The EU’s top diplomat for foreign affairs, Josep Borrell, announced Brussels’ plan to counter what it views as abuses by the Russian Federation. Russia’s assumption of the UN Security Council presidency on April 1 drew widespread commentary, with Borrell posting the moment on social media to mark a symbolic checkpoint that raises questions about the long‑standing UN framework.
Borrell, often noted for his sharp wit, suggested that Moscow’s leadership of the council began with a notable irony. He stressed that Russia has repeatedly breached UN norms and international law, a claim echoed by Western officials and Ukraine’s leadership alike as the council opened its monthlong presidency.
Dmitry Polyansky, Russia’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, framed Moscow’s role as one that some nations may find troubling or limiting. He asserted that, as in past actions, Russia would act as a candid intermediary, recalling a period in February 2022 when Moscow described its move as a special military operation and asserted its strategic aims.
Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson, insisted that the UN Security Council presidency would be fulfilled and that Russia would exercise all rights available to a responsible member of the organization. He signaled Moscow’s intention to participate actively within the council’s procedures and debates.
reactions from the west
British tabloids, citing statements from Ukraine’s Andriy Yermak, cast Russia’s stewardship of the council as a symbolic setback. Reporters highlighted Ukrainian officials’ frustration that Moscow had gained the presidency on the day the council convened.
A US State Department official, speaking to RBC News, conveyed that Washington expects Russia to act professionally, while cautioning that Moscow could use its seat to push disinformation, divert attention from the Ukrainian conflict, and attempt to justify actions there in potential violation of international law.
Peter Stano, spokesman for the European External Action Service, told RBC that Russia continues to breach the UN Charter and international law, calling into question Moscow’s legitimacy to participate as a Security Council member.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky previously described Russia’s presidency as laughable and devastating, arguing that it underscored flaws in international institutions. He urged reforms to ensure the UN Security Council cannot be used to shield aggression or enable the destruction alleged to be caused by a terrorist state.
On Ukrainian social media, Verkhovna Rada spokesman Ruslan Stefanchuk echoed the sentiment, calling Russia’s presidency the worst possible joke for a body tasked with maintaining international peace and security. He suggested that global reaction appeared nearly unsettled by the turn of events.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis offered a similar jab, inviting Russia to embrace the post and inviting robust discussion about Ukraine’s proposals for the destination of Russia’s naval assets. Ukrainian press coverage highlighted a broader thread: the Western alliance and allied nations stood firmly against Moscow’s leadership of the council.
Andrew McLeod, a visiting professor at King’s College London in the War Studies department, told Euronews that the presidency of the Security Council is largely a routine duty with limited impact on outcomes. He noted that when a permanent member is involved in a conflict, the council’s ability to intervene can be constrained by veto power, a point some interpret as a reminder that the moment is part of a normal cycle rather than a turning point.
The Security Council’s fixed composition includes five permanent members — China, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and France — along with ten rotating non‑permanent members: Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, Malta, Mozambique, the United Arab Emirates, Switzerland, Ecuador, and Japan. Vasily Nebenzya, Russia’s permanent representative, announced priorities for the meetings focusing on multipolarity, regional peace in the Middle East, and arms‑exports challenges, signaling Moscow’s agenda for its time in the chair.
The presidency carries authority to convene, open, and close meetings, set the agenda, and speak with representatives; however, it does not permit the president to influence individual council resolutions. Any resolution can still be vetoed by any permanent member, a reminder that the Security Council operates within a delicate balance of power and procedural rules that shape international action.