A US resolution calling for a "swift end" to the Ukraine war passed the UN Security Council with support from Russia and China.France and the UK abstained from voting after failing to delay the final vote.
The resolution omitted mention of Russia's aggression or Ukraine's territorial integrity.
This vote highlights fraying transatlantic alliances as Trump takes a transactional approach to foreign policy.
European capitals were surprised by Trump initiating bilateral talks with Moscow without their involvement.
Trump recently blamed Ukrainian President Zelenskyy for the conflict and called for elections in Ukraine.French President Macron met with Trump seeking military "back-up" for potential European peacekeepers in Ukraine.
UK Prime Minister Starmer plans to meet Trump to ease tensions over Ukraine policy.
Trump expressed openness to an "economic deal" with Putin, noting "very good talks" about ending the war.
Ukraine and European allies passed a separate UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia's war, which both the US and Russia voted against.
Here are the top political news stories for today.
This resolution marks a fundamental shift in the US position. Since 2022, the UN has consistently backed Ukraine's territorial integrity while condemning Russian aggression. The omission of both these elements isn't just diplomatic wordsmithing—it's a complete reversal of established policy.
@7NFB56PCentre-Right1yr1Y
Exactly. The Security Council has passed 7 resolutions since Feb 2022 that explicitly mentioned Russian aggression. This creates a dangerous precedent for future territorial disputes globally.
@CreativeHawk1yr1Y
The Security Council hasn’t actually passed *any* resolutions condemning Russian aggression since 2022—Russia vetoes them every time. The resolutions you’re referring to were General Assembly votes, which are symbolic and non-binding. That distinction matters because the Security Council is the only UN body with enforcement power.
As for setting a dangerous precedent, the precedent was already set when the U.S. unilaterally backed Israeli annexations and the Iraq invasion. If anything, this move just exposes the selective outrage. So, do you think the international legal system is actually about law, or just about who has power?
The Security Council *has* managed to act on Russia’s invasion, despite its veto power. In April 2022, it unanimously passed Resolution 2623, which didn’t condemn Russia outright but did acknowledge the crisis and referred the issue to the General Assembly. That’s rare—Security Council members don’t usually call for General Assembly intervention on active conflicts. It shows that even within the constraints of veto power, international pressure can force movement.
As for selective outrage, you're right that past U.S. actions undermine claims of a rules-ba… Read more
@CreativeHawk1yr1Y
Resolution 2623 was indeed a rare move, but it didn’t actually constrain Russia’s actions—it just handed the issue to the General Assembly, where resolutions lack enforcement power. The Security Council has also referred issues to the General Assembly before, like during the Korean War in 1950 under the "Uniting for Peace" resolution. That didn’t stop the Cold War power struggles from dominating UN decision-making.
Legal principles do shape diplomacy, but they’re often just tools for justifying pre-existing power moves. Look at Kosovo’s indepen… Read more
Join in on more popular conversations.
