"Latest UN vote signals the beginning of the end for Russia" Experts comment on China's new position

China has decided to abandon its abstinence-based line when voting at the UN on documents with harsh language on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thus, the Chinese delegation voted in favour of a General Assembly resolution calling Russia an "aggressor", according to data released by the UN.

Document A/77/L.65, "Cooperation between the UN and the Council of Europe", refers to the unprecedented challenges facing Europe "following the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine, and before that against Georgia". The resolution also calls for "reparations" for the victims of Russian military aggression and "bringing to justice all those responsible for violations of international law".

Apart from China, the document was also voted for by countries that the Russian authorities describe as friendly. Among them are India, Brazil, and Türkiye. Only five states voted against it. Besides Russia, these are Belarus, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nicaragua, and Syria. 122 countries voted "yes" to it.

Russian diplomats tried to have the wording "aggression" removed from the resolution, but failed, said Ukrainian Ambassador to the United Nations Sergei Kislytsya.

An official statement of the Russian permanent mission said that the respective paragraph "has nothing to do with the subject matter of the resolution and is highly politicized".

So, what did official Beijing suddenly want to show the world community by openly supporting a document that recognizes Russia as an aggressor? What does this step mean for Sino-Russian relations in the future? How hard does it hit Moscow's position in the world and what events may it lead to?

Prominent experts answered these questions for Caliber.Az.

According to Kyrgyz analyst Sheradil Baktygulov, director of the Institute of World Politics (Bishkek), the vote on Resolution A/77/L.65 on co-operation between the UN and the Council of Europe is being presented in the media of many countries as a "victory" for one side over the other. However, this is not the case.

"UNGA resolutions, unlike those adopted by the UN Security Council, are advisory in nature and are not binding on any country. Even UNSC resolutions are sometimes not implemented. For example, in the recent past, Armenia failed to implement the recommendations of three UNSC resolutions concerning Karabakh and seven districts of Azerbaijan occupied by the Armenian side. Therefore, the return of these lands by Azerbaijan by armed force has not and should not be opposed or criticised by UN member states or any international organisation.

Returning to resolution A/77/L.65, it should be noted that almost everything in the text of this document, except the word "aggression", corresponds to the 12 points of the "Chinese position on a political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis". The original title of the document is "Position" and not "plan" or "programme", as it is referred to in the media of a number of countries. The incorrect interpretation leads to incorrect conclusions - as if China is promoting its own plan to resolve the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. This is not true. Mao Ning, an official representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, at a press conference on April 27, 2023 described China's actions in the Russo-Ukrainian crisis as follows: 'As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a responsible major country, China would not sit idly by, nor would it add oil to the fire, still less exploit the situation for self gains'. She further said: 'At a time when rational thinking and voices are getting louder, it is important to seize the opportunity and create favourable conditions for a political solution to the crisis. It is hoped that all parties will reflect seriously on the Ukrainian crisis and jointly explore ways to establish lasting peace and security in Europe through dialogue. China will continue to promote the peace talks and make its efforts for an early ceasefire and the restoration of peace. Beijing will send the Special Representative of the Chinese Government for Eurasia Affairs to Ukraine and other countries for in-depth communication with all parties on the political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.'

Mao Ning's words are important for understanding the following. China, India and Brazil (the big three developing countries) are not parties to the Russia-Ukraine crisis. These countries are not supplying arms and ammunition to the zone of this conflict, are not training soldiers, and are not providing money for the war. This trio is therefore in a better position to facilitate the negotiation process, because they can act as a disinterested party, which is not the case for the US, the UK and the EU. The statements of their leaders show a desire to 'defeat' Russia. They are therefore the 'partisan' side of the crisis. It makes no sense to negotiate peace with them in that status. This is a negotiating impasse because the parties to this crisis, at best, only have ultimatum statements", Baktygulov said.

According to him, the vote by China, India and Brazil on resolution A/77/L.65, the preamble of which mentions Russian aggression, strengthened the position of these countries as the most likely and influential facilitators of negotiations to end the crisis in Europe. "The troika of these countries, by supporting this resolution, demonstrated to all their commitment to peace - a "nobody's favour" formula has emerged, i.e. they are not acting as a pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian side.

"Moreover, China has repeatedly stated that it is allocating and will continue to allocate money for peace in Ukraine. If you recall the landmark events leading up to the vote, it was French President Macron's visit to China, during which he asked Xi Jinping, among other things, to have a phone conversation with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. A few days later such a telephone conversation took place, and a short time later a vote was taken at the UN on Resolution A/77/L.65. These milestone events are mentioned in the press with the adjective 'for the first time' - for the first time the French president asked the head of China to call the Ukrainian president, for the first time since 2022 a telephone conversation between the heads of China and Ukraine took place, for the first time China and others supported the resolution with the words 'Russian aggression'.

To summarise the above, China is a plan B for all sides of the Ukrainian crisis, in case one side of the crisis fails to gain the upper hand. Crises and conflicts end by agreement. As for the 'victorious' nature of a number of articles, they have more to do with describing the voting process. Behind every UNGA or UNSC resolution is the work of diplomats behind the scenes to get other countries to vote. After all, its diplomats vote on behalf of the country. Sometimes some drafts are opposed by a country or group of countries. Therefore, every resolution passed by a vote is always a 'victory' for the country that promoted the resolution," says the institute's director.

Kazakhstan political scientist and public figure Arman Shurayev found it necessary to note that the last UN meeting was not even a slap in the face, but a tough slap to Russian diplomacy.

"I think it was the moment when the traditional allies, who preferred maybe just to abstain, showed that they are tired of explaining to the Russian leadership that there are other ways of solving various conflict situations in the 21st century. That is why I think that this vote was decisive", he says.

In his view, China has crossed the Rubicon, the same India has supported a price cap on Russian oil.

"And I think this is a tough sign for Russia. The superpowers and regional powers have shown Russia's current place on the political map of the world. We have seen that Russia is on a par with those countries that supported it in this vote - that is, Belarus, Nicaragua, Congo, and Syria.

I think it's the beginning of the end for Russia. It is a signal to wind down the so-called special military operation for Putin personally.

I think this is a consolidated position that was discussed amongst themselves by Turkish, Brazilian, and Chinese diplomats before the vote because to this day to support Russia even verbally is to maintain a toxic relationship. And that may not reflect well on those powers themselves. I can tell you that it is already clear to the Turks, the Chinese, and the Indians that Russia is not a superpower of any kind. It is just a regional swamp," concluded the Kazakhstani expert.