Brazil’s Lula slams UN over war in Ukraine (www.laprensalatina.com)

submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] newnton@sh.itjust.works 53 points 1 year ago

What an impressively bad take, I’m almost impressed. The UN is bad for not stopping the war and is warmongering by supplying weapons to Ukraine, but of course we shouldn’t criticize Russia for… oh I don’t know… starting the fucking war or continuing it for over a year for no defensible reason?

[-] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

It almost seems as if the West snd the Global South have completely different understandings of who is being the imperialist in the war. I don't understand.

[-] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Is this sarcasm or an honest question?

[-] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Sarcasm.

[-] anytimesoon@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

Especially given the fact that France tried talking Russia out of invading before the war and they still went ahead with it. So it's not like the security council sat around and watched it happen.

[-] Pili@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago

What does that even mean? What was said during that meeting? What guarantees did France offer Russia?

[-] Kata1yst@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Why did Russia need guarantees to NOT invade a sovereign nation they had existing "guarantees" to not invade?

load more comments (30 replies)

[-] archiotterpup@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

Okay, but he was right about this part:

"Lula said the United Nations had failed to assume its “responsibility” because permanent members of the Security Council “are the ones who foment wars.”

The UN security council is a joke and there shouldn't be permanent members. It's just neo imperialism.

[-] nogooduser@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I imagine that when it was formed there were two options - allow permanent members or form without the most important members.

[-] anytimesoon@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

This is it. How to do bring super powers to a group of nations and tell them they'll have the same voice as tiny countries. Why would they bother showing up?

The world has changed since then, though. I dont think it makes much sense anymore to have France and the UK as permanent members though. Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought...

[-] Fazoo@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Nukes. That's all it is.

[-] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought…

Russia is currently stalemated in a limited war against a substantial (but similarly limited) chunk of the NATO arsenal. As a point of comparison, in the last 20 years the U.S. has lost two wars against non-state actors where it used everything but nukes.

The U.S. hasn't fought a war like the Russian-Ukranian War since Vietnam or Korea, and the results there weren't a lot better than what Russia is seeing now (despite the U.S. doing far more indiscriminate strategic bombing).

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] bluGill@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

The permanent members are, or at least were so powerful that if they didn't agree nothing could stop them .

[-] Kata1yst@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

The point of the permanent members of security council was to bring superpowers to the table and keep them there. Otherwise they could play their games and the smaller countries would all suffer for it.

Of course there are still problems, but through the security council and MAD we now have proxy wars and culture wars rather than a World War every couple decades.

[-] WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

In the perspective of actually preventing a new World War by drawing lines between superpowers instead of appeasement, I believe that the UN actually fulfills its role the best they can. Unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations, which went so much into the "appeasement against war" from its founding members (Britain and France) that it functionally collapsed in thw wake of WW2

[-] cybervseas@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

I thought we were done with "slamming" in headlines. At least it felt like I didn't see any of those here on Lemmy until now…

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

It always makes political statements read like Pokemon battles.

Lula uses SLAM on UN!

...it's not very effective.

[-] chellewalker@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, it seems most politicians are Ghost types, since it never seems to affect them.

[-] Regna@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

In order to be accurate, most of the news communities want the headline of the post to be the same as the one in the article. And as the news sites use “slam”, well…

[-] palordrolap@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Can't say I fully understand his position on this, but I'd still rather have him running Brazil than the other guy.

"The world needs a new system of global governance." Let me counter that part with "any long term system of governance inevitably becomes corrupt (assuming it wasn't corrupt to begin with)."

It may be true that the (subjectively) important UN countries' support of Ukraine in the conflict might not be for reasons that are completely aligned with those of Ukraine itself, but the fact Ukraine is being supported has - shall we say: ironically - prevented the governance of that country from being replaced by a more corrupt one.

Of course, pro-Russia folks will have the opposite opinion there.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

It may be true that the (subjectively) important UN countries’ support of Ukraine in the conflict might not be for reasons that are completely aligned with those of Ukraine itself, but the fact Ukraine is being supported has - shall we say: ironically - prevented the governance of that country from being replaced by a more corrupt one.

More importantly, it's not the UN involved in the conflict. It's several countries who are members of the UN, these countries are independently feeding arms into Ukraine and also stimulating their arms production industry. The UN itself is explicitly not involved in the conflict. UN weapons do not go to Ukraine, weapons from specific nations (UK, US, Germany, everyone else) are going to Ukraine.

Lula's position of not getting involved with the war and "slamming" the UN is further propagating the myth that the UN is involved in the war. Instead, it's merely a 2 party war between Russia and Ukraine, where Russia is getting arms from places like China and Iran and Ukraine is getting things from the west.

[-] That_Mad_Scientist@artemis.camp 2 points 1 year ago

Guys I’m sure appeasement will work this time, right?

Right?

[-] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

lmao they're impersonating prensa-latina.cu, and I can't even find the "bilingual" section.

He's right, that's why Brasil has been trying to get into the permanent security council since like 2002. The current majority members are either inept at avoiding wars or more likely complicit in starting as many as they can to create demands for their military complexes. They don't even have permanent members from Africa or Latin America. Latin America, and in this particular case Brasil, wants nothing to do with this war except for helping creating a ceasefire, but one of the belligerents really hates the notion of pausing the war for negotiations.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments