• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Ukraine War: A Global Crisis?

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
The overwhelming support for a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion shows that countries around the world see it as attacking global norms. Yet policymakers also view the crisis in terms of their own national interest. Crisis Group experts assess the war from thirteen vantage points.

Just providing their view point:

On 2 March, the UN General Assembly voted by a huge margin for a resolution deploring Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine. Fully 141 UN member states supported the measure. Only five (Belarus, DPRK, Eritrea, Syria and Russia itself) opposed it (see map above). This vote was a signal success for Ukraine and its mostly Western allies, who have argued throughout the crisis that Russia’s actions are of global concern – challenging the principles of sovereignty and non-use of force enshrined in the UN Charter – rather than solely a challenge to European security. U.S. President Joe Biden articulated the need for worldwide solidarity with Ukraine the night before the General Assembly vote in his State of the Union address, arguing that the war will leave “Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger”.

Yet despite overwhelming support for the resolution, there were noteworthy divisions among UN member states about how to respond to the crisis. Three of the so-called BRICS countries – China, India and South Africa – abstained from the vote. A fourth member of the group, Brazil, voted yes, even though President Jair Bolsonaro has been trying to cultivate closer ties with Moscow. The African group split, with 28 members backing the resolution, and 25 either abstaining or not voting at all. By contrast, the Gulf Arab countries, which seemed wary of offending Russia at first, voted in favour of the text after U.S. lobbying.

BRICS is the acronym coined to associate five major emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The BRICS members are known for their significant influence on regional affairs.[1] Since 2009, the governments of the BRICS states have met annually at formal summits. India hosted the most recent 13th BRICS summit on 9 September 2021 virtually.

What explains the differences in regional and national attitudes toward the Ukraine crisis? A series of short case studies by Crisis Group experts – covering eleven individual countries and the Gulf Arab states as a group – reveals a wide array of political factors at work. These include geopolitical factors, economic pressures and security concerns but sometimes also domestic political tensions and disputes. In some cases, governments have allowed questions of sovereignty and order to trump their specific interests: Mexico, for example, appears to have put aside a desire for increased trade with Russia out of sympathy for Ukraine. But many governments have calibrated their position according to more immediate goals. The Ukraine conflict may be a matter of global concern, but states’ responses to it continue to be conditioned by internal political debates and foreign policy priorities.

The Ukraine War: A Global Crisis?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The overwhelming support for a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion shows that countries around the world see it as attacking global norms. Yet policymakers also view the crisis in terms of their own national interest. Crisis Group experts assess the war from thirteen vantage points.

Just providing their view point:

On 2 March, the UN General Assembly voted by a huge margin for a resolution deploring Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine. Fully 141 UN member states supported the measure. Only five (Belarus, DPRK, Eritrea, Syria and Russia itself) opposed it (see map above). This vote was a signal success for Ukraine and its mostly Western allies, who have argued throughout the crisis that Russia’s actions are of global concern – challenging the principles of sovereignty and non-use of force enshrined in the UN Charter – rather than solely a challenge to European security. U.S. President Joe Biden articulated the need for worldwide solidarity with Ukraine the night before the General Assembly vote in his State of the Union address, arguing that the war will leave “Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger”.

Yet despite overwhelming support for the resolution, there were noteworthy divisions among UN member states about how to respond to the crisis. Three of the so-called BRICS countries – China, India and South Africa – abstained from the vote. A fourth member of the group, Brazil, voted yes, even though President Jair Bolsonaro has been trying to cultivate closer ties with Moscow. The African group split, with 28 members backing the resolution, and 25 either abstaining or not voting at all. By contrast, the Gulf Arab countries, which seemed wary of offending Russia at first, voted in favour of the text after U.S. lobbying.

BRICS is the acronym coined to associate five major emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The BRICS members are known for their significant influence on regional affairs.[1] Since 2009, the governments of the BRICS states have met annually at formal summits. India hosted the most recent 13th BRICS summit on 9 September 2021 virtually.

What explains the differences in regional and national attitudes toward the Ukraine crisis? A series of short case studies by Crisis Group experts – covering eleven individual countries and the Gulf Arab states as a group – reveals a wide array of political factors at work. These include geopolitical factors, economic pressures and security concerns but sometimes also domestic political tensions and disputes. In some cases, governments have allowed questions of sovereignty and order to trump their specific interests: Mexico, for example, appears to have put aside a desire for increased trade with Russia out of sympathy for Ukraine. But many governments have calibrated their position according to more immediate goals. The Ukraine conflict may be a matter of global concern, but states’ responses to it continue to be conditioned by internal political debates and foreign policy priorities.

The Ukraine War: A Global Crisis?
The reaction gives slight hope that countries' leaders are leaving the kindergarten stage. If that will ever really happen, we'll get a total international ban of annexations and attack wars with automatic sanctions - which would be a nightmare to the US, Russia, China and weapons manufacturer everywhere. So, I wouldn't hold my breath.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The reaction gives slight hope that countries' leaders are leaving the kindergarten stage. If that will ever really happen, we'll get a total international ban of annexations and attack wars with automatic sanctions - which would be a nightmare to the US, Russia, China and weapons manufacturer everywhere. So, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Crimea was a regular annexation.
If we had respected it, and if we had respected Russia after this annexation, maybe we would not find ourselves in this situation, right now
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Crimea was a regular annexation.
If we had respected it, and if we had respected Russia after this annexation, maybe we would not find ourselves in this situation, right now
If Russia has respected the agreement they made earlier, concerning the sovereignty of the Ukraine, we wouldn't be in this mess, starting with the illegal annexation of Crimea. Not understand even simple things like agreements? :oops:
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
If Russia has respected the agreement they made earlier, concerning the sovereignty of the Ukraine, we wouldn't be in this mess, starting with the illegal annexation of Crimea. Not understand even simple things like agreements? :oops:

And who decides when an annexation is regular or not?
Tell me the procedure you consider suitable to make an annexation regular.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Just answer the question - know what an agreement means?

I asked you a question. Tell me what the right procedure would be for the annexation of a country.
In general

This has nothing to do with agreements.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The overwhelming support for a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion shows that countries around the world see it as attacking global norms. Yet policymakers also view the crisis in terms of their own national interest. Crisis Group experts assess the war from thirteen vantage points.
Politics?.......... or a Global recognition about what Serious International Crime is?
If Putin wins he will feel vindicated and will want to take yet another country that once was in the USSR.....and on.
If Putin Loses he will seek to start something much worse... that is, is Putin ever loses any of his missions, he could reach for the buttons. Maybe the Russian people could revolt over all this, but the lives that would be lost........

This is a Global Crisis.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
The overwhelming support for a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion shows that countries around the world see it as attacking global norms. Yet policymakers also view the crisis in terms of their own national interest. Crisis Group experts assess the war from thirteen vantage points.

Just providing their view point:

On 2 March, the UN General Assembly voted by a huge margin for a resolution deploring Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine. Fully 141 UN member states supported the measure. Only five (Belarus, DPRK, Eritrea, Syria and Russia itself) opposed it (see map above). This vote was a signal success for Ukraine and its mostly Western allies, who have argued throughout the crisis that Russia’s actions are of global concern – challenging the principles of sovereignty and non-use of force enshrined in the UN Charter – rather than solely a challenge to European security. U.S. President Joe Biden articulated the need for worldwide solidarity with Ukraine the night before the General Assembly vote in his State of the Union address, arguing that the war will leave “Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger”.

Yet despite overwhelming support for the resolution, there were noteworthy divisions among UN member states about how to respond to the crisis. Three of the so-called BRICS countries – China, India and South Africa – abstained from the vote. A fourth member of the group, Brazil, voted yes, even though President Jair Bolsonaro has been trying to cultivate closer ties with Moscow. The African group split, with 28 members backing the resolution, and 25 either abstaining or not voting at all. By contrast, the Gulf Arab countries, which seemed wary of offending Russia at first, voted in favour of the text after U.S. lobbying.

BRICS is the acronym coined to associate five major emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The BRICS members are known for their significant influence on regional affairs.[1] Since 2009, the governments of the BRICS states have met annually at formal summits. India hosted the most recent 13th BRICS summit on 9 September 2021 virtually.

What explains the differences in regional and national attitudes toward the Ukraine crisis? A series of short case studies by Crisis Group experts – covering eleven individual countries and the Gulf Arab states as a group – reveals a wide array of political factors at work. These include geopolitical factors, economic pressures and security concerns but sometimes also domestic political tensions and disputes. In some cases, governments have allowed questions of sovereignty and order to trump their specific interests: Mexico, for example, appears to have put aside a desire for increased trade with Russia out of sympathy for Ukraine. But many governments have calibrated their position according to more immediate goals. The Ukraine conflict may be a matter of global concern, but states’ responses to it continue to be conditioned by internal political debates and foreign policy priorities.

The Ukraine War: A Global Crisis?
Yes its world conflict. Should be be careful for actions.

If Gulf Arabs following Biden request to more oil more export.
I would listen to song of madonna. justice timberlake. 4 minutes.
Say goodbye for your families and friends.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I asked you a question. Tell me what the right procedure would be for the annextion of a country.
In general

This has nothing to do with agreements.
When you say "right" procedure, does that mean you think there is a legal procedure? - bearing in mind that annexation means taking by force a territory that is part of another country.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
When you say "right" procedure, does that mean you think there is a legal procedure? - bearing in mind that annexation means taking by force a territory that is part of another country.
Yes, there is.

Example.
1) The representatives of the Crimean people vote for deciding the opportunity of an annexation referendum.
2) The majority says yes.
3) the referendum takes place
4) the majority of Crimeans vote for the annexation.
5) they elect an assembly of people that will write a new Constitution for the new independent Republic of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation
6) the Constitution is in force
7) Crimea is annexed.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Yes, there is.

Example.
1) The representatives of the Crimean people vote for deciding the opportunity of an annexation referendum.
2) The majority says yes.
3) the referendum takes place
4) the majority of Crimeans vote for the annexation.
5) they elect an assembly of people that will write a new Constitution for the new independent Republic of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation
6) the Constitution is in force
7) Crimea is annexed.
If this referendum had been called with the agreement of the government of Ukraine, and held before it had been already annexed, then it would have been legally valid, as its departure from Ukraine would have been agreed by all parties. This is, for example, what would happen if Northern Ireland were to vote to join the Republic of Ireland, since both governments have agreed (in the Good Friday Agreement) to honour the result of such a vote.

Annexation, however is different. Annexation is a one-sided grab, by force. What happened in Crimea was that Russia annexed it by force and then cooked up a referendum afterwards, with no agreement from the Ukraine government.To make matters worse, this action was specifically in breach of agreements signed by Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

So, anyone arguing this was a legal procedure is either being highly disingenuous or is an idiot. I find it hard to decide which of two you are. Possibly the two options are not mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
If this referendum had been called with the agreement of the government of Ukraine, and held before it had been already annexed, then it would have been legally valid, as its departure from Ukraine would have been agreed by all parties. This is, for example, what would happen if Northern Ireland were to vote to join the Republic of Ireland, since both governments have agreed (in the Good Friday Agreement) to honour the result of such a vote.

Annexation, however is different. Annexation is a one-sided grab, by force. What happened in Crimea was that Russia annexed it by force and then cooked up a referendum afterwards, with no agreement from the Ukraine government.To make matters worse, this action was specifically in breach of agreements signed by Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

So, anyone arguing this was a legal procedure is either being highly disingenuous or is an idiot. I find it hard to decide which of two you are. Possibly the two options are not mutually exclusive.

I speak of juridical procedures.
I studied international law and the right of self-determination of people cannot be jeopardized or prevented by the Government of a country.

This is identical in Catalunya. Spain cannot prevent the right to self-determination of peoples who want to be either independent or part of another state (like South Tyrol).

I understand you are a scientist. I am a jurist.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
I speak of juridical procedures.
I studied international law and the right of self-determination of people cannot be jeopardized or prevented by the Government of a country.

This is identical in Catalunya. Spain cannot prevent the right to self-determination of peoples who want to be either independemt or part of another state (like South Tyrol).

I understand you are a scientist. I am a jurist.
Some jurist! But you are Italian of course. Italian law and the Italian courts are are not famous as a gold standard, around the world. :D
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Some jurist! But you are Italian of course. Italian law and the Italian courts are are not famous as a gold standard, around the world. :D

International Law includes the right of ownership.
The Malvinas islands for example belong to Argentina de facto and de jure.
UK cannot impose post colonial logic in the 21st century, keeping the Malvinas.
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I asked you a question. Tell me what the right procedure would be for the annextion of a country.
In general

This has nothing to do with agreements.
Sorry. You don't seem to understand the word 'agreement', or trust apparently, since when one does not respect the 'agreement' and when one 'lies' like Putin has done, the 'trust' tends to vanish. You don't seem to realise how much of an outcast Putin has become and any of the fanbois supporting him. Know why? Because he is a liar and can't be trusted. :oops:
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Sorry. You don't seem to understand the word 'agreement', or trust apparently, since when one does respect the 'agreement' and when one 'lies' like Putin has done, the 'trust' tends to vanish. You don't seem to realise how of an outcast Putin has become and any of the fanbois supporting him. Know shy? Because he is a liar and can't be trusted. :oops:

If South Tyrol decides to be annexed by Austria through referendum...will you prevent South Tyroleans from doing it?
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
If Russia has respected the agreement they made earlier, concerning the sovereignty of the Ukraine, we wouldn't be in this mess, starting with the illegal annexation of Crimea. Not understand even simple things like agreements? :oops:

It seems they may have gotten "buyer's remorse" after making that agreement. When the agreement was made, one could have foreseen that there would be trouble somewhere down the line.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Some jurist! But you are Italian of course. Italian law and the Italian courts are are not famous as a gold standard, around the world. :D

I don't know, considering all the Latin phrases often used by lawyers. It seems that the Italians invented law as we know it.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If this referendum had been called with the agreement of the government of Ukraine, and held before it had been already annexed, then it would have been legally valid, as its departure from Ukraine would have been agreed by all parties. This is, for example, what would happen if Northern Ireland were to vote to join the Republic of Ireland, since both governments have agreed (in the Good Friday Agreement) to honour the result of such a vote.

Annexation, however is different. Annexation is a one-sided grab, by force. What happened in Crimea was that Russia annexed it by force and then cooked up a referendum afterwards, with no agreement from the Ukraine government.To make matters worse, this action was specifically in breach of agreements signed by Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

So, anyone arguing this was a legal procedure is either being highly disingenuous or is an idiot. I find it hard to decide which of two you are. Possibly the two options are not mutually exclusive.

If science decides to study consciousness. And released the status to the public that AI subliminal mind conditions are a proven human condition.

To gain ideas in your mind from outside sources. Man's ideas were first by machines invention a code of form to control and machines now hold a form of possession over choices. As controlled purpose.

Machines invented to destroy earths mass.

Changed human conscious idealisms of natural mind self control. To know humanity is family.

Suddenly agreed thoughts change an ideal. Agreements removed.

Men state it seems man of science encoded a brain change involving machines. Stephen hawkings an example. Mind can speak through a machine.

As men name all names U KRA INE. Was named by man's choice.

Ark advice is in the name. Russia was hit by the star ark.

Suddenly man's mind psyche and beliefs change as did his scientific thesis.

Do you think it proves you own a man made cause? Inherited conditions by science causes.

Ark.
Kra was a name baboon in Egyptian themes. Aligns to a resurgence of life's stories argued about evolution from apes. Another argument of science.

Nuke in the word.

Rain. Lots of floods.

Seems real about men inventing science....science inventing machines causing man's owned problems. By men using words naming names. Mind problems caused by machines.

Stephen Hawkings science warnings.

If we didn't think the themes owned a reality it wouldn't even be asserted in our consciousness.
 
Top