Japan Today
world

G20 summit avoids condemning Russia for Ukraine war

24 Comments
By Nandita Bose, Sarita Chaganti Singh and Katya Golubkova

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2023.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


24 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Cowards.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

G20 becoming toothless like the UN and the former League of Nations?

More appeasement of PUTAin and associates?

Of course China sending only the second in line .... they're waiting for their chance (see Taiwan).

Ukraine prevails!

2 ( +7 / -5 )

They shouldn’t blame Russia and rightly so because they were the ones who poked the Russian bear that started this war. Many do not know that Ukraine for ten plus years has been bombing Eastern Ukraine. The IMF even warned Ukraine that spending billions in rockets and artilleries is not sustainable. They were the ones who commit atrocities against civilians. They destroyed Nordstream pipeline, the Crimea bridge, the dam, etc. independent journalist from Redacted are on the ground reporting and interviewing the local residents that it was Ukraine who attack the market place. The local residents were requesting the West not to send anymore support and money and weapons because they are being used against them who are not military targets.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

They shouldn’t blame Russia and rightly so because they were the ones who poked the Russian bear that started this war. Many do not know that Ukraine for ten plus years has been bombing Eastern Ukraine. The IMF even warned Ukraine that spending billions in rockets and artilleries is not sustainable. They were the ones who commit atrocities against civilians. They destroyed Nordstream pipeline, the Crimea bridge, the dam, etc. independent journalist from Redacted are on the ground reporting and interviewing the local residents that it was Ukraine who attack the market place. The local residents were requesting the West not to send anymore support and money and weapons because they are being used against them who are not military targets.

Finally, someone with reasonable common sense gets and understands this. Spot on, 100% agreed.

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

did you ever imagine the day when you'd be siding with Putin's Russia?

I would never side with Putin, I wouldn’t side with Zelenskyy either for that matter.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

TemyongToday 07:49 am JST

They shouldn’t blame Russia and rightly so because they were the ones who poked the Russian bear that started this war. Many do not know that Ukraine for ten plus years has been bombing Eastern Ukraine.

If Russia weren't a zero press freedom country this proposition could have been verified.

The IMF even warned Ukraine that spending billions in rockets and artilleries is not sustainable.

You know what also isn't sustainable to a country? Letting Russian troops in to your capital to remove your government.

They were the ones who commit atrocities against civilians.

You do know that power plants and ports are essential for civilian survival, right?

They destroyed Nordstream pipeline,

I believe some proofs are in order.

the Crimea bridge,

A legitimate military target as Russia has also targeted bridges across Ukraine.

the dam,

I believe some proofs are in order.

etc. independent journalist from Redacted are on the ground reporting and interviewing the local residents that it was Ukraine who attack the market place.

Isn't that convenient how you can just claim that any war crime is from the other guy than your own poorly trained and motivated forces?

The local residents were requesting the West not to send anymore support and money and weapons because they are being used against them who are not military targets.

Surprise, surprise, some of the residents in the east are going to be traitors who are not happy about having been found out as such. Some other residents have said that Russian Nazis have been worse than German Nazis.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

G7 can condemn the war as much as they want in their summits.

G20+1 consists of countries which see the war as a local, European conflict which, while unfortunate, is not something that affects the wider world more than the other pressing issues of the day.

No matter how much the West wags their fingers at the rest with their moralistic sermons.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

But what IS clear is you would never side with US national security interests.

I would, I just don’t think this administration knows its head from its rear to properly implement that. After what happened in Afghanistan, I don’t have a lot of hope in their dealing when it comes to geopolitical issues.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

bass4funkToday 09:11 am JST

But what IS clear is you would never side with US national security interests.

I would, I just don’t think this administration knows its head from its rear to properly implement that. After what happened in Afghanistan, I don’t have a lot of hope in their dealing when it comes to geopolitical issues.

I think pushing for the failure of your country based on the guy in charge is the opposite of patriotism.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I think pushing for the failure of your country based on the guy in charge is the opposite of patriotism.

I’m absolutely not pushing for failure, I want them to win and be successful, but so far that’s just not happening, so they’re not making it better and yes, I’m a patriot, even if I have the deepest distrust for this administration.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Bass: I wouldn’t side with Zelenskyy either for that matter.

Why not?

And you seriously think Russia is a victim who was provoked into war?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Why not? 

https://www.cato.org/commentary/whitewashing-ukraines-corruption

And you seriously think Russia is a victim who was provoked into war?

No.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

But what IS clear is you would never side with US national security interests.

Since every last thing being called a "U.S. national security interest" is thousands of kilometers or even miles away from America, why would you expect ANYONE to?

America is protected by an ally to the north, two great big oceans to the east and west, and has only one questionable border to the south. How did America's national security interests get to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Somalia, Iran, Nicaragua, Laos, Korea, etc. etcc???

Ukraine is LITERALLY on Russia's border, and over the border there live ethnic Russians who want their lands to be part of Russia but Kiev wouldn't let go.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

How did America's national security interests get to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Somalia, Iran, Nicaragua, Laos, Korea, etc. etcc???

Ukraine is LITERALLY on Russia's border, and over the border there live ethnic Russians who want their lands to be part of Russia but Kiev wouldn't let go.

Spot on.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The G20 has no relevance anymore. BRICS is the new boy in town.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

"And you seriously think Russia is a victim who was provoked into war? "

Apparent lack of knowledge about the conditions that led Gorbachev to accept the reunification of East/West Germany. NATO communicated clearly(though not in official treaty that NATO would not advance "not one inch" into the then-Soviet breakaway republics.

We all know that NATO never intended to keep any such promises. Putin is very aware of the NATO-led encroachments.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Keepyer InternetpointsToday 10:02 am JST

But what IS clear is you would never side with US national security interests.

Since every last thing being called a "U.S. national security interest" is thousands of kilometers or even miles away from America, why would you expect ANYONE to?

Western Europe is a US national security interest and has been since WW1. Most likely even before that but there was no test of this.

America is protected by an ally to the north, two great big oceans to the east and west, and has only one questionable border to the south. How did America's national security interests get to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Somalia, Iran, Nicaragua, Laos, Korea, etc. etcc???

Because keeping the ugly face of Russia and China in their borders and away from our allies is our national security interest. Particularly since Russia likes to expand their borders arbitrarily.

Ukraine is LITERALLY on Russia's border, and over the border there live ethnic Russians who want their lands to be part of Russia but Kiev wouldn't let go.

Boy it would be a shame if forcibly removing territory from a country were completely illegal under the UN charter and the Budapest Memorandum.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

They cannot condemn Russia without the head bully of this show being condemned far more for its more numerous illegal invasions of greater length and severity.

Plus everyone knows that if Mexico was in a situation mirroring that of Ukraine, that the U.S. would invade it and bomb the hell out of it instantly, not wait 8 years like Russia did. 

Exactly.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Apparent lack of knowledge about the conditions that led Gorbachev to accept the reunification of East/West Germany. NATO communicated clearly(though not in official treaty that NATO would not advance "not one inch" into the then-Soviet breakaway republics.

"Communicated?" lol That's not a contract, or a treaty. This is pretty pathetic, even for right wingers.

Here's an actual agreement that both Russia and the US agreed to and Russia broke: Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The G20 has no relevance anymore. BRICS is the new boy in town.

Now in its 3rd decade. New boy in town? Are they keeping their achievements secret?

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Because keeping the ugly face of Russia and China in their borders and away from our allies is our national security interest.

And keeping the ugly face of America stepping all the way across the world to shove its mug directly in their faces from just outside THEIR OWN BORDER is not in their security interest??

No. I do not believe that you believe what you say is sound, reasonable, fair or anything good. America is simply provoking both of them, and you know this and you approve of it. There is no other remotely rational explanation for what you say.

Western Europe is a US national security interest and has been since WW1.

Even if I accept that it was (and I don't because Britain used to be a bitter enemy) Ukraine is not remotely in Western Europe. America never had any legitimate military or security business there.

Boy it would be a shame if forcibly removing territory from a country were completely illegal under the UN charter and the Budapest Memorandum.

Attacking citizens seeking independence of their region is just as illegal, and that is exactly what Ukraine did in 2014.

I would love for peaceful for solutions to be reality instead of scribbles on paper, but since all our top leaders are greedy for money and power it can't ever be.

Particularly since Russia likes to expand their borders arbitrarily.

This is a farcical claim in the face of the history of U.S. expansion. Russia's borders have been more stable between 1400 and 1900 than America's were from 1776 to 1959 when Hawaii, the stolen islands, were made a state.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

America never had any legitimate military or security business there.

I'd say the honoring the terms of the Budapest memorandum is "legitimate security" business.

Attacking citizens seeking independence of their region is just as illegal, and that is exactly what Ukraine did in 2014.

Oh don't tell just half the story here. Tell the whole story. Ukraine wasn't just murdering civilians in cold blood. Russian backed separatists were actively engaged in warfare in Eastern Ukraine. And Russia was arming them. Besides, civil unrest in Ukraine doesn't justify Russia invading and stealing Ukrainian land.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites