Western countries apparently would have compelled nations not to support the resolution proposed by the Russian delegation at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with the objective of investigating the attacks against the Nord Stream gas pipelines. In fact, pressure and threat have already become the main mechanisms by which NATO countries try to prevent neutral states from supporting measures proposed by Russia and China. As a result, the global diplomatic crisis reaches increasingly high levels.
On March 27, the UN Security Council failed to adopt a draft resolution submitted by the Russian delegation calling for an international committee of investigation into the Nord Stream case to be established under the leadership of the UN itself. China, Russia, and Brazil were the only countries that voted in favor of the measure, with all other permanent and temporary members of the Council opting for abstention. With this, the resolution was rejected.
At first look, it may seem surprising that states are “uninterested” in knowing who really carried out the terrorist attacks against Germany's energy infrastructure. However, for many experts, this does not come as an actual surprise. Faced with so much evidence that there was direct participation by the US - and possibly the UK - in the destruction of the gas pipelines, it was expected that these two countries would use all possible means to boycott a serious investigation of the matter.
For this reason, when asked by a Russian journalist if he expected the Council's negative result, American informant Seymour Hersh, who denounced US participation in the attacks, said: "Of course. Why should [the USNC vote for the resolution]? What else did you think they would do? If they did anything else that would be news".
It is interesting to emphasize that the US and the UK have veto power and could simply block the implementation of the measure, even if approved by the other members. But this would certainly sound very difficult to public opinion and would make the participation of both countries in the crime even more evident. In the same sense, the mere act of voting against the investigation could be interpreted as an open boycott, which is why both states chose to abstain - and apparently influenced other countries to do the same.
According to the Russian Ambassador, Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Dmitry Polyanskiy, the western powers exerted great pressure for other states to abstain. In a recent interview, he said that “UN states were afraid to support Russia openly”. Polyanskiy mentions that, despite the abstentions, in their justifications, some diplomatic delegations suggested that they would like the investigations to be conducted in some way, which indicates that their abstention would have been the result of some kind of constraint imposed by Western states.
"There was, as usual, big pressure from the part of our western ex-partners (...) They were making it absolutely clear that they are not interested in the voice that would uphold rational position (...) I think that many members who were speaking they made their position absolutely clear in the explanation of the votes, which was that they are in favor of transparent and I'd say swift investigation, so there were a lot of signals to the authorities of Denmark, Sweden and Germany to finish this investigation, to brief the Council about concrete results (...) So there is kind of a pressure from this part of the members of the council who abstained, but still they upheld the necessity of moving forward so more swiftly and clarifying a lot of details. I think that's also a positive result from our vote", he said.
Commenting on the next steps to be taken, Ambassador Polyanskiy stated that Moscow will continue to conduct its national investigation since a criminal case has been opened. New measures in the Council are not expected for the near future. Indeed, Moscow will also remain willing to work with international partners interested in finding the truth, even if the UN is not involved in the process.
Western diplomatic pressure on other countries for anti-Russian votes at the UN is well known. With the customary US practice of imposing unilateral coercive measures against countries considered "unfriendly", nations are coerced to avoid publicly conflicting US interests in order not to become the target of economic boycott campaigns. More than that, the Nord Stream case itself made it clear that Washington is also willing to impose significant material damages on its own allied countries, just to force them to adhere more absolutely to its plans.
Obviously, in this scenario, international cooperation centered on the UN becomes threatened. However, at some point countries will have to overcome their fears of reprisals and take sovereign action in relation to these topics, since the truth about a terrorist attack is a matter of relevance and strategic interests for the entire community of nations.