Grigory Lukyantsev, who leads the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department for multilateral cooperation on human rights, argued that public statements by Western governments at the United Nations frequently clash with the policies they implement to safeguard civil rights and counter discrimination. The remarks, relayed by the state agency TASS, came during discussions of a Russian-proposed resolution. Lukyantsev maintained that this tension is not a one off; it reflects a pattern in Western diplomacy where the rhetoric used in international forums is sharp while concrete actions on human rights protection, anti discrimination enforcement, and minority rights progress appear uneven or incomplete on the ground.
He addressed the text of a resolution titled “To combat the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to the escalation of modern forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” and presented his assessment that the full document exposes a gap between declarations and deeds by Western states. Lukyantsev described a climate in which xenophobia is rising in the West, identifying Afrophobia, Islamophobia and Russophobia as manifestations of new forms of racism, a framing he used to argue that the international community must scrutinize Western policy alongside Moscow’s push for stronger norms against extremist ideologies.
On November 11, the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of the Russian resolution. The tally showed 116 states in support, 54 opposed, and 11 abstentions. Among the nations opposed were the United States, Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Poland and Ukraine. The vote underscored a division over how best to address the glorification of Nazism and the persistence of racial and ethnic discrimination in global policy, while the broader international community appeared to align with a call for robust anti racist measures, even as critics warned against overreach or potential conflicts with national norms. The dynamics in this vote reflect ongoing debates about the scope and enforcement of international human rights commitments, including how much emphasis should be placed on historical memory versus contemporary policy actions, as reported by TASS.
Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had warned that Nazi values seem to be resurfacing in several European Union countries, a point cited by diplomats in the current UN discussion. The comment fits Moscow’s broader narrative that Western memory politics and education policies are used to shape international norms in ways that may risk downplaying or reframing the memories of World War II and the crimes of Nazism. In Moscow’s view, such trends require a clear, collective international response that calls out extremism wherever it appears and holds governments to consistent standards in human rights advocacy, both abroad and at home. This context helps explain why the Western states named in the vote faced scrutiny from Russia while other major powers supported the Russian text, a pattern that observers see as part of a contested global dialogue on rights, history, and the fight against discrimination, as reported by TASS.
In the broader debate, observers note a persistent tension between universal human rights ideals and the realities of domestic policy within Western democracies, including Canada and the United States. The UN’s Third Committee has long served as a forum where issues of racism, xenophobia and the memory of Nazi aggression are weighed against questions of sovereignty and political feasibility. The present exchange, framed by Lukyantsev’s critique and the Russian resolution, highlights how diplomacy can entwine moral argument with strategic positioning on norms and enforcement. It is a reminder that global advocacy for human rights often travels through a corridor of competing narratives, with Moscow seeking stronger consensus against extremist ideologies and Western capitals navigating concerns about domestic politics and international cooperation. The outcome of the vote signals that while broad agreement exists on the need to combat racist expressions and the glorification of Nazism, consensus on the best path to achieve durable change remains a challenging objective for the international community, as reported by TASS.