Ukraine: Briefing and Vote on a Draft Resolution*
Tomorrow afternoon (24 February), the Security Council will convene for a high-level briefing on Ukraine. The meeting was requested by Ukraine, supported by Denmark, France, Greece, Panama, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Slovenia, the UK, and the US to mark the three-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo is the anticipated briefer. Ukraine and several regional countries are expected to participate under rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure.
Before the briefing, the Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution on Ukraine authored by the US. The draft text currently in blue has just one operational paragraph which urges a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine and implores a swift end to the conflict between the two countries. If adopted, this would mark the first substantive Security Council resolution on Ukraine since Russia launched its invasion of the country. The Council previously adopted resolution 2623 of 27 February 2022, a “Uniting for Peace” resolution which established the 11th Emergency Special Session (ESS) of the General Assembly on Ukraine.
Briefing
Three years into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war continues to have devastating effects on civilians. As at 11 February, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had documented 41,783 civilian casualties, including at least 12,605 deaths. Among them, at least 669 children have been killed and 1,854 injured.
Near-daily airstrikes on populated areas in Ukrainian cities have caused widespread electricity and heating outages, exacerbating hardships amid freezing winter conditions. On 8 January, two aerial bombs struck an industrial facility in the southern city of Zaporizhzhia, killing 14 people and injuring 115, in one of the attacks with the highest number of civilian casualties since the start of the war. To date, 786 medical facilities and 1,662 educational institutions have been damaged or destroyed.
According to UN Women, the conflict has also reversed decades of progress for women and girls. In a 19 February statement, UN Women Representative in Ukraine Sabine Freizer Gunes said that the war “has pushed an entire generation of Ukrainian women backwards”, citing heightened exposure to gender-based violence, rising unemployment, and a severe mental health crisis.
Concerns over nuclear safety persist. On 14 February, a drone attack caused a fire at the containment structure of the reactor damaged in the 1986 Chornobyl disaster. While radiation levels remained stable, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said that the incident was “deeply concerning” and underscored the ongoing risks to nuclear security posed by the conflict.
Tomorrow’s Security Council meeting takes place against the backdrop of a notable shift in US policy on Ukraine. On 12 February, US President Donald Trump held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, during which they agreed to initiate negotiations to end the war. Trump subsequently informed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of the planned talks. The move signalled a departure from Washington’s previous strategy of isolating Moscow, raising concerns in Kyiv and among its European allies that Ukraine and Europe could be sidelined in the process.
Zelenskyy has stressed that Ukraine would not accept a peace deal brokered without its direct involvement. In a 12 February statement, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the UK, along with European Union (EU) High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas, asserted that Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations. The Nordic-Baltic countries echoed this message in a 14 February statement. Kallas has also criticised Washington’s approach as “appeasement”. Trump later said that Ukraine and “other people” would be involved in the talks.
Tensions between the US and Europe deepened following remarks by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at a 12 February meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, an alliance of 57 countries and the EU that support Ukraine by sending military equipment. At that meeting, Hegseth suggested that the US would no longer prioritise European security over other strategic concerns. He ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine as a realistic outcome, described a return to pre-2014 borders as “unrealistic”, and proposed a security arrangement that involves European troops but excludes US forces. His comments were later softened amid European backlash, with Hegseth clarifying that all options remained under consideration. On 14 February, US Vice President J.D. Vance said that military and economic leverage remained available should Moscow fail to negotiate in good faith.
The US has since continued sending mixed messages to Europe. During a side event of the Munich Security Conference on 15 February, the US special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, retired Lieutenant-General Keith Kellogg, stated that European participation at the negotiating table was not guaranteed, although their interests would be considered. On 16 February, the US reportedly circulated a questionnaire to European capitals, requesting details on their potential contributions to Ukraine’s security guarantees. In response, on 17 February, French President Emmanuel Macron convened an emergency meeting of European partners to coordinate their strategy. Ahead of the talks, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that the UK was “ready and willing” to deploy troops to Ukraine to contribute to security guarantees as part of a peace deal. According to media reports, France and the UK are developing a plan to deploy up to 30,000 European peacekeepers in Ukraine with the US’ support. Macron and Starmer are expected to discuss the plan with Trump in separate meetings in the coming days.
On 18 February, a high-level US-Russia summit was held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. US officials have described the meeting as an exploratory dialogue to gauge Russia’s willingness to strike a peace deal. The summit has raised concerns about a potential shift in Washington’s foreign policy, signalling a move away from the post-World War II transatlantic alliance. Trump had recently heightened these concerns by downplaying US strategic interests in the war, asserting on 19 February that Ukraine is “far more important to Europe than it is to us”. On 20 February, Trump said that Russia holds “the cards” in any peace talks. Some analysts have argued that such rhetoric underestimates the security threat posed by Russia and weakens Ukraine’s position in any potential negotiations. There has also been criticism of Washington’s apparent willingness to make early concessions to Moscow, particularly regarding Ukraine’s territorial integrity and NATO aspirations.
Against this backdrop, tensions have surfaced between Washington and Kyiv over a reported US proposal granting the US extensive rights over Ukraine’s natural resources. Kyiv has reportedly rejected several offers over what it perceives as insufficient security guarantees. On 19 February, Trump publicly criticised Zelenskyy, calling him a “dictator without elections” and warning that he “better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left”. Spokesperson for the Secretary-General Stéphane Dujarric later countered that Zelenskyy “sits in office after duly held elections”.
At tomorrow’s meeting, DiCarlo is expected to reflect on the significance of the third anniversary of the war, providing an assessment of the situation in Ukraine and the broader implications for international peace and security. She may reiterate the call of Secretary-General António Guterres for “urgent de-escalation and an immediate end to the hostilities”, while welcoming efforts towards a just, sustainable, and comprehensive peace that upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders, in line with the UN Charter, international law, and General Assembly resolutions.
DiCarlo may also note that the UN has been planning for various post-conflict scenarios. In a 21 February interview, UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Ukraine Matthias Schmale acknowledged a growing diplomatic consensus that a ceasefire could be reached in the near future. He highlighted the challenges that would follow, including the reintegration of hundreds of thousands of traumatised soldiers, the return of millions of refugees, and the situation of Ukrainians living in Russian-occupied territories in the east and south. Schmale also raised key questions regarding a potential demilitarised zone, the role of an international peacekeeping force in maintaining a ceasefire, and the provision of humanitarian aid in a post-war context. He stressed that the UN is working to remain as agile and prepared as possible for any scenario.
Draft Resolution
The US-proposed draft resolution in blue is a short text that mourns the “tragic loss of life throughout the Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict” and reiterates that the principal purpose of the UN is to maintain international peace and security and to peacefully settle disputes. It contains only one operative paragraph, which urges a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine and implores a swift end to the conflict. The US put its draft text straight into blue on 21 February, without prior consultations with Security Council members. It then requested that China, February’s Council President, schedule a vote on its draft resolution for tomorrow before 10 am. However, China scheduled the vote for tomorrow afternoon, just ahead of the high-level briefing on Ukraine.
The US has put forward an almost identical text for consideration at the UN General Assembly’s 11th ESS on Ukraine, scheduled for tomorrow morning. Ukraine had requested the session’s resumption, intending, alongside EU member states, to introduce a draft General Assembly resolution titled “Advancing a Comprehensive, Just and Lasting Peace in Ukraine”. This draft resolution is largely based on agreed language from A/RES/ES-11/6 of 23 February 2023, which was adopted by the ESS on the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, by a vote of 141 in favour, seven against, and 32 abstentions. Among current Council members, Russia voted against the 2023 text, three members abstained (Algeria, China, and Pakistan), and the rest voted in favour.
The draft General Assembly resolution prepared by Ukraine and EU member states calls for de-escalation, an early cessation of hostilities, and a peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine. It reaffirms commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders and reiterates the demand for Russia to immediately, completely, and unconditionally withdraw all its military forces from Ukraine. At the time of writing, the draft resolution had 57 co-sponsors, while the US draft General Assembly resolution was co-sponsored by Georgia and Hungary.
In announcing the draft General Assembly resolution on 21 February, the US argued that the text presents an opportunity to “build real momentum toward peace”, stressing that if the UN is genuinely committed to its founding purpose, it must recognise that a lasting peace in Ukraine remains attainable.
The US reportedly urged Ukraine to withdraw its draft General Assembly resolution and join the US initiative, arguing that the resolution prepared by Ukraine and EU member states would hinder progress towards a sustainable peace agreement. However, Ukraine and EU member states opted to proceed with their text, which was developed through extensive and inclusive consultations in recent weeks.
Meanwhile, EU member states have proposed three amendments to the US draft General Assembly text, drawing on previously agreed language. These include replacing “Russia-Ukraine conflict” with “the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation”; inserting a preambular paragraph reaffirming the Council’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders, including its territorial waters; and adding language to the operative paragraph to ensure that the Council calls for a “just, lasting, and comprehensive” peace in accordance with the UN Charter and the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity.
Russia has also proposed an amendment to the US draft General Assembly resolution, seeking to modify the operative paragraph to include language urging the Council to call for a swift end to the conflict, “including by addressing its root causes”. A similar amendment, introduced by Belarus in 2023 (A/ES-11/L.9), failed to secure adoption by the General Assembly. Among the current Security Council members, China and Russia supported the draft amendment, while three members (Algeria, Guyana, and Pakistan) abstained, and eight members (Denmark, France, Greece, Panama, the ROK, Slovenia, the UK, and the US) voted against it.
Further amendments to either of the draft General Assembly resolutions—proposed by the US or by Ukraine and EU member states—may be introduced during the ESS. At the time of writing, however, it appeared likely that the draft resolution prepared by Ukraine and EU member states would garner the requisite support for adoption, albeit significantly less than the 141 votes that ES-11/6 received in 2023.
Amendments similar to those proposed by Russia and EU member states at the General Assembly may be proposed to the US draft Security Council resolution during tomorrow’s vote. In accordance with rule 33 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, which states that amendments “shall have precedence in the order named over all principal motions and draft resolutions”, any proposed amendments would be voted on first before the Council proceeds to a vote on the whole draft resolution. Amendments are considered substantive matters and are therefore subject to the veto at the Security Council. Absent a veto, amendments require nine out of 15 votes to be adopted.
__________________________________________________________
**Post-script: Prior to the vote on the draft resolution proposed by the US, Council members Denmark, France, Greece and the UK requested closed consultations to discuss the text. Following the consultations, France, on behalf of these three other members, then proposed a procedural vote to postpone the session until the following afternoon (25 February), citing rule 33 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. Rule 33 states that motions, including to postpone discussion of the question to a certain day, shall have precedence over all principal motions and draft resolutions relative to the subject before the meeting. France argued that the US-proposed draft resolution was “introduced without real negotiations” among Council members and that additional time was necessary to address the matter. The motion was not adopted because it did not garner the requisite votes. It received six votes in favour (China, Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia, and the UK), three against (Panama, Somalia, and the US), and six abstentions (Algeria, Guyana, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, Russia, and Sierra Leone).
Subsequently, the Council voted on five draft amendments: three proposed by the European Council members (E5)—Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia, and the UK—and two proposed by Russia.
The vote on the E5 draft amendment (S/2025/114) to replace “Russia-Ukraine conflict” in PP1 with “the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation” did not garner the requisite votes, receiving six votes in favour (Denmark, France, Greece, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, and the UK), one against (Russia), and eight abstentions (Algeria, China, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and the US).
The vote on the E5 draft amendment (S/2025/115) to insert a preambular paragraph reaffirming the Council’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders was not adopted because of a veto cast by Russia. Nine members voted in favour (Algeria, Denmark, France, Greece, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Somalia, and the UK), one against (Russia), and five abstained (China, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, and the US).
The vote on the E5 draft amendment (S/2025/116) to change the operative paragraph to urge a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Ukraine and Russia in line with the UN Charter and the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of states was also not adopted because of a veto case by Russia. Eleven members voted in favour (Algeria, China, Denmark, France, Greece, Guyana, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Somalia, and the UK), one against (Russia), and three abstained (Pakistan, Panama, and the US).
The vote on Russia’s draft amendment (S/2025/117) adding a reference to the root causes of the conflict did not secure the required votes for adoption. Four members voted in favour (Algeria, China, Russia, and Somalia), six against (Denmark, France, Greece, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, and the UK), and five abstained (Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, Sierra Leone, and the US).
The vote on Russia’s draft amendment (S/2025/118) to delete all references to the Russian Federation in the text also did not garner the requisite votes for adoption. It received one vote in favour (Russia), seven against (Denmark, France, Greece, Panama, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, and the UK), and seven abstentions (Algeria, China, Guyana, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and the US).
The Council proceeded to vote on the US-authored draft resolution, without any of the draft amendments included. The draft text, which was adopted as resolution 2774, urges a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine and implores a swift end to the conflict between the two countries. The resolution received ten votes in favour and five abstentions (Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia, and the UK).
