Photo: Depositphotos
24 February 2025 – On the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the UN General Assembly adopted a US resolution entitled “A Path to Peace”. However, the document provoked a mixed reaction: it does not directly condemn the aggression, and Ukraine decided to abstain from voting, according to Yevropeiska Pravda.
Voting: dry numbers, deep underpinnings
93 UN member states voted in favour of the resolution, 8 voted against, and 73 abstained, including Ukraine. Kyiv’s position surprised many international observers and raised a wave of questions about its diplomatic motives.
The document expresses sorrow over the “tragedy of the loss of life during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict” and calls for an early cessation of hostilities and the establishment of a “lasting peace” between Ukraine and Russia. However, the lack of clear terminology regarding the aggressor caused concern among some countries that had expected a tougher stance.
The Russian amendment is a failure at the start
At the same time, the UN General Assembly considered a Russian amendment to the resolution, which called for “addressing the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis”. It was supported by only 31 countries, while 71 voted against it, effectively rejecting Russia’s interpretation of the conflict.
This result once again underscored Russia’s isolation in the international arena, although a significant number of countries abstained, demonstrating their desire to maintain diplomatic neutrality.
Ukraine’s parallel resolution: where the US voted against
Interestingly, on the same day, the UN also adopted a Ukrainian resolution directly condemning Russian aggression. It also received 93 votes in favour, but here the United States unexpectedly voted against it, finding itself in a camp with Russia and less than two dozen other countries.
This situation has created a complex diplomatic knot: on the one hand, the desire for peace, on the other, differences in the interpretation of aggression and the responsibility of the parties.
Ukraine’s position: strategic caution or a diplomatic trap?
Ukraine’s abstention during the vote on the US resolution caused controversy. Some analysts see this as a signal of disagreement with the document’s mild rhetoric, while others see it as diplomatic caution to avoid the appearance of agreeing to any peace terms without clear security guarantees.
At the same time, the US decision to vote against the Ukrainian resolution demonstrates the complexity of the international game: even strategic allies sometimes choose their own diplomatic interests over symbolic gestures of support.
What’s next?
The situation in the UN has shown that even three years after the outbreak of the war, the international community remains divided in its approach to its settlement.
Ukraine continues to seek a balance between protecting its own interests and maintaining international support. At the same time, the UN has once again proved that diplomacy is often an art of compromise rather than clear-cut solutions.
