On December 19 of this year, the UN General Assembly adopted another declaration on Crimea. The Ukrainian side celebrates the victory. But is this really so? Let's try to figure it out.

First, a few words about the resolution itself. This was yet another resolution concerning the annexation of Crimea and the violation of human rights on the peninsula. The document was supported by 70 UN member countries, 76 abstained, another 26 countries opposed it, and several countries did not take part in the vote at all.

President of Ukraine Poroshenko, naturally, welcomed the adoption of this resolution, noting that this resolution is “a signal to the aggressor as the occupying power that we have the supremacy international law, truth and justice,” and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine P. Klimkin even called the document adopted by the UN General Assembly “the strongest on Crimea” and noted that international pressure on the Russian Federation regarding the Crimean issue is increasing.

But, alas, in reality, everything does not seem so smooth.

On the one hand, everything went as expected - as expected, the overwhelming majority of countries in Europe, North America, Turkey, a number of Arab states, Japan, and South Korea supported the Ukrainian resolution. But the number of countries that abstained from voting or voted against indicates not only the polarization of the world, the strengthening of contradictions between the West and other geopolitical centers, but also the decline in the image of Ukraine in the international arena and its failed foreign policy. After all, if our diplomacy had been much more effective, and Ukraine had pursued a multi-vector foreign policy, perhaps we would have had significantly more supporters in our cohort and/or would have achieved the neutrality of key states that pressed the red button during the vote for the resolution on Crimea. After all, it’s hard not to agree that the Russian side looks more confident when not only the DPRK, Syria, and a couple of banana republics, but also China, India, South Africa, and Kazakhstan are on the same page.

Context

The UN adopted a resolution on Crimea

New time of the country 12/20/2017

New UN resolution on Crimea: ten changes important for Ukraine

Ukrainian Truth 12/19/2017

Resolution on Crimea: Ukraine needs decisive action

Correspondent 02.11.2017

The resolution on Crimea has no value

BBC Russian Service 05/20/2016 The main problem of Ukraine’s foreign policy is its fixation on the Western vector. For at least the 4th year now, Kyiv has been looking greedily at the West and not paying attention to alternative directions of foreign policy. Such alternative destinations are, first of all, a number of Asian countries - China, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and secondly, Latin American countries and some African countries. With almost all of these states, Ukraine either does not have any fruitful dialogue at all, or the current relations can hardly be called partnership and strategic. Consequently, when making this or that decision on Ukraine, these states cannot be guided by the motivation of maintaining normal relations with Kiev, since they do not exist in principle.

Thus, if the Ukrainian authorities ceased to distinguish only one side of the world - the West and turned their gaze to other countries, it is quite possible that our international authority would increase, and UN resolutions on Ukraine would be adopted with a much larger number of votes.

A few examples

Today, between Ukraine, on the one hand, and countries such as China, India and Pakistan, there is interest in cooperation in such industries as mechanical engineering, space, aviation, and the agricultural sector; there may potentially be interest in military-industrial cooperation and the scientific field. But let’s now remember what kind of contacts and, most importantly, at what level, Ukraine has had contacts with these states over the last 5-6 years, not to mention the period after the second Maidan. The answer is obvious - there are no fruitful contacts and strategies for relationships with them.

Therefore, why are we surprised by Pakistan's neutrality on Crimea or voting against India and China? Of course, they voted not so much against Ukraine as against the opinion of the West, deciding to strengthen the alternative side - the Russian Federation. But it is quite possible to assume that some of these countries could either be brought into neutrality (China, India, Central Asian countries) or even take the Ukrainian side.

The same applies to Latin American countries and some Arab states that did not press the green button. Yes, the USA, Europe, Canada, Japan - this is very important. But we must also understand that they voted “For” not out of great love for Ukraine, but for the same reasons as those who voted “Against” - in connection with the geopolitical confrontation between the West and Russia, in which Ukraine, alas, is a subject.

Another example is Serbia. Serbia is one of the few European states that voted against the resolution. Probably everyone knows the strategic relationship between Belgrade and Moscow, but even here Ukraine could come to an agreement with Serbia on the Crimean issue and also bring it into neutrality. It’s easy to guess that the Kosovo issue would help her with this. As you know, Ukraine has not yet recognized the independence of Kosovo and considers it part of Serbia, while almost all European countries have recognized Kosovo’s independence. Thus, it would be possible to give a signal to Belgrade that either relations between the two countries will develop according to the principle “Kosovo is Serbia, Crimea is Ukraine,” or Ukraine reserves the right to recognize the independence of Kosovo if Serbia continues will vote against resolutions relating to the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

These are just a couple of examples of how you can really expand the circle of Ukraine’s friends and partners by pursuing a multi-directional policy and expanding cooperation with Asian, South American and even African countries.

Thus, this is precisely what Ukraine’s foreign policy should be oriented towards. But instead, we, unfortunately, see that the Ukrainian authorities look at world processes through rose-colored glasses, naively believing (or pretending) that the whole world is with us. In fact, Ukraine is a ball on the field of a great geopolitical game.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

The Ukrainian draft resolution on the human rights situation in Crimea was adopted on November 14 by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs. The document is called “The situation in the field of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.”

As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine has already reported, “the resolution confirms that there is an international armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia.” This is the first comment from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry on the “Crimean resolution”, which means the most important result of the vote at the UN. The Kiev regime, not daring to officially declare war on Russia, will now repeat at every corner that this war has been declared - and the United Nations has declared it (if the UN General Assembly supports the decision of the Third Committee).

71 states voted for the Ukrainian project, 25 countries opposed it, and another 77 countries abstained. In 2016, a similar resolution was voted for in the UN Third Committee with a slightly better result for Ukraine: 73 states were in favor, 99 were against and abstained. Time does its work, and Kyiv has not achieved anything significant, except for another demonstration of the fact that the world no longer revolves around one American pole.

The Ukrainian project was opposed, in particular, by China and India, which, even if one wanted to, could hardly be called a “Russian army,” as Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine Sergei Kislitsa did when listing the states that said “no” to the resolution. “The entire Russian army voted against: Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Cambodia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Philippines, Russia, Serbia, APR, Syria, Sudan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe. Need any comments? - tweeted the Ukrainian diplomat on Twitter.

It has long become the norm for Ukraine to comment in a boorish manner on the decisions of independent states whose position does not coincide with the views of Kyiv.

In Russian Crimea, they commented on the Ukrainian resolution on the human rights situation on the peninsula adopted by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly. “We take this calmly. This is already a system - without understanding the essence of the issue, without delving into, without studying, without understanding the processes that are taking place, make some decisions. The position of countries that vote for something that they themselves do not understand and do not know is surprising,” said Vice-Speaker of the Republican Parliament Efim Fiks. Another comment was given by Crimean deputy Vladislav Ganzhara: “The decisions adopted by the resolution in no way correspond to reality. The Mejlis is truly an extremist organization, whose members took actions to destabilize the situation on the peninsula. Regarding human rights violations, the only state that violates human rights in Crimea has always been Ukraine. And here, first of all, I mean the blockades that we experienced. Why do the West and a number of other states never talk about this? We see a policy of double standards. Regarding the accessibility of international organizations - Crimea is open. If there is agreement with our Foreign Ministry, we are always ready to accept and show what the peninsula lives with,” he said in an interview with RT.

“The cynicism of the situation is that the initiator of the resolution on the rights of Crimeans is Ukraine, which until 2014 discriminated against the Russian-speaking population of Crimea on the basis of nationality, and after that it deprived the inhabitants of the peninsula of access to water and energy, organized transport and trade blockades supported by Western countries , who also adopted discriminatory visa restrictions for Crimeans.

This is the same Ukraine that adopted a nationalist law on education in the Ukrainian language, which caused indignation among its neighbors, but in this resolution shows touching concern for the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian population of the peninsula that does not belong to it, which just received such rights to study in national schools and classes of their choice, and their languages ​​have the status of state languages ​​in Crimea. These cynical and vile games around Crimea, in which there is no other content than the “phantom” anger of Kiev and the reflection of the current Russophobic campaigns of the West, reflect the only desire not to help the inhabitants of Crimea, but to take revenge on them and Russia. I don’t know, maybe we missed that at some point the “European values” included a strange idea that caring for the rights of the population meant cutting them off from basic goods and outright blackmailing them? Isn’t it time to make the actions of Ukraine and the West against Crimea the subject of a separate dossier for the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly? There, a mass of not virtual, but real facts is guaranteed,” commented the chairman of the Russian Federation Council Committee on the voting in the UN Third Committee on his Facebook page. international affairs Konstantin Kosachev.

And life - not virtual, but real - goes on as usual. And in this real life events are taking place that do not at all correspond to either the Ukrainian farce #CrimeaIsBleeding or the content of the notorious “Crimean resolution”. The other day it became known that the French and Russian cities - Marignane and Yevpatoria - are preparing to become twin cities. The mayor of Marignan, Eric Le Dissez, at a meeting in Moscow with Russian State Duma deputies from Crimea Ruslan Balbec and Svetlana Savchenko, said that the French would like to develop cultural and sports ties with the Crimeans and proposed celebrating the days of Crimean culture in France and the days of French culture in Crimea.

In the spring of 2018, the French delegation will arrive in Crimea. “Representatives of France themselves say that President Vladimir Putin saved the inhabitants of the peninsula from bloodshed and note that today Crimeans feel united with the Russian people, live in peace and tranquility,” said State Duma deputy Ruslan Balbec.

Another real life movement - article in The New York Times about the grandiose construction of a bridge across the Kerch Strait connecting the mainland with the peninsula, about the hopes of Crimeans for Russia and their pride in Russia. It is only in Ukrainian fantasies that residents of Crimea are “forcibly transferred to Russian citizenship,” as the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry broadcasts when commenting on the “Crimean resolution.” And in life they wanted to become Russian citizens, voted in a referendum for reunification with Russia and now they are Russians.

Sob. corr. Strategic Culture Foundation

4227

The resolution condemns the construction of the Crimean Bridge

Meeting of the UN General Assembly unitednations.entermediadb.net

The day before, on December 17, at a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York, a resolution introduced by Ukraine and supported by more than 60 countries was adopted condemning the strengthening of Russia’s military presence in Crimea and the Sea of ​​Azov, which after the opening of the Kerch Bridge became, in fact, an internal body of water in Russia.

The document emphasizes that the presence Russian army in Crimea " contradicts national sovereignty(the vast majority of countries in the world and generally recognized international organizations recognize the peninsula as Ukrainian - ed.) , political independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine and undermines security and stability neighboring countries and European region", and also expressed concern about the militarization of Crimea.

– The General Assembly... condemns the construction and opening Russian Federation bridge across the Kerch Strait between the Russian Federation and temporarily occupied Crimea, which contributes to the further militarization of Crimea, and also condemns the growing military presence of the Russian Federation in the Black and Azov Sea areas, including in the Kerch Strait, and the Russian Federation's harassment of commercial vessels and restrictions on international shipping . Urges the Russian Federation, as the occupying power, to withdraw its armed forces from Crimea and immediately end its temporary occupation of the territory of Ukraine,- the document says.

The UN also demands the immediate release of the armored boats of the Ukrainian Navy and their crew arrested by the FSB border service.

Before voting on the resolution began, the delegations of Syria and Iran proposed amendments to the draft. However, representatives of Poland, the USA, Great Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands called the amendments an attempt to distort the original document, and most countries opposed the amendments.

As a result, 66 states supported the resolution condemning Russia's actions in the Black and Azov Seas, while 19, including Armenia, Uzbekistan and Belarus, voted against. Representatives of 71 countries abstained from voting, including Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Dmitry Polyansky said that the resolution is “ harmful Ukrainian idea", and the countries of the European Union and the USA " encourage their Ukrainian wards to commit new crimes and provocations in the region in the name of Western political ambitions».

– A certain annexed, occupied and militarized territory exists only in the projects of our Ukrainian colleagues, who still seem to be experiencing “phantom pains”, – Polyansky summed up, emphasizing that the residents of Crimea made their choice four years ago.

After a referendum in March 2014, in which 96% of voters on the peninsula voted in favor, Crimea became part of Russia. In accordance with the country’s position, Crimea and Sevastopol have been subjects of the Russian Federation since March 18, 2014, and the “Crimean issue” as such does not exist. The peninsula is currently recognized as part of Russia by Afghanistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Syria. The vast majority of UN countries, as well as authoritative international organizations, do not recognize the annexation of Crimea to Russia, which is reflected in the UN General Assembly resolution on non-recognition of the Crimean referendum.

The UN General Assembly yesterday, which is called “The human rights situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine.” The document was approved by 70 states, 26 voted against. 76 countries abstained.

— UN News Service (@UN_News_RU) December 20, 2017

The resolution confirms that there is an international armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia. The document recognizes “Russia’s temporary occupation of part of Ukraine.” The General Assembly also condemned (quoted from the UN website): “...violations, violations of human rights, discriminatory measures and practices against residents of temporarily occupied Crimea, including Crimean Tatars, as well as Ukrainians and persons belonging to other ethnic and religious groups, by the Russian occupation authorities."

The preamble of the document also condemns the “temporary occupation” of “the Russian Federation of part of the territory of Ukraine - Autonomous Republic Crimea and the cities of Sevastopol." It confirms “non-recognition of its annexation.” The text of the UN General Assembly resolution can be found.

Let us recall that Crimea became part of the Russian Federation in March 2014 based on the results of a referendum. Kyiv and most countries in the world refuse to recognize this vote as legal.

The Kremlin's position on the adoption of this resolution is expressed by the press secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov. “We consider these formulations incorrect, we do not agree with them,” Peskov said.

Naturally, the adoption of such a document by the UN caused comments and reactions not only from Dmitry Peskov, but also from politicized and not so politicized citizens. "" collected the most striking, meaningful or typical ones.

Burundi is still with us. All is good.

— york (@Pepechunchi) December 20, 2017

When the United States, through its limitrophe, forces the UN to recognize Russia as an “occupying power” for compliance with the Charter of the same organization, especially regarding the right of nations to self-determination, it becomes obvious that American Exceptionalism is a new hypostasis of the dictatorship of Nazism.

— Philip Maslovsky (@soulstray) December 19, 2017

The UN General Assembly recognized Russia as an “occupying power.” Now attention! Among the countries that voted, there were also “friendly” ones: Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Israel,...

The UN General Assembly on Tuesday adopted a resolution condemning the so-called temporary occupation of Crimea. Who voted for the anti-Russian resolution introduced by Ukraine and who did not support it? Should Moscow expect any consequences from what Kyiv called a “signal to the aggressor”?

The Kremlin called the wording adopted the night before by the UN General Assembly incorrect. “We do not agree,” stressed Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov.

The resolution on Crimea, introduced at the initiative of Ukraine, on behalf of the UN General Assembly condemns the “temporary occupation by the Russian Federation of part of the territory of Ukraine” and declares “non-recognition of the annexation” of this territory. Also noted are “Kyiv’s efforts” aimed at “putting an end to the Russian occupation of Crimea.” The document also talks about the alleged “violations of human rights” in Crimea (Kyiv emphasized this topic). But still, the main emphasis is on Russia’s illegal establishment of laws, jurisdiction and governance in Crimea.

In Kyiv, the resolution was met with. President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, who from the UN rostrum more than once demanded to punish the “occupiers,” called the decision of the General Assembly a signal to the “aggressor.” “Those responsible for persecution and violations of the rights of Crimeans will definitely be held accountable. The aggressor state (as Russia is called in Kyiv - approx. VIEW) must stop arbitrariness in the temporarily occupied territory,” said the press service of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.

Russian arguments are not accepted, the absurdity is growing

The “Crimean” resolution of the UN General Assembly does not reflect the real situation on the peninsula, “nor the opinion of Crimeans, but broadcasts Kyiv’s propaganda myths,” emphasized the head of the Republic of Crimea, Sergei Aksenov. “The terrorist Kiev regime has no right to talk about human rights at all,” noted the head of the region.

Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs Konstantin Zatulin also emphasizes: “And it’s not Ukraine that should tell us how to handle human rights. Considering what is happening today in Ukraine itself in the conflict zone in Donbass, what is happening to dissidents in the rest of Ukraine. As political rights and freedoms in Ukraine are destroyed, entire parties are banned, such as the Communist Party.” The interlocutor also recalled the situation with the status in Ukraine - despite the fact that in Crimea three languages, including Ukrainian, have been granted official status. “The draft resolution is based on speculation and bias,” sums up Zatulin.

According to Sergei Aksenov, such decisions undermine the status and authority of the UN. A representative of the Crimean Tatar community, Vice-Speaker of the State Council of Crimea Remzi Ilyasov, spoke in the same spirit. “The resolution on Crimea goes against the position of the Crimean people, and the UN, with its decision, discredits itself and nullifies the authority it has built up over the years,” RIA Novosti quoted the politician as saying.

The General Assembly, we recall, already tried to consider an anti-Russian resolution earlier in November. Then she was supported, including by the EU countries, Canada and the USA. 25 countries spoke out against it. This is Russia, as well as Armenia, Belarus, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, China, North Korea, Myanmar, Serbia, Syria, South Africa. As the newspaper VZGLYAD emphasized then, according to the charter, the General Assembly occupies a central place in the UN; However, with such initiatives, Ukraine is turning the center of international politics into a stage for.

It is impossible not to admit that the result of the UN General Assembly resolution was predictable, political scientist Fyodor Lukyanov noted in a comment to the newspaper VZGLYAD. The legal position of other countries in the world regarding Crimea does not change, and Russian arguments are not accepted. Meanwhile, some countries “consider it important to raise the shield,” while the other part does not believe that this is worth any serious discussions and does not want to interfere in the dispute, the expert explained.

Partners are cautious

Our interpretation of Crimea’s entry into Russia “is not recognized by almost anyone in the world, including our partners,” Lukyanov states.

China opposed the resolution because it concerns violations of human rights. But if we were talking about the attitude towards Crimea itself, then hardly anyone would be ready to admit it. “This is understandable: any change in borders without the consent of the party that previously had jurisdiction alarms any other country. Nobody wants a precedent,” the expert emphasized.

Another Russian partner, Belarus, “is maneuvering in all directions with all its might. On the one hand, it tries to avoid doing anything that could be interpreted by Russia as unfriendly. On the other hand, Lukashenko emphasizes in every possible way that this is not our conflict at all, we have excellent relations with Ukraine, we are fraternal peoples, and so on. He has his own interests,” the political scientist emphasized. Thus, the vote only once again outlined the already existing balance of power. And, as experts note, this resolution is unlikely to have any impact, other than a “feeling of deep satisfaction” for the Kyiv authorities.

Can be ignored

“There will be no consequences. The resolutions of the General Assembly are advisory,” emphasizes the first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Konstantin Zatulin.

“We should not, of course, discount the very fact that Ukraine manages to carry out some decisions. But there is no need to make this absolute. We have seen resolutions regarding Abkhazia, Ossetia and so on, based on formal circumstances. Naturally, Russia will in no way follow the lead and draw conclusions from an unfairly explained situation and incorrectly formulated reasons and reasons for self-determination. He will take note, and nothing more,” the deputy emphasized.

The Crimean issue is periodically raised at the initiative of the United States and, most likely, will be raised. But this is also quite expected, given the current relations between the two countries, noted political scientist Fyodor Lukyanov. He also emphasizes that the General Assembly resolution is advisory in nature, so there will be no practical consequences.

Russia is not the first to be called an “occupier” by the General Assembly. Israel, for example, has been awarded a similar characteristic more than once. Thus, in 2015, the UN General Assembly, in its resolution “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine,” again called for “ensuring Israel’s withdrawal from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.” In addition, the document emphasized “the illegality of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem, including the construction and expansion of settlements, the demolition of houses, and the eviction of Palestinian residents.” 102 countries were in favor, only eight were against, including the USA, Canada and Australia. 57 states abstained.

However, in practice this did not change the situation then, and now it has not stopped the Trump administration from announcing the transfer of the American embassy to Jerusalem.