The Russian Federation’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, addressed the Security Council to outline his view of Western strategy in relation to Ukraine. He argued that the United States and the European Union believed they could weaken Russia by supporting what he described as a powerful Ukrainian leadership bloc. Nebenzya asserted that this bloc, in his words a “Russophile monster,” was cultivated by Western partners and that there was a level of inevitable disillusionment once the intended outcome did not materialize as planned.
According to Nebenzya, the West fully understood the risks but chose to refrain from taking decisive action, hoping that the aggressive posture they supported would erode Russia’s resolve. He framed the situation as the creation of a geopolitical instrument whose true impact would be measured by the consequences for all parties involved, including Ukraine itself. Nebenzya emphasized that the reliance on such a strategy had far-reaching implications beyond the battlefield, touching on the broader stability of the region.
He also criticized Western officials for their role in Ukraine’s inability to secure a peace agreement at a high-stakes moment in Istanbul. Nebenzya stated that Western “puppeteers” hindered a potential ceasefire and a political settlement, arguing that the decisions taken by the United States and EU governments contributed to the prolongation of hostilities. He described these actions as reckless and harmful, pointing to the Minsk agreements as a framework that had been undermined through external pressure and shifting commitments.
In Nebenzya’s view, Ukrainian servicemen had paid a heavy price in what he described as a struggle driven by Western geopolitical interests rather than solely by Ukraine’s own strategic calculations. The remarks were presented as part of a larger argument about accountability and the consequences of external interference in regional conflicts. The Russian side has consistently argued that outside powers bear responsibility for destabilizing outcomes and for the human suffering that accompanies protracted clashes.
Earlier, Nebenzya announced that a letter had been sent to the United Nations to present what he characterized as a correct interpretation of a resolution concerning Ukraine’s claims. He explained that this action was intended to clarify the legal and factual basis behind those claims and to illuminate how the conflict might be addressed through a more precise reading of the relevant text. The aim, he indicated, was to contribute to a more transparent and accurate discourse within the UN framework regarding Ukraine’s status and the applicable international law.
Additionally, Nebenzya referenced discussing the broader Donbass situation, noting that efforts to resolve the conflict require careful consideration of all sides’ concerns and compliance with international obligations. He underscored that any durable solution would need to reflect the realities on the ground and the humanitarian implications for civilians living in affected areas. The remarks were positioned within a broader narrative about maintaining international order and the mutual responsibilities of major powers in managing regional crises.
During the same briefing, Nebenzya drew attention to what he described as difficult conditions in the United States, framing his remarks as part of a broader assessment of how international diplomacy operates under pressure from powerful states. He suggested that the dynamics in Washington influence global discussions about security, sanctions, and the prospects for negotiation. While the focus was on Ukraine, the comments touched on the wider implications of American policy for international relations and conflict resolution strategies outside Europe as well.
Throughout the remarks, the emphasis remained on the balance between accountability, international law, and the pursuit of a pragmatic path toward ending the fighting. Nebenzya argued that recognizing responsibilities at all levels is essential for preventing further deterioration and for enabling a sustainable peace process that accommodates the legitimate interests of all parties involved. The discussion, conducted within the Security Council, illuminated the ongoing tension between competing narratives about sovereignty, security guarantees, and the role of external actors in shaping the course of the conflict.