Summit in Switzerland, peace fades away
Objection to the war, start to the campaign in Belluno
15th June 2024
Muscoril and other thiocolchicoside-based muscle relaxants are carcinogenic and genotoxic
24th June 2024
The peace summit between Ukraine and its allies concluded in Switzerland to propose a draft peace which provides for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea, the withdrawal of Moscow's troops and Kiev's entry into the Atlantic Alliance ( confirmed by Stoltenberg and Blinken). In fact an endorsement to continue the war.
The great absent
They signed the agreement 80 countries, but 12 participating countries have not placed their seal. These are Brazil, India, South Africa, Mexico, Armenia, Bahrain, Indonesia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, Colombia and the Vatican. If we take into account that countries such as China and Russia did not participate in the Summit, we can say that the majority of the global population did not sign.
Putin sends word that Russia is ready for a ceasefire and to start negotiations if Ukrainian troops withdraw from the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhya and Kherson and if the Kiev government undertakes not to join NATO.
Many representatives of the West they mock Putin, saying that his proposals are not serious (Scholz), represent a surrender for Ukraine (Harris and Meloni), that they are not a reasonable basis for peace (Sullivan). These speeches are hot air, they are words that serve no purpose except to fuel the war.
But Putin repeats the maximum of his requests since the war began. Indeed, in May 2022 his demands were lower, the autonomy of Donbass and the neutrality of Ukraine from NATO were enough to end the war, but on the agreement already agreed between Russia and Ukraine, the arrogance of GB and the USA blew up All.
If we want to be honest, even the Ukrainian demands at the Swiss Summit, on a real level, ask Putin to surrender, that is, to abandon all the regions of Ukraine and Crimea and to accept Kiev's entry into NATO. If we want to look at things as they are and with a minimum of objectivity, both requests are not very serious and both ask for the surrender of the contender and come from two separate tables that do not want to meet: this is really the very unserious question.
Open a negotiating table
The only thing necessary what needs to be done is the opening of a negotiating table in which Ukraine, Russia, the USA participate together, but also China and perhaps some other large countries and a Europe that knows how to take back its founding values, certainly not the Europe of today Von der Leyen and Borrell.
Just opening a table of this type is the serious thing to do, the opening of a discussion capable of tackling the causes of the war together and finding a compromise that puts an end to the destruction and massacres of civilians and soldiers, taking into consideration the conditions that can guarantee security and development for all in the spirit of peaceful cooperation of peoples.
China claims its “sensible position” regarding the peace conference to be held on the war in Ukraine which is based on the recognition of the initiative by both sides in the conflict, on the equal participation of all parties involved and on the fair discussion of all plans of peace available. It is Beijing's position, which the position, expressed jointly with Brazil last month, is supported by more than 100 countries, representing the global majority to end the Ukrainian tragedy.
Devastation of creation
As well as devastating the lives of men, to exacerbate hatred and division and kill the hopes of the little ones, we are destroying creation, devastating our common home.
According to recent research Led by the Initiative on War Greenhouse Gas Accounting (IGGAN), the climate cost of the last 2 years of war in Ukraine was higher than the annual greenhouse gas emissions generated by 175 countries individually.
Despite this, the war continues to be fueled by the world's greats, who in their presumption believe they always have solutions to everything. And it is still not considered how much energy it will take to rebuild Ukraine after the end of the war. And emissions due to the wars in Gaza and Africa are missing from the calculation. But the warlords want us to believe that money and weapons are enough to solve problems, while Peace remains a mirage.
More nuclear weapons
Their perseverance is diabolical. NATO, according to its secretary Stoltenberg, is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons in the face of the growing threat from Russia and China, because it must show the world its arsenal to send a direct message to its enemies. The secretary himself, who will be received by Biden at the White House, declares that the path to peace in Ukraine passes through the delivery of new weapons.
A mountain of resources stolen from the fight against the climate crisis and hunger, in the name of deterrence, security and a distorted concept of peace. The worst investment in the context of an already controversial expenditure such as that for military instruments is the expenditure for nuclear weapons, necessary to maintain the efficiency of an arsenal capable of unleashing total apocalypse.
Over $2.900 per second wasted
The nine nuclear-armed statesChina, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States collectively spent more than $2023 billion on their arsenals in 91, equivalent to $2.900 per second. The complaint comes from the latest report from the international campaign Ican (International Campaigning to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), which shows how $10,7 billion more was spent on nuclear weapons last year compared to 2022.
The United States share, at $51,5 billion (52 percent), is higher than that of all other nuclear-armed countries combined and represents 80 percent of the increase in nuclear weapons spending in 2023. Next, the China spent $11,8 billion (15%), while Russia is in third place with $8,3 billion (11%). UK spending increased significantly for the second consecutive year, up 17% to $8,1B (8%).
Inhumane weapons, a global threat
“Surge” is the fifth edition of Ican's report on global spending on nuclear weapons. In the last 5 years, $387 billion has been spent on nuclear weapons: from $68,2 billion to $91,4 billion per year.
Alicia Sanders-Zakre of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapon, co-author of the report, highlights how the acceleration of spending on these inhumane and destructive weapons over the past five years is absolutely not improving global security, but represents a global threat.
These politicians with long noses and who cannot see beyond their own toenails are leading us to ruin. And the left, if it continues to endorse arms supplies and remains divided on the issue of peace and disarmament, will inevitably hand us over to a "new" fascism.
Francesco Masut
