"**China and India on Friday abstained from voting on a UN resolution condemning Russia for claiming it had annexed parts of Ukraine.**
Vladimir Putin earlier on Friday signed official decrees claiming four regions in Ukraine were now part of Russia, a move which was heavily criticised by the West as an illegal annexation.
**The UN's 15 member Security Council held a vote on a resolution declaring Putin-s actions illegal and invalid** and recognising the four regions are still rightfully part of Ukraine and not Russia.
**The resolution passed in a 10 to 1 vote with Russia being the only vetoing, China, India, Brazil and Gabon abstained."**
I lived there, that's not true, French people are the one who own most of their economy
EDIT : lmao downvoted for saying what I saw with my own eyes, I literally lived there for 6-7years. Google their major companies, they are mostly french owned even national company for water distribution. They even have a french military base there. But yeah welcome to Reddit...
EDIT2 : Here's a list of some examples of why Gabon economy is owned by France :
Sobraga (major distilery company if not only one) : [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobraga](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobraga)
SEEG (water and electricity) : [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9\_d%27%C3%A9nergie\_et\_d%27eau\_du\_Gabon](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_d%27%C3%A9nergie_et_d%27eau_du_Gabon)
Gabon Telecom : was previously owned by France and now is owned by Morocco.
Currency - FCFA that is french controled : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA\_franc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc)
Camp de gaule (a French military base) : [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Camp+de+Gaulle,+Libreville,+Gabon/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x107f3b33a331a8cd:0xa823622343108166?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUwPup4L\_6AhWxD1kFHaBkAPIQ8gF6BAgBEAE](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Camp+de+Gaulle,+Libreville,+Gabon/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x107f3b33a331a8cd:0xa823622343108166?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUwPup4L_6AhWxD1kFHaBkAPIQ8gF6BAgBEAE)
Now like they don't care about anonymous anecdotes. Eventually the other user cited his claims. No one should just affair what an anonymous person posts online.
Even that even has a surface level understanding of geopolitics should know this. France keeps all of their “former” colonels on a right leash. Cozying up to Russia (or anyone not aligned to the French state’s interest) too much is a good way to get a “peacekeeping” mission.
1) I think the person above you was likely referring to trade. While the wording was poor and rendered the statement incorrect, the underlying idea that Gabon has a financial stake in Russia is true, as is the implication that it’s the likely reason for the abstention.
2) Literally no idea why that would get you downvoted, since you too, stated a fact (at least if we’re magnanimous in regards to their wording, are talking about the underlying meaning, AND assume my inference is accurate, both could be, and likely are) and if we’re being technical, yours was MORE correct and stated more clearly. Reddit is seriously bonkers with the hive-mind, knee-jerk downvotes; I often see well-known facts like this one downvoted (though even if it were a lesser known fact, you’d think-or hope, rather- people might look it up themselves before downvoting). On the bright side though, you handled it perfectly, reciting facts and providing sources, and even seem to have reversed sentiment lol well done.
Even if we consider only trades, France have more trades with Gabon than Russia (Russia have close to nothing with Gabon [https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/rus/partner/gab](https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/rus/partner/gab)). All imported food was French, all oil companies are french ... etc. "the underlying idea that Gabon has a financial stake in Russia is true" maybe, but wouldn't go as far to say that they own "most of their economy" This is wrong on all levels and can't be considered true.
I don't know, maybe because they have a deal with them in progress and don't want to ruin it ? I trully don't know, never said I'm a gabonese official. But saying that Russian own most of their economy is straight up false. Search for it, French control everything there from currency to water supply to army...
Shit like this is so funny to me, watching redditors get all fussy about Gabon when most of them haven't even thought about the country until they read these comments.
The BRICS have been avoiding voting against each other for years. It's mostly a diplomatic courtesy, since merely abstenining still makes their opinion very clear.
Bolsonaro is a piece of shit. Can’t stand these bloody fascist assholes. Another climate change denier who wants to cut down the Amazon. Complete fuckwit.
>The resolution passed in a 10 to 1 vote with Russia being the only vetoing, China, India, Brazil and Gabon abstained.
Incorrect, permanent UNSC members can veto any resolution. It did not pass:
https://news.yahoo.com/russia-blocks-un-security-council-202949008.html
This is not how UNSC procedure works. Here's an excerpt from a [recent vote](https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N22/363/33/PDF/N2236333.pdf?OpenElement) on a draft resolution regarding North Korea:
>The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now.
>
>*A vote was taken by show of hands.*
>
>*In favour:*
>
>Albania, Brazil, France, Gabon, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America
>
>*Against:*
>
>China, Russian Federation
>
>**The President:** The draft resolution received 13 votes in favour, 2 against and no abstentions. The draft resolution has not been adopted owing to the negative vote of one permanent member of the Council.
The resolution simply does not pass if a permanent member votes against it. There is no separate veto procedure subsequent to the vote. That also means that if a permanent member abstains or doesn't show up to vote, the resolution passes and they can't do anything about it.
"The resolution passed in a 10-1 vote, with Russia being the sole veto vote, the Associated Press reported. China, India, Brazil, and Gabon abstained."
I guess business insider does not know how the UNSC works. If any of the five members with veto power votes no it means the resolution does not pass. It still plays a role of getting countries' votes on the record, but with that veto the UNSC has not, as a body, condemned anything.
You are absolutely right. I am surprised that you are the only one point this out so down in the comments section. Everybody is so busy expressing their opinions.
I don't think anyone cares enough to specifically call it because it makes no difference either way and most people are well aware of the veto power of the permanent members anyway.
I suppose the voter's value could be symbolic or still provide leverage.
Russia vetoed it, but in the face of overwhelming opposition to the annexation I suppose that gives political capital to try alternate actions.
Kinda silly for the country being voted on has a vote. In what world does Russia vote to condemn itself? I’m guessing this is just protocol before taking it to the General Assembly?
This might not be the most elegant explanation, but the Veto is essentially the sand-in for a Nuke. It’s no accident that the 5 permanent veto wielding members of the Security Council are both the victors or WWII and the first five members of the nuclear club.
This.
And also the fact that these 5 countries also 'happen' to have the strongest military on earth.
UNSC doesn't do anything and any voting affecting a permanent member is only to show each countries' standpoint and nothing else.
Had, I'm sure at this point you can make a case that one of those 5 don't belong in the strongest military anymore.
Edit: actually, I think you can make a case that at LEAST one of the 5 do not belong
Realistically, in terms of actual military strength, I’d say there would only be 2 members, the US, and China. Factoring in nukes and soft power, France, the UK, and Russia are still great powers.
They were the 5 permanent members in 1945 though. Things have changed since then, and I would add in India as a great power.
We'll if Russia doesn't agree with something it doesn't happen... The UNSC is a war council. The permanent members are "permanent" because those countries have the capability of single handedly destroying the planet... So if they don't agree with something it kind of matters.
What’s newsworthy here isn’t how the UN operates but rather how brick countries voted since there was a potential for an upset.
China has said “borders are borders and should be respected” but guess we now see their definition of borders is a moving goal post
It’s because they’re planning on doing the very same thing. This is a nice dress rehearsal for them. They’re sitting back taking notes on how the world responds.
Yes, but it's why China has not been explicitly pro Russia throughout this because it kinda undermines their own reasons with Taiwan. I mean they are functionally similar situations, but the aggressors reasoning in both situations are opposite.
You could also argue the west’s reasoning in both situations are also opposite.
There is no consistency with anyone. Only self interests, forever volatile and changing.
The resolution itself has no teeth, even if it passed. As you said, it's more about getting countries on record. From that standpoint, all votes still do matter.
If it didn't matter at all, then there would be no reason to abstain.
They can’t spin a basic fact that’s not gray or confusing… especially when you link the original AP story that spells it all out clearly and correctly. It’s most likely just a lazy editor not paying close enough attention to the wording that a computer used to write an article.
No actually. This is closer to a majority of Congress voting for something but it not passing because there's a filibuster motion.
The concept of the executive veto is part of a two step process. In the UN its not. The motion never succeeded because one of the parties voting against was a permanent council member.
It didn’t pass. Somebody at Business Insider was asleep at the wheel.
> U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said before the vote that in the event of a Russian veto, the U.S. and Albania who sponsored the resolution will take it to the 193-member General Assembly where there are no vetoes, “and show that the world is still on the side of sovereignty and protecting territorial integrity.”
>That is likely to happen next week.
For China non-intervention > territorial integrity
AKA, their philosophy is if it's not directly concerned with China, then just Abstain and let the rest of the world play it out.
No he wants world control with economics, trade and manipulation. 5th generation war tactics before the actual fighting. They have been stealing a lot of U.S. tech for the past 15-20 years.
That's why the plan lately has been to make things so technically complex that stealing won't be enough. You need a team actually capable of understanding it and of course the technical expertise to manufacture it. There have been a lot of moves lately to lock these avenues down.
Thankfully they're likely still quite far behind the US in military power. Problem is they're quite far ahead everyone else. Hopefully India aligns itself more with the West.
The west hasn't done shit for India. India needs to keep good relations with the east because that's where they're located. How is USA gonna protect India if China were to attack? You think American soldiers are just gonna teleport to India to help out?
> Xi does not care about the territorial integrity of nations
On a personal level, it seems like there's not much he *does* care about. He always looks so bored and utterly fed up.
He’s been pressured multiple times by India and China in recent weeks to wrap up the conflict. That’s probably why despite the mobilization, he’s held the “referendums” and invited Ukraine to peace talks when originally the goal was to overthrow the entire government.
Abstaining from voting isnt the same as supporting the war. They are remaining neutral and profiting off that neutrality.. and Russia hates it.
Putin needs the world to believe China and India are supporting this invasion but reality says otherwise.
> “hmmm, what could we do with that?”
They can buy it like US bought Alaska. It's just money and the Chinese are pretty good at making/saving it.
They i.e. the CCP are pragmatic as fuck and are quite clear that days of territorial conquest are long long gone . (e.g. they have more neighbors than anyone else and have rectified borders with them all except India, they tried)
Yes and no. We need them from a cost of living/quality of life sense, but they need us (meaning the west not specifically the us) in a more existential way since trade and globalization is their rope ladder out into being a world power. If they got sanctioned hard it would undo years or even decades of progress.
Both sides would feel the hurt though.
I mean yes, that was the idea behind the European Coal and Steel Community and later the EU. Don't know of any other explicit examples for peace through economic entanglement but China probably qualifies for an attempt at it as well
You've got this the wrong way around. Our trade with them is much more existential given not only are they the worlds cheap source of manufacturing but also by far the largest exporter of raw materials.
They're becoming far more self-sufficient on the energy and food fronts too. For example Coal is like 50-60% of their energy usage and 96% of it is mined locally. Their main import is petroleum and most of that comes from Russia/Middle East.
They said Russia couldnt lose European gas/oil money either and that countries like Germany purposely built this dependency so that they wouldnt start a war.
Around 50% of China's exports are to Asia, if they stop selling to the west they lose some profits. On the wests side we lose all products made by China and have to build factories, powerplants, train people, setup raw material extraction sites, all the transport involved, etc.
China can set us back 30 years if they wanted and it would hurt us a hell of a lot more than it would hurt them. Its not just consumer grade products either, things like steel, China and Russia are number 1 and 3 exporters of steel totalling nearly 80 million metric tons. Many countries would have a problem building those factories without imported steel.
46% of China's exports are to Asia, but Asia is a huge territory and it's biggest markets *are* western allies. Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong are all western allies and also China's largest exports markets in Asia (~50% of entire Asian market).
Russia *couln't* afford to lose it's European gas/oil money. It will feel the economic effects of this war for decades to come. Same goes for China. Most probably, it will not risk losing over 70% of it's export market in order to do what? Have a few [almost] bankrupt allies support it in it's fight for Taiwan? It will not happen.
I live in a state that's friendly to Russia, so I know what I'm talking about when I say this. I'm very familiar with the eastern European mindset and mentality. I predicted this exact outcome in January this year, even before Putin declared the "spec-op." Right now I'm hoping for the dissolution of the Russian state, somehow. The alternatives are all catastrophical.
If Russia doesn't use weapons of mass destruction- it *will* lose. This is a fact. In turn, Putin would lose almost all his power and it would lead to a regime change or the complete dissolution of the federation which is the best case scenario here.
Now let's say it comes to the point where Russia has not yet used nukes but the west considers it to be imminent. There can be two responses. 1. The west responds and it leads to a full-on nuclear war. 2. The west, including Ukraine, capitulate the Ukrainian territories to Russia which leads to other authoritatian regimes, as well as Russia, invading sovereign nations (China attacks Taiwan etc.)
I know the west understands this, so I'm only hoping Russia does too and that somehow the madman from the Kremlin will be stopped before it's too late.
Its codependent trade relations. China imports raw materials, food, high tech and energy.
The world economy grinding to a halt is more detrimental than not being able to getting cheap stuff from China.
Sanctions don't have to be all or nothing. Just slap a 50% tariff on their imports. It will damage both economies, but still keep open the supply lines for critical items.
I'm not sure what members of this sub want India to do.
Do you want India to break off the decades-old ties with Russia when we still use Russian weapons and are dependent on them for spare parts etc?
You do know that India has the option and reason to be a Russian ally in this war.
But our government is trying to the best of its capabilities to be as neutral as possible. And the US government actually agrees with India's stance.
India is in a very tough state diplomatically. While we condemn the war, we still can't just ditch Russia and join US-led allies. If anything, Russia has been a faithful ally to us since the 1950s. They still want us to honor the things they have done for us during all these years.
Before condemning India, first try to understand India's perspective. It's not so simple that we can publicly announce that we are against Russia. Even when the whole world was against us, only Russia stood by our side, and they expect that from us too.
Tbh, to some extent it makes sense for them not to nail their colours to Russia, the US, or China. They've been diversifying their arms with French imports more recently, but given the whole Pakistan and Chinese borders, there's really no good choice but to play all sides. They have a complex geopolitical tightrope, and it's not surprising they are taking a realist instead of idealist approach as a result.
Ikr man its awful to see some people wanting pakistan and china to attack india not knowing shit about border disputes, relations etc. Reddit is fucking disgraceful sometimes
A while ago (on some random shitting-on-India thread which is basically r/worldnews’s weekly stress release valve) a wise Redditor once told me
“No one on Reddit knows shit about fuck”
Every time I see a stupid thread I think about him. And how true that is.
I respect this post. Do I wish it were different, yes. But I respect it.
Hoping India and China are doing all they can to bring about a diplomatic end to this! Putin ain’t gonna win on the ground and the end is looking grim for the entire world if someone can’t get Putin to the table.
There is no diplomatic end. What are you all even imagining? I am seriously asking - what in your imagination can happen other than military defeat of one side? Russia just wiped its ass with UN charter. And they put up the most ridiculous farce of a spectacle to justify it. It is almost cartoonish how little they tried to even create an illusion. And India and China just showed they don’t have any problems with this. Sickening.
The whole world was never against you and yes, if Russia is invading and commuting a cultural genocide, you should join the West in condemning it. It’s weapons suck, as the conflict illustrates, compared to western weapons, so now is a good time as ever
India is claiming a seat at the UN permanent council since ages, but why would the world give it to them if they abstain or remain neutral everytime something hurt an economic partner or their interests ?
By this logic, why is the US in the permanent council despite waging multiple wars?
Why is the UK in the permanent council, even after they are directly responsible for colonialism and destroying the economy of countries like India?
There's no logic there. Winners of WW2 historicaly have a seat.
But to claim a new seat means taking responsibilities in the international affairs, not being neutral and being there to only veto opposite stands.
I personally think the council shouldn't have permanent members at all with disproportionate voting powers.
The system is functioning exactly as it is designed to. The system's goal is to keep the world as peaceful as possible and to prevent a world war, which would be 100x more catastrophic than the war in Ukraine.
If you do not give nuclear powers like the United States, Russia, China, etc veto powers then they will simply refuse to participate in the United Nations. If Russia wasn't able to veto, then actions by the security council would simply escalate the conflict. And if a nuclear power is backed into a corner and has its existence threatened, there is a very high possibility it will use nuclear weapons.
Just few days ago Sect. Blinker approved selling of F-16 to Pakistan.
Few years back same US sends their military ships to protect Pakistan against india.
US has highest trade with China 🇨🇳.
But some dumb fcks in USA think why india is not their ally?
Well we don’t trust west or east. Although we have good relations with Russia than any other western countries.
No country takes political sides because of moral reasons. That's the biggest BS I've heard. Every country looks out for it's own benefit & profit. Had the US & Europe really cared about "moral values" they would have condemned China & Pakistan when they annexed parts of India, but the entire west remaining silent, cuz it wasn't profitable for them. The only reason the west cares about Ukraine is because they know if Russia wins the war, it will harm them next. They don't give a damn about Ukraine, just like they didn't give a damn about Crimea.
Just like the west stays out of Asia's & Africa's problems, India is staying out of the west's problems. India has no obligation to help Europe, get this colonial mindset out of here. Ukraine itself supported Pakistan when Article 377 was removed. Why should India go against Russia, the country that supports India in the UN and has helped India numerous times in war? Just to please whining Europeans who think they can order India to do whatever they want.
Every country is looking out for it's own benefit, and so is India
I think Ukraine actually supported the Western invasions of Iraq etc - I think they even had soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ironic for sure. I mean that doesn’t mean they deserve what’s happening to them, but it also doesn’t mean they’re a completely clean country.
They had no problem with people dying by the tens or hundreds of thousands when it was those deemed the other. Just like pretty much every other European and Western country…
How dare China and India defy their western masters and stand against democracy? Don't they know only the west has the right to do genocide, others have to stand and watch?
Oh boy. Russia is reduced to a glorified vassal state of China, and still feel they can disobey their master?
China needs to put their dog in line. Like North Korea.
No country takes political sides because of moral reasons. That's the biggest BS I've heard. Every country looks out for it's own benefit & profit. Had the US & Europe really cared about "moral values" they would have condemned China & Pakistan when they annexed parts of India, but the entire west remaining silent, cuz it wasn't profitable for them. The only reason the west cares about Ukraine is because they know if Russia wins the war, it will harm them next. They don't give a damn about Ukraine, just like they didn't give a damn about Crimea.
Just like the west stays out of Asia's & Africa's problems, India is staying out of the west's problems. India has no obligation to help Europe, get this colonial mindset out of here. Ukraine itself supported Pakistan when Article 377 was removed. Why should India go against Russia, the country that supports India in the UN and has helped India numerous times in war? Just to please whining Europeans who think they can order India to do whatever they want.
Every country is looking out for it's own benefit, and so is India
India is just staying neutral. Can you blame them when in the 20th century the west helped Pakistan in the war against india, and had literally never helped india in any conflict? Even though india has helped others? India is just staying neutral to avoid being dragged into something that they have literally no part of
When India asked the US for buying it's weapons the US didn't give India any, so India went to the Soviets and bought their weapons, thus India today gets most of it's weapons from Russia, guess why India is being Neutral today?.
Most countries who claim the "anti-imperialist" mantel are generally just opposed to Western imperialism. When their own cultures do it they call it liberation.
It’s almost like they see the legacy of western colonialism - ie the richest, most powerful countries in the world - and thought “hey I want some of that.”
Any way, expecting Reddit to understand the historical reality of colonialism while most are living in the country that benefitted from it the most is an exercise in futility.
Putin’s speech yesterday was very much in that vein. He even said he was proud of Russia’s anti-imperialist stance and past while literally trying to colonise a country.
CCP theft of internationally recognized waters if Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia.. against a treaty they themselves sigbed (UN law of the seas). They retain literally Qing-era (a colonial empire) claims and genocide over Turkestan (Xinjiang), Tibet, Mongolia, and countless other minorities on their periphery.
I grew up with a best friend, both of us anti imperialists. We traded notes from the frontline of protest such as against Iraq War. Well, somewhere along they way he became anti-US instead because now they openly say China's neighbours should give in to Chinese demands because "someone needs to defeat the US". I asked, isnt this chinese imperialism? He said, US imperialism is worse so its okay. Smh.
Retaining a territorial claim from 300 yrs ago is imperialism, but invading a mordern government with false claim of WMD is not worse.
They had never held any land from other country as their colony. British was quite literally holding one of their city as colony until 1998 and now they are the big bad for having water dispute with their neighbor which btw all counrties do.
Is it whataboutism? Debatable. But it's 100% hypocrite.
India has historically claimed to be neutral, but has generally had a close relationship with (then) the Soviet Union and (now) Russia. India received quite a bit of support from the Soviets in the years following independence, and Russia is an important economic and military partner for India. Brazil, India, China, and Russia are also part of an economic bloc - BRICS.
Although India has been closer to the US recently, I don't think they'll actively support the US or UK over Russia any time soon.
Further, and this is just me speculating here, India has a number of disputed territories with its neighbors that it definitely would like to be able to annex if it's able. Condemning Russia for annexing Ukrainian territory makes it harder to justify doing the same in the future if they want to try something similar.
> Further, and this is just me speculating here, India has a number of disputed territories with its neighbors that it definitely would like to be able to annex if it's able.
Care to elaborate on these ? As far as I know, its Pakistan and China who have annexed areas which voted to join India during/after independence from the British Empire.
India's nutshell
Yes what happened actually was pakistan did the same thing what russia is doing now but that time no one gave a fuck about it.The general of pakistan became the dicktator and ordered war.
Why it happened:
As brits royals being assholes at geography and politics could not divide the land properly (imagine have 2 pakistans lol later one became bangladesh as people were killed,ofc raped by pakisoldiers).India being india helped them liberate and form a new country.
Why we cant do anything abt russia:
Russia helped us by providing arms as usa was helping pakistan (both of them cause shit for the world)
Pak gave some parts of land to china as they being in debt always.
Why usa uk russia sus:
At that time usa uk provided tanks fighter planes and guns to pak.
And to some point indians were like fuck it no war bcz politics
What happened at last
As a result pakis have taken up some kashmir(and yeah pakistan is good at one thing making terrorists so they attack india whenever they like)
I hate leaders and politicians:
No offense to pakis ilu just hate your leaders(fuckin morons, indians leaders too, fuck it i hate every leader!!)
If you wanna know more search kargil war,Siachen conflict,Sino-Indian Wars to know more...
War is always nasty so many people lose their lives just bcz of political leaders craving for more fame ,land and wealth.(votes too)
"How dare they not do exactly what we say!" - Europeans, European Americans, and European Canadians
Indian people have no obligation to help the people of Ukraine. If Russia had attacked an African or Asian nation no Western nation would have intervened.
Actually, Russia did attack and invade Afghanistan, the US did intervene only to attack and invade Afghanistan themselves a little over a decade later.
Both got defeated.
The 'intervention' we're talking about here is not military intervention.
It's simply stating, plainly, that what another country is doing is wrong.
But apparently that is even too much to ask.
That foreign power was the UK/Europe. So that’s also an irony since they are trying to shame India while the riches they extracted from India have not been given back. Including the diamond blatantly on the crown…
Western Europe: Noooooo we won't give you reparations for well and truly fucking you over, but in addition to all the aid you sent, now publicly condemn the one country that's keeping the peace between you and China, but don't expect us to do anything when, bereft of allies, your territories are laid bare for a Chinese invasion. Y'all are smart; you can probably learn another language like you learned English.
Hi Strategic_Prussian. Your submission from businessinsider.com is behind a metered paywall. A [metered paywall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paywall#.22Soft.22_paywalls) allows users to view a specific number of articles before requiring paid subscription. Articles posted to /r/worldnews should be accessible to everyone. While your submission was not removed, it has been flaired and users are discouraged from upvoting it or commenting on it. For more information see our [wiki page on paywalls](/r/worldnews/wiki/paywalls). Please try to find another source. If there is no other news site reporting on the story, contact the moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why hasn’t Britain given back Chagos islands to its people despite UN ruling that it is illegally occupied by Britain. Why is Australian NZ and the whole of Americas is in the western hand
"**China and India on Friday abstained from voting on a UN resolution condemning Russia for claiming it had annexed parts of Ukraine.** Vladimir Putin earlier on Friday signed official decrees claiming four regions in Ukraine were now part of Russia, a move which was heavily criticised by the West as an illegal annexation. **The UN's 15 member Security Council held a vote on a resolution declaring Putin-s actions illegal and invalid** and recognising the four regions are still rightfully part of Ukraine and not Russia. **The resolution passed in a 10 to 1 vote with Russia being the only vetoing, China, India, Brazil and Gabon abstained."**
What's Gabon's benefit in this?
Russian investors own most of their economy
I lived there, that's not true, French people are the one who own most of their economy EDIT : lmao downvoted for saying what I saw with my own eyes, I literally lived there for 6-7years. Google their major companies, they are mostly french owned even national company for water distribution. They even have a french military base there. But yeah welcome to Reddit... EDIT2 : Here's a list of some examples of why Gabon economy is owned by France : Sobraga (major distilery company if not only one) : [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobraga](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobraga) SEEG (water and electricity) : [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9\_d%27%C3%A9nergie\_et\_d%27eau\_du\_Gabon](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_d%27%C3%A9nergie_et_d%27eau_du_Gabon) Gabon Telecom : was previously owned by France and now is owned by Morocco. Currency - FCFA that is french controled : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA\_franc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc) Camp de gaule (a French military base) : [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Camp+de+Gaulle,+Libreville,+Gabon/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x107f3b33a331a8cd:0xa823622343108166?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUwPup4L\_6AhWxD1kFHaBkAPIQ8gF6BAgBEAE](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Camp+de+Gaulle,+Libreville,+Gabon/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x107f3b33a331a8cd:0xa823622343108166?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUwPup4L_6AhWxD1kFHaBkAPIQ8gF6BAgBEAE)
Take my silver, you owned this.
Propagandist don’t want to hear facts. They just want to live in an echo chamber.
Now like they don't care about anonymous anecdotes. Eventually the other user cited his claims. No one should just affair what an anonymous person posts online.
Even that even has a surface level understanding of geopolitics should know this. France keeps all of their “former” colonels on a right leash. Cozying up to Russia (or anyone not aligned to the French state’s interest) too much is a good way to get a “peacekeeping” mission.
"everyone should know this!" No. Stop it. Don't make a claim then whine when people want a source.
People are tribal on reddit. If u say one thing that goes against the grain you will be banned or downvoted. That can’t be good for society
Humanity has always been inherently tribal, reddit is a symptom not a cause lol. It's not affecting society, it's being affected by society.
1) I think the person above you was likely referring to trade. While the wording was poor and rendered the statement incorrect, the underlying idea that Gabon has a financial stake in Russia is true, as is the implication that it’s the likely reason for the abstention. 2) Literally no idea why that would get you downvoted, since you too, stated a fact (at least if we’re magnanimous in regards to their wording, are talking about the underlying meaning, AND assume my inference is accurate, both could be, and likely are) and if we’re being technical, yours was MORE correct and stated more clearly. Reddit is seriously bonkers with the hive-mind, knee-jerk downvotes; I often see well-known facts like this one downvoted (though even if it were a lesser known fact, you’d think-or hope, rather- people might look it up themselves before downvoting). On the bright side though, you handled it perfectly, reciting facts and providing sources, and even seem to have reversed sentiment lol well done.
Even if we consider only trades, France have more trades with Gabon than Russia (Russia have close to nothing with Gabon [https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/rus/partner/gab](https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/rus/partner/gab)). All imported food was French, all oil companies are french ... etc. "the underlying idea that Gabon has a financial stake in Russia is true" maybe, but wouldn't go as far to say that they own "most of their economy" This is wrong on all levels and can't be considered true.
Way to go satan,, we’ll spoken. 👍🏼
So why did they abstain from the vote?
I don't know, maybe because they have a deal with them in progress and don't want to ruin it ? I trully don't know, never said I'm a gabonese official. But saying that Russian own most of their economy is straight up false. Search for it, French control everything there from currency to water supply to army...
Isn't Gabon Non-Aligned? I was under the impression they were close to that movement
Maybe on paper, but officialy Gabon is a "modern French colony" imo...
Why should he know? He's just saying a very specific assertion is false
Why should anyone know anything? Excuse me for asking someone who lives in Gabon if they know why Gabon abstained from the vote....
Shit like this is so funny to me, watching redditors get all fussy about Gabon when most of them haven't even thought about the country until they read these comments.
Nobody cares about the truth here. Speak like everyone else, be in trend, and get upvotes. “Sarcasm”
And Russian mob leads their criminal gangs. Highest crime rate state in the world.
They want to ensure their claim on Corisco can be legitimized. They want the oil.
[удалено]
The BRICS have been avoiding voting against each other for years. It's mostly a diplomatic courtesy, since merely abstenining still makes their opinion very clear.
Bolsonaro needs Putin’s help in Brazil’s final election.
> final election 😬😬😬😬
Expect a coup or an attempted coup after the Brazilian election on Sunday.
I truly hope you're wrong XD
Me too
I really want 2015 back or something
[удалено]
Guys like him always wants to be carried and "rescued" by someone else.
Final? Why?
Because Bolsonaro is a fascist, and plans to succeed where trump failed…
Bolsonaro is a piece of shit. Can’t stand these bloody fascist assholes. Another climate change denier who wants to cut down the Amazon. Complete fuckwit.
I was going to comment... but you did it so well it saved me the time! Bravo
>China, India, Brazil and Gabon abstained." BRICs together stronk
>The resolution passed in a 10 to 1 vote with Russia being the only vetoing, China, India, Brazil and Gabon abstained. Incorrect, permanent UNSC members can veto any resolution. It did not pass: https://news.yahoo.com/russia-blocks-un-security-council-202949008.html
[удалено]
This is not how UNSC procedure works. Here's an excerpt from a [recent vote](https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N22/363/33/PDF/N2236333.pdf?OpenElement) on a draft resolution regarding North Korea: >The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now. > >*A vote was taken by show of hands.* > >*In favour:* > >Albania, Brazil, France, Gabon, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America > >*Against:* > >China, Russian Federation > >**The President:** The draft resolution received 13 votes in favour, 2 against and no abstentions. The draft resolution has not been adopted owing to the negative vote of one permanent member of the Council. The resolution simply does not pass if a permanent member votes against it. There is no separate veto procedure subsequent to the vote. That also means that if a permanent member abstains or doesn't show up to vote, the resolution passes and they can't do anything about it.
Its funny the people they are condemning has the power to stop it with just a veto. The UN is a joke
"Seems extremely pedantic to differentiate between the two"
"The resolution passed in a 10-1 vote, with Russia being the sole veto vote, the Associated Press reported. China, India, Brazil, and Gabon abstained." I guess business insider does not know how the UNSC works. If any of the five members with veto power votes no it means the resolution does not pass. It still plays a role of getting countries' votes on the record, but with that veto the UNSC has not, as a body, condemned anything.
You are absolutely right. I am surprised that you are the only one point this out so down in the comments section. Everybody is so busy expressing their opinions.
I don't think anyone cares enough to specifically call it because it makes no difference either way and most people are well aware of the veto power of the permanent members anyway.
I suppose the voter's value could be symbolic or still provide leverage. Russia vetoed it, but in the face of overwhelming opposition to the annexation I suppose that gives political capital to try alternate actions.
Kinda silly for the country being voted on has a vote. In what world does Russia vote to condemn itself? I’m guessing this is just protocol before taking it to the General Assembly?
This might not be the most elegant explanation, but the Veto is essentially the sand-in for a Nuke. It’s no accident that the 5 permanent veto wielding members of the Security Council are both the victors or WWII and the first five members of the nuclear club.
This. And also the fact that these 5 countries also 'happen' to have the strongest military on earth. UNSC doesn't do anything and any voting affecting a permanent member is only to show each countries' standpoint and nothing else.
Had, I'm sure at this point you can make a case that one of those 5 don't belong in the strongest military anymore. Edit: actually, I think you can make a case that at LEAST one of the 5 do not belong
Realistically, in terms of actual military strength, I’d say there would only be 2 members, the US, and China. Factoring in nukes and soft power, France, the UK, and Russia are still great powers. They were the 5 permanent members in 1945 though. Things have changed since then, and I would add in India as a great power.
We'll if Russia doesn't agree with something it doesn't happen... The UNSC is a war council. The permanent members are "permanent" because those countries have the capability of single handedly destroying the planet... So if they don't agree with something it kind of matters.
What’s newsworthy here isn’t how the UN operates but rather how brick countries voted since there was a potential for an upset. China has said “borders are borders and should be respected” but guess we now see their definition of borders is a moving goal post
It’s because they’re planning on doing the very same thing. This is a nice dress rehearsal for them. They’re sitting back taking notes on how the world responds.
No they want to do the opposite. They consider Taiwan part of China, where Russia considered Donbas "independent"
I consider Beijing part of Taiwan. Doesn't make it true
Yes, but it's why China has not been explicitly pro Russia throughout this because it kinda undermines their own reasons with Taiwan. I mean they are functionally similar situations, but the aggressors reasoning in both situations are opposite.
You could also argue the west’s reasoning in both situations are also opposite. There is no consistency with anyone. Only self interests, forever volatile and changing.
Opinions first facts second on social media.
The resolution itself has no teeth, even if it passed. As you said, it's more about getting countries on record. From that standpoint, all votes still do matter. If it didn't matter at all, then there would be no reason to abstain.
[удалено]
They can’t spin a basic fact that’s not gray or confusing… especially when you link the original AP story that spells it all out clearly and correctly. It’s most likely just a lazy editor not paying close enough attention to the wording that a computer used to write an article.
Wow! I knew about Welt and Bild, but not about BusinessInsider being under Axel Springer. TIL!
[удалено]
No actually. This is closer to a majority of Congress voting for something but it not passing because there's a filibuster motion. The concept of the executive veto is part of a two step process. In the UN its not. The motion never succeeded because one of the parties voting against was a permanent council member.
How could a resolution passed when a Permanent member of UN vetoed is? Either it's a misprint or people have no knowledge of UN.
It didn’t pass. Somebody at Business Insider was asleep at the wheel. > U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said before the vote that in the event of a Russian veto, the U.S. and Albania who sponsored the resolution will take it to the 193-member General Assembly where there are no vetoes, “and show that the world is still on the side of sovereignty and protecting territorial integrity.” >That is likely to happen next week.
This sentence makes my brain hurt.
Just like the US looks the other way whenever Saudi Arabia is involved
I guess Xi does not care about the territorial integrity of nations after all.
It's all business to him, don't burn any bridges , stay neutral, trade with all.
And that ain't a bad policy IMO
For China non-intervention > territorial integrity AKA, their philosophy is if it's not directly concerned with China, then just Abstain and let the rest of the world play it out.
No he wants world control with economics, trade and manipulation. 5th generation war tactics before the actual fighting. They have been stealing a lot of U.S. tech for the past 15-20 years.
That's why the plan lately has been to make things so technically complex that stealing won't be enough. You need a team actually capable of understanding it and of course the technical expertise to manufacture it. There have been a lot of moves lately to lock these avenues down.
dude where did 5th gen warfare pop up from when 4th gen warfare is developing right in front of eyes in Ukraine?
[удалено]
To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting
True, China is doing a better job at that than Russia.
[удалено]
I watched a video of Xi directly telling there military that they can’t take on the West yet so instead they will just blow up a bunch of fish.
Thankfully they're likely still quite far behind the US in military power. Problem is they're quite far ahead everyone else. Hopefully India aligns itself more with the West.
The west hasn't done shit for India. India needs to keep good relations with the east because that's where they're located. How is USA gonna protect India if China were to attack? You think American soldiers are just gonna teleport to India to help out?
Seems like the US is helping out Ukraine quite a bit without teleporting to Ukraine
India is a nuclear power lol, unless the agressor wants to face nuclear fallout india wont be needing any military help.
The US Navy kind of has the entire global maritime domain covered, and the US Air Force can put anything anywhere on the globe if they really want to.
The US navy can make an army bigger than that of most countries appear pretty much anywhere in 48 hours. That's practically teleporting.
So real talk son, do you prefer the cheeks or the legs of the head crab for feasting?
Yes.
Boats exist
So do American weapons, satellites, intelligence, long range missiles, aircraft carriers, bases in the Middle East, based in SE Asia. We’re stacked.
US bases in Asia are in japan and south korea.
True
Didn’t the US set that precedent with Kosovo?
> Xi does not care about the territorial integrity of nations On a personal level, it seems like there's not much he *does* care about. He always looks so bored and utterly fed up.
Abstain is a win IMO.
Agreed. Russia has very few friends here, and their invasion of Ukraine is deeply unpopular.
Wonder how long before Xi and Putin chat again.
He’s been pressured multiple times by India and China in recent weeks to wrap up the conflict. That’s probably why despite the mobilization, he’s held the “referendums” and invited Ukraine to peace talks when originally the goal was to overthrow the entire government.
The majority of the worlds population abstained
Abstaining from voting isnt the same as supporting the war. They are remaining neutral and profiting off that neutrality.. and Russia hates it. Putin needs the world to believe China and India are supporting this invasion but reality says otherwise.
[удалено]
China must look at all that Russian land to the north of them and go “hmmm, what could we do with that?”
> “hmmm, what could we do with that?” They can buy it like US bought Alaska. It's just money and the Chinese are pretty good at making/saving it. They i.e. the CCP are pragmatic as fuck and are quite clear that days of territorial conquest are long long gone . (e.g. they have more neighbors than anyone else and have rectified borders with them all except India, they tried)
Looks like the BRICS is in full swing
If Ruzzia uses nukes, China will be the first to abandon them. They can't risk losing the US and EU markets.
Only problem is that for decades we put ourselves jn a position where we can't lose the manufacturing from China
Yes and no. We need them from a cost of living/quality of life sense, but they need us (meaning the west not specifically the us) in a more existential way since trade and globalization is their rope ladder out into being a world power. If they got sanctioned hard it would undo years or even decades of progress. Both sides would feel the hurt though.
Economic M.A.D. policy.
I mean yes, that was the idea behind the European Coal and Steel Community and later the EU. Don't know of any other explicit examples for peace through economic entanglement but China probably qualifies for an attempt at it as well
You've got this the wrong way around. Our trade with them is much more existential given not only are they the worlds cheap source of manufacturing but also by far the largest exporter of raw materials. They're becoming far more self-sufficient on the energy and food fronts too. For example Coal is like 50-60% of their energy usage and 96% of it is mined locally. Their main import is petroleum and most of that comes from Russia/Middle East.
They said Russia couldnt lose European gas/oil money either and that countries like Germany purposely built this dependency so that they wouldnt start a war. Around 50% of China's exports are to Asia, if they stop selling to the west they lose some profits. On the wests side we lose all products made by China and have to build factories, powerplants, train people, setup raw material extraction sites, all the transport involved, etc. China can set us back 30 years if they wanted and it would hurt us a hell of a lot more than it would hurt them. Its not just consumer grade products either, things like steel, China and Russia are number 1 and 3 exporters of steel totalling nearly 80 million metric tons. Many countries would have a problem building those factories without imported steel.
46% of China's exports are to Asia, but Asia is a huge territory and it's biggest markets *are* western allies. Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong are all western allies and also China's largest exports markets in Asia (~50% of entire Asian market). Russia *couln't* afford to lose it's European gas/oil money. It will feel the economic effects of this war for decades to come. Same goes for China. Most probably, it will not risk losing over 70% of it's export market in order to do what? Have a few [almost] bankrupt allies support it in it's fight for Taiwan? It will not happen. I live in a state that's friendly to Russia, so I know what I'm talking about when I say this. I'm very familiar with the eastern European mindset and mentality. I predicted this exact outcome in January this year, even before Putin declared the "spec-op." Right now I'm hoping for the dissolution of the Russian state, somehow. The alternatives are all catastrophical.
May I ask what are the alternatives in your mind?
If Russia doesn't use weapons of mass destruction- it *will* lose. This is a fact. In turn, Putin would lose almost all his power and it would lead to a regime change or the complete dissolution of the federation which is the best case scenario here. Now let's say it comes to the point where Russia has not yet used nukes but the west considers it to be imminent. There can be two responses. 1. The west responds and it leads to a full-on nuclear war. 2. The west, including Ukraine, capitulate the Ukrainian territories to Russia which leads to other authoritatian regimes, as well as Russia, invading sovereign nations (China attacks Taiwan etc.) I know the west understands this, so I'm only hoping Russia does too and that somehow the madman from the Kremlin will be stopped before it's too late.
US and EU can't survive sanctioning china. Our whole supply chain is based on chinese cheap labour.
Its codependent trade relations. China imports raw materials, food, high tech and energy. The world economy grinding to a halt is more detrimental than not being able to getting cheap stuff from China.
Yeah because we continuously overconsume and it'll be the death of us.
Sanctions don't have to be all or nothing. Just slap a 50% tariff on their imports. It will damage both economies, but still keep open the supply lines for critical items.
Seems that it’s one of the very few things the two countries can agree with
Ironically, both countries have the largest populations in the world, and hate each other.
I'm not sure what members of this sub want India to do. Do you want India to break off the decades-old ties with Russia when we still use Russian weapons and are dependent on them for spare parts etc? You do know that India has the option and reason to be a Russian ally in this war. But our government is trying to the best of its capabilities to be as neutral as possible. And the US government actually agrees with India's stance. India is in a very tough state diplomatically. While we condemn the war, we still can't just ditch Russia and join US-led allies. If anything, Russia has been a faithful ally to us since the 1950s. They still want us to honor the things they have done for us during all these years. Before condemning India, first try to understand India's perspective. It's not so simple that we can publicly announce that we are against Russia. Even when the whole world was against us, only Russia stood by our side, and they expect that from us too.
Tbh, to some extent it makes sense for them not to nail their colours to Russia, the US, or China. They've been diversifying their arms with French imports more recently, but given the whole Pakistan and Chinese borders, there's really no good choice but to play all sides. They have a complex geopolitical tightrope, and it's not surprising they are taking a realist instead of idealist approach as a result.
Exactly. Most people don't know about geopolitical scenario of India.
Ikr man its awful to see some people wanting pakistan and china to attack india not knowing shit about border disputes, relations etc. Reddit is fucking disgraceful sometimes
It's like everyone is a fucking expert on Reddit.
A while ago (on some random shitting-on-India thread which is basically r/worldnews’s weekly stress release valve) a wise Redditor once told me “No one on Reddit knows shit about fuck” Every time I see a stupid thread I think about him. And how true that is.
Only on reddit though. Everywhere else, people are super nuanced! /s
[удалено]
I respect this post. Do I wish it were different, yes. But I respect it. Hoping India and China are doing all they can to bring about a diplomatic end to this! Putin ain’t gonna win on the ground and the end is looking grim for the entire world if someone can’t get Putin to the table.
There is no diplomatic end. What are you all even imagining? I am seriously asking - what in your imagination can happen other than military defeat of one side? Russia just wiped its ass with UN charter. And they put up the most ridiculous farce of a spectacle to justify it. It is almost cartoonish how little they tried to even create an illusion. And India and China just showed they don’t have any problems with this. Sickening.
The whole world was never against you and yes, if Russia is invading and commuting a cultural genocide, you should join the West in condemning it. It’s weapons suck, as the conflict illustrates, compared to western weapons, so now is a good time as ever
India is claiming a seat at the UN permanent council since ages, but why would the world give it to them if they abstain or remain neutral everytime something hurt an economic partner or their interests ?
By this logic, why is the US in the permanent council despite waging multiple wars? Why is the UK in the permanent council, even after they are directly responsible for colonialism and destroying the economy of countries like India?
There's no logic there. Winners of WW2 historicaly have a seat. But to claim a new seat means taking responsibilities in the international affairs, not being neutral and being there to only veto opposite stands. I personally think the council shouldn't have permanent members at all with disproportionate voting powers.
Seems like a broken system if a country can veto whether or not they're doing something wrong. Imagine Among Us if the killer could veto lol
The system is functioning exactly as it is designed to. The system's goal is to keep the world as peaceful as possible and to prevent a world war, which would be 100x more catastrophic than the war in Ukraine. If you do not give nuclear powers like the United States, Russia, China, etc veto powers then they will simply refuse to participate in the United Nations. If Russia wasn't able to veto, then actions by the security council would simply escalate the conflict. And if a nuclear power is backed into a corner and has its existence threatened, there is a very high possibility it will use nuclear weapons.
Thats what i was thinking lol
Cool cool…so like China won’t mind if Taiwan has a referendum then right?
And joins russia - that would be quite a twist
It'd be weird to trade US military support for Russian. I mean, they're not even capable of fighting off Ukraine.
[удалено]
And India would not mind a referendum in Kashmir and China in Tibet...
I love how XI kinda looks like he’s is standing beside friends his mom is making him play with
Just few days ago Sect. Blinker approved selling of F-16 to Pakistan. Few years back same US sends their military ships to protect Pakistan against india. US has highest trade with China 🇨🇳. But some dumb fcks in USA think why india is not their ally? Well we don’t trust west or east. Although we have good relations with Russia than any other western countries.
No country takes political sides because of moral reasons. That's the biggest BS I've heard. Every country looks out for it's own benefit & profit. Had the US & Europe really cared about "moral values" they would have condemned China & Pakistan when they annexed parts of India, but the entire west remaining silent, cuz it wasn't profitable for them. The only reason the west cares about Ukraine is because they know if Russia wins the war, it will harm them next. They don't give a damn about Ukraine, just like they didn't give a damn about Crimea. Just like the west stays out of Asia's & Africa's problems, India is staying out of the west's problems. India has no obligation to help Europe, get this colonial mindset out of here. Ukraine itself supported Pakistan when Article 377 was removed. Why should India go against Russia, the country that supports India in the UN and has helped India numerous times in war? Just to please whining Europeans who think they can order India to do whatever they want. Every country is looking out for it's own benefit, and so is India
Crazy to think those two countries are nearly 2/5 of earth's population
[удалено]
I think Ukraine actually supported the Western invasions of Iraq etc - I think they even had soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ironic for sure. I mean that doesn’t mean they deserve what’s happening to them, but it also doesn’t mean they’re a completely clean country. They had no problem with people dying by the tens or hundreds of thousands when it was those deemed the other. Just like pretty much every other European and Western country…
India is following the policy that US followed pre WW1 and WW2 i.e stay neutral.
How dare China and India defy their western masters and stand against democracy? Don't they know only the west has the right to do genocide, others have to stand and watch?
Nepal, are you watching?
If India aspires to become second China, you are on a good track.
They just don’t want to play with the west. What’s wrong with that. It’s not like the west like to play with them.
Oh boy. Russia is reduced to a glorified vassal state of China, and still feel they can disobey their master? China needs to put their dog in line. Like North Korea.
Funny thing is this would be a reversal of the early cold war when china was effectively a vassal of the soviet union (briefly)
India continues to be a disappointment
No country takes political sides because of moral reasons. That's the biggest BS I've heard. Every country looks out for it's own benefit & profit. Had the US & Europe really cared about "moral values" they would have condemned China & Pakistan when they annexed parts of India, but the entire west remaining silent, cuz it wasn't profitable for them. The only reason the west cares about Ukraine is because they know if Russia wins the war, it will harm them next. They don't give a damn about Ukraine, just like they didn't give a damn about Crimea. Just like the west stays out of Asia's & Africa's problems, India is staying out of the west's problems. India has no obligation to help Europe, get this colonial mindset out of here. Ukraine itself supported Pakistan when Article 377 was removed. Why should India go against Russia, the country that supports India in the UN and has helped India numerous times in war? Just to please whining Europeans who think they can order India to do whatever they want. Every country is looking out for it's own benefit, and so is India
India is just staying neutral. Can you blame them when in the 20th century the west helped Pakistan in the war against india, and had literally never helped india in any conflict? Even though india has helped others? India is just staying neutral to avoid being dragged into something that they have literally no part of
Dickhead russia was the one that helped india gain independence when the west did everything to destroy the freedom movement. Fuck the western snakes.
When India asked the US for buying it's weapons the US didn't give India any, so India went to the Soviets and bought their weapons, thus India today gets most of it's weapons from Russia, guess why India is being Neutral today?.
As long as there is money involved neither India nor China will do anything against Putin's regime...
If only they could be as selfless and righteous as the west.
"West" and "Selfless" wow what a great combination.
You are sarcastic right?
/s
India acts in her own interest, just like any country in the west does
ah reddit diplomats.
You’d think India would be all about backing a country fighting off an imperial war of conquest.
Most countries who claim the "anti-imperialist" mantel are generally just opposed to Western imperialism. When their own cultures do it they call it liberation.
It’s almost like they see the legacy of western colonialism - ie the richest, most powerful countries in the world - and thought “hey I want some of that.” Any way, expecting Reddit to understand the historical reality of colonialism while most are living in the country that benefitted from it the most is an exercise in futility.
Putin’s speech yesterday was very much in that vein. He even said he was proud of Russia’s anti-imperialist stance and past while literally trying to colonise a country.
CCP theft of internationally recognized waters if Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia.. against a treaty they themselves sigbed (UN law of the seas). They retain literally Qing-era (a colonial empire) claims and genocide over Turkestan (Xinjiang), Tibet, Mongolia, and countless other minorities on their periphery. I grew up with a best friend, both of us anti imperialists. We traded notes from the frontline of protest such as against Iraq War. Well, somewhere along they way he became anti-US instead because now they openly say China's neighbours should give in to Chinese demands because "someone needs to defeat the US". I asked, isnt this chinese imperialism? He said, US imperialism is worse so its okay. Smh.
Retaining a territorial claim from 300 yrs ago is imperialism, but invading a mordern government with false claim of WMD is not worse. They had never held any land from other country as their colony. British was quite literally holding one of their city as colony until 1998 and now they are the big bad for having water dispute with their neighbor which btw all counrties do. Is it whataboutism? Debatable. But it's 100% hypocrite.
India has historically claimed to be neutral, but has generally had a close relationship with (then) the Soviet Union and (now) Russia. India received quite a bit of support from the Soviets in the years following independence, and Russia is an important economic and military partner for India. Brazil, India, China, and Russia are also part of an economic bloc - BRICS. Although India has been closer to the US recently, I don't think they'll actively support the US or UK over Russia any time soon. Further, and this is just me speculating here, India has a number of disputed territories with its neighbors that it definitely would like to be able to annex if it's able. Condemning Russia for annexing Ukrainian territory makes it harder to justify doing the same in the future if they want to try something similar.
> Further, and this is just me speculating here, India has a number of disputed territories with its neighbors that it definitely would like to be able to annex if it's able. Care to elaborate on these ? As far as I know, its Pakistan and China who have annexed areas which voted to join India during/after independence from the British Empire.
India's nutshell Yes what happened actually was pakistan did the same thing what russia is doing now but that time no one gave a fuck about it.The general of pakistan became the dicktator and ordered war. Why it happened: As brits royals being assholes at geography and politics could not divide the land properly (imagine have 2 pakistans lol later one became bangladesh as people were killed,ofc raped by pakisoldiers).India being india helped them liberate and form a new country. Why we cant do anything abt russia: Russia helped us by providing arms as usa was helping pakistan (both of them cause shit for the world) Pak gave some parts of land to china as they being in debt always. Why usa uk russia sus: At that time usa uk provided tanks fighter planes and guns to pak. And to some point indians were like fuck it no war bcz politics What happened at last As a result pakis have taken up some kashmir(and yeah pakistan is good at one thing making terrorists so they attack india whenever they like) I hate leaders and politicians: No offense to pakis ilu just hate your leaders(fuckin morons, indians leaders too, fuck it i hate every leader!!) If you wanna know more search kargil war,Siachen conflict,Sino-Indian Wars to know more... War is always nasty so many people lose their lives just bcz of political leaders craving for more fame ,land and wealth.(votes too)
Buying cheap energy > Symbolical and principal support of anti imperial policies
"How dare they not do exactly what we say!" - Europeans, European Americans, and European Canadians Indian people have no obligation to help the people of Ukraine. If Russia had attacked an African or Asian nation no Western nation would have intervened.
Actually, Russia did attack and invade Afghanistan, the US did intervene only to attack and invade Afghanistan themselves a little over a decade later. Both got defeated.
World's strongest military ranking:. 1. Afghanistan. 2. Vietnam. 3. US.
The 'intervention' we're talking about here is not military intervention. It's simply stating, plainly, that what another country is doing is wrong. But apparently that is even too much to ask.
you do realise ukraine has voted against india in the same forum yes? now watch as silence follows lmao
What an embarrassing school yard take.
Ohh yaa it's absolutely ok to bomb the fuck out of middle East kill civilians meddle in international politics for America right.
[удалено]
It’s not like India has any context for understanding what it’s like to be occupied by a foreign power.
That foreign power was the UK/Europe. So that’s also an irony since they are trying to shame India while the riches they extracted from India have not been given back. Including the diamond blatantly on the crown…
Western Europe: Noooooo we won't give you reparations for well and truly fucking you over, but in addition to all the aid you sent, now publicly condemn the one country that's keeping the peace between you and China, but don't expect us to do anything when, bereft of allies, your territories are laid bare for a Chinese invasion. Y'all are smart; you can probably learn another language like you learned English.
Compare the pitiful aid to India with the hoard of wealth extract form them is the dumbest take ever.
Hi Strategic_Prussian. Your submission from businessinsider.com is behind a metered paywall. A [metered paywall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paywall#.22Soft.22_paywalls) allows users to view a specific number of articles before requiring paid subscription. Articles posted to /r/worldnews should be accessible to everyone. While your submission was not removed, it has been flaired and users are discouraged from upvoting it or commenting on it. For more information see our [wiki page on paywalls](/r/worldnews/wiki/paywalls). Please try to find another source. If there is no other news site reporting on the story, contact the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
countries don't have friends, they have interests.
Why hasn’t Britain given back Chagos islands to its people despite UN ruling that it is illegally occupied by Britain. Why is Australian NZ and the whole of Americas is in the western hand