Submitted by Available_Hamster_44 t3_10pu3dg in worldnews
Comments
monkeywithgun t1_j6madsu wrote
BRICS; the autocratic grift on sucker nations
rldogamusprime t1_j6mbk7f wrote
Pretty much.
MaisUmCaraAleatorio t1_j6myuqt wrote
So, people that don't do what you want are autocratic? An interesting idea.
TheFrederalGovt t1_j6n5euk wrote
Presidents that support autocratic dictators aren't necessarily autocratic themselves however, they are autocratic supporting assholes
MaisUmCaraAleatorio t1_j6na020 wrote
And how* is Lula supporting Putin? By not sending weapons that would be used against his country?
TheFrederalGovt t1_j6nc2f0 wrote
The fact that he equivocates Zelenskyy and Putin as both being at equal blame for war says it all https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/04/brazil-lula-zelenskiy-blame-war
MaisUmCaraAleatorio t1_j6nqj4n wrote
Big jump in logic, isn't it?
He said it was also Zelenskiy fault because of lack of dialogue, and if more efforts had been given to diplomacy, the war could've been avoided. Whether he is right or not is irrelevant, as that doesn't mean he supports Putin.
IFailedTuringTestAMA t1_j6o0jnz wrote
It’s a bullshit talking point nobody with two brain cells would believe.
This idea that words could have prevented the Russian invasion is literally Russian propaganda.
monkeywithgun t1_j6o2o5m wrote
> lack of dialogue, and if more efforts had been given to diplomacy, the war could've been avoided.
That’s a suckers response for defending a partner nation who has invaded its neighbor to steal its lands while it indiscriminately murders, terrorizes and tortures the civilian populace. This ‘war’ is a direct result of Putins imperialistic desires, there’s no diplomatic resolve with a tyrant. Putin was coming for Ukraine regardless of what they did or said. His entire pretext for war was right out of Hitlers playbook with Poland.
[deleted] t1_j6n4gbt wrote
[removed]
froadku t1_j6m9jsu wrote
Respect to Scholz from Poland 💪🇩🇪
CentJr t1_j6m8rl9 wrote
Good i guess. Really shows that whatever "anti-imperialism" LATAM countries were spouting, they were full of shit.
unrulyhoneycomb t1_j6mr6c3 wrote
It’s not imperialism if it’s not America doing it and especially not if it’s Russia doing it /s
joqagamer t1_j6mfvd0 wrote
Top 1 worst take possible bro.
BR always positioned itself as a neutral nation. This is our historical stance. The way we see it, europeans fucked us over sideways throughout history, they can sort their own internal problems by themselves
SirionAUT t1_j6mh6nl wrote
Blaming the victim and being neutral is not the same thing.
Austria is neutral, doesnt send weapons and yet it doesnt blame ukraine for getting invaded.
imaginationimp t1_j6mlk3w wrote
Is this true? Austria is being neutral on Russia invasion? If so that is Pathetic that Austria is neutral on Russia imho. They of all countries should be supporting Ukraine
SirionAUT t1_j6mvflb wrote
The more precise term austria uses would be militarily neutral. No weapons trade with warring states. But humanitarian goods get donated by the state en mass, only towards ukraine. And no sane politician would say its ukraines(partial) fault.
What makes austria special in your mind?
vitorgrs t1_j6pdi9n wrote
Well, Brazil also helped Ukraine with humanitarian aid.
SirLigmas t1_j6mm0ew wrote
It's really hard to talk about the topic of Brazil and the Ukraine war here in reddit and on twitter because it's full of brazillian tankies. They flock like a horde and it's quite easy to see them trough their excuses and whataboutisms.
[deleted] t1_j6mcts1 wrote
[removed]
frostygrin t1_j6maf5r wrote
Are you implying that American imperialism isn't imperialism?
CentJr t1_j6maxlf wrote
No I'm implying that they are fine with imperialism... just as long as it isn't American imperialism.
frostygrin t1_j6mbq01 wrote
I don't see how refusing to support either side means they're fine with one imperialism, but not the other. Do you see an option for them to be even more "anti-imperialist"?
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mcdqa wrote
Except Brazil aligns with imperialist Russia. They might not be sending equipment but the economic alliance fuels the war.
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mh8xv wrote
Yeah Brazil just got rid of a Russia puppet(Bolsonaro, as trump was a big Putin buff), they need to rebuild the country. The neutrality is historical. Brazil don't meddle with regional conflicts.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mhpp4 wrote
Yet lula wants Europe to fund his regional conflict
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mi4cp wrote
No, the money is to help minimize deforestation. Brazil have no regional conflicts. They have internal affairs. Rainforest deforestation is as urgent as the Russian invasion, to the future of the planet.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mjcz2 wrote
The fight for the Amazon is a regional conflict.
He wants help from Europe but isn't willing to help Europe. Which is not only hypocrisy but short sighted.
The Ukraine War has major ripples that negatively impact Brazilians. Just like deforestation in the Amazon has ripple effects that negatively impact Europe.
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mjvbs wrote
No it's not. There is no conflict. Only a bunch of people doing illegal stuff, prompted by said Putin puppet, Wich underfunded every institution that work on the area. That's all. For what I know Lula was able to make great things on this area on his first terms. From my point of view Brazil is right on focus on its own problems that also affect the rest of the world.
SirionAUT t1_j6mkhny wrote
Indigenous people constantly getting killed and probably genocided is no conflict - nice.
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6ml024 wrote
I said it's not a regional conflict, but it's internal affairs, refund the police and ambiental organs and it's over. Anyway, noone is forcing Germany to help.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6ml8bk wrote
You said right here that there is no conflict
Plus, it is regional as the Amazon basin spans multiple counties and Lula has said the region needs to work together on this
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mlfot wrote
No regional conflict. Ok. Thank you for the interaction internet stranger, it was nice. Let's see what happens next.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mkb9x wrote
It not need to be state actors to be a conflict.
Lots of weapons on both sides. Tribes at risk of being wiped out.
Sounds like a conflict to me.
I agree Brazil should focus/take the lead on the Amazon just like Europe should focus/ take the lead in Ukraine.
But this isn't about focus or leadership, no one is asking Lula for that in Ukraine. They are simply asking for assistance like Brazil is asking from Europe
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mkxf4 wrote
Well, Germany is sending the money. So it's like they kinda agree with my pov
flamehead2k1 t1_j6ml23i wrote
Germany is also asking Brazil for help so its like they kinda agree with my pov
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mlaw8 wrote
Lula said he was not sending ammo before the chancellor visit... That was already clear.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mlgyw wrote
That doesn't change the fact that Germany is requesting.
[deleted] t1_j6mcylh wrote
[removed]
frostygrin t1_j6meltx wrote
It's certainly not the primary purpose of Brazil's economic activity to "fuel the war". And Brazil certainly isn't a colony of "imperialist Russia". Plus Brazil's trade with the US is much more significant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil#Exports_and_imports
So what you're saying makes sense only if you make any trade with Russia as intentional support for everything Russia is doing but don't apply this to the US for some reason. This angle surely didn't arise during America's wars. And it's largely the American empire that's behind the sanctions on the Russian economy in the first place. So they don't amount to "neutrality".
Ramboxious t1_j6mgmdo wrote
Just curious, would you say the same thing if Brazil kept trading with Nazi Germany during WW2?
capybara_from_hell t1_j6mh0e2 wrote
But Brazil kept trading with both the Axis and the Allies until German submarines sank Brazilian merchant ships in the Atlantic, leading Brazil to declare war on Germany.
Ramboxious t1_j6mht5k wrote
I’m asking you if you agree with that stance, that Brazil should’ve kept trading with both Axis and Allies?
capybara_from_hell t1_j6mlvzk wrote
Yes, in the same way that Brazil kept trading with the US after they invaded Iraq in 2003.
Fun fact, the Brazilian president in 2003 was...Lula.
Ramboxious t1_j6mmnes wrote
So you are saying that the countries should have continued trading with the US, or Nazi Germany during WW2?
capybara_from_hell t1_j6mngof wrote
Mate, I'm afraid you don't understand what neutrality means.
Also, Brazil's Constitution mandates that the country's foreign policy must follow non-interventionism and peaceful resolution of conflicts. If there's a call for a peaceful settlement of the war, Brazilian diplomats are expected to be in the first row.
Also, your question is super loaded, since many European countries keep trading with Russia.
Ramboxious t1_j6mnrgn wrote
I don't mean to stop trading completely, but to reduce trading in the form of sanctions. Would you support sanctioning Russia in this case?
capybara_from_hell t1_j6moh1f wrote
Brazil's bilateral trade with Russia is already relatively small (compare it to China, US or Argentina and you'll get what I mean), and joining sanctions would hurt agricultural production since the most important type of import from Russia are fertilisers.
So, having crop failures leading to famine just to please some other country's foreign policy? No, thanks.
Ramboxious t1_j6mqoi6 wrote
Brazil's imports from Russia grew by 89% in the 3 months from the start of the war. So I guess not increasing the imports would be ideal? But I understand importing fertilizer, I don't think that would need to be part of the sanctions.
> just to please some other country's foreign policy? No, thanks.
What foreign policy are you talking about? The 'stop countries from annexing other countries' policy?
[deleted] t1_j6mtvo3 wrote
[removed]
frostygrin t1_j6mjyf2 wrote
Godwin's law, eh? Would you even attempt to invoke this comparison with any of America's wars?
Ramboxious t1_j6mk9m8 wrote
Yes I would where the US tried to annex other countries. Your turn now.
EDIT: also, not sure how much of an own you think invoking Godwin's law was supposed to be, when analogies to wars naturally arise during discussions about wars lol
frostygrin t1_j6mknax wrote
If you think Nazi Germany was especially bad - and an appropriate comparison - just because it annexed other countries, that's laughable and entirely arbitrary on your part.
Ramboxious t1_j6mktgr wrote
Fine, feel free to bring up any other conflict where a country tried to annex another country.
frostygrin t1_j6mpgvk wrote
Then of course I'd say the same thing. I don't think invasions are somehow OK if they don't result in annexations. More importantly, voluntary economic activity is self-justifying and mutually beneficial. When you boycott a country or a company, you're doing it to harm them, yes. Doesn't mean that when you're buying something from them, you're doing it to help them. When you're buying an iPhone, it's not an act of charity towards Apple (or China, where the phone is made).
Ramboxious t1_j6mr3rw wrote
If Apple was doing something bad, then buying an iPhone would support them continuing doing the bad thing, right?
frostygrin t1_j6n15nh wrote
No, not really. It's actually a common fallacy - "You're posting this from an iPhone, therefore you can't possibly oppose anything Apple does".
That's just not how it works. Sometimes boycotts work, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they do harm. But I specifically brought up China because, while Apple is relatively popular on Reddit, China is less so. And yet it would be ridiculous to argue that every person with an iPhone supports everything the Chinese government does.
Ramboxious t1_j6n448q wrote
I don't understand what you mean by fallacy. If China would start a war, and you would oppose the war, then it would be hypocritical of you to continue buying products that are produced and/or owned by China if alternatives are available.
frostygrin t1_j6n6ouo wrote
No, not really. It would only be hypocrisy if I opposed all wars, regardless of the causes, and, crucially, if I normally believed in boycotting people and companies for the actions of their government. Then it would be hypocrisy. The fallacy is you imposing a moral imperative on people.
But if we look at how people actually react to wars - America's wars or other recent wars - no, people generally didn't boycott American companies. So it's calling for total boycott of trade with Russia that's what's hypocritical. And it's driven largely by the US and allies in the first place, not "the world" in general.
Hypocrisy isn't even the worst aspect, I think. With Russia and China there's the added aspect of these countries being less democratic - yet the people being punished for the actions of the government. If you were a Russian who never voted for Putin, how would you feel if you suddenly were under more sanctions for being Russian than George W. Bush and Tony Blair for their role in the Iraq war?
Ramboxious t1_j6n7eup wrote
So do you oppose the current conflict in Ukraine?
I’m not sure if you answered my previous question, would you continue doing trade with Nazi Germany?
frostygrin t1_j6n8rzz wrote
> So do you oppose the current conflict in Ukraine?
Yes, I oppose it. All involved parties need to stop the war and talk it out.
> I’m not sure if you answered my previous question, would you continue doing trade with Nazi Germany?
I already told you that you don't have a good reason to bring up Nazi Germany.
Ramboxious t1_j6n9cpg wrote
But the only party that can stop the war is Russia, and they are unwilling to negotiate.
frostygrin t1_j6na36i wrote
It's not true. The war wouldn't keep going without support from the West - and it's Zelensky who refuses peace talks.
Also it's the American military expansion in Europe that bothers Putin. It's not a random invasion. So the peace talks would need to involve the US and possibly their allies.
Ramboxious t1_j6nazcf wrote
Without Western support, Ukraine would be taken over by Russia. I trust that you oppose that outcome, yes?
Russia is the one who is not willing to negotiate, Zelensky was desperately trying to contact Putin to talk with him at the start of the war only to be ignored by him.
NATO expansion is not a justification for the war, since NATO does not pose a threat to Russia.
frostygrin t1_j6ndeqd wrote
> Without Western support, Ukraine would be taken over by Russia. I trust that you oppose that outcome, yes?
I don't wish it, that's for sure. I also don't think Putin intended to annex the entire Ukraine. He might have intended a regime change.
> Russia is the one who is not willing to negotiate, Zelensky was desperately trying to contact Putin to talk with him at the start of the war only to be ignored by him.
We're not at the start of the war, are we? Right now it's Zelensky that rules out peace talks. Plus it's not like things started at the start of the war. There was a long history of Minsk agreements going nowhere.
> NATO expansion is not a justification for the war, since NATO does not pose a threat to Russia.
NATO surely can be used as a shield for American military expansion. The US would be able to fill Crimea to the brim with military bases and missiles, and Russia would be unable to do anything up until the very moment of attack.
Ramboxious t1_j6ned0l wrote
>I don't wish it, that's for sure. I also don't think Putin intended to annex the entire Ukraine. He might have intended a regime change.
He wouldn't have allowed democratic elections to occur, right? Plus, I'm pretty sure he would've annexed parts of Ukraine that are currently being fought over.
>We're not at the start of the war, are we? Right now it's Zelensky that rules out peace talks. Plus it's not like things started at the start of the war. There was a long history of Minsk agreements going nowhere.
Zelensky is ruling out peace talks with Putin because Ukraine tried to have talks with Putin only for them to be ignored. Russia said that Ukraine must acknowledge annexed territory as Russian, so they are not willing to negotiate.
>The US would be able to fill Crimea to the brim with military bases and missiles, and Russia would be unable to do anything up until the very moment of attack.
Ukraine was nowhere near to joining NATO, there were no plans of putting military bases in Crimea, and NATO wasn't going to attack Russia due to MAD.
frostygrin t1_j6nge6r wrote
> He wouldn't have allowed democratic elections to occur, right?
He might have done the same thing as the US did in Iraq. Clear the field, then allow democratic (?) elections among what's left.
> Plus, I'm pretty sure he would've annexed parts of Ukraine that are currently being fought over.
He probably would have left it to referendums. I don't think he actually wanted to control a territory that's largely hostile to him.
> Russia said that Ukraine must acknowledge annexed territory as Russian, so they are not willing to negotiate.
You could say the same about Zelensky's preconditions - give us what we want, then we'll have peace talks.
> Ukraine was nowhere near to joining NATO, there were no plans of putting military bases in Crimea, and NATO wasn't going to attack Russia due to MAD.
Ukraine did intend to join NATO, specific plans don't take much time to make, and MAD surely never prevented tensions between countries. See: Cuban missile crisis.
Ramboxious t1_j6nhtbo wrote
>You could say the same about Zelensky's preconditions - give us what we want, then we'll have peace talks.
But Zelensky's preconditions are reasonable, to respect the sovereignty of their country, while Russia's aren't.
>Ukraine did intend to join NATO, specific plans don't take much time to make, and MAD surely never prevented tensions between countries. See: Cuban missile crisis.
Ukraine did want to join NATO, but their membership action plan was declined in 2008 in Bucharest. Joining NATO is a long process and is not guaranteed, look at Sweden and Finland.
Cuban missile crisis is not analogous, since Russia sent nukes to US borders. There were no plans to do this in Ukraine, if NATO wanted to put nukes at Russia's borders, they could do it already in the Baltic countries.
frostygrin t1_j6njc6v wrote
> But Zelensky's preconditions are reasonable, to respect the sovereignty of their country, while Russia's aren't.
They're not especially reasonable when that's the point of contention. Especially, like I said, there is a history of talks and agreements going nowhere. So Putin leaves Ukraine - what would they talk about, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything?
> Ukraine did want to join NATO, but their membership action plan was declined in 2008 in Bucharest. Joining NATO is a long process and is not guaranteed, look at Sweden and Finland.
After the Iraq war, I don't think Putin wanted to take chances. Especially as the US was getting increasingly hostile towards him. And Ukraine's action plan being declined doesn't necessarily constitute principled objections.
> Cuban missile crisis is not analogous, since Russia sent nukes to US borders. There were no plans to do this in Ukraine, if NATO wanted to put nukes at Russia's borders, they could do it already in the Baltic countries.
They could have done the opposite. Ramp up conventional warfare, then what exactly is Russia going to do? Nuke Crimea, at a great cost to itself? Nuke the US and actually trigger MAD?
Ramboxious t1_j6nkjqx wrote
>So Putin leaves Ukraine - what would they talk about, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything?
What is there even to talk about? Russia doesn't have any right to Ukrainian land, you're making it seem like Russia had a reasonable justification for invading Ukraine.
>After the Iraq war, I don't think Putin wanted to take chances.
Take chances from what? The US wasn't going to attack Russia because of MAD.
>They could have done the opposite. Ramp up conventional warfare, then what exactly is Russia going to do? Nuke Crimea, at a great cost to itself? Nuke the US and actually trigger MAD?
Wait, you're talking about conventional warfare after Ukraine joined NATO? That would trigger MAD, no?
frostygrin t1_j6nmav8 wrote
> What is there even to talk about? Russia doesn't have any right to Ukrainian land, you're making it seem like Russia had a reasonable justification for invading Ukraine.
Well, this line of thinking is exactly why it's ridiculous for you to pretend that Zelensky's "preconditions" are actually preconditions to anything. And even more ridiculous for him to pretend that.
> Wait, you're talking about conventional warfare after Ukraine joined NATO? That would trigger MAD, no?
Who knows? Like, I said, if Russia is suddenly getting attacked by the US from Ukraine, is Russia going to nuke its own border? Or the US - and trigger MAD for itself too? I don't know - this is brinkmanship. Maybe we'd see some other tactic - like economic sanctions intended to make Russia give up the nukes. Or attempts at political regime change.
Ramboxious t1_j6nn3yw wrote
>Well, this line of thinking is exactly why it's ridiculous for you to pretend that Zelensky's "preconditions" are actually preconditions to anything. And even more ridiculous for him to pretend that.
They are preconditions for diplomatic negotiations to take place. They can discuss a whole bunch of different things once Russian troops leave Ukraine. But Russia's preconditions that annexed territories, which is what this conflict is about, be recognized as Russian is preventing negotiations.
>Who knows? Like, I said, if Russia is suddenly getting attacked by the US from Ukraine, is Russia going to nuke its own border? Or the US - and trigger MAD for itself too?
The answer is obviously yes, an attack from Ukraine would trigger MAD. Why do you think NATO is not sending troops to Ukraine right now?
frostygrin t1_j6ntj3k wrote
> They can discuss a whole bunch of different things once Russian troops leave Ukraine.
Again, what would they be, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything? Why would Putin willingly give up his leverage for nothing?
> The answer is obviously yes, an attack from Ukraine would trigger MAD. Why do you think NATO is not sending troops to Ukraine right now?
I don't think there's just one reason. It can quickly become an unpopular quagmire, for example. And it's not actually clear that Russia would use nukes at the first sight of NATO troops in Ukraine. Fundamentally that was my point about Cuban missile crisis. The point wasn't that the situation is exactly the same. The point was that MAD doesn't give you peace of mind. Or any kind of certainty.
Ramboxious t1_j6nvmof wrote
>Again, what would they be, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything? Why would Putin willingly give up his leverage for nothing?
The point is that both parties set up pre-conditions for diplomatic negotiations, which the other party is not willing to meet, hence the military conflict. However, Russia, as the aggressor, is the only party that wants to continue the conflict, and has no justifiable reason to be in the conflict, so it is their responsibility to end the war if they want to negotiate.
Ukraine can't do that if they want to maintain their sovereignty, Russia can do that while maintaining their sovereignty.
>It can quickly become an unpopular quagmire, for example.
How would it be an unpopular quagmire? Support for Ukraine is at an all time high, and vice versa for Russia, especially in Europe. NATO troops in Ukraine would help out a great deal in kicking out Russians out of Ukraine, judging by the pace that Ukrainians were able to retrieve territory.
The reason that NATO troops aren't in Ukraine is that they don't want to potentially trigger MAD, that's it.
>The point was that MAD doesn't give you peace of mind. Or any kind of certainty.
Exactly, that's why NATO doesn't want to attack Russia, because they don't want to risk the chance of triggering MAD.
frostygrin t1_j6o0s1l wrote
> Ukraine can't do that if they want to maintain their sovereignty, Russia can do that while maintaining their sovereignty.
Well, they aren't equally situated in the situation that you're trying to resolve. Apples and oranges. You're mixing up what's happening and what you find justifiable. If your plan is to keep telling Putin to end the war - it doesn't seem very productive.
> How would it be an unpopular quagmire?
The way it is now, Ukraine is getting support without Americans and allies suffering casualties or spending too much. Ukraine is basically getting surplus equipment. Escalating that can make things less popular, and make the war seem more necessary from the Russian perspective.
> The reason that NATO troops aren't in Ukraine is that they don't want to potentially trigger MAD, that's it.
So why are they supporting Ukraine at all then? Did anyone told them that there's zero risk of triggering MAD? They probably made a calculation that the risk is low enough. So they can keep escalating things little by little.
Ramboxious t1_j6oivkz wrote
>You're mixing up what's happening and what you find justifiable.
The issue is that you are the one mixing things up. Your presenting Ukraine and Russia as equally being able to stop the war. But stopping the war for Ukraine would mean losing their sovereignty, while stopping the war for Russia would have no impact on their sovereignty.
>If your plan is to keep telling Putin to end the war - it doesn't seem very productive.
We can keep telling Putin that while we send military aid to Ukraine and sanctioning Russia, if Ukraine keeps being successful then Putin is more likely to listen.
>Escalating that can make things less popular, and make the war seem more necessary from the Russian perspective.
Support for sending troops to Ukraine was around 35-40% at the start of the war. It seems pretty obvious that main reason NATO troops aren't in Ukraine are due to Russia's nuclear weapons (as noted here and here).
Doesn't this also show Putin that NATO doesn't want to attack Russia, since this would be the perfect opportunity to perform such an attack?
>They probably made a calculation that the risk is low enough.
You hit the nail on the head. The risk of conflict escalation is low when sending aid, because NATO is not directly involved. Sending troops to Ukraine would massively escalate the conflict, as pointed out by the Biden admin.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mg77i wrote
Lula said he was getting brazil back in the world stage abs closer to Russia to end hunger and promote peace.
Yet Russia is the invader who blocked grain exports.
His position is nonsensical.
frostygrin t1_j6mjo6y wrote
Russia surely allows grain exports from Ukraine, and exports grain, fertilizer etc - so it's certainly important for him, and the world to keep this going. Even the EU doesn't intentionally target this area with sanctions (though the overall climate still hampers trade).
And it seems like many people want him to "promote peace" by arming Ukraine. No, that's not how you promote peace.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mlx6f wrote
>And it seems like many people want him to "promote peace" by arming Ukraine. No, that's not how you promote peace.
Yes it is. Allowing them to defend themselves and push the invaders back is the only way to a lasting peace.
Capitulation to Russia is not peace
choose_an_alt_name t1_j6mn4t4 wrote
Not every peace treaty is a capitulation
420trashcan t1_j6nnizz wrote
Will you trade Brazilian territory to end the war?
choose_an_alt_name t1_j6nordt wrote
This war? No. A war of Brazil and someone else? It may prove necessary. We wouldn't want to do like paraguay and lose half our population due to stubborness
420trashcan t1_j6npada wrote
No I think Brazil should lead my example. Cede territory to Russia. Accept the boot. Peace at any price, right?
choose_an_alt_name t1_j6nt9eu wrote
I never said peace at any price, i said negotiations are needed and that total victory or defeat aren't the only opitions and that you may need to conceed something to avoid excessive bloodshed, Brazil could have continued to conscript men and take more loans to buy weapons in order to not let Uruguay be independent, but we didn't, it simply wasnt worth it. Solano Lopes did it, he keept not surrendering untill he died, and that ruined his country untill this day, had he started negotiations after being pushed back into his land paraguay would be on much better shape going foward
420trashcan t1_j6ntm1x wrote
So you agree that Russia should give up and respect the right of Ukraine to be independent. Too bad your government is neutral on a currently occuring colonial genocide.
frostygrin t1_j6mq2e6 wrote
So what would have been the way to a lasting peace in Afghanistan - for Russia to arm the Taliban when the US was there? :)
More importantly, you can't act like the invasion is the only obstacle to a lasting peace in Ukraine. How about the majority ethnic Russian Crimea on one hand, and Ukraine aiming to be an ethnostate, suppressing other languages and cultures? What if many Crimeans don't want to be part of Ukraine?
Postcocious t1_j6nh2x7 wrote
>What if many Crimeans don't want to be part of Ukraine?
Like every province, Crimeans voted on that exact question in a fair and open election. A majority voted to be part of Ukraine.
Russia reneged on its sworn obligation to respect the borders that resulted from that election. Instead of honoring the borders chosen by the people of Crimea (Donbas, etc) they launched a war of aggression to steal the land for themselves.
When a schoolyard bully reoratedly beats up on a smaller, weaker kid and refuses to stop, standing by because "neutrality" is just moral cowardice.
frostygrin t1_j6nhq1a wrote
> Like every province, Crimeans voted on that exact question in a fair and open election. A majority voted to be part of Ukraine.
No, that didn't happen. The referendum was on the fate of the USSR. They weren't given a choice between being part of independent Ukraine and part of independent Russia. Since then there is a history of Crimea trying to get some form of independence or autonomy from Ukraine, and Ukraine suppressing it. Even before Putin became Russian president.
Postcocious t1_j6nld0c wrote
>The referendum was on the fate of the USSR.
That was the January 1991 referendum, which was never implemented because the USSR imploded before its reorganization (including Crimea) could be completed. That implosion mooted the results of the January 1991 Crimea referendum - you can't enforce something that no longer exists.
>They weren't given a choice between being part of independent Ukraine and part of independent Russia.
In December 1991, Ukraine held a referendum and Ukrainians voted for independence. This essentially marked the end of the Soviet Union. 54% of Crimean voters opted for Ukrainian independence, with the turnout in Crimea placed at 60%. Thus Ukraine became independent, and Crimea remained part of the newly independent Ukraine, retaining its autonomous status.
>Since then there is a history of Crimea trying to get some form of independence or autonomy from Ukraine, and Ukraine suppressing it. Even before Putin became Russian president.
True, but only half the story. Russia was working just as hard to suppress pro-Ukraine sentiment. You forgot that part.
The only free expression of Crimean desires that's still actionable was that December 1991 referendum. Russia and Ukraine both sought to leverage the results in their favor. Ukraine won that battle by political means (the pro-Ukraine parliament ousted the pro-Russian president).
Instead of continuing the battle by political means, Russia reverted to raw force - taking Crimea whether Crimeans wanted it or not. Nobody in Crimea ever voted for that.
frostygrin t1_j6nuroy wrote
> In December 1991, Ukraine held a referendum and Ukrainians voted for independence. This essentially marked the end of the Soviet Union.
I said as much - it was a choice between independent Ukraine and the Soviet Union, not a choice between independent Russia and independent Ukraine. Then Ukraine stripped the autonomous status.
> True, but only half the story. Russia was working just as hard to suppress pro-Ukraine sentiment. You forgot that part.
Haven't seen any sources. How could Russia do that, exactly, in a newly independent country?
> Ukraine won that battle by political means (the pro-Ukraine parliament ousted the pro-Russian president).
Coups aren't exactly political.
Postcocious t1_j6nvyku wrote
>How could Russia do that, exactly, in a newly independent country?
The same way they do in every other country: inserting agents, propaganda, misinformation, sabotaging (and sometimes murdering) people who disagree with them.
All that is especially easy in a newly independent country, where political structures and norms are not well established.
Doubly so when many people speak Russian and/or are sympathetic.
Crimea being newly independent made them more vulnerable to outside influences, not less.
>Coups aren't exactly political.
Parliamentary votes aren't coups.
frostygrin t1_j6nwy7o wrote
> All that is especially easy in a newly independent country, where political structures and norms are not well established.
I haven't seen any examples of that actually happening in Crimea. You even acknowledge that people might have been sympathetic - making it less nefarious.
> Parliamentary votes aren't coups.
What's leading to them surely can be.
Postcocious t1_j6nxdvl wrote
>You even acknowledge that people might have been sympathetic - making it less nefarious.
Nothing about an unprovoked military invasion that murders civilians is "less nefarious". It is fully nefarious.
frostygrin t1_j6o19rb wrote
Do you even follow the conversation? We were talking about Crimea in the 90s, "in a newly independent country", where, as you were claiming, Russia was playing mind games to suppress the pro-Ukrainian sentiment among the sympathetic pro-Russian population. Except I haven't seen any examples of that.
Postcocious t1_j6o498n wrote
> Except I haven't seen any examples of that.
How did Russian troops disguised as independent mercenaries manage to invade and conquer Crimea in 2014 with hardly any resistance from the local defence forces?
If they'd believed the invaders were independent, they'd have fought. No army surrenders their country to nameless bandits.
That they didn't fight is evidence they knew the invaders were backed by Moscow. Which is evidence that Moscow suborned them before the invasion began.
MoonManMooner t1_j6mtl1j wrote
Let’s wait and see what happens to Brazil when they want to pull another Cuban missile crisis with the US.
frostygrin t1_j6mzyzx wrote
Are you arguing that the US is justified in reacting to another country's missiles getting closer to its borders, but Russia isn't?
MoonManMooner t1_j6n1rpm wrote
No, just that it’s part of the game and that Brazil doesn’t have the capability to defend against a cornered Pentagon.
It’s just a matter of fuck around and find out.
I have no issues with south/Latin American countries in the slightest. They just need to be realistic and realize that the United States just isn’t going to put up with Russia or China trying to establish a military stronghold down there.
It’s a million times more productive to just be happy trade partners.
That being said, putting Nuclear capable ICBMs 90 miles off the coast of a country is far different than the purported 1300 mile difference between Turkey and Russia (Moscow) or the 750 miles to the Soviet Ukrainian border from Turkey by air.
frostygrin t1_j6n21dg wrote
> I have no issues with south/Latin American countries in the slightest. They just need to be realistic and realize that the United States just isn’t going to put up with Russia or China trying to establish a military stronghold down there.
Would you say the same to Ukraine then?
[deleted] t1_j6n3i44 wrote
[removed]
J__P t1_j6mqwww wrote
being neutral only benefits the oppressor.
frostygrin t1_j6n0c0u wrote
No, not really. It also benefits the other side. You can't possibly believe that neutrality is exactly as beneficial as enthusiastic support. It's just senseless.
J__P t1_j6o7ayr wrote
supporting russia would be supporting the oppressor too, just to a greater extent.
420trashcan t1_j6nn9lk wrote
Are you implying that Russian imperialism isn't imperialist?
Noneisreal t1_j6mc8kh wrote
> Brazil's Lula cold-shoulders Germany's Scholz on Ukraine support
What is wrong with people writing these titles?
TapSwipePinch t1_j6n15q4 wrote
Hey, it's really hard if you can't use the word "slam".
beanedjibe t1_j6o7yze wrote
Or "blasts"
Available_Hamster_44 OP t1_j6mdo9u wrote
Maybe ask him: „Writing by Anthony Boadle“
ojudeuateu t1_j6muprt wrote
Supporting wars on the other side of the globe is really a Global North thing, no thank you.
When Bush asked for Lula's help during the Iraq war, the answer was exactly the same "my war is against hunger". Maybe reddittors would have called him a dictator sympathizer then as well.
MaiqueCaraio t1_j6mrpkt wrote
No one in south america is gonna support Ukraine, unless for political intentions
Theres just no real reason to support someone in the literal other side of the globe, if we do it it's to make us look good
MrDameLeche1 t1_j6ogqrd wrote
Why does the whole world need to pick a side?
[deleted] t1_j6mn3w2 wrote
[removed]
Zadujj t1_j6mucc2 wrote
Meanwhile, every single year several times the death toll of the Ukraine war occurs in South America due to exploitation from the USA and Western Europe, but it's okay since the lives lost are not white.
SentientHotdogWater t1_j6nhhhp wrote
How many South Americans died in 2022 due to exploitation from the US and Western Europe?
choose_an_alt_name t1_j6o8czt wrote
"pushes glasses" it started around the 1500s with the start of the colonizarion process and it's brutal mismanagement that started the huge wealth inequality, then followed by the millions of slaves from África and the plantations style of agriculture that pratically remains to this day, that created the big farmer class that has considerable influence in politics, and when a president that finally decided to do the much needed reform on the agriculture system, blam, here comes the usa with a coup and the big farmers joined with the military to continue controling the country, after redemocratization the impact of 3 decades of propaganda and dissapearing political oponents can still be felt, on one day when a man runs for presidency with support from the big farmers and the military he wins, Bolsonaro, who then proccededs to do a covert genocide of the remaining natives, this last action was discovered a few days ago
SentientHotdogWater t1_j6oj17c wrote
pushes glasses what part of "in 2022" wasn't clear to you?...
choose_an_alt_name t1_j6on1lt wrote
Didn't you read it? The concequences are felt literally to this day
SentientHotdogWater t1_j6oyjkn wrote
Also I feel an entire new reply is needed to address the whitewashing of Brazilian colonialism in your earlier comment.
Unless you're one of the 0.43% of the Brazilian population that is indigenous or are the descendant of exclusively slaves than you're a member of the group that carried out the genocide of the native populations and you're living on stolen land.
Can you imagine if people from the US tried to pull the shit you're doing?
"Oh you see, it was the English, French, Spanish, and Russians that originally took our land from the Native Americans so we aren't really responsible"
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it?
Ditto for slavery.
Can you imagine if people from the US tried to pretend they weren't responsible for slavery since it was instituted by the English?
choose_an_alt_name t1_j6p2twu wrote
Wrong, the group that carried out the original genocide is long since dead as are the original people who lived here, the ones who currently live here are a mix of several immigration waves that came mainly AFTER slavery was abolished, the ex-slaves, some natives and the decendents of the colonizers, these groups were already mixed before and after so much time there is no longer a simple part of the population that you can point as the ones who did all these things, the remaining natives today are mainly tribes that were not discovered untill much latter, most of the ones that were discovered either died or joined the mix
Or are you going to Tell me the japanese that came at the beggining of the 1900s are guilty of these things?
But that is beside the point while the people here have become something entirely different, you can still point at the general direction where they came, even if most of their names have long since been forgoten
SentientHotdogWater t1_j6p50x7 wrote
>Wrong, the group that carried out the original genocide is long since dead as are the original people who lived here, the ones who currently live here are a mix of several immigration waves that came mainly AFTER slavery was abolished, the ex-slaves, some natives and the decendents of the colonizers, these groups were already mixed before and after so much time there is no longer a simple part of the population that you can point as the ones who did all these things, the remaining natives today are mainly tribes that were not discovered untill much latter, most of the ones that were discovered either died or joined the mix
I'm sorry, were you under the impression that the US is a nation of immortals and the same people who colonized Virginia in 1608 are still alive and kicking?...
This is literally. exactly. the same situation as in the US, and guess what? Americans are still responsible for the genocide of the natives just like you. You're living on stolen land, in a society founded upon the genocide of the natives and built on the backs of African slaves.
Are the Japanese that came to live on stolen land in the 1900s complicit? Well let's see, they're living on stolen land as part of a colonial society founded upon the genocide of the native peoples, so yes. Just like an Italian family who immigrated to the US in the 1900s is complicit.
choose_an_alt_name t1_j6p6sdk wrote
You missed my point, the people, as in their ethnicity, is basicaly gone, what exists now is mostly a mix involving natives, centuries of african slaves and several waves of asians and europeans, all this groups had a Lot of interacial marriage, to the point it's nearly Impossible to know much about ones roots
SentientHotdogWater t1_j6ow9dq wrote
OP said, and I'm quoting them here, "every single year several times the death toll of the Ukraine war occurs in South America due to exploitation from the USA and Western Europe".
The combined deaths from the Russian and Ukrainian militaries along with the civilian casualties adds up to nearly a quarter of a million people who have died in the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Which means that in order for it to be true that "several times" the amount of people killed in the Ukrainian war to die from American and European exploitation a minimum of half a million people would have to die from that each and every year.
Minimum of half a million. Every. Single. Year.
That's completely ridiculous and obviously untrue.
Hguhkr t1_j6nptjb wrote
We should blame nato for not being inclusive but still allowing turkey to join
ThatsNotMyDogma t1_j6mtnoz wrote
Well.
A lot of nazis did flee to Brazil.
No_Opportunity_7840 t1_j6n8wma wrote
Yes, we just got fucked by those nazis wich committed 2 genocides that we know of, fucked brazilian economy (half of the population don't know if they're getting to eat anything the next day), we suffered a coup (which the US was part of), we had one of the most conturbed elections in our history; Even though Bolsonaro lost fascism grew a lot in senate and in congress; the fascists invaded the the congress, Supreme Court and the president's office (that one happened this month). The new president took office this month in the middle of an economic, humanitarian and political crisis. Demanding us to finance a war we don't have anything to do with is just cruel.
ceboja t1_j6mkzqm wrote
Lula said "Brazil has no interest in passing on ammunition to be used in the war between Ukraine and Russia. Brazil is a country of peace. At this moment, we need to find those who want peace, a word that until now has been used very little." But reddit warmongers with hot takes want russian blood. Obviously they dont care that there are real people and not just an entity called Russia or Ukraine. The same people forget about all the wars and exploitations that their rich countries entered. Protestant mentality does this to you.
unrulyhoneycomb t1_j6mrbb2 wrote
I want peace! Russia oh great nation that you are and so much more peaceful than America, please forcefully bring peace to those Nazi Ukrainians! /s
miamigrandprix t1_j6mnxt1 wrote
So tell me, how can Ukraine or the West unilaterally declare peace when Russia doesn't want peace and has annexed 5 sizeable regions of Ukraine as its own?
It wants to rebuild the Russian empire and Ukraine is one of many countries in its path of military annihilation towards that. The only way towards peace is physically stopping Russia.
Western leaders have talked to Putin tens of times about 1) not starting the war 2) ending it. Putin never gave a fuck. He wanted war and if he is rewarded with land then he will come for more soon enough.
West doesnt't want this war. Ukraine doesn't want this war. Only Russia does. When the invaders walk back over the border into Russia the war is over. Russia could do it on a whim if they wanted to. But Ukraine can do it only with weapons. Those weapons are needed for peace.
calangodragon t1_j6mqlvi wrote
"West doesn't want this war"
This is actually so ironic. I can assure you that NATO couldn't be happier with this war on Ukraine.
Also, learn a little about Brazil and eventually you will find out that my country's position in ALL WARS (the exception being against nazi-germany) is NON-INTERVENTION. This is not only cultural tradition but is actualy WRITTEN in our constitution. Literally nothing shocking here.
[deleted] t1_j6mrew8 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6mu9kr wrote
[removed]
kick_these_blues t1_j6ms41q wrote
Para de passar vergonha, isso tudo que você escreveu é invenção de sua cabeça.
E outro, se o ocidente quisesse guerra teria se mobilizado já quando a Russia TOMOU a Crimeia.
calangodragon t1_j6muzsq wrote
- Constituição Federal 1988 -
Art. 4º A República Federativa do Brasil rege-se nas suas relações internacionais pelos seguintes princípios:
I - independência nacional;
II - prevalência dos direitos humanos;
III - autodeterminação dos povos;
IV - não-intervenção;
V - igualdade entre os Estados;
VI - defesa da paz;
VII - solução pacífica dos conflitos;
​
Tivesse passado tipo, 0,2 segundos pesquisando no Google, VOCÊ não teria passado essa vergonha...
[deleted] t1_j6nxuj9 wrote
[removed]
rldogamusprime t1_j6m9vld wrote
Brazil is a BRICS member. They're not going to oppose Russia militarily. This shouldn't shock anyone. Good on Germany to get their opinion out into the open though.