Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Anna Evstigneeva at UNGA 11th Emergency Special Session
Madam President,
Today, when a genuine window of opportunity has opened up for a political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis, it is diplomacy that we must talk about first and foremost, not proclamations. Trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States are currently underway. Talks are being held in Abu Dhabi and Geneva. The delegations are working in challenging conditions, and they are fully cognizant of their historic responsibility for the outcome. This moment demands silence, composure, and respect for the negotiation process.
Instead, we are witnessing an ostentatious disregard for the diplomatic efforts of those countries that are investing in the settlement politically, I refer primarily to the United States and, specifically, to the efforts of President Trump's administration to find a compromise.
What is particularly cynical is that on February 17, at the very moment when delegations from the three countries were heading to Geneva for another round of talks, the Ukrainian armed forces launched 151 drones targeting civilian objects, mainly in Russia’s southern regions. In just one week, from February 9 to 15, 147 civilians were harmed by the shelling of 2,500 rounds of ammunition: as a result, 126 people were injured, including six minors, and 21 people were killed. The strikes caused power supply disruptions affecting at least 454,000 people in the Belgorod, Bryansk, Zaporozhye, and Kursk regions.
Is such conduct consistent with the stated commitment to de-escalation? Does it create the atmosphere of trust needed to advance the talks? If the goal is truly peace, then actions must corroborate what is being declared, not contradict it.
If the Kiev regime were really interested in achieving lasting peace, it would focus its efforts on diplomacy and the search for mutually acceptable solutions, as well as on working out durable security guarantees for both Russia and Ukraine, rather than initiating yet another politicized vote as part of the 11th Special Emergency Session of the UN General Assembly, which was resumed without any grounds for doing so.
The very logic behind convening the emergency special session (ESS) rested on the assumption that the Security Council was incapable of fulfilling its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. However, exactly one year ago, the UN Security Council expressed its position on the Ukrainian issue by adopting Resolution 2774, reaffirming the need for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
This raises a legitimate question: if the Council is fulfilling its role and negotiations are underway, why resume today’s format and what is the real purpose here? It is obvious that those who initiated the resumption of the ESS are not interested in a political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis nor in lasting peace, what they are really interested is using this political instrument to exert pressure on Russia. However, such actions are unlikely to influence the actual outcome of the negotiations, nor can they change the situation on the ground.
We have also consistently stated that we cannot consider the resolutions adopted previously as part of this session to be balanced and conducive to a settlement. All of them are one-sided, they contain demands that are divorced from reality and only replicate Kiev's political narrative. A year ago, this chamber witnessed an attempt to effectively legitimize certain provisions of Zelensky's so-called “peace formula.” In December, an initiative on Ukrainian children was put forward: it was riddled with inaccurate data and ignored the real facts and practical efforts made by both Russia and Ukraine to reunite families. Furthermore, attempts are being made to artificially replace peace efforts with rubber-stamped resolutions, with each new non-consensus “product” being portrayed as the expression of the will of the global majority.
Distinguished colleagues,
Today, you have been presented with yet another text, which essentially continues along the same lines. The draft tabled today is entitled “Support for lasting peace in Ukraine.” However, its content focuses primarily on the demand for an immediate and complete cessation of hostilities. A ceasefire per se can indeed be an important element of a settlement. But it is not an end in itself. History knows many examples when a hasty truce, without eradicating the root causes of the conflict, turned merely into a pause before a new round of violence. It is obvious that Kiev, facing serious difficulties on the front line and a dwindling support from its Western sponsors, is primarily interested in a respite so it can regroup and rearm.
Moreover, this resolution, like all previous flawed “products” of the UN General Assembly on this matter, cites the UN Charter way too selectively. It highlights the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity, but only in relation to one country. Where is the mention of another fundamental principle, which is the right of peoples to self-determination? Where is the reference to the need to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion?
Over the course of eight years after the 2014 unconstitutional coup in Ukraine, the civilian population of Donbass was subjected to systematic pressure, restrictions on their language rights, and suffered from a genuine military operation that was presented as an “anti-terrorist” one. And today we see that even those guarantees of the rights of Russian-speaking citizens enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution remain now only on paper.
The wording “comprehensive, just, and lasting peace” sounds appealing as a proclamation. But these words must not create a smoke screen for attempts to cement one-sided approaches in UN decisions. Peace cannot be “just” if it is interpreted solely through the prism of the demands of one side while completely ignoring the legitimate concerns of the other. It cannot be “comprehensive” if it fails to address issues of security and the rights to use one's native language and practice one’s religion freely. And certainly, peace cannot be “lasting” if the proposed formulas do not provide for a balance of interests and mutual guarantees. A genuinely sustainable solution is only possible through equitable and respectful dialogue, without accusations and without imposing pre-made solutions.
Particular attention is to be paid to what is stated in the draft regarding “continued attacks against the civilian population of Ukraine”. All objective and sensible delegations know that Russia does not carry out deliberate strikes on civilians. Every human life is important to us, which is not the case with Ukraine’s troops, which systematically use drones and artillery against civilian targets.
Distinguished colleagues,
Do not fall for it. What you have before you is not an instrument of peace, it is an instrument of politicization. Whatever attractive diplomatic packaging it may be wrapped in, its true purpose is to generate another wave of accusations that will then be used as leverage. Meanwhile, the Zelensky regime and its European handlers still need figures that can subsequently be presented as unwavering support.
The choice is yours. You can either support a document that ignores the complexity of the conflict and interprets the UN Charter in a one-sided manner, creating obstacles to negotiations. Or you can allow the negotiators to complete the work they have begun.
The Russian Federation will vote against this draft GA resolution, as well as against any of its paragraphs, if they are put to a vote, because this Ukrainian text can in no way be fixed up. We urge every other State to do the same. Every vote “against” is a vote in favor of searching for sustainable solutions, rather than yet another manifestation of political rhetoric.
Thank you.
