After Putin was arrested, NATO countries were ready to provide asylum, and the Chinese moved quickly

Mondo International Updated on 2024-01-19

Recently, Finland's Minister of the Interior, Marie Lantanen, announced in a live television broadcast that anyone can seek asylum in Finland, and if Russian Putin applies for asylum here, he can spend the rest of his life here. This news has attracted widespread attention and heated discussions. As the newest member of NATO, Finland's statement is undoubtedly a clear signal to Russia, and it is also a demonstration and pressure from NATO countries against Putin and the Russian regime.

Finland, as a country bordering Russia, has always maintained a neutral position. However, as the crisis in Ukraine developed and Russia's influence on its neighbors expanded, Finland officially joined NATO in April this year. This decision strained relations between Finland and Russia. And the statement of the Finnish interior minister this time can be seen as the dissatisfaction and warning of NATO countries against the Russian regime. They hope to put pressure on the Russian regime by giving Putin asylum, in the hope of weakening its international standing.

In the incident in which Putin was wanted, China took the lead. In response to a reporter's question, Chinese spokesman Wang Wenbin said that China has always believed that dialogue and negotiation are the fundamental way out to resolve the Ukraine crisis, and the international community should play a constructive role in the peaceful settlement of the Ukraine crisis. With regard to the issuance of an ICC arrest warrant, China believes that it lacks an objective and impartial position and does not respect the jurisdictional immunity enjoyed by heads of state.

China has always advocated the settlement of international disputes and disputes through dialogue and negotiation, which has been China's foreign policy for a long time. With regard to the Ukraine crisis, China adheres to a peaceful solution and calls on the international community to do more to promote peace talks, ease and ease the situation, and mediate disputes. China's rejection of the ICC warrant shows that it has a neutral and impartial position, respecting both international law and the rights and interests of heads of state.

The International Criminal Court in The Hague is an independent international tribunal designed to prosecute and try serious international crimes. However, in the context of Putin's wanted, one cannot help but question his position and motives. Although Russia has not acceded to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and therefore has no practical effect on Russia**'s wanted warrants, the move by the ICC in The Hague has caused widespread controversy.

Some analysts believe that there may be some traps behind the arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. First, the issuance of the wanted warrant has brought diplomatic pressure and international humiliation to Russia, which is in line with the strategic goal of some countries trying to weaken Russia's international standing. Secondly, the wanted warrant could spark domestic controversy and confusion, especially for those domestic political forces in Russia who hold opposing views, and they may use the incident to blame and attack **.

And for China, the attitude towards the ICC wanted warrant is also necessary. China's position is to advocate respect for international law and the rights and interests of heads of state, which is a matter of basic principle. Although China has not publicly expressed support for Putin or the Russian regime, its opposition to the wanted warrants demonstrates its respect for international law and its resistance to double standards.

Putin's arrest highlights the double standards and bias of the international community in handling international disputes and conflicts. Whether the arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court in The Hague is based on an objective and impartial position and whether the prerogatives of the head of State are respected are questions that need to be pondered.

The Ukraine crisis has been going on for many years, and all parties should move from war to peace and from confrontation to dialogue, which is the key to resolving disputes and maintaining international peace and stability. The international community should play a constructive role and do more to mediate disputes and promote peace talks.

In the face of similar incidents, we should also think about how to correctly understand the role and limitations of the International Criminal Court. As an independent international tribunal, the International Criminal Court should abide by the principles of impartiality and objectivity and respect the sovereignty of States and the prerogatives of heads of State. We cannot be beaten to death with a stick, nor can we treat different countries and regions with double standards.

In short, Putin's wanted incident has aroused widespread concern and controversy in the international community. Everyone has their own opinion and point of view about this event. However, we should maintain an objective and impartial attitude and not be manipulated and misled by some political forces. The goal of international peace and stability can be achieved only through dialogue, cooperation and constructive efforts.

Related Pages