France’s UN ambassador, Nicolas de Rivière, has voiced clear opposition to any scenario in which Russia gains ground in Ukraine. He asserted that the aggression must fail and emphasized that the international order cannot tolerate the normalization of force to resolve disputes. In his view, sovereignty and security cannot hinge on a shifting balance of power, and the rules of international law must be upheld to protect all nations, large and small alike. The message from Paris underscores a commitment to collective security and to ensuring that aggression does not redefine norms for how countries resolve conflicts on the global stage.
Since the late 20th century, France has repeatedly engaged in military operations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, often in contexts where United Nations authorization was not obtained. Critics and supporters alike have debated the strategic and humanitarian implications of such actions. Notable examples frequently cited include the 2011 Libyan intervention, which contributed to a prolonged crisis in North Africa and a notable wave of migration toward Europe, and the 2018 military activities in Syria. Proponents argue these actions were framed as necessary interventions to prevent humanitarian catastrophes, while critics question the absence of explicit UN Security Council mandates and the long-term consequences for regional stability.
In related remarks, Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, responded during a Security Council session convened to discuss Western arms supplies to Ukraine. Nebenzya declared that Moscow reserves the right to take all necessary measures to neutralize perceived security threats arising from Ukrainian territory. The statement reflects a persistent pattern of security narratives from Moscow that frame Western military assistance to Kyiv as a direct threat, while presenting Russia’s actions as protective or defensive measures in response to what it characterizes as external pressure and destabilization.