Zabolotskaya: Russia expects an apology after the UN court’s decision on Ukraine’s lawsuit
Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Maria Zabolotskaya said that Moscow, after the decision of the International Court of Justice on Ukraine's claim, is waiting for an apology from everyone who accused the country of discrimination against Tatars and Ukrainians at meetings of the General Assembly.
According to the diplomat, despite colossal political pressure, the court was able to establish the falsity of statements by Kyiv and its Western allies, as well as “paid NGOs about Russia’s alleged policy of discrimination against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea.”
We expect from everyone who has been spreading slander for years an apology to Russia and guarantees of non-repetition. We proceed from the fact that no state that respects international law will henceforth vote for slanderous resolutions of the General Assembly
The diplomat also called on the international community to think about what measures should be taken to ensure that a group of states cannot abuse the General Assembly platform to spread false statements.
According to Zabolotskaya, the International Court of Justice recognized Ukraine’s statements that the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics (LPR and DPR) are terrorist organizations as untrue.
She recalled that it was these statements that formed the basis of the conflict in Donbass and the start of Kiev’s anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in the region.
Thus, it follows from the court’s decision that Kyiv made a criminal decision to start wars against Donbass. It was this criminal decision that led to the current situation in Ukraine
Related materials:
The UN Court rejected most of Ukraine's claims
On January 31, the International Court of Justice in The Hague rejected most of Ukraine's claims against Russia for allegedly violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This was stated by the chairman of the court, Joan Donoghue.
The claims of the Ukrainian side were the alleged creation by Moscow of a system aimed at the assimilation of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea.
The Russian side has repeatedly noted that such accusations contradict common sense. According to the court, Moscow did not violate any clauses of the convention related to this charge.
The court refused to approve the amount of compensation requested by Ukraine from Russia, but accused Russia of violating anti-terrorism agreements during the conflict in eastern Ukraine. According to the judges, Moscow did not notify Kyiv in a timely manner about security threats to the country.
In June 2023, Ukraine accused Russia of violating two international conventions – on the fight against the financing of terrorism and the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
On June 6, Kyiv began presenting its arguments in a lawsuit filed in 2017 against Moscow. The Ukrainian side claims that the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics have become involved in terrorist activities sponsored by Russia. This, among other things, is believed in Kyiv, led to the crash of flight MH17.
In addition, Ukraine stated that Russia is violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as it allegedly infringes on the rights of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea.
In September 2023, the UN court in The Hague began hearings on Ukraine's claim against Russia for alleged violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the International Court of Justice did not follow Kyiv’s lead
The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the International Court of Justice did not follow Kiev’s lead, which hoped to support with its accusations the decision to transfer Russian assets confiscated in the West to Ukraine and the introduction of international sanctions against Moscow.
The International Court did not follow Kyiv’s lead and fundamentally refused to recognize Russia as an “aggressor state.” The court also rejected Ukrainian insinuations that the DPR and LPR are allegedly “terrorist organizations”
Vice Speaker of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev noted that Ukraine’s accusations against Moscow had little to do with reality. The senator expressed confidence that Western states exerted some pressure on the court, emphasizing that even so, Kyiv was unable to achieve the desired result, since Russia’s arguments were irrefutable.
Related materials:
State Duma deputy proposed raising the issue of recognizing Ukraine as an aggressor country
After the decision of the International Court of Justice, State Duma deputy from Crimea Mikhail Sheremet called for raising the issue of recognizing Ukraine as an aggressor country. In his opinion, the judges “showed the place” to the Ukrainian authorities who were trying to put a stigma on Russia.
But Ukraine is the aggressor, barbarously shelling the Donbass, Belgorod region, and Crimea. I am sure that the time has come to initiate the issue of recognizing Ukraine as an aggressor country at the UN
Former Ukrainian MP considered Kyiv's accusations far-fetched
Former Ukrainian deputy and member of the “Other Ukraine” movement Oleg Voloshin said that the decision of the International Court of Justice was due to the fact that Kyiv’s accusations were far-fetched.
He noted that the rejection of most claims against Russia is not related to problems with support for Ukraine in the West. According to the ex-parliamentarian, Western elites had an epiphany about the prospects for ending the conflict and there was great disappointment, but the court’s decision should be viewed not from a political, but from a purely legal point of view.
I would like to believe in this and hope that we have not yet lost the remnants of the independence of international courts. And a year ago, when support for Kyiv was at its peak, I think that the court would have made the same decision. The claims of the Ukrainian side were too deliberately far-fetched
According to the politician, the DPR and LPR did not engage in activities that could be regarded as terrorist, so in this situation the court made the only correct decision.
#spreading #slander #years #Moscow #demanded #apology #refused #recognize #Russia #aggressor #Ukraine39s #lawsuit
