The West covered up the lack of money to help Ukraine with the demand for reparations from Russia

The UN General Assembly voted on a resolution on the payment of “reparations” by Russia to Ukraine. 94 countries voted in favor, 14 voted against and 73 abstained. What are the prospects for the next anti-Russian resolution, how much it will affect Russia and how it will affect the West itself – we talked about this with an expert.

The UN General Assembly was once again marked by a controversial decision. A little over a month ago, an anti-Russian resolution on the “territorial integrity of Ukraine” was adopted at the meeting, but now the West decided to encroach on Russian assets, under the pretext that Russia is supposedly obliged to pay reparations to Ukraine for damage caused during military operations.

But in contrast to the previous vote in the GA, the current one was clearly not unanimous. 94 countries voted positively, which included mainly the countries of the European Union, as well as Turkey (for comparison, 143 countries supported the previous resolution). 14 countries voted against, including China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba (only 5 countries last time), but the most curious thing is the number of abstentions. There were 73 of them, including Serbia, Brazil, India, Egypt and many other states (last time there were only 35). There were also those who decided not to vote at all (for example, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Burkina Faso, Morocco, Democratic Republic of the Congo).

In general, the preparation for such a step seemed to have been tangible for a long time. Back in late May, the American newspaper The New York Times published an article under the heading “Seizure of Russian assets to help Ukraine provokes debate in the White House.” In the material, the authors said that “the destruction in Ukraine forced leaders around the world to seize the assets of the Russian Central Bank in the amount of more than $ 300 billion and transfer funds to Kyiv to help rebuild the country.” However, such actions met with resistance in the United States itself. But it was not because of good intentions that America was worried about such moves. Rather, she was worried about her authority and her own interests. Senior Biden administration officials warned that “diverging these funds could be illegal and prevent other countries from relying on the United States as a safe haven for investment.”

According to some reports, in total, unfriendly countries “frozen” Russian assets for as much as 300-350 billion dollars. Isn’t it suspicious that this is exactly half of the amount of payments that Zelensky demanded from the West? But there were also arrests of property, the facts of this did not have time to replace each other in the foreign media.

The underlying reason for the resolution is clearly hidden not only in an irresistible desire to somehow harm Russia, but also in the overspent state of the “collective West”. The conflict in Ukraine with the appetite of Zelensky, the main petitioner for “goods,” is no longer affordable for Kyiv’s “assistants.” And here is the easiest way to legitimize your actions – through the UN General Assembly to advance the decision on “such necessary” reparations in the current situation. Of course, the Russian Federation should pay for the “banquet”.

Diplomat, former Deputy Secretary General of the UN Sergei Ordzhonikidze, comments on the situation with the resolution on “reparations”:

– Naturally, such resolutions of the General Assembly are illegitimate and do not have a legal character. Like all resolutions of the General Assembly in general, the document is political, that is, non-binding, there are no legal obligations. As for the text of the resolution itself, I must characterize it rather briefly: it is an attempt to legalize stolen goods. Russian money, which was (as EU and US officials said) frozen, they now want to steal, but steal in such a way that there is some reason to do so. That is what this resolution is for.

This is the creation of an extremely dangerous and undesirable precedent for the entire world community, when stolen money is legalized by the authority of the UN. I think this is a very dangerous precedent, and states will think about what, in fact, is the danger of such actions. So far, of course, we have not seen the text of the resolution itself. The UN has not posted it yet, then it would be possible to speak more specifically.

– Should the adoption of the resolution be considered an attempt by the West to somehow find a way to continue helping Ukraine militarily?

– Of course. They will use this money for their political purposes. Helping Ukraine is one of the important areas where they would like to send our stolen money. They themselves no longer have enough financial resources to help Kyiv, because the Ukrainians all the time stand with outstretched hands, saying: “Give me more.” And more for everything: first of all, for armament and in general for the functioning of the so-called government. And money, of course, is already clearly not enough, especially since these countries (the EU states and the United States) need financial resources themselves. There, criticism is brewing inside, a critical attitude towards assistance to Ukraine is increasing. Then, of course, the governments of these countries can explain to their voters and political parties that we are not taking money from our budget, but have taken it from Russia. It was consecrated just by the UN resolution. This is where the big idea lies.

Should the current issue be discussed in the Security Council in order for it to have any force?

– They will not discuss it at the Security Council. And why? Because Russia has the right to veto. I think that the Chinese may not vote for. This is a very dangerous precedent for all non-Western countries of the world. Today money has been taken away from Russia and it will be legalized, and tomorrow they may be taken away from them if, for one reason or another, they do not suit the countries of the West with their policies. The precedent has been set.

– Is this the reason for such a large number of abstentions, are they afraid of the consequences?

— Yes, 73 abstentions are really a lot. Usually on controversial issues abstains somewhere in the region of 30-40 countries. And the current figure is very high. It is also important how many countries did not participate in the voting at all. There are states on which the Americans put a lot of pressure. It is hard to object, and they do not participate in the voting under various pretexts. But this can also be attributed to the general treasury of abstentions.

Summarizing the words of the expert, we can say about the empty content of the resolution. This is also confirmed by the statements of the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Vasily Nebenzi. He called the adopted resolution “legally void” and “an attempt to legalize the illegal.” But the West is no longer so important. And it is very fortunate for them that now in the political confrontation with Russia they can hide behind the tragedy of Ukraine. However, she agrees to be their eternal shield. Anyway, for now.