284
Lula says Putin will not be arrested at Brazil G20 meeting (www.aljazeera.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said that Russian leader Vladimir Putin will not be arrested in Brazil if he attends the Group of 20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro next year.

Lula, speaking to the Firstpost news show at the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Delhi on Saturday, said Putin would be invited to next year’s event.

He added that he himself planned to attend a BRICS bloc of developing nations meeting due in Russia before the Rio meeting.

“I believe that Putin can go easily to Brazil,” Lula said. “What I can say to you is that if I’m president of Brazil, and he comes to Brazil, there’s no way he will be arrested.”

The statement comes after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against Putin in March, accusing him of the war crime of illegally deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 107 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (47 children)

I don't think any sane country would arrest Putin. Deny him entry sure. But not arrest him. Declaring war on Russia, even if they are a paper tiger today, is not going to be in anybody's best interest

Exceptions for Ukraine and Poland. They would absolutely arrest Putin on sight.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 47 child comments
    •
  • [–] 47 points 3 years ago (42 children)

    Why should any NATO country (beside maybe Turkey) not immediately arrest him?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (24 children)

    NATO is not at war with Russia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 45 points 3 years ago (22 children)

    And what does that have to do with arresting a war criminal?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (15 children)

    Arresting the leader of a sovereign nation amounts at least to a diplomatic crisis, and at worst to a declaration of war.

    And before George Bush is brought to trial I don't think the West has much credibility in dealing with war criminals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    We'd arrest him but he'd have to set foot in Germany, or at least Europe, first. The US are hardly going to extradite him, aren't they.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    No country would ever arrest Bush. The US has far too much invested in insuring qualified immunity for former heads of state. Imagine if every president knew that any country could either arrest or coerce extradition based solely on decisions made in office, nobody would run for office. There is an implicit guarantee that current presidents will retailate against states that imprison US citizens who act in an official capacity.

    Additionally there is no arrest warrant for Bush in Germany, or any country in Europe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (8 children)

    Germany claims universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity as well as wars of aggression. The US can try as much as it wants to tell Germany "Bush is going to come please don't arrest him", the answer will be "Have a look at our laws it's all laid out in very clear terms". And, no, he's not going to be recognised as a US diplomat, and therefore won't be granted immunity.

    And of course there's no arrest warrant he's not in the country and if we'd send out an Interpol notice the US would go ballistic. Hence the simple understanding that he's not going to come over for a visit.

    coerce extradition

    States generally decide who to extradite on their own terms. That is nothing new or unusual and Germany certainly isn't in a position to complain the US won't extradite a citizen given that we don't extradite citizens as a matter of principle (unless it's within the EU and certain conditions are met), but instead trial them over here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Pretty sure there is a good deal of evidence that Germany caves into US pressure. In fact you admit it yourself, ”US would go ballistic” you claim.

    If the US going ballistic over a public Interpol red card is sufficient to prevent Germany from issuing one, where would the sudden courage come from to actually arrest Bush?

    "The answer will be 'Have a look at our laws...'"

    No the answer will be "Whatever you say President Biden”. Germany is an incredibly weak country, UK and France are much more geopolitically powerful than Germany and they are effectively US satellites.

    It's simply hilarious how you are trying to puff up Germany as somehow this great power that can afford to alienate the US.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (6 children)

    If the US going ballistic over a public Interpol red card is sufficient to prevent Germany from issuing one, where would the sudden courage come from to actually arrest Bush?

    There's no need to irritate the US when the chances of the US extraditing are zero anyway. And as to arresting him if he sets on German soil: That's not a matter of courage but law. You know, rule of law and everything you might've heard of it.

    It’s simply hilarious how you are trying to puff up Germany as somehow this great power that can afford to alienate the US.

    We're doing that fucking constantly. Get your Seppo exceptionalism in check you can't even cast tank barrels without our help much less produce microchips.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    ”Get your Seppo exceptionalism in check"

    Pretty sure I'm not the one who is claiming that my country can unilaterally take an action against a much stronger state that has only ever happened to weaker states and through international coalitions. What makes you think that Germany is so special and heroic that it alone, out of every state in the world, will arrest George Bush?

    "You can't even cast tank barrels without our help"- Who needs tanks when you have air power? Also the US can easily manufacture tank barrels, it has an extremely advanced metallurgy industry, it also produces 12 percent of the total microchips in the world.

    Don't try to compare Germany to a state 4 times larger than it, you're going to be sad and disappointed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (4 children)

    What makes you think that Germany is so special and heroic that it alone, out of every state in the world, will arrest George Bush?

    It's a matter of law, not politics. Politicians don't get asked, it's all the juridical system, and no there's no legal basis to give diplomatic immunity to non-diplomats (or, to a limited degree, their direct families). You really don't get it do you. It's why Bush, unlike e.g. Obama, doesn't ever come over. He no doubt has been advised about the situation.

    It's the same reason why Putin didn't come to South Africa: He was advised that he would be arrested.

    it has an extremely advanced metallurgy industry,

    Is that why the US industry begged Trump to cave in in that little steel trade war so that they would not have to pay premium for alloys the US industry can't produce.

    it also produces 12 percent of the total microchips in the world.

    Yeah try doing that without German machines, machine components, metrology equipment, and similar. The list of critical components and knowledge we or another European nation (mostly German-speaking ones though) are the sole provider of is practically endless, it's got to do with our economic structure full of hidden champions, small, even tiny, companies completely dominating the world market in their one particular and critical niche.

    What do you intend to do, invade? Lose the modicum of dignity you have left on the international stage? Over a war criminal? Against the whole of NATO plus EU? Not to mention that we can sink carriers without you knowing where the torpedo came from (ask your Admirals), and the French would have no qualms to nuke one as a warning shot.

    But I have no doubt that you will find some exceptionalist cope to continue believing that the US is all-powerful. That you could snip your fingers and tell us "Bush is going to hold a speech in Berlin and he's not getting arrested". That's not how the world works. The way the world works is that he's not getting arrested because he's not coming over because you'd, push come to shove, rather limit his movement than let him be arrested because you don't like where that would lead. It's the scenario everyone is way more comfortable with than any of the alternatives so it is the scenario that happens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Yeah, no this is patently false. German judicial system isn't running around jeopardizing it's foreign relations. Germany explicitly guaranteed that Rumsfeld wouldn't be arrested.

    Also why are you hell-bent on promoting a conspiracy theory? You have zero evidence that there is an arrest warrant or that there ever will be. Your apparent basis for this is that George Bush hasn't visited Germany post-presidency, which might be a fair point except that Bush hasn't visited most countries in Europe post-presidency. Germany is simply not that special, UK or France are more important on the world stage.

    "Against the whole of NATO, and the EU".

    US armed forces dominate NATO. UK and France are the second and 3rd strongest by far. Your submarine fleet isn't even functional, the Bundswehr is a laughing stock, you literally had to use broomsticks in military exercises because you have no rifles. If you think that France would defend you and not just invade your sad little country itself you're delusional.

    This is a level of insane German nationalism not seen outside of an Austrian in the 1930s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    Germany explicitly guaranteed that Rumsfeld wouldn’t be arrested.

    When he wasn't a secretary, but out of office? [citation needed]

    German judicial system isn’t running around jeopardizing it’s foreign relations.

    Have you heard about this thing called division of power. If the government doesn't want iffy foreign incidences then the diplomatic corps avoids them by keeping people away from the country.

    Just checked on wikipedia, your confusion might stem from the fact that prosecutors in the US don't have to prosecute if they don't feel like it. That's not a thing in Germany: If there's a suspicion then there's an investigation and if that results in sufficient evidence then there's a trial. None of it is optional, up to the individual public servant or least of all any politician.

    Germany is simply not that special, UK or France are more important on the world stage.

    ...I'll leave you to that belief though then why are other ex Presidents here all the time.

    you literally had to use broomsticks in military exercises because you have no rifles.

    And this proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. First off, the broomstick (singular) was used not to simulate a rifle, but a machine gun on top of a command vehicle. Secondly, that command vehicle had exactly as much armament as it was supposed to have -- it's just that the unit disagreed with the top brass, they wanted the command vehicle to have a gun just like the other vehicles even if it lacks a dedicated gunner (it's the unit commander's seat). So they took a broomstick to an exercise, the commander simulated gunshots in his off-time, hit stuff (at least conceptually), and thereby convinced the top brass that command vehicles should, indeed, also have guns and that's why they now have them. It's the exact kind of cheeky insubordination you want in an army.

    This is a level of insane German nationalism not seen outside of an Austrian in the 1930s.

    Ah. Godwin's law. How predictable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Why are you using Wikipedia to speculate on my information sources? (I author Wikipedia articles so the idea that you think I source my information from them is laughable).

    "And I'll leave you to that belief when other ex-presidents have visited Germany".

    This is literally your only data point. There are numerous reasons why someone wouldn't visit Germany, Bush largely retired from public life and visits very few countries. The fact that they haven't visited Germany is easily explained by the fact that they are just not that interesting of a country. You have absolutely no basis to claim that there is a secret arrest warrant, this is simply something that you fabricated. (Possibly from Amnesty International's attempt to get an arrest warrant {which failed}. See I can speculate on your information sources too. )

    Also the BND literally broke German law to provide the US with intelligence, the idea that Germany is somehow immune to US influence (or just straight political realism) is utterly insane. You are just so hardcore nationalist that you refuse to accept it.

    "Also this proves that you have no idea what you are talking about".

    Actually I'm quite aware of the incident, and yes it was overblown by the media. It's still a humourous spin on Germany's poor readiness, which you never actually addressed. But at least you seem to have dropped any pretense that the Bundswehr wouldn't immediately surrender, especially considering that the US has 30k troops in Germany already.

    "Godwin's law..."

    Not exactly sure what problem you have with this reasoning. If Bush doesn't visit Germany, it can only be because he has an arrest warrant that has never been revealed. Likewise if you assert that Germany is so special that it ignores political consequences (and is even capable and willing to fight a war with the US), it can only be because you are a fascist. Why does this reasoning suddenly become unacceptable when it's applied to you? (It was always unacceptable you are just so hung up on "Deutschland Uber Alles" that you are willing to fabricate nonsense to preserve your image of Germany).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago*

    If Bush doesn’t visit Germany, it can only be because he has an arrest warrant that has never been revealed.

    You got me there he might simply be uninterested. Doesn't change anything about the rest, though. Your gotcha isn't half as smart as you think it is.

    Also the BND literally broke German law to provide the US with intelligence,

    That's not the legal system, and no they did not literally break it -- they made their own interpretation of it and avoided the checks placed on them. Ask yourself how often the CIA did that, it's a thing intelligence agencies do.

    That's quite a different ballpark than a journalist, inevitably, filing a criminal complaint with the state attorney in person, standing there, asking "and what will you do now?"

    a secret arrest warrant, this is simply something that you fabricated.

    No it's something that you fabricated, right there. I can't be arsed to go back but if I remember right I said the exact opposite: That no warrant currently exists. But it is implicit in our legal system: If he landed on German soil it'd be there in one way or the other within the hour. Maybe not immediate arrest but supervision / forbidden to leave the country while the wheels of the courts churn to judge the accusations, whether it's enough to hold him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    No European country would arrest Putin, let alone a NATO country, and especially not Germany lol. They wouldn't even allow him into the country in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I think they were talking about Bush. While I think Cheney deserves it more, was there ever an arrest warrant for either of them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I don't think so, which is also one of the reasons anyone outside the western hemisphere can safely dismiss anything the ICC says. But also the US made it pretty clear it would not accept any international court ruling, and AFIK there even was a slight threat of violence when it was being discussed a decade ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    He's only a war criminal if convicted in a court of law.

    No, I'm not defending Putin in the slightest bit, I'm simply stating that just because people across the globe have labelled him as a war criminal, doesn't automatically make that official.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Plenty of war criminals already living freely in NATO countries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Cy Borgman: "I could call up my old pal Hank Kissinger! I'm sure he has a few war crimes he never got around to!"

    Harley Quinn: "Mm... I know we're criminals, but are we really WAR criminals?"

    From the excellent Harley Quinn cartoon

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (9 children)

    World war 3 is going to be a total downer for everyone, most countries will want to avoid it, or at least try not to be the one to start it.

    Not to mention the president of a country travels as a diplomat. Arresting diplomats is something that's frowned upon internationally.

    Arresting the president of a country, or kidnapping the president of a country, is a pretty clear declaration of war.

    Let's say by some miracle war doesn't immediately break out, well the country you've just pissed off has a bunch of hostages immediately available, all of your diplomats and citizens in their borders. As much as we want to talk about rule of law, at the international level between countries it's all about capabilities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 36 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    It is a false narrative that doing anything against russian aggression automatically means WW3.

    And this false narrative is deliberately spread by pro russian channels so that Russia gets challenged as little as possible.

    Putin is a war criminal and should be arrested, if Russia then chooses to go to war (which I doubt) they will see how it serves them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    You mean a false narrative that has been US policy since 1940? This isn't "just doing something", this is a direct act of war. Removing a head of state is quite literally referred to as a decapitation strike.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -17 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    If the president of Russia is flying to Brazil for an economic summit, and has engine trouble and has to land in Spain for instance. Spain arrests him. That is a de facto state of war between NATO and Russia.

    That's not a false narrative, that's not apologistic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    That is a de facto state of war between NATO and Russia.

    Repeating this doesn't make it any more true.
    Which Russian politician would throw away his new reign for an attack on NATO which might mean WW3, but which definitely will mean the total and utter destruction of Russia as a nation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (4 children)

    Fair enough. We don't know what will happen until it happens. I'm just trying to provide some rationale for why countries won't be exercising that particular option.

    Fun fact, in Russia the president can declare war unilaterally. I wonder what incentives a imprisoned Russian president have to prevent them from ordering a military rescue, military intervention, full-fledged war.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Another fun thought experiment: The United Nations is headquartered in New York City. If the Russian president wants to address the United Nations personally. The UN requires free passage for diplomats to visit the UN. The United States is a signatory of the UN charter. So the United States is obligated to allow freedom of movement to and from the UN by Russian diplomats including the president to address the UN.

    If the US breaks the UN charter, things get really interesting very fast.

    This will definitely never happen, for many reasons, but not inconsequentially because the US is not a signatory to the ICC

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    If the US breaks the UN charter, things get really interesting very fast.

    Not because "they broke the UN charter". International laws and diplomatic agreements are game of power and alliances. The US hosts and is the largest funder of the UN, closely allied to most of the other major supporters, and has some form of power over most of the other nations. There are no higher authorities enforcing international laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Having thought about it let's do a thought experiment. The United States president has engine trouble and has to land in Iran. The Iranians arrest the US president for illegal sanctions against the Iranian State.

    What happens next?

    Does the US allow the Iranian legal system time to follow its due process and come to a conclusion? Or does something else happen?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    I take your point but I think the power dynamic there makes it pretty different. The US has a much greater ability to damage Iran than Iran has the US. While that may also be true to some extent between NATO and Russia, nuclear weapons make everyone extra wary of such a conflict. Let’s say Putin or his lieutenant declare war in response. Do the foot-soldiers follow through knowing it may lead to nuclear annihilation? That’s unclear.

    But even actions that have a chance of leading to that outcome will be avoided, which is why Putin will not be arrested. It’s also not clear he would be replaced by anyone who would improve the situation, so there’s really no incentive to do this at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    I think it's not necessarily whether countries would or wouldn't arrest him. It's more, if he's invited to a summit or otherwise making travel arraignments, he gets confirmation they don't intend to arrest him. If a country doesn't commit to not arresting him, he just wouldn't go. If a country says they won't arrest him, then arrest him, it calls into question that country's diplomacy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    I am fully pro ukraine.

    Because if they arrest him, there could easily be bloodshed outside of Ukraine. As much as nato countries are happy to support Ukraine currently, they aren't interested in inviting conflict to their own borders

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Acting on behalf of the ICC, not the nation, I could see it happening and not causing too much issue. Putin won't be going anywhere that may possibly do so though, so it's not worth considering.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    Russia barely has the logistics capability to defeat a country right next door.

    Ignoring the fact the Brazil has a defensive treaty with the US, how exactly is Russia going to do an amphibious invasion?

    This is all ignoring that the first thing Russia would do is turn on itself once Putin was out of the picture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    Probably far from enough to make a difference but Russia has troops and bases in neighboring Venezuela.

    It would still be a logistical nightmare considering the distances involved between Venezuela's border and the important Brazilian cities and the whole Amazon rainforest in between them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah. Putin would absolutely have diplomatic immunity as a head of state visiting another country. Arresting him would put the whole concept of diplomatic immunity at risk.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •