West's attempts to remain world leader hinder solution of security problems — Russian FM

webfact · January 21, 2015

West's attempts to remain world leader hinder solution of security problems — Russian FM

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says only concerted action can achieve solution of global security and stability problems

MOSCOW, January 21. /TASS/. Western attempts to retain leadership in world affairs at any cost hinder the solution of global security problems, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a news conference devoted to the results of 2014.

“The events of the past years are convincing proof that only concerted action can achieve solution of global security and stability problems,” Lavrov said. This is impaired by the fundamental controversies in building a polycentric fundamental world order, including attempts by historical West to retain leadership in world affairs at any cost and dictate its approaches.

Source: http://itar-tass.com/en/world/772311

-- TASS 2015-01-21

Floater 7 · January 21, 2015

Huh?

smokie36 · January 21, 2015

Desperation.

bassman · January 21, 2015

Well...no shit! Invade the sovereign European state of the Ukraine, shoot down an international airliner in a well known and open flight path and nobody likes you. Sad story that's got me going for the tissue.

F430murci · January 21, 2015

In Russia? They are all neuveau ruche in Russua.

ABCer · January 21, 2015

They are not only 'Nouveau Riche' but plain thieves.

Which has nothing to do with the topic.

When Iran will build what it is building the Western very Correct Leaders will need the help of Incorrect Israelis and very boorish Russians to deal with the situation.

Because all the West can actually do is bomb, bomb, bomb - but never solve anything!

Not in Vietnam,

Not in Korea,

Not in Afghanistan,

Not in Iraq,

Not in Iran,

Not in Syria,

Not in .... where did they solve anything?

As if they are hell-bent on creating problems.

God knows I am not in love with Russkies. And I do not like the Crimea business - yet another botched 'solution' by the West.

But insulting Lavrov and embracing Abbas on a Paris "walk of unity" against Terrorism was insane.

As insane as calling for restraint, understanding and acceptance of hysterically roaring "Death to Infidels" out of control mobs of Muslims.

Benmart · January 21, 2015

Interesting post. A bit of editing could have gotten the point across nicely.

willyumiii · January 21, 2015

How about when they saved Europe from Hitler with their bombing?

It seems their bombs stopped Japan as well.

Where are you fro and what has your country done to save anyone else..or even yourselves?

Just wondering...

ggt · January 21, 2015

What is it about " polycentric fundamental world order " that you do not understand?

Junkyarddog · January 21, 2015

What is it about " polycentric fundamental world order " that you do not understand?

The first four words.

Publicus · January 21, 2015

Lavrov and Putin are two Soviet era leftover apparatchiks who need to retire or be retired.

tsigane · January 22, 2015

Funny you mentioned Hitler. It was Russians who stopped Hitler. American "heroes" didn't dare come close to Hitler till the Russians started advancing towards Berlin. When Hitler's defeat was inevitable, out of fear that Russians would occupy whole of Germany, "liberators" finally opened the western front and "saved" Europe as you put it.

It may come as a surprise to you, but Fox News may not necessarily be unbiased.

ABCer · January 22, 2015

Well, willyumiii, I have heard these arguments before...

Before repeating nonsense about saving Europe, you may consider a few facts:

1) compare the figures of lives lost in action for Brits, Russkies and Americans;

2) compare the economic positions for the same Trio at the end of war, say May '45;

3) compare the dates of declaration of war with Hitler with the dates of significant actions/battles;

As for bombing Japan - if I were you I wouldn't mention it.

A shameful act on the face of USA!

Dropping two A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki non-combatant population!

At the time when Hitler was finished!

At the time when Japan was practically defeated and in total blockade!

Even up till now - despite all the rhetorics in the World - USA remains the only country that used A-bombs on people!

cooked · January 22, 2015

mmm... about Japan... when the Americans invaded Okinawa there were terrible losses on both sides, even the civilian population sacrificed itself, there are videos of women throwing themselves off a cliff holding their babies. Okinawa is quite small. Japan would have cost more than the few hundred thousand lives that were lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. From Wikipedia: Based on Okinawan government sources,^[10] mainland Japan lost 77,166 soldiers, who were either killed or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered 14,009 deaths (with an estimated total of more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds). Simultaneously, 42,000–150,000 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, a significant proportion of the local population. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki together with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria^[11]^[12] caused Japan to surrender less than two months after the end of the fighting on Okinawa.

Right decision in my opinion

The Americans solved the shameful civil war in Yugoslavia with bombing. Nato, for which I personally have paid my part through taxes, were allowing massacres to take place and rarely did much good.

ABCer · January 22, 2015

Good post, cooked.

The figures you quote are accepted on the face value. But they're thwarting the attempt of willyumiii to paint USA as a savior of the world.

I accept Americans being pissed off by the treacherous attack in Pearl Harbour.

I accept that once they made A-bomb they were eager to see what did they have.

I accept that they needed a demonstration for Russkies at the time to stop Soviets from 'liberating' the rest of Europe.

I accept that they saved lives of their soldiers by forcing Japan into capitulation.

I am a pragmatist but all the above acceptances do not cancel the negative moral aspect and a simple fact that A-capable country subjected its opponent to an A-bomb attack.

As to the question of bombings in former Yugoslavia (presuming Kosovo?):

1) USA is a member of NATO;

2) Atrocities you refer to were, are and will be historically built on religious hatred;

3) Judging by the world around us today I wouldn't call it a solution of any kind;

4) Creating a precedent in Kosovo one must look at incident in Crimea - not much ground to stand on now?

Edited January 22, 2015 by ABCer

willyumiii · January 22, 2015

The use of those atomic bombs are what ended the war and saves countless Japanese and American lives.

A land invasion of Japan would have been much more costly for both sides.

The US is the only country to use atomic bombs on an enemy.

The US was the only country who developed the bomb, as with many other major developments, the rest of the world copied what the US developed with their skill and at their expense.

The use of those two bomb on Japan were the first ( and last needed ) proof of what a devastating weapon they are.

I believe the results of those two bombs are exactly why more have not been used by others since.

I think Truman used a great deal of restraint, only dropping two on a country who attacked Pearl Harbour without any warning of provocation.

After demonstrating the power of the weapon with the first bomb, he gave the japanese the option to surrender. They did not surrender until after he dropped the second

Do you think others, like Stalin for instance, would have stopped at just two bombs?

I think he would have bombed them into the stone age if he had the weapons to do it.

*** You still haven't mentioned your country and what they have done to protect others or themselves in the world. Why not?

sead · January 22, 2015

Oftopic but as i remember Sovietunion had a peace agreement with Hitler, and retaliated only because Hitler attacked USSR. And USA was passive until they saw that Hitler was a real threat that would eventually visit USA in a near future. Many countries in WW2 waited until Hitler came to close to their borders. Its same as today. Everyone cares about their own ass.

robertson468 · January 22, 2015

You really could do with re-reading World War 2 history and the critical dates of events. The coalition of USA, UK, Australia and Canada attacked Germany, through France in an Operation called Overlord, whilst the Russian Army came from the opposite direction in a pincer movement. The two Forces met at Berlin and yes whilst there were concerns about Russia's intentions regarding the occupation of Germany, Russia did not have the weapons capability to pursue a total occupation, because they had for a large part, been supplied by the USA, initially in defence of the Russian Homeland, which was a very close run thing, and subsequently in pushing the German Troops back into Deutchland. The Axis Powers held a meeting to decide who would occupy which parts of Germany and the rest, as they say is history. I notice you fail to mention how Japan, a very dangerous allie of Germany, was completely taken out in two decisive blows (the atomic bombs) and prevented Japan from providing any further support to Germany; although they were stopped in the Far East by a coalition of British and Indian Troops at a place called Kohima in North East India. Their objective was to march up through Burma and take Delhi and no doubt to launch a new front to retake the Middle East. A Division of Japanes Forces (15,000 strong) was halted by some 1,300 British and Indian Troops, until re-inforced by 2nd Division of the British Army, who then chased them back down through Burma. There is an excellant website called History Learning Site (not run by Fox News), which I would highly recommend to you for your further edification. Hope all this helps.

robertson468 · January 22, 2015

I believe the catalyst for USA entering World War 2 was being attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour. Japan being the allie of Germany.

sead · January 22, 2015

Correct. I should have wrotten Hitler and his allies. USA called this the catalyst i say they didn't have any other choice. If Hitler took Europe USA wouldn't have a chance standing against Hitler alone. But let's not debate that also

Basil B · January 22, 2015

Putin throwing his toys out the pram again?

Sanctions must be hurting.

willyumiii · January 22, 2015

transam · January 22, 2015

Could be wrong, but thought the west was held back so Russia could be the Hitler victors......

willyumiii · January 22, 2015

I believe you are correct Transam.

That is the story I remember as well.

But, reading these different takes on the history of WWII makes me think of two quotes that I believe are both from Winston Churchill.

" History is the lies we choose to believe."

"History is always written by the side that wins"

I am American and I have talked to Europeans who have a totally different take on the end of WWII.

I have had young Germans tell me that all the U.S. did was show up at the end, just in time to pretend they won the war!

A lot of American casualties would disagree with them!

Seriously, I am sure many countries have their own version that makes themselves look as good as possible.

It's human nature.

Edited January 22, 2015 by willyumiii

ABCer · January 22, 2015

willyumiii, cannot see what my origins have to do with the topic discussed.

But since you are insisting, just for you, - I am an Australian. So what?

The idea of the A-bomb based on reaction of fission of heavy elements was 'in the air'.

Many scientists from many countries participated in American project. Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, France, England to name but few.

It is true, Americans beat everybody to the finish line. Reasons - money plus enthusiasm of the International community of scientists. German scientists sabotaged their bomb development for Hitler.

French and British came up with their solutions on the heels of USA. Stalin got his bomb in a couple of years. All this is history, hardly any secrets involved.

USA was not the only country it was the first who developed the A-bomb.

Thanking USA for dropping them so that others didn't dare using them is a bit of a stre-e-etch.

I refuse to argue about pure speculations - was Truman showing restraint by dropping 'only two A-bombs' or not; would Stalin have stopped at two?

According to your logic we are still waiting for somebody to drop an H-bomb, - just to prove to the world that it is powerful enough not to be used.

But let us return to the topic.

Is it good or bad to have one centre of world power dominating all other countries?

Is it good Morally? Economically? Politically? Ethnically?

Will ever Russia agree with this world order?

Will ever China agree with this world order?

willyumiii · January 22, 2015