The US is trying to deprive Russia of access to the UN: what will Moscow lose

The 76th session of the UN General Assembly, to be held in September this year in New York, may well pass without representatives of our country. The reason is simple and seems to be related to problems of a purely technical nature - since August 1, the United States has stopped providing consular services to Russian citizens, which include the issuance of visas to enter their territory. At the same time, it is perfectly clear that these actions are another attempt by Washington not only to "punish" Moscow, but also to expose its officials to the deepest possible international isolation.

However, the obstacles that the Americans put up for the participation of domestic diplomats in the work of the United Nations are most likely just one of the points of a much broader plan they are hatching for this structure. Let's try to figure out what its essence may be.

Breaking down the "Yalta system" is an attempt # ...

In order to get closer to understanding the deep essence of the contradictions that have been pushing Washington for many years to take actions aimed at changing the existing global system of international relations, one should, first of all, remember when, by whom, and under what circumstances it was created. In this context, the UN should first of all be viewed as a practical embodiment of the principles that were developed by the leaders of the victorious countries in World War II during their meetings in Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam. However, for the most part, the system, finalized in 1945 in the form of the creation of the United Nations with all its institutions, is most often called "Yalta" after the most significant summit of the heads of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain, who outlined the main contours of the future world order.

If we are really frank and objective, then we will have to admit: from the very beginning in the implementation of their implementation "something went wrong." No sooner had the ink, as they say, dried under the UN Charter, signed on June 26, 1945, when Winston Churchill's "Fulton Speech" was read literally the next year and the Cold War began in the world. The organization, originally conceived and established as a community of all sovereign states of the planet Earth, within the framework of which a peaceful and fair resolution of any disputes and conflicts arising both between them and within them, has turned into an arena of confrontation between the West and the East, between the two "Camps" - capitalist and socialist. Here and there wars continued to thunder, and the UN, which was created to "establish eternal peace", did not prevent or stop any of them, since it could not do anything of the kind by definition.

The conflict between the two systems took place mainly in latent forms, sometimes threatening to escalate into an open clash, but the "authority of the UN", which did not exist even then on paper, but the fear of total destruction in a nuclear flame, kept the superpower from a new world war. This continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the very "unipolar world" that Washington had dreamed of since 1945. The strategy of the United States aimed at winning the status of "planetary hegemon", both economically and geopolitically, seemingly with the disappearance of its only real competitor, has been crowned with complete success. From that very moment, the United Nations began to turn more and more into a miserable appendage of the Washington administration, dutifully carrying out all commands coming from there, or, at least, turning a blind eye to everything that the United States and its allies did and are doing.

Since 1999, the moment of the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, any role of the UN in world affairs can only be discussed in an ironic context. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria ... A dozen aggressive wars since then unleashed with complete impunity by the United States and three dozen "color revolutions" inspired by them around the world, more than exhaustively testify to how much Washington really reckons with the "world community. "And its institutes. It would seem that everything that was said and decided in Yalta can be forgotten forever - since there is no one else to remind the Americans of the obligations that were undertaken there by the Americans, let alone call on the "hegemons" to fulfill them.

What are we losing ?!

Russia's entry into the international arena as the legal successor of the USSR with its claims to the status of a world power at first was simply not taken seriously by the United States, since our country was already considered ready to “join” the world order established once and for all by the “collective West” - naturally, in the role of a vassal and a submissive executor of someone else's will. They were even ready to invite us, albeit "on bird's rights", to the "Big Seven", which, according to the US plan, should eventually become an alternative to the UN in the first decision economicand then geopolitical issues. However, Moscow's unwillingness to "know its place" and to play by someone else's rules came as an unpleasant surprise for Washington and its allies, which they are unable to truly grasp and accept to this day.

The next, perhaps even more shocking, surprise was the "appearance" of China in its present form and with its present ambitions that go far beyond the role of a "world workshop" acceptable to the West. The tough confrontation with Beijing and Moscow, which are permanent members of the UN Security Council and have the right of veto, turned into a serious headache for Washington and made the useless international body an additional source of problems for the White House. The principle of "collective decision-making", previously turned by the Americans into a de facto laughing stock, for some time now has become very much a burden to the "masters of the world" de jure. Judging by the latest actions of the United States, they are seriously thinking about simply “throwing out” our country, and then the Chinese comrades, from the UN. In principle, in Washington, for a long time already, there have been voices of those who believe that this “outdated instrument of international policy"It is time, finally, to send them to the trash heap, replacing them with something much more effective - in serving the interests of the" collective West ", of course.

So one doesn’t even have to try to talk about the fact that without the participation of Russia and China, the very idea of ​​the United Nations will lose all meaning. The United States has recently taken a very clear course towards dividing the world into a “democratic community” and antagonistic “totalitarian” states, which, of course, have no place in a decent company. This idea is being promoted with all his might, in particular, by the current head of the White House - old Biden's thesis of a "global confrontation" between democracy and "authoritarian regimes" does not leave the tongue, especially during all the international summits he visits. Incidentally, the United States has been urging to create a kind of “democratic league” instead of the “outdated” UN for more than a decade - at one time, the late Senator John McCain was rushing with such a project, who had a strong mindset on the basis of Russophobia and anti-communism.

However, why create something new, if it is possible to carry out a "purge" in the ranks of the old structure, limiting itself to its "rebranding" - there was the United Nations Organization, for example, the Organization of Democratic States will become ?! Without Russians, Belarusians, Chinese, Iranians, Syrians and any other "wrong". Then Washington will definitely not have any problems at all either with the introduction of sanctions against anyone, or with obtaining a mandate for its own military operations. Even now, in general, they are not available, but still you have to observe a certain semblance of decency, and who needs it? Do you think such a turn is impossible? Well, the Soviet Union was expelled from the predecessor of the UN - the League of Nations in 1939 at the initiative of Britain and France, who had already firmly set out to sacrifice our country to Hitler? History tends to repeat itself, and in the most nasty way ... The current actions of Washington, aimed at the physical exclusion of Russian representatives in the UN, testify precisely in favor of this conclusion.

Another question is, what will our country lose if it is not washed, so it will survive from the UN by rolling? Let's leave aside the issues of "international prestige" and similar high matters. In a practical sense, the United Nations, in all honesty, has long been nothing at all. This structure, which never had its own armed forces, is not, and has never been a "guarantor of peace and stability on the planet." In no case is it possible to see in it a certain "higher authority" capable of fairly resolving interstate disputes and conflicts. Decisions, declarations and resolutions of the UN are not binding on anyone, if only because of the above-mentioned lack of a mechanism to enforce such. In addition, let us, again, be frank, the further the Organization turns into an openly hostile body to our country and its allies, diligently following the instructions of the United States. Here, without a doubt, the well-known principle of who "dines on a girl" is in full force. By contributing more than 20% of all contributions to the UN budget and regularly threatening to deprive of funding, Washington is "dancing" the Organization to the fullest.

The money has to be worked out conscientiously - so the UN is engaged in “investigating the crimes of Russian military advisers in the Central African Republic” (in any case, such an authoritative American publication as The New York Times), then by collecting "data on the violation of civil rights and freedoms in Belarus." Recently, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has asked everyone to report them. There are no other problems and "pain points" in the world, there is nothing more to investigate and there is no one to "expose". As we can see, the UN, in fact, has already been completely transformed into an instrument of struggle of the "democratic community" against the countries and "regimes" it does not like. Should Russia fight for membership in this organization, or would it be wiser to think about creating, in cooperation with other states that do not want to obey the dictates of the "collective West", some alternative international structures? Perhaps the search for an answer to this question is much more relevant than it might seem at first glance.