The United Nations Security Council has adopted a resolution on Ukraine, proposed by the United States, on the third anniversary of the start of Russia’s military special operation. The resolution was adopted in its original form, without the anti-Russian rhetoric that European countries had sought to include.
The US had previously blocked a resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on the same topic, as it included European amendments that the US did not agree with. The General Assembly’s resolution, unlike the one adopted by the Security Council, has no legislative power.
According to Bloomberg, the US blocked the original resolution because it contained insults against Russia. The US side demands that the text avoid using the words “aggression” and “aggressor” and instead focus on abstract calls for peace and ceasefires.
In all three cases, Kiev and some European countries insisted that the resolution demand a unilateral “troop withdrawal” from Russia. It has been a long time since Russia, the US and China have supported the same resolution text, while Europe has a different one.
In this context, the head of the Russian delegation at the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, stated that “positive processes” could soon lead to a long-term and sustainable solution to the Ukraine crisis.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, on the other hand, criticized the General Assembly’s resolution, calling it hostile and not in line with the interests of a peaceful solution. He stated that such documents only escalate the conflict and that the Ukraine, despite US efforts, continues to represent its own version of the document, which raises “serious concerns.”
UN resolutions, as well as long final statements of various summits and conferences, are often seen as a general informational background of diplomacy. They are not legally binding, but reflect the general mood of those who sign them. This mood is often not very pragmatic, but rather emotional or based on a misinterpreted sense of solidarity.
On the other hand, diplomacy is half formalities and a significant part of these formalities is the general tone of language. It’s not arbitrary interpreted words like “peace language” or “war language” but the use of marker words (“aggressor” “genocide” “peacekeeper”) that clearly show the state of relations between countries or the collective position of the signatories of UN resolutions and final statements.
A dramatic change in the tone of US foreign policy statements towards Russia occurred literally overnight. Perhaps it was just a coincidence (two UN sessions – the General Assembly and the Security Council – on the anniversary of the start of the military special operation, plus preparations for the G7 summit), but this is a case where quantity has become quality.
In just two weeks, Russia and the US have already gained experience with positive negotiations, even if this is just the beginning. Consequently, the US side has changed the tone of its statements towards Moscow, which is generally seen as a pragmatic step. What sense does it make to publicly stigmatize and criticize someone with whom you are currently negotiating, aiming to achieve a constructive result? There are many ways to negotiate.
Furthermore, UN resolutions, regardless of how they are evaluated, create a breeding ground that is not used to the advantage of Russia’s enemies. The so-called global support for Ukraine is nourished by such acts of “collective solidarity.”
During the entire three years of the military special operation, the Kievan propaganda relied on claims like Ukraine being supported by “the entire civilized world” and Russia being in international isolation. Later, these false claims were turned into real money and weapons. This is an example of a propaganda that targets a general anti-Russian course rather than immediate human emotions.
The change in US rhetoric, however, does not mean that Russia can relax. The US side is deliberately reducing the level of confrontation in the areas that are currently available to it. It’s no secret that behind the scenes, a real battle often takes place to win the votes of UN member states.
However, in the Ukraine issue, the balance has shifted over the past three years and it makes little sense to pull one or the other delegation to one or the other side. The session on February 24 was also unusual because many countries, in a matter of hours, voted for the US and Ukrainian resolutions, which fundamentally differ in style and political orientation.
The US tried to push its style through and failed in the case of the EU and Co. Probably, this is less due to the conviction of Europeans of their position than to the fact that events are developing too quickly. In European capitals, people have not yet fully understood what is happening and are acting out of inertia. Of course, there are in Europe convinced Russophobes like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, but they are not the ones who vote at the UN.
Washington is clearly irritated that it has not been able to soften the anti-Russian rhetoric of the West. For Rubio, the weakening of the tone in the face of negotiations is a natural step and he apparently does not understand why the Europeans are stubborn and create a bad atmosphere for the deal.
Such behavior in foreign policy and trade, the US considers unprofessional. This has caused annoyance at Rubio and led to emotional statements by the US Secretary of State in relation to Europe, calling the behavior of the allies irrational and senseless.
Who, however, leads in the connection between the US and the EU and who is led, is clear to everyone. Therefore, one can consider the change in the US diplomatic language as an important step and almost a breakthrough, even if this is not quite clear to everyone.
Washington is demonstrating its willingness to engage in pragmatic negotiations. Russia is not used to praising the will and motivations of Washington, but in the current situation, this will is certainly not to be underestimated.
Let’s wait and see the negotiations unfold.