S/PV.9127 Security Council

At the beginning of this meeting, on behalf of the Security Council, I would like to express the deepest condolences to the people and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the occasion of the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I would also like to express our condolences to her family and friends. As Head of State, she was the longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II reigned reassuringly during a period of historic changes for both her country and the world. Her entire life was devoted to the service of her country. On behalf of Council members, I invite everyone in the Chamber to stand and observe a moment of silence in memory of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

I now call on the Ambassador of the United Kingdom. Dame Barbara Woodward (United Kingdom): I thank colleagues for this minute of silence. Many will have memories of Her Majesty the Queen during her long and distinguished reign. She will be remembered, I think, for her dedicated service at home, across the Commonwealth and around the globe. Her extraordinary service fostered peace and friendship worldwide.

I would like to once again express the condolences of the Security Council. Adoption of the agenda

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of Ukraine to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the following briefers to participate in this meeting: Mrs. Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs; and Ms. Dragana Trifković, Director, Center for Geostrategic Studies. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I now give the floor to Mrs. Nakamitsu. Mrs. Nakamitsu: I have been requested to brief on the issue of “the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine”. It is a matter of public record that, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which started on 24 February, Ukraine has received for its defence force transfers of weapons systems and ammunition from a number of States. Information about transfers of such material has been widely publicized by the Governments involved. Those transfers have included heavy conventional weapons, including battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems and uncrewed combat aerial vehicles, as well as small arms and light weapons. There have also been widespread and independently verified reports of the transfer of major conventional weapon systems to local armed groups in Ukraine, including artillery rocket systems. As a matter of general statement, any large-scale influx of weapons to conflict-affected zones raises many concerns, including the potential for diversion. Those concerns should be taken with due regard, and the international community has some instruments, such as the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, to enhance transparency in arms transfers. I encourage States to make use of those mechanisms. Beyond the matter of the supply of weapons, we must focus on how those weapons are used, in particular considering the devastating impact on civilians and civilian infrastructure caused by the use of heavy weapons in Ukraine. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has recorded 13,917 verified civilian casualties since 24 February. The actual numbers are believed to be significantly higher. Most of the civilian casualties recorded were caused by the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects, including attacks by heavy artillery, multiple-launch rocket systems, missiles and aircraft. The war also continues to drive large-scale displacement, with more than 6.9 million people internally displaced and more than 7 million refugees recorded across Europe. The Secretary-General has consistently highlighted the severe humanitarian impact of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and has repeatedly called on parties to conflict to avoid their use in populated areas. I would like to strongly reiterate that call here today. Under international humanitarian law, combatants must not direct attacks against civilians or civilian infrastructure and must take all feasible precautions in the conduct of military operations to avoid, or at least to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. On 24 August, the Secretary-General addressed the Council (see S/PV.9115), marking the sad and tragic milestone of six months since the invasion of Ukraine. Throughout that period, we witnessed tremendous devastation, with thousands of civilians killed and injured, most as a result of the use of heavy conventional weapons. The time to end that suffering is now. Let us resolve to keep working for peace, in line with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

I thank Mrs. Nakamitsu for her briefing. I now give the floor to Ms. Trifković. Ms. Trifković: At the outset, I want to express my special respect for this high organ of the world Organization and to thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to speak. I consider every word spoken to be a great responsibility. When we talk about the war in Ukraine, it is very important to look at it consistently and to take into account the arguments of both warring parties. Of great concern is the fact that often one hears only accusations that are not supported by arguments, much less evidence. The view of the war of someone who is from Serbia and who has survived and learned about the special methods of warfare may differ from that of many others who do not have that experience. That is why, from the beginning, I considered the war in Ukraine to be a hybrid war and compared it to the one waged on the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, in terms of the external influence on war preparations to the direct and indirect participation in the war of various parties through the training, arming, bringing volunteers to, and commanding of, an army. I will mention a few of the most important examples. The first is the case of a Croatian general, Špegelj, a member of the Yugoslav People’s Army, who smuggled weapons into Croatia through Hungary, Austria and Italy, armed paramilitary formations and prepared them for attacks on members of the regular army even before the start of the war in Yugoslavia. In October 1990, the counter-intelligence service recorded a Špegelj conversation, from which it became clear that he received help from the United States for those operations. The leadership of Croatia, in agreement with Slovenia, illegally imported large quantities of weapons from former Warsaw Pact countries, such as Hungary and Romania, and thus armed 100,000 members of paramilitary formations. Another example is the arming of Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995 by Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran and others, which was carried out through Croatia, but with the knowledge and approval of the American Administration — headed then by George Bush and later by Bill Clinton. Bosnian Muslims were also armed during the embargo. The biggest concession to Muslims is the permission given by the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) to arm Croatian and Muslim units under the conditions of an embargo on the import of weapons. Their basic task was control of all kinds. There is evidence that even weapons from the American Ramstein Air Base, in Germany, were delivered to Muslim forces in Bosnia. In 1994, Admiral Leighton Smith of the United States and General Bertrand de Lapresle of France agreed that arming Serbia’s neighbours was an important obligation. A third example was the arming of Albanians in 1997 to incite a rebellion, in which weapons were taken from military warehouses in Albania, transferred to the territory of Kosovo and Metohija and handed over to members of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army. It should be noted that Albanian separatists from Kosovo formed an official Kosovo army in 2018, in contravention of resolution 1244 (1999), and that regardless of that violation of international law, a number of countries, including the United States, Great Britain, Turkey and others have trained and armed that illegal army. Today in Ukraine we can also see examples both of direct interference in the conflict, with Western countries sending weapons to the Ukrainians, and of the use of third countries to supply weapons to Ukraine. A Ukrainian plane that took off from Niš loaded with weapons recently crashed in Greece. Weapons are also reaching Ukraine via various Asian and African countries, and those weapons are killing the civilian population in Ukraine, regardless of whether they speak Ukrainian or Russian. The Center for Geostrategic Studies, which I lead, recently sent a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Council of Europe, the Red Cross and other institutions that states the following facts. It is evident that the Ukrainian army often uses prohibited cluster weapons to target the civilian population in eastern Ukraine. An inspection of the situation on the ground revealed that between April and July of this year, the Ukrainian army repeatedly targeted Izyum with cluster bombs, which led to the death of a large number of civilians. On 20 July, in the Donetsk region, the Ukrainian army carried out several missile attacks by United States high mobility artillery rocket systems on the settlements of Olenivka and Oleksandrivka, including on civilian objects and infrastructure. Then, on the night of 29 July, there was another attack by the Ukrainian army on a detention centre in Olenivka where prisoners of war from the Azov Battalion were also held. As a result, 51 people died and 75 were injured. On 30 July, the Ukrainian army targeted the centre of the densely populated city of Donetsk, which had previously been demined and completely cleared. On that occasion, the Ukrainian forces used Uragan missiles produced by NATO that in addition to their standard destructive effect are equipped with cluster munitions. Each of the rockets contained a large quantity of banned PMF-1 “petal” anti-personnel mines. They completely paralysed the city and its food and water supplies to its inhabitants for several days. From all of this, it can be concluded that the Ukrainian side perceives civilians, as well as prisoners of war, as legitimate targets and that its aim is to achieve as many victims as possible, which goes against all rules of war and international humanitarian law. In addition, in many cases — between 20 and 30 per cent  — weapons that Western countries deliver to Ukraine pass through corrupt members of the Security Service of Ukraine and end up in third countries, often in the hands of terrorists. That increases the danger that many regions could be further destabilized. There are well-founded suspicions that some weapons from Ukraine have already been transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo and Metohija  — areas that are still endangered by potential outbreaks of renewed conflicts years after the end of the war in Yugoslavia. There are indicators of renewed preparations for unrest in Kosovo and Metohija through instructions on increasing the presence of NATO forces. The situation today is more than dangerous, and the hybrid war threatens to turn into a large-scale direct conflict. Given the state of modern weapons, that calls into question the survival and future of our civilization. The Security Council has a great responsibility to prevent conflicts and facilitate the establishment of peace and security. The first step in that direction requires that Western countries stop supplying weapons to Ukraine and that the black market in arms be closed.

I thank Ms. Trifković for her briefing. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.

At the outset, allow me to express to my heartfelt condolences to the Government and people of the United Kingdom following the passing away of their monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. We thank Mrs. Nakamitsu and Ms. Trifković for their briefings. Unfortunately, we could not hear part of Ms. Trifković’s statement due to technical difficulties. We hope that she will be able to circulate the text of her briefing later for the benefit of Council members. Since the special military operation in Ukraine began we have discussed various aspects of the situation there. We and the Council’s Western members have different views on the origins of the Ukrainian crisis, as well as on the transformations that have taken place in the country since the anti-constitutional coup of February 2014. It is clear that our former Western partners are trying at all costs to evade responsibility for Ukraine’s steady deterioration from a state of independence to that of an anti-Russia, for ignoring the eight long and continuing years of the Kyiv regime’s shelling of the people of Donbas and for glossing over the unwillingness of the Ukrainian authorities to implement the Minsk agreements. Meanwhile, a majority of Member States are becoming increasingly convinced of the multifaceted nature of the Ukrainian crisis. They understand that the reasons for it cannot be found in simplistic Western notions of Russian guilt. That explains their desire, first and foremost, to reach a cessation of hostilities and seek solutions at the negotiating table. We are regularly hearing appeals for peace from our colleagues in developing countries. Today we propose to jointly analyse the factors that are obstacles to seeing their wishes fulfilled. We launched our special operation to protect the people of Donbas, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, after the Kyiv regime, with the approval of its Western sponsors, publicly killed the Minsk process. It was a difficult but necessary decision after it became clear that Ukraine’s military action against the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics was inevitable. That has been confirmed by Ukrainian General Staff documents that have been found during the special military operation. One of the special military operation’s goals also became the de-Nazification and demilitarization of Ukraine with a view to ensuring that there would no longer be any threats to the Donbas or to Russia from its territory. As we all know, only a month after the operation began, the Russian-Ukrainian talks had already virtually agreed on the outlines of a future peace agreement. Peace seemed so close that as a goodwill gesture we withdrew our troops from the occupied regions of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts. It was up to the Kyiv authorities, who were ready to say the word, but at that point our Western partners got involved, since this scenario did not suit their purposes. I am referring primarily to London and Washington, which give NATO its orders. The fact is that Ukraine has been of interest to them solely as a pawn in the geopolitical struggle to weaken Russia since the illegal Maidan coup, so that a peaceful solution would not work for either Britain or the United States. Envoys arrived in Kyiv to impress upon Mr. Zelenskyy and his team that the West was prepared to do anything to ensure Ukraine’s victory except through direct military intervention. Along with that came the slogans claiming that the destiny of democracy would be decided in the clash between good and evil in Ukraine. At the same time, Josep Borrell Fontelles, the chief diplomat of the European Union (EU), breaking every rule of diplomacy, declared that “this war will be won on the battlefield”. Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic States were in their usual Russophobic hysterics, while the now former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was far more engaged in inciting Ukraine than addressing his own country’s problems. President Biden cheered on Kyiv too. As we know, President Zelenskyy consequently disavowed all the agreements and together with the British secret services orchestrated a blatant provocation in Bucha, after which the chance for peace was lost. That was how the President of Ukraine made a fatal mistake for his country. But what we want to talk about today is not that but the role of our Western colleagues in using Ukrainians to launch the largest- scale proxy war in history against Russia, until the last Ukrainian falls. Let us analyse what is happening today. For all practical purposes, NATO is at the helm directing Kyiv’s actions in the theatre of war. Ukrainian military intelligence officials have publicly admitted that Washington is directly involved in coordinating every target of the multiple-launch rockets of the American high mobility artillery rocket systems. Ukraine is awash in Western military trainers, special operations personnel and mercenaries. A number of NATO countries are conducting training courses for Ukrainian armed units. We said in one of our previous meetings (see S/PV.9114) that saboteurs were being trained at the military base in the Czech city of Český Krumlov to carry out a terrorist attack in the Donetsk people’s republic. There is information that the Pentagon is planning to launch a mission to provide military and technical assistance to the Kyiv regime, and we have heard of similar plans by the European Union. According to the most conservative expert estimates, the United States and its allies have spent $20 billion on military support for Ukraine in the past months of this year alone. According to American media reports, the Biden Administration intends to request another $20 billion in emergency funding for the first quarter of 2023 alone. The Ukrainians have been consistently given to believe that with Western weapons — modern- day Wunderwaffe — they will be able to turn the tide of the military campaign and defeat Russia. We will not comment on those beautiful but empty fairy tales except to say that this mass deception of the population perpetrated through President Zelenskyy and his entourage will have tragic consequences for Ukraine, and at the moment we are still far from the end of this self-destructive process. I hasten to say, however, that Western weapons are not playing a decisive role on the battlefield, regardless of the claims to the contrary by our former partners and their Ukrainian vassals. With minimum risk to our soldiers and civilians, the Russian army is gradually and methodically destroying not only the obsolete Soviet weapons that the Eastern European countries have been happy to unload but also NATO’s modern weapons. The only difference is that after receiving long-range NATO artillery and rocket launchers, together with Western intelligence, the Kyiv regime has begun to target civilian and other infrastructure objects that it had previously been unable to reach. The results have been a massacre in Olenivka and the continued shelling of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant and the civilian areas of the Donbas. By loading up Ukraine with weapons that are in active use by the Armed Forces of Ukraine against civilian targets, the countries of the EU have violated their own internal rules  — the so-called Common Position — which prohibit issuing export licences for weapons if that creates an obvious risk of violating international humanitarian law and also require taking the risk of their unauthorized re-export and illegal trade into account. EU States have similarly disregarded the provisions of another brainchild of theirs, the international Arms Trade Treaty, which requires every exporting State to assess in an objective and non-discriminatory manner whether the arms transferred would harm peace and security and whether their use might violate international humanitarian law. The Treaty explicitly prohibits States from authorizing a transfer of conventional weapons if the State concerned knows with certainty that they will be used to commit acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or attacks on civilian objects or civilians. In order to scrounge up new weapons, especially on the eve of the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Ramstein today, the Zelenskyy regime has attempted to create at least an appearance that Ukraine can launch an offensive. Contrary to elementary principles of military strategy, Ukrainian propagandists at the highest levels of Government publicly shared with the world plans for an offensive to regain lost territories that were eagerly relayed by the Ukrainian and Western media. As far as we could tell, even the leadership of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was against this, but Ukraine’s Head of State was adamant following his conversations with his American and British colleagues. The result is that the fields near Mykolayiv and Zaporizhzhya and the forests near Kharkiv are strewn with the corpses of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who were sent to certain death and who the rearguard did not allow to retreat. A few minor villages were taken and needless to say there was nothing approaching a breakthrough, as the military experts well know. But the Western media have already trumpeted that Ukraine has launched a counter- offensive that must be supported with a new supply of Western weapons. That created the necessary media backdrop for the meeting in Ramstein, which was exactly what Mr. Zelenskyy and his Western masters were aiming for. That means there is every chance that more gas will continue to be poured onto the fire of the Ukrainian conflict in the form of further deliveries of Western weapons. Will that change the situation on the battlefield? Not in any significant way, and most leading military experts openly agree on that. The new weapons will not be able to change the balance of power, but they can prolong the agony of the Zelenskyy regime and delay its inglorious demise. They will also prolong the suffering being visited by the West on the Ukrainian people, who are the sacrifice in its geopolitical struggle with Russia. And, of course, it will only delay any prospects of peace in Ukraine, which with the exception of the Western bloc is what an absolute majority of United Nations members want. Let us look at who benefits from that scenario. It is a strange coincidence that the main beneficiaries are precisely those beating the drums of war the loudest — the United States and Great Britain. Their defence contractors are making fabulous profits and their share prices are climbing at a stunning rate. Clearly, the American and British weapons lobbies are not ready to give up such profits, and their pressure on politicians will only grow. Besides that, Ukraine is not only a huge platform for recycling ageing NATO weapons but also a testing ground for new ones and for advertising them for export. It would not be in the West’s interest to lose such an opportunity and it would therefore be naive to suppose that Washington and London will change their inflammatory rhetoric in the near future. What are the consequences and risks of this situation for the world and above all for Europe? In the short term, they mean the proliferation of weapons resold by corrupt Ukrainian officials and their falling into the hands of terrorist and criminal groups, as Ms. Trifković mentioned earlier. As early as June, Jürgen Stock, the Secretary General of INTERPOL, warned about the great interest that organized crime has shown in the spillover of weapons from Ukraine onto the black market. That threat is so great that the Security Service of Ukraine has already begun to put out fake news that Russia may be moving Western weapons into Europe, and that means that the situation has already spiralled out of control. The Western military leaders are already openly admitting that they are not in a position to trace the end users of its weapons. But they cannot be unaware that corrupt Ukrainian officials have established channels for putting Western- made weapons on the black market, and a significant percentage of them go directly from warehouses into the hands of smugglers. There are all kinds of offers for their sale on the Darknet. We have seen similar situations in the Balkans and the Middle East in the recent past, in which Western military arsenals were subsequently clandestinely re-exported to Europe and used by criminal groups on European territory or fell into the hands of terrorists. However, the leadership of Western countries has unfortunately learned no lessons from that and is now turning Ukraine into a global hub for illegal weapons supplies that may very soon be used by terrorists in Europe, Asia, the Middle East or Africa. The proliferation of man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) and man-portable anti-tank systems (MANPATS)is a particular threat. These types of weapons pose enormous risks to international civil aviation and rail transport, which is why their circulation is strictly regulated at the international level. The NATO countries are well aware of that. In the 2000s NATO spent huge amounts on destroying surplus MANPADS components in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Montenegro and a number of other countries within the framework of the Partnership for Peace programme. The United States, realizing the danger of the MANPADS they had supplied to Afghanistan in the 1980s, also went to great lengths to buy them back. But now the Western countries have forgotten all about that, and in seeking to arm Kyiv at any cost, they are violating all their international obligations regarding the circulation of MANPADS and MANPATS, including those agreed in the General Assembly and in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies. Indirect confrontation between NATO and Russia objectively increases the risk of a direct clash between Russia and NATO, regardless of the claims that everything possible is being done to prevent such a scenario. We have been groundlessly accused of nuclear blackmail, while Britain’s new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, has openly affirmed her readiness to use nuclear weapons and push the nuclear button. Before her, no one had made such irresponsible statements. Has NATO crossed the red lines? In 2020, United States presidential candidate Joe Biden tried to accuse Russia of that merely on the basis of speculation in The New York Times that Russia had allegedly secretly paid the Taliban to kill American troops in Afghanistan. British Members of Parliament then argued that a permanent member of the Security Council should not supply arms and training to the very fighters who had prevented a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Afghanistan. According to those criteria, the Western countries crossed those red lines a long time ago, and more than once. Let me now address my colleagues from developing countries. We requested today’s meeting because we want those countries to be aware of the cynicism and mendacity of the calls for peace from the States of the collective West, as well as their appeals to us to stop our so-called war of choice. By creating a neo-Nazi hornet’s nest at our borders and supporting the Kyiv regime’s war against the people of Donbas since 2014, they left us no choice. As President Putin has said, we did not start this war — we are ending it. In other words, we are ending the war that the Ukrainian regime, with the support of Western sponsors, began in 2014 against its own people. Our former Western partners do have a choice. They can continue supplying weapons to the conflict zone, contrary to all international norms and their own declared principles, encouraging Ukrainians in their unrealistic calls for defeating Russia on the battlefield, or they can make the Zelenskyy regime sit down at the negotiating table and try to address the reasons that led us to launch the special military operation  — all of which can be ascribed either to actions of Ukraine or actions by the West. Unfortunately we have no faith in the good sense of the Western countries. They have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to commit any crime and engage in any venture to ensure the well- being of the so-called golden billion for the sake of maintaining world dominance and pursuing their neocolonial policies. And their realization that the world has irrevocably changed since 24 February has only strengthened their determination to fight to the last Ukrainian. We do, however, have faith in the good sense of the developing world — the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America — and we hope that they will demonstrate it, not only for their countries’ sake but for all of humankind.

I would like to thank Mrs. Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, and Ms. Dragana Trifković, civil-society representative, for their briefings. The Security Council held meetings on the situation in Ukraine on Tuesday (see S/PV.9124) and Wednesday (see S/PV.9126), and now we are meeting again today. We need to focus every one of our meetings on finding solutions to end the war. This war has already caused far too many deaths, destroyed far too much civilian infrastructure and had grave economic effects internationally. We are very concerned about the signals that we are proceeding towards a war of attrition, which humankind certainly does not need. My country reiterates its rejection of war. It is time to silence the guns in Ukraine. More weapons mean more death, war, destruction and distress, and more civilian victims. There is a clear and obvious correlation between arms proliferation and precarity. We urge the parties to cease all verbal and military escalations, as well as any action likely to stoke confrontation. The purpose of the Security Council is security. It needs to live up to that purpose in every one of our meetings. The Council is our primary platform for shaping peace. Every time we meet, we need to collectively mobilize our efforts to find a solution to this conflict. My country will continue to work tirelessly in the quest for peace, and we support those who propose alternatives outside of the realm of weapons. This war must be stopped  — and quickly. The peoples of the world are expecting us to make concrete proposals to end it. Finally, I would like to express my country’s condolences to the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and extend our deep sympathy to them on the occasion of the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Dame Barbara Woodward (United Kingdom): Russia’s unprovoked and illegal war is a violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. It is the most significant threat to international peace and security that the world is currently facing. Ukraine has every right to defend itself under the Charter, legally and morally. It is doing so with great bravery. Ukraine is fighting not just for its existence; it is fighting in defence of the principles of the Charter itself and in defence of the United Nations system. And it is succeeding. Thanks to the sacrifices of the Ukrainian people, we know that Putin’s troops are tiring, his losses are significant, his supply lines are vulnerable and his territorial gains are ephemeral. We have seen that Russia is struggling to maintain stocks of equipment, exacerbated by component shortages resulting from the international sanctions that are aimed at ending the war. Russia is now turning to Iran to supply unmanned aerial vehicles, and, in a clear violation of United Nations sanctions, to North Korea to supply ammunition. There remains one simple way to end the war  — Russia must withdraw its troops from Ukraine and Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty must be restored. Any negotiation must be premised on that fundamental principle. The United Kingdom is proud to support the Ukrainian people. We will continue to do so in the face of Russia’s assault on their sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will continue to stand against that aggression and for freedom, democracy and the sovereignty of nations around the world.

I thank Under-Secretary-General Nakamitsu for her briefing today, especially with less than a day’s notice from the Russian Federation. I would like to begin by joining others in expressing our deepest condolences to the royal family and to the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth of Nations on the passing away of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen lived an extraordinary life dedicated to service. Her legacy will loom large in the pages of British history and in the story of our world. Before I go further, I think it is important to make sure that we are clear what today’s meeting is about. It is a transparent attempt to distract from yesterday’s meeting on the forced displacement of Ukrainian citizens (see S/PV.9126), during which the representative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights clearly stated that the Office had received reports of torture, in conjunction with Russia’s abhorrent use of filtration camps. Moving on to address what we just heard from the Russian delegation, I would ask representatives to assess what we just heard in the light of the following fact. Earlier this year, we warned of Russia’s premeditated intention to invade Ukraine, including with an unprecedented build-up of military forces along Russia and Belarus’s borders with Ukraine. We can all recall the Russian delegation’s fervent insistence in this Chamber, and in a series of tweets and social media posts, that its massive mobilization was only a routine military exercise and that it had no plans to invade Ukraine. I think that that says enough. However, Russia now has the gall to blame other countries for refusing to step aside as it seeks to destroy another State Member of the United Nations, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Like the United Kingdom, the United States is proud to stand with Ukraine and our allies and partners from more than 50 countries in providing vital security assistance in support of Ukraine’s defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russian aggression. The United States is committed to supporting the people of Ukraine as they defend their lives, their liberty and their democracy. We are not hiding that support. Ukraine and all States Members of the United Nations have every right to defend themselves. We will not stop our support to Ukraine just because Russia is frustrated that its attempt at regime change has not gone according to plan. Later this month, leaders from around the world will gather here to reaffirm their commitment to the Charter and its foundational principles. It bears repeating that all countries have an inherent right to self-defence, consistent with Article 51 of the Charter. That is a simple, straightforward principle. Every member of the United Nations has a right to its sovereignty and territorial integrity. I encourage all the members of the Council to consider this question. If they were in Ukraine’s shoes, how would they respond if a bigger neighbour invaded their territory? If their neighbour sent its armies into their cities and lands, what would they do? What would they ask of the international community? None of us here would simply let our country’s history and identity be attacked, our cities shelled to rubble, our people killed, our territory taken. We would appeal for international support in the face of such naked aggression. Russia’s claims that the United States and the West are escalating and prolonging the conflict are false. They are cynical attempts to deflect attention from Moscow’s role as the sole aggressor in an unnecessary and brutal war for which the world is paying a collective price. Let me be clear that the United States is not using force against Russia. President Biden has been clear. The United States is not seeking a war between the United States and Russia. But we will not fail to condemn President Putin’s choice to launch and pursue the invasion of Ukraine. Speaking of scrounging for weapons, as my Russian colleague did, even now Moscow is in the process of purchasing millions of rockets and artillery shells from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for use on the battlefield in Ukraine, which, as Ambassador Woodward said, would be a clear and unequivocal violation of Security Council resolutions. Before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine started, the United States, Ukraine and our partners and allies engaged in intense diplomacy, seeking every avenue to defuse conflict and find ways to address mutual concerns about security in Europe and beyond. Russia did not take that path. Now Ukraine is responding to that invasion as any of us would — by defending itself. We salute the Armed Forces of Ukraine and all Ukrainian citizens who continue to inspire the world with tremendous skill and profound courage. We have provided security assistance to enable Ukraine to defend itself and restore its control over its sovereign territory. But we are not just helping Ukraine defend itself, we are helping it to deal with the consequences of this awful war. The United States has also provided nearly $1.9 billion in humanitarian assistance in Ukraine and the region since Russia first invaded Ukraine eight years ago. We have channelled a total of $8.5 billion in budget support to Ukraine through World Bank mechanisms. We are also making sure that any assistance to Ukraine’s defence is responsible and limits unintended consequences. We take very seriously our responsibility to prevent the diversion or illicit proliferation of weapons. We are working with Ukraine to ensure accountability for assistance, even amid the challenging circumstances of war. The Ukrainian Government has shown that it too takes that responsibility seriously. We welcome the Ukrainian Government’s recent announcement of its formation of a new commission to strengthen the monitoring of donated military equipment. In conclusion, let me say it again. War is not the answer. The conflict, Russia’s atrocities, its filtration and forced displacement, the streams of refugees and displaced persons must end. But that will happen only when Russia decides to respect and comply with the United Nations Charter.

The Government of Ghana has learned with great sorrow of the passing away of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in the early hours of today. We are deeply saddened by the loss of the United Kingdom’s longest-serving monarch and head of the Commonwealth of Nations. This is a moment of great sadness for the many across the world who cherished and held the Queen in high esteem as a person and a sovereign. On behalf of the Government and the people of Ghana, we offer our profound condolences to the royal family, the Government and the people of the United Kingdom and the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations. At the outset, I would like to thank Under-Secretary- General Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, for her briefing. We have also taken note of the contribution of the civil- society representative. The Security Council is meeting for the third time in three days to discuss the war in Ukraine once again. While we note the continuing interest in the aggression against Ukraine, we are also seriously concerned about the fact that the meetings of the Security Council have not constructively supported the diplomatic action required in the immediate term for ending the hostilities and helping the parties find a mutually acceptable, comprehensive and lasting solution to their conflict. As we have said previously, and as is consistent with international law, the Charter of the United Nations, the decision of the International Court of Justice and resolutions ES-11/1 and ES-11/2 of the eleventh emergency session of the General Assembly, the invasion of Ukraine, a sovereign Member of the Organization, is unjustified. With the war showing little signs of abating, and considering its unique circumstances, we believe it is important that the international community devote every possible effort to finding a pacific solution to the conflict, but in a manner that also ensures that there are no benefits accorded to parties whose ab initio actions are unacceptable under international law. We must continue to work to eliminate the real risk of the war engulfing the entire European continent, which could lead to a generalized and widespread conflict with devastating consequences for all of humankind. We therefore call for a de-escalation of tensions and urge all the relevant actors to conduct themselves in a manner that encourages confidence-building and fosters trust and reconciliation. We note with deep concern the resumption of shelling near the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant despite the clear and looming risk that it presents to Ukraine and the world at large. We call for greater cooperation by the parties to realign the status quo at the power plant with the seven pillars of nuclear safety and security outlined by the International Atomic Energy Agency and reiterate the call for the urgent delineation of a safe zone around the plant. Ghana encourages the sustained commitment of all the parties to the Black Sea Grain Initiative and of the other actors involved to helping to bring critical food aid to people in other parts of the world where famine-like conditions exist and populations, including children, are on the brink of starvation. Rising fuel prices are rapidly being translated into elevated and unprecedented cost-of-living standards, especially in developing countries. Increasingly, life is becoming unbearable, and tensions appear to be festering among populations as they scramble to survive. We must therefore work together to find sustainable solutions and prevent the worsening energy crisis from degenerating into a global security crisis. As the Secretary-General noted in his statement on Tuesday (see S/PV.9124), we need peace in Ukraine — peace that is founded on nothing less than the norms and principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Ghana stands firm in the belief that only diplomacy and dialogue can bring about the peaceful solution that military engagements have so far failed to deliver. In conclusion, I reaffirm Ghana’s continuing and unwavering support for the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

I would like to begin by expressing to the delegation of the United Kingdom Mexico’s solidarity with regard to the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who embodied a sense of duty and service to her people. I am grateful for the briefing by High Representative Nakamitsu, and we have also taken note of the information that Ms. Trifković provided to us. Before I begin, I would like to point out that my delegation has several times brought up the importance of focusing on the possible implications of arms transfers related to the conflict in Ukraine, which is unquestionably an extremely relevant topic. Yet considering the time we have had during the crisis to include this vital issue in our discussions, my delegation is surprised at the haste with which this meeting was scheduled and convened. Matters of this importance, especially when they can be foreseen, should be scheduled sufficiently in advance, not at the last minute. Furthermore, we reiterate that the Security Council’s deliberations on this issue should lead to concrete action aimed at fulfilling its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. We have met at least 27 times since the beginning of the war, and so far the Council has limited itself to issuing a single presidential statement (S/PRST/2022/3), sponsored by Norway and Mexico, expressing deep concern about the situation in Ukraine and of course supporting the efforts of the Secretary-General in the quest for a peaceful solution. Given the gravity of the situation, that is utterly inadequate. We regret that in addressing the crisis, the Council has confined itself to continuing its deliberations, while ignoring the executive powers conferred on it by Article 24 of the Charter for ensuring prompt and effective action by the United Nations in order to deal with a breach of the peace or an act of aggression. Mexico’s concern about arms transfers is not limited to the current situation but also relates to the transfers that have been going on since the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine in 2013. As long as the Security Council does not shoulder its responsibility for addressing a situation involving an invasion such as the one that Ukraine is confronting, we acknowledge the natural right to legitimate self-defence and acquire arms to that end. However, that must always go hand in hand with the protections and safeguards needed to minimize risks and prevent diversions of weapons or their use to commit grave and systematic violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. We have taken note of the statements concerning the precautions taken by the exporters selling and shipping the weapons. However, the high volume of transfers necessarily implies a certain degree of loss of control over their life cycle, which increases the inherent risks of trafficking and diversion. Criminal organizations will certainly be eager to exploit such gaps. We must also be mindful of the implications of the proliferation of civilian-owned weapons. If there is one thing we should have learned from recent history, it is that such situations result in the spillover of weapons being trafficked to other conflict zones — as we have clearly seen in the Sahel — and putting the hopes for peace in post-conflict situations in jeopardy. We must also acknowledge the impact of the use of all types of weapons. The highest price has been paid by civilians, with the destruction of residential areas, deliberate attacks on infrastructure and civilian objects and the shelling of railway stations, schools and hospitals. Explosive weapons with indiscriminate humanitarian effects have become commonplace. That is absolutely unacceptable. Worrisome arms transfers go back approximately 10 years; it is almost unimaginable what a decade of arms flows means and the effects that it may have in future. Conflict Armament Research published a report in 2021 detailing only transfers between 2018 and 2020 to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The research points to the provision of a wide range of weapons and ammunition, mostly from neighbouring countries. It also highlights the practice of deliberately obliterating markings to avoid any efforts to trace them to the source, all in contravention of multiple standards, political agreements and legally binding instruments on arms transfers. In addition to more traditional weapons, various reports, including from authorities in the Netherlands, point to the transfer of a Buk surface-to-air missile system that resulted in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17 in eastern Ukraine in 2014. That is just one concrete example of the very serious consequences of an irresponsible transfer that caused the deaths of hundreds of passengers on a commercial airliner that had no connection to the conflict in Ukraine. With the regrettable prospect of the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine, the international community should be unequivocal in demanding accountability in arms transfers. We therefore call on all countries that are party to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to adhere fully to its provisions, especially those relating to the denial of transfers that would be in violation of the Treaty and the application of strict risk analysis. But we equally call on those who are not yet party to the ATT to responsibly comply with the highest precautionary standards in their transfers, with truly objective criteria that transcend private or geostrategic interests. Mitigation measures, including non-re-export and clear end-use clauses, must be an indivisible part of such assessments and arms transfer agreements. And there must clearly be a commitment to actively monitor the human rights situation and ensure respect for international humanitarian law in any future arms transfers. But beyond the current decisions to approve new sales and transfers, it is also time to establish concrete measures for arms control in the post-conflict period. I conclude by emphasizing that military means will never be the solution. The international community must therefore focus on promoting diplomatic understandings that will lead to the end of this war, and not on supplying arms to a conflict whose end, unfortunately, is still very uncertain.

Let me join others in expressing our most sincere condolences to our British colleagues and, through them, to the British royal family and all British and Commonwealth citizens for the passing away of Queen Elizabeth II. We pay tribute to her unique contribution to building peace and reconciliation, and our thoughts are with all those grieving today. (spoke in French) I thank Mrs. Nakamitsu for her briefing. (spoke in English) The right title of the meeting today should have been “Worldwide solidarity and support for a country that has been brutally attacked by its neighbour whose intentions are to wipe it from the map”. That is because, in our view, that is all we can discuss here today — not weapons and calibres, including those that reportedly Iran and North Korea, two countries under sanctions, are unlawfully providing to Russia. There are mechanisms and instruments for that. They work very well, and we agree on the need to strengthen them further. Therefore, for this delegation, the meeting is about solidarity, help and support to a country in need. During these six long months, beyond the brutality of a war of choice, the world has witnessed two remarkable experiences  — first, the heroic and unwavering resistance of the Ukrainian people, army and Government and, secondly, the international community’s incredible solidarity with, and support for, Ukraine. As we know, solidarity, help and support come in different ways and forms. They came on 2 March, when 141 Member States stood on the right side, with Ukraine, and only four sided with Russia. They continue every day with vivid expressions of sympathy on the streets of almost every capital in the world, which have proudly displayed Ukraine’s colours. They come with all forms of assistance for the millions brutally uprooted from their homes, who are welcomed and cared for in neighbouring countries. They come through humanitarian help for those many millions more who need food on the table, milk for their babies, medicine for the sick and shelter for those whose homes have been turned to rubble by Russian bombs. They come also — and rightfully so — in the form of direct defensive military aid to a Government and a people who are under premeditated, unprovoked, unjustified, indefensible and unacceptable attack by a neighbour who wishes them well by dropping bombs and destroying their homes. And no, there are no warring parties in Ukraine. There is an aggressor and a country rightfully defending itself. We also could not entirely hear Ms. Trifković, but please do not bother to distribute the statement, since we can easily complete the missing part of the propaganda. Since the very beginning of this madness, it has been clear that Russia’s aggression is not only against Ukraine and its people. It is also an attack on international law and the Charter of the United Nations and a danger for European security architecture. Standing for and helping Ukraine today is therefore both a moral duty not to let down 44 million souls that Kremlin wants to subjugate, as well as a key security imperative. Albania is proud to be part of those who are doing what they can to help Ukraine and Ukrainians defend themselves. Around this table, no one here knows better than us what sovereignty, independence and the right to self- defence are and mean. Article 51 of the Charter is clear. It provides an unquestionable legal basis for individual States to offer any assistance to a country exercising its inherent rights to self-defence and the defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Therefore, taking a collective stand against an illegal war of conquest is the right course and a contribution to future security in Europe and beyond. In the face of the deliberate and barbaric targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, with widespread evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, standing for Ukraine is standing for life. We understand the clear intention is to slice the Ukraine tragedy into discussion pieces, isolating specific aspects and interests and pushing a certain narrative. It will not succeed, and we do not buy it. We will always agree to thoroughly discuss every aspect on an issue, but let us not lose sight of the big picture. In this case it is — why we have this war and who is responsible for it and all its consequences. Russia started the war, Russia is responsible for the war and Russia can end the war at any time. Ukraine’s war and solidarity with Ukrainians are therefore all about protecting freedom, peace and security, development, prosperity, friendly relations, fair trade with mutual benefits, principles and values, laws and commitments and the Charter of the United Nations. Our solidarity stands against the Kremlin’s reckless actions and therefore against aggression, invasion, war crimes, crimes against humanity, widespread destruction, the killing of civilians, including children, forced deportation, food insecurity leading to starvation, world economic and trade disruption and disrespect for international law. All of those are in total opposition to everything we commonly aspire to in our efforts to make the world a better place for all, not just for the Kremlin and its expansionist dreams. Russia did not go to Ukraine with flowers, but with guns. There is no surprise that it was not welcomed with flowers but with guns. And as we have seen, it has been outgunned. Let us not forget that if Russia wins the war, there may be no Ukraine. Who would be so naive as to believe that Russia would stop there, if we allowed it to continue?

At the outset, our deepest condolences go to the United Kingdom. Our Prime Minister has tweeted that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will be remembered as a stalwart of our times. She provided inspiring leadership to her nation and people and personified dignity and decency in public life. I am pained by her demise and my thoughts are with her family and the people of the United Kingdom at this sad hour. Turning to the topic at hand, our thanks go to High Representative Nakamitsu for her detailed briefing. We also thank the civil-society briefer for her remarks. We believe that internationally agreed principles and regimes should be respected and upheld by all countries. The Council is aware that since the conflict in Ukraine began, India has consistently called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and an end to the violence. We have emphasized that dialogue and diplomacy are the only way forward. In our view, it is therefore regrettable that the situation in Ukraine has shown no significant improvement despite regular Council discussions, with today’s meeting being the third in as many days in this week alone. In the meantime, we very much hope that the international community will continue to respond positively to the calls for humanitarian assistance. India has recently dispatched its twelfth consignment of humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Our assistance is in keeping with the human-centric approach of the Government of India and is a central tenet of our national beliefs and values, whereby we perceive the whole world as one family. Going forward, India’s approach will be to promote dialogue and diplomacy with an overarching aim of ending the conflict and working with other partners to mitigate the economic challenges emerging from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It is in our collective interest to work constructively, both within and outside the United Nations, to seek a speedy resolution to the conflict. We continue to reiterate that the global order is anchored in international law, the Charter of the United Nations and respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of States.

On behalf of the Kenyan delegation, I would like to take this opportunity to convey with a profound sense of sadness our deepest condolences to the royal family, the Government and the people of the United Kingdom, as well as our colleagues at the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom following the demise of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. She will be remembered for her exemplary sense of duty and leadership of her people and Commonwealth throughout her seven decades on the throne. I thank High Representative Nakamitsu and Ms. Trifković for their briefings. The Council is meeting today for the third time in three days on the situation in Ukraine, this time to discuss the supply of weapons. However, underlying the discussion and those preceding it is the challenge of how to collectively build a stable and peaceful global order. We continue to be extremely concerned about the ruinous damage the war is doing to Ukrainian lives, to Ukraine’s legitimate right to its sovereignty and territorial integrity and to regional and international security. However, even as the Security Council debates the conduct of the war, as we are doing today and urging for every effort to be made to stop it, we must be more responsive in our fundamental mandate to protect international peace and security in a comprehensive manner. In our view, that means that the Council and the international community need to fully face up to the strategic thinking that led to this war and the allied responses to it. We should act to minimize the risk of escalation while establishing channels of dialogue that will lead to a stable global order. Our countries are suffering various forms of harm due to the war. In Africa, its direct and indirect effects are damaging our aspirations for development, for united and comprehensive action against climate change and for security. The mobilization of militarized alliances; the utilization of sanctions, blockades, cyberattacks and of proxies in third countries; and the undermining of multilateral institutions are robbing us of the ability to collectively resolve our most serious challenges. They are distorting the global economy by shifting patterns of trade and investment. That is undermining the engine of globalization that most countries have sought to recruit in their search for growth and development. It is in the interests of the entire global community, and of developing countries in particular, for the ending of the war to usher in a new age of global peace and cooperation. We urge the warring parties and their allies and partners to enter into comprehensive discussions on a set of guidelines that will reanimate their willingness to modify their strategic posture in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Those discussions should be guided by identifying areas where cooperation is necessary and achievable, for instance through undertaking ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation and supporting a trade and investment regime that is open enough to avoid undermining worldwide economic development. They should honestly face each other’s most serious security concerns and conduct regular dialogue to clarify positions, minimize misunderstandings and reverse risks of escalation. The spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations offer a fundamental template. Its application should be guided by the honest recognition that it has so far not proved to be a sufficient constraint on the illegal actions of the most powerful States as they assert or protect their interests. Rather than seeing that reality rupture multilateralism further, all countries — and especially opposed military Powers — should understand that the Charter can still be of great service to them all if it is applied through cooperation, compromise and de-escalation. In addition, every region should also reflect that approach in order to identify and clarify regional areas and sectors for cooperation, as well as to undertake dialogue guided by the security concerns of neighbouring countries. We once again call for a cessation of hostilities and for a political settlement that respects the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine.

I would like to join previous speakers in conveying our deepest condolences to the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, our friends and colleagues at the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations and the people of the United Kingdom on the passing away of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As the world mourns her departure, we in Brazil will remember with fondness her trip to our country, where she was received with great warmth. Her decades-long sense of duty and devotion to her people will not be forgotten. I would like to thank Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu for her tireless work in what has been an extremely intense, and yet frustrating, few weeks concerning the disarmament file. I would also like to welcome the participation of Ms. Dragana Trifković, of the Center for Geostrategic Studies. We cannot but be disheartened by yet another meeting in this Chamber — the third this week — on the topic of Ukraine. The conflict has dragged on for more than six months and, despite the constant discussions in the Security Council, we have not been successful in fostering the suspension of hostilities. Brazil has made its position clear since the outbreak of hostilities, in both the Council and the General Assembly. We hold the firm conviction that threats and force will not lead this crisis to a lasting settlement. Military action inflicts damage, undermines faith in international law and jeopardizes millions of people’s lives. We remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian impact of the conflict and are convinced that there is no alternative to the negotiation of a ceasefire as a first step on the way to resolving the present crisis. As a party to the Arms Trade Treaty, Brazil abides by the set of principles outlined in that legal instrument and believes that they offer a valuable guideline for the transfer of arms. First, the Treaty highlights the importance of respecting, and ensuring respect for, international humanitarian law and for international human rights law, regardless of military objectives or security concerns. Secondly, it urges States to effectively regulate their arms trade so as to prevent diversion through systems of effective national control. Those principles should serve the objectives, which we also believe are applicable to the present crisis, of promoting responsible action in the arms trade, building confidence, reducing human suffering and contributing to international and regional peace, security and stability.

Before I begin, I would also like to join other colleagues in expressing the heartfelt condolences of the United Arab Emirates to the Government and the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the passing away of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Having celebrated the seventieth Jubilee this past summer, Her Majesty’s reign spanned an intense period of our modern world, and there is a lot to be said that will be remembered about Her Majesty’s long, well- lived and remarkable life, but at the moment, I shall limit myself to this. We stand together with the United Kingdom at this difficult time, and we want to express how truly inspired we have been by Queen Elizabeth’s duty to, and life in service of, her people. As we mourn Her Majesty’s passing away, we must also celebrate an extraordinary life and Her Majesty’s achievements and legacy, which lives on. With regard to the subject of today’s meeting, I would like to thank High Representative Nakamitsu for her updates, and I also take note of the briefing by Ms. Trifković. We have met, as others have said, countless times to discuss the war in Ukraine, its causes and its consequences. We do not forget that what is happening in Ukraine is a result of the war, but as I have emphasized before in this Chamber, while the past cannot be changed, we still can have an impact on the present and the future trajectory of this conflict. That is why this topic deserves our attention in the correct forum and with the technical expertise required to fully discuss it. The United Arab Emirates has advocated repeatedly for a cessation of hostilities and a peaceful settlement to the conflict. In order to get to a peaceful end to the conflict, any action taken by the parties or other stakeholders needs to be measured and deliberate. The war has been raging for more than six months and, sadly, it risks settling into a protracted conflict, with both sides intent on military victory. We should not resign ourselves to that reality, and the countless lives at stake depend on that. This war will not end militarily. Sooner or later — and we hope that it will be sooner — there will have to be real dialogue and a political solution based on respect for sovereignty, international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Let us make sure that the strategic objective of peace is not undermined by the immediate military tactics of war. The pursuit of the maintenance of international peace and security is rarely a simplistic equation. As long as armed conflicts remain a brutal part of our reality, we must recognize the importance of striving for the safe and secure transfer of weapons. It is crucial that the ultimate recipients of arms and ammunition be accounted for so that, down the line, such weapons do not inadvertently end up in the hands of terrorists. History has taught us the danger of focusing on short-term objectives and ignoring the longer-term implications of the flow of lethal weapons in the calculus of decisions about the supply, transfer, stockpiling and safe storage of arms. In that regard, we note with concern the warnings expressed by the Secretary General of INTERPOL in June about the dangers of the availability of weapons and the real possibilities of criminal groups exploiting their proliferation. That is especially dangerous in the case of smaller, easily portable light weapons. We support INTERPOL’s calls for suppliers to track and trace the weapons entering Ukraine in order to minimize the risk of any potential increase in transnational crime and regional instability during and after the conflict. The geopolitical tensions rising across the globe risk undermining the very mechanisms that we have in place to manage conflict, promote stability and ensure prosperity and development for all of our nations. For example, they are having wider ramifications on global arms control, as demonstrated by the lack of an agreed outcome at the tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. The recent terrorist attacks by Al-Shabaab in Somalia and displays of heavy weaponry by the Houthi terrorists in Yemen serve as continuous reminders of the risks associated with the limited enforcement of the existing arms control mechanisms. Unless we do something, the proliferation of small and light weapons will continue to grow exponentially. Let me conclude by noting that, as others just said, this is the third time that the Security Council has met in three days to discuss issues related to the conflict in Ukraine. It demonstrates the gravity of the situation and the multifaceted nature of the challenges we face. At the same time, we must ensure that we are able to make headway on other important issues on the Council’s agenda and that dynamics driven by this issue do not spill over or impact our ability to forge consensus on other crucial files. To that end, we must redouble our efforts to achieve tangible results on a range of unresolved issues that deserve our equal attention, from the Middle East, to Africa and around the world. The Council has a responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and we must seek to discharge that duty to the fullest possible extent.

At the outset, I should also like to join other colleagues in conveying our deepest condolences to Ambassador Woodward, her team and the British people on the passing away of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. We in Ireland recall with particular affection her State visit to Ireland in 2011 — the first such visit by a serving British monarch since its independence. That visit not only helped consolidate and cement the Northern Ireland peace process, but also affirmed the close bonds of friendship and affection between our two peoples and islands. It was a moment of genuine healing and reconciliation, and we thank her for that. May she rest in peace. I would like to thank Under-Secretary-General Nakamitsu for her briefing. We also note the presence of Ms. Trifković. Ireland believes in, and is fully committed to, the core principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which include the sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States. Ukraine has the same fundamental right as every other sovereign and independent State to choose its own foreign policy and to ensure the security and defence of its own territory. As the Secretary-General has said, the principles of the Charter are not an à la carte menu. Article 2, paragraph 4, applies to all Members of the United Nations — and so does Article 51. There are no exceptions or waiving of those principles. Let us not forget that in the weeks leading up to Russia’s illegal and unjustifiable further invasion of Ukraine in February, Ukraine showed remarkable restraint in the face of Russia’s military build-up at its border and its use of provocative propaganda. Russia’s decision to recognize the non-Government controlled areas of the Donestk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine as independent entities has not changed those borders one iota. They did not change in 2014, and they have not changed since. Ukraine did not commit or threaten to commit an armed attack against Russia. It was Russia that attacked Ukraine and sought to justify its invasion by invoking Article 51 of the Charter. It is Russia that now seeks to deny a fellow United Nations Member that same right to self-defence. Contrary to some claims, there is no credible evidence of diversion and no indication that exports are taking place, other than in accordance with national laws and international procedure. That includes military support provided by the European Union to help Ukraine exercise its inherent right of self-defence and defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty. We would ask that Russia should stop trying to use the Security Council as a platform for its disinformation campaign, painting itself as the victim of its own aggression in the face of the heinous acts it has committed in Ukraine. We once again call on Russia to desist.

Allow me to also express Norway’s heartfelt condolences to the British royal family, the people of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth and our colleagues on the passing away of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. I thank High Representative Nakamitsu for her statement. I also take note of Ms. Trifković’s briefing. Let me make four short points today. First, Norway reiterates that Russia’s war on Ukraine is a serious violation of international law. Russia must abide by the order of the International Court of Justice and immediately suspend its military operation in the territory of Ukraine. Secondly, we reiterate our unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. Thirdly, we call on Russia to immediately end its indiscriminate attacks. Norway unequivocally condemns all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including the reported killing of Ukrainian civilians, and strikes on civilian infrastructure. Finally, Ukraine has a right to defend itself against Russia’s armed attack, as enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Other States are entitled to respond positively to Ukraine’s call for assistance in the exercise of its legitimate right to self- defence. A simple fact remains: Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is blatantly illegal. Russia must fully and unconditionally withdraw its forces and military equipment from Ukraine. Russia started this war, and it must now choose to stop it.

First of all, on behalf of the Chinese delegation, I would like to express our deep condolences on the passing away of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and to convey our sincere sympathy to our colleagues in the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom and, through them, to the British Government and people. I would like to thank Under-Secretary-General Nakamitsu for her briefing. I also listened carefully to Ms. Trifković’s statement. The Ukrainian crisis, which has lasted for more than six months, has fully demonstrated the tremendous human suffering caused by weapons and ammunition. The fierce fighting in various places continues to rage on, and more weapons and ammunition continue to flow onto the battlefield, giving rise to the worrisome prospect of a protracted, escalating conflict. Since the beginning of the crisis in Ukraine, China has always emphasized that the delivery of weapons will not bring about peace. Adding fuel to the fire will only complicate the problem. The harsh reality and humanitarian consequences of the past six months have fully demonstrated that. Equally worrisome is the scenario of a large number of weapons and ammunition falling into the wrong hands, which would bring about endless trouble and create security risks in Ukraine and beyond. We have noticed that the negative effects of that are already starting to show. There have been many lessons learned in that regard. During the hasty withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, as much as $7 billion in weapons and equipment was discarded at will, fuelling a rampant black-market trade in which weapons are openly sold in broad daylight and easily accessible to anyone, even children. Those weapons will be a long-term obstacle to the rebuilding of lasting peace in Afghanistan and will pose huge risks to the security of the countries of the region. The guns that were left in Somalia by foreign troops in the 1990s have now become easily available to terrorists, who use them to kill people and commit violence, threatening the lives of local civilians, including women and children. In China, the chemical weapons left behind by those who invaded Chinese soil in the 1930s and 1940s are still a serious threat to people’s lives and property and to the environment. China has always maintained that dialogue and negotiation are the most realistic and feasible way to resolve the crisis. Only by seeking joint, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security can we achieve long-term stability in Europe and the world. The Ukrainian crisis is proving to us once again, in a brutal way, that pursuing power politics and absolute security, maitaining an obession with military force and creating divisions and confrontation cannot bring about peace and stability, and neither can it bring about reconciliation and tranquility. All the parties concerned should maintain contact and communication, leave room for diplomatic negotiations in order to the create conditions for a political settlement and strive for an early ceasefire and the cessation of hostilities. I would like to stress again that, on the Ukraine issue, China has always believed that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations should be respected, the legitimate security concerns of all countries should be taken seriously and every effort conducive to resolving the crisis peacefully should be supported. We will continue to stand on the side of peace, dialogue and humanity and play a constructive role in the proper resolution of the crisis in Ukraine.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of France. On behalf of my country, I would first like to once again express my delegation’s condolences to the delegation of the United Kingdom and to reaffirm the deep friendship between the people of France and the people of the United Kingdom. I would like to thank Mrs. Nakamitsu for her briefing. On 24 February, Russia invaded Ukraine in defiance of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Council members will recall that one week before, on 17 February, during Russia’s presidency of the Security Council, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister said that that scenario was the result of Western paranoia (see S/PV.8968). Russia then imposed a war on the entire world, with major consequences on the humanitarian, food, energy and nuclear fronts. We must face the facts. Russia alone is responsible for the current situation. Russia inflames the situation every day by continuing its armed aggression on the ground. France has resolved to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We did so as Ukraine now fights for the values and principles that we all share. Those values and principles are also outlined in the Charter of the United Nations  — territorial integrity, the independence and sovereignty of States, the prohibition on territorial conquest by force and condemnation of wars of aggression. It is our duty, and it is within the purview of the Council, to uphold those rules, as they alone allow for international peace and stability. That is why France, in its national capacity, furnishes military support, which helps to provide Ukraine with a way to defend itself. Similarly, at the level of the European Union, a collective decision was made to fund weaponry, which is needed to ensure that Ukraine can withstand the Russian aggression. We would like to create the conditions that would enable, at a time of Ukraine’s choosing, either a military victory or negotiated peace under terms that would be different from the terms Ukraine would be forced to accept were we to abandon it to its fate. Such military assistance will continue for so long as the Russian armed aggression persists. We will also continue to provide humanitarian, economic and political assistance to Ukraine. As we have said, Russia alone is responsible for the war being waged against Ukraine and the entire world. France vigorously rejects the arguments put forward by those who would have us believe that the war is being fuelled by Ukrainians and Europeans. Let us not shift blame. France will continue to stand with Ukrainians as they fight to defend their sovereignty. If we want to silence the guns, we already know the solution. The International Court of Justice gave us the solution on 16 March. Russia must immediately cease all its military operations in Ukraine. It must withdraw from the territory of Ukraine and respect its internationally recognized borders. It must stop its dangerous advance. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. The representative of the Russian Federation has asked for the floor to make a further statement.

Today our Western colleagues did not address the topic at hand, as the facts prove that they did not merely indirectly but also directly participated in this proxy war. That is why they use their favourite tactic of shifting the focus from the topic of the meeting onto an activity with which we are all familiar by now — levelling accusations at Russia. We refuse to comment on the speculations made by our American and British colleagues about filtration camps and torture and brutality by the Russian army. We did that on several occasions, including yesterday (see S/PV.9126). However, we note the statements made by those in the West that support Kyiv. They said that they provide Kyiv only with defensive weaponry. However, it is not the Russian army that is shelled by Ukrainian armed forces using those so-called defensive weapons, but the civilian residential areas of Donbas. I note another point made in the statements by the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States. They said, in no uncertain terms, that Russia allegedly purchases weaponry from Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I would like to ask them now to either provide us with evidence of that assertion or acknowledge that they are spreading unreliable information to Security Council members. Let me also say straight away that neither any publication of that information in the Western media nor meaningul comments, conjecture and inconclusive statements made by American officials can be considered as evidence. As has been already stated several times, we are no longer surprised by anything. Any statement that appears in the mass media is almost automatically being used by Western partners to level accusations against Russia.

I now give the floor to the representative of Ukraine.

I acknowledge the representative of terrorist Russia in the permanent seat of the Soviet Union. I would like to thank Under-Secretary-General Izumi Nakamitsu for her briefing. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia. In her 2008 Christmas message, Queen Elizabeth II said what is today one of her most famous quotes. It is not only famous, but also very relevant in the light of the tragic events in Europe as a result of the illegal, unprovoked and unjustified war of Russia against Ukraine and the entire civilized world. Queen Elizabeth II said, “When life seems hard, the courageous do not lie down and accept defeat; instead, they are all the more determined to struggle for a better future”. The world will miss the Queen’s wisdom. May Her Majesty rest in peace. By launching its aggression against Ukraine in 2014 and by invading Ukraine in February of this year, Russia has violated the norms and principles of practically all fundamental international documents, including bilateral and multilateral agreements, the Helsinki Final Act and, first and foremost, the Charter of the United Nations. No one on the planet, but those in Damascus and Pyongyang, would doubt that, and it makes no sense to waste any more of the Security Council’s time on substantiating that point. Let me refer to General Assembly resolution ES-11/1, adopted at the eleventh emergency special session on 2 March by an overwhelming majority of 141 member States. It deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, in violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter. International law guards the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. International law explicitly confers on us the inherent right to self- defence, enshrined in particular, in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Not a single State present in the Chamber, besides Russia, is responsible for the Council’s inability to effectively perform its functions under the United Nations Charter. It is solely the presence of Russia in the permanent seat of the Soviet Union that has immobilized the Security Council in relation to ensuring the peace and security of Ukraine. We are defending ourselves, Europe, the world and the Charter of the United Nations, and we will keep on fighting until every inch of the sovereign territory of Ukraine, including Crimea, is liberated. I emphasize that in strict accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter, which we all have committed to uphold. We will fight against the occupiers until all Russian soldiers who entered Ukraine to kill its people have been defeated. The only thing that Putin can do to save the lives of his soldiers is to order their immediate withdrawal. The level of human suffering and destruction in Ukraine and the extent of the global implications of Russia’s war of aggression make it clear that fighting Putin today can be compared only to our common fight against Hitler during the Second World War. Let me remind the Council that the document entitled “Declaration by the United Nations” — the first time that the term “United Nations was used — was signed in 1942 in Washington, D.C. to unite the peoples throughout the globe in their struggle against the Nazis. As former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs, “if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.” Even the dictator Stalin offered the same opinion at the Tehran Conference in 1943. It was thanks to that global unity, the Lend-Lease Act and the assistance of the American people and other allies that we succeeded in defeating Hitler. The evil of Putin, as that of Hitler before him, requires a global response. It was the case during the Second World War, and it is the case right now. Ukraine and its allies are doing their best to ensure such a response. The liberation of Ukrainian territories, which is well under way in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions, serves as the best proof of the effectiveness of our efforts. The Russian Federation has already abused the Security Council on many occasions, including this week. We call on Russia to learn to respect this organ. It is apparent, however, that the Russian delegation is experiencing many delusions, with false beliefs that are not based on reality, and having hallucinations, seeing and hearing things that do not exist, as part of an endless list of other negative symptoms. It is indeed a difficult condition, but I would suggest that those symptoms should not be studied and treated in this Chamber or by diplomats. They require a different type of qualification and different offices, perhaps less than a mile from the United Nations Headquarters on the same First Avenue. Let them go there and ask for therapy. Yes — there is only one truly right avenue to save the lives of thousands of Ukrainian and, in fact, Russian citizens: that is, to surrender and withdraw. If that does not happen, however, no therapy will help.