Russia vetoes UN cease-fire resolution for Sudan

[-]

Command0Dude@reddit

For months I'd see users come out of the woodwork to work up a storm about the US vetoing UN ceasefires in Gaza.

Crickets now that Russia is doing it. In a conflict with a loss of life three times worse.

[-]

cesaroncalves@reddit

What about what about what about what about what about what about ...

What about you fucking read the rest of the comments? Yours is the newest comment of the thread so the others were already there for you to ignore.

Fucking Zionists and their need to be victims all the time.

[-]

mahemahe0107@reddit

Lmao is the pro palis who are the wannabe victims. They keep starting fights and cry when they get their teeth kicked in 😂

[-]

Level-Technician-183@reddit

British Foreign Minister David Lammy said, “One country stood in the way of the council speaking with one voice. One country is the blocker. One country is the enemy of peace. This Russian veto is a disgrace, and it shows to the world yet again, Russia's true colors.”

First time? It has been happening for decades now with all of the 5 permenant members.

Polyanskiy accused the Security Council of operating under a double standard, pointing to the council’s failure to rein in Israel with what he said are violations of humanitarian law in Gaza.

Not gonna defend russia's act but that is absolutly true. We have to take this veto privilage out of the world system. We have really let 5 guys decide the way we suffer according to whatever the hell they like.

[-]

loggy_sci@reddit

If you remove the veto the P5 members will likely disengage from the UNSC.

Maybe there would be support for an override to the veto, but unlikely.

[-]

Level-Technician-183@reddit

So what? Let them get out. Stopping our world from functioning properly and let 5 shits stand againt the world choice because of their unstable hormones is way worse than their leave.

[-]

crusadertank@reddit

And then what?

How are the rest of those countries going to hold any power to make anything happen?

[-]

loggy_sci@reddit

Unstable hormones? What does this even mean?

The UNSC veto isn’t what is stopping our world from functioning properly.

[-]

Level-Technician-183@reddit

The UNSC veto isn’t what is stopping our world from functioning properly.

have a look at this and tell me why are we letting those 5 decide what happens?

Try looking into some of these resolutions. Many of them are just stright up ugly. Like, why would you veto against a resolution about attacking civilians airplane and killing over a hundred with it? Or against the use of chemical weapons? Or a resolution about basic rights for some people.... the veto power is literally the worst thing we have. One country out of 5 can stop the world laws from functioning properly. And you can notice that almost all of them are either russian or american vetos. They abused this power to the ugliest level.

And by unstable hormons, i mean those 5 countries are just maniacs and do not act with simple logic.

[-]

LinusSmackTips@reddit

Cause they have the most nukes, hence can't end Earth the fastest. What do you mean why those five? Educate yourself about geopolitics and reasoning and bargaining platform of the UN which has the sole purpose of preventing the escalation of war. After the largest scale destruction was made real by the same establishing nations that dismantled the league of nations that kept some of the treaties secret

[-]

Wyrmnax@reddit

The UN is not the world police. It has now power by itself, it has the power its members want to make it happen.

It is a forum for countries to talk.

The veto power is not given to countries. It is acknowledgement that they had the military might to veto it by force of arms.

Vetoing a resolution like this is a sign onwhere a country stand, and that it could - and probably would - work against a action contrary.

For example, let suppose the UN votes to abolish Israel. The US vetoes it.

How would that go if there was no UN? Quite a few countries would supply arms, training and maybe even soldiers to a task force that was going to invade Israel. The US would park 3 carriers around it and start bombing stuff. Then the Chinese would get pissed because they had a construction team hit in the middle of the mess.

Thats the type of escalatory scenario that the UN tries to prevent.

Russia vetoing that means "I have stuff down there, and I want that to continue. Trying to stop it by force puts you in a direct line of confrontation against me"

[-]

ThevaramAcolytus@reddit

The UNSC doesn't give anyone any power. It only recognizes the power which already inherently exists. The veto is a deference to the hard power realities of the permanent five globally, not something they derive their power from.

[-]

re_carn@reddit

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said, "It is shocking that Russia has vetoed an effort to save lives, though perhaps it shouldn't be.”

Facepalm... Such a level of audacity if overwhelming.

[-]

Copacetic4@reddit

Are they interfering with the UNSC in retaliation to the recent increase in support to Ukraine?

Or are they looking for more work for Wagner?

I suspect it could be both, after all, they do need more fighters, they could be pulling a quid pro quo in the future with either side.

[-]

Sumeru88@reddit

This is an internal Sudanese issue, not an issue between two sovereign countries.

This is also not a situation where one part of the country is trying to separate from the other.

Not sure why UNSC is interfering here.

[-]

Copacetic4@reddit

But you could say that on any number of events since the Cold War, intranational conflicts have been the global norm since the early Cold War proxy wars.

International wars have been relative anomalies since WW2. Therefore the UNSC and the UN by extension holds the authority as peacekeepers and the ones who send them.

[-]

NotGalenNorAnsel@reddit

Who would have guessed that we'd be seeing thoughtful, nuanced takes on the UN's role as Peacekeepers in a sub called anime_titties. Far better understanding than we'd see in like worldnews or politics or even unitednations in many cases, or, they're there but they're buried by hasbarabots.

[-]

Copacetic4@reddit

I think this sub switched with r/WorldPolitics during the pandemic, politics was banned there completely around a year ago.

I feel like there is more ideological, national and political pluralisation here even if some people are downvoted.

[-]

rowida_00@reddit

The resolution essentially delegated authority to non-state actors, infringed on Sudan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Additionally, there was disagreement over references to “Sudanese authorities” versus “Sudanese government”. How can you imply equivalency between state forces and non-state actors?

[-]

Life-Shine-1009@reddit

UNs job is to keep the peace.

A country in civil war with a ongoing genocide and mass rapes by both sides is differently something UN can't ignore.

Russia and Ukrainian special forces are fighting tooth and nail on the streets of Sudan to support there interests and allies on ground.

From what I know local ambassadors have become defecto executive of not only political but now also military conflicts that they are currently busy waging against Russia there.

The war has already spread beyond Europe. With reports from Niger and burkana fasco coming out about these twos special forces/ mercenaries/ Warlords/ terriosts clashing over one reason or another.

War in Sudan has stakes everywhere.

Shit is becoming more and more of a Cod game then a real war.

[-]

Copacetic4@reddit

In addition in terms of geography, the lease agreement for Port Sudan still requires ratification from an elected government, it would be in Russia’s interests to conclude the war as soon as possible for a government to finish the port lease contract.

[-]

empleadoEstatalBot@reddit

Russia vetoes UN cease-fire resolution for Sudan

Russia vetoed a United Nation resolution Monday calling for an immediate cease-fire between Sudan’s warring parties and the delivery of humanitarian aid to millions of Sudanese.

Russia was the only Security Council member that voted against the cease-fire resolution.

China, Russia’s ally, supported the resolution, drafted by the United Kingdom and Sierra Leone.

Russian Deputy U.N. Ambassador Dmitry Polyanskiy told the council that Moscow vetoed the resolution because Sudan’s government should be “solely” responsible for what happens in Sudan.

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said, "It is shocking that Russia has vetoed an effort to save lives, though perhaps it shouldn't be.”

She added, “For months, Russia has obstructed and obfuscated, standing in the way of council action to address the catastrophic situation in Sudan and playing ... both sides of the conflict, to advance its own political objectives at the expense of Sudanese lives."

British Foreign Minister David Lammy said, “One country stood in the way of the council speaking with one voice. One country is the blocker. One country is the enemy of peace. This Russian veto is a disgrace, and it shows to the world yet again, Russia's true colors.”

Polyanskiy accused the Security Council of operating under a double standard, pointing to the council’s failure to rein in Israel with what he said are violations of humanitarian law in Gaza.

War broke out between Sudan’s military and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in April 2023, in the capital, Khartoum, just before the country was set to transition to civilian rule. The violence has spread to other regions around the country.

Eleven million people in Sudan have been displaced and half of the country's population, an estimated 25 million people, are struggling with crisis-level food insecurity, according to the United Nations. Famine was confirmed in August in the northern part of Sudan’s Darfur region.

Some information in this report came from the Associated Press and Reuters.

-

Maintainer | Creator | Source Code
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot

[-]

coverageanalysisbot@reddit

Hi empleadoEstatalBot,

We've found 45 sources (so far) that are covering this story including:

Associated Press News (Leans Left): "Russia vetoes UN resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in the war between Sudan's rival forces"
Barron's (Center): "Russia Vetoes Sudan Ceasefire Resolution At UN Security Council"
The Straits Times (Leans Right): "Russia vetoes UN Security Council action on Sudan war"

Of all the sources reporting on this story, 13% are right-leaning, 36% are left-leaning, and 52% are in the center. Read the full coverage analysis and compare how 45+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story.

I’m a bot. Read here to learn how it works or message us with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.