TLDR
-
Respect sovereignty of all countries
-
Oppose any unilateral sanctions not authorized by U.N. Security Council
-
A country’s security cannot be at expense of other countries security
-
We oppose development,use of biological and chemical weapons by any country under any circumstances
-
Regional security cannot be guaranteed by strengthening or even expanding military blocks
-
Nuclear weapons cannot be used and nuclear war cannot be fought
-
Cease fire and stop firing,prevent Ukraine crisis from further aggravating or even getting out of control
-
Maintain safety of nuclear power pans,oppose armed attacks on nuclear facilities
-
Gradually promote de-escalateion and easing of situation and finally reach comprehensive ceasefire
-
Dialogue,negotiations are only viable way to resolve Ukraine crisis
That’s how UN, an international institution set up by the US, works. If you think that countries have unilateral right to do whatever they like then don’t complain about what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
deleted by creator
Do you support Russia stopping selling gas to Europe, after EU has been clearly a side in the war?
deleted by creator
About the contracts, i don’t know how they are formulated, but something like both parties countries taking part in the same war on opposing sides is most likely a clause to nullify the contracts.
I think what you’re trying to say here is that you think that the global hegemon should be able to do siege warfare against its competitors. NATO invaded Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries. Yet, nobody has been able to refuse to do trade with them because this alliance was at the core of the global economy. So the system you’re evidently proposing here is that the big NATO alliance should be allowed to subjugate countries to its will, and everybody else should be punished by it when they don’t do what NATO wants. Am I getting this right?
deleted by creator
That’s literally what we see happening as the real world outcome of the system you’re advocating. So, yes that is in fact what you’re advocating whether you understand that or not.
deleted by creator
Nobody claimed that sanctions cause invasions. What’s being said is that sanctions are a form of modern siege warfare that the west practices. Sanctions have never succeeded in changing behavior of a country. What they do consistently accomplish is destroying the lives of the poorest people in the country. Sanctions are violence. They’re just a way to do violence on the cheap with public support from the public who don’t understand that sanctions are violence.
And it’s pretty amazing how you cannot think of any other option than violence. This is a quintessentially American perspective. The obvious other option is to do diplomacy and negotiation where parties understand each other’s positions and find a compromise middle ground. This is how problems are actually resolved. The reason the west never does this is because the west thinks it can simply dominate other countries and coerce them instead.
Your view on how to avoid invasions has demonstrably been shown to not work in practice.
deleted by creator
Lack of diplomacy failed to prevent the war in Ukraine. this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. Russia has red lines, just as US does. Everybody knew what those red lines were.
Plenty of western experts have been saying that NATO expansion east will result in a war for many decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
EU sanctions have more effect on EU than on Russia. I suppose in that sense sanctions are working given that we’ve already seen some governments fall in EU and will probably see more fall this year.
There is zero indication that sanctions brought Iran to negotiating table. It was the threat of open war against Iran that did that. Meanwhile, Biden has been pursuing exact same policy on Iran nuclear deal as Trump. Don’t pretend that democrats are somehow different here.
Yes, you’re right the current war in Ukraine is a result of Ukraine having been doing war crimes against civilians in Donbas since 2014. Here’s CNN covering that https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
That fact that you omitted this really says a lot about your intellectual integrity. Furthermore, US global champion of war crimes. https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/
Again, where are the sanctions against the country that has murdered untold millions for many decades with impunity and an aggressive military alliance that props it up?