The Polish ambassador to the United Nations, Krzysztof Szczerski, warned before the Security Council meeting that Moscow is seeking to use its UN membership to push war propaganda. He described a recent Russian push as a deliberate use of platform and leverage within the council to shape narratives in favor of aggression. Szczerski noted that Poland would not participate in the open debate called by Russia during the council session on multilateralism and the defence of the UN Charter.
Russia’s UN membership under scrutiny
In a formal statement delivered ahead of the council gathering, Szczerski emphasized the recurring pattern he sees: Russia leveraging its position in the Security Council to advance a messaging agenda that supports military actions. The Polish envoy, alongside fellow EU representatives, condemned the Russian presidency for organizing a debate in honour of the International Day of Multilateralism and Diplomacy for Peace, and he underscored that Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, was slated to speak.
According to Szczerski, peace and effective multilateralism hinge on a global respect for international law, the rejection of domination, and the rejection of spheres of influence. He called for a return to a cooperative model centered on free nations and equal states, where commitment to shared rules guides collective decisions rather than power contests.
Another key voice in the run‑up to the discussion came from Olof Skoog, the European Union’s permanent representative to the United Nations. Speaking on behalf of EU member states, Skoog criticized the move as an attempt by Russia to present itself as a defender of the UN Charter and multilateralism. He called that portrayal cynical and warned that it runs counter to the actual record of the council’s work.
Skoog argued that Russia’s approach signals contempt for UN institutions at large. He urged Moscow to demonstrate genuine commitment to multilateralism by complying with repeated General Assembly resolutions that call for the withdrawal of troops from Ukraine. The international community, he stressed, must stay focused on accountability for crimes committed in connection with the conflict in Ukraine and those directed against Ukraine and its people.
As the debate approached, observers noted a broader trend in which major powers attempt to shape the narrative around a volatile security environment. The Security Council remains a critical forum for testing those narratives, especially when it comes to issues of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the rules-based international order. The proceedings were watched closely by diplomats and analysts who emphasize that genuine multilateralism requires adherence to shared norms, transparent discussion, and unanimous commitment to resolving disputes without escalation.
In the lead up to the session, statements from EU delegations stressed that the council’s legitimacy rests on concrete actions to protect civilians and uphold international law. The emphasis was placed on accountability for actions that violate the UN Charter and undermine the possibility of a peaceful, negotiated settlement. Multilateral diplomacy, in this view, is most effective when it is anchored in verifiable compliance with prior UN resolutions and a willingness to engage in good-faith negotiation.
Additional remarks highlighted that the United Nations, as a collective body, must be a forum where all member states are treated as equals and where disputes are addressed through measured dialogue rather than rhetoric or unilateral moves. The consensus among many delegations is clear: stability comes from predictable rules, transparent processes, and a firm commitment to the principles of sovereignty, peaceful settlement of disputes, and protection of human rights.
Echoing this sentiment, several diplomats pointed to recent events that require a robust international response. They argued that the path to durable peace in Ukraine lies in upholding the principles of international law, ensuring accountability for violations, and sustaining a united front that resists coercive diplomacy. The council’s work, these voices insisted, should advance practical outcomes that deter aggression and support civilian protection, all within the framework of the UN Charter.
Ultimately, the debate at the Security Council serves as a barometer for how the international community treats violations of sovereignty and the sanctity of borders. It also tests the willingness of powerful states to honor their commitments and to engage with their peers in a manner that strengthens, rather than undermines, the global system designed to prevent war and promote peace. The session underscored that real multilateralism is measured by results, not rhetoric, and that the UN’s authority depends on the consistent application of its rules by all members, including those who sit at the council’s highest table. Attribution: wPolityce