Itās google translated
No surprise there, but Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries are a nasty lot of unreliable leeches, and for sure major enemies of Europe and other democratic countries and what they represent (i.e. freedom of opinion and speech, individual liberty for all citizens, equality between men and women etc.).
They need to be considered like our enemies imo, as they do and act likewise with us.
I posted this a while back, this is from April. He was using his own vehicle to shuttle people out of Mariupol.
Well, heās still alive and helping people! Bless him
āruin Putinās Birthdayā
ok snowflake
I assume it significantly comes down to them seeing an opportunity to boost their own profits more so than making any political statements. Greed first in this case and the world be damned.
I donāt think this is at all true. China and India are certainly not pro Ukraine and thatās well over half the worldās population. There is plenty of anti American sentiment in South America and Asia, and most Africans have more pressing concerns.
Only the US and its close allies are against Russia.
Hopefully that will be enough, but it isnāt as clear cut as you suggest.
let me rephrase. 90% of the countries of the world who voted at the UN General Assembly have expressed their displeasure of Russiaās invasion of Ukraine.
Cannot believe you are actually arguing this.
Iām arguing it because itās easy for us, also lied to by our politicians, also subject to propaganda (admittedly more subtle), to believe that all the world agree that Putin is mad and Russia is bad, whereas there are many on the fence and others giving tacit approval. Votes in the UN are all very well, but Paraguay or Malta are not as important as China and India.
Iām not an apologist for the war in any shape or form, but we have to be realistic.
Chemical bomb used by russian in Kherson, youāll find a gorish video in the comments.
Donāt want to get in a row, but that yellow tends to mean support for Russiaās position, only on the cheap and without consequences. Many countries, when they know the outcome of a vote and that their vote wonāt change an outcome, tends to abstain instead of voting against a successful resolution.
So itās not as overwheling as it looks like if you just count the no votes.
One could of course debatre how much support the abstaining countries are giving Russia, but a fair few of them do give at least moral support, or at worst, indifferance. Remember that it is usually more costly voting against the vast majority than with it.
This is supposedly it. Supposedly.
https://twitter.com/quicksilverUA/status/1578121359481311232
Militarily, it makes sense since chemical weaponry tends to halt advances if the enemy is not prepared for it, but politically it is stupid as well as ethically of course heinous beyond belief.
I suggest some salt before it is commented upon by actual experts. Because if this is what it looks like, then only Putin could give such a clear (to use it). A general using chemical weapons without Putinās blessing is impossible.
Look at who abstained and who voted no. Thatās realism right there
Belarus
North Korea
Eritrea
Russia
Syria
considering Russiaās blatant use of phosphorus bombs over civilian areas, is it really that surprising that heād use chemical weapons? Just like his good buddy Assad in Syriaā¦
Voting in the UN doesnāt equal active engagement. How many of those countries are actively supporting Ukraine?
I said opposed to the Russian invasion. Did you misread it when you quoted it to argue the point?
Itās a surprise because it shows grave weakness and would be a very significant escalation politically at a time when Russia is sending out trial baloons for negotiations. I donāt believe it, yet, without better evidence and expert comments. Because sure, it can halt the Kherson offensive, but if enough countries believe Russia is using chemical weapons, there would be escalation of aid to ukraine and other consequences.