The war is still a continuation of politics by other means. Therefore, in anticipation of the escalation of the situation in Ukraine and the inevitable consequence of this continuation of Russia's confrontation with the bloc of Western countries - members of NATO and their close allies, it is advisable to assess the balance of forces on the world stage. The UN General Assembly’s voting on the situation in Ukraine provides such an opportunity. Moreover, considering its results, one should understand that the position of a country in the course of voting is by no means equivalent to the course that this country will adhere to in bilateral relations with Russia.
Confirmation of loyalty to the United States and the European Union does not mean for those who have already shown it, supporting their position in the UN within the framework of nothing decisive and without threatening anyone with a vote at the General Assembly, the need to continue to play a big Eastern European policy against their own interests, including economic. However, we note that more than one economy is important here: all countries that have a significant number of compatriots in Ukraine expressed concern about their fate.
This applies not only to Israel, which automatically responds to any changes of this kind, as is currently taking place in Ukraine, in any country where there is a Jewish community, in the Ukrainian case including up to 200 thousands of Jews according to the census. As well as up to one and a half million children and grandchildren from mixed marriages who are eligible for repatriation to Israel in accordance with its Law of Return. But to the members of the European Union and NATO - Hungary, Romania, Poland and the Czech Republic, actively issuing representatives of the respective ethnic communities living in Ukraine, national passports, recently joined Bulgaria, expressing extreme concern over the situation there.
Dispatch "peak jackets"
The US Department of State and the Office of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy were able, with the support of local allies, to organize a Maidan and a coup d'état in Kiev that toppled the Yanukovych regime - this turned out to be a purely technical issue. As it turned out, if there is the necessary personnel and financial support, it is not difficult to overthrow the President of Ukraine, who tried, not without benefit for himself, to sit on two chairs at the same time. Although the use of radical nationalists and fascists for this does not go well with the Western bloc's moralizing to Russia on how politics should be conducted in the XNUMXst century. However, it should be noted that modern technologies for carrying out coups d'etat, implemented by the West, are not much softer than cases from the past. historical epochs.
Moscow, unlike Washington and Brussels, approached the desire of the ex-president of Ukraine to break the promises given to her calmly. Mutually exclusive attempts to achieve simultaneous membership of Ukraine in the Customs Union and its associations with the EU did not force the Russian leadership to behave in the framework of the neo-colonial policy demonstrated by the West. Russia in Ukraine did not arrange revolutions and does not intend to arrange, did not conduct and does not hold candidates to power, does not support and does not support militants. However, the interests of the Russian-speaking population of this country will be protected no less consistently than the above-listed states, whose actions against related ethnic groups are not commented on in any way and are not condemned by the world community.
Ignoring the situation, which is a consequence of the continuation of the division of the USSR, in conditions of incapacity for a long time the political leadership of Ukraine is meaningless both within the UN and outside them. As well as the processes of secession of the former autonomies that are taking place in such republics of the former Soviet Union as Georgia and Moldova, as well as the conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh. It can only be stated that the collapse of Ukraine as a state provoked by the West caused the beginning of its collapse within the borders in which it was placed by the decisions of the governments of Soviet Russia and the USSR, thanks to Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev. Moreover, these borders, as it turns out, did not have any historical or economic basis.
Demonstrative attempts by the US and the European Union to condemn Moscow at the UN after an unexpected referendum in Crimea, which resulted in the reunification of the peninsula with Russia (it was rejected by 60 years ago by Khrushchev's decision), contradicts the geopolitical reality that is changing in accordance with the processes going on real time. References to the inviolability of borders and international law to justify the illegality of this referendum look particularly strange when you consider all the changes that have taken place on the world stage since the time of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
According to the 30 of 1 of August 1975 of the final Helsinki Declaration in the international legal field signed on July 35, the basis for relations between the states participating in the meeting was to not only consolidate the political and territorial outcome of the Second World War, but also the principles of inviolability of borders, territorial integrity and non-interference internal affairs of foreign states. What this means after the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia (in the civil war, in which the troops and political leadership of the NATO countries took an active part), the reunification of Germany and the partition by Czechoslovakia’s mutual agreement into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, is understandable.
Proceeding from the logic that Crimea should, despite the reality, return to Ukraine, it is necessary to simultaneously demand the return of the FRG, GDR and West Berlin to their seats, liquidate the independence of Kosovo and take other actions necessary to return Europe to the state recorded after the talks in Helsinki . No one in the West is going to do or discuss this. Accordingly, all the discussions about Russian-Ukrainian relations and the crisis in Ukraine within the framework of various UN agencies are a “pique vests” dispute.
Voting in the Security Council allows you to avoid a head-on collision of great powers, giving them the opportunity to demonstrate one or another position. Or the absence of the intention to join any side that, as a rule, China practices. On the one hand, Security Council resolutions are binding. On the other hand, even if they succeed in adopting them, a country in respect of which a resolution has been adopted may reject it and will receive nothing for it. What was demonstrated by Iran, Israel, China, North Korea, and many others. And this is only if the permanent members of the Security Council do not impose a veto on this or that resolution, as Russia did in relation to the recent attempts to condemn the referendum in the Crimea, and the United States repeatedly made it on various occasions.
On the other hand, if any of the permanent members of the Security Council intends to, without regard to its other members and the UN as a whole, strike a country, it will do so regardless of the results of the vote. As it happened in Yugoslavia or Iraq. Moreover, it is more decent to act as part of the international coalition than alone. As demonstrated by the United States in all the campaigns that they conducted in the 90-s and 2000-s in the Balkans, the Middle East. The UN support, if it is possible to achieve it in one way or another (including the subsequent violation of all the limitations it imposes), as in Afghanistan and Libya, is in principle a positive factor for the decision to start hostilities.
Thus, a modern war, at least initiated by the United States, usually begins with an attempt to hold a proper resolution in the UN and act within the framework of an international coalition. If this task cannot be implemented, the operations in accordance with the tasks set by the military-political leadership are carried out by the US or NATO armed forces as a military-political bloc in the normal mode. However, a good tone requires that a “blessing” on a military strike or political upheaval like the removal of the Ukrainian president by Maidan from the world community in one form or another be received (including after the fact).
Who is Moscow friend and who is the enemy
Resolutions of the UN General Assembly, unlike resolutions of the Security Council, are of a recommendatory nature. Alignment during the vote allows you to assess the level of influence of its initiators. Since the composition of the voters "for" or "against" is just the tip of the iceberg. Not less, if not more important, which member of the General Assembly abstained or did not participate in the voting. And here, the alignment for Russia is not 100 to 11, but 100 to 93. Since it is clear that only states that have nothing to do with them can openly speak out against the United States, and their relations with Washington are worse than ever. Either countries that, like Armenia and Belarus, depend on relations with Russia to such an extent that it is like death for them to quarrel with Moscow.
Accordingly, the fact that Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Syria, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Sudan joined Russia, Belarus and Armenia, means not so much that they favor Moscow, but that they are currently against Washington. Far more important is that in Asia, among the serious players, only the closest allies of the United States and the state, for whom their own problems with territorial integrity can explode at any moment, joined the NATO countries in their demand to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine (that is, non-recognition of the Crimean referendum) . That is, Japan, South Korea and Thailand on the one hand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines on the other. But not China, not India, not the countries of Indochina or the republics of Central Asia.
In the Islamic world, the resolution was supported by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Libya, Tunisia and Somalia. But not such key players as Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. Even Yemen and Afghanistan did not support her, despite their extreme interest in relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia. The position of the organizers of the “Arab Spring” and such “front-line” states bearing the brunt of the Syrian civil war, such as Jordan and Turkey, the latter is also a member of NATO, is explicable. As well as countries with failed state of statehood, such as Libya, Tunisia and Somalia, whose prospects directly depend on the position of Doha and Riyadh.
It should be noted that Israel, which is naturally independent in the Middle East, despite pressure from Washington and Brussels, did not join those who supported the resolution condemning Moscow. This is not only symbolic, but also suggests that the de facto multi-polar world that arises before our eyes does not frighten Jerusalem, and despite particular disagreements over a number of issues, Russia in Israel is no longer perceived as an adversary. Or, to put it simply, Western attempts to use the influential world-wide Jewish and Armenian lobby against Russian politics failed.
Let us also assume that the support for the anti-Russian resolution, which Ankara and Amman could not fail to take into account the situation in Syria and the role that Moscow plays in maintaining the balance between Bashar Asad and his opponents, hindering the passage of the UN Security Council resolution legalizing possible external intervention to this country does not in any way mean the folding of the economic relations of Turkey and Jordan with Russia. Moreover, for Turkey they have an absolute priority in terms of energy supplies, and Kurdish separatism in Eastern Anatolia does not rely on Moscow.
In Africa, the number of countries that supported the resolution did not include such major players of the continent as Ethiopia, Angola and South Africa. True, among those who supported Nigeria, but this is perhaps the only success of the Western bloc. And he explains, as in Indonesia, the fears of Abuja about his own numerous separatist movements. At the same time, the number of states that evaded participation in the diplomatic confrontation of the West with Russia over the Crimea is no less in Black Africa than in the Middle East. Although in the NATO support group were such exotic participants as Malawi and Madagascar.
Mesoamerica remains the backyard of the United States, including Mexico bordering on them, but in South America, a resolution directed against Russia was supported only by Colombia, Chile and Peru. This indicates a weak level of influence of Washington in Latin America as a whole. Neither Brazil nor Argentina - the leading economic and military-political players of the continent, not to mention the countries of the weaker, besides the troika mentioned above, were not included in the list of fighters for the indivisible Ukraine.
The countries of the European Community, Canada, with its large and influential Ukrainian community, as well as Australia and New Zealand belonging to the “Anglo-Saxon Club”, as it should have been supposed, supported the resolution as a single bloc. It would be strange if one of them turned out to be a dissident, violating the strategy agreed by Washington and Brussels. Note that in Europe, Serbia, despite its European integration, did not participate in the voting, preferring to maintain an even balance of relations with Russia and the EU, and this stood out against the general background.
Potential threats to Russian interests
Today we can confidently state that imposing serious sanctions against Russia, not only bringing down its own economy, but also risking to ruin the next election due to an explosion of discontent of hundreds of thousands (on a European scale - millions) of voters left without work, not a single EU country that implements with Russia, large projects do not risk and are unlikely to risk in the future. In this regard, the strategy of economic integration into the surrounding world, consistently implemented by the current leadership of Russia, has fully justified itself.
The compensation offered to the European governments by the administration of President Barack Obama in the form of promising supplies of shale gas to Europe looks doubtful, resembling a drug that is worse than the disease. When the promised American gas goes across the Atlantic, no one knows. In any case, it will not be soon. At what price it will be sold, is unknown. However, no expert suggests that the US will sell it at a loss. What does it mean for the EU to be costs that can significantly exceed the cost of cooperation with Gazprom.
Another potential threat to Russian interests is the fall in energy prices, which Washington is trying to negotiate with its Middle Eastern partners: Saudi Arabia and Qatar. However, it is unprofitable for them and torpedoes the development of not only shale hydrocarbons and oil sands of Canada, but also the deep-water shelf, including the Atlantic - Brazilian and African, as well as the Mediterranean. Judging by the fact that the US president refused to supply Saudi leadership with modern weapons and military equipment systems, including MANPADS, Syrian opponents of Bashar al-Assad, supported by KSA, the strategic partnership between Washington and Riyadh, which is necessary for the implementation of an agreed anti-Russian energy strategy, continues to a question. Yes, and the exacerbation of the relations between Doha and Riyadh due to Qatar’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood, now excludes the possibility of their coordinated actions on any issue.
Finally, from among the republics of the former USSR, the Baltic countries, fully integrated into the EU, Moldova, Azerbaijan and Georgia, supported the anti-Russian resolution. The last three, including Russia-friendly Azerbaijan, cannot agree with the results of the Crimean referendum, having the problems with the territories that have separated from them that they have. For Moldova, this is Transdniestria and it is possible in the near future - Gagauzia. For Azerbaijan, it is Nagorno-Karabakh, which Baku hopes to return even if only by military means. For Georgia - South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Predictable position, which can hardly be changed in all three cases.
As a result, the results of the vote on the anti-Russian resolution in the UN General Assembly 27 in March gave a clear picture of the distribution of forces in the world community. This picture excludes the isolation of Russia from the world's leading players, despite the possible efforts that can be made by Washington and Brussels on this issue in the future, including the near one.
The latter does not mean that further development of the situation in Ukraine will not lead to yet another aggravation of relations between Russia and the West. The struggle for the presidency in the conditions of the extreme weakness of the political and law enforcement system of this country can escalate into a clash of armed groups. The largest of them is the “Right Sector” with its more than ten thousand fighters, which is currently mobilizing. About two thousand Svoboda fighters and criminal groups, including East Ukrainian, can also take part in the ensuing redistribution of Ukrainian property, including large ones.
What role will play in the war of groups, which began in Ukraine the liquidation of one of the leaders of the “Right Sector” Sashko Bilogo, private military companies (PMCs) from abroad, whose fighters began to arrive there at the invitation of local oligarchs, is difficult to say now. Three hundred and four hundred employees of the former American Black Sea Company Blackwater, associated with its former leader Eric Prinsem, who arrived at the Borispol airport from Abu Dhabi on March 3 – 4, are clearly not the striking force to be used during the elections, although personal they can ensure the security of their employers and their property. However, the internationalization of events in Ukraine itself and the involvement of foreign mercenaries in them represent a dangerous turn of events. Including for Russia.