~copium~~ wonderful takes to contribute with.
nice999@reddit
I would be fine with a multipolar world where the US wasn’t the dominant power of Russia and China were even remotely as close to being as democratic as the US.
Being as Democratic as the US isn’t a high bar, but they still fail to meet it.
bjran8888@reddit
China will be "democratic" in its own way. Your attitude seems to be still in the US game, which is no surprise.
nice999@reddit
Ah yes, democracy with Chinese characteristics. Any local democracy China possibly has is far outweighed when you considered the vast humanitarian nightmares across the country, and the lack of democracy from the middle to the top.
Yes I prefer the US as the superpower as despite their vast horrific actions they still somehow outpace Russia and China. In the US there is capacity for change, in Russia and China there really isn’t.
bjran8888@reddit
That's your freedom, and I have no problem with that.
But you will not be able to convince the people of the third world.
nice999@reddit
Well yeah they’ve had a consistently bad record with the US, it would be impossible to convince them their country’s suffering is worth it because theoretically other countries would be worse.
I’m more talking to the people in the west who believe Russia and China are somehow a better option than the US.
bjran8888@reddit
I'm simply curious to ask: what would Europe do if Trump took office?
After all, he said he would charge 10-20% tariffs on the whole world, and Europe did not make an exception.
nice999@reddit
Under the last Trump presidency Europe distanced itself from him. Wouldn’t be very different if it happened again. In terms of international trade I’m no expert, but it wouldn’t be good for Europe. However the real losers would probably be the UK who will continue to rot probably.
Europe and the UK would also probably strengthen ties further with Japan, Taiwan (assuming they care to fight that conflict) and Australia.
bjran8888@reddit
It makes no sense to further strengthen ties with Japan, Taiwan and Australia because they are also US allies and they cannot oppose the US.
Europe has to be more neutral if it wants to pressure the US, and there is only one possibility - to strengthen ties with China (even if it's fake, the gesture is important)
In fact, this is what all third world countries are doing, seeking to maximise their own interests between China and the US.
nice999@reddit
Europe is not a third world country though. And the US placing tariffs on Europe won’t stop them from going to the other countries they have historical links to to trade. If the US puts tariffs on Europe Japan is certainly getting them to. And the US can’t really stop them because unlike what Americans believe Europe isn’t subservient to them.
More trade with China is an obvious outcome, they’ll be essentially forced to, but most European countries will search for countries to act as backups, as China will obviously try to use its new leverage over Europe.
bjran8888@reddit
The problem is that Europe has already started a trade war with China, should it also start a trade war with the US at the same time?
With the power of the EU, can it start a trade war with China and the US at the same time?
You should know that during the Cold War, the United States also joined hands with China to clamp down on the Soviet Union.
nice999@reddit
This is a very different scenario. Europe strengthening ties with US partners that they already trade with isn’t a trade war level threat. The US doesn’t have a monopoly on trading with those countries, and China represents a larger threat than the US to Europe due to its alliance with Russia.
bjran8888@reddit
That's fine, since you like Trump so much, go ahead.
As a Chinese, I really don't quite understand where China threatens the EU.
nice999@reddit
Thinking I like trump is an interesting take indeed.
China poses a threat to Europe because their main partner is invading a European country.
bjran8888@reddit
China is not supplying arms to Russia and Ukraine, only civilian goods to them at the same time.
China is clearly neutral under the laws of war.
I don't quite understand why you think China is a threat when Ukraine itself doesn't even consider it a threat.
nice999@reddit
I am not saying China is involved in the conflict, I’m saying Russia, it’s main ally is. Why would Europeans want to align with Russia’s biggest ally, an ally of Iran and North Korea, an economic rival undercutting their businesses, that has no historical or cultural ties to Europe.
Trumps talk of tariffs on Europe is most likely BS, so even if he did win Europe isn’t going to run into China’s arms.
bjran8888@reddit
1, China and Russia are close partners, but not "allies". "Ally" is a specific term in diplomacy that refers to two countries that have established an offensive and defensive alliance, and China and Russia are sisters.
3, As for the Trump tariffs, you probably haven't read about them in a while? Trump is leading the US election polls across the board, and the European Commission has set up a rapid reaction force called the "Trump Task Force" to prepare for the aftermath of the election.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-donald-trump-trade-war-second-presidency-kamala-harris/
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-scrambles-to-prepare-for-a-trump-return/
Trump has warned that he won't defend "delinquent" NATO allies spending less than 2 percent of GDP on defense. And he has threatened to slap 10 to 20 percent tariffs on all imports to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. On Thursday, Trump called the EU a "mini China. "mini China."
"They don't take our cars, they don't take our farm products, don't take anything. You have a $312 billion deficit with the EU. You know, the EU is a mini - but not so mini - is a mini China," he said.
nice999@reddit
Whether they are allies or close partners is irrelevant it’s just terminology. And it doesn’t matter to Europe because China is close partners with various countries they see as threats.
I have condemned the US multiple times, but right now we’re talking about Europe. A lot of Europe is still mildly pro Israel or not pro Palestinian enough to ditch them, plus Israel isn’t invading a European country.
Trump isn’t even leading in polls across the board, but assuming he was that still doesn’t mean a guaranteed win. Hillary Clinton was ahead in 2016 and she still lost. And like I said before, trump talks a lot of shit, even if he makes a full cabinet of yes men they’ll probably stop him from putting major tariffs on Europe, and many in the Republican Party are still extremely pro NATO, they wouldn’t be willing to ditch it just because trump said so.
Idk why you want Europe to align with China so much, but they won’t suddenly flip over to China’s side. It doesn’t make geopolitical sense.
bjran8888@reddit
If it's only what you say that matters and what others say doesn't, then you always win - only in your own world.
As for Trump, you've probably been following the US election a bit less, he's already surpassed Harris in all 7 swing states in the combined polls
China and Europe in an alliance? No, no, no. I have no desire for China and Europe to ally, China has no interest in allying with other countries and Europe will not ally with China. I simply want Europe to make decisions in its own interest and be friendly with China. Just maintain normal "colleague" relations.
Thinking in terms of alliances is Western thinking, and it is not the Chinese way.
nice999@reddit
I have been following the election and if you had too you’d see it’s neck and neck in the swing states with Trump being ahead being within the margin of error, and Harris is still leading most national polls. And like I said before, Hillary was leading in 2016.
Like I said before whether it’s an alliance you want or just friendlier ties it doesn’t make sense for Europe. You are working under the assumption trump will actually follow through with his word for once and that Europe will choose China over a historical ally, a culturally similar ally and one that is not aligned with threats to Europe, and doesn’t undercut European business.
So no, it is not within Europes best interests to essentially puppet itself to China.
bjran8888@reddit
Putting Europe under a Chinese puppet? What the hell are you talking about ...... I'm a little surprised that Europeans are so unsure of themselves.
A policy of control is a very bad policy:control the weak and the weak can't accomplish what you want. Control the strong, the strong won't stay as your subordinate for long.
If you think that China and Europe can only be about who controls who, then I think you are being a bit narrow-minded.
If you take a historical analogy, I would like the relationship between China and Europe to be that of the Han Dynasty and Rome, where the two countries knew of each other's existence and admired each other, and traded through the Silk Road and exchanged goods.
nice999@reddit
In a globalised world the relationship between the Han and Rome is impossible. Europe and China are in direct economic competition. Europe siding with China means they are forced to probably stop their anti China policies made to protect their industries.
That will subordinate Europe to China. Europe is distancing itself from the us as to not be subordinate to a major power, not leap into china’s arms.
bjran8888@reddit
"You are either my friend or my enemy." It's really too bad that Westerners have this binary thinking.
Hopefully you can be a little more patterned. As long as China and Europe have common interests (like dealing with Trump), there is a basis for cooperation, and that's geopolitics.
nice999@reddit
China is an economic competitor, geopolitical competitor and has no historical or cultural ties to Europe. China is a competitor, that is a fact, they are not a potential friend, nor someone to potentially cooperate with, as they are such a key competitor.
Trump is not enough of a threat for Europe to consider ditching the US for China, it just doesn’t make sense.
bjran8888@reddit
Common interests are much more important than even cultural ties. Europe has similar cultures, but they didn't go to war in the Middle Ages.
How long did the war between Britain and America last?
Our attitude is not at all that we need Europe to support China, but to be friendly with China.
At the same time, I wouldn't take your attitude as a European one, I've met quite a few Europeans who want to work with China, including leftists, rightists and liberals.
nice999@reddit
Europe and China do not have common interests. They are competitors. The fact you cannot see that is not my problem.
bjran8888@reddit
My friend,I think we can talk about the common good.
The EU now has to deal with the US, Russia, and China all at the same time, and the trade war with China was even started by the EU itself.
Have you changed your mind now?
nice999@reddit
No, because China is still more of a threat to European markets, it uses cheap labour to undermine European and us manufacturers.
We still don’t know what prolific liar Donald Trump will do with his presidency, but I can tell you going based solely off something he claimed is never a good sign with him.
bjran8888@reddit
It doesn't matter, you're now going to have to deal with the US, Russia, and China all at the same time, and the trade war with China was initiated by the EU itself.
Good luck to you guys.
nice999@reddit
You seem to ignore everything I say, in favour of ignorance of the fact Europe and China can not work together or have good trade relations if China keeps using underpaid labour to undercut our businesses.
bjran8888@reddit
Laugh, did you forget that trade is mutual? Europe also sells a lot of goods in China, we can retaliate reciprocally, and you supply goods we can produce ourselves.
“Politics is about making more friends and fewer enemies”, and since you're willing to make enemies everywhere, you're asking for it as a result. Good luck to Europe.
nice999@reddit
China makes enemies by undermining trade. China would respond the exact same in Europes position.
bjran8888@reddit
Tell me how China is destroying European trade. By developing its own industry?
You can make jealousy and backwardness sound so official it makes people laugh, we China stopped you from developing electric cars?
Not to mention that the UK has almost no automotive industry either. Germany, which has an automotive industry, is against it, while countries like yours, which have no automotive industry at all, are constantly opposing it. You guys are targeting more Germany actually.
At the end of the day, the UK is out of the EU too, you don't even have the right to discuss this ......
nice999@reddit
Yes it’s totally jealousy. Not Chinas obvious use of cheap labour, which undercuts European businesses. The only reason Germany doesn’t support it is because they sell their cars to China, and I never mentioned electric cars.
I am still far more aware of Europe than you. And it does not align with our geopolitical interests, our trade or politics to have anything to do with China.
Europe is taking its current measures against China for a reason.
bjran8888@reddit
“China obviously uses cheap labor” is a ridiculous statement... doesn't Vietnam have cheap labor? Does Vietnam not have cheap labor? Does Southeast Asia not have cheap labor? Doesn't India? Third world countries all over the world “use cheap labor” in your eyes.
China is a middle-income country in the developing world, and the price of its labor is much higher than that of countries like Bangladesh. China's GDP per capita is $12,000, so how is it “cheap”?
It doesn't matter, one of my predictions has worked. When European politicians come to China with red faces. I will call you again.
nice999@reddit
Yes and all those countries are not as large as China . They are issues, but they are tiny, aside from India, compared to China. Trade wise and geopolitically China positions itself against the west, something India doesn’t do as hard or much.
Yet here you confidently and arrogantly state that Europe and China have anything to offer eachother.
Your bias is clear, you seem to think Europe would prefer China in any circumstance to the US, which is not true.
bjran8888@reddit
“What Europe and China have to offer each other.”
...... What are you talking about, of course China and the EU have something to offer each other, it's called “trade”.
How is that arrogant?
Then you can choose to discontinue trade with China, I have no problem with that. I'm curious to see what inflation will be like in Europe at that point. And we don't need hardly any goods from the EU because we have substitutes for almost everything from the EU for ourselves and the third world.
If you can't even accept two parties conducting trade, then our conversation is over. It's pointless.
Maardten@reddit
The EU tends to answer US tarrifs with tarrifs of their own that target specific industries in red states, it has worked in the past.
bjran8888@reddit
In the past, the European economy grew at a rate of about 3 per cent. As far as I know, the European economy is now growing at about 0 per cent.
Are you sure this won't be the last straw that breaks the camel's back?
Maardten@reddit
Its around 1% this year actually, projected to grow a bit faster in 2025. I am not aware of a trade war with China atm.
bjran8888@reddit
If I remember correctly, the EU has indeed finalised a tariff of up to 38% on Chinese electric cars, and that vote has already been completed.
China has started investigating some industries in France and Spain for possible tariff increases.
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
Some would argue it's no bar at all, which means there's nothing to meet and no moral high-ground to occupy from which to dictate to others what to do.
nice999@reddit
It is still a bar. No matter how shit the US is in terms of democracy, it still has it.
Russia is also a proper oligarchy, with oligarchs, within Putins inner circle and throughout the government.
China is also not somehow better than the US just because technically it’s not an oligarchy, it’s still authoritarian, just the companies are forced to toe the party line.
It makes sense people fear American influence more. They’ve been the dominant power and have engaged in plenty of shitty stuff. Doesn’t mean China or Russia are good alternatives.
Finally the US didn’t nuke Iraq, so don’t know the point being made there.
So like I said before, countries that are somehow shittier than the US in terms of democracy are not a choice id pick to create a multipolar world.
Ozymandias_IV@reddit
All BRICS has done so far was photos of handshakes. This is just more of that. Why should we be intimidated?
bjran8888@reddit
That should be asked of the West itself.
There is an old Chinese saying: If you don't do anything wrong, you don't have to be afraid of ghosts shouting at your door.
The meaning of this saying is that if you don't usually do bad things, you won't be alarmed when you hear a knock at the door in the middle of the night.
So why is the US/West so alarmed?
Ozymandias_IV@reddit
Lol, who exactly is alarmed? In case you don't get my emotion, I'm not scared. Rather "point and laugh" is closer.
bjran8888@reddit
Indeed, with all due respect, Slovakia has little business sitting at the poker table either.
Ozymandias_IV@reddit
We're part of EU, which is an org that unlike BRICS actually means something.
bjran8888@reddit
Indeed, Orban, Meloni, Le Pen, Alice Weidel, agree with you.
Oh, and Robert Fico.
Ozymandias_IV@reddit
Congratulations on googling names. Why do you think it's a good argument? Oh wait, I don't care.
bjran8888@reddit
Okay. I don't really care too.
SlimCritFin@reddit
India and China have resolved their border crisis just before BRICS summit.
euyyn@reddit
That's... a good thing. Why would anyone be intimidated by that?
SlimCritFin@reddit
I didn't say that anyone should feel intimidated by that
euyyn@reddit
Ok, it's a weird response to someone who asked "Why should we be intimidated?", but I can see that you just wanted to point out that it was a productive meeting at least for India and China.
Ozymandias_IV@reddit
They went from hostile to suspicious rivality. West is finished.
(still waiting for the next outbreak when one side inevitably breaks this agreement)
SlimCritFin@reddit
More like they went from active border skirmishes to normalising their ties.
Ozymandias_IV@reddit
Yeah, what I said.
SlimCritFin@reddit
The biggest obstacle to proper functioning of the BRICS has been removed.
its_Caffeine@reddit
Man, I am just so stoked for photo op #759
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
Meanwhile all the Pooty bum-chums are positively tumescent with delight.
Ha ha ha ha.
Or, you know, Pooty-poos could just not attempt to conquer Russia's neighbours...
flatulentbaboon@reddit
You're right, he could just not, but I guess he thought there would be no consequences to invading and destroying a country after watching the US and UK in Iraq.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
The invasion of Ukraine is the Russian Federation 's 9th war in so many years and one of conquest. Say what you will about the US but they're not invading countries and annexing them.
flatulentbaboon@reddit
Yes, it's okay to invade countries and flatten them so long as you don't "annex" them.
giboauja@reddit
You don't have to jump in with whataboutisms. You just sound like your running pr for Russia. By and large most people on a sub like this agree America was bad for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
People are talking about Ukraine right now though and your just looking for a fight.
SlimCritFin@reddit
Pointing out hypocrisy and double standards is not whataboutism.
giboauja@reddit
People are talking about Ukraine, it's a whataboutism to bring up another atrocity for no reason other than to, presumably, deflect from talking about Ukraine.
We know the other stuff is bad, so why change subjects and attack someone for not speaking to an unrelated topic.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
In a submission about BRISCS, which is totally on topic and not whataboutism because; ???
If we applied the same logic equally then any submission about G7 summits should have plenty of discussions about bombing Lybia, right?
euyyn@reddit
Because... it's one of the points of the BRICS declaration this very submission is about?
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
One of the very many points, just like Libya is a point for G7 to this day.
Heck it even has the same boilerplate „Let’s respect international law!“ by a bunch of countries who are occupying Iraq/Syria to this day, a bunch of other countries helping with it, and all of them helping and enabling Israel with its UN recognized illegal occupation of Palestine.
Yet there they are, boldly proclaiming;
euyyn@reddit
Of course it's one of many points of the declaration. And it's the point someone was taking about in the specific thread you decided to reply to. That's not whataboutism, it's talking about the content of the post.
And none of the commenters here are members of G7 governments.
SlimCritFin@reddit
It is not whataboutism to point out western hypocrisy and double standards regarding Russia's war in Ukraine and Israel's war in Gaza.
giboauja@reddit
No one was saying Israel's war in Gaza is ok? No one was defending that point. People were saying Ukraines was awful.
Should everyone put a disclaimer on every conversation listing the 100 most recent global atrocities they find abhorrent?
This is a super left leaning sub, people here aren't typically celebrating the genocide in Gaza.
panjeri@reddit
Oh no, that's exactly whataboutism is. That's why they had to invent that word. They want to be able to dismiss their criticism by invoking a buzzword.
giboauja@reddit
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about ...?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.
aikhuda@reddit
Yes, but the people on this sub don’t go around calling Bush as literal Hitler for attacking Iraq. No accusations of genocides or war crimes. That stuff is reserved for Putin.
bjran8888@reddit
What about Netanyahu?
aikhuda@reddit
Why are you asking me?
variety_weasel@reddit
You have a very short memory. Or else a very selective one. Some of the UK's largest protests were against the war in Iraq.
Cheney, bush, Rumsfeld, Powell and the rest are definitely considered to be war criminals by many.
Your whataboutism fails to distract from the fact Russia is criminally committing a war of conquest against its neighbour.
aikhuda@reddit
Yes and past events have proven that it’s a perfectly acceptable thing to do
variety_weasel@reddit
You commented originally saying people don't call out the Bush administration for what they did in Iraq. This is bullshit: many many people absolutely do.
Now you're moving the goalposts to say because the US did it, therefore it's ok to excuse Russia's actions in Ukraine.
So, you are fine with both? Were you fine with Russia's war in Afghanistan also? The Georgian wars? Russian war crimes in Syria?
aikhuda@reddit
Yes.
variety_weasel@reddit
That'd be the well-documented ones that are easily available to fnd online. Or is their propping up of Assad A-OK by you? Will you act as an apologist for those as well as your defence of the war crimes being commtied by Russia today in Ukraine?
And yet again, you can spout all the whataboutism you want, but surely you can see your own hypocrisy?
Clearly the intentional dishonesty is all yours.
aikhuda@reddit
Look who is talking, about war crimes, Mr I support any western attacks.
variety_weasel@reddit
Your responses are laughable at this stage.
aikhuda@reddit
Where is your arrest warrant for Bush?
variety_weasel@reddit
Here's a criminal complaint issued to the ECCHR against G W Bush in 2011 for the crimes his administration commited in the ME.
You have tried and failed to paint a picture of the West as hypocrites, yet the hypocrisy is all yours. Or, do you condemn the actions of Russia as vehemently as you condemn the actions of the USA?
SlimCritFin@reddit
Where is the ICC arrest warrants for George W Bush and Tony Blair for their war crimes in Iraq?
pimmen89@reddit
No, the GOP lost power partly because of the war. However, in Russia there are no consequences for that, Putin and his party can’t lose power through fair elections.
SlimCritFin@reddit
George W Bush was re-elected after he had invaded two countries.
pimmen89@reddit
And then the GOP lost when it was found out that the entire justification for the war was false, and Iraq descended into civil war. Ending the war, and blaming the GOP for it, was a major part of the successful Democrat campaign in 2008.
aikhuda@reddit
The GOP won the election after the war. Just … why lie about obvious things?
pimmen89@reddit
They won re-election immediately after the war, but then lost when it was found out that they had liead about the WMDs, and Iraq descended into civil war. The unpopularity of the war, and an expedited withdrawal of US troops, was a major policy issue that Obama ran on in 2008.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
And yet the British government was at the forefront of spreading atrocity propaganda about Iraq and still invaded and occupied Iraq.
Meaning these protests, some consider the largest global protest event in history, did manage to change what exactly?
Except those „many“ do not include the ICC, why is that?
And you are failing to distract from the fact that U.S. troops are still illegally occupying Iraq, by now they even moved into neighboring Syria, which from the other side is being conquered by NATO ally Turkey.
giboauja@reddit
Putin has gained his reputation for a litany of actions throughout his life. The fact that he's a Russian leader is unrelated to the very valid accusations lobbed his way.
For example Trump is often called a nazi or Hitler in American discourse. This is because of his actions and words. For example he regularly put forth his desire to nuke or destroy the enemies of America. Or remove Americans protection from State overreach.
Fortunately America isn't quite that crazy or evil and our guardrails largely protected the world (and america) from the worst outcome of an American dictatorship.
In Russia any guardrails to prevent dictator-like behavior have long since eroded. Hence the regular news of Putins enemy's falling out of windows and political rivals dying in prison.
CombatAmphibian69@reddit
u/flatulentbaloon is running PR for Russia, just look at his comments in this thread. Nothing said in good faith, either.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
Yep. Fuck around and find out. I'm not shedding any tears for Saddam and I doubt Iraq is either.
flatulentbaboon@reddit
Well yeah. All their tears were used up on their dead parents, siblings, sons, daughters, and relatives. 'Murica
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
They shed more tears over being tortured, being ethnically cleansed, and having chemical weapons used on them by their own government.
Anyway, Russia should get the fuck out of Ukraine. Hopefully Putin gets the Saddam treatment real soon.
flatulentbaboon@reddit
~~Georgians~~ Iraqis definitely aren't happy about being conquered by ~~Russia~~ America. No matter what ~~Russian~~ American propaganda tells you.
Agreed
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
America didn't conquer Iraq, knucklehead.
flatulentbaboon@reddit
You're right. America also did not illegally invade Iraq.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
The difference between what America did in Iraq and Russia is that America paid to rebuild Iraq and we didn't stay.
We don't own a piece of Iraq, we don't rule Iraq, we don't take resources from Iraq.
sheytanelkebir@reddit
You didn't pay to rebuild iraq. Stop lying. I can take you on a tour from zakho to faw.
We can see endless things that America destoyed.
And essentially nothing that they built.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
We've spent billions trying to rebuild Iraq. Your government squandered and wasted it.
sheytanelkebir@reddit
No you didn't. Iraq spent almost 2 trillion of its own money over the past 2 decades on its own country. Once again. Stop repeating lies. Repeating it often enough and quoting nonsense doesn't make it true.
Go to Iraq.
Start in the north or south. Travel the whole length, see what was built by America and what was destroyed by America.
I repeat. Iraq is not Afghanistan. The only common theme is you invaded both countries around the same time.
Iraq paid for its own reconstruction. The money USA spent in Iraq and at Iraq, is not spent on Iraq.
Signed. An engineer who worked on projects from the north to the south from 2003 onwards.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
I'd love to see some sources.
sheytanelkebir@reddit
OK. You made the assertion USA rebuilt Iraq.
Go find me sources that they did. Prove a positive.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
I can prove that the money was spent. And then you'll just say, "Nuh uh!"
But here's the archive from the Department of State site.
Looking forward to your reply of, "No you didn't! You liar," with nothing to back it up.
sheytanelkebir@reddit
You spent money in Iraq. Yes You spent money at Iraq. Yes. You spent money on Iraq? No.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
There it is.
sheytanelkebir@reddit
What did you build?
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
I'd love to. Feel free to send me some sources like I invited you to several replies ago.
sheytanelkebir@reddit
I suggest first rereading what I wrote. Then spending maybe 30 minutes with Google.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
You wouldn't rather I read something from the perspective you're trying to present? You think every Google return is going to just back up your sentiment? There's nothing specific you want me to know? No particular instances? Why are you so resistant to proving your side of the argument?
sheytanelkebir@reddit
Go to Iraqi business news. Com and go through the. Hundreds of pages of projects and developments... None of which were paid for by the Americans.
Start there.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
I went to that site you recommended and searched for "American reconstruction of Iraq" and got this article back.
Here's an excerpt:
sheytanelkebir@reddit
So what does America have to do with that? It's Iraqi money that theyre talking about. Please understand America did nothing for rebuilding Iraq let alone "rebuilt it". Hope it's getting clearer. The money your government spent was given to American contractors who just kept it.
By the way I worked in iraq throughout that period in engineering and construction and spent lots of time with bechtel, Parsons, kbr ...
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
You're just repeating yourself over and over while I throw numerous sources at you. You're just plugging your ears and closing your eyes and chanting, "La la la I can't hear you."
That's fine. I've proved my point here. Sorry your countrymen killed the reconstruction workers and stole the money. Good luck.
sheytanelkebir@reddit
You started by saying America rebuilt Iraq. Thankfully you've now acknowledged that America didn't rebuild iraq.
Iraq has its own internal budget and paid its own way. Good that you finally acknowledged ledged that.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
lol absolutely not.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
Is this enough information on the reconstruction of Iraq by America?
It cites sources.
This excerpt is particularly interesting:
There was also misappropriation and other mishaps.
M0therN4ture@reddit
That's right. Resolution 1441 was unanimously passed. Any idea what was in it?
Sure you don't, because that is something they don't learn on TikTok.
SlimCritFin@reddit
America conquered Iraq and set up a puppet regime in that country.
M0therN4ture@reddit
What puppet regime? I didn't know the current government of Iraq is aligned to the US.. not to mention a "puppet regime"
You are full of shit so bad. It's dripping out of your mouth.
SlimCritFin@reddit
The current Iraqi government is allowing the US to continue hosting their troops.
M0therN4ture@reddit
And what about it? What is the point you are trying to make?
SlimCritFin@reddit
Iraqis government is US puppet regime
M0therN4ture@reddit
Iraqi's government is chosen by its people trough democratic processes. Are you saying the democratic process and the elections that resulted in Iraqs government is equal to "US puppet regime"?
So every democratic elected government is a US puppet regime according to you right?
SlimCritFin@reddit
Iraqi parliament voted to expel all US troops from Iraqis soil but the US puppet leader overruled Iraqi parliament and announced his support for indefinite presence of US troops in Iraq.
M0therN4ture@reddit
Ah so Iraq internally didnt agree or found a solution and so you toss around "US puppet regime".
Let me guess. Once the US leaves Iraq, then suddenly it isn't a "puppet regime" anymore.
Am i right?
SlimCritFin@reddit
America literally invaded Iraq to set up a puppet regime so of course the actions of the US puppet Iraqi government would reflect that.
M0therN4ture@reddit
So let me get this straight. The fact that Iraq created a a federal parliamentary representative democratic republic is in your eyes an "US puppet government".
I guess the people of Iraq wbo voted for an Iraqi government would be appalled by what you said.
Also, it makes no sense what your are saying.
SlimCritFin@reddit
Why are American troops allowed to stay in Iraq despite the fact that Iraqis parliament overwhelmingly voted to remove them and majority of Iraqis don't want them to be present in Iraq?
M0therN4ture@reddit
You mean the non-binding resolutions (note non-binding) to remove all foreign troops from Iraq including Iran's military bases?
That one?
Well Firstly, it's non-binding. Secondly, you could ask the same question to Iran.
Makyr_Drone@reddit
I'm pretty sure they complain about it now and then and demand that they leave.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
The US turned over sovereignty to the Iraqis in 2004. They've held elections and elected a government that is anti-US. So you have no idea what you're talking about.
WhoAmIEven2@reddit
Why can't people who defend Russia ever do so without mentioning either the US or Israel?
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Because nothing happens in a vacuum, precedent matters.
There’s also the difference that neither Russia, China, Iran or India go around the international stage proclaiming to be the biggest defenders of „Freedom, Democracy and everything good“.
Only to then regime change democratic countries when the people there didn’t pick the pro-West option.
To any somewhat neutral and objective observer that only comes across as incredibly hypocritical, particularly with the Wests habit of trying to lecture the rest of the world from that moral highground atop of millions of dead poor people from all over the globe.
WhoAmIEven2@reddit
"Only to then regime change democratic countries when the people there didn’t pick the pro-West option."
What leader? Janukovitj? He would've fallen either way as the people were pissed at him. The US were there at best as observers and support. Of course they'd like more pro-western governments, but it wasn't they who made Ukraine go pro-west. The people did, a movement that started all the way back in 2003 or whenever the Orange revolution was and they made their voice heard that they wanted to go closer to the west.
anders_hansson@reddit
United States involvement in regime change in Latin America
The US has repeatedly promoted pro-US right-wing autocratic leaders in their neighbouring countries in order to prevent democracy and independence.
Same thing in Iran in 1953 for instance: 1953 Iranian coup d'état, where the democratically elected government was owerthrown by US & UK.
Regarding Yanukovych, perhaps we will know what really went down a few decades from now. Anything we say here is just speculation, but he was democratically elected, and in a democracy he could (at least in theory) be voted out of office in the next election. People were pissed, but not all of them, and it's very hard to argue that a revolution is democratic.
euyyn@reddit
Hahaha I mean, Russia and China already go around proclaiming their countries are free democracies. Proclaiming they're the biggest defenders of freedom and democracy is the next logical step in the charade.
SlimCritFin@reddit
The West is very selective in upholding their "rules based international order"
WhoAmIEven2@reddit
Maybe the us does that, I don't know as I'm not American, but still, two wrong does not make one right. Russia could show the world that it was the better man, uhm country, and not invade and annex and just become a copy of who they do not like.
mwa12345@reddit
This is w slightly fairer argument than most.
You also forget NATO encroachment which 2as against what was agreed upon when the USSR dissolved
euyyn@reddit
Encroachment lmao. Countries near Russia that become part of NATO do so because they ask to join, to be protected against Russia. Countries near Russia that become part of Russia do so because they are invaded.
But someone like you would never say that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is Russia encroaching on NATO, which has a long border with Ukraine.
mwa12345@reddit
Russia has encroached into Ukraine Ideally we would have neutral states ...like Austria was during the cold war
So now. You live in an 3cho chamber of self righteous idiocy
euyyn@reddit
Ideally each country is allowed to sign alliances with whoever they want for their own protection. Including declaring their general neutrality in wars if they so wish (not if the murderer next door forces them), like the Swiss do.
Ideally, no one would have the urge to join NATO because of the Russian habit to invade the countries near them. But here we are, in a world in which millions of people have that urge.
If you say that Russia encroached on NATO by invading Ukraine, would that be a valid argument for NATO to invade Ukraine and force them into the alliance? The same way it was in your mind a legit argument for Russia to invade Ukraine. Are those the kind of reasonings I'm missing out outside of my echo chamber of self-righteous idiocy?
mwa12345@reddit
You are assuming . I didn't say it was legit for Russia to invade. NATO (or at least US ) did put in a new government in Ukraine after the coup.
There is a tape of Victoria Nuland talking to the US ambassador picking the Ukrainian govt. Just because we didn't invade, doesn't mean we didn't do regime change in Ukraine.
euyyn@reddit
Oh, my bad, given that you said people were forgetting that supposed encroachment, as a response to someone saying that Russia should not have invaded. What did you bring it up as an excuse for, then?
mwa12345@reddit
Idiocy to assume things. Explanation and excuse are two different things.
Helpful to understand ones one complicity I'm events.
But then...you are a simpleton.
WhoAmIEven2@reddit
I keep hearing different stories about this, but the most common I hear is that it was something that the US foreign minister at the time simply said quickly while passing by. Nothing was written down and confirmed.
But even then, nato has always been open invitation. Nobody put a gun to the baltic nations' leaders' heads and said "join, or else". They wanted to join the moment the USSR lost their grip on them.
Now, Nato members must say yes, which we in Sweden excruciatingly experienced, but what is the morally right decision when countries literally beg to be able to join because they are afraid that Russia might go for them again in the future? Russia has for centuries, whether it's under their own flag or soviet, invaded and annexed countries close to them. At some point countries like Latvia, Estonia and countries that weren't directly under Russia but definitely under their influence like Poland, said "never again".
Maybe Russia would respect their neutrality, but maybe not. Maybe they would for a while, but maybe they would invade again 50 years into the future.
I'm not sure which country you are from, but if you talk to some baltic people who experienced the soviet, you'll see that Russian occupation was a huge trauma to them. It's not weird that they look for protection in the west to make sure that it never happens again.
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
There's some of it written down in the 2+4 Treaty which was the legal basis of German "unification".
To this day that treaty prohibits stationing NATO forces in the former GDR territories.
Then there are also plenty of manuscripts and other documents from several national archives, like the British and German ones, about the negotiations back then:
Tho the whole point is kinda moot anyway, even if it was written down in a treaty, it's not like the US has a particularly good track record with abiding by those, even when it's about topics of massive global strategic relevance.
mwa12345@reddit
I agree that Baltic countries, Poland etc have long memories of Russian/Soviet occupation.
It was US secretary if state and iirc, internal documents do show that the Russians were told no nato movement in return for allowing things like integration of east Germany etc etc
There are also memories of occupation by Poland starting wars with Ukraine etc etc...but not as vivid.
Still think some kind of neutrality , similar to how I understand Austria was during the cold war.
Some of these regional rivalries go long.
Open door doesn't mean every country has to be accepted. We wouldn't accept Russia if it applied.
Wolfensniper@reddit
Anyone who talks about NATO Enroachment should just look at the Baltics, Finnland, and Poland, they're literally beside Russia and are NATO members or recently being a member, so why dont Russia invade them?
mwa12345@reddit
That is a great way to create an echo chamber. Only listening to our own talking points
Wolfensniper@reddit
So you can't answer it but only stick to your own talking points
mwa12345@reddit
Because I am not here to read Putin's mind or hypothetical. I do know what happened . Encroachment led to invasion.
Why didn't US invade Saudi Arabia?
Or Madagascar?
See how dumb that sounds?
DesperateReputation6@reddit
Hey man I'm really curious.
Why would Russia, a peace-loving country, be upset about countries joining NATO, a defensive pact?
Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo@reddit
Why would Russia be upset about their neighbours joining an explicitly anti-Russia defensive pact that has only ever engaged in foreign interventions and offensive invasions?
YeeYeeAssha1rcut@reddit
Not to mention that this "defensive pact" werent so defensive in libya or yugoslavia hmmm
M0therN4ture@reddit
The international rules based order is held up by the UN also known as every single country on earth.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Ask the people of Puerto Rico who are to this day second rate U.S. citizens, legally considered „savage tribes“ and „alien races“ with fewer rights, because Puerto Rico hasn’t been been properly annexed like Hawaii.
Or let’s imagine the U.S. annexing Iraq, and then trying to ban all private firearm possession, enforcing that ban with violent night raids on civilians and arbitrary detentions in „enhanced interrogation“ dungeons.
If Iraq had been annexed then none of that, and many other things, wouldn’t have been possible as „Suddenly U.S. citizen Iraqis“ would have enjoyed the same rights like the average American citizen.
bjran8888@reddit
Please explain why the US has military bases in Syria.
Jonestown_Juice@reddit
Having a base in a country doesn't mean the US has annexed territory. In the case of Syria we built a base there to support democratic factions in the Syrian civil war and to train their fighters to oppose the IS. Other objectives are to oppose Iran and Russia in the area.
Yes? Is this a general trivia question?
bjran8888@reddit
Oh, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a violation of another country's sovereignty and unacceptable.
The US occupation of Syria and the Cuban Guantanamo lands (especially the latter, for more than a few decades) are mere trivia.
OK.
lostinspacs@reddit
Russia has been destroying other nations for centuries lmao
L_Ardman@reddit
Russia: Don’t pay attention to our even larger genocide, look at the Middle East!
SlimCritFin@reddit
Israel's war in Gaza has resulted in higher civilian death toll compared to Russia's war in Ukraine in a shorter time period.
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
Based on whose figures? The death toll in Mariupol, a region with 1/10th the population of Gaza was at least 10,000 that the Ukrainian government had confirmed. Russia has not, to my knowledge, issued any figures itself.
bjran8888@reddit
UN
Since 24 February 2022 (the date of the full-scale Russian invasion), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has recorded 11,662 civilians killed and 24,207 injured.
https://news.un.org/zh/story/2024/08/1130996
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
Have you got that in something other than Chinese?
Not that it seems a particularly trustworthy figure considering that Russia has been unwilling to provide figures for civilian dean in the places it controls.
bjran8888@reddit
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1153706
This is the figure provided by the United Nations, if you do not believe this figure, please provide a more authoritative figure.
AccordingBread4389@reddit
Only if we take official numbers and ignore that we can't check what is happening in Russian occupied territory. Let alone Mariopol has probably more civillians deaths than the whole Israel/Gaza conflict. Lastly soldiers dont grow on some soldier tree and many Ukrainian soldiers are not there by choice. The overall deathcount is far higher.
SlimCritFin@reddit
UN and other international agencies disagree with this claim
AccordingBread4389@reddit
They dont disagree at all. They say explicity say that:
"Our data are only the tip of the iceberg. The toll on civilians is unbearable," U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said in a statement.Matilda Bogner, head of United Nations Human Rights Mission in Ukraine, said it believes thousands of civilian deaths remained to be counted, many of them in the southern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, now under Russian control.The U.N. tally includes 2,000 civilian deaths in Mariupol, which was home to around 450,000 people before Russia laid siege to it for three months and blasted it to the ground."We have uncorroborated information indicating that the numbers are thousands higher than we have documented and a huge number of those are from Mariupol," Bogner told reporters.
**
The deathtoll for Mariopol alone is believed into the 10s of thousends. And god know how many Bucha there have been not discovered.
As a matter of fact UN and other agencies largely cannot enter occupied territories and investigate.
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
Russia is not only involved in Ukraine but also has its fingers in pies all over Eastern Europe and Africa.
SlimCritFin@reddit
Just like how the US has its fingers in pies all over Middle East and East Asia.
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
What civilian centers is the us army trying to encircle ?
SlimCritFin@reddit
US ally Israel is about to implement 'surrender or starve' policy in northern Gaza Strip
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
That’s another sovereign countries decision. But sure change the topic of your weak argument
SlimCritFin@reddit
Russia's actions in Ukraine are also another sovereign country's decision.
OkTransportation473@reddit
Russia=Russia. Israel≠USA. If you want to play this game I guess that means Russia=South Sudan(which has killed 400,000 people)
YeeYeeAssha1rcut@reddit
What? no more than 40 000 people have died in Sudan since the start of the conflict last year.
OkTransportation473@reddit
https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/countries/south-sudan
YeeYeeAssha1rcut@reddit
My bad, thought you meant during the current conflict. Kind of unfair to compare them tho since one of them lasted 5 years, the other just reached its one year anniversary
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
You’d be right if we didn’t all agree that invading countries for conquest is bad
SlimCritFin@reddit
US is fine when Israel invades other countries for land conquest.
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
I’m not sure I want to keep going with you as you might just change the subject again but hell.
Israel is not invading another country for conquest. It was attacked and is responding. The world decided that was okay when America got attacked so we started the war on terror, apparently they just don’t like Jews doing the same thing lol
SlimCritFin@reddit
Israel quite literally are planning to conquer Gaza and re-establish Israeli settlements.
Russia claims the same thing
Western countries don't equal the whole world. Countries in the Global South disagreed when America terrorized the Middle East.
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
Israel setting up security zones and watch towers is not conquering and rebuilding settlements.
When was Russia attacked? What made Russian tanks storm the border? I mean seriously dude? Russia is just mad it’s no longer strong enough to re conquer its satellite states and have its buffer zone to account for their poor geography again. Are the lives of so many Ukrainians really worth less the the feeling of security in Russia?
I’ll concede to the last point as bad, because you’re right. I shouldn’t regard the wide consensus post 9/11 as global truth.
SlimCritFin@reddit
Most countries disagreed when the US illegally invaded Iraq on false claims.
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
I wasn’t talking about Iraq though I was talking about the war on terror in general where nearly every one of our allies helped us either fight or get the fight done
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
Yeah that’s was one of our bad ones ran by a questionable administration.
OkTransportation473@reddit
Israel was doing this before the US ever started giving them money in the Nixon years.
Lucius_Furius@reddit
Ukraine is large and rural, Gaza is small and urban. The Ukrainian army is a uniformed force, not a terrorist group in civilian clothes. It’s not rocket science…
JoBoltaHaiWoHotaHai@reddit
I am glad Israel is incessantly bombing on those 10 years olds. They think they can get away with wearing civilian clothes. Not on Israel's watch.
mwa12345@reddit
Just the infrastructure damage tells a different story. Also the statements by Israeli officials.
If it walks like a duck....
You have to lie and call itkhanas.
Y_Sam@reddit
And both Russia and Israel are racist colonialists with delusion of grandeur about their actual frontiers.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
US estimates put the number of people killed in the Middle East, as part of the „War on Terror“, at over 4.5 Million.
I have no idea what Russian estimates for Ukraine are, but even the estimates out of the West need to count people killed and injured to get anywhere close to 1 million casualties in Ukraine.
Last time I checked 4.5 million is a much larger number than not even 1 million, very basic math.
It’s such a large number that it comes across as quite cynical how that unprecedented amount of destruction, suffering and death gets casually trivialized, often with a fat dose of racism thrown in.
And yes it’s still relevant as US, and other NATO allies (Turkey) are still waging war on countries in the region, illegally occupying parts of Syria and Iraq, to this day.
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
The war on terror and Russias invasions are totally incomparable lol. One is an invasion of one country by another that’s been going on a couple years. The war on terror was a multi national 20 year affair
SlimCritFin@reddit
America's invasion of Iraq and Russia's invasion of Ukraine both violated international law and UN Charter
M0therN4ture@reddit
Could you point out the UN resolutions that Russia took for the issue with Ukraine?
Which UN Charter are you talking about? How could a unanimous passed resolution (UN resolution 1441) be illegal?
SlimCritFin@reddit
Nowhere does that resolution authorised the use of force against Iraq. US government tried unsuccessfully to persuade the UNSC to pass a resolution to authorise the use of force against Iraq.
UN Secretary General clarified that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law and violated UN Charter.
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
And so that makes them the same thing?
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
In terms of international law; Yes
M0therN4ture@reddit
This is just an opinion from someone. In terms of international law, and in terms of UN resolutions. It was fully justified.
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
Again, I have not contested the validity of the Iraq invasion, in fact I agreed. So how does the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Ukraine, being internationally condemned play into the comparison between the war on terror and the invasion of Ukraine. Or even make them worth comparing at all?
SlimCritFin@reddit
Iraq war had a much higher civilian death toll compared to Ukraine war.
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
Again Iraq war was wrong but letting Russia off the hook just because American bad is dumb lol.
SlimCritFin@reddit
Do you agree that Israel should be punished for their actions in Gaza if Russia should be punished for their actions in Ukraine?
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
So there’s a lot to consider there I think.
First I’ll say, I’m not sure if “punshing” Russia is correct. They’ve already been shown to be much more inept and corrupt than anyone thought. They, like Ukraine, are also throwing their already poor demographics against the wall with this war so they’re already gonna come out the other side in a much worse place or a slightly worse place than they are now. Punishing them would just push them even more towards isolation and desperation. We could probably say the same for Israel. That being said I think both nations still have a price to pay for their actions which should mostly revolve around security guarantees and a commitment to rebuilding what they’ve destroyed.
In my ideal world, after reforms, Russia becomes closer with nato, not farther.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
During which multiple countries are being bombed, invaded and occupied to this day.
Which indeed makes these situations quite incomparable; One example versus very many
Trash_Gordon_@reddit
Go off king
OkTransportation473@reddit
This includes all deaths, not only those attributed to the USA. Most of the conflicts the USA put itself into in the Middle East were already happening. At least try to not be retarded when doing America bad posting.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Don’t lie, the article, and the study it’s based on, specifically call these deaths out as a consequence of the American, and Western backed, „War on Terror“.
Your narrative of „It’s just a violent place that’s always at war cuz of them uncivilized Muslims“ is exactly the kind of historical revisionism US schools have by now taught a whole generation of American children backed on a globalscale by Hollywood movies and video games acting as de facto propaganda
In the early 2000s there was only one brooding conflict happening in the Middle East, the same one that’s been going on for decades and still going on to this day; The Arab - Israeli conflict.
Iraq was not at war, Syria was not at war, Yemen was not at war, Afghanistan was not at war, Pakistan was not at war, and so on.
That changed when the U.S. started bombing/invading/occupying these countries, which it has been steadily doing for the past ~20 years.
How about you try not to make up completely alternate fake history because real history of the last 20 years hasn’t been exactly flattering for the U.S.?
It’s extra cynical considering it’s exactly that kind of bald faced lying also employed to justify bombing and invading the MENA region.
Are you next gonna claim Iran was responsible for 9/11?
studio_bob@reddit
Genocide?
Fresh-Wealth-8397@reddit
You ever wonder why Kazakhstan is so fucking empty and has such a small population? Multiple genocides I think 3. Goal was to kill the kazaks and replace them with russians. Mostly russians of German heritage which they didn't want any where near Germany
arcehole@reddit
Kazahstan is so empty bacuse it is a steppe that was inhabited by nomadic people before urbanisation.
mwa12345@reddit
Exactly. Next ..they will claim Siberia us empty for sane reason.
"Alaska is empty... because of Russia."
What morons
Fresh-Wealth-8397@reddit
Oh yeah you know I thought it was the two different genocides the Soviets did on them that wiped out like half the Kazakh people....
arcehole@reddit
I guess someone must have genocided the Icelandic people for Iceland to be so sparsely population. Geography and history have nothing to do with it.
L_Ardman@reddit
It’s a fun little dual-genocide where they conscript a bunch of ethnic minorities east of the Urals and use them to kill a bunch of Ukrainians, which they also want to get rid of. It’s a get-rid-of-minorities program that was started by Stalin and continues to this day. Just ask the the Crimean Tartars how effective it is.
studio_bob@reddit
This seems like an incredible stretch. I guess the US also does genocide when they send predominantly poor proof of color to fight their wars?
Do you also consider the Ukrainians to be guilty of genocide given that they are actively suppressing Russian language and culture as well as killing countless Russians?
Shady_Merchant1@reddit
Good thing Ukraine is doing neither of those things, they made Ukrainian their national language and teach it as standard in class just as most every country does with one language or another
Ukraine wasn't killing any Russians until Russia created a rebellion in the east turns out states kill rebels who would have thunk it, multiple times Ukraine attempted to broker a peace deal every time they rebels directed by Russia broke them
mwa12345@reddit
Really? How many civilians have died in Ukraine you think?
anders_hansson@reddit
Big powerful countries do that, because they can.
Etc.
lostinspacs@reddit
I’m not singling Russia out, I’m saying they don’t need any inspiration and it’s ahistorical to think otherwise.
anders_hansson@reddit
Fair enough. I realize that my answer was kind of out of context. I still think, though, that the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq (just three years after Putin first took office) kind of set a precedent to the world: Illegal invasions of sovereign countries are OK (USA, UK, Australia and Poland never faced any serious consequences).
If that really affected Putin's decisions regarding Ukraine is of course speculation, but I would think that if there had been some supernational authority that punished the invaders of Iraq in a meaningful way, Putin might have acted differently.
No_Motor_6941@reddit
The current era is defined by Russian withdrawal, Western overexpansion, and a failed meeting of the two trends.
lostinspacs@reddit
Is BRICS or the SCO eastern expansion? Is the CTSO?
Countries have freedom of association and have chosen to join the EU and NATO. Russia should treat its neighbors better.
No_Motor_6941@reddit
BRICS expansion has nothing to do with the other two, which predate it. BRICS is expanding because countries that want to do business with the West increasingly find they can't due to a politically hardened global system of theirs.
This crisis is due to the era that birthed and has nothing to do with timeless principles of voluntary diplomacy or treatment of their neighbors, let alone them being reduced to a nation. It's a history of failed collective Western policies towards post communist states with poor transitions. The answer to every problem they produced was more neoliberalism and war, which has naturally hit a breaking point as these things became the source of the problem. The same policies and beliefs that won the cold war now undo the post cold war order, starting with Ukraine becoming a failing state after 2008. The root of that is dependency on breaking up the USSR and expanding into a vacuum to secure a global system, that meant being built on a contradiction. European expansion as part of globalization concluded with a need to separate Russia and Ukraine then suppress how the latter was divided by it as part of neocontainment. This is all so the world somehow comes together rather than apart. This logic is why Gorbachev blamed the West.
That's also why Ukraine is being mirrored by other global conflicts and specters of them, like Palestine and Taiwan. It's also why the West itself is sharply divided. World history as driven by globalization is pretty much the cause of all this.
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
The salient word is conquer. Nobody tried to make Iraq part of the US or UK.
bjran8888@reddit
I wish the United States could say of the Israeli invasion, ‘We note with appreciation relevant proposals of mediation and good offices, aimed at a peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy.’
Instead, they will only vote against proposals on Israel in the UN Security Council.
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
What a blast from the past to read the nickname the original Pooty bum-chum came up with already 2 decades ago.
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
The old ones are the best...
computernerd55@reddit
Nah Ukraine is dangerous and hostile with plans of acquiring nukes in the future
Russia entering Ukraine was the right decision you can't have a hostile and aggressive neighbor on your border with plans to aquire nukes
Having said that they need to be fully de-militarized and de-radicalized aswell
Anything less than a regime change in Ukraine is unacceptable
It doesn't matter how long this war will take be it another 1 year or another 10 years eventually the Ukrainians will either come to their senses and surrender or they will stop existing as a state
FreedomPuppy@reddit
You know, historical revisionism is kinda dumb, considering this particular history is only a month old lmao.
computernerd55@reddit
Few weeks before russia entered Ukraine zelensky was also talking about acquiring nukes aswell
Is this history revisionism aswell?
ReallyTeddyRoosevelt@reddit
lol what is there to say? There is nothing new here and no concrete plans. I guess the tiger thing in India is new but how controversial is that?
SlimCritFin@reddit
India and China just recently resolved their border crisis
Joseph-stalinn@reddit
The dispute is not "resolved"; they have only agreed to return to the patrolling point from 2020.
SlimCritFin@reddit
Resolution of the border crisis in Galwan valley is a step forward towards the normalisation of ties between India and China.
No_Motor_6941@reddit
I like how your posts are just pointing out agnostic geopolitical facts and generating ideological reactions from others in response.
bjran8888@reddit
It is interesting that the Chinese and the Indians claim that they have reached an agreement, while the Westerners and the Americans claim that ‘it means nothing’.
Can you explain why you say that?
Luchadorgreen@reddit
The man literally just gave a fact, there was nothing “ideological” about it.
No_Motor_6941@reddit
Reread that post
Falaflewaffle@reddit
Until climate change really kicks into gear and suddenly the Brahmaputra and water security is threatened then we will see how normalised fighting with sticks or guns becomes.
SlimCritFin@reddit
More than 80% of Brahmaputra's water originates from tributaries in India and Bhutan so an armed conflict over water is unlikely.
bjran8888@reddit
It is interesting that the Chinese and Indians say they have reached an agreement, while it is the Westerners who say "no solution". Can you explain why?
More_Researcher_5739@reddit
Will be interesting to see how long this lasts, I give it 4 months.
SlimCritFin@reddit
If China wants to acquire Taiwan then it cannot afford to antagonise India at the same time.
OkTransportation473@reddit
They will never acquire Taiwan, at least intact in any meaningful way. It’s well known that Taiwan is willing to literally burn the country to the ground than live under the CCP’s control. TSMC has demolition guys on payroll ready to start setting up bombs to blow up every single piece of machinery and building they have.
Throwaway-7860@reddit
Yeah I don’t think you know what you’re talking about…
OkTransportation473@reddit
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/tsmcs-euv-machines-are-equipped-with-a-remote-self-destruct-in-case-of-an-invasion TSMC’s CEO has done everything but point blankly say everything is going boom
Throwaway-7860@reddit
This is all talk. If you knew anything about the general attitude in Taiwan or the semiconductor process you would think differently.
TandBusquets@reddit
China can't acquire Taiwan if the US doesn't want it to. Regardless of India
SlimCritFin@reddit
China doesn't want to potentially face a two-front war situation if they decide to invade Taiwan.
TandBusquets@reddit
They won't even be able to handle a one from war against the US.
SlimCritFin@reddit
I don't see any scenario where American and Chinese troops directly engaging in combat doesn't lead to use of nuclear weapons.
TandBusquets@reddit
The only scenario where the US allows China to take Taiwan is years down the line once the chip fabs are operational in the US and other US allied countries across the world. So again, whatever china does with India will have zero impact on china's ability to take Taiwan.
bjran8888@reddit
Interestingly, Russia is betting that the West will continue to militarily threaten, politically pressure, and economically sanction third world countries.
Let's see if the West will let Russia win its bet.
Ronaldo_Frumpalini@reddit
Western led order, like there's some other model that makes nuclear Armageddon unlikely. Russia is trying to bring back empires, Indians largely resent America for not letting them go to war with Pakistan, China is just taking whatever it wants from countries who can't fight back in the South China Sea. They want their turn on top but blessedly, aside from Putin, have the wisdom to understand that the Western order is at least something the world can live with and that there's no point replacing the "western-led" part if they don't want order.
icantbelieveit1637@reddit
An alternative that has to force members to join lol.
DACOOLISTOFDOODS@reddit
Who knew I was insecure about my hatred of brutal dictatorships
Monte924@reddit
Intimidated? This is trade group run by dictators who hate eachother. They play nice with eachother to counter the west, but they all look at each other's backs thinking about where they should stick the knife. They are all trying to figure out how they can use BRICS to screw the others over so that they can be at the top of the group to reap all the benefits for themselves
TheNextBattalion@reddit
the true test will come when one of them reaches out to be the tallest letter in the acronym
Soonhun@reddit
It isn't an alternative. BRICS functions within the same order and includes key Western allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It is not an "us vs them" situation.
yungsmerf@reddit
As they proceed to do fuck-all to make sure Russia adheres to them.
The_Cultured_Freak@reddit
1st stop the weapon shipments to Israel, then lecture others on morality.
yungsmerf@reddit
My comment or the post, has nothing to do with Israel or morality. Good job, you managed to make no point whatsoever.
seattle_lib@reddit
hmmm BRICS just signed a joint declaration as the result of its meeting, let's see what scathing critique of western-led international organizations it offers:
...🤔🤔🤔
BoppityBop2@reddit
They aren't, they are affirming the IMF but at the same time talking about creating new structures for cross payment and trade. Also a Grain Exchange, probably something Russia pushed to bypass US sanctions.
Sabrina_janny@reddit
an ever lasting granary would weaken the grip of the west on the global food supply system. right now, poor countries are unable to compete with heavily subsidized grain dumped by the US and western europe (overproduction). when these countries piss off the US or EU they choke back the supply of grain which causes famine, starvation, and regime changes.
a free and fair grain exchange that allows everyone to contribute in good times and draw from in bad times would buffer out western supply shocks and reduce famine in places like east africa etc.
ShadyClouds@reddit
And you do know the US is and has been leading the world when it comes down to foreign aid. Since just ww2 the US had gave out more than 4 trillion dollars in foreign aid? What about Russia? China?
bjran8888@reddit
Meanwhile, the US insists on changing their national system.
I find it interesting that the West always boasts about their aid and never talks about their strings attached.
Why don't you ask the Africans themselves what they think?
ShadyClouds@reddit
There are still plenty of African nations aligned with the US. You actually believe China is throwing money in Africa without any strings attached?? Hell there’s probably more if you look at aid China has given the world up to this point = not much. Like did you hear about the train China built in Africa that was supposed to carry thousands of passengers daily but it down a couple hundred cause it isn’t finished and they can’t even get spare parts to fix a new train? Bet that bill still came.
bjran8888@reddit
So when are you going to build a railway for Africa?
Oh, sorry, you can't even build yourselves a railway ......
ShadyClouds@reddit
And hell there’s already a handful of documentaries about the fucked up shit the Chinese are doing down there.
bjran8888@reddit
Laughing, western politicians media can only fool westerners.
Do you really think you can fool the people of the third world? Have you forgotten how you treat them?
seattle_lib@reddit
i'm curious, can you give an example of the US withholding grain?
Sabrina_janny@reddit
good article on JSTOR about how the US feeds some (but not others) for political purposes:
in particular they call out how the US only started flowing food aid to nigeria after it became a loyal supplier of oil to the US. at the same time, they denied allende in chile grain sales on credit during a bad harvest year which caused prices to skyrocket and contributed to the pinochet coup that had him overthrown.
edit: also in the middle of the 1975 bangladeshi famine the US made its grain ships wait and sweat out them out because bangladesh sold cuba some jute fibers
seattle_lib@reddit
i see, this is in reference to aid. the way you phrased it originally made it sound like US sanctions were blocking grain markets.
those cases are interesting, even if they are 40+ years old, and they bring up issues with the moral complications involved with giving out food aid, but i don't think they are especially relevant to the food shocks that are going on now.
i'm pretty sure there are no sanctions applied to grain at all. that said, i do think this grain exchange is a good idea, or at least not a bad one.
we've seen recently that grain piers and grain exports can be intentionally targeted as a war strategy by some actors. and food crises are almost always political and logistical problems. the more organization on this front, the better.
of course, there can be no guarantee that politics won't be involved in this too...
Maardten@reddit
What is the difference in this context?
I mean, its not like the 'aid' is out of altrusim, the 'aid' is a bargaining chip that can be used (and is used, as per the examples above) to assert power over countries.
sweetno@reddit
It's strange to read this about US/EU grain when there is more grain being produced in third world countries overall.
It's also strange to read about famine in the XXI century when more people die from being overweight than from malnutrition, and it's even in countries that aren't that rich.
At this point, if there is famine somewhere in the world, it's definitely politically engineered.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
35-year-old take.
This is not possible in a world where the biggest wheat exporters include India, Ukraine, Russia, and Argentina.
Blackout38@reddit
Hahaha wait so those poor countries have to compete with heavily subsidized Russia grain instead of heavily subsidized US grain? Big victory for the little guy.
ShadyClouds@reddit
The US has a grip on exporting food cause we have some of the best land in the world and produce way more food than needed by its population.
bjran8888@reddit
Bypassing sanctions?
The BRICS countries, with the exception of China, are entirely a club of commodity suppliers, an organisation whose members provide more than half of the world's food, energy, metals and other commodities.
Guess if they're interested in gaining pricing power over these commodities?
bjran8888@reddit
One thing I find strange is that many people seem to see the IMF as a puppet of the West, which is odd.
The fact is that the IMF and China have a very good relationship and we are increasingly looking at the IMF as having an attitude of its own.
Just today the US media posted an article expressing their displeasure with the IMF.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/global/the-u-s-and-imf-disagree-about-china-thats-a-problem-7ab5fca8
archontwo@reddit
You know, the full quote is much more revealing.
sweetno@reddit
Yeah, let economically failed states decide on IMF grants since they're clearly suffering the most and should better know how to reach prosperity duh... What could go wrong?
27Rench27@reddit
BRICS on Russia invading Ukraine: “We welcome mediation efforts and hope for peaceful resolution.”
BRICS on Israel invading Lebanon: “We condemn the loss of civilian lives and the immense damage to civilian infrastructure resulting from attacks by Israel in residential areas in Lebanon and call for immediate cessation of military acts."”
bjran8888@reddit
The U.S. couldn't even say of Israel's invasion of Lebanon, "We welcome mediation efforts and hope for a peaceful resolution."
What the United States says is: "We support a limited Israeli incursion into Lebanon."
27Rench27@reddit
Yes, there is indeed a difference between an incursion against an area controlled by a terrorist organization, and a full scale war of conquest.
bjran8888@reddit
However, Beirut is not under the control of Hezbollah, but under the control of the Lebanese government forces. Israel has bombed Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, many times and has created hundreds of thousands of refugees, and what are you trying to explain for Israel?
Yeahhh_Nahhhhh@reddit
BRICs really is opposite world cause flip those responses and you have got a simplied version of what most western powers are saying.
ChristianBen@reddit
One difference is Israel is not a “western power” per se but Russia is literally there in BRICS
Ozymandias_IV@reddit
Other difference being that Ukraine didn't launch 10,000 unguided missiles into russia
Wide-Rub432@reddit
Ukraine surely was launching mlrs into Belgorod. You can search for "mlrs Belgorod" here on Reddit.
sweetno@reddit
Poor Russia, why anyone do that to innocent Russians?!
Ozymandias_IV@reddit
Oh wow, why did Ukraine attack russia in 2023? Did russia do something that made Ukraine unfriendly?
Wide-Rub432@reddit
Oh wow, why did Hezbollah attack israel in 2023? Did israel do something that made Hezbollah unfriendly?
HummusSwipper@reddit
Please tell us what was it that Israel do to Hezbollah to push it into suddenly starting its own war against it on October 8th?
SlimCritFin@reddit
Golan Heights doesn't belong to Israel in the first place
HummusSwipper@reddit
So what?
AtzeSchroederWaifu@reddit
smartest ziobot
HummusSwipper@reddit
go be toxic on league bro, you're not welcome here
AtzeSchroederWaifu@reddit
i‘m too busy with my job that actually benefits society and not shilling for a fascist genocidal government
HummusSwipper@reddit
This job, does it go to another school? Is that why you claim to be busy with it yet still find the time to be toxic to strangers on reddit?
AtzeSchroederWaifu@reddit
man you really need to go outside
HummusSwipper@reddit
no u
SpiritofPleasure@reddit
Don’t u know the answer? It is simply that Israel exists is offensive to them
HummusSwipper@reddit
I have a bad habit of giving these type of lunatics the benefit of the doubt
Ozymandias_IV@reddit
Did Israel invade Lebanon? Because russia did invade Ukraine. Weird I have to remind you of that.
SlimCritFin@reddit
Israel is literally invading Lebanon right now
euyyn@reddit
Hahahaha the casus belli of "we invade because of what they might or might not do with their own country if we don't invade" was ridiculous, but this new one of "we invade because of what they will later do as a response to our invasion" is *chef kiss*.
yungsmerf@reddit
Playing 5D chess with this one
TandBusquets@reddit
Lol
Yeahhh_Nahhhhh@reddit
Arguably it is, but I was talking more about western powers like the US, UK etc.
Magoimortal@reddit
US considers Israel as an extension of the west and western civilization, it is therefore, part of western power.
sweetno@reddit
The Geopolitical concerns sections sounds like a report on achievements: carefully engineered conflicts bore fruit, take it world!
Modi managed to devalue the whole paper with big cats - nice!
HummusSwipper@reddit
Hilarious to see this Russian "grain initiative". Like "Hey, I just stole wheat from the Ukraine, the country that accounts for 10% of the world's wheat market. You guys want some of this?"
Draak80@reddit
Ummm...Russia is 3rd grain producer in the world and.a huge exporter. Ukraine somewhere around 25th.
HummusSwipper@reddit
Russia exports 20-23% of the worlds' wheat, Ukraine exports 10%. Russia has also plundered a lot of Ukraine's wheat during its war.
Your choice of numbers makes me wonder if you're just trying to downplay what I've said.
Draak80@reddit
Not downplaying, fact checking.
HummusSwipper@reddit
I appreciate it yet I don't think this your statement contradicts mine
JMoc1@reddit
But that’s not the reason for the war. If it was about grain and selling it off; Russia would have other economic means.
This is instead about projecting power and land grab; all of which is based on a distortion of reality and history.
HummusSwipper@reddit
I never said it was the reason for the war
JMoc1@reddit
You never said it wasn’t; which is why I needed to issue a correction.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
It was a fun side benefit of the war for Russia
HummusSwipper@reddit
You do you bro