Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at UNSC Briefing on UN-EU Cooperation
Main statement:
Mr. President,
For many long years, the European Union – including at the UN – had successfully positioned itself as the major peacemaker and mediator, defender of international law, champion of “universal human and democratic values” and human rights, as well as a magnanimous benefactor for developing countries (the majority of whom, admittedly, have been plundered by Europeans for centuries). However, all these “double standards” and hypocrisy are now rapidly coming to the surface.
Instead of engaging in sincere dialogue and building a shared security architecture in Europe – which is precisely what Russia has proposed on multiple occasions – European countries have been cultivating Russophobic sentiment in Ukraine, inciting it to wage war with Russia with no qualms about the plights and lives of ordinary people; they have been also systematically torpedoing the negotiation process, and still persist in doing so. The same madam Kaja Kallas, back when she was Prime Minister of Estonia, asserted, “Russia’s defeat is not a bad thing.” She alleged, “It’s not a bad thing if the big power is much smaller.” Do those in Brussels, likewise, have certain views on who needs to become smaller or larger, while advancing their mediation efforts throughout the world?
As for international law, we took note of what was reflected in the final document of the European Council meeting on March 19, namely the appeals therein to respect the right of nations to self-determination. The EU officials once again demonstrated their duplicitous nature: they recalled the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interconnection only when the discussion turned to Greenland. But when it comes to the population of Crimea and other new Russian regions, this topic is an absolute taboo for them.
It was the EU that invented and for a long time advanced the concept of a rules-based international order, as opposed to international law; and the irony here is that now the EU itself has become the object – rather than the subject – of its mendacious concept.
The same applies to the freedom and safety of navigation. The European Council demanded that these be safeguarded in the Strait of Hormuz, while at the same time leveraging force in an attempt to curb the movement of vessels carrying cargo for the benefit of our country.
With the European Union imposing democratic standards on UN member States, elections within the EU itself have turned into a “testing ground” for honing political and information technologies. What they bank on within the EU is preventing alternative political forces from gaining ground. To this end, any means are being brought to bear, including censorship, control over the digital space, overt pressure, prosecution, and demands to revise “incorrect” election results. That is precisely what we have seen recently in Romania and Georgia. And we will see it again and again. When it comes to third countries, the primary objective here is to maintain or bring to power political forces that are blindly loyal to Brussels.
Corruption, which Europeans are zealously seeking to expose in the countries of the Global South, is rampant right within the European Union itself. The scandals that have come to light in Europe over the past year – including those involving former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – are merely the “tip of the iceberg.” As for the latter, let me remind you that the European Court of Justice’s ruling explicitly mentions attempts by the head of the European Commission to conceal evidence of corruption. This “conspiracy of silence” can also be seen when it comes to the handover of dozens of billions of euros as part of aid to Kiev, with much of this money ultimately lining the pockets of the European bureaucrats themselves.
Is the EU development assistance truly benevolent? Most of our friends tell us about a new trend here: this assistance is being made contingent upon a refusal to cooperate with Russia.
The European Union has also demonstrated its utter recklessness in terms of global food security: due to anti-Russian sanctions, countries of the Global South are now encountering unprecedented difficulties in gaining access to Russian and Belarusian fertilizer and food. This includes disruptions in supply chains, as well as problems related to payment transfers, insurance, and the delivery of agricultural goods and fertilizer.
EU officials make wide-eyed assertions that they have granted exemptions when it comes to restrictions on trade in agricultural products, but they fail to mention that such exemptions exist merely on paper and do not actually work, insofar as they are not binding for the EU member States.
It is not uncommon to hear representatives of the EU and the EU member States trumpeting about Europe being among the top donors for development programs implemented, inter alia, under the aegis of the United Nations. In 2024, they collectively allocated approximately €16.6 billion to the UN system (€12.7 billion through EU member States and almost €4 billion from the EU budget). At the same time, upon closer scrutiny it becomes clear that all this so-called “development assistance”, including within the EU’s Global Gateway initiative, is designed to safeguard Brussels’s privileged access to natural resources. All of the investment and infrastructure projects implemented by the European Union under a noble pretext are geared, first and foremost, towards advancing the interests of Europe itself.
Mr. President,
Currently, the Europeans have clearly no time for what Friedrich Merz called at the Munich Conference a “normative surplus” – which is, essentially, creating a moralistic facade for their policies. All of the EU’s efforts are now geared towards inflicting a “strategic defeat” upon Russia. The EU continues to do everything possible to further escalate the conflict in Ukraine, including through funneling weapons and military equipment to the Kiev regime in violation of its own export control rules and international obligations. This makes the EU and its member States complicit in the crimes and terrorist attacks being perpetrated by Ukrainian militants with the use of those weapons.
At the same time, fearing the wrath of President Donald Trump, European bureaucrats and their Ukrainian puppets support, in word, the US mediation efforts. However, in deed, they tend to sabotage any realistic agreements. They are trotting out conditions that are obviously infeasible and, at times, downright absurd, not a single one of which takes into account Russia’s principled concerns or can help achieve a sustainable and lasting peace. The latest example is Ms. Callas’s “ultimatum,” which is a litany of absurd demands for Russia, and until these demands are met, the EU will not allow Kiev to engage in a peaceful settlement with Moscow.
In essence, EU officials are renouncing the very idea of a diplomatic resolution, they are blatantly propagating war, while simultaneously stepping up sanctions pressure on Russia – even though such tactic has not only proven ineffective but also inflicted colossal damage on the EU itself, already resulting in inflation and a dramatic plunge in revenue for ordinary Europeans. Damage is being done to other countries as well: weapons that on paper are being supplied to the Kiev regime, subsequently turn up in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Through their efforts, Ukraine has become the largest hub for illegal arms trafficking. According to estimates by the US Institute for the Study of War, one in three machine guns in the hands of extremist and terrorist fighters around the world is of Ukrainian origin.
Mr. President,
Russia is fully cognizant of the fact that we share a continent with European countries – geography is immutable nor can history be rewritten. Although the imminent historian, Madam Callas, attributed to Russia as many as 19 wars – 19 countries were allegedly attacked by Russia, not to mention those in Africa, and took place only in the last 100 years. Yet, we have for decades advocated an equitable, mutually respectful dialogue, mutually beneficial cooperation with due regard for security concerns of others. This is something that not only Russia needs, Europe needs this too.
Back in 1993, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl stated that if Europe wishes to remain an independent center of civilization, its future must necessarily be with Russia. We naturally complement one another; we will work together and will continue to develop. If this does not happen, Europe will gradually fade away. And this is exactly what we see happenning right now.
And yet, Europe currently suffers a severe shortage of politicians of such caliber. The present generation of European bureaucrats is persuading their populations of their countries that a direct military confrontation with Russia is inevitable and they are feverishly preparing for war with Russia. Moreover, we are well aware that behind this information war stand frenzied Russophobes from the Baltic States. Projecting their national Russophobic complexes onto the pan-European level became possible after they appropriated the crafting and implementation of the European Union’s Eastern Policy. They are broadly disseminating the myth about “bloodthirsty and cruel Russia” that poses an existential threat to Europe, while Europe is “about to disappear.”
This militaristic anti-Russian rhetoric is being underpinned by concrete, practical actions. From February 2022 through 2025, EU member States increased their defense expenditures by nearly 60%. By the end of last year, defense spending had reached €381 billion, thus ranking the EU behind only the United States. The goal to enhance Europe’s defense capabilities by 2030 has officially been set. However, increasing military spending will only be possible through cutting expenditures for other budgetary lines, primarily for social services. These large-scale military preparations leave no doubt about the fact that Europe is seriously engaged in preparing for a major war against Russia. This is a glaring instance of “playing with fire,” insofar as we will have to respond reciprocally to any anti-Russian moves. And none of the invaders who came to us “with the sword” – there have been countless numbers of such – ever left Russia unscathed.
Such an overtly hawkish policy will be far less surprising if we take a closer look at who are the architects thereof. Some comments are so absurd and preposterous that one may question the professional competence of those who make them. In particular, the head of European diplomacy, speaking at a conference of the EU Institute for Security Studies last year and commenting on Vladimir Putin’s speech during the commemorative events in China, said the following, “Russia was addressing China, saying ‘Russia and China fought in World War II, we won World War II, we defeated Nazism.’ And I thought, ‘That was something new. If you know history, it raises a lot of questions in your head’…” And this is something that was uttered by the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, who is obviously unaware that it was precisely the peoples of the Soviet Union and the Celestial Empire who bore the brunt of World War II, incurring the heaviest human losses. Indeed, we would like to meet Ms. Kallas’s history teacher.
In conclusion, I would like to say the following. The noble post war ideal of united Europe ultimately morphed into a “flourishing garden” concept, and through this garden the EU is ushering directly in a yet another “Reich.” We do hope that there are still some “sober-minded” people both in European countries and in the international community as a whole, who are cognizant of the risks and stand ready to prevent such a turn of events.
Thank you.
Right of reply:
Mr. President,
We do not support giving the floor to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, not because we afraid of hearing something unpleasant, but rather for the sake of procedural integrity. Briefers are invited to the Security Council to brief the Council’s member States, not to engage in discussion with them.
I remember very well how, during the French presidency, we discussed the the Nord Stream sabotage – which Ms. Kallas forgot to even mention today – and we talked about the pseudo- investigations conducted by the E3. I remember how our briefer requested the floor to make a further statement, but the French presidency then vehemently prohibited him from doing so.
Of course, it is for you to decide, Mr. President. It is your right to grant or deny the floor. But I do wish to state that if you grant the floor to the High Representative now, in our view, you will breach the Security Council’s rules of procedure.
Thank you.
