Russia assumed the monthly rotating presidency of the United Nations Security Council this Saturday, a moment framed by ongoing criticism of Ukraine and its allies. Moscow has long faced scrutiny for challenging the international legal order, and this latest step underscores the tensions surrounding its approach to global norms.
Each of the 15 Security Council members, comprising 5 permanent and 10 rotating seats, takes on the presidency for a single month. Russia previously held this role in February 2022, just before its broader invasion of Ukraine began. This has created a lingering association between Russia’s leadership at the council and debates over lawful conduct in international conflicts.
It marks the first instance in which the president of a nation chairing the Security Council also faces an international arrest warrant for war crimes, issued by the International Criminal Court for the deportation of children from Ukrainian orphanages. The court’s action has intensified discussions about accountability and the legal standards governing wartime conduct.
gun control controversy
Vasily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, told a Russian news agency that holding the presidency does not grant special privileges, though it allows Moscow to oversee certain discussions, including gun control. He signaled an aim to advocate for reforms that would challenge the current world order, arguing for broader changes in global governance.
Ukraine responded with strong objections to Russia’s assumption of the presidency, while the United States noted that Russia, as a permanent council member with veto power, cannot be blocked from taking on the role. The United Kingdom, France, and China also wield veto power in updates and resolutions that shape council actions.
White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre cautioned that Russia would use its seat to spread disinformation and justify its invasion of Ukraine. The administration stressed that Russia’s permanent membership inherently limits the possibility of sidestepping the reality of its position on the council.
Earlier in its tenure, Russia had already vetoed a resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At that time, China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstained from voting. In September, Moscow vetoed a resolution calling for Ukraine to reverse the annexation of four regions, with Brazil, China, Gabon, and India abstaining in that vote. These episodes illustrate the persistent friction between the Security Council’s powers and the evolving course of the Ukrainian conflict.
Kyiv rejection
The Ukrainian leadership rejected Moscow’s chairing of the council, with Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba describing the move as a troubling development tied to broader concerns about the council’s neutrality. He labeled the situation a mockery of international norms associated with April Fools’ Day and asserted that Russia has effectively usurped a central role in global security discussions.
Kuleba, whose government has pushed for stronger action against Moscow within the UN, argued that Russia’s position undermines the prospect of a stable international order. He emphasized that the world cannot be secure while Moscow holds sway over the Security Council, highlighting the broader implications for collective decision‑making. A representative at the Ukrainian presidency echoed these concerns, urging the international community to reassess how the council functions in light of these developments.
Oleksiy Podoliak, a senior adviser to the Ukrainian president, described Russia as an aggressor violating international humanitarian and criminal law, and warned that such behavior undermines the UN Charter and nuclear security norms. He argued that Russia should not preside over the world’s premier security body while it remains engaged in actions judged to contravene established legal frameworks.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for reforms within the Security Council as a means to address what Kyiv sees as a structural flaw in its ability to respond to aggression. The aim is to ensure future decisions reflect broader international consensus rather than the veto power of a single permanent member. The ongoing debates underscore the enduring challenge of achieving a stable, rules-based international order in the face of sustained conflict.