Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at UNSC briefing on Ukraine
Mr.President,
At the outset, let me put on record our fundamental disagreement (which we have already expressed on numerous occasions) with the invitation to today's meeting of 8 delegations under Rules 37 and 39. That number clearly does not correspond to the stated format of the discussion. It is a briefing rather than a debate or an open debate. We regret that the South Korean Presidency undermines the Council's working practices.
What value they add to today's discussion if six of them are both members of the EU and NATO and cannot say anything beyond the standard EU and NATO position? Obviously, none. The only reason why they are taking part is to create a "mass audience", a chorus of voices to promote the politicized narrative of Brussels. This is an obvious waste of valuable resources of the Security Council. We have already repeatedly spoken about the counterproductiveness of this approach, which undermines the authority of UNSC.
We note that after six months of absence from Security Council meetings, the Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic requested to attend today. I recall that last December he flatly refused to appear in the Council when we met to discuss the terrorist strikes by the Ukrainian armed forces against Belgorod using Czech-supplied VAMPIRE MLRS. We trust that today we will finally hear from the Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic a comprehensive explanation as regards their complicity in the crimes of the Kiev regime.
Mr.President,
Western colleagues formally motivated the convening of today's meeting of the United Nations Security Council by the need to discuss the political situation in Ukraine. The thing is that we heard almost nothing political from the other delegations. Or at least nothing new. Nevertheless, there is indeed much to discuss as far as the political aspect. For example, the expiry of the presidential term of V.Zelensky on May 20 and numerous legal implications related thereto. Western media have started to speculate more often about his possible successors. Who and what Ukrainian body should be considered a legitimate representative now? Who is legally entitled to participate in peace negotiations on Ukraine? An important question, but no one is talking about that.
Did any of those who took the floor today speak about the causes of the conflict? About the large-scale crackdown on the Russian-speaking population, the spread of uncompromising Russophobia, which contradicts the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration on the Principles of International Law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states in accordance with the UN Charter, which stipulates that the principle of respect for territorial integrity applies to "States observing in their actions the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples (...) and, as a consequence, having governments representing (...) all the people living in the country". No one but us has raised in the Security Council the rights of Russian-speaking population, whose opinions must be taken into account, otherwise, according to the mentioned documents, it is impossible to fully support the territorial integrity of Ukraine. We regret that the Un Secretariat, too, fails to reflect this point in its statements.
From the British representative today, we heard words of sympathy for Ukrainian civilians, including children. Ever since 2014 (when the Kiev regime waged a war on its own people in Donbas) we have not heard a word of sympathy for the children of Donbas, whom Ukrainian armed forces and national battalions have been killing mercilessly. We held a meeting of the Security Council and an informal Arria meeting on that issue, where we demonstrated the injuries suffered by the children of Donbas from the UAF strikes. That is in addition to those killed by UAF. Where was your compassion then? Also, you and your Western partners do not have it now when the Ukrainian armed forces are purposefully targeting civilians in Russian cities. Your selective "compassion" evokes nothing but disgust. As we have repeatedly said, we launched the military operation in order to stop and halt the massacre that the Kiev regime had been carrying out against the population of Donbas.
UNSC members, who advocate discussing human rights in the Council at every opportunity, dis they speak about the fate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? No, they did not. However, these days, with complete silence on the part of international organizations, Orthodox churches are being destroyed and the priests of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church are being persecuted for political reasons in Ukraine. According to the statistics, which the SBU brags about, as of December 2023, more than 70 criminal cases have been initiated against clergymen of the UOC (16 of whom are metropolitans), and 19 clergy members have been convicted. A month ago, despite mass protests, the Kiev authorities ordered to pull down a chapel that had been constructed on the place of the ancient Desyatin Church.
At the moment, the Kiev regime is focused solely on serving the geopolitical interests of the West, as this is the only thing that guarantees its political survival. The socio-economic situation is not important for the current authorities in Kiev, for they are placeholders. However, it is rapidly degenerating. People are fleeing Ukraine en masse to escape the conscription launched by the Kiev regime, which has been dubbed “conscription to grave”. They do not want to join the ranks of the "cannon fodder" doomed to certain death. According to official data alone, about 6 million people have already left Ukraine. Just yesterday, information appeared that the entire Kiev Symphony Orchestra had fled to Germany. Similar cases are not uncommon among athletes, too. Corruption flourishes, humanitarian aid is being plundered, and the media are subject to the most brutal censorship. Food prices and tariffs for housing and utility services have increased manifold, putting ordinary people on the brink of survival. There is growing resentment among the Ukrainian population. According to the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, the majority of Ukrainians see the reason for the worsening economic situation and the degenerating state of democracy in the actions of the authorities.
At the same time, US-led NATO members, in the best neo-colonial traditions, are actually engaged in plundering Ukraine, buying up its resource, industrial and agricultural capacities for next to nothing. Senator Lindsey Graham, an egregious Russophobe, recently openly stated that Kiev "is sitting on critical mineral resources worth $10-12 trillion...I don't want to give this money and assets to Putin to share with China...These mineral assets can be developed by Ukraine and the West." It is noteworthy that the West, worried about the return of the money invested in the conflict in Ukraine, is increasingly talking about loans that Ukrainians will have to pay back. I wonder whether the Ukrainians themselves are aware of this.
Mr.President,
Today we have not heard a word about all these episodes (very unflattering for Kiev and its Western sponsors) pertaining to the political situation. After all, they convened this meeting for the sole purpose of trying to revive the "dead horse" - the pseudo-peaceful and pseudo-global conference in Bürgenstock. For any reasonable observer, it was obvious from the outset that it was doomed to failure.
After all, its organizers and inspirers were thinking about anything but peace. And what kind of peace can we talk about if the only purpose of that “get-together” was to have a "mass audience" in order to give Russia an ultimatum, ostensibly on behalf of the international community?
But the sly aspirations of those who stood behind the Bürgenstock were not destined to come true. First, the majority of those invited saw through this primitive intrigue and refused to take part in it. Secondly, many of those present did not say what the organizers had planned. Among other things, they explicitly said that attempts to discuss anything without Russia were pointless. Apparently, with this in mind, or perhaps for their own domestic political reasons, the main inspirers of the meeting – the United States, Germany, France and Japan – left the conference before it was over.
As a result, even Ukrainian representatives were forced to recognize that the approaches of the West and the rest of the world to the Ukrainian crisis differ dramatically. The number and geography of participants clearly demonstrated that the takeaway of the meeting was null. Such meetings have no political weight and cannot be a "starting point" for any serious discussion of the prospects for resolving the Ukrainian crisis. Such “get-togethers” can convene a dozen times, but they will not bring peace any closer. We regret that representatives of the United Nations Secretariat took part in this meeting, slyly calling its participation as that of an observer. This is unacceptable under Article 100 of the UN Charter.
Mr.President,
On 14 June, the President of the Russian Federation made a real peace proposal. Once again, we are talking about Ukraine's neutral non-aligned, and non-nuclear status, its demilitarization and denazification, the recognition of new territorial realities and the status of Crimea, Sevastopol, the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, the Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions as constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In the future, all these basic and fundamental provisions should be stipulated in the form of fundamental international agreements. Naturally, this also implies the lifting of all Western sanctions against Russia.
In addition, given what we said earlier about the systemic violation of human rights and freedoms by the neo-Nazi regime, whenever we talk about the prospects for resolving the conflict, it is also important to take into account that Kiev must revoke its Russophobic legislative acts and other decisions, including bans on the Russian language in all spheres of life, and permanently renounce the glorification of Nazism. Ukraine must be forced to return to the rule of law in order to guarantee the rights and freedoms of the entire population of Ukraine, including the part of it that speaks Russian.
We heard that the leadership of Western countries and NATO rushed to reject this peace proposal. That did not come as a surprise to us. These rejections simply confirm the strategic blindness of Western capitals. We saw something similar at the end of 2021, when the United States, NATO and Europe rejected the draft agreements on security guarantees proposed by Russia. We urge our Western colleagues not to repeat their mistakes and to listen to the voice of reason. Otherwise, they will bear the political and moral responsibility for the continuation of the bloodshed. It is clear that the realities "on the ground", on the line of contact, will continue to change not in favor of the Kiev regime, and then conditions for the start of negotiations will be different.
The Russian proposals are aimed not at "freezing" the conflict, but at bringing it to a real end. This will make it possible to turn this tragic page of history and gradually, step by step, begin to restore relations of trust and good-neighborliness between Russia and Ukraine, and in Europe as a whole. But this requires a fundamental change in the way of thinking of Western political elites, their principled rejection of attempts to use the "Ukrainian project" against Russia, NATO's rejection of an aggressive militaristic policy, and a return to normal, thorough dialogue on the entire range of global security issues, with the obligatory consideration of the interests of all member states. This is the only way to avoid further escalation. We urge you to walk this path before it is too late.
Thank you.
