Ukraine: Private Meeting and Closed Consultations
This afternoon (17 April), the Security Council will convene for a private meeting followed by closed consultations on the situation in Ukraine, under the agenda items “Maintenance of peace and security of Ukraine” and “Threats to international peace and security”, respectively. A representative of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is expected to brief in the private meeting, and Ukraine will participate under rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. There will be no briefer at the closed consultations.
Russia initially requested closed consultations to address the expiration of the Russia-US understanding on a 30-day moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure in Russia and Ukraine. France, as Council president this month, scheduled the consultations for this afternoon. Subsequently, several Council members—Denmark, France, Greece, Panama, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Slovenia, and the UK—proposed converting the format into a private meeting to enable Ukraine’s participation, while maintaining the closed format favoured by Russia. (Although private meetings and consultations are both closed to the public, private meetings are considered formal Security Council meetings, permit participation by non-Council members and Secretariat officials, and require the issuance of a communiqué.)
It appears that Russia objected to the proposed change of format, which led to the scheduling of two meetings. The private meeting with Ukraine’s participation will address broader aspects of the conflict—including the humanitarian situation and attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure—and ongoing efforts to secure a peaceful resolution. The subsequent closed consultations will focus more narrowly on the mutual moratorium on energy infrastructure strikes, which, according to Russia, took effect on 18 March and is due to expire on Friday (18 April).
Today’s private meeting will be the third such meeting on Ukraine convened by the Council since Russia’s invasion in February 2022. The first, held on 27 October 2022, addressed Russian allegations that Ukraine was preparing to detonate a “dirty bomb” on its own territory. The second, held on 25 January 2024, focused on nuclear safety in Ukraine. Since Russia’s February 2022 invasion, over 98 percent of the Council’s formal meetings on Ukraine have been held in an open format.
At today’s private meeting, the OCHA briefer is likely to highlight the recent rise in civilian casualties in Ukraine. According to a 9 April report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), at least 164 civilians were killed and 910 injured in March, representing a 50 percent increase from February and a 71 percent rise compared with March 2024. The report also documented Russian attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine’s Odesa region between 3 and 7 March, which damaged facilities and caused temporary power outages for civilians.
The OCHA representative is also expected to condemn the 13 April Russian airstrikes on the city of Sumy, where two missiles struck a crowded street during Palm Sunday celebrations, damaging residential buildings, a university facility, and civilian vehicles. Local authorities reported at least 34 fatalities, including two children, and more than 110 injuries, with the second strike reportedly targeting those assisting victims of the first.
In a 13 April statement, UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the Sumy attack as part of a “devastating pattern” of assaults on Ukrainian cities. Emphasising that attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure are prohibited under international humanitarian law, Guterres renewed his call for a durable ceasefire and reiterated the UN’s support for a “just, lasting and comprehensive peace that upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, in line with the UN Charter, international law, and relevant UN resolutions”.
The closed consultations following today’s private meeting are expected to focus on Russia and Ukraine’s mutual moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure. Following an 18 March telephone conversation between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia reportedly agreed “in principle” to a limited ceasefire applying to such strikes, conditional on Ukraine’s reciprocal commitment. On 25 March, the White House announced that both Russia and Ukraine had agreed to begin implementing the moratorium, after which the Kremlin clarified that the arrangement was effective from the date of the leaders’ call, would last 30 days, and could either be extended or—in the event of non-compliance—revoked. Since then, Moscow and Kyiv have accused each other of violating the moratorium.
The White House’s 25 March announcement also said that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, allowing safe passage of vessels and banning the use of commercial shipping for military purposes. In return, the US committed to help in restoring Russia’s access to global agricultural and fertiliser markets, which has been hampered by sanctions. However, the Kremlin conditioned the agreement’s implementation on the prior lifting of these sanctions and the easing of restrictions on trade, finance, and insurance services.
Ukraine’s European allies objected to this demand, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stating on 27 March that efforts should instead focus on increasing economic pressure on Russia to support US efforts to secure a comprehensive ceasefire in Ukraine, which Trump had proposed in early March. While Ukraine had signalled its readiness to accept such a ceasefire, Putin expressed only conditional support, describing the proposal as “correct” but demanding that Ukraine would not use the ceasefire to re-arm or mobilise, and that Western military assistance would be suspended during this period.
This afternoon, Council members are expected to reaffirm their established positions on the conflict in Ukraine. While there is consensus on the need for a ceasefire, members are likely to trade accusations over the failure to fully implement last month’s agreements and the continuing absence of a comprehensive ceasefire framework.
Some Council members, including European members, are likely to argue that Moscow is stalling US-led mediation efforts by imposing maximalist preconditions, noting that more than a month has passed since Ukraine accepted a 30-day unconditional ceasefire while Russia has intensified its military operations. In this regard, these members are expected to condemn Russia’s continued attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure and to argue that Moscow has violated the moratorium on energy strikes. Some may also criticise what they view as Russia’s tactic of making excessive demands to delay the maritime ceasefire, drawing comparisons to the collapse of the Black Sea Grain Initiative in 2023. (For more information, see our 16 July 2023 What’s in Blue story.)
Russia is likely to deny that it is targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, reiterating its claim that the 14 April missile strike in Sumy targeted a gathering of senior Ukrainian military officers. It is also expected to describe attacks on energy infrastructure in Russian territory as indicative of Ukraine’s failure to adhere to the moratorium. Moscow may also argue that ongoing Western military support to Ukraine seeks to undermine US-Russian dialogue.
The US is expected to reiterate its call for Russia and Ukraine to fully implement the ceasefire agreements, warning Russia that continued strikes on civilian infrastructure could undermine peace efforts. US pressure on Russia has intensified in recent weeks, with Trump threatening to impose secondary sanctions on countries purchasing Russian oil if Moscow does not agree to a comprehensive ceasefire. While Trump described the 13 April Sumy attack as “horrible”, the US reportedly blocked a Group of Seven (G7) statement condemning the attack.
Several other Council members are likely to call on the parties to respect international humanitarian law, while welcoming the limited ceasefires and expressing hope that such initiatives will build momentum towards a broader peace. These members may emphasise the importance of dialogue and diplomacy to achieve an immediate cessation of hostilities and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. They are also expected to underline the need for a just and durable settlement, achieved through an inclusive process that fully respects the UN Charter, international law, and the legitimate national security interests of all parties.
