In a significant move regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the United States proposed a new resolution at the United Nations that notably omitted references to Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russia. This development has drawn attention and concern from various diplomatic circles.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio advocated for the approval of what he described as a “simple, historic” resolution, appealing to UN member states to support it. The proposal arrives amid rising tensions between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, particularly as Trump has downplayed the necessity of Zelensky’s involvement in ongoing peace negotiations.
The U.S. resolution appears to create tension with a rival draft that has been advocated by Kyiv and its European allies. This alternative text emphasizes the urgency of enhancing diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict within the year. It criticizes Russia for its invasion, reaffirms Kyiv’s territorial integrity, and calls for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Russian armed forces. The previous UN General Assembly votes on similar matters were met with significant global backing, garnering support from approximately 140 of the 193 member states.
In contrast, Washington’s latest draft resolution, which was shared with AFP, seeks a “swift end to the conflict” without making any reference to territorial integrity or criticizing Russia. This omission stood out to Moscow’s representative to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, who regarded the U.S. initiative as a “good move” but implied that it failed to tackle the fundamental causes of the ongoing crisis.
Rubio’s statement indicated a level of enthusiasm for the proposal, highlighting its aim to initiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict. However, the document, which is set to be reviewed during an upcoming General Assembly meeting commemorating three years since the outset of the war, departs from previous U.S. resolutions that were more critical of Russian aggression.
The draft opens with a acknowledgment of the “tragic loss of life” stemming from the conflict without directly attributing responsibility to Russia. Furthermore, it reiterates the UN’s overarching mission of maintaining “international peace and security,” yet strategically refrains from identifying Moscow as the originating source of the conflict.
Reactions from European diplomats reflect concern over the implications of the U.S. proposal. France’s ambassador to the UN, Nicolas De Riviere, opted to refrain from commenting initially on the resolution. However, Richard Gowan from the International Crisis Group expressed that the “stripped-down text” could be perceived as a betrayal of Kyiv, dismissive of the European Union’s position, and potentially undermining significant principles of international law.
Gowan highlighted that even among those favoring a quick resolution to the conflict, there is apprehension regarding the U.S. stance, as it appears to overlook fundamental elements that underpin the United Nations Charter.
