Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy at a UNGA Meeting on Russia's Use of the Veto Right on Ukraine
Mr. President,
Distinguished colleagues,
On February 24, the Russian Federation voted against the amendments proposed by a number of European delegations to the US-drafted UNSC resolution calling for peace in Ukraine.
We praise the US initiative. We regard the resulting text as a step in the right direction, which lays the foundation for further efforts towards a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. The resolution approved by the Security Council has all the potential to sideline the “war party”, which is taking advantage of the suffering of ordinary Ukrainians.
We note that the shift in Washington’s policy that followed President Trump’s coming to power is something that caught the European “pseudo-peacemakers” off balance. Particularly, the American draft was in sharp contrast with the UNGA draft submitted by Ukraine and its European accomplices on the same day. The latter one was harmful by design and promoted the same futile elements of the notorious “Zelensky formula”, but in a new more “polished” form.
Today I will leave “outside the brackets” what happened in the General Assembly, which for three years now has been consistently discredited by backers of the Kiev regime, who keep introducing anti-Russian projects that are divorced from reality, are a far cry from the truth and have no legal standing whatsoever. These projects tend to enjoy the support of increasingly fewer UN members.
I will focus instead on the desperate attempts of those countries to thwart the adoption of the aforementioned American draft in the Security Council. Unlike the UNGA resolutions that are advisory in nature, UNSC resolutions are binding on all UN member States as per the UN Charter. The efforts by the “war party” were only geared towards crafting yet another unviable product in the spirit of the Copenhagen and Burgenstock ultimatums – not only would such a product fail to contribute to a peaceful settlement of the conflict but, on the contrary, it would hinder the process. Since the approval by the Security Council of such detrimental language might have had far-reaching negative consequences, Russia, as a responsible permanent member of the Security Council, had to disrupt these plans, because otherwise they could negatively affect international peace and security and thus undermine the mandate of the UN Security Council.
Dear Colleagues,
Western delegations are likely to keep trying to convince everyone present in this Hall today of the need to strictly adhere to the provisions of the UN Charter, which Russia is allegedly violating. We only welcome this call. But let us not play a double game, choosing from the UN Charter only those principles that are more to our liking. This is not a restaurant menu!
The principles of the UN Charter should be considered in their integrity and interrelation. Respect for the territorial integrity of States is certainly one of the fundamental principles, but it cannot be considered in isolation from the right of nations to self-determination and respect for human rights. Indeed, it is the non-compliance of the Kiev regime with the latter two principles (also enshrined in the UN Charter) that was one of the root causes of the Ukrainian conflict. In 2014, the unconstitutional coup (orchestrated and sponsored by the West) brought the Kiev regime into power. Immediately after that, under the trumped-up pretext of combatting terrorism, the regime unleashed war against its own citizens – the Russian-speaking population of Donbass, who stood up to defend their rights and their identity.
During the subsequent eight years, Russian-speaking civilians had their inalienable rights consistently restricted, people were maimed, tortured, shot out and killed. All this was encouraged by the West, and international organizations kept silence. Russia was forced to start its special military operation three years ago precisely to stop this massacre, and we did that only when all diplomatic methods, including the Minsk agreements rejected by the Kiev regime, had been exhausted.
Colleagues, make no mistake: by proposing amendments that virtually distorted the American text, the Europeans sought to compel Security Council members to sign up for this manipulation of ideas.
This is quite understandable: all efforts of a significant number of European countries are focused today solely on stalling any feasible initiatives to resolve the Ukrainian conflict. They are even providing funding for it – in true Orwellian fashion – including through the Europe Peace Foundation. There is also no doubt that their attempt on 24 February to skew the American text with politicized, unbalanced provisions is nothing but a blatant obstruction of the emerging positive developments on the peace track.
However, the Kiev regime and its supporters in European capitals are hardly seeking peace, they are more likely to go on with the war “until the last Ukrainian”; and this becomes particularly clear from their hostile rhetoric and their actions of the recent weeks. Instead of seeking peace, they openly declare that Ukraine needs to continue fighting for their geopolitical interests, so that the Kiev princeling (no longer legitimate) could keep casting hundreds of thousands of its fellow citizens into a senseless meat grinder. This – in their view – will help ensure “a strong negotiating position” for Kiev, even though they are well aware of the real situation on the front line, where the Zelensky regime is failing so spectacularly. Hence, there are calls to “continue arming Ukraine” that we have been hearing recently from different macrons, starmers and more tinpot “warmongers”, who, besides, are also irresponsibly wielding their “nuclear batons.” After my statement, you will have the opportunity to listen to a whole host of European representatives, and you will see the level of degradation of European diplomacy, which is blinded by Russophobia and hatred towards Russia, and is at pains to trigger a new armed conflict on the old continent.
Dear colleagues,
We take a responsible attitude towards the right of veto, and we would never use it unless we had serious and justifiable reasons to do so. On February 24, we faced a choice whether to give peace a chance or push it further away. Of course, we chose the first option. It is precisely for addressing such situations that the UN founding fathers invented the right of veto. As we can see from the experience of discussing pressing issues related to international peace and security, if it were not for this instrument, the UN Security Council would inevitably morph into a body that could only approve dubious, half-backed decisions dictated by the conglomerate of Western countries that dominate the Security Council and act along the block lines. Under such circumstances, the use of the veto is the only instrument to prevent the adoption of such decisions that could not only weaken the authority of the Security Council, but also damage international peace and security, exacerbate existing regional conflicts and ultimately lead to more suffering among ordinary people.
Colleagues, make no mistake: there are “hawks” in Ukraine and in European countries who allegedly champion the continued armed confrontation. They are are capitalizing on war and on the suffering of ordinary people and are in no way planning to abandon their intentions to interfere with peace between Russia and Ukraine. We urge all those who are against this war to stay vigilant – don’t allow the “ringleader” of the Kiev regime (no longer legitimate) and his European accomplices to torpedo the constructive endeavors by Russia and the US, no matter how beautifully Brussels, Paris, Berlin and London may dress up their new destructive ideas!
Thank you.
