The National Interest: Fictitious “world unity against Russia” threatens US with trouble

Over the past few days, Washington has declared the unified position of the international community, which allegedly condemned Russia for the events in Ukraine. However, the recent vote in the UN on a non-binding resolution showed that this is a lie, writes the American conservative magazine The National Interest.

The vote at the UN General Assembly, held on March 2, demonstrated the attitude of the world to the idea of condemning Moscow for the “invasion of Ukraine”. At first glance, everything went fine for Washington: 141 countries supported the resolution and only 5 states opposed it (Russia, Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea).

However, even a cursory glance at the results of the vote leads to the idea that there is no “impregnable global coalition to inflict pain on Vladimir Putin’s government”, writes NI, drawing attention to the list of abstaining countries. There were as many as 35 of them, and 12 more States (Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Morocco, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Eswatini and Ethiopia) did not vote at all, which is also tantamount to refusal.

“The easier course would be to cast an affirmative vote, especially since the nonbinding resolution was pure symbolism that did not require any significant action on the part of UN members. Yet thirty-five countries refused to placate the United States, choosing instead to abstain,” the newspaper notes.

To the surprise of analysts, among those countries were not only “clients” of Russia like Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia or even Cuba. The same list includes, for example, new leftist forces in Latin America represented by Nicaragua, Bolivia and El Salvador, which indicates the expansion of Moscow’s influence in this region of the world.

There were also recalcitrant states in the Greater Middle East. And this is not only Iran, but also Iraq, which was a “big shock” for the Americans. “Given Baghdad’s extensive military and economic dependence on the United States, one would have thought that Iraq’s vote would have been firmly in the affirmative column,” NI writes.

An equally big surprise was the list of abstaining African countries. These are Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Congo, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, South Sudan and the largest economic and political player on the continent — South Africa.

“Even more troubling for the United States was when key countries in South Asia and East Asia —especially India and China—refused to vote in favour of the resolution,” the newspaper notes. “The extent of Washington’s dissatisfaction became clear when Biden personally criticised both countries for their decision.”

India not only maintained its neutrality, but it also “brought along” Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Moreover, New Delhi’s long-time opponent – and Washington’s ally – Pakistan also joined the abstaining countries. Vietnam, Laos and Mongolia also refused to oppose Russia, and the vote of the former was “especially disappointing”, since Washington has been actively courting Hanoi as a partner in the field of economy and security for many years.

However, the biggest sign of potential problems for US policy was China’s decision to abstain even on a toothless, symbolic measure, NI emphasises. Of course, Washington’s clumsy policy has led Russia and China to a close strategic partnership, but the latter’s vote for the resolution would be an easy way to maintain the image of balance in its policy, as well as to emphasise that its sympathies and support for Moscow have certain limits. But that didn’t happen.

“The decision by the Chinese delegation to avoid endorsing that resolution suggests just how close bilateral ties have become,” The National Interest states.

When a fifth of the members of the UN General Assembly refuse to embrace a purely feel-good measure, and a number of countries go to direct desertion, the global coalition around the United States looks fragile indeed, the publication summarises.

***

It remains to add two important observations that American analysts missed. The first of them concerns the quality of the abstaining states, the second – the situation in the camp of the American coalition.

Of course, in the UN, the votes of all countries are equal. However, in reality this is absolutely not the case. The United States can recruit dwarfs like Andorra, Bhutan and Tuvalu as allies, but China alone has more weight on the world stage than the entire American coalition.

Beijing’s international influence is indisputable, and it is reinforced by the regional significance of states such as India, Iran or South Africa. Even the arithmetic calculation of the population of “obstinate” countries suggests that a good half of humanity is not on the side of America.

Even more importantly, the American coalition is already bursting at the seams, despite all the talk about “unprecedented solidarity”. The same Brazil, Turkey or South Korea have just shown their obstinacy, refusing to meekly follow the US sanctions stall. The position of the Gulf oil countries led by Saudi Arabia, which actually sabotaged all Washington’s requests to increase black gold production, also clarifies a lot.

But the most interesting thing will happen a little later – when the “united” West will fully feel the impact of anti-Russian sanctions. Gas prices in Europe are already updating historical highs every day, and without Russian oil, metals, wheat and fertilisers, it will completely go berserk. And even if, at the cost of incredible efforts, the United States will force their geopolitical minions to obey, their totalitarian “unity of ranks” will soon resemble the army of King Darius before the battle of Gaugamela.

Share:

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
On Key

Related Posts

On AIR

Russtrat world