Russian Navy Joins the Bombardment of Mariupol
By: The Maritime Executive
Russian forces are preparing to capture Mariupol the same way Soviet forces captured Berlin in 1945. The capture of Mariupol appears to be the determining factor for Russia's next move. Will Putin begin talking about mediation? Or will Russia strike harder at Kyiv?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Russian warships have joined in the bombardment of the Ukrainian port city of Mariupol, adding naval firepower to a weekslong campaign of indiscriminate shelling and bombing.
The Azov Brigade, a far-right Ukrainian unit based in Mariupol, reported Sunday that four Russian naval vessels had arrived off the coast and were attacking the city. These assets add to the artillery of Russia's 8th Combined Arms Army, which has been shelling Mariupol since the beginning of the invasion on February 24.
Targeting of civilian infrastructure in Mariupol will likely figure in war crime investigations, which are currently getting under way at the International Criminal Court. "The law is clear on this, it is a crime to intentionally target civilians, it is a crime to intentionally target civilian objects," ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan said in a recent interview.
Russia's navy has also contributed to the war effort by blockading the Ukrainian coastline, preventing exports of wheat and trapping about 100 merchant vessels in Ukrainian waters. The blockade is also preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid, according to the UK Ministry of Defence.
"The blockade of the Ukrainian coast is likely to exacerbate the humanitarian situation in Ukraine, preventing vital supplies reaching the Ukrainian population," the ministry said in an assessment on Sunday.
Russian forces close in
Though the Ukrainian Army has fought Russian forces to a standstill on all fronts, defying all expectations, Mariupol is encircled and may fall to the invading force within weeks.
Russian units have been making progress towards the city center, and according to Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk, Russia has given Mariupol until 0500 hours on Monday to surrender. If its defenders lay down arms, the Russian Ministry of Defense wrote in an eight-page letter, Russia pledges to allow the civilian populace to leave.
The two sides have negotiated evacuation and relief corridors for Mariupol before. However, Russian forces near Mariupol have allegedly shelled the corridors during designated civilian transit times, raising questions about whether the ministry's commitments are legitimate.
"There can be no question of surrendering. We have already informed the Russian side about this," said Vereshchuk. "Instead of spending time on eight pages of letters, just open the [evacuation] corridor."
As they push further into the city, Russian forces have also allegedly begun to relocate civilians from Mariupol into Russia, an activity that aligns with past Russian practice and with U.S. intelligence predictions about the fate of post-occupation Ukraine. "What the occupiers are doing today is familiar to the older generation, who saw the horrific events of World War II, when the Nazis forcibly captured people," said Mariupol's mayor, Vadym Boychenko, speaking to the New York Times.
Tags
Who is online
445 visitors
Putin, Russia, and the Donetsk separatists want Mariupol. The capture of Mariupol appears to be the key for determining Russia's next move.
Mariupol? You mean Craterville. Mariupol is KAPUT!
So was Berlin in 1945. The Germans mounted a fierce resistance to defend Berlin. That didn't stop the Soviets.
Who will lead the peacekeeping mission in Ukraine when the fighting ends? The United States and Europe are belligerents; using economics as a weapon of war is a belligerent act. Supplying arms is a belligerent act.
After Putin's War in Ukraine Ukraine will keep its own peace, pick up the pieces and again be a free independent democracy. If Putin survives he will be humiliated and weak. Or, he will die!
Putin will rest in pieces. Ukrainians in peace...
Which completely ignores the question of which country will lead the peacekeeping mission in Ukraine after the fighting ends. Russia isn't being driven out of Ukraine. Killing Putin won't end the separatist war in Ukraine. The Donetsk separatists aren't going to give up Mariupol.
There's going to be need for a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine after the fighting ends. Who's going to lead the peacekeeping mission?
“The United States and Europe are belligerents…”
Good gawd, man…what alternative do you propose for nations to have any chance to co-exist in this ever shrinking global environment?
Thanks be for such belligerency, warts and all, lest we be somehow content in reverting back to the Dark Ages.
Won't needs peacekeepers sans the Russians?
That's a nice piece of jingoism but doesn't address reality. Russia is not being defeated and driven out of Ukraine. So what are the realistic alternatives?
Decades of insurgent warfare like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria? Dissolution and partitioning of Ukraine like India/Pakistan, Korea and Yugoslavia? Economic isolation like Cuba, Iran and North Korea? World War III?
You think the separatists in eastern Ukraine are just going to surrender? You think Russia leaving Ukraine will end the fighting?
Russia is not being driven from Ukraine, yet...
Yet, they will be and it will not take very long!
Yes, when the separatists are utterly defeated.
“Decades of insurgent warfare like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria? Dissolution and partitioning of Ukraine like India/Pakistan, Korea and Yugoslavia? Economic isolation like Cuba, Iran and North Korea? World War III?”
Decades turn into generations which lead to resignation, acceptance and ultimately only humanitarian abuse.
It is passed time we put the abusers on the spot and realize we are all just an autocrat and their sympathizers away from being in a similar plight.
Sounds all too familiar and shockingly close to home.
Why do you continue to ask questions here when no one is in the position to answer them? It certainly does not make you seem smarter. That said, let's play your game. What do you think Zelinsky should do? Bend the knee and offer the neck? And the Ukrainians, what should they do? Box their dreams and take advanced classes in Russian? And what of the Poles, the Hungarians, the Latvians, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, are they to live in constant trepidation of the Bear coming to eat their porridge? And the Russians themselves, are they to be doomed to the wiles of Stalin II?
Well China can lead the peacekeepers.
They are friends with both sides and neutral..so they keep saying...so put the words into practice...
China said it understood Russia's invasion and then starts sending humanitarian aid to Ukraine with the head lines..on the South China Post news..,"We don't forget our Ukrainian friends"..which disappeared the next day I might add..
So yep that should work...
The Aussies are out now that they've banned aluminium exports to the Russian Whatever Committee.
Morning Hallux..
Hmm there is something going on there actually in the aluminium industry.. there is a smelter here where I live and use to work at.
For approximately 15 years they had cut the number of pots producing aluminium..there were over 100 pots out of production which equates to thousands of tonnes.
Now in the last few months the Chinese that own 10% (I think it is) of the smelter want them fired up again..the smelter is a joint venture US, Japan and our favourites the Chinese..
So they are and the push is on... there is now meant to be a shortage of aluminium around the world and the price has shot through the roof...
Seems very odd after all these years they want all the pots brought back on line by October... last I heard it was 50% completed...
But I smell a big fat rat for some reason...
I would concede that supplying weapons is at least arguably belligerent since there is ongoing fighting. But economics? Sanctioning nations are mainly refusing to do - or facilitate - business with Russia. That may piss Russia off, but no one is obligated to do business with Russia.
Israel? Turkey? India? China?
I'm not sure of this but I wonder if one has to differentiate between individual voluntary curtailment and being penalized by the government if one refuses to curtail. I don't know how America is enforcing its sanctions, if at all, but I know it has also not long ago BANNED American corporations from doing business with a foreign government or corporations, and surely there are consequences in those circumstances.
Is this sarcasm ?
"I disagree with that, Russia attacked Ukraine. Russia is the only Belligerent."
For sure Russia is a belligerent, and Ukraine could be defined as such as well, but when it comes to the question of supplying one of the belligerents with arms, and in considering whether doing so labels one as a belligerent rather than a neutral, you would be correct in excluding the USA and others providing armaments to Ukraine as being belligerents - this article is quite interesting in explaining why the USA would NOT be considered a belligerent (LINK) ->
Go buy a calculator.
All evidence to the contrary.
Russia, despite their anachronistic military tactics still has a very large numbers and weapons advantage. Which they are now using to destroy cities before even thinking about entering them. It is a lot harder to hide behind rubble than actual buildings. Russia has developed this tactic over generations. Be thankful they haven't adopted US/NATO tactics. Things Ukraine would be much uglier now; and the only Russia troops that would be in Ukraine would be a few "wearing sneakers" as Obama put it.
But hey, keep up the false hope. It will just make the aftermath that much harder to recover from.
Despite all of Zelenskyy's bravado and tough talk of going it alone; he still thinks that if he holds out long enough and fights hard enough- that the US/NATO will come to the rescue at the last second. Biden and NATO need to be flat out straight with him. Ukraine is on it's own; it is up to Ukraine how long to fight- and when the time comes to negotiate peace with Russia. Ukraine can kiss Donbass and Crimea goodbye. They were gone before the war started; and their situation is a forgone conclusion now.
If Russia would not accept US/NATO presence in Ukraine before; what might mental midget (Brandon) thinks Russia will accept it after this war ends? The US/NATO has not been neutral. They have supplied Ukraine with advanced weapons and training. Their sanctions have crippled the Russian economy; and possibly the world economy. Putin, or whatever Russian leader follows him, would be an idiot not to keep the threat of nuclear war front and center to make sure the US/NATO stay out of Ukraine.
Yes, Russia is despicable and must be beat.
Yes, because the Ukrainians had such luck defeating the separatists before the Russians invaded.
This started in 2014. It has been going on for over 8 years. If Ukraine could have defeated them they would have done it long ago.
Russia has nuclear weapons remember? I really hope Brandon's handlers don't let him forget that.
There is no "beating" Russia. Just like there is no "beating" any nuclear power. The world needs to stop watching so many damn movies; and playing video games. They are warping minds.
The Germans were outnumbered in Berlin by the Red Army in 1945 by at least a ratio of 10 to 1, so that's not a fair comparison. In Berlin, only the Wehrmacht, Waffen SS, and Volksturm units, and there were not that many of them and were hodge poge remnants of former units, were doing the fighting while the rest of the general public were seeking shelter in basements and bunkers from the shelling. Not the case in Ukraine today who will bleed the Russians for every foot of ground. They are doing it already as much of the Ukrainian public has taken up arms against the invading Russians. Seems like you have a great hatred of Ukraine and don't like the US very much either. Wonder where that comes from?
The Wehrmacht and Waffen SS were forcing 13 year old children to fight. The civilian population in Berlin were being forced to fight. So, don't cite military statistics because that's not the facts on the ground.
Have you read the Minsk Agreement? Putin's justification for invading Ukraine are the same points and conditions that everyone agreed to in 2014. The Obama administration was pushing for an armed conflict with Russia, using Ukraine as a proxy, in 2015. Biden is doing now what Obama wanted to do in 2015. This is Obama's war. This is what Obama wanted. Biden is following Obama's plan.
The Minsk Agreement protected Ukraine's border integrity, required changing the Ukrainian constitution to allow for autonomy and free elections in contested areas, prohibited retaliation against the people of DPR and LPR, called for an immediate ceasefire and demilitarization of the contested areas, and required ejecting all mercenaries (on both sides) from Ukraine. The OSCE monitoring mission did not find evidence of the Russian military operating inside Ukraine up to 2020 (the last report I found). Russia has been providing arms to the DPR and LPR separatists. And the United States has been providing arms to Ukraine since 2019. Ukrainian President Poroshenko signed the Minsk Agreement along with Vladimir Putin and the DPR/LPR representatives (whose names I don't recall).
Both sides have been using anti-personnel weapons (landmines) since 2014. Civilians on both sides of the contested line are being killed by landmines and unexploded ordinance. Both sides have been firing on civilians since 2014. Both sides have broken every ceasefire that has been agreed to since 2014. The war in Donbas has been as nasty as we've seen with the Russian invasion. The Zelensky government has been committing the same war crimes it accused Russia of doing. Volodymyr Zelensky is just as much a war criminal as is Vladimir Putin. Zelensky has been using the Ukrainian military to do the same things during the war in Donbas. Zelensky ain't a good guy.
IMO China is the only country that could support a peacekeeping mission by itself. But all those countries could participate in a United Nations peacekeeping mission. That's supposed to be the purpose of the United Nations.
A United Nations peacekeeping mission in Ukraine raises the same questions that came up during the Bosnia/Herzegovina peacekeeping mission. What's the point of NATO? The United States is not going to welcome a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Ukraine although it's doubtful that the United States would oppose such a peacekeeping mission.
AGREE TO DISAGREE
Russia was a belligerent in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. The United States has been supplying arms to the Ukrainian government since 2019. Those US supplied arms have been used against Ukrainians in the contested areas of eastern Ukraine. The Zelensky government has been committing war crimes in eastern Ukraine, based Zelensky's criteria, using US supplied arms. US arms have been used to commit war crimes based on Zelenksy's own description of what constitutes a war crime.
Zelensky is using a propaganda ploy that claims pro-Russian Ukrainians are not Ukrainian. Anyone opposing Zelensky's government is a Russian. The pro-Russian Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine are Russian terrorists, they are not Ukrainians. And that justifies attacking civilian targets in eastern Ukraine.
The Russian military is following the same tactics the Ukrainian government has employed in eastern Ukraine for the past eight years; encirclement, destruction of civilian infrastructure and targets, forcing refugees to flee, and demanding surrender. The Russian invasion is fighting on the same terms as the Ukrainian government. The brass heads in the United States military have been lying to everyone. Russia is doing to Ukraine what the Ukrainian government has done to the Donbas region.
The negotiations in Minsk, Belarus, in 2014 laid out a framework that allowed the Ukrainian government to maintain and control the integrity of Ukrainian borders (including Crimea), allowed pro-Russian Ukrainians in contested regions autonomy and self government, and protected Russian interests in the Black Sea (and Crimea). The Ukrainian government hasn't followed through on what it agreed to. The pro-Russian Ukrainians have continue to fight because the Ukrainian government hasn't done what if promised to do. And Russia is still stuck with a threat to its interests in the Black Sea (and Crimea).
The bloody fingerprints of the United States are all over what is happening in Ukraine today. Neutral countries do not provide weapons of war to one side. Non-belligerent countries do not meddle and interfere with negotiated agreements of which they are not a party. And a non-belligerent country does not attempt to undermine negotiated agreements of which they are not a party.
Ukraine shares a border with Russia and not with the United States. Obama stuck his nose in where it didn't belong.
I believe China provides more manpower to the UN Peacekeeping force than any other nation.
I do not know. IMO that wouldn't be surprising. China does act aggressively to protect its interests. But China also contributes to UN efforts in a cooperative manner. Chinese politics in international affairs often seems bipolar.
I'm surprised you haven't been slapped down by other NT members like they've done to me for supporting China's neutrality, for actually telling another side to the "preferred" story (i.e. the one that fits their agenda). As I've said many times on this site, it's a rare thing for an NT member to take into consideration the "other" side of the story that they latch onto, probably because then their slapping down others might not be so "righteous".
Actually I'm WAY wrong. China is way down the list - only 9th on one list, 12th on another. Most are African and other Asian nations. I was fooled by this article (LINK) -.
But then on this UN Peacekeeping Force ranking for 2022 China stands 10th, while Canada stands 70th and the USA is 81st. (LINK) ->
Isn't that a kind of totally opposite view that the ICC has when it comes to Hamas firing missiles into residential areas of Israel and sending incendiary balloons and kites to destroy Israeli crop farms, orchards and forests, and Israel retaliates but first sends messages, phone calls and drops leaflets to warn civilians to abandon intended targets.
When hit Israel retaliates by bombing Palestinian civilians. Ukraine is not bombing Russian cities...
When the Palestinian missile launchers are being kept in civilian apartment buildings, I don’t know what Israel is supposed to do.
You really surprise me, and I'm sure quite a few others here, jbb .
The Israeli occupation of Palestinian is not comparable with Putin invading the Ukraine. Ukrainian civilians are suffering the full brunt of Russian atrocities not other way around...
The Israeli occupation of Palestine? Really?
I thought the point we were discussing was about the ICC attitude about bombing civilians.
Some people are not just out in left field, they're in the next county over! You are 100% correct.
Thank you Ed.
No problemo.
What on earth are you talking about?
Gaza?
Egypt occupied Gaza-- thereby preventing the formation of a Palestinian state there. Then Israel defeated the Egyptians, and occupied Gaza for a short time. But then the israelis left (2005)-- now there's not a single Jew in the entire place!
(Gaza now has self rule-- its run by the Arab terrorist group Hamas).
Exodus From Gaza
The forcible evacuation of August 2005
J EWS have lived on and off in Gaza for millennia, long before Islam or Christianity were founded, and for many centuries before the concept of a Palestinian nation was born. In the past, others have driven Jews out of this strip of land that hugs the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.
But in August 2005, in a period of just seven days, 21 Jewish communities were forcibly removed by their own government, as Israel became the first country in modern history to relinquish land acquired in a defensive war to an enemy that had not yet made peace with it.
A Jewish woman weeps as Israeli soldiers surround the settlement of Neve Dekalim, in southern Gaza, on August 18, 2005, and prepare to move in. Even those Israelis who strongly backed the plan were greatly saddened to see Jews dragged from their homes.
Since 2005, Gaza is no longer occupied-- except by Arabs living under the harsh rule of the brutal terror group Hamas. (Get smarter HERE)
However, there is an area occupied by Israel-- the area often referred to as "The West Bank". However when the Israeli occupation began after Israel liberated it, it had not been any "Palestine".
Why?
Because there has been any independent country of "Palestine", not any racial, religious, or ethnic group of "Palestinians". That's Arab propaganda.
So what was "Palestine"? Who were called "Palestinians"?
Well, "Palestine was a roughly defined area-- like "new England"....or "The Mid-West"> (People living in New England are called "New Englanders:...but other then the area they live in, they have no common identity).
However, there is an area currently occupied by Israel-- the area often referred to as "The West Bank". However when the Israeli occupation began after Israel liberated it, it had not been any "Palestine".
The West Bank was captured by Israel in the 1967 War. But it wasn't any "Palestine". Rather, it was part of Jordan (Jordan captured it when the British rulers left, occupied it, and annexed it).
So yes-- the Israelis are occupying land-- but it was part of Jordan, not any "Palestine". (The main part of Jordan remains as an independent country-- The East Bank)of the Jordan River.>
And who was the most ICONIC "Palestinian"? ARAFAT (who was an EGYPTIAN) LOL
It's actually the Arabs who are "occupying" The West Bank. IMO it is Israeli sovereign territory. What was conquered in the 1967 war by the Israelis (and not returned, as the Sinai Peninsula was to Egypt) such as the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Jerusalem are sovereign Israeli territory in accordance with the laws of war that have ALWAYS been honoured, that if lands are captured in a DEFENSIVE war (Jordan and Syria invaded Israel first), EXCEPT if Israel should be the winner of such a war - okay for all other nations, but not for Israel. Because it was questionable that closing the straits and access to the oceans on the part of Egypt was not considered by the rest of the world to be a declaration of war (as it has been for every nation in history EXCEPT for Israel) the preemptive strike against the Egyptian air force was deemed the start of a war against a nation that had placed its troops at the border with Israel threatening its intended invasion, Israel gave back the Sinai Peninsula right up to the Suez Canal that it had conquered to 'Egypt and entered a peace deal with Egypt. Why has Israel been treated differently than all other nations throughout history? Could it be "good old-fashioned antisemitism"? (an expression quoted from Schindler's List).
We live in a crazy world where the UN condemns Israel but not Hamas, and makes Russia head of the Security Council.
When I toured the UN in NYC in the early 1950s I thought it was the answer, the guardian of peace for all mankind - now I consider it almost a completely useless waste of valuable real estate. "Almost" useless, because I still think there are useful aspects of it, like UNICEF and the UN Peacekeeping Force.
Perhaps that is what is needed.
Revoke the membership of the Russia that superseded the USSR in the 1990s
without a vote by the UN.
Let Russia join the Vatican and Palestine as pariahs.
Kick them out, expel them from the UN building.
Maybe something will actually pass in the Security Council... .
/s
So in other words violate the UN charter? Wonderful idea, that is sure to make the UN be seen as a legitimate ruling body. What are they going to do if China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria or any other country decides that is loyal to Russia decides to drop out? Take a look at the League of Nations for reference; the US refused to join that- and it never had legitimacy. It folded.
Yes, the US/NATO will have carte blanche; no checks on their power. Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and whatever other humanitarian or politically destabilizing train wreck they can come up with will automatically get the rubber stamp. Just what the whole world needs./S
Not revoke, amend. The times have changed.
The UN is now rendered toothless by Russia...
To restore its mission the UN needs changes.
I believe Gen. Roméo Dallaire would disagree with you.
I'm aware of what he's said and written and it was a failure of what Lester B. Pearson of Canada hoped would be a useful force, but surely it has done some good elsewhere, if not in Rwanda. Any complaints about UNICEF?
The UN (Useless Nations) outlived any usefulness militarily they might once have had. They are nor the proverbial politically oriented paper tiger only.
So, you do support amending the UN Charter?
Wholeheartedly.
Not . . . Necessarily? I can’t say I agree with it, but there is an argument being made by some that Russia and The People’s Republic of China are not signatories of the UN charter. The original signers were the USSR and The Government of the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan). Therefore, they should not be permanent members of the Security Council or hold the power of a veto.
I don’t think the rest of the UN is going to buy that argument, however. I believe the 1991 Russian Federation government and the People’s Republic have both assumed those positions in the UN, accepting responsibility as members, and agreeing to the charter, all with the approval of the UN.
Then we agreed, yet you carried on. Why?
There was never a vote to allow Russia to re-enter the UN when the USSR was dissolved in 1991
and ceased to exist. Neither Gorbachev or Yeltsin signed anything about readmission.
The new Russian Federation Federal Assembly never voted or debated UN membership.
The UN also has no technical or legal device for succession.
The Veto Power makes the whole thing a joke and Russia isn't entitled to it.
No one should have a veto.
I’m ok with a veto, but the real problem is there is no way to override it.
I was simply stating a personal opinion. I did not see it as "carrying on".
Including the US and NATO countries? Be very careful what you wish for; you might not like the results. Think all of our military misadventures are popular across the globe? Same with all of our NATO allies?
As for the rest; drop Russia and China and the Security Council and UN become a complete waste of time and money. Just like the League of Nations that the US refused to join.
But on a good note it will force Russia, China, and all of their allies that much closer together.
Didn't we do all of this once before? Believe it was called WWI and WWII. Didn't we learn anything from it? At least this time around the main combatants will all have nuclear weapons. Doubt we will be allowed to make the same mistake a for a fourth time.
[delete]
Russia was already a member of the United Nations during the soviet era. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was a founding member of the United Nations. The Republics of the USSR were independent members of the United Nations in the same manner as all the countries of the European Union are independent members of the United Nations.
The dissolution of the USSR did not change Russia's independent membership in the United Nations.
Not me that's being disagreeable. Things are fine on my end.
That is incorrect. The USSR was not a member of the United Nations. The USSR was a bloc of countries and each country in the bloc were independent members of the United Nations. The USSR was not a country with national sovereignty.
The dissolution of the USSR did not change the independent membership of each country in the United Nations. Ukraine has been a member of the United Nations from the beginning. The same is true of Russia and China.
That's no different than the European Union. The EU is a bloc of countries and not a country itself. The EU is not a member of the United Nations; all the EU countries are independent members of the United Nations.
Thanks for the Russian Civics Lesson, Nerm...
BS. Russia disappeared in 1922. Ceased to exist.
The Soviet Union was a sovereign state and founding member of the UN in 1945 with it's own Constitution.
The dissolution created 15 sovereign states
Your point?
International law experts have questioned this since 1992, especially Yehuda C Blum.
Your are simply wrong. There's no other way to state it.
The argument has been that Russia should lose its permanent membership on the UN Security Council. But that would risk the United States losing its permanent membership on the UN Security Council. China is also a permanent member of the Security Council so revoking Russia's permanent membership would also risk China's permanent membership. China has a veto, too.
You're welcome.
The People's Republic of China is the lawful member of the UN even though The Republic of China was the original signatory to the Charter.
LINK ->
Reading on, the same applied to Hong Kong and Macau.
Show us the signatures from 1945 and the country who signed for Russia.
You cannot.
I believe Andrei Gromyko signed it for the USSR which according to the UN
is a "former full member" from 1945 to 1991...
Not a permanent member formerly known as....
Damn those legal semantics. ( and 6,000 nukes )
Well, as I've been saying and explaining many times already, the USA has been doing a great job of PUSHING China into improving its relationship and tightening is ties with Russia, instead of even TRYING to develop a better relationship with China that would be more beneficial for the people of both nations, but what the hell, America doesn't need a win-win relationship, right?
And only five nations on the Security Council have veto power. And some have complained that the entire continents of South America and Africa have no representation.
Every nation in the General Assembly has one vote-- from the tiniest Pacific island to the worl's most populated countries. But its all for show-- the GA has no power.