Ukraine: US votes with Russia in Security Council
On the third anniversary of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, the US voted with Russia, China and other states to pass a resolution in the UN Security Council calling for a swift end to the war without naming Moscow as the aggressor. The European member states abstained, and in the UN General Assembly a majority condemned the attack. Press commentaries see a reversal in the US's stance.
Going rogue
The Times is aghast:
“Never before has the US voted with Russia and against its Nato allies on a UN resolution relating to security on this continent. The world's greatest democracy, for 80 years its global policeman, is going rogue. Seemingly, it is no longer the criminal regimes in Moscow, Minsk, Tehran and Pyongyang that have cause to fear the US but its democratic allies. ... Mr Trump appears to be having problems remembering who his real friends are. He should be reminded of that in no uncertain terms.”
Misused as a vehicle for vested interests
The UN Security Council could become a useful idiot for geopolitical interests, warns Les Echos:
“So far, the international organisation has been used by China for its infiltration efforts and by Russia for systematic obstruction. From now on, we can count on the US for manipulation. Donald Trump has no truck with multilateralism or international law. He will only use the Security Council to lend a veneer of legitimacy to the agreements he negotiates with Putin at Ukraine's expense. The only weapon left is the French or British veto.”
No sign of betrayal so far
This is not the time for pessimism, political scientist Vladislav Faraponov admonishes in Unian:
“Claims that the US has sided with Russia in negotiations to end the war do not hold water. The fact that the two agreed in Riyadh to restore relations between their embassies is not a serious argument. ... Have the sanctions against Russia been lifted? No. Was Putin left to make the next political next move? Again, no. There are no clear indicators that point to a so-called betrayal of Ukraine's interests. A UN vote is not an argument for this: that organisation has never decided anything.”
Content counts less than who sides with whom
In a Telegram post picked up by Echo, journalist Sergey Parkhomenko compares the procedure of UN resolutions to a football match:
“Please, don't tell me now that UN resolutions never decide anything and never change anything. The resolutions are not meant for that. They serve as an instrument to determine who sides with whom. ... It is not the resolution itself that influences the situation, but the configuration of the vote. The resolutions are like a ball that the countries and alliances fling around the court. It doesn't matter what is written on the ball - what matters is who passes the ball to whom and in which goal it then lands.”
Putting Europe to the test
The EU faces major challenges, stresses the Cyprus Mail:
“Neither side looked like winning the war any time soon, until President Donald Trump undertook his perverse initiative to end the war, in which he openly advocated rewarding the aggressor and penalising the victim. ... Can European states offer Ukraine the support it needs to carry on fighting Russia, considering any peace deal that is offered by Trump would be a capitulation to Putin? The next few months will be a big test for Europe and the future of the continent.”
A sad lesson in realpolitik
Three years into the war, Ukraine is faced with the prospect of losing Washington's support, political scientist Maksym Yali sighs on Facebook:
“I hope we can all emerge from this clash between the Ukrainian and US leaders with minimal losses. Ukraine cannot afford to lose US support at a time when the terms of a future peace agreement are being decided. In any case, both Zelensky personally and the Ukrainian people are learning an instructive lesson about realpolitik: that interests, not values, rule the world. And that the aggressor is not always punished and justice does not always prevail. As sad as it is to admit it.”
The world has the measure of Trump now
The Ukrainians shouldn't panic at the idea of the US as an opponent, taz newspaper comments:
“Trump's solidarity with Putin [ennobles] Ukraine's struggle, turning it into a fight for freedom in the eyes of the global majority, which is critical of US foreign policy. ... [The Ukrainians] have beaten back Putin's tanks and they will also be able to withstand Trump's tirades. With every push by Trump aimed at a sham peace that legitimises Russia's war, that peace will become more difficult to attain through diplomacy. Because from Greenland to Panama, the whole world has the measure of Trump now. They shall not pass, an old anti-fascist slogan goes. Rarely has this been more pertinent than in Ukraine today, after three years of resistance.”
Stand by Ukraine
Europe must face up to the facts, writes Kristi Raik, director of the International Centre for Defence and Security, in Postimees:
“The top priority should be clear to everyone: Ukraine and Europe need more weapons to end the war and prevent the next attack. For months, the EU has been debating whether it's possible to relax the budget rules and increase defence spending without making cuts to the welfare state. Such debates are simply incompatible with the suffering of Ukrainians on the front line and the growing danger of a major war in Europe. Wealthy Europe still cherishes hopes that it won't have to make sacrifices for the sake of its security.”
Europeans must forge their own alliance
With an eye to Trump's rapprochement with Putin, Aftonbladet calls on Europe to take action:
“Nato was the strongest defence alliance in the world. That ceased to be the case when Donald Trump cast doubt on the alliance's Article 5 [mutual defence clause]. ... It is perfectly possible to establish at the EU level a defence alliance that replaces Nato and complements national defence programmes. ... The EU contributes more to Ukraine's defence than the US. Unlike Washington, we have kept our promises and delivered. Europe can stand on its own two feet. All this requires is the political will to do so.”
A common cause against China?
There is an explanation for Trump's pro-Russian stance, says Club Z:
“Geostrategists are trying to interpret the US administration's policies as a Kissinger-style stroke of genius: Trump wants to get Russia on his side in the face of a potential conflict between the US and China. ... But there are at least two key differences compared to the situation in the 1970s when Nixon travelled to China to persuade it to side with him against the USSR. Firstly, this happened after a real military conflict between China and the USSR. Today, relations between China and Russia are excellent. ... Secondly, Nixon's overtures to Beijing did not come at the expense of the US's European allies, and Trump's policy is openly directed against the stability of the EU and Nato.”