Russia-Ukraine

[Scepticalscribe]

At the UN General Assembly (meeting in Emergency session for only the 11th time since 1950, and the first time in the past 40 years that the Security Council referred a crisis to the General Assembly), Russia has suffered - not just a crushing defeat, but a shocking expression of just how isolated they are.

The United Nations has voted overwhelmingly to deplore the Russian invasion of Ukraine “in the strongest possible terms”.

The UN general assembly has approved a resolution demanding that Russia stop the war in Ukraine and withdraw all troops.

The resolution won support from 141 votes and five voted against. There were 35 abstentions.

The five votes against included Russia, which was joined by Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, and Syria.

Among the 35 abstentions were India, Pakistan, China, Iran, Iraq, and, a few (though not all) of the former central Asian states and other former states, (such as Armenia) of the USSR also abstained, whereas Azerbaijan didn't register any preference at all.

Meanwhile, the oligarch Roman Abramovich has confimed (I'm seeing this in the Guardian) that he is putting the football cub, Chelsea, up for sale, and has also agreed to write off the loan of almost £2 billion the club owes him; clearly, his attempts to distance himself from ownership of the club (by placing it under the ostensible control of a charitable foundation while still retaining ownership, haven't worked).

 

[Macky-Mac]

That's an amazing vote by the UN General Assembly.

Here's the full vote tabulation

 

[yaxomoxay]

Among the 35 abstentions were India, Pakistan, China, Iran, Iraq, and, a few (though not all) of the former central Asian states and other former states, (such as Armenia) of the USSR also abstained, whereas Azerbaijan didn't register any preference at all.

I am definitely not happy about India’s position.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Does the UN vote actually accomplish anything tangible?

I will accept "no" as a valid answer.

 

[Renzatic]

Does the UN vote actually accomplish anything tangible?

I will accept "no" as a valid answer.

It's a moral standpoint.

 

[lizkat]

In my mailbox today: Frontier Communications makes calls to Ukraine free through March 11, possibly longer.

 

[Huntn]

I am amazed that BP jettisoned a reported coinvestment in Russia totaling $20B+. Therecare reports

I am definitely not happy about India’s position.

Abstentions, India and Pakistan, we’re they on vacation?

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

It's a moral standpoint.

So no then. Moral standpoints don't stop the killing of innocent people. I can make moral standpoints all day long and get the same end result they got here. World and public opinion was well known before this "let's make it official" vote by the UN.

I don't want to come off as harsh but this is a harsh situation and reality.

 

[Renzatic]

I don't want to come off as harsh but this is a harsh situation and reality.

You have to think of the UN as a meeting spot for all the various nations of the world to palaver over the latest issues of the day. It has no real power in and of itself, but it's good for showing where everyone stands.

 

[Yoused]

Abstentions, India and Pakistan, were they on vacation?

India and Pakistan have an eternal dispute over a Kashmir and would rather not face UN reproach over a territorial conflict.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Does the UN vote actually accomplish anything tangible?

I will accept "no" as a valid answer.

There are other valid answers.

And, in this instance, to my mind, "no" is not a valid answer.

It's a moral standpoint.

Exactly, and it is a moral standpoint that you are choosing to make explicit to the world, in public view.

Abstentions, India and Pakistan, we’re they on vacation?

They abstained.

In such assemblies, sometimes, there are four options: Yes (in favour), no, (against), abstention (a deliberate choice to register a vote neither "in favour", nor, "against"), and "present but not voting".

And there is the fifth: Not present, (deliberately, or not, who can say), and therefore, not voting.

So no then. Moral standpoints don't stop the killing of innocent people.

But, you are announcing that you think it wrong.

And, you are also able to find out just how many others hold similar views - for, with this vote, Russia can be in no doubt of how the world views their invasion of Ukraine - they will not be able to make the argument that they enjoy widespread international support, and nor will they be able to argue that this is "a western plot", for, far too many countries, not all of them western, oppose the invasion of Ukraine, and are prepared to say so openly.

Moreover, such a vote also allows you to see how many countries have reservations (the abstentions, some of whom would usually be more - sometimes, a lot more - closely aligned with Russia) and how many will actually admit - not just to world public opinion, but, to their own domestic audiences (and electorates) that they support this.

It is a damning indictment - and a clear signal - of how just friendless and alone and isolated Russia is on this issue.

Besides, "moral choices" - and expressing "moral choices" made it clear that many people - who, although not present, or unable to influence what happened - found the fact, and manner, of how George Floyd died utterly repugnant, which, in turn, meant that the authorities were obliged to act by suspending, arresting and charging the police officers responsible.

 

[Huntn]

The whopper foreign policy delimma what happens when a tactical Nuke goes off in Ukraine?

No one wants WWIII, I predict nothing in response as far as counter nukes directed at Russia. What will happen will be huge political turmoil, an economic tsunami of retaliation against Russia.

Now if Vlad gets desperate enough, the scenario we would all cross our fingers for would be him being deposed by internal forces not ready to die in WWIII. However for a guy who usually gets anything he wants in his own country, the fall can be hard, and I can imagine him ready to up in a FUCK YOU mushroom cloud.

However you want to describe it, no matter how you come to terms with the reality you won’t live forever, this is so scary, it’s almost something we don’t want to think about. But there are people in positions of authority around the world, who have been thinking about the what ifs. I’ll assume they will be ready to respond, and let the chips fall where they may and the future of the human race could be determined by a single megalomaniac who does not like the word no.

 

[SuperMatt]

The whopper foreign policy delimma what happens when a tactical Nuke goes off in Ukraine?

No one wants WWIII, I predict nothing in response as far as counter nukes directed at Russia. What will happen will be huge political turmoil, an economic tsunami of retaliation against Russia.

Now if Vlad gets desperate enough, the scenario we would all cross our fingers for would be him being deposed by internal forces not ready to die in WWIII. However for a guy who usually gets anything he wants in his own country, the fall can be hard, and I can imagine him ready to up in a FUCK YOU mushroom cloud.

However you want to describe it, no matter how you come to terms with the reality you won’t live forever, this is so scary, it’s almost something we don’t want to think about. But there are people in positions of authority around the world, who have been thinking about the what ifs. I’ll assume they will be ready to respond, and let the chips fall where they may and the future of the human race could be determined by a single megalomaniac who does not like the word no.

It would make zero sense to set off a nuclear bomb so close to his own country. And nobody wants to annex a nuclear wasteland, so it would be pointless to use a nuclear weapon on land you want to take over.

 

[yaxomoxay]

The whopper foreign policy delimma what happens when a tactical Nuke goes off in Ukraine?

No one wants WWIII, I predict nothing in response as far as counter nukes directed at Russia. What will happen will be huge political turmoil, an economic tsunami of retaliation against Russia.

Now if Vlad gets desperate enough, the scenario we would all cross our fingers for would be him being deposed by internal forces not ready to die in WWIII. However for a guy who usually gets anything he wants in his own country, the fall can be hard, and I can imagine him ready to up in a FUCK YOU mushroom cloud.

However you want to describe it, no matter how you come to terms with the reality you won’t live forever, this is so scary, it’s almost something we don’t want to think about. But there are people in positions of authority around the world, who have been thinking about the what ifs. I’ll assume they will be ready to respond, and let the chips fall where they may and the future of the human race could be determined by a single megalomaniac who does not like the word no.

That’s why it’s important that leaders of a nuclear power have sons/daughters and family in general.

 

[Huntn]

So no then. Moral standpoints don't stop the killing of innocent people. I can make moral standpoints all day long and get the same end result they got here. World and public opinion was well known before this "let's make it official" vote by the UN.

I don't want to come off as harsh but this is a harsh situation and reality.

Well it won’t bring back any of those murdered, but this is part of the blowback, the political opinion is condemning Russia which will effect not only it’s economics, but may actually cause the citizens of Russia to force a change.

 

[Huntn]

There are other valid answers.

And, in this instance, to my mind, "no" is not a valid answer.

Exactly, and it is a moral standpoint that you are choosing to make explicit to the world, in public view.



They abstained.

In such assemblies, sometimes, there are four options: Yes (in favour), no, (against), abstention (a deliberate choice to register a vote for neither option), and "present but not voting".

And there is the fifth: Not present, (deliberately, or not, who can say), and therefore, not voting.


But, you are announcing that you think it wrong.

And, you are also able to find out just how many others hold similar views - for, with this vote, Russia can be in no doubt of how the world views their invasion of Ukraine - they will not be able to make the argument that they enjoy widespread international support, and nor will they be able to argue that this is "a western plot", for, far too many countries, not all of them western, oppose the invasion of Ukraine, and are prepared to say so openly.

Moreover, such a vote also allows you to see how many countries have reservations (the abstentions, some of whom would usually be more - sometimes, a lot more - closely aligned with Russia) and how many will actually admit - not just to world public opinion, but, to their own domestic audiences (and electorates) that they support this.

It is a damning indictment - and a clear signal - of how just friendless and alone and isolated Russia is on this issue.

Besides, "moral choices" - and expressing "moral choices" made it clear that many people - who, although not present, or unable to influence what happened - found the fact, and manner, of how George Floyd died utterly repugnant, which, in turn, meant that the authorities were obliged to act by suspending, arresting and charging the police officers responsible.

Mine was a sarcastic comment, and it’s bothersome these 2 countries abstained. What do they get from Russia?

 

[Huntn]

Yes, it was one of the most godawful superhero movies ever released and has been the butt of jokes ever since it was released.


It's a nice idea but I question the degree of effectiveness. People have families, and you know what happens to families of people who cross thugs. The extremes Putin is going to lately, I wouldn't put it past him.

I heard it (Batman) was getting 1.5 star ratings.

 

[Huntn]

It would make zero sense to set off a nuclear bomb so close to his own country. And nobody wants to annex a nuclear wasteland, so it would be pointless to use a nuclear weapon on land you want to take over.

Tactical nukes are different than the big boys, yes devastating and poisonous but a much smaller scale. I could see this calculation on behalf of Putin.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

There are other valid answers.

And, in this instance, to my mind, "no" is not a valid answer.

Exactly, and it is a moral standpoint that you are choosing to make explicit to the world, in public view.



They abstained.

In such assemblies, sometimes, there are four options: Yes (in favour), no, (against), abstention (a deliberate choice to register a vote neither "in favour", nor, "against"), and "present but not voting".

And there is the fifth: Not present, (deliberately, or not, who can say), and therefore, not voting.


But, you are announcing that you think it wrong.

And, you are also able to find out just how many others hold similar views - for, with this vote, Russia can be in no doubt of how the world views their invasion of Ukraine - they will not be able to make the argument that they enjoy widespread international support, and nor will they be able to argue that this is "a western plot", for, far too many countries, not all of them western, oppose the invasion of Ukraine, and are prepared to say so openly.

Moreover, such a vote also allows you to see how many countries have reservations (the abstentions, some of whom would usually be more - sometimes, a lot more - closely aligned with Russia) and how many will actually admit - not just to world public opinion, but, to their own domestic audiences (and electorates) that they support this.

It is a damning indictment - and a clear signal - of how just friendless and alone and isolated Russia is on this issue.

Besides, "moral choices" - and expressing "moral choices" made it clear that many people - who, although not present, or unable to influence what happened - found the fact, and manner, of how George Floyd died utterly repugnant, which, in turn, meant that the authorities were obliged to act by suspending, arresting and charging the police officers responsible.

Maybe in another situation, but we’re talking Vladimir “Zero Fucks Given” Putin who seems to be the only opinion that matters in Russia and this is clearly a suicide vanity project, all or nothing. Best case scenario we let him have his way with Ukraine and then economically and literally starve out of the people of Russia over several years, which for some could make him more popular. “See, I told you the west was out to get you!”.

I’m sorry, but to me in this situation I don’t find any “I’m just fascinated by how all this politics stuff works!” fulfillment. None of it matters when you have a leader with nukes who says he’s not afraid to use them. How many thousands of people are going to die while we sit around taking disapproval votes over the next several weeks….months….years?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Mine was a sarcastic comment, and it’s bothersome these 2 countries abstained. What do they get from Russia?

Humour online is exceedingly subjective; to be honest, I didn't realise that you were being sarcastic.

Now, re the Indian sub-continent:

Historically, India was passionately anti-Imperialist, and politically, was a part of the non-aligned group - especially when ruled by the Congress Party (Mr Nehru and his descendants, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi). This has meant - again, historically - that India was a lot less anti-Russian (anti-Soviet) than some of its Asian neighbours, and was, at times, almost sympathetic to Russia.

Pakistan is the real surprise: Traditionally, (not least because it takes positions that are anti-India, or, opposed to whatever India votes for, and India was usually understanding of the position adopted by the Soviet Union), it has usually been strongly pro-western on such matters.

However, Imran Khan - the current PM (and former cricket star) - recently, - recently, in this context, measn as recently as last week - visited Moscow, and has - just as recently, concluded a number of trade deals (the guaranteed purchase of Russian energy, apparently, comprising part of these deals).

Candidly, the last time I recall seeing India and Pakistan (and my time in Afghanistan has left me - I must confess - with a deep dislike of, and a profound distrust of - the politics, and political culture of Pakistan), even vaguely on the same side (even if today's abstention on the UN General assembly vote could be described thus) on anything was when they both, - hilariously and simultaneously, - banned Salman Rushdie's absolutely brilliant, magic-realism (and Booker Prize winning) novel - about the history of - the creation of India and Pakistan.