In reaction to the United Nations General Assembly resolution harshly condemning Russia’s invasion and calling for its withdrawal from Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov unleashed an unprecedented attack on Western countries, stating: “The breakout of a world war exists in the thoughts of Western countries,” referring to NATO countries as well.
Diplomatic observers of the Russian invasion observed that Russia believes that its diplomatic and economic isolation does not imply defeat in the conflict, and hence Moscow would not abandon its aims or leave the battlefield before enforcing its demands.
According to a Russian diplomatic official, “Russia will not allow that Ukraine is a dagger in its side, and that the Russian president is well aware of the ramifications of this conflict and has set a deadline of around two weeks to invade Kyiv.”
However, a Western diplomatic reference in one of the decision-making countries, and in connection with the “Beirut International” website, confirmed that diplomatic reports reaching the embassies of the world through their missions in Russia indicate that President Vladimir Putin is still determined to fight this war to the end, despite the tireless efforts and contacts made by more than one international party.
The diplomat, who did not want to be identified, was quoted as saying that NATO countries, the United States, and Britain were prepared for any military developments that might occur as a result of this war, particularly since Russian officials are still escalating their negotiating positions and conditions.
In a diplomatic interpretation of the United Nations General Assembly’s resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the above passage said that, while the resolution is not required, it is a historic decision expressed by the General Assembly.
The source considered that this decision has strong ramifications in the international community, as well as moral pressure from international legitimacy on Russia, and isolates it politically and economically, even if it does not implement the resolution, describing it as a decision weaker than a Security Council resolution, but much stronger than a normal General Assembly resolution. Because it has serious moral ramifications for Russia, it may also pave the way for successful humanitarian assistance.
In terms of the UN dealing with the issue from the standpoint of peacekeeping forces in the face of a country like Russia, the above reference believes that this is not possible in the current frameworks, especially since Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council, and in any case, this matter is currently unrealistic.
On the other hand, Amal Abou Zaid, the presidential advisor for Russian issues, is in Moscow to clarify Lebanon’s position on the General Assembly resolution.
At this context, it was discovered that Moscow is fully aware of who is a friend and who is an adversary, and as a result, it understands that Lebanon has many demands in the United Nations, and it will make the necessary choice at that time.
The Russians, according to the diplomatic reference, were not disturbed by Lebanon’s vote in favor of the resolution, but rather expressed their strong dissatisfaction with the meanings and words contained in Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib’s message, while other Arab countries’ positions, as the Arab League statement came in line and harmonious in form and content.
As a result, the diplomatic reference sees no repercussions on Russian-Lebanese relations, and the Lebanese Ambassador to Russia, Chawki Bou Nassar, explained the circumstances and reasons behind Bou Habib’s message, arguing that Russia violated the international system according to United Nations internal law.
In summary, the aforementioned reference suggests that Putin will not relent in his fight in Ukraine. Despite its importance, the UN resolution lacks a clear implementation mechanism in light of Putin’s refusal to back down in Ukraine.