Text
About a year ago, Vladimir Putin announced the start of the war in Ukraine by framing it as a preliminary action rather than a full invasion. The moment marked a notable shift in the international order, especially as the United Nations Security Council prepared to address a crisis that, at first, seemed uncertain in scope. Since then, the UN has faced clear limitations in responding to a conflict launched by a veto-wielding member of the Council, an institution meant to uphold peace and security. As the anniversary approaches, the situation remains largely unchanged in practice.
This week, the General Assembly is holding an emergency session with a vote expected over the next day or two. The non-binding resolution calls for an end to hostilities and Russia’s withdrawal from Ukrainian territory. It would be the fourth time the Assembly has addressed the war, a gathering that has underscored broad international concern. One might expect a spectrum of positions, with some countries offering support, others opposing, and many abstaining, reflecting lingering divisions among members.
On March 2 of last year, 141 countries condemned the invasion and urged the withdrawal of troops. Weeks later, 140 nations pressed for humanitarian access and civilian protection. In a separate measure in April, support for Ukraine’s removal from the UN Human Rights Council fell to 93, after which Moscow announced its departure. On October 12, 143 nations condemned what was described as an illegal annexation attempt in the occupied territories.
In the final vote, Putin’s government managed to persuade only four countries to oppose the resolution: Belarus, North Korea, Nicaragua, and Syria. A larger bloc—53 members, including China and many African states, along with representatives of what is often called the Global South—abstained.
Text
The resolution was prepared by Ukraine in consultation with allies and had secured minimal sponsorship up to this week, totaling 68 countries. Kyiv maintained its initial aim of including a 10-point plan proposed by President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in November, seeking broad support. The plan called for Russia to withdraw all forces immediately, completely, and unconditionally from internationally recognized borders, a framework that also encompassed territories Moscow has claimed to annex. The text reaffirms the UN’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity.
The language also references a “ceasefire,” a term chosen to lend the statement a sense of durability and to set the stage for negotiations. It emphasizes that an agreement should be reached as soon as possible and that any peace should be comprehensive, just, and lasting, in line with the principles of the UN Charter. Member states and international organizations are urged to intensify their efforts to achieve this outcome.
Despite these calls for peace and dialogue, the situation on the ground has not moved the Kremlin toward meaningful change. In a letter sent by Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzia argued against the text, claiming it would be destabilizing and anti-Russian and criticizing it for not explicitly mentioning dialogue or negotiations. The message suggested that even a halt to hostilities would not create meaningful incentives for negotiation.
Human consequences
The resolution highlights the grave human toll of aggression against Ukraine, drawing attention to ongoing attacks on infrastructure and the severe impact on civilians. It underscores the importance of full adherence to international humanitarian law and calls for global solidarity to address the wider consequences of war on food security, energy, finance, the environment, and nuclear safety.
Within the year of the conflict, the UN has been pivotal in humanitarian relief and diplomacy. It has tracked needs for aid across the country—some 18 million Ukrainians require assistance, with around 6.5 million internally displaced and approximately eight million refugees seeking safety outside Ukraine. The UN has also played a role in mitigating collateral damage from supply disruptions of grains and fertilizers, continuing to support food aid to affected populations worldwide.
Speeches and China
The war endures, and the Security Council, with its veto-power structure, remains unable to act decisively when Russia, China, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom can block actions. On the anniversary date, a ministerial meeting is expected to take place, though it is unlikely to yield concrete outcomes beyond opening remarks from the Secretary-General. A position document prepared by China, announced by Beijing’s envoy, is anticipated in the coming days. It will refrain from proposing a peace plan and instead outline China’s customary stance, emphasizing sovereignty and territorial integrity while urging all nations to consider security concerns and cooperate for peace. The document is expected to advocate for dialogue, peaceful settlement, and adherence to international norms, reflecting China’s emphasis on constructive engagement rather than unilateral action.
In this context, the UN’s role as a mediator is scrutinized, with calls for renewed diplomacy and a durable, just peace echoed by many, even as practical steps toward that goal remain elusive in the face of entrenched geopolitical divides.