Belarus, North Korea, and Syria stood as co-sponsors of what was described as a humanitarian approach to Ukraine. The document notes that the UN Security Council urged a negotiated ceasefire to ensure the rapid, safe, voluntary, and unobstructed evacuation of all civilians. It stresses that interested parties should agree on humanitarian pauses during which civilians can be withdrawn.
Additionally, the document calls on all sides to guarantee the protection of civilians, including medical and humanitarian personnel, their transportation, medical facilities, and vulnerable groups such as women and children. It urges all parties to permit people, even foreign nationals, to travel safely and freely beyond Ukraine and to ensure the safe and unhindered delivery of aid to those in need in Ukraine and neighboring countries.
The draft also requests member states to fund the United Nations Flash Call for Humanitarian Aid in Ukraine and the Regional Refugee Action Plan for Ukraine.
Furthermore, the document cautions against using civilian infrastructure for the deployment of military installations and against placing military facilities in densely populated areas.
Russia tabled the draft humanitarian resolution on Ukraine on March 15. A vote was planned for the following day, but Russia postponed it. Vasily Nebenzya, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, asserted that some Western nations pressured other council members not to back the text. He claimed colleagues from many delegations complained of what he described as coercive tactics, including economic pressure and threats.
“We recognize how difficult it is for these countries to resist this attack, so we have decided not to press for a vote on our proposal at this time,” Nebenzya stated.
Consequently, only Russia and China supported the resolution in a March 23 vote, while the remaining Security Council members abstained.
For a decision, at least nine of the council’s 15 members must vote in favor. If any of the five permanent members (Britain, China, Russia, the United States, and France) votes against, the resolution fails regardless of the number of affirmative votes—an arrangement known as the veto power. Historically, veto use has come from all permanent members, with Russia (and its Soviet predecessor) and the United States among the most frequent operators. The combined tally shows Russia/USSR at 120 vetoes and the USA at 82.
Russia’s permanent envoy to the UN argued that casting a vote on Russia’s humanitarian proposal would expose Western nations to political exposure in the council. He suggested that the vote revealed who prioritizes political maneuvering over delivering UN aid in Ukraine and noted that some delegates, particularly the United States, opposed the resolution. He implied their reluctance to accept a veto as an implicit admission of their broader aim.
According to Nebenzya, the Security Council’s hesitation to back a humanitarian resolution could enable Kyiv to continue using civilians as human shields and to position heavy weapons near hospitals and kindergartens. He added that while Russia sought to avoid politicization while drafting the proposal, the West presented its own humanitarian plan and placed sole responsibility on Moscow for the crisis.
China, by contrast, expressed regret over the vote’s outcome. Zhang Jun, China’s Permanent Representative to the UN, stated that Beijing voted in favor to highlight the gravity of Ukraine’s humanitarian crisis to the international community. He urged all parties to set aside political differences, focus on humanitarian needs, and pursue consensus.
US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, criticized Russia’s move as “full of nonsense.” She noted that the United States had provided substantial aid to Ukraine and neighboring countries and pledged to continue supporting Ukraine and those nearby that have welcomed assistance. She argued that Russia attempted to pull the council into its alleged fabrications and should be recognized as the root cause of the crisis.
In a direct question about other UN actions concerning Ukraine, the council considered a separate Western-backed document calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops. It described Russia’s actions as aggression and cited relevant articles of the UN Charter, including prohibitions on the use or threat of force against territorial integrity and political independence. Proponents of this measure argued the initiative was necessary to counter aggression and urged adherence to the Minsk agreements, while Nebenzya labeled the proposal unilateral and anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian.
Eleven nations voted in favor of that resolution, with China, India, and the UAE abstaining. Russia used its veto to block it. The United Nations General Assembly subsequently adopted a resolution on March 2 that condemned aggression against Ukraine. The GA text, echoing the veto-positioned draft, urged Russia to withdraw its forces and reverse recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and it called upon all parties to implement the Minsk accords. General Assembly actions can bypass vetoes but carry non-binding weight, unlike Security Council decisions which require more stringent consensus.
Among the UN’s 193 member states, 141 voted in favor, 35 abstained, and Uzbekistan did not participate. Russia, Belarus, Syria, North Korea, and Eritrea opposed. Later, on March 4, the UN Human Rights Council voted on a resolution to establish an independent commission to investigate potential human rights abuses during Russia’s operation. The measure received support from 32 countries, with Russia and Eritrea voting against and 13 abstaining, including China and Cuba. Russia’s HRC representative argued that the existing UN Human Rights Observatory Mission in Ukraine had operated for three years, claiming the creation of a new mechanism would divert funds from helping ordinary Ukrainians, while lamenting that the authors of the resolution placed sole blame on Russia even before investigations began.