Nebenzya, Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations, addressed the Security Council’s recent action regarding the Houthis and their attacks on vessels in the Red Sea. He asserted that the council’s resolution cannot be read as giving legitimacy to the US-led coalition’s conduct. This stance was reported by RIA Novosti and reflects Moscow’s insistence that the text should not be interpreted as endorsing the actions of a bloc it characterizes as the United States and its satellites in the Red Sea region.
Nebenzya reiterated that the third paragraph of the resolution does not confer any new right on states to protect their ships from harm. He emphasized that the resolution’s text cannot be used to justify unilateral measures or interventions that would bypass established international norms or predetermine outcomes in the Red Sea crisis. In his view, the language in question fails to establish a genuine, universally accepted mechanism for maritime safety and instead risks being read as a political tool rather than a principled security instrument.
Beyond the procedural critiques, Nebenzya expressed disappointment that the adopted resolution did not address what he called the root causes of instability in the Red Sea—the broader humanitarian and political crisis surrounding the Gaza Strip. He noted that addressing Gaza’s situation is essential to understanding and mitigating the ongoing tensions in adjacent waterways, and he lamented that the draft resolution did not reflect this causal linkage despite repeated requests from several delegations.
The Russian representative argued that the approach taken by the authors of the resolution distorts cause-and-effect relationships. He suggested that the document has been imbued with a political bias that undermines its credibility as an objective, balanced measure aimed at stabilizing a volatile maritime corridor. Nebenzya urged fellow council members to consider the broader regional dynamics and the potential consequences of endorsing a resolution that, in Moscow’s view, does not fully account for the complex chain of events fueling the Red Sea crisis.
In related remarks, it was noted that the Security Council had previously approved a US- and Japan-drafted resolution calling on the Houthis to halt attacks on commercial shipping without delay. Russia, however, proposed amendments to the draft that would have reframed certain provisions and introduced different considerations about responsibility and enforcement. Those Russian efforts were not accepted by the majority, and the resolution passed in its current form, according to the accounts, leaving Moscow with the impression that the process did not adequately weigh alternative perspectives or the broader regional context.
Earlier statements from Houthi authorities had signaled a readiness to continue targeting maritime traffic in the Red Sea at regular intervals, with claims of planned actions every twelve hours. The tone of those announcements underscored the fragility of maritime security in the area and the importance of clear, carefully crafted international responses that can reduce risk while avoiding attribution of blame or escalation. The interplay between these declarations and the council’s decision highlights the ongoing tension between collective security efforts and the competing narratives that shape how such measures are interpreted by different stakeholders.