To continue his “special military operation” in Ukraine, the unscrupulous dictator can count on the support of his generals (for how much longer?), his army (which is reported to have lost 90,000 men and women dead or injured), reinforced by press-ganged recruits (young people who did not manage to flee the country in time, workers, prisoners, the homeless, cancer patients, the unbalanced, etc.) and mercenaries of the Wagner group, the regime’s answer to the SS. In the civil sphere, it can still count on the support of any oligarchs who have not yet died in strange circumstances, on its administration, the police, its magistrates and a majority of the population (but for how much longer?). Finally, it has an overseas network of diplomats, spies, disinformation agents, cyber-attack experts and other poisoners, but things are not the sole preserve of Russia.
Which countries are supporting Putin’s dirty war? The President of Belarus is an obvious accomplice. In February, when he welcomed Russian troops and military equipment onto his territory, he effectively allowed Ukraine to be attacked from the north. He did not commit his own army, admittedly not the greatest in the world, but will this decision be definitive? According to recent sources, the faithful Lukashenko is getting involved in preparations for a new Russian attack from Belarusian soil. The European Council is under no illusions about this. In the Conclusions of its meeting of 20 and 21 October, it “calls on the Belarusian authorities to stop enabling the Russian war of aggression by permitting Russian armed forces to use Belarusian territory and by providing support to the Russian military. The Belarusian regime must fully abide by its obligations under international law. The European Union remains ready to move quickly with further sanctions against Belarus” (Point 13 of the Conclusions). The two dictatorships have long stood in solidarity with each other, providing reciprocal support whenever needed; one of the many things they have in common is that they are both ex-members of the Council of Europe.
More recent and more surprising is the decisive military assistance of Iran. Since September, drones of Iranian manufacture have been used by the Russian occupier against civilian targets. Iranian soldiers are also reported to have arrived in Crimea. The Teheran regime, which grows more akin to a fascistic theocracy by the day, is having to deal with the annoyance of a broad movement of revolt which it is putting down mercilessly. Could it be pinning its hopes on Moscow returning the favour to help it restore order? Whatever the case may be, the Council of the EU has decided to impose sanctions on Iranian individuals, firstly over breaches of human rights in the country (17 October), followed by another set over its assistance to Russia (20 October) (see EUROPE 13047/3). The European Council “also strongly condemns the military support to Russia’s war of aggression provided by the Iranian authorities, which must stop” (Point 14 of the Conclusions). The 27 EU member states are therefore singing from the same hymn sheet on this issue and the Iranian denials are fooling nobody (see EUROPE 13048/2).
Globally, an examination of the votes cast by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on the draft resolutions concerning the situation in Ukraine provides some politically interesting indications.
The first resolution, adopted on 2 March last, unambiguously condemned the Russian act of aggression. It was adopted by 141 votes in favour, five against and 35 abstentions, with the representatives of 12 countries absent. This vote, described as historic by Josep Borrell (see EUROPE 12903/8), shows just how isolated Putin is. The five votes against were cast by Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Syria – the four continuing to stand together in the votes on the adoption of subsequent resolutions – plus Eritrea. A group containing two nuclear powers.
A small communist and highly totalitarian country, North Korea is a staunch ally of Russia and China against the West. It has the world’s fourth-largest army in terms of numbers and its president is always happy to fire off a few missiles, a tendency that is on the increase. The Syrian dictator owes Putin a great debt: in 2015, Putin sent troops and aircraft which, by dint of intensive bombing raids with a high death toll, helped Assad to recover territories he had lost. Incidentally, this was Russia’s first intervention outside its own territory since the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. As for Eritrea, a state which achieved independence from Ethiopia in 1993 following a long war, its dictatorial regime, which is isolated by the West, is counting on Russia in the framework of its conflict with the Tigray region, which the West supports.
After the International Court of Justice issued an order to Russia on 17 March to suspend its military operations in Ukraine (see EUROPE 12913/2), a new UNGA resolution, deploring the humanitarian consequences of the Russian offensive and calling for its immediate cessation, was put to the vote on 24 March (see EUROPE 12919/8). At the time, Mariupol lay in ruins and the situation for civilians was growing desperate. The countries already referred to voted against; 140 votes were cast in favour, with 38 abstentions and 10 states unrepresented. For the second time, China and India featured among the group of abstainers.
The consistency of the voting from one resolution to the next showed that developments on the ground had not changed anybody’s position.
On 7 April, a new UNGA resolution suspended Russia from the human rights council of the UN organisation. It was on this occasion that the Putin regime found itself the least isolated. The vote was carried by just 93 votes (mostly Western); 24 countries voted against: Russia and its faithful allies, of course, but also China, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam, Mali, Algeria, Ethiopia, Nicaragua and the Congo, to name but a few: all countries that not just had a degree of sympathy for Russia, but also had internal problems with human rights compliance and undoubtedly feared the same fate. As for the abstentions, which numbered 54, these came from India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and Indonesia, among others. At the time the votes were cast, evidence of the Bucha massacre had already circled the globe.
Finally, the most recent resolution called upon Russia to reverse its “attempted illegal annexation” of four regions of Ukraine. The vote, held on 12 October (see EUROPE 13042/5), gave the following results: five countries against, including Nicaragua, which had swapped places with Eritrea, 143 in favour (including Brazil) and 35 abstentions, including, once again, China, India and even Armenia. 10 countries did not take part in the vote, among them Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Iran, Turkmenistan and Venezuela – all countries that are not especially hostile to Russia. (To be continued)
Renaud Denuit