284
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said that Russian leader Vladimir Putin will not be arrested in Brazil if he attends the Group of 20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro next year.

Lula, speaking to the Firstpost news show at the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Delhi on Saturday, said Putin would be invited to next year’s event.

He added that he himself planned to attend a BRICS bloc of developing nations meeting due in Russia before the Rio meeting.

“I believe that Putin can go easily to Brazil,” Lula said. “What I can say to you is that if I’m president of Brazil, and he comes to Brazil, there’s no way he will be arrested.”

The statement comes after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against Putin in March, accusing him of the war crime of illegally deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] toastus@feddit.de 19 points 1 year ago

That is a de facto state of war between NATO and Russia.

Repeating this doesn't make it any more true.
Which Russian politician would throw away his new reign for an attack on NATO which might mean WW3, but which definitely will mean the total and utter destruction of Russia as a nation.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fair enough. We don't know what will happen until it happens. I'm just trying to provide some rationale for why countries won't be exercising that particular option.

Fun fact, in Russia the president can declare war unilaterally. I wonder what incentives a imprisoned Russian president have to prevent them from ordering a military rescue, military intervention, full-fledged war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Another fun thought experiment: The United Nations is headquartered in New York City. If the Russian president wants to address the United Nations personally. The UN requires free passage for diplomats to visit the UN. The United States is a signatory of the UN charter. So the United States is obligated to allow freedom of movement to and from the UN by Russian diplomats including the president to address the UN.

If the US breaks the UN charter, things get really interesting very fast.

This will definitely never happen, for many reasons, but not inconsequentially because the US is not a signatory to the ICC

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

If the US breaks the UN charter, things get really interesting very fast.

Not because "they broke the UN charter". International laws and diplomatic agreements are game of power and alliances. The US hosts and is the largest funder of the UN, closely allied to most of the other major supporters, and has some form of power over most of the other nations. There are no higher authorities enforcing international laws.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Having thought about it let's do a thought experiment. The United States president has engine trouble and has to land in Iran. The Iranians arrest the US president for illegal sanctions against the Iranian State.

What happens next?

Does the US allow the Iranian legal system time to follow its due process and come to a conclusion? Or does something else happen?

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

I take your point but I think the power dynamic there makes it pretty different. The US has a much greater ability to damage Iran than Iran has the US. While that may also be true to some extent between NATO and Russia, nuclear weapons make everyone extra wary of such a conflict. Let’s say Putin or his lieutenant declare war in response. Do the foot-soldiers follow through knowing it may lead to nuclear annihilation? That’s unclear.

But even actions that have a chance of leading to that outcome will be avoided, which is why Putin will not be arrested. It’s also not clear he would be replaced by anyone who would improve the situation, so there’s really no incentive to do this at all.

this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
284 points (95.5% liked)

World News

38979 readers
3447 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS