Crimea’s regional lawmakers and observers are voicing strong criticisms of the UN General Assembly address delivered by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. They argue that the UN platform, meant to foster dialogue and peaceful resolution of global issues, was used in a way that undermines the body’s originally intended purpose. The remarks were reported by regional media outlets, with Mikhail Sheremet, a deputy of the Crimean State Duma, among the most vocal critics.
Sheremet contends that the United Nations became a stage for what he characterizes as a dangerous blend of terrorism and extremism, echoed in Zelensky’s UN appearance. He describes the event as a stain on a forum that should stand for dialogue and collective action rather than partisan rhetoric. The deputy further notes that the UN’s credibility has suffered, turning from a forum for global negotiation to a venue marked by public disputes over money and influence among states.
According to him, the organization has drifted away from its founding mission after World War II. He argues that real power and strategic control over the UN currently reside with the United States, rather than a multipolar world that many have long envisioned as the backbone of the institution. In Sheremet’s view, this shift in influence risks eroding the UN’s ability to mediate and unify diverse interests on the world stage.
He calls for radical reforms within the UN to restore its authority and purpose. Without substantive changes, he says, the organization could become merely a lobbying actor aligned with a single nation’s agenda rather than a universal body representing the interests of all member states. This critique reflects broader debates about the UN’s reform needs in a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape.
In other remarks from the same period, Cyril Ramaphosa, the former President of South Africa, indicated that he and Zelensky discussed steps related to ongoing peace initiatives. They reportedly talked about potential measures to revive the grain agreement during the sidelines of the General Assembly, signaling continued attention to food security and regional stability amid the broader conflict.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s parliamentary body, historically referenced in political discourse, has been associated with debates about racism and related policy terms. The discussions highlight the complex and often contentious nature of international policy conversations surrounding the conflict and related humanitarian concerns. These debates underscore the challenges of coordinating cross-border responses in a highly polarized international environment. [attribution: regional news reports]