Russian senator compared Washington’s foreign policy with “buying votes”

The chairman of the international committee of the Federation Council, Konstantin Kosachev, commenting on the American bill on depriving the support of countries that vote differently than the United States at sessions of the Assembly and the UN Security Council, compared this with “buying votes,” reports RIA News.

The main question is in countries such as Egypt and the Philippines, which are simultaneously trying to pursue their own foreign policy, but at the same time remain seriously dependent on the United States. This bill is a warning for these countries. In Russia, Syria has long understood how to communicate with Washington. But as for Egypt, the Philippines, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico - they may have problems,

writes senates on Facebook.

“A country that has challenged America’s point of view at the UN cannot receive US support,” he cites one of the provisions of the bill.

According to Kosachev, thus, in the event of the adoption of this bill, Washington may deprive a number of countries of financial support in the framework of economic and military cooperation.

When Americans say that they are responsible for the whole world and will always come to the aid of those who are in need and in trouble, in fact it is a question of a banal "buying votes". After all, references to “global support for Washington’s policies” at the UN and at other international venues are an essential tool for brainwashing the world community

he concludes.

Comments

[aszzz888]

... mericatos want to legitimize faithful dogs ...

[Jedi]

Has anyone surprised such a US bill?

[aszzz888]

... and they will give out name chains so that they do not run far ...

[Pirogov]

Quote: aszzz888

. and they will give out personalized chains so that they do not run far ..

Paizu forehead. Democracy in all its glory.

[Going]

Quote: Jedi

Has anyone surprised such a US bill?

They suffered not sickly, but no surprise.

[Jedi]

Rushing them from their own "exclusivity", it’s time to burst already.

[Going]

This will be necessary, but from the beginning they must be put in place.

[Jedi]

It is necessary, but the patient actively resists.

[Going]

So still, they tear it from the trough, they sew up their mouths and threaten to shorten their hands.

[Jedi]

And I have long been offering to chop them with haloperidol ...

[Lexus]

And put on "suits" from Yudashkin. For the "exceptional"))))

[Jedi]

This is necessary, and then the furniture will spoil.

[Going]

Furniture should be soft and without corners.

[dauria]

Has anyone surprised such a US bill?

what is surprising is that they voiced the usual position for all countries. This is always done by everyone, only quietly. He does not use economic, military and other levers to push through the interests of his country only a fool.

[To be or not to be]

Plantar genes are not peace !! Political slavery!
On February 7, 2013, slavery was officially abolished throughout the United States of America. On that day, Director of the Federal Register Charles Barth announced that the amendment was officially registered. And the last state of the United States of Mississippi legalized the abolition of slavery.

[Lelek]

Quote: To be or not to be

7 February 2013 year

Sorry, I do not understand.

[Karakut]

Quote: aszzz888

... mericatos want to legitimize faithful dogs ...

Do you want to become a marshal ..? 210 became ...
I just often see ..
And the USA and Israel are engaged in Russian and quite successfully!
And we love to finish things ..
I have the honor!

[Juborg]

And how much did the senator sell for ???

[Thunderbolt]

“A country that has challenged America’s point of view at the UN cannot receive US support,” he cites one of the provisions of the bill.
According to Kosachev, thus, in the event of the adoption of this bill, Washington may deprive a number of countries of financial support in the framework of economic and military cooperation.

But what a logical move. If the country does not support you, then why should it give loans or weapons under preferential programs? We also need to act ironically and then not only Nauru would vote for the recognition of the Ossetians (buying up ...?), but who else can. Or will we play nobility?

[Going]

I’ll say briefly - this is not our way, because “you won’t be forcibly sweet,” sooner or later, all of today's vassals will tear the United States.

[Thunderbolt]

Quote: Going

this is not our way, because "you will not be forcibly sweet"

If it is, this is the "Path." It is the Path, not the response to challenges.
It is clear why our closest allies begin to carry out the so-called “multi-vector” policies are latinized and do not support us in our military-political combinations, and when voting in the UN we are so kind and good, but in a proud minority. I don’t like this way at all, because then Russia has to include its own military pedals , where the matter could be solved only by a banal vote.
So you are an opponent of pragmatic politics?

[Going]

Yes, I would be glad for your option, but history has taught us that we can only have two allies, the Army and the Navy, and all the other "partners."

[Thunderbolt]

Quote: Going

but history has taught us that we can only have two allies, the Army and Navy, and all the other "partners."

What other story are you talking about? These are just beautiful words, and the Tsar’s authorship is extremely doubtful in them. Always strong countries have formed alliance alliances around them, cooperated with other powerful countries to counter threats at all levels. IN IRON IRON discipline, all vote unanimously, contingents send ALL countries of the alliance to dangerous directions. And why then still need military blocs? I respect the USSR who knew how to build defensive redoubts around himself, but if he had hoped only for his own Army and Navy, he couldn’t so strengthen your power and influence.
Kosachev rolls a barrel to the United States for their law, realizing that all sane countries use this practice, to the extent of their strength and capabilities, of course. And Russia is no exception to these countries. Another thing is that our political and economic levers are not comparable with the US, and therefore the effect is different. But he does not want to admit to this, for some reason))).

[Simon]

Yes ... amerikosy! They want to legalize blackmail measures to countries that do not like their policies

[bmv04636]

Vassal policy. Well, we can only give money for nothing, and in return receive spit. History teaches us nothing

[svp67]

Konstantin Kosachev, Chairman of the International Committee of the Federation Council, commenting on the American bill on the deprivation of support for countries that vote differently at the sessions of the UN Assembly and Security Council than the United States, compared this to “buying votes”

And it is NORMAL, I don’t like our “toothlessness” in many issues. In some countries, they arrest our people, refuse us, but extradite them to the United States. Why else do our ambassadors in these countries work? It is necessary to recall them, "for consultation." Why are the notes not awarded? How many conversations "Yes, we will file a lawsuit against you" ... and that’s it.

[Simon]

Quote: Thunderbolt

“A country that has challenged America’s point of view at the UN cannot receive US support,” he cites one of the provisions of the bill.
According to Kosachev, thus, in the event of the adoption of this bill, Washington may deprive a number of countries of financial support in the framework of economic and military cooperation.

But what a logical move. If the country does not support you, then why should it give loans or weapons under preferential programs? We also need to act ironically and then not only Nauru would vote for the recognition of the Ossetians (buying up ...?), but who else can. Or will we play nobility?

And on the other hand, if the Americans will not give preferential loans, then they will buy weapons from us

[Nyrobsky]

"If they do not buy lottery, turn off the gas" - (Diamond Hand)

[Strips]

If you read the whole news, it becomes more clear:
The document provides for a ban on assisting states that are at meetings of the General Assembly and the UN Security Council more than half cases voted differently than the United States.

The 2016 State Department report notes that the points of view of Russia and the United States coincided in 40,3% of cases.

31 times both states voted equally, 46 times their positions did not coincide. Among the states whose point of view was least likely to coincide with the US, it is worth noting Syria (16,7%), North Korea (11,1%) and Iran (18,6%). At the same time, Ukraine has 76,5 XNUMX%.

Interestingly, Russia and the United States, with a coincidence of 40.3, have more similar opinions than, for example, Egypt with 33.8%.

Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, and so in 2016 passed the 50% barrier.
Philippines 49.5%.


https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/2736
88.pdf

https://russian.rt.com/world/article/448074-ssha-
lishit-podderzhki-stran-oon

In an interview with RT, an expert at the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Studies, Vladimir Bruter, noted that the United States had not sought to help states that did not support the American point of view before. The only difference is that now the United States can consolidate such a principle at the legislative level.

It is quite logical. Russia must do the same. Yes and does as well. Ukraine went against Russia - they stopped giving it discounts. Syria forgave billions not for beautiful eyes, but for loyalty. And rightly and logically. Just a country going against a country that provides assistance should keep in mind that they can cut back on this assistance. But the United States and its permanent allies have similar opinions on many issues, given that even with Russia, 40.3% coincide

[Lexus]

Going,

Furniture should be soft and without corners.

The room in calm (bodily) tones ... Done!)))))

[askme]

Bulls are waiting for a bull death. Not the fact at the same time that it will be together with the country, may split up) Trump inspires in this sense) One against the stupid bullish ....

[Lelek]

“A country that disputed America’s point of view at the UN cannot receive US support”

The question begs, so why do we invest our hard-earned money in the economy of this monster?

[Terenin]

Quote: Going

...., sooner or later, all of today's vassals will tear the United States.

It’s like in the “zone” they tear the former godfather of his own six, but only when another, more authoritative godfather appears.

[merhy]

The voices are worthless, can they even issue a power of attorney from everyone in the United States, will they vote for all at once? another torpedo aboard the UN. they still want to ruin it, the veto still prevents them. just to ruin the fawn, and so step by step to make from the UN nothing decisive authority is quite an outlet for them.