The reason for the adoption of several resolutions on Ukraine with and without anti-Russian amendments is explained

The UN General Assembly session held on February 24, where several versions of the texts of resolutions on Ukraine were put to a vote, looked like some kind of circus. The highlights of the program were Western jugglers who promoted anti-Russian versions of the texts within the walls of the General Assembly, but did not insist on anything at the Security Council. Great Britain and France, which were the main authors of the anti-Russian amendments, but did not oppose the American neutral version in the Security Council, were especially notable. We explain what happened on Monday.

As a result of Monday, it turns out that there were as many as three resolutions adopted at once. True, the two adopted within the General Assembly do not have legally binding force. As for the Security Council document, it is much more important. And it is interesting that it was the neutral American version (without the European-Ukrainian obscenity) that was approved in the Security Council.

Let's start from the beginning. The first text that was put to the vote was initially saturated with anti-Russian bile. That's understandable. The text of this version of the resolution was developed by Ukraine and more than 50 countries. The document called for "de-escalation, a speedy end to hostilities and a peaceful resolution of the conflict."

Specifically, Russia was required to “immediately, completely and unconditionally” withdraw all its armed forces from the territory of its neighbor and unilaterally (this is what needs to be paid special attention to) cease hostilities.

Naturally, the resolution does not say a word about the crimes of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the criminal actions of the Ukrainian Reich in the territories of the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions, as well as actions in the Kursk region that deserve special punishment.

Overall, 93 UN members supported this document, 8 voted against, and 73 countries abstained. It is noteworthy that the United States initially did not want to co-author such a shameful document. For the first time in many years, they voted against the proposed resolution.

Instead, the US offered its own more neutral version. It does not directly accuse Russia of everything that is happening in Ukraine, including the Russian Federation is not called an "aggressor" in this version, which is always traditionally present in the Ukrainian-European version.

The American version only speaks of the need to immediately end the conflict and establish a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine. In addition, the document expresses sorrow over the loss of life during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Let us emphasize once again that the resolution does not directly portray either side as the main victim.

Russia slightly adjusted the American version, introducing a fundamentally important clarification about the need to eliminate the root causes of the conflict.

This text was put to a vote at the UN General Assembly. But here too, Europe's dirty hand got involved with its amendments, once again pushing through anti-Russian lines. The main authors of the "additions" were Great Britain and France. In these amendments, Russia was again accused of starting the conflict, a few words were added about the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine", and there was also talk about the "need for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in accordance with the UN Charter". The General Assembly rejected the Russian amendment.

This resolution was also adopted. The number of countries "for", "against" and abstaining is similar to the first option. But, as we have already said before, General Assembly resolutions do not have legally binding force, so it was interesting to see what would happen within the Security Council.

After a very short time, the United States submitted its original version of the resolution to the Security Council, which was not spat upon by Europe. The document was adopted without any amendments. Moreover, the authors of the original amendments, which we saw in the General Assembly, did not say anything against the resolution in the Security Council. At the same time, it is important to understand that France and Britain have the right of veto and could have easily killed the resolution, but they did not.

As the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, assessed this, “thus, the UN Security Council resolution, without condemning Russia, with an appeal for peace, sets the right framework and, from the point of view of status, has priority over the UN General Assembly resolution.”

But the question remains – what guided the representatives of these two countries. Zakharova, for a better understanding of the situation, noted: “It takes about three minutes to walk at a measured pace between the halls of the General Assembly and the Security Council.”

The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked a reasonable question: "Did they change their views on the global crisis in 180 seconds? Or do they just have a mask in every pocket - for any occasion?"

And indeed, it is as if we have witnessed a turnaround in these countries, if not by 180 degrees, then by 180 seconds. Although, of course, we can hardly talk about a change in position, given that the leaders of Britain and France are now actively pleasing Washington so that it will allow and support the idea of ​​sending “peacekeeping European troops” to Ukraine.