Of course the easy answer is "because they're evil" but that doesn't actually explain much (one can be evil and still have rational motives), plus let's not forget the US repeatedly vetoed ceasfire proposals in the recent past as well.
I might guess Russia wants to draw attention away from the Ukraine
China also may want the conflict to continue to weaken US armaments supply.
In both cases depletion of US stockpiles may be the objective.
China also may want the conflict to continue to weaken US armaments supply.
In both cases depletion of US stockpiles may be the objective.
@Dukedog It's political, no doubt about it, but not for the reasons you mentioned.
For example, why did the USA veto Algeria's ceasefire proposal a month prior? (UK abstain, and remained 13 members voted in favor)
news.un.org/en/story/2024/02/1146697
For example, why did the USA veto Algeria's ceasefire proposal a month prior? (UK abstain, and remained 13 members voted in favor)
news.un.org/en/story/2024/02/1146697
They all keep playing games with the dumb language. People don't want language that condemns Hamas, as if they forgot how this started. If that's the price of peace, it's pretty fucking low and if they cared they would pursue that and the release of hostages
@twighead said in #4:
> They all keep playing games with the dumb language. People don't want language that condemns Hamas, as if they forgot how this started. If that's the price of peace, it's pretty fucking low and if they cared they would pursue that and the release of hostages
That's the official reason. I don't believe for half a second that Russia and China actually care about condemning Hamas or not.
> They all keep playing games with the dumb language. People don't want language that condemns Hamas, as if they forgot how this started. If that's the price of peace, it's pretty fucking low and if they cared they would pursue that and the release of hostages
That's the official reason. I don't believe for half a second that Russia and China actually care about condemning Hamas or not.
You could still negotiate for a ceasefire notwithstanding the veto?
@what_game_is_this said in #6:
> You could still negotiate for a ceasefire notwithstanding the veto?
True but, that would require Hamas and Israel both agree on it. Which currently is unlikely.
Where as a UN resolution could provide pressure on both parties to accept any ceasefire, irregardless of how it is formulated, or face sanctions/condamnation from the UN if refusing to comply.
> You could still negotiate for a ceasefire notwithstanding the veto?
True but, that would require Hamas and Israel both agree on it. Which currently is unlikely.
Where as a UN resolution could provide pressure on both parties to accept any ceasefire, irregardless of how it is formulated, or face sanctions/condamnation from the UN if refusing to comply.
Why does the US currently not doing a permanent ceasefire with its economical political power?!
@WassimBerbar said in #8:
> Why does the US currently not doing a permanent ceasefire with its economical political power?!
To simplify, my guess is:
1. Because Israel is a sovereign county.
2. But also a close ally, so the USA wants a peace treaty that is beneficial for Israel.
(Since a strong ceasefire agreement equels a strong ally)
3. Some of the enemies of Israel, like Hamas, is also an enemy/adversary of the USA and their interest/regional influence.
> Why does the US currently not doing a permanent ceasefire with its economical political power?!
To simplify, my guess is:
1. Because Israel is a sovereign county.
2. But also a close ally, so the USA wants a peace treaty that is beneficial for Israel.
(Since a strong ceasefire agreement equels a strong ally)
3. Some of the enemies of Israel, like Hamas, is also an enemy/adversary of the USA and their interest/regional influence.
Apparently putina thinks he has a free license to violate Poland's air space. So he can be triggered by NATO while in return NATO can't.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.