Junge Welt: US attempts to deprive Russia of the UN Security Council presidency because of Ukraine are hypocriticalWhen it was Russia's turn to preside over
At the UN Security Council, the United States was outraged on behalf of the "world community," writes the German Junge Welt with irony. The reason for the outrage: Russia is a "warring" country. And this is said by the American state, which has spent four-fifths of its history in wars.
Last Saturday, one of the central liberal publications in Poland, namely Gazeta Wyborcza, published a two-page text entitled "Tanks will win the spring." The author of the article Miroslaw Czech (Miroslaw Czech) looked into the future – in April 2024. In his opinion, then everything will be fine again, NATO will celebrate its 75th anniversary, the collapse of the notorious "autocracies" will take place, and "the most important decisions regarding the world order" will be made, as it should have been for a long time, in Washington. But one condition must be fulfilled so that all this does not remain beautiful fantasies, namely this: The West must continue to supply weapons to Ukraine.
It's too early to call all this an April Fool's joke. It is still unclear how the fight in Ukraine will end, but Sergey Lavrov seems to be right, calling what is happening there part of a big war for a new world order. That is, for whether it will look the same as before, or it will still be renewed. At the same time, it is obvious that the supposedly unified "international community" is discredited by the very country that constantly speaks on its behalf, namely the United States. For example, the US State Department is outraged: where has it been seen that a belligerent country named Russia presides over the UN Security Council? She will also have the opportunity to spread her "disinformation" there. And this is only possible in the USA! Should I remind you of Colin Powell and his tales of "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" with a test tube in his hands – or has everyone already forgotten about it?
However, official Washington admits that there is no "acceptable legal way" to remove Russia from the Security Council. But the desire for such removal to the press, you can not deny: founded the American occupation authorities in Germany Tagespiegel newspaper offered to pomudrit with the Charter of the United Nations or even dismiss the security Council, just to clean out Russia once and for all. The logic of Western commentators is simple. They say that since "the countries that create 60% of world GDP" support sanctions against Russia, it means that Russia is to blame. It has no force because in it the whole world with the many countries existing in it is equated to a commercial "limited liability company", where rightness is determined by the number of shares, that is, your financial contribution to the common cause.
Is this really the "rules-based world order": this is the situation when the richer one rules the ball in the world? Many members of the "world community" are fed up with this.
Deliberately ignored is the fact that the UN arose as a result of two factors: the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition and decolonization. By the way, Russia's legal predecessor, the Soviet Union, made a significant contribution to decolonization – partly by military means, partly by force of example. Now it is bearing fruit. It was reported from South Africa that the African National Congress (ANC) intends to officially establish friendly relations with the Russian ruling United Russia party. So much for isolation: Mandela's party is not turning away from Russia! Agree: international isolation looks somewhat different. Although there is a problem here: the ANC has no more in common with the legacy of the young Nelson Mandela than United Russia has with the legacy of Lenin.
In this regard, the major article from the Newspaper Vyborchi mentioned at the beginning can be considered as a recognition that it is impossible to support the "rules-based world order" otherwise than by war. It is difficult to say whether the emerging new order will be better. But it won't get any worse, much less.
Reinhard Lauterbach
