UN Security Council voting on resolution condemning Russia for Ukraine’s invasion

Yes:

- US
- UK
- France
- Norway
- Ireland
- Albania
- Gabon
- Mexico
- Brazil
- Ghana
- Kenya

No:

- Russia

Abstained:

- China
- UAE
- India

Result: resolution failed due to Russian veto.

Follow @InsiderPaper

And with my info just mentioned, the UN Security Council (Russia veto nullified 💥) has spoken.

(1.11.2 and more)

Here's why Russia hasn't taken Kiev yet. Civilians turned "unprivilaged belligerents" are not the target. If they wanted, Russia could take the lot of them out. They are avoiding civilian conflict, feasible measures to separate from military objectives.

Not taking the deep state bait.

It's not that Putin didn't "invade" Ukraine when Trump was president. It's that he couldn't "invade". (*Special operation, not an invasion. See corresponding Law of War explanation on "peaceful alternatives")

Trump would not have pulled all diplomats from "tension-filled" countries, particularly when trying to "avoid a war".

Trump would not have armed non-NATO Ukraine with billions of dollars of weapons and ammo.

Trump would have responded quicker to Russia's safety agreement and attempted negotiation instead of outright denial and stonewalling.

Trump would not be announcing inciteful propaganda of impending war and doom.

Trump needed the deep state to violate the UN charter via NATO and neutrality. He knew they would deliberately avoid diplomacy, which led to Russian "self-defense" on foreign territory to take out "non-State actors", which is permissible in the Law of War.

"armed attack" and "act of aggression" differences are so minuscule that they are basically overlooked

BRUNO SIMMA, THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: A COMMENTARY 673 (1994)  (“For the purpose of responding to an ‘armed attack’ [act of aggression], the state acting in self-defence [Russia] is allowed to trespass on foreign territory [Ukraine], even when the attack [NATO aggression] cannot be attributed to the state from whose territory it is proceeding [Ukraine]. It does not follow from the fact that the right of self-defence pursuant to Art. 51 is restricted to the case of an ‘armed attack’ [act of aggression] that defensive measures [Russia 'special operation'] may only affect the ‘attacker’ [aggressor]. Thus it is compatible with Art. 51 and the laws of neutrality when a warring state [Russia] fights hostile armed forces [Ukrainian Nazis, funded by the deep state, NATO weapons] undertaking an attack [aggression, NATO arming and funding Ukraine] from neutral territory [Ukraine] on the territory of the neutral state [Ukraine], provided that the state concerned [NATO States] is either unwilling [removal of diplomats, refusal to negotiate] or unable to curb the ongoing violation of its neutrality.” [Funding and arming Ukraine]).

Putin: "Western countries aren't only taking unfriendly economic actions against our country, but leaders of major Nato countries are making aggressive statements about our country. So I order to move Russia's deterrence forces to a special regime of duty."

"all peaceful alternatives have been exhausted"

Donetsk and Luhansk were key. When the ceasefire broke due to Ukrainian shelling, Putin declared their independence and was able to act. I believe this is when he announced the "exhaustion" with a deadlock. He knew who was REALLY being the aggressor and was able to claim self-defense.

https://tass.com/world/1407461

It's "Ukraine", not "The Ukraine".

Do you call our neighbors "The Mexico" and "The Canada"?

11.4.2 applies here

Occupying Power [NATO, Ukraine] are not authorized by the fact of belligerent occupation [Russia] to annex occupied territory or to create a new State [join NATO].

This would explain Russia "taking over" certain areas, putting up flags. If they're "occupying", NATO (possibly EU, maybe UN) are restricted.