Tuesday, November 29

Putin’s support network in the UN cracks after the annexation of four Ukrainian provinces


The annexation of four other Ukrainian provinces and Vladimir Putin’s incendiary speech announcing it have broken the complex network of alliances that Russia had achieved since the beginning of the invasion at the beginning of the year. In a tense condemnation vote held Friday night at the United Nations Security Council in New York, the powers closest to the Kremlin, Chinese and Indiansurprisingly abstained, as did Brazil, whose president even met with Putin in Moscow when the invasion was imminent.

The promoters of the resolution were the United States and Albania, which is a temporary member of the Council. It makes binding resolutions, but the five permanently seated members – Russia, the US, China, France and the UK – have veto power over any resolution. The aforementioned countries are joined in the Council, in turn: Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway and the Emirates.

isolated regime

Mexico, Russia’s ally, voted in favor of the US resolution, leaving the Putin regime alone. Even so, by having veto power, he was able to prevent the sentencing resolution against him from being passed. This would have declared that the referendums held in Ukraine are invalid, such as annexation, for the purposes of international organizations.

The Chinese Ambassador Geng Shuang He said in his speech that his country is opposed to breaking the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other nations. “All viable options for an early ceasefire must be put on the table and any Council action must be aimed at alleviating the situation rather than exacerbating the confrontation,” he said, a day after Putin’s speech in which he accused Ukraine’s allies of satanic plot.

Brazil, for its part, said through its envoy, Ronaldo Costa, that Putin’s actions are “illegitimate.” Even so, he did not vote in favor because “the text also does not contribute to the immediate objectives of lowering tensions.” Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faces re-election this Sunday, a relevant factor when interpreting any action on the international scene.

no practical effect

In reality, the US resolution would not have had a relevant practical effect. Its weight was more symbolic, and in this the vote was a success for those who promoted it, since Russia was abandoned in that forum even by its closest allies. She lacks support in Europe, and in Latin America she only has the support of a handful of dictatorships: Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

After the vote, and when his loneliness was evident, the Russian ambassador, Vasili Nebenzia, said: “Do you seriously expect Russia to consider and support such a project? … The results of the referendums speak for themselves: the residents of these regions they don’t want to go back to Ukraine. Russia maintains that these fraudulent votes were made within international norms, although they have been widely rejected.

The case of Mexico is striking, since the president of that country, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador He recently presented a kind of peace plan that his critics interpreted as a surrender to Putin. Yet he now clearly sides with the US at a crucial moment in the war.

The US Ambassador Linda Thomas Greenfieldmade an impassioned appeal to the other nations in the Security Council “not to stand on the sidelines” at this momentous time of war in Europe.


www.abc.es

Also Read  Republicans' agenda for a second Trump term is far more radical than the first | Andrew Gawthorpe

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *