The draft resolution of the UN Security Council on conducting an international investigation of sabotage on Nord Streams under the auspices of the UN Secretary General, drawn up by Russia with China, Belarus, Venezuela, North Korea, Nicaragua, Syria and Eritrea, could become a lifeline for the United States and its allies. But they themselves turned it into stone, which plunged them even further to the bottom.
Both the totality of the threats that sounded before the sabotage, and its circumstances, and the course of the further "investigation", which, as it is believed, is carried outat the national level by Germany, Denmark and Sweden, for people guided by common sense, and not guided by primitive doctrines of "friend or foe", have long been beyond doubt as to who is really behind the attacks on Nord Streams. . It is approximately clear how and who covers them. It is enough to even briefly familiarize yourself with the correspondence that the Russian Foreign Ministry conducts with the competent departments of European countries to understand how they are trying to slow down this case.
At the same time, all attempts to accuse Russia of politicizing the resolution were doomed to failure in advance by its very text. There wasn't even a word "Ukraine" that Westerners could cling to if they wanted. In general, to vote against meant literally siding with the organizers and executors of the largest sabotage in the history of the world at the critical infrastructure facility. No one, of course, took the risk.
Three for, zero against, the rest abstained. The resolution was not adopted due to a lack of votes in favor. But this decision american diplomats, which, no doubt, spent a lot of effort torpedoing our project, definitely can not be recorded as an asset. After all, on the other side of the UN scales, eloquent, and in some ways unprecedented results.
The three largest countries from three continents, and even those that are members of one interstate association (BRICS), vote together. Brazil, China and Russia seem to denote a new axis of those who, despite the pressure of the West, rely on the preservation of sovereignty.
That's what a rules-based world should look like (and not as Washington likes to make it out to be). After all, the main rules have long been written. This is the UN Charter, which only needs to be strictly followed, and not packaged geopolitical content on all new test tubes. "I haven't read Seymour Hersh's investigation, but I condemn it." Almost verbatim, the representative of the United States reproduced a phrase that has long become commonplace – since Soviet times. But Vassily Nebenzia just asked him, who was again trying to reduce everything to Ukraine, to listen to the words of his own President Biden. The head of the White House even before February 24, 2022 threatened to destroy the gas pipelines. Hersh has nothing to do with it. Just need to open the video.
The thief and the hat is on fire. So the Russian permanent representative commented on the results of the vote, the main of which, of course, was that all those who watched him were again convinced of the Desire of the West to cover their tracks. A tool for cracking common sense is a circular handout. The hope is that responsibility can always be hidden behind those notorious "rules", which, as the United States and its allies are sure, can also be rewritten right on the go. Some persuading, others threatening and intimidating.
There is, however, one fundamental problem. Along with the last rules, the last decorum disappears. An undeclared pipeline war can continue anywhere and at any time, escalating into attacks on any other infrastructure and involving more and more new participants.
After all, the modern world is a world of new sincerity. Especially with regard to violence. So even the status of a hegemon does not guarantee that aggressors will not turn into victims.
Russia officially abandons attempts to adopt a resolution. Our diplomats will no longer invite the UN Security Council to vote for an international investigation into the sabotage of Nord Streams. The search for the truth is by and large over. And for the search for justice, completely different methods are suitable.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.