While Western leaders have achieved a certain amount of unity amongst themselves vis-à-vis sanctions against Russia, they’ve failed to convince many non-Western countries to join them – only traditional Western allies like Singapore, Japan and South Korea (which some people already consider part of ‘the West’).
Major players like China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Israel and Saudi Arabia have all so far refused to sanction Russia. Here’s a map of the current state of play (only the purple countries have actually imposed sanctions):
What explains the Western/non-Western schism on this issue? Is it just that Western countries are more ‘moral’, or that non-Western countries don’t care about people dying in Ukraine? I don’t think so.
As the foreign policy analyst Trita Parsi notes in this piece for MSNBC, different non-Western states have their own reasons for not joining Western sanctions, but there are some reasons that apply across the board. (Parsi’s piece is worth reading in full.)
Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. have eschewed Western sanctions not only because of their shared interest with Russia in controlling global oil prices, but also because of their indignation at recent U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran (which they consider far too accommodating).
Israel has eschewed Western sanctions in part thanks to the country’s large Russian Jewish population, which accounts for about one tenth of the total, and in part for geostrategic reasons. Its control over the Golan Heights could be threatened if Putin stopped turning a blind eye to Israeli air strikes in that region.
China has eschewed Western sanctions, it seems reasonable to assume, due its interest in cultivating a norm against sanctioning countries that invade their neighbours. (Many analysts believe China will at some point try to take Taiwan, which it considers to be Chinese territory.)
Beyond these country-specific reasons, there are also considerations that apply more generally.
Above all, non-Western leaders do not accept the West’s argument that sanctions are needed to uphold the ‘rules-based international order’. “From their vantage point,” Farsi explains, “no other country or bloc has undermined international law, norms or the rules-based order more than the U.S. and the West.”
In defending his country’s own neutral stance back in March, the Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni accused the West of “double standards”, describing NATO’s bombing campaign in Libya – to which many African states had been opposed – as a “criminal and unacceptable act”.
Another illustration of the West’s double standards, in the eyes of many non-Western observers, is how differently it has reacted to Russia’s treatment of Ukraine versus Israel’s treatment of Palestine. In fact, a map of the countries that have formally recognised Palestine is almost a mirror image of the one above.
Although non-Western leaders “largely sympathise with the plight of the Ukrainian people”, Parsi notes, they will not make costly sacrifices to uphold a ‘rules-based international order’ the West doesn’t bother to uphold itself.
As countries like China and India grow in strength, and we move from a unipolar to a multipolar world, the West’s strategy of pretending it doesn’t regularly flout its own alleged principles will become increasingly difficulty to maintain.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Why Haven’t Non-western Countries Sanctioned Russia?”
Because they’re not satellite states of the “USA”, a country that is known to be especially under the thumb of Israel, the regime that tanked up the Azov Regiment to keep fighting against the local population in two areas that seceded from the Ukraine, and that also installed a government in Kiev that orients towards joining NATO.
Something doesn’t pass the sniff test.
10% of Russians are Jews, but Israel supports a Nazi organisation to fight Russia. America is under the thumb of Israel, yet it’s not convinced to support Russia which has a large Jewish population.
There are about 250,000 Jews in Russia, 0.1% rather than 10%.
If you’re going to make these sorts of claims at least post a reference.
My mistake. I misread the articles “one tenth” of its population as being one tenth of Russia, rather than one tenth of Israelis being Jewish Russians.
But that point still stands. I don’t imagine 10% of the Israeli population will be at all happy with the country supporting a Nazi organisation fighting Russia.
Nor was I making “claims” I was simply pointing out that something doesn’t smell right.
Has Ukraine invaded Russia?
No, it tried to with an artillery bombardment on but failed.
“In fact the Ukraine started the war on Wednesday, February 16 2022, when its forces near the Donbas republics began preparatory artillery strikes for an all out ground attack on the Donbas republics.”
You really don’t think there has been an invasion of Ukraine?
Have you ever been on the planet?
Of course he has: just not this one.
Again it comes down to the misconception that Nazism is defined by antisemitism. It isn’t. It is quite possible to be both a Nazi and a Jew – unlikely, but possible. What’s also unlikely, but is actually happening, is that some Israelis are fighting alongside the Nazi Azov brigade, and that the Jewish president of Ukraine is being supported by and is supporting Neo-Nazi units in his country. In terms of Zelensky’s personal politics, I strongly doubt he is a Nazi. But he knows he can use them for his own financial and political gain and in the real world “oh no, evil Nazis” is usually trumped by Real Politik and huge bags of cash.
Again it comes down to the misconception that Nazism is defined by antisemitism. It isn’t. It is quite possible to be both a Nazi and a Jew – unlikely, but possible.
This is absolutely impossible despite the Russian foreign minister recently came up with this interesting combination of terms. Unless Nazi is here generically meant to communicate that whoever uses the term is a saintly knight fighting against the darkest forces of evil, no further details to be provided to avoid confusing the underlings with too much information they don’t really need to know. They just need to shout when being told to.
Eli Bonite and Patrol 36 would argue you were wrong. You’re confusing the German 1930s version of Naziism with Naziism as a political philosophy. Naziism requires “enemies” it does not require them to be Jewish – the Jews are, unfortunately, often the easy option when it comes to defining an enemy, but there are is certainly scope for – and quite a few examples – of Jewish people, or people sympathetic to Israel, who are straight up Neo-Nazis.
Nazi is a term someone, very probably in the so-called angloshpere, coined to describe the ruling class of the so-called third reich. Presumbly, it’s a mungled version of national socialist. That’s what I (and most other people, BTW) think of when this term is being used. The German national socialist where antisemitic to the core, being convinced that there was a Jewish world conspiracy secretly working towards destroying European civilzation and the European peoples. Hence, no jew can ever be a nazi.
It’s also more generally used – especially in US domestic politics – as smear for someone of whose views we – the really good people – really disapprove of. But this inflationary use is really very inappropriate as the rule of the NSDAP from 1933 – 1945 was a pretty singular phenomenon in history. When it gets to the point where someone is seriously talking about Jewish nazis, the term has obviously lost all meaning beyond Something everyone should really disapprove of (because that suits me).
“[American] Nazi support in the build up to, and during WWII didn’t end with finance and industrial might, but extended to the governing scientific ideology of the third Reich: Eugenics (aka: the science of Social Darwinism as developed by Thomas Huxley’s X Club associate Herbert Spencer and Darwin’s cousin sir Francis Galton decades earlier). In 1932, New York hosted the Third Eugenics Conference co-sponsored by William Draper Jr (JP Morgan banker, head of General Motors and leading figure of Dillon Read and co) and the Harriman family. This conference brought together leading eugenicists from around the world who came to study America’s successful application of eugenics laws which had begun in 1907 under the enthusiastic patronage of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Very interesting article describing how the USA funded Hitler.
https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/for-victory-day-its-time-to-think-992?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNDc4ODA3MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTQwNDU1NzUsIl8iOiJvWHFZMyIsImlhdCI6MTY1MjEyMzcyMywiZXhwIjoxNjUyMTI3MzIzLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjYwMDQ1Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.x4tz8IqIBHuAvyVfLTI0qTqzh_-7GnxHCaZ28G6m2gE&s=r
[…] in 1932 when the German population voted into office the anti-Fascist General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor
The last proper parliamentary government of the Weimar republic was led by Herrman Müller. It collapsed in 1930 and was succeeded by a series of so-called Präsidialkabinette (presidental cabinets), where the president of the republic (the former imperial field marshal Hindenburg) would appoint a chancellor and enable it to rule by signing its decrees into law using the emergency powers (Notverordnung) article 48 of the Weimar constitution granted to the head of state. The Reichstag could demand that these be revoked, but preventing a negative majority against the government was easier than forming a positive majority for it, especially considering that the president could dissolve the parliament in order to stop it from demanding that such a decree was revoked.
The first of these presidental chancellors was Heinrich Brüning, a member of the Zentrum party (catholics). He was replaced, not the least because v. Schleicher was pulling strings in the background, by Franz v. Papen and then, by v. Schleicher himself. All three of them were traditional German conservatives, ie, monarchists who’d like to get rid of the republic, and certainly none of them was an antifascist. While they had preferred to lead the Reich themselves, the were generally positively disposed towards Hitler’s attempt at a German renewal.
The whole article is just another piece of the usual Fascism is really want the Democrats want! (namely, a global dictatorship of multinational corporation) US domestic policy staged on a world stage drivel.
You’ve just dribbled on about the politics of Germany pre-WW2.
That has nothing to do with who financed the country during that period.
Fascism is what the Democrats are doing. Their collaboration with Silicone valley kills two birds with one stone, the censorship of information and the violation of government with corporate money.
Why on earth do you imagine they all hated Trump? Because they couldn’t bribe him the way they can bribe almost any other American politician.
Become abusive is a pretty worn out tactic by now.
The article wrote about the the anti-Fascist Kurt von Schleicher voted into office by Germans in 1932. But von Schleicher was absolutely no antifascist and was never voted into any office, as was no other German chancellor since 1930. I just wrote that together with enough background information for someone who has no knowledge of this whatsoever to make sense of it (at least, I hope that it’s enough).
As to this silly US domestic politics game where everyone keep accusing everyone else of being a nazi, I don’t care. Sooner or later, someone is going to become president. And I might care about the foreign policy of that president, although it’s usually not going to change much.
Describing your post as dribbling is hardly a term of abuse. Describing you as a tosser would be abusive, but I would never do that.
The article is principally about the funding of Nazi Germany. I really don’t want to keep repeating this so please pay attention.
My passage from it referred to the the American elite’s Eugenic sympathies with Hitler, which he couldn’t have practised without American funding for his activities.
This is not a difficult matter to grasp, and yet you seem to be struggling.
What a load of crap.
And I repeat: “it is short for the German term for National Socialist (Nationalsozialist).”
It was a simple abbreviation used by ordinary Germans. Similar to us using Tory instead of Conservative, and labour instead of its full title, Socialist Scum.
That would amount to a case of people being in violent agreement regarding the meaning of the term. As to it’s usage, I haven’t seen any evidence for it being in use in Germany prior to 1945. It may well have been. But the conjecture that it was really a British/ Amercian acronym the so-called Siegermächte (winning powers) brought with them seems more probable to me.
First Known Use of Nazi
1930, in the meaning defined at sense 1 (My emphasis)
Sense 1
a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
Merriam Webster Dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi
Stop making shit up. You’ll be known as Fingal shortly.
The term Nazi means nothing. It’s not a political philosophy, it is short for the German term for National Socialist (Nationalsozialist).
In other words it was Socialism which was the vehicle for violence, not the abbreviation.
I have no idea what the interesting combination of terms is. Quotation marks really help under these conditions.
Jewish nazis, at large in Ukraine according to Lavrov.
Are you suggesting Jews can’t collaborate with Nazi’s?
You might want to speak to George Soros about that.
No. That’s not what he said.
Good old RW, if he can’t get things badly wrong, he shoots for spectacularly wrong, and usually doesn’t miss.
And Putin uses the Wagner Group, his own private army with Nazi associations.
Fundamentally, Russia does not have a good record on treatment of Jews.
Do some research. The Wagner Group is not owned by Putin, it was founded by Dmitriy Valeryevich Utkin. Nazi associations are rumours, it’s also been described as followers of the Slavic Native Faith, a modern Pagan religious movement.
Russia has been home for Jews for 1,500 years, it was at one time the largest community of jews in the world.
Antisemitism grew after the wall came down but since 2000 it has been low and in decline.
You don’t half talk shite.
OMG someone should tell Putin one of his mates has started their own secret army and is going around invading countries without telling anybody
Factually wrong idiot.
Don’t start squirming again, it’s embarrassing.
Soros.
Israel has a large non-Jewish Russian population. There are immigration agreements between Russia and Israel going back decades. Every Prime Minister of Israel from its inception was born in the USSR or their parents were. Netanyahus fathers surname was Mileikowski for example. Brendon O Connell https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDtDeNQhWST7EnDtx-DSfug has for a long time been exposing how, many Russians who also happen to be from a KGB-GRU type background have gone to Israel where they obtain Israeli passports to then penetrate the US government as spies etc and for Yuri Bezmenov style subversion operations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEefbbApuaE. This has been going on for decades and is one reason why the US has gone the way it has – its totally penetrated. Also the technology transfer, from the US to Israel, from where it is sold to China and Russia. Again this has been going on for decades, with Kissinger right in there pulling strings. See Binational Science Foundation BSF, BiNational Industrial Research and Development BIRD, Binational Agricultural Research and Development BARD.
but you have not done so yourself!
Has Ukraine invaded Russia?
These fatuous straw man questions don’t do you any favours.
Ignore it. It’s sealioning.
It’s what they’re trained to do.
Who is they?
NATO?
Have you ever been on the planet?
Ukraine has invaded Russians, which amounts to much the same.
Shocking videos have been posted of combat action and eye witness accounts of the war in Easter Ukraine Donbas against the Russian speaking population launched by the Ukraine Nazi Brigades since 2014 – serious atrocities!
Not by the BBC though, so it didn’t happen.
There is also a strong awareness amongst older Jews (and I’m sure particularly amongst Russian Jews) of the activities of certain Ukrainians during WW2.
They are more likely to know what happened at Babi Yar and who was involved in it. There were Ukrainians who were actively involved in the terrible massacres of Jews in the Ukraine and who were notorious as concentration camp guards.
When Russians talk about de-Nazification of Ukraine, they know exactly what they mean.
Anti semitism has along history in Russia.
Pre WW2 a number of countries saw Russia as the main danger, not Germany.
Absolute bullshit.
Fingal making shit up again.
Lukewarm, even you can’t be that ignorant. You’re just saying stuff on autopilot.
We have more antisemitic behaviour in London that in Russia.
Moron.
It would seem to be necessary to inform you that WW2 took place before the year 2000.
Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, but it’s only as good as the idiot that uses it.
Indeed it did, but the Jews have been in Russia for some 1,500 years, long before WW2. At one time it was the largest Jewish community in the world. 10% of Jews in Israel are Russian jews.
Your statement Bozo. 1,500 years of Jews living peacefully in Russia yet you define a short period in the 90’s as “along [sic] history”.
You’re wrong, you know you’re wrong, but you’re squirming again. It’s pathetic.
I keep thinking you’ve made your dumbest comment yet – and then you go and beat it!
You are the gift that keeps on giving, Lukewarm.
All you ned to say is “thanks for the information Lukewarm, I’ll think about it” and you’re off the hook gracefully. But you’re too dumb to even think of that.
Have you seen what the Russians have Done to the Donbas?
Have you seen what Ukrainian military have been doing in the Donbas for the pat 8 years.
To-day tens of thousands of people right across SE Ukraine have been marching to commemorate Victory Day.
What about the other 44 million people in Ukraine?
They don’t live in the Donbass. Plank.
Yes so many of them speak Russian, which has been outlawed by Kiev.
Russian speakers are abused and assaulted by Azov Militia – did you know that?
Russian isn’t outlawed, it is protected as a minority language but Ukrainian is the state language.
The end of the Russian empire has left language issues across Eastern Europe.
Russia itself has a long history of language discrimination and is already heavily restricting use Ukrainian in the territories it conquers.
To summarise: Ukraine hasn’t been perfect on this issue. But Russia is worse.
Remember when ethnic-cleansing was regarded as just cause for military intervention ?
As far as I remember, this happened exactly once since the idea was first tried to separate Greeks and Turks from each other after the end of the Greco-Turkish war in 1922. In all other cases, the so-called good guys where doing the cleansing.
As I also already wrote in the past: These frankly ridiculous claims are not fit for any purpose. In 2014, parts of two eastern provinces of Ukraine declared itself independent with some not-so-covert Russian help, presumably originally intended (from the Russian side) to create a strategic distraction prior to the annexation of Crimea. The Ukranian government has not been able to regain control of them since. Hence, it most certainly did not ethnically cleanse them, either.
NB: It’s conceivable that the pro-Russian overlords of these two provinces did some ethnic cleansing in order to get rid of Ukrainians. But that’s just something which could have happened. I have no information on this.
What’s the evidence for this? Putin advised against the referendum.
All I saw in 2014/15 was Ukranian forces switching sides, along with all their kit and armour, it’s also all this German reporter witnessed, so he filmed it…
https://www.brighteon.com/9dccde21-2810-4fb9-b5e0-5772832d3b12
All the evidence is quite clear that the Russian government wanted the Russian-speakers to remain within the Ukrainian state, once they had secured Crimea and the vital base at Sevastopol.
Most likely for the very sensible reason that their presence helped to influence the Ukrainian state in directions less hostile to Russia.
For RW’s benefit, here’s Jacques Baud, who was there and who was directly involved on behalf of NATO in trying to find Russian interference in the Ukraine at the time:
“It starts with those who for the last eight years have been talking about “separatists” or “independentists” from Donbass. This is not true. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in May 2014, were not referendums of “independence” (независимость), as some unscrupulous journalists have claimed, but referendums of “self-determination” or “autonomy” (самостоятельность). The qualifier “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.
In fact, these Republics were not seeking to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. For the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 that made Russian an official language. A bit like if putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland.
………
In 2014, when I was at NATO, I was responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we were trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels, to see if Moscow was involved. The information we received then came almost entirely from Polish intelligence services and did not “fit” with the information coming from the OSCE—despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.
The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what pushed the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Agreements.
But just after signing the Minsk 1 Agreements, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against the Donbass. Bis repetita placent: poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat in Debaltsevo, which forced them to engage in the Minsk 2 Agreements.
It is essential to recall here that Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements did not provide for the separation or independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Agreements (there are very, very, very few of those who actually have) will note that it is written in all letters that the status of the Republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the Republics, for an internal solution to the Ukraine.
That is why since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded their implementation while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter of the Ukraine. On the other side, the West—led by France—systematically tried to replace the Minsk Agreements with the “Normandy format,” which put Russians and Ukrainians face-to-face. However, let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23-24 February 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. For example, the U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.
In October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), confessed that only 56 Russian fighters had been observed in the Donbass. This was exactly comparable to the Swiss who went to fight in Bosnia on weekends, in the 1990s, or the French who go to fight in the Ukraine today.”
The Military Situation In The Ukraine
Thanks Mark. I was hoping RW would supply the source for the “not so covert Russian help” to form the two republics claim. I’ve seen this statement multiple times, but I can’t find the original source of it, or indeed any evidence at all.
I’ve seen one member of the Russian armed services interviewed whilst fighting for the LPR/DPR whist on leave from service. Russell Bentley said a few came home on leave and stayed to fight for their families, joining LPR/DPR units, but there’s no evidence Russia was involved in it until recently.
I’m absolutely not in the mood for digging up news reports from 2014 you’re well capable of finding yourself. You wouldn’t like the sources, anyway, and you really wouldn’t like the sources for more accurate information about the situation I happen to have access to.
In other words, you made it up.
I have sources but I’m not sharing…
course you do!
No! But I have seen what he Ukrainians have done to the Donbas since 2014. Have you?
Ah…… The Nazi theory.
Do you think all Ukrainians are Nazis?
They are not all Nazis but Nazis have a disproportionate influence on politics and the military. They are integrated into every level of the Ukraine army.
For the past 8 years the Azov Battalion has been terrorising the pro-Russian population of Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
He knows very well. Don’t feed the troll.
Or are they Russian backed separatists?
Don’t see that line much on this site!
Ah…… The Russian back separatist Nazi theory.
Made up by tree, the plank of course.
Not by him…his minder.
Can you get Klaus’s money back for him? The WEF troll school has done a very subpar job.
These fatuous straw man questions don’t do you any favours.
That was too long a sentence for the plank to understand.
Too many for Russia’s comfort identify themselves as such.
How many Ukrainians are Nazi’s?
“Nazi Fact” not theory – hundreds of videos and photographic images to prove it and accounts from their victims.
Apparently you are incapable of finding even one!
Ever heard of Bandera either ?
Thought not – not on your crib sheet.
It very clearly reflects spheres of influence, and shows the limitations therefore of western power. To ignore the contribution that Western powers – especially the USA – have made to bringing about this conflict requires very wilful ignorance of the last eight years of history (at least). So non-Western aligned countries are reading the situation dispassionately, understanding that Russia is protecting its own interests against what it sees as a threat, and acting accordingly.
The American elite (Rockefeller’s, JP Morgan etc.) funded Hitler before and during WW2. It doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to understand they have financially supported Ukraine to further their desire to use NATO as their proxy.
Why wouldn’t they fund Hitler ? He was very popular among anti-semitic Americans facing off against “Communism” and among “American Heroes” like Charles Lindberg – the ‘A’ list Celeb of his day!
It does also appear that when anti-communism, politics and money are involved a little anti-semitism can be ignored, even by those you would imagine would be directly affected by it! “Nothing personal or racial, just business!”
The pattern is simply because it’s easier for the CIA to spread their BuyDem protecting propaganda to English speaking nations .. and the EU are a bunch of fools anyway.
Germany apparently has now ‘officially’ become a non-state taking orders directly from Washington and committing massive self- harm in the process as a result.
Only Hungary has a sense of national survival and healthy self- interest.
So-called Germany is little more than a reservation for some of the German people living in Europe and was never meant to be anything else. That’s not exactly a new phenomenon.
“Finis Germania” A good read!
The 30 Years War did for Gemany, it has served as a battleground for others ever since.
Yes – Germany is a particularly bad case, but where is the sense of proud nationhood and independence?
I’m speaking of proud nationhood in the best sense: the sense that a country has a unique history and culture which is cherished by its people and which enriches the world.
Do they all want to be outposts of the most debased form of American culture? The liveliest, proudest Americans are not buying this rubbish; and they’re using what’s left of their free speech to say so.
Apparently the rich Americans are queuing up to leave the fast dissolving country – permanently!
Exactly. The winner in this is the USA who are destroying competing Nations or rather the competing Nations are destroying themselves going along with this farce.
Perhaps Russia should not have invaded.
What are the “down-thumbs” thinking here?
They were, I think, down-thumbing a fatuous comment from a regular who displays trollish behaviour; no opinions of their own, just bitchy criticism of everyone else.
So fatuous is a term applied, when people don’t want to answer a simple, but inconvenient question or statement.
Have a good look at the comments on this site. We’re not asking each other fatuous questions to trip each other up. That’s what trolls do. We are expressing our own opinions, for better or worse. What you are doing, is called trolling.
What do you think, splinter?
Perhaps Nuland ought not to have provoked and funded a bloody ant-Russian coup in Ukraine in 2014?
Fake news
Exactly that!
Why would they ? They are not trying to ferment a long and bloody Civil conflict in Ukraine designed to bring down the Russian Government and destroy the Russian economy in a ‘proxy war’ – that’s just ‘theWest.”
US Pentagon boasts of providing data that allowed the Ukrainians to sink the Russian flagship Moskva, which was not even engaged in a combat mission at the time – and used satellite data to help the targeting and killing of Russian Senior Commanders in ambushes.
Looks very much like these are direct acts of war being boasted about by the US?
I wonder what the Russians are thinking?
They should be thinking about how to pulverise a US navy base, whilst not actually doing it themselves.
Clear where your loyalty lies.
Exactly what has “British” loyalty to do with a fratricidal conflict in Ukraine ponserd by the US and Nato?
Or do you mean “loyalty” to the Biden CIA where your loyalty seems to ‘lie’ ?
That would just be copying the US though wouldn’t it? They could be more original.
“Above all, non-Western leaders do not accept the West’s argument that sanctions are needed to uphold the ‘rules-based international order’. “From their vantage point,” Farsi explains, “no other country or bloc has undermined international law, norms or the rules-based order more than the U.S.””
Not just “from their vantage point”, of course.
That’s the indisputable truth, from any objective observation of events since 1998, with outright, openly illegal military attacks by the US and/or NATO and/or US sphere states on Serbia, and Iraq, to name but the most incontrovertibly illegal, together with destructive military actions aimed at regime change, covered by various pretexts, in many other countries, and massive, continuous outpourings of money and propaganda aimed at.subversion and destabilisation
The US was the “hyperpower”, the globally dominant sole superpower, from the collapse of the Soviet Union until recently (whenever you view China as having become an effective superpower, or Russia to have recovered sufficiently to stand up to the US).
What did the US do with its “unipolar moment”? It chose to trash the supposed “rules based order” by insisting that any rules did not apply to it and its proxies.
That is the fundamental truth required to understand current events in the Ukraine, and if you do not understand that truth then you will be wrong in any attempted interpretation of events there.
The US has broken every single rule of the ‘rules based international order’ and fermented chaos and anarchic disorder in half a dozen ruined countries .Ukraine is just he latest venture!
All to secure Kagan’s “New American Century” of ‘dominion’!
What did the US do with its “unipolar moment”? It chose to trash the supposed “rules based order” by insisting that any rules did not apply to it and its proxies.
That is indeed the “fundamental truth required to understand current events in the Ukraine”. From the time of Putin’s 2007 Munich speech, he has been detested for his crime of revealing that he understood and did not agree:
Putin’s famous Munich Speech 2007 – YouTube
Is it “Five Eyes” plus Davos and the poodle EU – against the World ( to keep us ‘safe’)?
To answer your question, because most of them are poor and they are going to get a lot poorer.
Because they put cheap energy before moral standards and because most of the ones listed would be under no direct threat from Russia geographically anyway.
Sanctions should also apply to all of those countries who don’t sanction Russia, in particular the two-faced sneaky Indians
You clearly believe that Russia should be ‘sanctioned’ for its actions in Ukraine; out of interest were you calling for ‘sanctions’ against the US and UK when NATO bombed Libya in 2011?
Russia has been fighting multiple foreign wars for years pretty much without any censure.
Putin’s private army, the Nazi affiliated Wagner Group, are operating in Central African Republic, Libya, Sudan and Mozambique and Mali.
Russia is something of a malign factor in Syria.
Ha ha ha! That’s a good one. According to who? Isis?
Not if you are Syrian and not a member of ISIL
Have you been calling for sanctions against Saudi Arabia these last eight years for its relentless attacks on poverty-stricken Yemen with high tech weaponry?
A diversionary argument?
I don’t like hypocrisy.
Are you saying that parties must always do the wrong thing, for consistency?
the “West” has been pretty consistant in that regard LOL
So in your view, they are wrong if they don’t sanction but also wrong when they do sanction?
more telling me what I think, do you all go to the same troll school?
Yes, always the same pathetic techniques – pointless really.
These fatuous straw man questions don’t do you any favours.
Is the author supporting Russia, by posing this question?
or is he..
Chastising the counties who have not sanctioned Russia?
He might obliquely be saying that the USA needs punishing for its transgressions far more than Russia does……
Is that what you are saying?
He clearly said that is what the author might be saying – you obviously have cognitive difficulty in grasping that.
The again, what are you actually saying about anything?
Nothing at all!
They have not sanctioned Russia, because they are “looking the other way”
Like you were when NATO was bombing Libya’s civilian infrastructure (including aquifers)? Or when NATO was bombing Kosovo? Or when the US and UK were bombing Iraq? Or when the Saudis were bombing Yemen with US and British approval and weapons?
Listing a series of other conflicts seems to be a standard argument.
It merely serves as a reason why you are anti-NATO/US/West etc.
So tell us, does your objection to NATO intervention on Kosovo mean you approve of the Serbian acts that precipitated it?
it serves as a reason to highlight hypocracy is all, something you swim well in.
But you have no knowledge of what I think of these other conflicts and responses.
Yet no one will answer. Simple yes or no (correct) would do.
You are not an interrogator for the STASI – despite your obvious ambition!
“Would do” for what exaclty?
Like I care what you think, about as much as I care what any hypocrite thinks LOL
But you need to know someone’s views before you could conclude they are a hypocrite, surely.
The fact that someone disagrees with you doesn’t merit that conclusion.
plenty of evidence in trees previous trolling here.
Which identifies you very clearly as a troll.
If cornered, shout “troll”
Have you splintered from tree?!
These fatuous straw man questions don’t do you any favours.
Listing a series of other conflicts seems to be a standard argument.
It’s actually even a standard tactic of Russian propaganda dating back to soviet times. It’s called whataboutery (or whataboutism). In response to any criticism of Russian politics, reply with What about $some_other_thing!, when people on whose side the critics supposedly are were supposedly engaged in the very kind of behaviour that’s being criticized. The immediate effect of that is to shift the discussion away from the original topic to something the entity using this tactic prefers to discuss instead, eg Nazis ante portas!
Obvious reply: Two wrongs don’t make a right and this doesn’t really matter because we’re discussing something else.
It is of course entirely relevant when the countries doing the sanctioning are themselves guilty of worse and more frequent horrors. It is also relevant to the article, which is highlighting the differences in response around the world. Could it be that the countries reluctant to sanction Russia are well aware of the abject hypocrisy at work in the US and Europe?
It’s only sort-of relevant when assuming the context must be some sort of abstract, philosophical discussion of virtue versus vice. But in the real world, people always find good excuses for the trangressions of their own party and always condemn those of their enemies in the strongest terms possible, cf beerpartygate. Another example would be the woke idea that censorship is necessary to protect freedom of speech because those who get censored would otherwise intimidate the members of some other group to the degree that they wouldn’t dare to speak up anymore. There’s even a Roman proverb for that: Quod licet iovi non licet bovi (Jupiter may do things an ox mustn’t do), illustrating how fundamental property of people this selective blindness happens to be.
As to the abject hypocrisy, the USA is the master of the so-called western block. Why would they consider themselves bound by the same rules they enforce for others? That’s not now hegemony works in the real world.
Countries reluctant (or entirely unwilling) to enage in ceremonial trade war games claimed to be targetted at Russia presumably consider demonstrating that they’re obedient lapdogs of the USA a lesser priority than those who happily sanction away despite this is unlikely to accomplish anything of real importance and comes at a considerable cost.
Russia is mostly aware that they have got themselves in a real pickle, with this ill-judged venture.
Oh have you done a poll?
Polls are only allowed in Russia, if the outcome is already determined by Putin.
But I bet Putin wishes he had not gone down this road.
Well forgive me for not deferring to your detailed knowledge of the inner workings of Russian politics, but my guess is that you haven’t got the faintest idea what goes on in Russia.
Funny that, because the Levada Centre says Putin’s approval was sharply up in April:
https://www.levada.ru/en/ratings/
And Levada was (rightly, imo) classed by the Russian government as a “foreign agent”:
“The inspection revealed that the Analytical Center of Yuri Levada …had received a large part of its funds from the United States”
Russian Justice Ministry source explains recognizing Levada-Center NGO a “foreign agent”
But I’m sure that won’t in the slightest shake your faith that Russia is a dictatorship, Putin is a hated dictator, and all Russians secretly agree with you that their government should not have responded robustly and effectively to NATO’s actions in the Ukraine, and the Ukrainian regime’s actions in the Donbass, because…reasons.
Is that directly from your crib sheet?
The charge of “whataboutery” is usually a deflection tactic generally used by dishonest people (such as, as you rightly note, many obsessive anti-Russians).
The pretence is that it is accusing the target of using a “tu quoque” fallacy, but such logical fallacies rarely apply cleanly in real world discussions, and this is no exception.
A classical philosophical formulation would be:
In abstract philosophical terms, this could be a logical fallacy, if B’s comment is presented as an implicit denial of theft, but is in reality no such thing.
But in real world discussion, as oppose to theoretical philosophical debate, B’s comment is actually a perfectly legitimate response which both (arguably) justifies his own behaviour and accuses A of both theft and hypocrisy.
Basically, as a general guide, don’t trust people who use charges of “whataboutery” unless they carefully define what they mean and justify their use of the term.
In most real world cases it’s merely a pretext to deflect criticism of blatant hypocrisy.
As I already wrote: Due to human nature, charges of hypocrisy are usually always applicable to any human party taking part in anything. Therefore, they’re – at best – nothing but hot air someone believes to be important.
“Due to human nature, charges of hypocrisy are usually always applicable to any human party taking part in anything. Therefore, they’re – at best – nothing but hot air someone believes to be important.”
That might be what you claim to believe in relation to these topics, but in reality you’d be a very unusual human being if someone attacking something you value were being shamelessly hypocritical about it and you just said “meh, that’s ok it’s just human nature”.
It would be one thing if you were making that argument in support of a generally relaxed and even-handedly tolerant, non-interventionist attitude to others’ actions. But in practice it’s usually (as in the case of the anti-Russian obsessives) an attempt to defend being violently hostile towards and intolerant of one side’s actions whilst hypocritically ignoring one’s own side’s similar actions.
And it’s especially egregious when it’s used to defend the position that a supposed “rules based order” has moral force when it is applied only to others and is ignored by the powerful.
Seriously mate, it’s not worth it. I’m sure RW is Fingal. One is as thick as the other.
Thanks for expanding so eloquently on my amateurishly made point!
Deflection.
It appears that many on here must have approved of the Serbian acts, or didn’t understand the question.
We have an idea in western countries that sanctions are as natural as sunlight when you decide that you don’t like a country. There are powerful arguments in favour of maintainng the neutrality of economic systems, not least the downstream consequences such as starvation and death. The poverty afflicts not just the target nation but inevitably constrains supply resulting in suffering for people living everywhere. This knee-jerk resort to sanctions as an instrument of coercion should be thought about with more depth and probity.
Sanctions are just economic warfare, used very successfully by the US to corner Japan into WW2 with their pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese decided they might as well fight and lose as be strangled slowly to death by the US. There is a lesson there for Kagan and Nuland.
You quote MSNBC? , seriously, MSNBC? …..
It would also be good to know the percentage of people in the ‘sanctioning countries’ actually supporting this explicitly self-harming and useless (for Ukraine in the first place) measures. As once again, the most ‘democratic’ countries’ governments didn’t even ask their own people whether they agree with the measures which are making them poorer with each and every day.
And, yes, a handy map to show anyone who thinks that the whole world is against Russia.
Actually it’s a map to show which parts of the world has self interest in supporting Russia or looking away.
I mean, even if you consider that Russia is 100% wrong and Ukraine is 100% correct, then the measures undertaken by the so called West has made the situation much worse for Ukraine. The conflict will last longer and more people will die. So countries which supposedly aren’t looking away and actively ‘supporting’ Ukraine are actually making a bigger mess than those who don’t do anything at all.
So, do you have absolute knowledge of what would have happened if Russia had been unopposed in their invasion?
You would need such knowledge to support your argument.
What would you consider the best case and worst case scenarios?
From best to worst case scenarios starting from the beginning:
………. it’s expected that with more resources invested and lives lost, Russia will probably increase their territorial demands (or support of the demands of the territories) especially that it’s now known that Ukraine regime is brutal to anyone who showed support or even mentioned peace talks and agreeing with Russia on something (remember this Ukraine negotiator who’s killed as well as many other examples incl. probably Bucha).
n-1. Countless more Ukrainian and Russian lives lost, country partitioned beyond recognition
n. Nuclear conflict with billions of lives lost
If Russia had been unopposed after Feb 2022, Ukraine would simply have lost its military potential thus effectively becoming neutral. There would have been much less destruction and lives lost as it’s now abundantly clear that Russia doesn’t deliberately target civilians and civilian infrastructure. Ukrainian soldiers who don’t resist are not killed and if captured are taken care of (as opposed to what Ukrainian side is doing to Russian soldiers). Ukrainians of course die from Russian shelling and rockets, but in large part due to Ukrainian military deciding to use the tactic of hiding behind civilians and sometimes even directly targeting civilians to put blame on Russia, to prevent civilians living.
A post which goes to show that a provocative Troll comment can produce a valuable reply which might otherwise not have seen light!
About on schedule for Noah Carl… An anti-Ukraine / Pro-Russian article to generate the Russian support comments.
They are published about every 10 days.
Why don’t you write an article about Ukraine and we’ll see if we agree with it?
LOL. That’s a good one. Got any more like that?
What a wonderful idea – but it would only be ten lines long
It is not our war, that is to say the UK. It’s a war between Baddies and even Badder Baddies, there will be no winners..and I so wish the US would just GTF from world politics, everything they get involved in turns to crap for the common people. I know..wishful thinking and not going to happen.
I think in a time like this one we have to keep alive the idea of mischief. We are a mischievous nation I like it that we have scallywags and rogues and people living off the grid.This is the sprit that we need to move forward.
The adults in the room were well aware that the Anglosphere cabal were failing to persuade the representatives of the majority of the worlds people a while back.
An example here:
“Indeed the EU needs to reflect upon the Russia-Ukraine conflict. My colleagues and I have repeatedly pointed out that the conflict may appear to be a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but in fact it is one between Russia and the US-led NATO. The EU should reflect on who is benefiting from this war, who has been turned into a battlefield in this war, and who has suffered the biggest loss during this war. With regard to China, we hope the EU will form its independent perception of China and follow an independent China policy, work with China to ensure the steady and sustained progress in China-EU relations and make greater contributions to world peace and prosperity.”
http://belfast.china-consulate.gov.cn/eng/wjbfyrth_3/202204/t20220429_10680765.htm
Why haven’t Western countries sanctioned Saudi Arabia, more to the point?
Simple! They own too much Real Estate in London!
Umm – you do realise that or two oligarchs have parked their money over here?
A thoughtful article. The fact that it is mostly NATO and NATO aligned countries that have (rightly) condemned Russian actions unequivocably does not bode well for the success of the sanctions strategy. As for the exporting of more arms to the Ukraine is concerned, the country will never be able to remove the Russians from their territory without external military assistance (which is never going to be forthcoming), so are we not simply prolonging the war and the total number of casualties? A negotiated settlement will have to be reached at some point.
Precisely right, the west is prolonging a war that might almost have ended relatively peacefully had the place been left alone, as it should have been not being a NATO member.
Just what is the point of membership of NATO if it’s just going to hobnail its way into any dispute on the grounds of supporting the underdog. No wonder Trump was so scathing of it.
We might find, however, that Putin is happy to string the conflict out over the next couple of years until 2024 when Trump wins again. He’ll get a less confrontational approach and will settle the dispute over a table.
Another person who claims to know what would have happened, without resistance to the invasion.
How exactly do you know?
I don’t. But here’s your opportunity to convince me otherwise.
But you won’t, will you.
No, tree will expound precisely zero opinions because he is just here to wind everyone up. You and I took the bait today – whoops.
Just a silly game for idle hands really.
Most countries aren’t joining in the sanctions because they don’t see it as their fight – and it would cost them money. Furthermore, many countries have autocratic leaders. Democratic values aren’t exactly a cause they’re going to fight for.
There is a strong correlation between the countries that aren’t supporting the west and anti-colonialism. They would also line up to support reparations for slavery – a recent (but unpopular) issue on this website.
Although Russia was as imperialist as the best of them, it has always tried to claim it should be excused on grounds of ‘salt water colonialism’. This is the bizarre idea that land-based conquests can’t be colonial. It only counts if they’re overseas.
Yes, they really do say this.
They’ve also been helped by the fact that most people in the west have no knowledge at all of Russia’s astonishing rapid and aggressive imperial expansion, even though it went on at the same time as the European occupation of Africa.
India?
India? They can’t be that bothered about colonialism, we’re about to strike a trade deal with them.
Are the Indians demanding reparations for slavery?
How about some evidence rather than your usual hollow claims.
Now there’s something I didn’t know. Perhaps you would be good enough to point out to us all the Russian colonies around the world that incorporate the Russian flag in their own. Y’know, like those country’s that incorporate the Union flag in theirs.
I knew I could rely on you to come up with your own private definition of colonialism.
Attaboy!
And your private definition of colonialism would be?
Mind you, no evidence produced for any of your daft post so there will be none coming for that either.
Definition of colonialism: domination of a people or area by a foreign state or nation : the practice of extending and maintaining a nation’s political and economic control over another people or area (Merriam Webster Dictionary).
Not my private definition, one shared by scholars.
Yes, and if you were slightly less thick you would understand that this is the definition I’m using.
Russia believes it doesn’t count unless there’s a sea involved.
Most countries aren’t joining in the sanctions because they don’t see it as their fight – and it would cost them money.
What a low opinion you seem to have of most of the world’s population. What a shame they don’t have the moral fortitude of Western nations, so selflessly prepared to take a stand for democracy! When will all those selfish African nations get over their colonialism hang-ups eh?
Give me a break.
Why so? They are good reasons, I can see why they do it.
Why Haven’t Non-Western Countries Sanctioned Russia?
Pretty simple, because Russia’s actions are fully justified.
Any rational person would reach the same conclusion.
I’m not sure “justified” is the correct term, but we can certainly understand the frustration after at least eight years of futile negotiation over the region, Russia eventually gave up and invaded.
It’s the correct term for me.
I think the catalyst for Russia was the “election” of Biden.
That’s the point at which they knew “futile negotiations” would be the least of their problems in the Ukraine.
I agree with what you’re saying, just that using the term justified conveys the impression it’s a good thing. What Russia is doing is not good, as can be seen by the effect on the rest of the world.
And whilst ‘sanction’ is a cuddly name for a protection racket, Putin is holding the west, and in particular Europe, to ransom.
There is little justified of any of this.
The rest of the world was, alas, fucked anyway after the catastrophic Covid decisions and, quite frankly, Putin is not responsible for the rest of the world. His first job is Russia’s national security.
As for Europe, if you’re referring to those weak-as-piss “leaders” who’ve been terrorising their own citizens over the last two years, they’re the ones trying to facilitate a long drawn-out war, not the Russians.
Is that all Russia’s actions, that you approve of?
Could you explain the justification.
Why don’t you enlighten us all? With your massive intellect that should be easy.
Orrrrr…..maybe not.
“tree” is Liz Truss I think.
Surely the only explanation for the rabid Russophobia, irrationality and utter lack of intellect.
Crikey I think you’re right – I knew I recognised the tone and content of her comments.
How can you even bear to listen to her nonsense?
She just illustrates how naked ambition trumps suitability and intelligence every time!
Hmmm….perhaps…very close!
Using questions is a cheap trick to fake being in the knowledge and fool others into answering them in order to control the discourse .
“When did you last beat you wife?” Cheap and pointless ploy which fools no-one. A bit like Senator Joe McCarthy and “How long have you been a member of the Communist Party”?
It all looks like notes taken from an on-the-cheap, away-day training course for Trolls.
Can you explain why?
R2P. Western powers can, it seems, bomb countries half way round the world to ‘protect’ a population with no connection to themselves – a la Libya. By that standard Russia can certainly attack a country on its border to protect ethnic Russians from indiscriminate shelling.
So, presumably you think Russia should pull its troops out of Libya pronto?
Er…?
Russia has troops on the ground, fighting in Libya.
If you think NATO was wrong to bomb, then you surely must thing Russia is wrong to get stuck in on the ground?
Plot clearly lost …there were warning signs!
I think Russia’s actions are understandable and predictable and certainly no worse than just about every conflict the US /NATO has been involved in during the last 70 years -but like RHS I’d stop short of ‘justified’. My wife recently asked me why they didn’t just turn off the gas until Ukraine fulfilled the Minsk agreement – a question I didn’t really have an answer for. War is horrific whoever’s waging it. What irritates me tremendously is the moronic bleating about how evil Putin/Russia is, by people who refuse to place it in any sort of context, as though history started two months ago. tree is a good example of this.
Turkey, marked purple and a NATO member, has not agreed to sanctions.
Over 50% of the world’s population live in the countries not applying sanctions.
Now, Now, no need to be practical about this. You’ll invoke the Putin Derangement Syndrome, cognitive dissonance.
But more than 50% of the money and power.
Russia is being sanctioned by west (USA) who are driving this conflict. Russia did everything to keep the conflict restricted. This conflict was caused by the west with history going Bach twenty years.
The rest of the world can see the tragedy of US foreign policy and the thousand sponsors thousands of deaths and suffering with out measure this has caused. And the rest of the world seems to have come to its senses and wants no more of it.
on a personal note, I have no connection or love for either combatant, I live in uk. Can someone explain to me how much he aUk government can refuse to help its citizens survive the massive cost rises in food and energy etc. Yet give billions of pounds in aid to Ukraine? WTF.
Well said and no answers.
Noah’s anti-Western bias on show again!
Countries who haven’t sanctioned Russia are motivated by self-interest; either economic or political. Cheap oil and gas, or leaders who regard Putin’s actions as something they would do if they thought they could personally benefit from them.
Like Blair and Iraq then?
Yes, because Blair made himself President for life, shut down all opposition media and had various troublesome folk murdered?
I detest Blair, but if you think Blair and Putin are equivalent you need to give your head the hardest wobble you can – get help from friends, just to be sure.
Because they are not puppets of the US who are the biggest Regime change warmongers. The US have been peddling hatred of Russia for the last 105 years If Russia didn’t have oil and gas and minerals the US wouldn’t bother with them
Have not watched, listened to or read msm for two years. Have I missed anything. No, I did not think so.
Fundamentally a person’s position on this comes down to whether or not they think democracies and totalitarian regimes are equally good systems of government.
More to the point, why hasn’t the entire ‘Western Alliance’ sanctioned the USA for ordering them to commit self-harm?
Because they don’t believe in ludicrous conspiracy theories.
…maybe because if you are part of ‘the club’ you get to invade, kill and starve people with no repercussions, whereas if you are not part of the club you don’t? And then on top of that they try to delete your entire country from the map…
Why would anyone want to join that club? Much better to form your own, new club….
Countries that have been eliminated from the map in recent years include Tibet . Others that nearly disappeared include Kuwait, East Timor, Chad and now Ukraine.
Are you sure you’ve got the right club?
………Iraq,Pakistan,Somalia,Lebanon,Libya,Yemen,Palestine and on…and on….oh and never sanctioned themselves! Surprise!!
definitely form a new club!
East Timor? On the day before the invasion, Ford and Kissinger met with Indonesian president Suharto.. Documents released by the National Security Archive in 2001 revealed that they gave a green light for the invasion.[7] In response to Suharto saying, “We want your understanding if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action [in East Timor],” Ford replied, “We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have.”
Good ole’ US of A….
Chad? “Israel has has admitted backing the Government of Chad with “Extensive” Arm Sales to the Country, and in 2019 normalised relations with the African Country.Ukraine was one of the most Notable backers of the Chadian Government, supplying it with large amounts of weapons to use against Sudan-backed Rebels.
are YOU sure you’ve got the right club? Of course you have it’s the one that does anything it wants along with its allies without repercussion and without sanctions and then wonders why it’s reviled by most of the world.
I’m talking about Gaddafi’s invasion of Chad, not Chad attacking someone else.
While Suharto may have got the green light from the US it was still Indonesia’s invasion – so whose club were they in?
Wars that attempted sovereign annihilation have basically been non western. Whereas western interventions have mostly either been for one side or another in a civil war, or to prevent entire sovereign conquests like Kuwait and Ukraine (which are extremely rare post WW2 by the way).
Many western wars were actually UN wars. No Russian war ever has been, although they sometimes criticise the west for not getting UN endorsement.
Arms supply is not the same as actual fighting. In any case, on that score Russia and China are up there with the most belligerent in the world.
….surhato is Indonesian, and got backing for his war from the US…just in the same way the US is backing the proxy war against Russia in the Ukraine. Giving arms to Ukraine is extending the conflict and the likelihood of more Ukrainians being killed..of course we could ask the Ukrainians what they want, but nobody cares, and Zelenskyy has arrested most of his political opponents, so they cant speak for the people either…..
The fact is that when it comes to attempts to wipe countries off the map, it’s never the west, it’s the rest.
How you can possibly criticise Zelensky for eliminating his opponents (which is untrue anyway) while at the same time endorsing Putin is astonishing – Navalny and the rest.
Utter nonsense…of course it doesn’t matter who is getting rid of the opposition…it’s ALWAY wrong…so of course I can criticise him…what are you, ten?? Parading Medvedchuk..the opposition party leader….in handcuffs?
And aren’t you the one that said two wrongs don’t make a right?…..except when you want to twist the lies to your advantage it seems.