Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations
The Russian Federation strongly condemns the terrorist attack that was carried out in the vicinity of the Kabul airport on 26 August killing hundreds of people. We express our condolences to the friends and families of those killed and wish speedy recovery to the injured.
At the same time, we had to abstain during the vote on the draft SC resolution on Afghanistan.
We had to do this because the authors of the draft had ignored our principled concerns.
Firstly, despite the fact that the draft resolution was proposed against the backdrop of a heinous terrorist attack, the sponsors refused to mention ISIL and “Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement” – the organizations that are internationally recognized as terrorist – in the paragraph on counter-terrorism. We interpret it as unwillingness to recognize the obvious and an inclination to divide terrorists into “ours” and “theirs”. Attempts to “downplay” threats emanating from these groups are unacceptable.
Secondly, during the negotiations we emphasized the unacceptability and negative impacts of evacuation of Afghan highly qualified personnel for Afghanistan’s socio-economic situation. If experiencing a “brain drain”, the country will not be able to achieve Sustainable Development Goals. These elements that are vital for the Afghan people were nor reflected in the text of the resolution.
Thirdly, the authors ignored our proposal to have the document state the adverse effects that freezing of Afghan financial assets had on the economic and humanitarian situation in the country, and mention the fact that humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan must imperatively comply with the UN guiding principles, stipulated in UNGA resolution 46/182.
We understand why the authors tried to use the Security Council’s authority to have the resolution adopted in this particular form and on such tight schedule. Perhaps, if we had had more time, the results of the vote would have been different.
At the same time, therein we see attempts to shift responsibility for the failure of the 20-year-long presence of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan to the Taliban movement and to the states of the region that will have to deal with the effects of this prolonged campaign. Such irresponsible behavior of the Western coalition and its attitude to the developments in Afghanistan are little surprising if we take into account i.a. purely formalistic approach taken by NATO’s former military mission “International Security Assistance Force” (which was later replaced by the “Resolute Support” training mission) when it was reporting progress to the Security Council.
Russia consistently stands for a peaceful, safe, and stable Afghanistan with no terrorist or drug threat coming from its territory. We will continue assisting Afghans in pursuing this goal.
A ‘Spot On’ and accurate critique of Atlantistan’s hypocysi!
I am assuming everyone on planet earth knows NATO entered the beleaguered nation of Afghanistan under false pretenses.
It seems like everyone acknowledges all the alkada-ish” entities are not home grown but paid for mercenaries from outside the said country.
Who is funding all this exactly? It seems like a mighty big enterprise, maybe the largest scheme hoisted on all of mankind?
Who has all the money and all the money laundering skills? Gee it almost sounds like the money just appeared out of no where from thin- air.
Maybe I’m just being simple, but doesn’t all this activity leave a money trail somewhere?
of course there’s a money trail. All those brand new toyota trucks seen in all those videos, they were ordered from toyota. Toyota knows who bought them, but won’t say.
If we, on planet ponsey, have to pay back every dollars loaned out into existence with interest, which we do not have, to begin with, when exactly are all the endless wars going to peter out- if we can not fund them?
Brain drain?! So those Afghan evacuees got kidnapped by Nato member states to fill the labor shortage for higher educated in their countries?!
A very very little bit more diversity is no game changer.
It’s good to see that both Russia and China are calling the West on its black propaganda.
Speaking of which, another article by a Saker favorite, Andrei Martyanov. Now even 70% of Russians have a positive view of Stalin, even according to a poll of the Western agent Lavada Center.
Is it just me, or is every country (illegally) trying to hustle money out of every other country, or…or, are they pretty much all on the same team, ya know the ones who print money, since they are all private, running the whole show, behind our back, (pretty much all these decades) until they get tired of planet earth…
and decide to pull the plug, on the biggest Ponzi scheme ever known to mankind, which somehow we have been brainwashed not to know about (they do not teach this in “school” apparently) and unknowingly, poof … all gone, but where did all the money go? I thought it was real?
Mr Nebenzia, a diplomat who accurately has that title. It’s good to know Russia brings balance and reason to the United Nations.
If you take a look at Nebenzia’s last sentence, and compare with the Chinese talk, you see clearly that they are working together but on different aspects.
This is a quote from a Chinese Business newsletter that I get.
“If you can’t beat ‘em, befriend ‘em.
Earlier this week, Yue Xiaoyong – China’s newly-appointed special envoy for Afghan affairs – spoke with news portal Guancha.cn about his impression of the Taliban.
Yue’s message: They’re not so bad once you get to know them (SCMP).
“My feeling is that [the Taliban] are the same as other Afghans, and people in the region.”
“They are friendly, they like to exchange ideas with me, and communicate with others.”
“Of course, they like to explain their own views.”
Yue also touted China’s role in bringing stability to Afghanistan and the possibility of cooperation:
“[The Taliban] have been very eager to learn from other countries’ experiences, including China’s.”
“China is ready to be part of the peaceful reconstruction of Afghanistan.”
“For us, the best way forward is to communicate and be in touch with them, and work with them…to build a widely accepted government.”
The only thing that Beijing likes less than Islamic fundamentalists is a failed state on its doorstep.
Beijing is pragmatic. Having dialogue with the Taliban gives Beijing an opportunity to stay relevant, explore economic cooperation, and mitigate instability on its border.”
With regard to what Taliban says it is imperative to see as to what they will actually do. Especially when we look at the role and rights of women in that society. For example, under Taliban stone-age religious ideology their women cannot be seen by a doctor, since all of them are men and therefore cannot examine a female patient – forbidden. There are no women doctors in tribal-centric Afghanistan as education for girls and young women is also forbidden. What if there are serious complications during childbirth or woman needs a life-saving surgery?! What then?
So, with Taliban, we will see if their words will reflect in their deeds. If there is an obstinate resistance to exit the 6th century and enter 21st century, then The World NEEDS to insist and persist to see those changes – under biting sanctions or the threat of complete isolation, if necessary. Their younger generations, hopefully, can also be some sort of catalyst for the much needed changes in that society, which sadly has been long lost in the dark ages.
” The World NEEDS to insist and persist to see those changes – under biting sanctions or the threat of complete isolation, if necessary ”
When the world takes this hard line with Israhell then we can talk. Till then, lets leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis
Totally concur re: Israhell, but I believe that this created monstrosity is going to die it’s own death.
Firstly, despite the fact that the draft resolution was proposed against the backdrop of a heinous terrorist attack, the sponsors refused to mention ISIL and “Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement” – the organizations that are internationally recognized as terrorist – in the paragraph on counter-terrorism. We interpret it as unwillingness to recognize the obvious and an inclination to divide terrorists into “ours” and “theirs”. Attempts to “downplay” threats emanating from these groups are unacceptable
Golly gee, I wonder why America, Britain, and France refused to mention ISIL and the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as terrorist groups in the proposed UN Resolution on Afghanistan.
You would think that these great democracies, who are valiantly fighting for Freedom, Democracy, and Women’s Rights against jihadist terrorism around the world, would have no problem with calling out these terrorist groups as such.
It’s almost like America, Britain, and other NATO nations (cough, TURKEY) are covertly sponsoring, bankrolling, and arming ISIL and ETIM as proxy terrorist groups–and, as such, don’t want to call them terrorist groups.
Oops! I hope that it is not Politically Incorrect–or a Thought Crime–to mention the issue of American/Western state-sponsored terrorism….
There is confusion between ‘abstaining’ from a vote and a ‘veto’.
It gets very ‘thick’ legally but generally, what Russia did here, is to state that they are not in agreement with the resolution offered, although a resolution is necessary. They simply do not like the one that is on the table. What it does for them, is that they can do just whatever they want, and they are not bound to a resolution. If they veto’d, the issue is kinda done with. An abstention has many different legal routes that they can take from here. China, according to what I see, abstained as well but I am not a hundred percent sure of this.
I suggest watching carefully.
For a resolution to pass, a minimum of 9 approval votes are required from the 15 members of the SC, (and no vetoes from the 5 permanent members.)
The current 15 members of the SC are:
5 permanent members +
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2021)
Viet Nam (2021)
It’s a 2 year stint as non permanent member. The year indicates when the country started the mandate.
And this particular resolution passed with 13/ 15 votes. Russia and China abstained.
Thanks for the details Serbian Girl. Surprising, is’nt it? Mexico surprises me and Vietnam too.
Yes, some countries are surprising…Although, the points of the resolution, at face value, seem positive:
1. Provide safe passage for people wishing to leave
2. Allow humanitarians to enter the country
3. Uphold women’s rights.
Since USA, UK France are the authors , if one were cynical, a different interpretation could be made e.g.
1. Provide an exit for our intelligence assets
2. Provide an entry for our mercenaries disguised as humanitarians
3. Remind the Woke of our crusade for women’s, homosexual & trans rights …
Isnt Russia’s abstention just a cowardly spineless move ? Why not veto the whole thing ?
No anon! Its a brilliant judo move!
Watch what’s coming next! watch whats actually happening at ground zero!