Russian President Vladimir Putin will not attend the summit of the BRICS group of nations in South Africa in August “by mutual agreement”, South Africa’s presidency said on Wednesday.

“By mutual agreement, President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation will not attend the summit, but the Russian Federation will be represented by Foreign Minister Mr [Sergey] Lavrov,” Vincent Magwenya, a spokesman for President Cyril Ramaphosa, said in a statement.

South Africa faced a dilemma in hosting the summit because, as a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which issued an arrest warrant for Putin in March for alleged war crimes, it would theoretically be required to arrest him if he were to attend.

The dilemma led to intense debate in South Africa and the West about whether the warrant would be executed, given South Africa’s stance of neutrality on the war in Ukraine and Pretoria’s historic ties to the Kremlin.

In 2015, South Africa also failed to arrest then-Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, who was also the subject of an ICC warrant.

The leaders of Brazil, India and South Africa will attend the summit, the presidency said.

BRICS, a bloc of emerging economic powers comprising Brazil, Russia, India and China was formed in 2019 as BRIC. South Africa joined the following year after an invitation from China, expanding the group.

Ethiopia, Iran and Argentina have also applied to join the bloc.

mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

  • EhList@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No I reject the concept outright. Every act of “state terrorism” is an act of war and I challenge you to think of an act of state terrorism that would not be an act of war.

    • bossito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Putin is the prime suspect of several acts against his own civil population. You also call that war? Against which army?

      • EhList@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No that would be murder when done domestically.

        Acts of war do not need to be waged against a military. Im not sure why you would think that.

        • bossito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m also not sure why you keep denying a concept accepted by everyone including academia. But to be honest I don’t care, this conversation is too silly. Have a good one.

            • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe he is talking about terrorist groups funded by the state? I know I know it seems blurry a line. Sorta someone gives them money through back channels and they go WASPINATOR: TERRORIZE!!

              • EhList@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And that would still be an act of war. What Wagner Group does in Ukraine is an act of war.

                  • EhList@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Wagner Group is the paramilitary group hired by the Kremlin to commit war crimes abroad. They were the army that recently mutinied

          • EhList@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And i don’t know why a rational person would think this is universally agreed upon or that “including academia” would some how add value to their opinion.