Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 4:49:17 GMT
Speech by Jean-Luc Mélenchon (*), at the French National Assembly debate on the war in Ukraine, March 1, 2022. Let's take a step back to measure the disaster we currently face. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) announces irreversible changes in the climate: half of humanity and biodiversity are threatened. But we are immersed in a conflict that could lead to a nuclear war that would destroy all of humanity even faster. James Webb, the most powerful telescope that humanity has built, has begun to operate at the limit of our planet's orbit. But our priority must be to monitor the movements of military trucks from space. Humanity is thus plunged into a dismaying regression. War in Ukraine: Mélenchon's discours at the National Assembly Because in a night of invasion, the nationalist government of Russia has taken us back to the 19th century, when disputes between powers were resolved by war. To take us to the 20th century, when all the war in Europe became global.
Whatever the causes of the invasion of Ukraine, nothing can excuse it. Nor can it be relativized. The threat that this invasion contains is that of a total world war. And that makes it a crime against the general human interest of our time. Mr. Putin's government bears full responsibility for this, since it was he and no one else who carried out the act. Politics is made of reality. Indeed, the honor of the human condition lies in the resistance of Ukrainians. But also in that of the Russians themselves, who demonstrate Guatemala ****** Number List against their own country's decision to go to war. They bear witness to the universal aspiration for peace. Their manifestations give us a model for action. They are politically undermining the cohesion of the Russian government apparatus. So let us never forget: the Russian people are not our enemy. We, the French, do not confuse them with the current nationalist regime. Now we know what alternative we are locked into. No participation in war can remain limited. Action and reaction occur without rest and without limits. Faced with a nuclear power like Russia, widespread nuclear destruction would be the foreseeable horizon. Furthermore, Mr. Putin has not hesitated to threaten the world with it. Therefore, as frustrating as it may be, the only rational path is that of peace. It has a clear name: de-escalation.
Frustrating as it may be, the alternative remains simple: either diplomacy or all-out war. Everything must go to diplomacy and nothing - no matter how little - to war. Let's be wary of improvised solutions and posturing. The means we use should never be counterproductive. However, I regret that the European Union has decided, and I quote, "to provide the necessary weapons for a war", in the words of the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell. This decision makes us co-belligerents. A spiral is set in motion. With what legitimacy? When did our parliament decide this? Why did we break what Commissioner Borrel himself called "taboo in the history of the Union", namely "never supplying arms to belligerents"? Doesn't directing these weapons from Poland, NATO land, put us at the mercy of all the provocations of the parties to the conflict? Wouldn't cutting the financial circuit of the Swift lead to a global escalation by pushing the Russians and Chinese to use their own circuit exclusively? What is the advantage for peace? It would be better to take a radical diplomatic initiative. That is, directly addressing the core of the problem in question: the security of each nation in Europe. This question was left open after the implosion of the USSR, since for the first time in contemporary history an empire collapsed without discussing new borders.
Whatever the causes of the invasion of Ukraine, nothing can excuse it. Nor can it be relativized. The threat that this invasion contains is that of a total world war. And that makes it a crime against the general human interest of our time. Mr. Putin's government bears full responsibility for this, since it was he and no one else who carried out the act. Politics is made of reality. Indeed, the honor of the human condition lies in the resistance of Ukrainians. But also in that of the Russians themselves, who demonstrate Guatemala ****** Number List against their own country's decision to go to war. They bear witness to the universal aspiration for peace. Their manifestations give us a model for action. They are politically undermining the cohesion of the Russian government apparatus. So let us never forget: the Russian people are not our enemy. We, the French, do not confuse them with the current nationalist regime. Now we know what alternative we are locked into. No participation in war can remain limited. Action and reaction occur without rest and without limits. Faced with a nuclear power like Russia, widespread nuclear destruction would be the foreseeable horizon. Furthermore, Mr. Putin has not hesitated to threaten the world with it. Therefore, as frustrating as it may be, the only rational path is that of peace. It has a clear name: de-escalation.
Frustrating as it may be, the alternative remains simple: either diplomacy or all-out war. Everything must go to diplomacy and nothing - no matter how little - to war. Let's be wary of improvised solutions and posturing. The means we use should never be counterproductive. However, I regret that the European Union has decided, and I quote, "to provide the necessary weapons for a war", in the words of the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell. This decision makes us co-belligerents. A spiral is set in motion. With what legitimacy? When did our parliament decide this? Why did we break what Commissioner Borrel himself called "taboo in the history of the Union", namely "never supplying arms to belligerents"? Doesn't directing these weapons from Poland, NATO land, put us at the mercy of all the provocations of the parties to the conflict? Wouldn't cutting the financial circuit of the Swift lead to a global escalation by pushing the Russians and Chinese to use their own circuit exclusively? What is the advantage for peace? It would be better to take a radical diplomatic initiative. That is, directly addressing the core of the problem in question: the security of each nation in Europe. This question was left open after the implosion of the USSR, since for the first time in contemporary history an empire collapsed without discussing new borders.