The situation is grim since there aren’t any reasons to expect Israel to voluntarily stop its ground operation, nor any indications as of yet that the Arab states are seriously considering another oil embargo against the West. The risk of a genocide in Gaza is therefore growing by the day, and with Egypt threatening to go to war if these refugees are pushed across its border and Israel likely abandoning this pressure campaign in response, over two million people face a very dire fate.
They're already almost entirely sanctioned by the West anyhow but I'd reckon that they might cut off their remaining energy ties for maximum effect but can't say for sure.
"Principled Neutrality" toward genocide is nothing but complicity. Russia has the ability to stop the opngoing genocide right now, today. How? Simply declare as no-fly zone over Gaza!!! If Israel violates it, Putin has missiles that can take out every Israeli airfield and they must br struck at the rate of one per bomb.
That can and must be declared right away. "Principlred Neutrality" is shameless, cowardly, complicity.
I understand why folks are frustrated with Russia's position, but my work tries to reflect policy as it presently exists, not as I myself or others might personally want it to be. I don't expect them to go to war with Israel and risk a war with the US over this issue.
The point is that Putin's "policy as it is" is morally disgracefull--but exactly what is to be expected from a KGB Colonel, the heir of Yagoda, Yezhov, Beria, Andropov, et.al., just like the suppression of Memorial.
In my opinion, the expectation that Russian policy would be premised on morals/ethics/values (the liberal paradigm of International Relations) over interests (the realist one) is false since it always talks about the latter nowadays.
Generally speaking, there are very few countries that put the first over the second, and most that claim to but don't sincerely do so are just disguising their interests-driven policy for soft power sake.
I'm not suggesting that one is better than the other, just that this is how policy is formulated and advanced in today's world. Social media led to a lot of disinformation and false expectations about Russia that I seek to clarify in my work.
If the Arab states implemented an oil embargo would Russia particpate?
They're already almost entirely sanctioned by the West anyhow but I'd reckon that they might cut off their remaining energy ties for maximum effect but can't say for sure.
"Principled Neutrality" toward genocide is nothing but complicity. Russia has the ability to stop the opngoing genocide right now, today. How? Simply declare as no-fly zone over Gaza!!! If Israel violates it, Putin has missiles that can take out every Israeli airfield and they must br struck at the rate of one per bomb.
That can and must be declared right away. "Principlred Neutrality" is shameless, cowardly, complicity.
I understand why folks are frustrated with Russia's position, but my work tries to reflect policy as it presently exists, not as I myself or others might personally want it to be. I don't expect them to go to war with Israel and risk a war with the US over this issue.
The point is that Putin's "policy as it is" is morally disgracefull--but exactly what is to be expected from a KGB Colonel, the heir of Yagoda, Yezhov, Beria, Andropov, et.al., just like the suppression of Memorial.
In my opinion, the expectation that Russian policy would be premised on morals/ethics/values (the liberal paradigm of International Relations) over interests (the realist one) is false since it always talks about the latter nowadays.
Generally speaking, there are very few countries that put the first over the second, and most that claim to but don't sincerely do so are just disguising their interests-driven policy for soft power sake.
I'm not suggesting that one is better than the other, just that this is how policy is formulated and advanced in today's world. Social media led to a lot of disinformation and false expectations about Russia that I seek to clarify in my work.