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

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    1•1 year ago

    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.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        1•1 year ago

        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.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            -2•1 year ago

            Diplomacy is obviously the first thing to do, but in this case, Diplomacy failed to prevent the war in Ukraine. So diplomacy isn’t enough.

            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.

            Sanctions are indeed harsh for the concerned country, that’s how they apply pressure. To mitigate the impact on civilians that aren’t involve in the war, EU sanctions specifically target people and groups involved in the war, and explicitly exclude food supplies and fertiliser.

            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.

            Sanctions can work. They brought Iran to the negotiation table, which lead to the Iran deal (until US president Trump screwed it up). Sanctions can also fail.

            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.

            The actual violence at this instant in Ukraine come from the war and ongoing war crimes (ie attack on civilians). Sanctions are orders of magnitude less violent than that, and if they can help shorten or lessen the intensity of this war then they’re absolutely worth it.

            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?

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                -1•1 year ago

                It’s common knowledge that Russia is unhappy with eastern European countries joining the EU, or attempting to join the NATO alliance.

                Just like US would have a huge problem with countries like Mexico or Canada joining CSTO. Not sure what point you’re trying to make here really.

                These countries are sovereign state and can join defensive alliance or unions of their own will if they wish to. Neither justify an invasion.

                That is complete and utter nonsense. US would never tolerate a similar kind of thing happening in a country like Mexico. In fact, we can see what US is currently doing to countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela that won’t submit to US domination.

                Meanwhile, it’s absolutely hilarious how you talk about Europe being worried about Russia acting in imperialist fashion while US has turned Europe into a colony.

                It’s also becoming pretty clear that NATO is not capable of deterring Russia from doing anything in practice. NATO is running out of weapons and ammunition as we speak. Meanwhile, US is the only country in NATO that has any serious military potential and once US decides to pull out of Ukraine the whole NATO circus will unravel.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                    1•1 year ago

                    EU is entirely dependent on the US, and the reason EU is suffering an economic crisis right now is because EU leaders followed US geopolitical interests. The tariffs don’t change that in the slightest.

                    The US would probably be pretty unhappy if mexico said they intend to join CSTO (even if that’s unlikely). Would the US use the prospect of joining CSTO as excuse to lunch a full scale invasion of Mexico? I doubt it. Would they complain and threatens sanctions? That’s more likely.

                    US literally invaded Cuba buddy, and still occupies land there. This is not a hypothetical. Your doubts stem from sheer ignorance. US has also run numerous coups in Latin America to install friendly regimes. Entire books have been written on the subject https://ia800309.us.archive.org/26/items/fp_Killing_Hope-US_Military_and_CIA_Interventions_Since_WWII-William_Blum/Killing_Hope-US_Military_and_CIA_Interventions_Since_WWII-William_Blum.pdf

                    Perhaps learn a bit of history of what your country does around the world?

                    What Ukraine received from Russia is threats, efforts to destabilize eastern provinces through separatist groups, then finally a full scale invasion attempt.

                    Some nice historical revisionism there. Perhaps learn a bit about the subject you’re attempting to debate?

                    What did they receive from NATO?

                    A coup.

                    NATO did not protect against an invasion because Ukraine isn’t a member. They were however getting close to joining it. Maybe the Kremlin decided to invade while they still could, otherwise NATO may have been a good enough deterrence.

                    NATO sent everything it’s got to Ukraine, and even Stoltenberg now openly admits that NATO armouries are running dry. NATO demonstrated that it is unable to compete with Russia in terms of military production. Once Russia is done with Ukraine it will dictate terms to NATO.

                    This is what the policy of belligerence and arrogance gets you. People like you convinced themselves that you can do whatever the fuck you want around the world, that you are always in the right, and you get to dominate and subjugate everyone else to your will. You never listen when you’re told otherwise, and the only response you seem understand is violence.