U.S. pressures Kyiv to replace U.N. resolution condemning Russia
The Trump administration wants Ukraine’s resolution withdrawn and replaced with a toned-down version that officials feel is overly sympathetic to Russia.
February 22, 2025 at 6:20 p.m. ESTtoday at 6:20 p.m. EST
Protesters march toward the Russian Embassy in central London on Saturday in support of Ukraine ahead of the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion. (Benjamin Cremel/AFP/Getty Images)
Written by Siobhán O'Grady, Karen DeYoung, Michael Birnbaum and Ellen Francis
KYIV — The Trump administration has called on Ukraine to withdraw an annual resolution at the United Nations condemning Russia’s war and instead wants to replace it with a U.S.-sponsored statement calling for an end to the conflict that contains no mention of Russian responsibility, according to officials and diplomats from a number of involved countries.
Get concise answers to your questions. Try Ask The Post AI.
The suggestion stunned Kyiv, which has refused to withdraw its resolution that is set to be voted on during a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly on Monday morning, coinciding with the three-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Ukraine was informed of the new U.S. proposal on Friday.
The abrupt shift in U.S. posture at the United Nations, where the United States has long been at the forefront of resolutions supporting Ukraine and condemning Russia, is an indication of the increasing strains between Kyiv and Washington. It comes after President Donald Trump reached out to Russian President Vladimir Putin while calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator” and blamed Ukraine for starting the war. On Tuesday, top U.S. officials held talks with Russia that excluded Ukraine.
The U.N. standoff and rising tensions put in jeopardy continuing discussions that would see Washington secure mineral rights in Ukraine as compensation for its billions of dollars of military assistance and economic support for the Ukrainian war effort.
🌎
Following World news
Following
As the dispute stretched into the weekend, the United States was said to be considering offering its version at a separate meeting of the 15-member U.N. Security Council, according to the officials and diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the still-unresolved discussions. It was unclear what that would mean for Ukraine’s General Assembly resolution.
The Trump administration has asked for a 9 a.m. council meeting Monday, an hour before the 193-member General Assembly is scheduled to meet.
The Trump administration seemed determined to have its position supported. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement Friday saying that Washington “has proposed a simple, historic resolution in the United Nations that we urge all member states to support in order to chart a path to peace.”
“Through support of this resolution, we affirm that this conflict is awful, that the UN can help end it, and that peace is possible. We strongly believe that this is the moment to commit to ending the war,” the statement said. Rubio also signed off on a directive to all U.S. diplomatic posts worldwide, urging U.S. diplomats to push countries to support the U.S. resolution instead of the Ukrainian one.
Kyiv, it appeared, was doing some lobbying of its own, as Zelensky and Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said on social media Saturday that they had spoken with their Dutch and British counterparts and both backed the Ukrainian position.
The U.S. resolution, according to a draft obtained Friday by The Washington Post, is four lines long. Titled “The Path to Peace,” it “mourns” the loss of life, notes that the “principal purpose of the United Nations” is to maintain peace and settle disputes, and “implores a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.”
By contrast, Ukraine’s lengthy resolution, with dozens of co-sponsors, details charges of Russian extraterritorial aggression and human rights abuses and reaffirms Ukraine’s right to sovereignty over all of its territory. It notes provisional rulings against Russia at the U.N.’s International Court of Justice, emphasizes “the need to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes,” and warns that involvement of North Korean troops fighting alongside Russia “raises serious concerns regarding escalation.”
It “reiterates the urgent need to end the war this year” through multilateral diplomacy and to “achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace” consistent with the U.N. Charter and international law.
Trump administration officials have characterized the Ukrainian resolution as overly antagonistic toward Russia and less likely to result in a successful outcome.
The Ukrainian version is closely similar to U.S. co-sponsored resolutions passed overwhelmingly during the Biden administration. Only seven member states voted against the 2023 version — Russia, North Korea, Belarus, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua and Syria.
After Washington reviewed the Ukrainian resolution, it “demanded to make some changes to make it weaker,” including “pro-Russian” language, said one of the officials familiar with the exchange. The United States then proposed a new resolution and demanded Kyiv withdraw its version, which had already been scheduled for the Monday General Assembly session.
The U.S. proposal “shocked” the Ukrainians, the official said, and Zelensky ordered his Foreign Ministry not to withdraw Ukraine’s existing resolution.
“Their proposition is very short and totally new language,” the official said of the U.S. version. “Many representatives of other nations say that this looks more like a call for appeasement with Putin rather than a call for peace.”
The Trump administration’s request to Kyiv suggested that it is trying to “bypass all possible procedures in the U.N.” by requesting Ukraine withdraw its text voluntarily to pave the way for other nations to sign on to the U.S. text.
“We have a lot of signs of possible bad things, but it is shocking that they’re making pressure on [Ukraine] but not on Russians,” the official said.
“It’s self-explanatory” what is happening, a senior European diplomat said.
General Assembly resolutions are not binding but express the opinions of the member states, while resolutions of the 15-member Security Council have the force of international law. Ukraine is not a member of the Security Council, where five permanent members — the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain — have veto power. The other 10 members are appointed for rotating two-year terms on a regional basis. For a council resolution to pass, it must have no vetoes and at least nine members voting in favor.
In a statement released Saturday morning, the State Department said Rubio had spoken with Foreign Minister Sybiha on Friday “to reaffirm President Trump’s commitment to ending the conflict in Ukraine, including through effective action in the United Nations Security Council.”
Washington has also opposed phrasing in a statement that the Group of Seven — which includes the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Britain and Japan — was preparing to issue next week condemning Russian aggression on the anniversary of the invasion, two other European diplomats said.
“It is considerably weaker than previous years,” one of them said. Next week, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are due to meet with Trump in Washington.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Saturday that Trump “believes very strongly that Russia is willing to make a deal” on ending the war, “and he’s fighting to make a deal.”
DeYoung and Birnbaum reported from Washington, and Francis reported from Brussels. John Hudson in Washington contributed reporting.
What readers are saying
The comments overwhelmingly express outrage and disappointment at the Trump administration's request for Ukraine to withdraw its resolution condemning Russia's war. Many commenters accuse Trump of being a Russian asset and criticize his administration for appeasing Putin,... Show more
This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.
View the conversation 1363
| |
