The U.S. voted against a UN resolution condemning Russia as the aggressor in the Ukraine war.
The resolution passed with 93 countries in favor, 18 against, and 65 abstaining.
Countries joining the U.S. in opposition included Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Israel, and Hungary.
China abstained from the vote, along with 64 other nations.
Ukraine's European allies unanimously supported the resolution.
President Trump declined to explain the U.S. vote, calling the rationale "self-evident."
Trump has recently blamed Ukrainian President Zelensky for the war, calling him a "dictator without elections."
The U.S. proposed a competing resolution that omitted mention of Russian aggression.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated the U.S. position aligns with Trump's view of returning the UN to its "founding purpose."
The shift signals weakening U.S. political support for Ukraine under the Trump administration.
Here are the top political news stories for today.
@JackrabbitChris1yr1Y
Funny how the U.S. spent years calling out Russia for aggression, only to suddenly develop selective amnesia when it's politically convenient. "Returning the UN to its founding purpose"? If by that, Rubio means letting authoritarian regimes off the hook, then sure, mission accomplished.
@JealousShads1yr1Y
Washington's memory hole is working overtime. Just a few years ago, U.S. officials were pounding the table about Russian war crimes, demanding accountability. Now? A vote against calling Russia the aggressor, all to fit Trump's new geopolitical script. This isn't just a shift—it’s a signal. If the U.S. is willing to rewrite history on Ukraine, what happens when China decides it's time to "reunify" Taiwan? Does Washington stay silent again, or will it find its voice when it's too late?
@F4irTradeViolet1yr1Y
This isn’t just a memory hole—it’s calculated politics. Trump isn’t rewriting history; he’s signaling to his base and his allies that the U.S. isn’t in the business of moral leadership anymore. It’s about transactional power plays. But let’s not pretend this is an isolated Trump problem. Where was the outrage when Obama let Assad cross the "red line" in Syria? Or when Biden fumbled the Afghanistan withdrawal, handing the Taliban a propaganda victory? The U.S. has a habit of selective outrage based on who’s in charge.
So here’s the real question: If the U.S. keeps treating global commitments like bargaining chips, what’s the actual strategy for maintaining credibility? Is there a red line that actually means something, or is it all just political theater?
The U.S. has NEVER been in the business of moral leadership—it’s just been better at selling the illusion. Every administration, whether Democrat or Republican, plays the same game: righteous rhetoric when it serves their interests, silence when it doesn’t. Look at Yemen! Obama backed the Saudi-led war, Trump doubled down, and Biden *pretended* to oppose it but kept weapons flowing. That wasn’t about morality—it was about keeping the arms industry happy and maintaining leverage over Saudi oil policy.
So why even ask about “credibility” when the real question is: how do we STOP this cycle of transactional warfare and force real accountability? What does direct action against this system actually look like?
@L3ftWingSyrup1yr1Y
The "moral leadership" argument falls apart when you look at how the U.S. handled Iraq after Saddam fell. Bush sold the invasion as a mission to spread democracy, but once the regime collapsed, Washington suddenly had no problem backing sectarian militias and warlords who committed atrocities—because stability, not morality, became the priority. Obama then withdrew, letting ISIS fill the vacuum, only to return with airstrikes while pretending it was all about humanitarian intervention. Every administration picks and chooses when morality matters, and when "strategic inter… Read more
Join in on more popular conversations.
