Map of UN General Assembly votes on resolution demanding Russian troops leave Ukraine
Posted on 02/23/2023 10:56:23 PM PST by familyop
...three-quarters of UN member states endorsed a resolution calling for "just and lasting" peace...In all, 141 countries voiced support for the resolution. Seven opposed it — Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Mali, Eritrea, and Nicaragua. Another 32 countries abstained during the vote. China, India, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and much of Africa and Central Asia were among them...The document "reaffirms its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, extending to its territorial waters." The measure also "reiterates its demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders,...
(Excerpt) Read more at dw.com ...
The “international community” also stood behind the resolution which upheld the Minsk agreements.
It also makes sense to look at who has abstained in this last vote.
>> The international community
Is that a pejorative or a compliment?
With "friends" like that...
Regards,
Good enough.
“The international community does stand with the U.S.A. on Ukraine.”
Until they’re told to put some skin in the game, as in SANCTIONS, then they give us the finger.
So, yes, the Neocons can have their symbolic votes like this one, but the reason why the IMF now expects economic growth for Russia this year is because the Neocons have NOT been able to convince the remaining 85% of the world, the countries that aren’t under their thumb (to the point of having their pipelines blown up to keep them in line) - to impose SANCTIONS.
“With “friends” like that...”
In my opinion, they could have been “friends”, all that was needed was leadship in Washington. But that train left the station a couple of years back.
The UN does what the US tells it to do. We fund it and we control it.
The UN wants US troops out from Syria, but the US has blocked every vote on this.
This is more political theater and another ratcheting up of the conflict.
Map of UN General Assembly votes on resolution demanding Russian troops leave Ukraine
The abstention seem pretty significant. Not exactly putting the squeeze on
On the one hand:
Seven opposed it — Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Mali, Eritrea, and Nicaragua - and that was a given. Russia and and what friends it can garner will oppose anything that demands respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.
One the other hand, the United Nations is useless anyway so the resolution is no more than a statement of sentiment and will legally bind no one to anything.
“The international community does stand with the U.S.A. on Ukraine.”
True. Good people and good countries do not support evil and putin/russia is evil.
Sanctions don’t really work. But sending Ukraine everything they need to defeat putin/russia will work
Will Hans Blick deliver the letter in person?
Really? How much is this so called support is either out right bought or threatened!
Biden's costly miscalculation makes Ukraine a lost cause By David Culver Brenner
A Wall Street Journal editorial this week highlighted the absurdity of America's strategy in Ukraine. The Journal urges the U.S. to provide more advanced weapons to Ukraine, including a longer-range missile system, which Biden is reluctant to do. Ukraine, with America's help, must win, argues the Journal, in part to thwart a developing Russia-China-Iran axis of power. The Journal doesn't seem to notice that U.S. and Western support for Ukraine's military has been the impetus for this incipient axis.
Yet the fundamental flaw with America's position is being overlooked — not just by the Journal, but more importantly, by nearly the entire political class and media. There's a good reason Biden is rightfully fearful of providing more advanced weapons: Russia is armed to the teeth with nukes. So we'll help Ukraine only up to a point. And Putin is well aware that Biden is terribly afraid of "escalating."
In war, telling your enemy you'll push only so hard is a serious handicap. It cedes a critical tactical advantage to the Russians, because you can be sure Putin won't hesitate to escalate, if he thinks he might lose in Ukraine, and compel us to retreat. He can force America's hand by announcing that Western support for Ukraine violates Russia's sovereignty, backing it up with a significant escalation.
What might that look like? For a venal mind like Putin's, the possibilities are endless. Perhaps he'd start with an "anonymous" cyber-attack against our power grid that cripples one or more major U.S. cities. That would further weaken the already tepid American resolve on Ukraine. He might then threaten to incinerate Kiev and other Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles equipped with powerful non-nuclear (or nuclear) warheads if we don't stop supplying arms. Of course, the Russians could also use their air superiority to identify and bomb Western arms shipments. Are we prepared to bomb Russian assets in Ukraine in response?
What would Biden do? I suspect that the Russians believe he'd fold like a cheap suit. Biden can hardly afford to meaningfully respond to a major escalation by Russia over Ukraine, given the threat of Russia's nukes and weak support for the war at home.
In short, Putin can call the bluff of Western commitment in Ukraine and force us to back off. So far, he hasn't needed to. But if he feels Ukraine slipping away, he undoubtedly will. At bottom, our support for Ukraine — beyond just costing billions of dollars — will only bolster the growing perception of America as a foolish and feckless superpower.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.