Countries vote abstain for different reasons, not just the ones you favor. For example,
I guess you are referring to this vote.
R_L,
Slice 'n dice it every which way, the facts speak for themselves. Namely, that of the 193 members, 53 either voted against the resolution, abstained or didn't vote. They all had their reasons, as did the 141 who voted in favour of the resolution. Now, prepare to have your mind blown and consider this: I put it to you that some (not all) of those who supported the resolution did so
not because they think Russia's SMO is unwarranted, but because they don't want to pi$$ off the U.S. and get on the wrong side of key allies in the west. In short, the U.N. resolution is just grubby politics as usual and, to a greater or lesser extent, meaningless.
Now math can be complicated
‡, but 141 is a supermajority with or without abstentions interpreted as "no." So the resolution passed, and the Sachs headline is still a lie.
As indicated above, the resolution passed, but the reasons for it have little or nothing to do with the
'Putin & Russia bad - Zelensky & Ukraine good' mantra that the gullible and naive like to think it is. The Sachs headline remains entirely credible and very true.
Speaking of things that are "still," Russell Brand's delivery reminds me of
And there's me thinking you'd enjoy the comedic aspect of his delivery. Of well, I can but try!
One of Brand's main arguments are Joe Biden saying that he would "end" the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline
This is the same Joe Biden that needs help dressing
the same Joe Biden that forgets he just shook someone's hand
the same Joe Biden that asks where a dead member of the U.S. House of Representatives is at a meeting
Well, at least we appear to agree on one thing: Biden isn't fit for office. Yes, he's a bumbling idiot, but his comments on Nord Stream were clear and unambiguous. It's obvious to one and all that the U.S. is behind the sabotage.
The other argument is about what
Condoleezza Rice said in 2014. Unlike Joe Biden, she has a working brain, but is not a member of the party in power in the U.S. and hasn't worked for the U.S. government since 2009.
The point RB is making is that U.S. foreign policy (vis-à-vis Russia supplying energy to the west) goes back a long way. It's not just some recent knee jerk reaction to Russia's SMO in Ukraine. There's important historical context - as expounded in depth by Mearsheimer, Sachs and Black et al. Ukrainian sovereignty and democracy is a smokescreen; the war isn't about that. It's about control and $$$$. The U.S. will do anything and everything in its power to maintain its hegemony and to ensure that the west is dependant upon it (the U.S.) for her energy needs. The U.S. administration is even quite open and transparent about it: its sheer hubris is quite breathtaking. . .
The only question is: did the "opportunity" arise fortuitously, or was it manufactured? Anyone who thinks the former is being spectacularly naive. The notion that Putin sabotaged his own pipeline with the net result that the west is then dependant upon the U.S. for her energy needs is beyond absurd.
These aren't very strong arguments, but there are better ones:
Maybe not in your eyes, but you're one of those who favour weaponry over diplomacy and appear quite prepared to see this senseless conflict escalate into nuclear war. The Insider article says nothing new and I've debunked all of those pathetically weak arguments already - so forgive me if I don't repeat them again here.
‡ Yes, I admit to patronizing, but I'm sure you have a sense of humor somewhere.
Apologies R_L, I'm afraid my sense of humour has been crushed by the weight of dead Ukrainian and Russian soldiers who have died needlessly in a war that your country should not have started in 2014 and my country (U.K.) should not be involved in given that it's none of our fcuking business!
Tim.
tass.com
