Russia vetos U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Ukraine invasion

[TU Curmudgeon]

From United Press International

Russia vetos U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Ukraine invasion​

Feb. 25 (UPI) -- Russia on Friday vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the country's invasion of Ukraine.

The Russian ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, was the only person to vote against the resolution, with 11 countries voting in favor.

As one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Russia -- along with China, France, Britain and the United States -- have the power to veto any resolution regardless of its international support.

Three countries -- China, India and the United Arab Emirates -- abstained from voting during the meeting in New York City. China has been reluctant to criticize Russia's invasion, which began Thursday, but Chinese President Xi Jinping encouraged Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate an end to the crisis with Ukraine.

COMMENT:-

This move came as a total surprise to the other 14 members of the UNSC who fully expected the Russians to vote in favour of the resolution. The resolution now goes to the toothless UN General Assembly where it will end up being voted on and that will be the end of the matter.​

 

[EdwinWillers]

COMMENT:-

​

This move came as a total surprise to the other 14 members of the UNSC who fully expected the Russians to vote in favour of the resolution. The resolution now goes to the toothless UN General Assembly where it will end up being voted on and that will be the end of the matter.​

That's good. 👍

 

[Ug make hammer]

In other news, bears shit in the woods!

 

[Stealers Wheel]

For several decades, Great Britain vetoed any discussion of the disputed Malvinas Islands off the coast of Argentina. Since diplomacy was a complete and utter failure, it led to the Falklands War in 1982. Total waste of blood and treasure.

This is why the veto power of the security council is BS. The council should be allowed to override a veto, but it is not.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

For several decades, Great Britain vetoed any discussion of the disputed Malvinas Islands off the coast of Argentina. Since diplomacy was a complete and utter failure, it led to the Falklands War in 1982. Total waste of blood and treasure.

This is why the veto power of the security council is BS. The council should be allowed to override a veto, but it is not.

When the UN was being set up (with the structure demanded by the US government) the veto power was put in place to ensure that the UN Security Council would never take any action that the US government disapproved of in the (highly unlikely) event that France, -Chang Kai-chek- China, and the UK all decided to support Russia.

Not only that, but the funding formulas for the US and its agencies were also the ones that the US government demanded so that the US government could "control the purse strings" and, thus, control the UN General Assembly's actual actions.

If you get to write the rules of the game, it looks pretty childish if you complain when someone else uses the rules that you wrote AND plays the game better than you do - doesn't it?

 

[Ug make hammer]

For several decades, Great Britain vetoed any discussion of the disputed Malvinas Islands off the coast of Argentina. Since diplomacy was a complete and utter failure, it led to the Falklands War in 1982. Total waste of blood and treasure.

This is why the veto power of the security council is BS. The council should be allowed to override a veto, but it is not.

All-but-one permanent members being able to over-ride a veto would be the best thing, I agree. It wouldn't necessarily have helped in this case: China abstained, and likely would have abstained on a veto over-ride too.

 

[Rexedgar]

In other news, bears shit in the woods!

A whole bunch a bears are shitting in Ukrainian woods lately……

 

[Ug make hammer]

A whole bunch a bears are shitting in Ukrainian woods lately……

See, I'm not that guy who is always making jokes. Sometimes I let others have one too!

I doubt any country would miss the chance to veto a motion condemning them. There's talk of passing it through the General Assembly anyway, with 193 nations expressing interest.