- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
Russian President Vladimir Putin will not attend the summit of the BRICS group of nations in South Africa in August “by mutual agreement”, South Africa’s presidency said on Wednesday.
“By mutual agreement, President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation will not attend the summit, but the Russian Federation will be represented by Foreign Minister Mr [Sergey] Lavrov,” Vincent Magwenya, a spokesman for President Cyril Ramaphosa, said in a statement.
South Africa faced a dilemma in hosting the summit because, as a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which issued an arrest warrant for Putin in March for alleged war crimes, it would theoretically be required to arrest him if he were to attend.
The dilemma led to intense debate in South Africa and the West about whether the warrant would be executed, given South Africa’s stance of neutrality on the war in Ukraine and Pretoria’s historic ties to the Kremlin.
In 2015, South Africa also failed to arrest then-Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, who was also the subject of an ICC warrant.
The leaders of Brazil, India and South Africa will attend the summit, the presidency said.
BRICS, a bloc of emerging economic powers comprising Brazil, Russia, India and China was formed in 2019 as BRIC. South Africa joined the following year after an invitation from China, expanding the group.
Ethiopia, Iran and Argentina have also applied to join the bloc.
Pedant here, nations cannot engage in terrorism because terrorism is done by groups that are not nation-states. What Russia does is acts of war.
So I see you’re unfamiliar with the concept of state terrorism.
No I reject the concept outright. Every act of “state terrorism” is an act of war and I challenge you to think of an act of state terrorism that would not be an act of war.
Putin is the prime suspect of several acts against his own civil population. You also call that war? Against which army?
No that would be murder when done domestically.
Acts of war do not need to be waged against a military. Im not sure why you would think that.
I’m also not sure why you keep denying a concept accepted by everyone including academia. But to be honest I don’t care, this conversation is too silly. Have a good one.
If it is accepted by academia then shouldn’t there be a source?
Maybe he is talking about terrorist groups funded by the state? I know I know it seems blurry a line. Sorta someone gives them money through back channels and they go WASPINATOR: TERRORIZE!!
And that would still be an act of war. What Wagner Group does in Ukraine is an act of war.
And i don’t know why a rational person would think this is universally agreed upon or that “including academia” would some how add value to their opinion.