The Kremlin has hailed recent UN proceedings, such as the Security Council’s adoption of a US-written resolution, as evidence of the United States’ “more balanced” strategy for the war in Ukraine. The third anniversary of fighting between Russia and Ukraine falls during this shift in US policy.
The call for the decision for peace without blame is a significant shift by the United States away from its previous strong support for Ukraine. In 2014, Russia’s annexation of Crimea marked the beginning of the conflict with Ukraine. The war escalated significantly in February 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The United Nations is involved in solving the conflict diplomatically with more effort. Russia’s veto power in the UN Security Council has often foiled such efforts. But this struggle to pass resolutions condemning Russian actions, as witnessed by previous efforts, is useless.
Decision of UN General Assembly
The UN General Assembly has manifested its strong support for Ukraine by taking on resolutions calling for an end to hostilities and the withdrawal of Russian soldiers. These resolutions, however, are not legally binding and lack the authority of UN Security Council resolutions. They are not so much laws as they are forceful declarations of opinion. From the very start, the United States has been a competitive supporter of Ukraine, providing both diplomatic and military aid. Though it demands a shift to a more neutral or “balanced” approach, the UN Security Council passed a new resolution.
The change might be spelled out as an attempt to foster dialogue and settle peace instead of not directly condemning Russia’s actions. The US is not directly condemning it, but a more even-handed strategy could encourage Russia to engage in a thrashout. If each side is willing to compromise, then US condemnation could lead to a reduction in antagonism.
Britain and France opposed the Security Council resolution split with European partners and that was exposed by the US action.
There is a chance for Ukraine to experience diplomatic challenges as a consequence. The alliance against Russian aggression could be spoiled. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has focused on the need to have a “position of strength” when working out with Russia. A more even-handed US stance could make this approach harder if the pressure on Russia to negotiate from a position of weakness is reduced. Due to Russia’s veto, the Security Council had been unable to take any action during the war, hence this was the first resolution to pass.
Ukraine-Russian dialogue
Despite political divisions, US support is wide-ranging across both parties in encouraging Ukraine-Russian dialogue. However, this support exists alongside a desire to continue supporting Ukraine with military aid, suggesting a more complex public stance. The US shift is welcomed by the Kremlin, which manifests an eagerness to engage in peace processes. Nevertheless, Russian objectives in Ukraine remain unchanged, and it remains interested in military gain.
The move could be part of a broader strategy to dominate relations with China and Russia, both of which supported the Security Council resolution.
This could be a sign of an attempt to preserve global harmony amid growing hostilities. Europe’s stance remains less even, with some countries still strongly supporting Ukraine. However, there are indications that Europe can re-evaluate its position in the face of American diplomatic efforts. The permanent members’ veto power, such as Russia, disempowers the UN to settle conflicts. The new resolution highlights how the UN cannot impose peace without the consent of major powers. The Kremlin’s approval of a “more balanced” US policy towards Ukraine is reflective of a compound geopolitical landscape where diplomatic policies are significant.
This development could make possible communications and peace enterprise but also serve to make conflicts between Western allies more outstanding and complicate Ukraine’s debate strategy. Whether or not the diplomatic efforts synch up well with the security dynamics on the ground and the political will of leading participant states will dictate the fate of this conflict. Whether Russia and Ukraine are willing to compromise, facilitated by international diplomacy, will decide the fate of the peace negotiations.
The debate positions of both parties will continue to be determined by the battlefield situation on the ground. Russia is looking to achieve its strategic objectives and Ukraine is trying to maintain a good position. Ukraine’s ability to debate from a position of strength will remain a function of the level of backing from the United States and Europe.
