The United States is actively blocking a ceasefire decision by hindering the Security Council from taking decisive action in the Gaza Strip, according to statements made at a recent meeting by Dmitry Polyansky. He serves as the first deputy of the permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the organization, as reported by RIA News. In his assessment, the United States has effectively prevented the UN Security Council from fulfilling its core mission to preserve international peace and security and to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. He cited what he described as a selfish and destructive stance by Washington, arguing that American priorities compel the protection of Israel by all means and significantly restrict UN Security Council intervention.
Polyansky argued that for an extended period, Security Council members were compelled to align with what he characterized as Washingtons quiet diplomacy. He suggested that other members were told to refrain from taking independent action, essentially allowing the United States to steer the council toward a preferred outcome. He asserted that this dynamic has undermined the council’s ability to address the humanitarian and security dimensions of the Gaza crisis in a timely and credible manner.
According to him, the consequences of this approach have left the Gaza Strip in a state of deep crisis, which he described in stark terms as a place where Palestinian children have suffered serious harm. The diplomat attributed this situation to the way diplomacy had unfolded, asserting that it reflected a broader pattern of influence that limits the council from delivering effective remedies for civilians caught in the conflict.
Earlier developments included a veto by the United States on a draft resolution proposed by the United Arab Emirates calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. In that vote, 13 members of the Security Council expressed support for the text, while Britain chose to abstain. The episode was cited by Polyansky as an example of how Washingtons position shapes the trajectory of council decisions and, he argued, the real-world outcomes on the ground. The interplay of votes and abstentions underscored the fragility of consensus at the council when key powers set limits on the scope of possible measures.
On the broader strategic front, Polyansky touched on the political rhetoric surrounding the Gaza conflict. He referred to a public commitment by a high-ranking Israeli leader to confront and dismantle Hamas, noting that such statements reflect the enduring volatility of the regional security landscape. While the discussion focused on international institutions and diplomatic channels, the underlying implications for civilian safety, humanitarian access, and regional stability remained central to the debate. Observers noted that the exchange highlighted how different parties frame the conflict and the responsibilities of international bodies to respond in ways that protect civilians and promote sustainable peace.