“Building trust” is an abstraction that covers many many activities. The fact that Russia did many things that could have built trust but didn’t is completely lost on you, so you have no ability to question WHY trust wasn’t built as a result of the actions taken. Because if you DID question why, you would see that Ukraine’s transition to a right-wing Euro-centric government entailed it being Russophobic and part of the European project to dominate Russia.
Russia was building trust for years beforehand. Putin spoke twice in the Bundestag for example, the goal was a free trade zone from Lisabon to Wladiwostok. Russia also asked to join NATO. It got declined both times.
Even when the coup happened in Ukraine, Russia attempted multiple diplomatic initiatives to deescalate the situation.
Do you know who always escalated? Who was always pushing for conflict? Hint: It wasn’t Russia.
The global majority understands why this war happened and the role the west played in creating the conditions for the war, as well as the role it plays in perpetuating it today.
The objective is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes a threat to Russia and that NATO expansion stops. that’s the objective that is being achieved.
I see reading comprehension isn’t your strong point, but that should be no surprise at this point.
These findings have caused some surprise and even anger in the West. It’s difficult for Western thought leaders to comprehend that two-thirds of the world’s population is just not lining up with the West in this conflict. However, I believe there are five reasons why the Global South is not taking the West’s side. I discuss these reasons in the short essay below.
Over the past year the number of countries actively condemning Russia has fallen from 131 to 122, as some emerging economies have shifted to a neutral position. This US- and EU-led bloc, which represents about 36% of the global population, has exhibited a strong level of collaboration on sanctions, as well as solid military and economic support to Ukraine.
U.S. officials point out that 141 of 193 countries at the United Nations voted to condemn Russia after the invasion and that 143 voted in October to censure the Kremlin’s announced annexation of parts of Ukraine. But only 33 countries have imposed sanctions on Russia, and a similar number are sending lethal aid to Ukraine.
The reality of the situation is that the west finds itself completely isolated.
I define support in tangible terms. The only countries that took any actual action against Russia are burgerland and its vassals. The action the rest of the world has been taking is to increase trade with Russia and to masively apply to BRICS.
The UN vote doesn’t show much of anything, especially given that most populous countries abstained. If you think that poor countries support the west over Russia after what the west has been doing to them, then you’re utterly delusional. Maybe you should ask yourself why African countries are kicking out the west with Russian help.
If you think that poor countries support the west over Russia after what the west has been doing to them, then you’re utterly delusional. M
I’m not, and nowhere did I claim that. I said they don’t support Russia. What kind of depressing world do you live in where you have to support either the West or Russia. Countries are free to do their own thing, and do not need to support either. To spell it out: A country can oppose Russia, while at the same time also not support the West.
The UN resolution clearly shows: The vssz majority of countries, including the global south, think what Russia is doing is wrong. Many of them continue to trade with Russia despite the attack on Ukraine, not because of it. It should come as no surprise that especially poorer coutries can not pick and choose who they trade with.
The question is which states, but having no clue regarding the subject you’re opining on it’s not surprising that you wouldn’t understand that. Maybe if you spent your time actually learning things instead of trolling then you’d understand the strategic importance of Ukraine. Maybe go read up on WW2 sometime and see which path the nazis took to Russia then.
There is no such thing as “de facto” NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.
Buddy, if some organisation exists that has members, there will always exist “de facto” members (ones that support the organisation to a large extent, but are not also de jure members), de jure members (members that don’t do anything) and both (the rest).
The organisation can make PR about how it has “partners” and the like, but that does not change a thing.
Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a “de facto” member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?
NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous “de facto” members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a “de facto” member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.
Everything except building trust, it seems.
And who said anything about not achieving objectives? Unless the objective is to get people, both Russians and Ukrainians killed, I guess.
“Building trust” is an abstraction that covers many many activities. The fact that Russia did many things that could have built trust but didn’t is completely lost on you, so you have no ability to question WHY trust wasn’t built as a result of the actions taken. Because if you DID question why, you would see that Ukraine’s transition to a right-wing Euro-centric government entailed it being Russophobic and part of the European project to dominate Russia.
Russia was building trust for years beforehand. Putin spoke twice in the Bundestag for example, the goal was a free trade zone from Lisabon to Wladiwostok. Russia also asked to join NATO. It got declined both times. Even when the coup happened in Ukraine, Russia attempted multiple diplomatic initiatives to deescalate the situation.
Do you know who always escalated? Who was always pushing for conflict? Hint: It wasn’t Russia.
Building trust from whom, pretty much everybody outside west is on Russia’s side:
The global majority understands why this war happened and the role the west played in creating the conditions for the war, as well as the role it plays in perpetuating it today.
The objective is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes a threat to Russia and that NATO expansion stops. that’s the objective that is being achieved.
https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/das_eda/aktuell/dossiers/konferenz-zum-frieden-ukraine/Summit-on-Peace-in-ukraine-joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework.html
Quite a lot of non-western countries on that list, including the global south.
And yet as links I provided clearly show vast majority of the global south supports Russia. You keep on coping though.
Your links actualy don’t show that the “vast majority” spports Russia. And the reason is simple: because they don’t. As can also clearly be seen in e.g. UN votes: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/24/un-tells-russia-to-leave-ukraine-how-did-countries-vote.
I see reading comprehension isn’t your strong point, but that should be no surprise at this point.
The reality of the situation is that the west finds itself completely isolated.
Ah, you define support as “not actively opposed”? That is an incredibly low bar.
Again, the UN vote clearly shows that the countries don’t support Russia or think what the country does is right.
The fact that poor countries arw in no position to sanction anyone does not mean they support Russia.
I define support in tangible terms. The only countries that took any actual action against Russia are burgerland and its vassals. The action the rest of the world has been taking is to increase trade with Russia and to masively apply to BRICS.
The UN vote doesn’t show much of anything, especially given that most populous countries abstained. If you think that poor countries support the west over Russia after what the west has been doing to them, then you’re utterly delusional. Maybe you should ask yourself why African countries are kicking out the west with Russian help.
I’m not, and nowhere did I claim that. I said they don’t support Russia. What kind of depressing world do you live in where you have to support either the West or Russia. Countries are free to do their own thing, and do not need to support either. To spell it out: A country can oppose Russia, while at the same time also not support the West.
The UN resolution clearly shows: The vssz majority of countries, including the global south, think what Russia is doing is wrong. Many of them continue to trade with Russia despite the attack on Ukraine, not because of it. It should come as no surprise that especially poorer coutries can not pick and choose who they trade with.
Remind me again how many member states NATO had before the invasion, and how many it has now?
The question is which states, but having no clue regarding the subject you’re opining on it’s not surprising that you wouldn’t understand that. Maybe if you spent your time actually learning things instead of trolling then you’d understand the strategic importance of Ukraine. Maybe go read up on WW2 sometime and see which path the nazis took to Russia then.
Sweden and Finnland, both already being de facto NATO members beforehand… You’re not too informed baout this international politic thingy, aren’t you?
There is no such thing as “de facto” NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.
Buddy, if some organisation exists that has members, there will always exist “de facto” members (ones that support the organisation to a large extent, but are not also de jure members), de jure members (members that don’t do anything) and both (the rest).
The organisation can make PR about how it has “partners” and the like, but that does not change a thing.
Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a “de facto” member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?
NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous “de facto” members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a “de facto” member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.
Removed by mod
Sorry @[email protected], but I’m with @[email protected] on this one.
He clearly intellectually bested you with his superior, meritocratic, totally sound and valid argument of you being a Russian bot.
😆
Yeah, sure NATO expanded altruistically to protect Russia’s neighbours. Imagine actually believing that.