IRIA News

6 minute read

In a stunning shift from long-standing policy, the United States sided with Russia on February 25, 2025, in votes on two United Nations resolutions on Ukraine, including the resolution condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The resolution was introduced by Ukraine to mark the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. European nations backed the resolution almost unanimously as it passed with 93 votes in favor.

The resolution condemned Russia’s continued military aggression and called for an immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. The U.S., however, introduced a rival resolution that avoided explicitly naming Russia as the aggressor or reaffirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

This dramatic shift in U.S. policy comes as the Trump administration has engaged in discussions with Moscow aimed at ending the war. President Donald Trump has escalated his rhetoric toward Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and European allies have been scrambling to adjust to the new American stance. French President Emmanuel Macron met with Trump at the White House on Monday, signaling growing concerns among European leaders over Washington’s position on the war.

#BREAKING

UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution “Advancing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine”; calls for deescalation, early cessation of hostilities and peaceful resolution of the war against Ukraine

RESULT
In favor: 93
Against: 18
Abstain: 65 pic.twitter.com/VhQ5Y1W2il

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) February 24, 2025

Security Council resolution

In a separate move, the U.S. voted alongside Russia at the UN Security Council on a resolution that it had itself introduced. The resolution, which did not explicitly name Russia as the aggressor, passed with 10 votes in favor, including from Russia, while five European members abstained.

Efforts by European nations to strengthen the resolution language failed due to Russian vetoes. The final resolution simply “implores a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.” It also expresses sorrow over the loss of life on both sides and underscores the UN’s mission to maintain international peace and security.

Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya praised the U.S.-led resolution, calling it “a first attempt to have a constructive and future-oriented product” and a starting point for future peace efforts.

“The text we passed is not an ideal one, but in essence, it is a first attempt to have a constructive and future-oriented product by the Council which is talking about the path to peace, rather than blowing the conflict up,” Nebenzya said.

U.S. charge d’affaires Dorothy Shea defended the resolution, calling it the Security Council’s first step toward a peaceful resolution. “This resolution puts us on the path to peace. It is a first step, but a crucial one, one of which we should all be proud. Now we must use it to build a peaceful future for Ukraine, Russia, and the international community,” Shea said.

Strong backlash from European diplomats

Despite Shea’s optimism, European diplomats reacted sharply to the resolution’s passage, protesting that it failed to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

“There will be no peace and security anywhere if aggressions are rewarded, and if the law of the jungle wins,” French Ambassador to the UN Nicolas de Riviere said.

UK Ambassador to the UN Barbara Woodward also strongly criticized the resolution’s failure to explicitly recognize Russia’s role as the aggressor. “No one wants peace more than Ukraine, but the terms of that peace matter,” Woodward said. “Only a just peace, one that honors the terms of our charter, will endure.”

She stressed that equating Russia and Ukraine in the context of the war was misleading and dangerous. “And the terms of the peace must send a message that aggression does not pay. This is why there can be no equivalence between Russia and Ukraine in how this council refers to this war,” she said.

Woodward added, “If we are to find a path to sustainable peace, the Council must be clear on the war’s origins. We also owe it to the people of Ukraine, who have suffered so much.”

Woodward further emphasized that any peace deal must involve Ukraine’s consent. “What, how, and on what terms this war ends can only be decided by negotiations with Ukraine. No peace will be sustainable without Ukraine’s consent,” she said.

She also accused Russia of attempting to manipulate the narrative of the war. “Russia chose to launch a war of aggression against a sovereign state, but again, today, is seeking to obfuscate that fact,” Woodward added.

Addressing the UN General Assembly, Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa said that the way Russian aggression is answered “will define the future of Ukraine…Europe and our common future”. Later, at the media stakeout outside the Security Council Chamber, she said the General Assembly had demanded “an early end to this war of aggression and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in Ukraine, in line with the UN Charter”.

US abstains from the resolution

Earlier in the day, at the General Assembly, Shea urged member states to support the U.S. resolution while rejecting Ukraine’s, arguing that it was more important to focus on ending the war rather than assigning blame.

“The U.S. cannot support Ukraine’s resolution, and we urge its withdrawal in favor of a strong statement committing us to end the war and work towards a lasting peace,” Shea said.

However, in a surprising turn, the U.S. ultimately abstained from voting on its resolution after several amendments were passed that strengthened the language against Russia and reaffirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

This left the U.S. in the unique position of opposing Ukraine’s resolution, introducing a rival resolution, and then abstaining from its proposal after European amendments made it more critical of Russia.

Broader implications

The U.S. decision to align itself with Russia at the UN represents a seismic shift in its approach to the Ukraine war. Under previous administrations, Washington was a steadfast supporter of Kyiv, leading international efforts to impose sanctions on Russia and supply military aid to Ukraine.

However, Trump’s approach has been markedly different, as he has sought negotiations with Moscow while simultaneously increasing pressure on Zelenskyy. His administration’s change in tone has left European allies scrambling to reassess their positions, fearing that the U.S. might be stepping away from its traditional role as a defender of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

The split between the U.S. and its European allies could have significant consequences for Ukraine’s ability to continue its defense against Russian aggression. With Washington appearing less willing to take a firm stand against Moscow, European leaders may be forced to take on a greater role in supporting Kyiv both militarily and diplomatically.