At Three-Year Mark of Russian Federation’s Invasion, General Assembly Upholds Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity, Adopting Two Resolutions
Member States Concur on Need to End War, But Differ on Best Path to Achieve It
Three years after the Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the General Assembly today adopted two resolutions reaffirming Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, calling for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in line with the United Nations Charter. While Member States broadly agreed on the urgent need to end the war, they differed on the best path to achieving peace.
“We cannot afford another year of this unjust war,” said Francisco José Da Cruz (Angola), Vice-President of the General Assembly as he opened the eleventh Emergency Special Session on Ukraine, noting that the Assembly has been clear in its stance, adopting six resolutions demanding the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine territory. “Russian aggression against Ukraine is a grave violation of the United Nations Charter,” he added. While the Security Council has been deadlocked, “let us prove — through action, not words — that a comprehensive and lasting peace is within our reach”, he stressed.
The Assembly can convene an Emergency Special Session when the Security Council “fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression”. Today’s meeting takes place as the United States, under President Donald J. Trump, launches peace talks with the Russian Federation without the participation of Ukraine or Europe.
Member States had before them two competing draft resolutions — L.10, submitted by Ukraine and European countries, titled “Advancing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine”, and L.11, proposed by the United States, titled “The path to peace”.
United States Shifts Stance; Marked Decline in ‘Yes’ Votes
The General Assembly adopted draft resolution “L.10” by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 18 against, with 65 abstentions. Notably, the United States voted against it, alongside the Russian Federation, marking an apparent shift of its position. Two years ago, Washington, D.C., supported a similar resolution (document A/RES/ES-11/6), which garnered 141 votes in favour. (See Press Release GA/12492 of 23 February 2023.)
By “L.10”, the Assembly — reaffirming its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders — recalled the need for full implementation of its relevant resolutions adopted in response to the aggression against Ukraine, in particular its demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine.
Introducing “L.10”, Mariana Betsa, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said: “This is a moment of truth — a historic moment.” The way States respond to the Russian Federation’s aggression today will define not only the future of Ukraine or Europe, but “our common future”, she said. “This has never been about Ukraine,” she continued, noting that Moscow wants to replace the world based on international law by that based on the rule of force. Today, Ukraine fights for a “world of nations that are not divided into predators and prey”, where no grey zones exist, she added. Stressing that the General Assembly’s response must include substantive elements, she said that this is a rational behind the draft. “We need clear guidance,” not just a ceasefire, she emphasized, noting that by adopting the draft, the Assembly will address the global impact of war.
European Pushback against United States Text
The United States’ introduction of a rival text, “L.11” — which called on the Assembly to “implore a swift end to the conflict and further urge a lasting peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation” — encountered resistance due to its omission of any reference to Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the victim’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Recalling that the Assembly adopted multiple resolutions that have demanded that the Russian Federation withdraw its forces from Ukraine, the representative of the United States said: “Those resolutions have failed to stop the war. […] What we need is a resolution marking the commitment from all UN Member States to bring a durable end to the war.” The draft resolution submitted by her country focused on one simple idea — ending the war. She said her country cannot support Ukraine’s resolution, urging its withdrawal “in favor of a strong statement, committing us to end the war”.
France, on behalf of European States, proposed amendments to it, “L.13”, “L.14”, and “L.15”, which added references to Moscow’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the need for a “just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in line with the Charter of the United Nations”. France’s representative stressed that “it is a vote for international law”, and that a conflict resolution without Ukraine and Europe would establish “a primacy of force over law”.
For its part, the Russian Federation sought to insert a reference to “root causes” of the conflict by tabling an amendment, “L.12”. Its representative noted that that the world has found itself on the brink of a third World War due to “the anti-Russian project called Ukraine”. Stressing that the “Zelenskyy formula” and the "Bürgenstock process" are not viable, he noted “everyone who is going to press the button today” can choose a text divorced from reality or one offering practical steps to peace. The United States’ text is a step in the right direction, he added.
While rejecting Moscow’s proposal, the Assembly adopted European-led amendments. These changes brought the initial United States draft in line with key elements highlighted in the Ukraine-drafted resolution adopted earlier. As amended, the Assembly adopted “L.11” by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 8 against (Belarus, Burkina Faso, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Russian Federation, Sudan), with 73 abstentions. The United States abstained, as the amended version diverged from its original intent.
Support for Ukraine in Line with UN Charter
Many Member States reaffirmed their unequivocal support for Ukraine. Among them was Canada, whose representative stressed that Ukraine wants peace more than any Member State here, asking: “The question is what kind of peace will it be? Will it be a peace based on justice, on the Charter and on the principles for which we stand, or will it be a peace that is a result of an imposition?” To the people and Government of Ukraine, he said: “You are fighting for us all. […] We are inspired by your bravery, and we must match your bravery with our own courage.”
“There will be peace, the moment Russia stops the fighting,” said Erica Schouten, Special Envoy to Ukraine of the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, adding: “To ensure that ‘might does not mean right’, we need to respect all principles we have vowed to uphold now and in the future.”
Radosław Sikorski, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, noted that, according to Kremlin’s propaganda, the war started three years ago was “a justified reaction to western imperialism”. However, in fact, it is a modern-day colonial war against Ukrainian people and “a failing empire’s desperate struggle to restore its sphere of influence”.
Japan’s delegate said that “in a world of diverse views and positions, the UN Charter serves as the foundation of all international relations and a common agreement that all Member States must faithfully observe.” The Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine is a clear and blatant violation of international law including the UN Charter. He also expressed hope that the various ongoing diplomatic efforts, including those of the United States, lead to a breakthrough in the situation.
Ukraine’s Participation in Peace Talks Essential
Many States, including the Czech Republic’s representative, stressed that there can be no durable settlement for Ukraine without its participation and consent. His country’s own history suggests that aggressors are seldom satisfied with concessions designed to assuage them. Adding to that, the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, noted that no one has a larger stake in European security than Europeans. “Hand in hand with Ukraine”, the bloc has worked on pursuing diplomatic efforts towards peace.
Sweden’s delegate, also speaking for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, stressed that Ukraine must be part of any negotiations and Europe must be involved in decisions that affect its security.
Offering a contrasting perspective, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea condemned today’s meeting as “motivated by sinister political purpose” and “turning black into white”. Noting that the Ukraine crisis was caused by the Western proxies, he highlighted “astronomical amounts of weapons” provided by the West, amounting to $200 billion. “This fact clearly indicates who is destroying and obliterating the security in Europe,” he said, reiterating support to Moscow in defending sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Push for New Approach
South Africa abstained from the text tabled by Ukraine. “If we continue doing what we have been doing and it doesn’t reap positive results, then we should consider a different approach,” its delegate said, urging parties to the conflict to identify areas of common interest rather than focus on differences. Similarly, Paraguay’s announced his abstention on the draft proposed by Ukraine, while expressing support for the United States’ text, noting that the latter provides an opportunity to “enter into dialogue”.
Some delegations, including Brazil, Syria and Kuwait — speaking for the Gulf Cooperation Council — abstained from voting on both draft resolutions. Noting that “L.10” reiterated concepts that have not helped advance towards peace and “L.11” was presented with insufficient time for a constructive process of consultations and adjustment, Brazil’s representative observed: “A landing zone between both projects is still both possible.”
“Calls for diplomacy, dialogue and negotiations are gaining momentum,” said Türkiye’s representative, noting that, from the Istanbul talks in March 2022 to the Black Sea Grain Initiative, Ankara has actively pursued diplomacy and achieved concrete results. To that end, he said his delegation voted in favour of both texts.