Ukraine: Briefing
Tomorrow afternoon (29 April), the Security Council will hold an open briefing on Ukraine. Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia, and the UK requested the meeting to receive an update on political and humanitarian developments. French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Noël Barrot will chair the meeting. Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo and Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Joyce Msuya are the anticipated briefers. Ukraine and several regional states are expected to participate in the meeting under rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure.
Tomorrow’s meeting will take place amid a surge in diplomatic efforts by the US to broker a comprehensive ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine before the 100-day mark of US President Donald Trump’s second term. The US administration had set this timeline as a goal for achieving major progress in resolving the crisis in Ukraine.
On 17 April, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented a ceasefire proposal to Ukrainian and European counterparts in Paris. The proposal reportedly entailed a permanent ceasefire; security guarantees by an “ad hoc grouping of European states plus willing non-European states”; Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership while allowing its pursuit of EU membership; US de jure recognition of Russia’s control over Crimea and de facto recognition of its control over the four Ukrainian regions it currently partially occupies; and the lifting of sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014.
Following the meeting, Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly expressed a willingness to pause hostilities along the current front lines. Ukraine and European leaders, however, strongly opposed key elements of the US plan, particularly the formal recognition of Russian control over Crimea. In a 23 April post on X, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy referenced the 2018 Crimea Declaration issued by Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State during Trump’s first term, which affirmed that “the United States rejects Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and pledges to maintain this policy until Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored”.
On 23 April, Ukrainian and European officials submitted a counterproposal during a follow-up meeting in London with the US special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, retired Lieutenant-General Keith Kellogg. The revised plan reportedly called for a permanent ceasefire, with monitoring being led by the US and supported by third countries; strong security guarantees, including a US commitment akin to NATO’s Article 5 on collective defence; and deferral of territorial status negotiations until after a full ceasefire had been achieved. It also proposed partly funding Ukraine’s reconstruction through frozen Russian sovereign assets and stipulated that sanctions on Russia would be lifted gradually, with a snapback mechanism being put in place should Russia violate the agreement.
The impasse over the proposed framework has fuelled mounting frustration in Washington, prompting Trump to increase pressure on both Kyiv and Moscow. He has criticised Zelenskyy for opposing aspects of the plan, particularly on Crimea, insisting that “nobody is asking Zelenskyy to recognize Crimea as Russian territory” and warning that Zelenskyy’s comments were “very harmful to the peace negotiations with Russia”. At the same time, Trump has publicly condemned Russia’s continued missile and drone attacks targeting Ukraine. In a social media post following Russia’s 24 April strike on Kyiv that resulted in over 90 civilian casualties, Trump questioned whether Moscow genuinely sought an end to the war, warning that if Russia was merely “tapping [him] along”, it would need to be “dealt with differently”, through “Banking” or “Secondary Sanctions”. Trump has also suggested that he may abandon the negotiations entirely if swift progress is not made.
Aware of the stakes surrounding continued US engagement, both Kyiv and Moscow have sought to project diplomatic flexibility, signalling a willingness to compromise while portraying the other as the less cooperative party in the US-led ceasefire efforts. For instance, Russia announced a 24-hour unilateral ceasefire for Easter on 20 April—which was reportedly not implemented—and a planned 72-hour ceasefire from 8 to 11 May to coincide with World War 2 Victory Day commemorations on 9 May. Moscow has also indicated its willingness to hold bilateral talks with Ukraine, dropping its previous demand that elections be held before negotiations could proceed, a condition that is not feasible under Ukraine’s current martial law. There have been no direct negotiations between the two sides since the early weeks of Russia’s February 2022 invasion.
Ukraine, for its part, has stressed its readiness for an unconditional ceasefire while arguing that Russia’s continued attacks on Ukrainian cities demonstrate bad faith. Simultaneously, it has worked to strengthen ties with Washington, pursuing a natural resources agreement centred on rare earth minerals. On 17 April, the two sides signed a “memorandum of intent” to create a joint investment fund to support Ukraine’s reconstruction as part of an “economic partnership” between the two countries.
High-level diplomacy has continued through late April, with another Witkoff-Putin meeting on 25 April and a Trump-Zelenskyy encounter on the sidelines of the funeral of Pope Francis in Rome on 26 April. With the end-of-April deadline looming, uncertainty remains over whether the US will continue its mediation efforts or pivot its focus elsewhere after this week.
At tomorrow’s meeting, DiCarlo and Msuya are expected to provide an update on the political and humanitarian situations in Ukraine. As at 9 April, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had documented 43,610 civilian casualties since February 2022, including at least 12,910 deaths, while noting that true figures are likely to be higher as some reports are still pending confirmation. OHCHR has confirmed that 2,632 children have been killed or injured in the war. Moreover, the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine continues to worsen, exacerbated by a surge in hostilities that has sharply increased needs near the front lines. According to an 11 April situation report by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), over 20,000 people were displaced from front-line areas in January and February.
DiCarlo is likely to reiterate UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ 13 April appeal for a durable ceasefire and emphasise the UN’s continued support for a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity in accordance with the UN Charter, international law, and relevant UN resolutions.
Council members are expected to express concern over the ongoing hostilities and underline the urgent need for a comprehensive ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Most members are likely to welcome recent diplomatic engagement, stressing that any agreement must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The US is expected to present its mediation efforts as a pragmatic bid to halt violence and encourage progress towards a political settlement, urging Kyiv and Moscow to engage seriously.
Several Council members—including the European members—are expected to condemn Russia’s ongoing strikes on civilian infrastructure, including the 24 April attack on Kyiv, stressing that such actions undermine trust and further distance the parties from a ceasefire agreement. They may argue that Russia’s proposed ceasefire next month is insufficient and press for an immediate, unconditional, and comprehensive ceasefire in line with international law and the UN Charter.
During a 17 April press stakeout following the Council’s private meeting and closed consultations on Ukraine, the European Council members stressed that Ukraine had demonstrated its commitment to peace by agreeing to a full, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire, while Russia had rejected such a proposal during the consultations. In its own stakeout, Russia argued that a comprehensive ceasefire was unrealistic without imposing limits on arms supplies to Ukraine and resolving questions around ceasefire monitoring, noting that even the recent limited moratorium on energy infrastructure strikes had failed.
Several members may reference the 26 April statement by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova publicly confirming the deployment of troops from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the Kursk region, which Russia has recently claimed that it fully recaptured from Ukrainian forces. These members may condemn the deployment of DPRK troops, asserting that it marks the internationalisation of the conflict and breaches several Council resolutions on the DPRK.
Russia, for its part, may maintain that the involvement of DPRK troops in Russia’s Kursk region supports Russia’s right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter and that its military cooperation with the DPRK adheres to existing Council resolutions. Russia is also likely to maintain that it has shown willingness to make compromises to achieve a peaceful settlement, citing its recent unilateral ceasefire declarations. It may also argue that Ukraine and its Western allies are refusing to make necessary concessions for such an agreement.
