Poll: Do you agree with this motion?
As many as are of that opinion, Aye (26)
53.06%
On the contrary, No (17)
34.69%
Abstain (6)
12.24%
This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
VM491 - Russian Sanctions Motion, TSR Libertarian Party, TSR National Conservative Party, TSR Labour Party, TSR Liberal PartyThis house believes no sanctions should be lifted on Russia until they return to acting within the rules based international order.

Russia has been acting as a rogue state for years. In February and March 2014 Russian troops, invaded the sovereign territory of Ukraine and took control of the Crimea region of Ukraine. This is in flagrant violation of international law.

In July 2014, MH17 was shot down in Ukrainian rebel held territory. A report by a UK Parliament select committee, quoting a source from the British Secret Intelligence Service, says that "we know beyond any reasonable doubt that the Russian military supplied and subsequently recovered the missile launcher", with the Joint Investigative Team saying it knows the missile used was from the 53rd Russian Brigade.

President Assad of Syria has frequently used chemical weapons against his own people, and Russia continues to support him on an international level to ensure he remains in power.

On the 4th of March 2018, Sergei Skripal was the target of an assassination attempt. Prime Minister May has said "the Government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal." Attempts to engage in the days after this statement were met with sarcasm and contempt by the Russian Government.

The World Report 2018, a report by the NGO Human Rights Watch, outlines some key criticisms if Russia in terms of human rights. “As the March 2018 presidential election approached, the government increased its crackdown against political opposition and peaceful protesters and took new steps to stifle independent voices online. In Chechnya, local authorities carried out a large-scale anti-gay purge, rounding up and torturing dozens of men because of their presumed homosexuality. Parliament decriminalized acts of domestic violence not involving serious bodily harm. The government continued to support “separatists” in eastern Ukraine, who committed abuses in areas under their control, and it aimed to silence Crimean Tatars and other critics in occupied Crimea, including through criminal prosecution.”

The truth is that President Putin and his regime do not believe in an international rules based system and continue to ignore it and act as if they have done nothing wrong.

This house calls upon the Government to oppose any entry of Russia to the G7. Whilst we understand the need for dialogue, the G7 should adapt and remain a platform for the leading allies to get together to discuss common issues such as trade and responses to international crisis. Russia remains a member of the G20 and that is supported by the Government and the house because when it comes to looking at issues in a more global sense, Russia’s voice is important. The G7 is not the right platform to include Russia in.

It is also important that Russia should not be unpunished in its actions. This house calls upon the UK to oppose the lifting of sanctions against Russia at the next EU Council meeting, and to prepare more restrictive sanctions should Russian behaviour not improve.

We call upon the Government to properly implement a UK version of the Magnitsky Act so that people who commit human rights violations in Russia, or any country, cannot then make money from it and bring it to the UK as a safe haven.

In terms of future cooperation, it is important that a dialogue is established. We call upon the UK Prime Minister to endeavour to meet the Russian President to convey to him that we want Russia to be involved in the international system, but that this will not be tolerated whilst Russia continues to act with no care in the world.

Finally, we call upon the Government to ensure we are never dependent on energy from Russia. Russia cannot be trusted to have any influential stake in the UK energy sector and so ask the Government to ensure we do not increase our exports from the Russian Federation, but in fact decrease them where possible.



Noteshttps://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/russia - Human Rights Watch Rreport

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-a...murder-weapon/ - MH17
https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-c...te-criminal-0/ - MH17

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexa...ian_Federation - Annexation of Crimea (Contains plenty of sources to read up on for those not informed on the topic)
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
We don't need more hypocritical virtue signalling, we've had enough of that already just through the submission of this motion.
0
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Nay. The reasons for the sanctions aren't good enough, as most seem to be based on circumstances with little to no evidence.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
I've said all I could against this motion. If you prefer to take the government's word for it without a speck of evidence only because it conforms with your biased preconceptions repeatedly shown to have been built upon false premises, it's not my failure though. Plus it's yet another reason to fear jury-based legal systems—if you can manipulate the jury, you win regardless of the truth. :dontknow:
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
The supporters of this motion have all gone quiet once they realised how foolish this motion is but haven't realised that debating it alone was a waste of time, let alone sending it to a vote. Nay.
0
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
I'll be voting in favour of this motion, and as someone who has not gone quiet...
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Tommy1boy)
I'll be voting in favour of this motion, and as someone who has not gone quiet...
Should foreign policy be based on what gets results or what makes a nice headline for Guardian readers?
0
EagleKingdom
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
I will not be releasing a lengthy counter-response to this motion because I know that members will not have their opinions changed on this issue. I give respect to my Right Honourable friend @Life_peer for taking a stance and providing detailed facts to the debate, despite the opposition not keen on changing their view point.

I will be voting nay on this motion and urge members of this house to re-consider their opinion on this matter.
3
username2337287
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Nay!
0
Dafios9128
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Aye
0
username257785
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
Aye
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
aidenj Dafios9128 EDMacRae Joep95 johnroy21 meenu89 Mountains8721 Thrillanthropist

Why did you vote against the Israeli sanctions motion but supported this Russian sanctions motion? I think the members of the House deserve at least an explanation of why you've decided to take this conflicting and mutually exclusive stance on these two very important issues.

CatusStarbright Eppeb Jarred LibertarianMP Saracen's Fez viljo WobblyBovine

Similarly, why did you abstain on the Israeli motion but supported this Russian motion?

I would also like to remind the members tagged in this post that the numerous international law violations committed by Israel have been confirmed by international bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Security Council, European Union foreign ministers, European Commission, or the International Court of Justice. These include violations of the Geneva Convention, use of excessive force against civilians, or annexation and long-term occupations of foreign land.

On the contrary, the accusations against Russia by foreign governments which have been circulated by the media lack any support in conclusive evidence while neither international bodies such as the UN nor the public have been allowed to scrutinise the alleged secret evidence. I hope you're all smart enough to realise the hypocrisy that you've shown here, but have at least some honesty and common decency and state the true reasons for your choices—either you were whipped or simply dislike Russia for whatever reason and want it punished regardless of evidence.

You should remember though that Russia is not only the government, but roughly 145 million people whose quality of life could be improved but these sanctions make it more difficult.

Her Majesty's government's position remains to be in favour of reconciliation and cooperation rather than baseless accusations and media wars. If it were us accusing Russia of international law violations and the MH17 disaster, we would present all available evidence either to the public or, if the nature of the evidence was particularly sensitive, to the relevant UN body or the International Court of Justice for scrutiny.

I would also like to repeat my question to Vitiate for the third time and pose the same question to all of you:

Let's pretend Russia is a person on trial in the UK. Mr Russia has been accused of attempted murder but so far no evidence has been presented. You are a juror (representing the public) whose task is to decide whether Mr Russia is guilty or not. Some old hag representing the CPS claims there is evidence that he did it but it won't be shown to you because it would endanger national security or some story like that. Would you stand up and say that you believe Mr Russia is guilty and should be sentenced to years in prison (the actual impact of international sanctions on the innocent Russian population may be even worse)?
1
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Life_peer)
aidenj Dafios9128 EDMacRae Joep95 johnroy21 meenu89 Mountains8721 Thrillanthropist

Why did you vote against the Israeli sanctions motion but supported this Russian sanctions motion? I think the members of the House deserve at least an explanation of why you've decided to take this conflicting and mutually exclusive stance on these two very important issues.

CatusStarbright Eppeb Jarred LibertarianMP Saracen's Fez viljo WobblyBovine

Similarly, why did you abstain on the Israeli motion but supported this Russian motion?

I would also like to remind the members tagged in this post that the numerous international law violations committed by Israel have been confirmed by international bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Security Council, European Union foreign ministers, European Commission, or the International Court of Justice. These include violations of the Geneva Convention, use of excessive force against civilians, or annexation and long-term occupations of foreign land.

On the contrary, the accusations against Russia by foreign governments which have been circulated by the media lack any support in conclusive evidence while neither international bodies such as the UN nor the public have been allowed to scrutinise the alleged secret evidence. I hope you're all smart enough to realise the hypocrisy that you've shown here, but have at least some honesty and common decency and state the true reasons for your choices—either you were whipped or simply dislike Russia for whatever reason and want it punished regardless of evidence.

You should remember though that Russia is not only the government, but roughly 145 million people whose quality of life could be improved but these sanctions make it more difficult.

Her Majesty's government's position remains to be in favour of reconciliation and cooperation rather than baseless accusations and media wars. If it were us accusing Russia of international law violations and the MH17 disaster, we would present all available evidence either to the public or, if the nature of the evidence was particularly sensitive, to the relevant UN body or the International Court of Justice for scrutiny.

I would also like to repeat my question to Vitiate for the third time and pose the same question to all of you:
Why am I tagged here? I abstained on both...
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by WobblyBovine)
Why am I tagged here? I abstained on both...
Apologies for that, I made an error comparing the two results lists late at night.
0
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Life_peer)
Apologies for that, I made an error comparing the two results lists late at night.
Ah, no worries.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
The irony is that the sanctions are now helping Russia.

The sanctions against Russia have ironically fixed Putin's economic mistakes - he has, for many years, sold out everything not oil-related and crippled his own domestic industries to the extent when they are not able to grow quality food within Russia.

One major example is its watch industry. Whilst Russian movements have made its name known globally, their chief executive's policies have pushed almost all of them outside of Russia, with Raketa - Russia's oldest watch factory founded by HIM Tsar Peter the Great - being the sole exception.

The sanctions, while harsh for the ordinary citizens in the short-term, have now enabled Russia to redevelop its own industries, most notably its food industry.

They will clearly still be better off being able to trade with the entire world (and they still are, to an extent, despite the sanctions), but continued sanctions are only going to let Russia be a self-sufficient country in the future which will not be afraid of economic sanctions any more.

The issue of Crimea, from Putin's point of view, is likely a life or death scenario. He took over Crimea likely partly because he feared that Russia would no longer be able to use its warm water port, thus hugely limiting Russia's ability to trade internationally.

The original idea, I suspect, was that Russia's oligarchs might abandon Putin when their wallets are harmed. But clearly that hasn't worked, so why continue with this tried and failed strategy?

Trump likes to say that the US has allowed Mexico to benefit economically with their international trade. He's not wrong, but what he - and seemingly you lot - are not getting is that that system of trade creates reliance of Mexico on the US. The US bipartisan policies on Mexico were not out of Americans' shear good will, but their intention to always have a pro-US government in Mexico, ie US's backyard. Now THAT's a strategy that works, not this purely virtue signalling stuff.

Aph CatusStarbright Connor27 Dafios9128 EDMacRae Eppeb Gladstone1885 Jarred JoeL1994 Joep95 LibertarianMP meenu89 Mountains8721 RedLuxemburg saffburst Saracen's Fez SuperHuman98 Thrillanthropist Tommy1boy Trevism viljo
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by The Champion.m4a)
The issue of Crimea, from Putin's point of view, is likely a life or death scenario. He took over Crimea likely partly because he feared that Russia would no longer be able to use its warm water port, thus hugely limiting Russia's ability to trade internationally.
Interesting points, but this one isn't true because the Novorossiysk Sea Port on the Black Sea, which is one of the largest ports in Russia, is located only 340 km to the east and already serves for commercial purposes as well as a naval base of the Black Sea Fleet.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by Life_peer)
Interesting points, but this one isn't true because the Novorossiysk Sea Port on the Black Sea, which is one of the largest ports in Russia, is located only 340 km to the east and already serves for commercial purposes as well as a naval base of the Black Sea Fleet.
Crimea is in a much better geographical location for domination in the Black Sea though, does the Prime Minister not agree?

Anyhow, my point is after so many years, Putin is still firmly in power, and we are now seeing a resurgence of Russian domestic industries as a direct result of the sanctions. Quite clearly the smart thing to do is to devise a new strategy, not to continue on this obviously failing path.
0
EDMacRae
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Life_peer)
aidenj Dafios9128 EDMacRae Joep95 johnroy21 meenu89 Mountains8721 Thrillanthropist

Why did you vote against the Israeli sanctions motion but supported this Russian sanctions motion? I think the members of the House deserve at least an explanation of why you've decided to take this conflicting and mutually exclusive stance on these two very important issues.

CatusStarbright Eppeb Jarred LibertarianMP Saracen's Fez viljo WobblyBovine

Similarly, why did you abstain on the Israeli motion but supported this Russian motion?

I would also like to remind the members tagged in this post that the numerous international law violations committed by Israel have been confirmed by international bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Security Council, European Union foreign ministers, European Commission, or the International Court of Justice. These include violations of the Geneva Convention, use of excessive force against civilians, or annexation and long-term occupations of foreign land.

On the contrary, the accusations against Russia by foreign governments which have been circulated by the media lack any support in conclusive evidence while neither international bodies such as the UN nor the public have been allowed to scrutinise the alleged secret evidence. I hope you're all smart enough to realise the hypocrisy that you've shown here, but have at least some honesty and common decency and state the true reasons for your choices—either you were whipped or simply dislike Russia for whatever reason and want it punished regardless of evidence.

You should remember though that Russia is not only the government, but roughly 145 million people whose quality of life could be improved but these sanctions make it more difficult.

Her Majesty's government's position remains to be in favour of reconciliation and cooperation rather than baseless accusations and media wars. If it were us accusing Russia of international law violations and the MH17 disaster, we would present all available evidence either to the public or, if the nature of the evidence was particularly sensitive, to the relevant UN body or the International Court of Justice for scrutiny.

I would also like to repeat my question to Vitiate for the third time and pose the same question to all of you:
@Life_peer, I respect your views on both of these issues, as I'm sure you'll respect mine.

In terms of my reasoning for voting against the sanctions on Israel, let me first say that I believe that what they have done against the Palestinians is totally immoral and vile. But I don't believe sanctions will help bring peace to that region. Which is surely our objective.

I voted in favour of the Russian sanctions because of their link to the attempted murder of the Skripal's. I understand that some of the evidence was put in doubt by Boris Johnson's claims but other countries expelled there diplomats on the basis of the rest of the evidence. So it must hold up in some way.

The situation in Russia and Israel are different, hence why I voted differently on each motion. I don't believe you can apply generalised approaches to complex foreign policy issues, irrespective of the context surrounding them.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Life_peer)
aidenj Dafios9128 EDMacRae Joep95 johnroy21 meenu89 Mountains8721 Thrillanthropist

Why did you vote against the Israeli sanctions motion but supported this Russian sanctions motion? I think the members of the House deserve at least an explanation of why you've decided to take this conflicting and mutually exclusive stance on these two very important issues.

CatusStarbright Eppeb Jarred LibertarianMP Saracen's Fez viljo WobblyBovine

Similarly, why did you abstain on the Israeli motion but supported this Russian motion?

I would also like to remind the members tagged in this post that the numerous international law violations committed by Israel have been confirmed by international bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Security Council, European Union foreign ministers, European Commission, or the International Court of Justice. These include violations of the Geneva Convention, use of excessive force against civilians, or annexation and long-term occupations of foreign land.

On the contrary, the accusations against Russia by foreign governments which have been circulated by the media lack any support in conclusive evidence while neither international bodies such as the UN nor the public have been allowed to scrutinise the alleged secret evidence. I hope you're all smart enough to realise the hypocrisy that you've shown here, but have at least some honesty and common decency and state the true reasons for your choices—either you were whipped or simply dislike Russia for whatever reason and want it punished regardless of evidence.

You should remember though that Russia is not only the government, but roughly 145 million people whose quality of life could be improved but these sanctions make it more difficult.

Her Majesty's government's position remains to be in favour of reconciliation and cooperation rather than baseless accusations and media wars. If it were us accusing Russia of international law violations and the MH17 disaster, we would present all available evidence either to the public or, if the nature of the evidence was particularly sensitive, to the relevant UN body or the International Court of Justice for scrutiny.

I would also like to repeat my question to Vitiate for the third time and pose the same question to all of you:
Because I don’t care about people living in isreal and Palestine but people in England I do
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you ever accessed mental health support services at University?

Yes (48)
24.49%
No, but I have thought about it (55)
28.06%
No (93)
47.45%

Watched Threads

View All