Eve, here. Below, Andrew Korybko explains some of the overly romantic views of Palestinian supporters who support Russia’s intention to express opposition to the continued ethnic cleansing of Gaza by the United States and Israel. He also makes an important point about the evolution towards a multipolar system. This means that increasingly large countries are acting in their own self-interest, and smaller countries need to adapt. We have pointed out that the reality of being a small country means that we must do our best to make the interests of the powerful countries compete with each other in order to, hopefully, secure maximum advantage.
We highlighted Vanessa Beeley and Fiorella Isabel’s warnings stemming from the failure of BRICS member states to take effective action to stop the Gaza massacre or make Israel pay a real price. “BRICS are the new champions of free trade, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank” and “By continuing to trade with Israel, we support genocide” from Beeley and Isabel’s arguments.
Vanessa Bealey (10:50): But I think we’re still struggling with the issue of BRICS, the BRICS countries, and the lack of will to end genocide and to actually effectively prevent genocide and punish those who are accused of committing genocide under the Geneva Conventions…
Trade between China, India, and Israel is increasing, and both countries are heavily involved in arms trade with Israel, and it is certainly not slowing down. China invests through Chinese state-owned enterprises and settlement programs in occupied territories. The company has investments in the ports of Ashdod and Haifa, both of which regularly receive weapons for Zionist forces. India is also an energy supplier and has just signed a new agreement with Israel in recent days, as well as a reciprocal arms trade agreement with Israel. Russia supplies energy…
With the exception of South Africa and Iran, of course, these countries have not made any gestures…
And what I find a little alarming is that these countries can’t even deal with the fact that this is genocide. And also to support the measures Francesca Albanese recommended to take by the ICJ, look at Yemen’s compliance with the Genocide Convention…
And we know that Russia and China also have significant investments in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which were created by Britain to partner with Zionist entities when it created the so-called state of Israel…
And I think what I’m trying to say is a moral thing. I don’t understand why people hold on to these prejudices that blind them from holding these countries accountable and saying to them, “You have the power to do something.” They literally have the only ability in the world today, other than armed resistance in this region, to actually do anything militarily, not economically, but economically, to stop what’s happening in Palestine.
And they haven’t accomplished that.
And the second half of the discussion goes like this:
Fiorella Isabel (23:10): What kind of world awaits us if most of the countries that have the ability to stop a modern holocaust aren’t doing it? What difference would it make if China and Russia rose and they weren’t doing something different? And then there’s probably a more transactional, uh, soft power type of relationship with the United States on the surface. It’s more collaborative. When it comes to Russia and the way they operate realistically, there are some guys who have kind of a win-win relationship, if you have, you know, if they have respect and mutual respect, if you have something good enough to show for it, um, that’s what it is. So they will have respect for Iran, but not necessarily for the rest of the Middle East or West Asia. And I think we’ve talked about this before. They are not….
If you are against hegemony, it is an ideological point of view. I don’t think they are against hegemony. I think they want to get some of the legs. That’s very good…
Vanessa Beeley (32:18): And, as we keep saying, if you’re going to support the BRICS countries, Russia, China, as a viable alternative to the paradigm that we’ve been living with for decades and that the world is tired of, how can you accept that they’re effectively doing the same thing…?
Fiorella Isabel (38:40): This is actually a very formulaic kind of team cheerleading. It’s just further iterations of it, from microscopic left-right paradigms to multipolar and unipolar ones. I started repeating the same type of thinking over and over again, just picking a team and repeating what’s best for me, what’s most popular, what X, Y analysts said, and whatever they say goes. So if you ask any other question, you’re destroying people’s brains.
A more subtle piece of evidence supporting Beeley and Isabel’s warning is Russia’s attitude toward the importance of civilized nations. If I’m in a former colony like Malaysia, that obviously doesn’t include my country. So this is a signal that some animals will actually be more equal than others.
Now, to be fair, there is another theory regarding the UN’s abstention. Russia and China realized that this Gaza plan would not work well for their sponsors, and they realized that it might be better to stay out of the way and drag the US and Israeli founders into the mix. But it will do nothing to stop the continuing death and devastation in Gaza.
Andrew Korybko is a Moscow-based American political analyst specializing in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the new Cold War. He holds a doctorate from MGIMO, which is affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Originally published on his website
The global systemic transition to multipolarity is increasingly characterized by the “19th century great power chessboard” paradigm in which such states prioritize their own interests at the expense (perceived or actual) of smaller and medium-sized states and non-state actors.
A significant number of people on social media are disappointed, furious, and disgusted that Russia abstained from the latest Security Council resolution on Gaza, even though it approved the establishment of an “International Stabilization Force” (ISF) in the Gaza Strip in line with the peace plan brokered by the United States between Israel and Hamas. They believe that Russia should have vetoed the resolution despite the Palestinian Authority’s support for it, essentially suggesting that Russia should be “more pro-Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves.”
These expectations are not surprising, as they are consistent with the general sentiment espoused by many members of the alt-media community, especially top influencers. A significant number of them are spreading false claims about Russian politics in response to the conflict, or at least reinforcing false perceptions of the conflict. The basis of all the other lies is that Putin is an anti-Zionist secretly allied with Iran against Israel, and all facts to the contrary are just him “playing 5D chess to mentally corner the Zionists.”
But in reality, he is a lifelong and proud philosophical Jew, even describing Russians and Israelis as a “true common family” and Israel as a “Russian-speaking country,” and for the reasons explained here, his views and misperceptions of Russian politics continue to prevail. However, as this is very difficult to interpret as anti-Zionist, especially since it is widely seen as being imposed on Hamas by the United States, Russia’s abstention may ultimately shatter this false paradigm.
Regarding the group, Russia officially considers October 7 to be a terrorist attack, but it does not consider the political wing of Hamas to be a terrorist organization, even though Israel wants it to be one. At the same time, Russia does not consider Hamas to be the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and believes that that role belongs to the Palestinian Authority. This further provides context for why Russia abstained rather than vetoed the resolution despite strong opposition from Hamas.
Regardless, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations harshly criticized the resolution in detailed comments worth reading in full here, dispelling speculation that Russia had “sold” Gaza to Israel after Putin’s phone call with Bivia ahead of the vote. Russia was therefore clearly dissatisfied with the resolution, but after the Palestinian Authority supported it, it could not realistically present itself as being “more pro-Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves”, hence why it condemned the draft and abstained.
Therefore, vetoing the resolution under these circumstances would have been an outright obstruction, especially if China had not exercised its veto as well (as China also abstained). It would also offend Russia’s partner states, which are prepared to join the ISF by preserving the legitimacy of the Security Council’s mandate. Russia has no intention of preventing their deployment to Gaza and will do so anyway, but it will expose their great status, embarrass Russia and damage relations with Russia without any benefit.
The global systemic transition to multipolarity is increasingly characterized by the “19th century great power chessboard” paradigm in which such states prioritize their own interests at the expense (perceived or actual) of smaller and medium-sized states and non-state actors. Therefore, no matter how this may make some people feel, there was never a realistic possibility that Russia would side with Hamas over the Palestinian Authority, Israel, and their common ISF partners, and they still have the right to express that.
______
1 I apologize for not following the link, but Lavrov did so in defense of Pan-Asian organizations.
