S/PV.9859 Security Council

At the outset, I should like, at the request of the delegations of Algeria, Guyana, Sierra Leone and Somalia, and on behalf of the members of the Security Council, to ask that all those present now stand and join in observing a minute of silence in remembrance of the passing of the first President of the Republic of Namibia, Mr. Samuel Nujoma, and present the Council’s condolences and sympathy to his family and to the Government and people of Namibia.

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Germany and 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: Mr. Miroslav Jenča, Assistant Secretary-General for Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations; and Mr. Roger Waters, civil peace activist. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I give the floor to Mr. Jenča. Mr. Jenča: In one week, we will mark three tragic years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, launched in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. The invasion represented an inexcusable escalation of the conflict that started in 2014, with the attempted illegal annexation by the Russian Federation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, followed by the outbreak of fighting in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in the east of Ukraine. Civilian casualties continue to rise. The global impact of the war continues to be felt far beyond Ukraine. In this context, today’s 10-year anniversary of the adoption of Security Council resolution 2202 (2015), which called for the full implementation of the now-defunct Minsk agreements, is an opportunity to recall past diplomatic efforts towards de-escalation and a peaceful settlement of the conflict. It also invites reflection on what happens when peacemaking fails. Since the beginning of the conflict, the United Nations has remained fully committed to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, within its internationally recognized borders. Over the past 10 years, while not directly involved, the United Nations has consistently supported the various diplomatic processes and mechanisms aimed at restoring the peace and security of Ukraine. These included efforts led by the Normandy format countries and by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in the Trilateral Contact Group, focusing on the implementation of the 2014 and 2015 Minsk agreements. In line with Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, we made available our expertise and international experience to the OSCE and its Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in areas such as ceasefire monitoring and women and peace and security. We commend the dedication of the professionals who served with the As underlined in the Pact for the Future, the role of regional and subregional organizations in diplomacy, mediation and the pacific settlement of disputes remains essential. In Europe, this is particularly relevant for the OSCE on the fiftieth anniversary of its founding document, the Helsinki Accords. It is important to consider some of the key lessons of the past 10 years of conflict and peacemaking in order to succeed in ensuring a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in Ukraine. The Secretary-General has underlined, time and again, that any peaceful settlement must respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, in line with the United Nations Charter, international law and resolutions of the General Assembly. In the Pact for the Future, Member States recommitted to the promotion of cooperation and understanding between States to defuse tensions, seek pacific settlement of disputes and resolve conflicts. This approach must also apply in putting an end to the war in Ukraine. The United Nations encourages dialogue among all stakeholders and welcomes all genuine efforts and initiatives, with the full participation of Ukraine and the Russian Federation, that would alleviate the impact of the war on civilians and de-escalate the conflict. The Minsk agreements have taught us that agreeing on a ceasefire or signing an agreement alone do not ensure a durable end to the violence. Ensuring that the conflict does not reoccur and does not escalate will require genuine political will and understanding of its multidimensional complexity, for Ukraine and for the region. We renew our appeal of 10 years ago for all stakeholders to step up their efforts to end the fighting. We reiterate the Secretary-General’s call on all countries to help to prepare the ground for a just peace, and we stand ready to use our good offices and to make available all our tools and experience in support of such efforts.

I thank Mr. Jenča for his briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Waters. Mr. Waters: As the previous speaker said, we are here today because it is the tenth anniversary of the signing in Belarus of the Minsk II agreements. Why are those agreements important? It is because the people of Ukraine are divided; they are either pro-Russian or anti-Russian. I sense an objection somewhere out there in the Chamber, a questioning of my credentials. Forgive me, but I feel a sense of, “What does he know? He is just some old musician.” I may be just a musician, but I am here to talk about war and peace and love, and my credentials are firmly in place. I do know this: hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and all their sons, daughters, aunts, mothers, fathers, uncles, cousins and friends are in the Chamber with us today. The dead soldiers haunt me. The surviving loved ones haunt me. I feel their pain. I feel their presence in the Chamber, and it is haunting. My father was killed on the morning of 18 February 1944, defending the Anzio bridgehead in Italy from the Nazis. I was five months old that day. Tomorrow is 18 February. So, tomorrow I will have carried those credentials in this broken heart for 81 years. Where was I? I was speaking about the Minsk II agreements. To understand the pro-Russian, anti-Russian division in Ukrainian society, we have to visit Maidan. In November 2013, protests started in Kyiv against the pro-Russian Government Was it just a noisy and very deadly political clash between different factions in Ukrainian society or was it more complicated than that? Was there outside interference, for instance? Did I see Senator John McCain on the podium, sticking his oar in? We have all listened to the famous cell phone call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, together calmly picking out a new Ukrainian President. Who could forget Victoria Nuland’s casual aside? The European Union could. Whatever it was, it all turned very nasty — dead bodies everywhere. Who started it? Who fired the first shot? That is one of the problems with regime change, is it not? The dead bodies are all somebody’s loved ones. It looks as if all the talks in Maidan’s aftermath that led up to Minsk II a year later were a very necessary and worthy attempt to find a solution to a deadly problem in a deeply divided society. Minsk II smells like common sense to me. There is another smell in the story, though. Some say the new Government in Kyiv was unduly influenced by right-wing factions, such as the Right Sector and the followers of Stepan Bandera. If Council members do not know who Stepan Bandera is or was, they should not be here. They should be at home watching the Bill Maher show or reruns of the Kardashians. Anyway, immediately after the change of Government in 2014, Crimea seceded from Ukraine and joined the Russian Federation. Did it secede or was it annexed? Council members can take their pick. We could always ask the people on the ground. Let us have a look, shall we? In a referendum held at the time, 95 per cent of Ukrainians in Crimea voted to secede, which is fair enough. The years rolled by until, in 2019, a new President was elected — a popular actor called Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He ran his campaign on a promise to resurrect and implement Minsk II. He won in a landslide. Did he implement Minsk II? No, he did not. What happened next? Things got worse. The Russians kept saying — excuse my ridiculous accent — “things are getting worse”. It was the time of Russia-gate. Anything a Russian said fell on deaf ears. There was no grown-up conversation about Ukraine in the United States of America. No one in Washington, for instance, had taken in Ambassador William J. Burns’s cable of 10 years earlier, entitled “Nyet means Nyet”, which was about Russia’s concerns about a nuclear-armed NATO member, Ukraine, on its doorstep. Like many other red-line warnings, it was ignored. The severity of artillery attacks on the Donbas increased. The Minsk agreements were long forgotten or ignored. On 24 February 2022, the chickens came home to roost. Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine, and Ukrainian and Russian soldiers started dying. My blood ran cold on that day. War? Seriously? Why was it not avoided? Could it have been avoided? Of course it could have been avoided. It is called diplomacy. It is called common sense. It is called talking to one another. War is only ever an option as an absolute last resort — except that it is not, of course. Is that not so? If we think about it, we have come to accept war as a way of life. To quote Major General Smedley Butler’s words in 1935, “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope.” Who profits from the racket? Rich people and oligarchs do. Since the Second World War, the racket has been our constant companion — Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Palestine. Palestine is not really at war, is it, but do not get me started on that. But then the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrived in Kyiv with a message, “Hello, Volodymyr, can I have a word in your ear? Forget Istanbul and Minsk and all that. Between you and me, this war suits the Americans down to the ground. They think it will weaken Russia. So it has been decided to continue it for as long as it takes. And just between you and me, the longer it takes, the better. They will keep sending you ammo, of course, and they would like you to, well, you know, just fight on.” Later that year, I wrote letters to Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wife, Mrs. Zelenska, and President Putin. I blathered on to Mrs. Zelenska about similarities between Cuba and Ukraine, and suggested that the reason we survived the existential crisis in 1962 was largely explained by the fact that our leaders, Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy, spoke to one another on the telephone like civilized human beings, and common sense prevailed. Would it not be nice if our leaders today spoke to one another on the telephone like civilized human beings, and common sense prevailed? I have run out of time. I am sure the Council has heard by now that two of our leaders have already answered that call. Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin have spoken to one another on the telephone. That is, or could be, in this musician’s humble opinion, a move in the right direction. Maybe there is a glimmer of light at the end of this dark tunnel of war. It has come three years — and hundreds of thousands of priceless lives — too late, but maybe it is a start.

I thank Mr. Waters for his briefing. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.

We thank Roger Waters for his statement, his analysis of the history of the Ukrainian crisis and his assessment of the significance of the Minsk agreements to the relevant diplomatic efforts. Today marks the tenth anniversary of the adoption of resolution 2202 (2015), which endorsed the package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Having thus spoken out in favour of the Minsk solutions, arrived at several days prior to that, the Security Council assumed control of their implementation. However, hopes for the establishment of a long-term lasting peace, which all of us saw at that point, were not fated to come to fruition. Furthermore, today the expression Minsk agreements has become something of a diplomatic euphemism for failure or lie. We believe that the Security Council has every reason to analyse why that happened and why peace in east Ukraine did not come to fruition thereafter. First and foremost, I would like to recall that the 13 points in the agreement package categorically set out the sequencing of the implementation of concrete measures to normalize the situation in Ukraine and to bring the Luhansk People’s Republic and the Donetsk People’s Republic into its fold. The last of those steps was the restoration of Kyiv’s control over the State border in east Ukraine. For that to occur, the Ukrainian leadership had to undertake a number of measures geared towards providing the Luhansk People’s Republic and the Donetsk People’s Republic with broad autonomy and protecting the identity of the Russian-speaking population. However, very soon it became clear that those who seized power following the 2014 anti-constitutional coup — by which I mean the nationalist Kyiv regime — from the very start had no intention of implementing even one of the points in the Certain Ukrainian officials did not shy away from explicitly stating that “[t]he decisions taken to date as part of the Minsk process are, to a large extent, the result of the pressure of critical circumstances and external factors, and therefore their binding force rests solely on Ukraine’s goodwill. The main and sole stratagem of the Ukrainian State is to buy time and build up its strength.” That is a quote from Mr. Horbulin, an adviser to the Ukrainian President. The representatives of the Kyiv regime described the obligations they signed on to as “a noose around the neck of Ukraine”, put there by Mr. Kravchuk, Ukraine’s former President, and “a dead letter”. The latter was said by the Defence Minister, Mr. Reznikov. They suggested that the agreements could not be implemented under “Russian conditions”. Those were the words of Mr. Kuleba, the former Foreign Minister. Their implementation meant the destruction of the country, according to Mr. Danilov, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine. They clumsily reached the conclusion that, in their view, the agreements were not binding and “allowed for various interpretations”, in Mr. Zelenskyy’s words. According to Mr. Reznikov, they had to be reformatted. During meetings of the Security Council, we have repeatedly drawn attention to those unacceptable statements and the inadmissibility of Kyiv’s sabotage of a document that was endorsed by a Security Council resolution. We called on all members of the Council, which shoulders responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, to categorically demand that the Ukrainian Government comply with its obligations. However, our Western colleagues continuously avoided the issue, and they even attempted to address grievances about Russia’s non-implementation of the package of measures, despite the fact that the Russian Federation was not a party to them, nor did it have any corresponding obligations. The real reason for that policy came to light later, as became clear from the acknowledgements of a number of former senior politicians — Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko, specifically. The Minsk agreements were something that the Western sponsors of the Kyiv regime needed purely as a smokescreen to provide armaments to Ukraine and to prepare it for war with Russia. That ultimately compelled us, nearly three years ago, to begin the special military operation in Ukraine. In this Chamber and elsewhere, we repeatedly stated that had the Minsk agreements been implemented in good faith by Ukraine and its sponsors, nothing of what subsequently transpired would have occurred. Having ignored the clear messages about the Kyiv regime’s unwillingness and lack of readiness to implement resolution 2202 (2015), Western States completely failed in the critical mission of the Security Council, which they brandish when it comes to many other country-specific situations, that being the mission of preventive diplomacy. Today, they are trying to deny everything, but it is clear to all of us that 10 years ago, they had the tools and levers to guarantee a peaceful resolution of the internal crisis in Ukraine, which was triggered by the anti-constitutional coup in Kyiv in February 2014. Not only did they fail to leverage those tools, but they also attempted to whip up Ukrainian nationalism and the Russophobia it had given rise to, thereby creating all the conditions for direct confrontation between Ukraine and Russia. Ultimately, having sown the wind, they are reaping the whirlwind. Today we can see that the deliberate sabotage of the implementation of the Minsk package of measures had fateful consequences and repercussions for Ukraine. Not Instead of that, Kyiv embraced the path of confrontation and repression of freedom of speech and other human rights and freedoms. As a result, Ukraine today is bitterly called by many of its own citizens a concentration camp bearing Zelenskyy’s name. During the previous meeting of the Council (see S/PV.9827), we provided concrete evidence showing what exactly that country has morphed into. Having lost an opportunity provided by the Minsk agreements, the Kyiv regime was unable to leverage the agreements that were based on the Minsk package of measures and reached in Istanbul just a month after the start of the special military operation in Ukraine. Today, Kyiv is bitterly regretting that, understanding that the Minsk provisions are now an unattainable dimension and that the new conditions for ending the hostilities will be far worse for Ukraine. But the past is past. That is the situation that not only Zelenskyy and his corrupt clique, but also the sponsors of the Kyiv regime bear responsibility for, insofar as they actively persuaded him to unleash the suicidal war against Russia. We all see the processes currently taking place throughout the world after the entry into office of the Republican United States Administration. As we called for over the course of many past months, diplomacy has finally been actively brought into the game. Opportunities have emerged for a prompt end to the hot phase of the Ukrainian crisis. Naturally, all of those who are currently working towards that end are analysing, inter alia, all previous attempts to bring to an end the armed confrontation in the east of Ukraine. Among the most important undertakings, of course, are the Minsk agreements. What lessons do the present-day negotiators need to draw from the process that so abjectly failed three years ago? We will now try to answer that question. First and foremost, we understand currently that the Minsk guarantors, the European Union (EU) countries and the United Kingdom, on the whole are absolutely incapable of negotiating an agreement, and they cannot be a party to any future agreements on the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis whatsoever. They are blinded by primitive Russophobia and their maniacal desire to inflict defeat on our country on the battlefield, using the Ukrainians who are left alive. The present-day European elites, unfortunately in principle, are incapable of strategic thought, and they are unable to set out any formula for security with the participation of Russia. For many years, they have explicitly or implicitly shaped purely anti-Russian political and military configurations. We do not know how much time it will take them to come to their senses—if that is possible, in principle — but what is clear is that they are in no position to act as guarantors or even mediators. That is attested to by the reckless and hawkish statements completely divorced from reality that we heard from the European participants during the Munich Security Conference that just recently concluded. Secondly, a ceasefire and the freezing of the Ukrainian conflict along the contact line are not, in and of themselves, a guarantee for the resolution of the conflict. That is an important lesson to be drawn from the Minsk agreements, and it must be borne in mind by those who will presently be working on the new contours of a possible agreement, all the more so given that European political small minds have not concealed the fact that, in the event of a ceasefire, they intend to rearm Ukraine, and they intend to prepare Ukraine for the resumption of warfare. Suffice it to quote the new main European diplomat from the European Union, Ms. Kallas, who stated in Munich that the European Union must redistribute certain resources in order to Thirdly, in order to establish a lasting peace in Ukraine, there is a need to eradicate the root causes of the Ukrainian conflict. The purpose of the Minsk agreements was to grant the east of the country such atonomy and provide such guarantees to the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine that Donbas could be brought back into Ukraine. That also applied to education in the Russian language, opportunities to practice canonical orthodoxy and the right to honour those heroes who liberated Ukraine from Nazism rather than those criminals who, alongside the Hitlerites, exterminated hundreds of thousands of Jews, Poles, Russians, Roma and the Ukrainians themselves. People should have the right not to honour those who are worshiped in Ukraine today, with Bandera, whom Mr. Roger Waters mentioned today, at the top of the list. All of that remains relevant with one distinction, namely, that Ukraine today has irrevocably lost not only Crimea, but also the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics and the Kherson and Zaporizhzhya oblasts, which have joined the Russian Federation. Consequently, there is a need to redress the situation in those regions, which remain under the control of Kyiv. Lastly, there is a need for the implementation of the new agreement to be dealt with by those authorities who will be genuinely interested in that and the authorities who will emerge after democratic elections. The self-proclaimed Ukrainian President Zelenskyy lost legitimacy last May. Moreover, he, who was elected by three quarters of Ukrainians with a promise to achieve peace in the east, did everything to achieve the exact opposite of that. He dragged the country into a conflict for the advancement of the geopolitical interests of others, at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. Clearly, neither he nor his associates nor those who objected to the Minsk agreements have any role to play in the new Ukraine, and that, consequently, is clear from public opinion polls in the country, which clearly point to the fact that the Zelenskyy cabal has lost even the symbolic support of its citizens. And that is precisely why the professional Ukrainian comic and former President is deathly afraid of elections and is doing everything possible to drag them out. I now turn to my final point. The future Ukraine must be a demilitarized neutral State, not a part of any blocs or alliances, for as has already been acknowledged by our United States colleagues now — specifically President Trump — it is indeed the prospect of the entry of Ukraine into NATO that triggered the conflict, and I think that that is now clear to all. There are other important elements for the future agreement that do not directly pertain to Ukraine, and that that is not something that we will dwell on today. We very much should like to hope that the tenth anniversary of the adoption of resolution 2202 (2015) will be a good opportunity for our European colleagues to finally come back to reality and to stop provoking Zelenskyy and his henchmen towards futile confrontation. He himself, clinging to power and attempting to save his skin at any cost, is willing to engage in any provocation to prolong hostilities and the deaths of his compatriots, and that is attested to by recent, clumsy new provocations by the Kyiv regime, such as the drone strike on the protective shield of the Chernobyl power plant and the shelling of the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who were deployed for rotation at the Zaporizhzhya power plant. If the concerned countries do not bring their protégé in Kyiv to his senses and if they do not put him in his place, this will not end well for Ukraine, and those parameters of the resolution that we are discussing today will, with the passage of some time,

I would begin by expressing gratitude to Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenča for his briefing, and I also thank Mr. Roger Waters for his remarks. A week from now, we will mark the third year since the start of conflict in Ukraine. This conflict has continued to have long-term and wide-ranging consequences not only for the region but also for the international peace and security landscape. The disproportionate toll of this conflict in terms of the lives of civilians, material damage and the loss of civilian infrastructure is particularly disturbing and deplorable. In 2015, the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements was signed by the relevant stakeholders, with a view to bringing an end to the hostilities in the conflict areas and preserving peace. It was in this very Chamber that the Council unanimously adopted resolution 2202 (2015), endorsing the measures of the Minsk agreement, welcoming the declarations made by the leaders of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, France and Germany in support of the agreements and calling upon all parties to fully implement the provisions of the agreements. In that context, it is regrettable that the Minsk agreement could not achieve the purpose of ensuring sustainable and lasting peace in the region. Pakistan is a staunch advocate of dialogue, the use of peaceful means and the exercise of diplomacy for resolving disputes. With regard to the Ukraine conflict, we have been consistent in our calls for restraint, eschewing the objective of settling the issue on the battlefield, calling for the Charter of the United Nations and its principles to be respected and advocating the adoption of a path that leads to a negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict. We are encouraged to note that the calls for restraint and a negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict are now resonating widely with more countries besides those in the global South, demonstrating a willingness to put their weight and political capital behind the cause of peace and an end to the hostilities, which have led to a huge loss of life and infrastructure on both sides. We welcome that development, fully support it and commend all diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing a sustainable and lasting peace to Ukraine and the region.

(spoke in Spanish): We thank Assistant Secretary- General Jenča for his informative briefing and Mr. Waters for the views he shared with the Council. Panama acknowledges that the Minsk agreements were a diplomatic effort that laid the foundations for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine before 2022 and were, 10 years ago, unanimously accepted by the Security Council through resolution 2202 (2015). The resolution endorsed the implementation of that package of measures with the aim of allowing the opportunity for a peaceful settlement to the crisis in eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian Government and pro-Russian separatist forces. The agreements paved a way to peace, including the withdrawal of heavy weapons, access to humanitarian aid and the release of prisoners of war. Yet, on 24 February 2022, Russia’s assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty marked a violation the founding principles of the United Nations and ultimately eroded the provisions of the Minsk Agreements. Now, 1,090 days after the invasion, we remain mired in the conflict, which continues to inflict irreparable humanitarian harm on the Ukrainian nation. We have received periodic reports about the shocking numbers of civilian and military deaths and injuries, attacks on critical infrastructure, the displacement of millions of people who fled their homes in search of safety and the devastating physical and mental repercussions for children, who are suffering Given the recent progress towards the resolution of this conflict, it is crucial to learn from the past in order to avoid making the same mistakes. The Charter of the United Nations, whose eightieth anniversary is about to be commemorated and whose spirit guides the States Members of the Organization, must remain the cornerstone of dialogue, trust and the peaceful resolution of conflicts for the maintenance of international peace and security in faithful adherence to international law. In that same vein, Panama reiterates its support for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine. Likewise, we welcome all efforts and talks that include Ukraine and seek ultimately to exhaust diplomatic efforts, underpinned by sufficient political will, in order to reach, on this occasion, an immediate ceasefire and the release of all prisoners of war and thereby secure a comprehensive and lasting peace. The Minsk agreements showed that concrete routes to peace are possible when there is political will. However, when that will is shattered or lost, commitment evaporates and gains are reduced to naught. We call for reflection with a view to resuming the path of diplomacy and dialogue as the sole avenue to lasting peace.

I extend my gratitude to Assistant Secretary-General Jenča for his briefing and take note of Mr. Waters’ remarks. As we approach the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine, the international community is at a critical juncture as a series of key discussions are taking place to end the conflict. We believe that the attention to such discussions results from the international community’s shared aspiration to end the inhumane loss of life and destruction, which have lasted for nearly 1,100 days in Ukraine. Instead of peacefully resolving the conflict, Russia resorted to the use of force and invaded Ukraine, in blatant violation of the Charter of the United Nations. That not only unleashed untold human suffering over the past three years, but also aggravated existing global challenges, including food and energy insecurity. Despite arguments to the contrary, it is clear that Russia invaded its neighbouring country in clear violation of its sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. The entire world is well aware of who the aggressor is and who the victim is, as affirmed in multiple General Assembly resolutions supported by the overwhelming majority of Member States. Another significant repercussion of this war is North Korea’s substantial military support to Russia, both in terms of troops and munitions, which constitutes further grave violations of international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions. Russia’s collusion with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — a State that pursues its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles programmes at the cost of non-proliferation and its people’s well-being — exemplifies the illegal and irresponsible nature of the war. We urge Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately cease their illegal and dangerous military cooperation, which has exacerbated the suffering of the Ukrainian people and actively undermined both the global non-proliferation regime and the Council’s previous decisions. We must not forget that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has sacrificed its own troops, sustaining more than 3,000 casualties  — among some 11,000 troops dispatched — in an effort to leverage those losses for compensation from Russia. Three years into this brutal war, I express my sincere hope that this year Ukrainians can return to the peaceful lives they lived before the war. As a once war- torn country, the Korean people know just how painful the path towards overcoming the devastation of war is. At the same time, we know that history is on the side of freedom, justice, human rights, the rule of law and the Charter of the United Nations. In that light, the Republic of Korea reaffirms its commitment to supporting Ukraine and its people until they overcome the current hardship.

At the outset, I would like to thank Assistant Secretary-General Jenča for his comprehensive briefing, and express appreciation to Mr. Waters for sharing his valuable insights. The Minsk agreements represented a significant diplomatic endeavour, aimed at the peaceful resolution of conflict through dialogue and negotiation. The agreements, signed in 2014 and 2015, ultimately failed to prevent what would become Europe’s largest conflict since the Second World War. The experience gained from their implementation merits careful consideration by the Council, as it is directly relevant to our collective responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In that regard, I would like to make the following observations. First, the implementation of ceasefire provisions, while central to any peace process, requires robust and impartial verification mechanisms. The dedicated efforts of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine demonstrated both the value and the inherent limitations of existing verification frameworks within complex security environments. It is therefore critical to develop more robust frameworks to monitor and verify compliance with peace agreements, drawing upon the expertise of the Secretariat and its specialized agencies. Secondly, the precise formulation of peace agreements requires that particular attention be paid to the implementation, sequencing and establishment of unambiguous benchmarks for compliance. The experience of the Minsk agreements underscores the importance of clarity in diplomatic instruments, particularly regarding the synchronization of political and security measures. Thirdly, in the years leading up to February 2022, despite clear warning signs, we did not take decisive preventive actions. It is incumbent upon the Council to examine its preventive role, as mandated by the Charter of the United Nations, and enhance its early warning capabilities through strengthened coordination with regional organizations and relevant United Nations entities. The credibility of the Council, and indeed the United Nations itself, rests not on our ability to respond to conflicts, but on our capacity to prevent them. The Security Council’s mandate in the preventive and peaceful settlement of disputes remain a cornerstone of the international peace and security architecture. Its effective execution requires not only the necessary institutional frameworks, but also the sustained commitment of all Member States to the principles enshrined in the Charter. As we contemplate these matters, it is clear, after three years of war in Ukraine, that there can be no military solution to the conflict, the resolution of which requires enhanced international cooperation and a renewed commitment to diplomacy in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. It is imperative that all My delegation stands ready to engage constructively with Council members and the broader United Nations membership in strengthening our collective capacity for conflict prevention and resolution.

I would like to thank Assistant Secretary- General Jenča for his briefing. The goal of the Minsk agreements was an end to the fighting and the restoration of Ukraine’s control over its territory within its internationally recognized borders. Russia signed those agreements but never implemented any of the commitments it agreed to, not a single one — not the Minsk protocol or the Minsk package of measures, not the scores of interventions negotiated by the Trilateral Contact Group. Those commitments included agreements on a ceasefire, the withdrawal of foreign military forces from Ukraine’s sovereign territory, the disbanding of illegal armed groups in eastern Ukraine that received support from Russia, and the return of control of the Ukrainian side of the international border to Ukraine. Russia did none of those things. Instead, Russia consistently and repeatedly worked to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Minsk agreements, escalated the fighting, and undermined international monitoring efforts. As our Secretary of Defense stated last week at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, we want a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing that illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering. A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. This must not be Minsk 3.0. Russia’s bluster about the Minsk agreements is a distraction from fundamental, undeniable facts. Ukraine is a sovereign, independent country, and Russia’s illegal war of conquest violates the Charter of the United Nations. Russia must immediately end its war against Ukraine, which not only violates international law, but was also a strategic error for Russia. The easy way out is through negotiations, now. If Russia instead chooses the hard way, it will incur greater and escalating costs to its economy and losses on the battlefield. The United States, as President Trump has made clear, is committed to ending the carnage and restoring stability to Europe. Ukraine, Russia and our European partners need to be a part of the conversation. We also call other United Nations Member States to join us in seeking an end to the conflict.

I, too, would like to thank Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenča for his briefing, and I took careful note of Mr. Waters’ contribution to our discussion today. Last week marked 10 years since the adoption of resolution 2202 (2015), which endorsed the package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements and reaffirmed that the resolution of the situation in the eastern regions of Ukraine can only be achieved through peaceful means. Yet in just one week from today, we will be marking another anniversary — three years of the brutal war in Ukraine. Although some may lament the failure of the Minsk agreements and suggest that the ensuing conflict can only be settled on the battlefield, Guyana insists on drawing the right lessons from the past. There are no shortcuts. Enduring peace demands a firm commitment to addressing and resolving the root causes of the conflict. It means ensuring justice and promoting reconciliation. It also means having a common understanding of the

I thank Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenča for his briefing. I listened carefully to the statement made by Mr. Roger Waters. Today marks 10 years since the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2202 (2015), which came to support the package of measures for implementing the Minsk agreements, carrying a call for all parties to fully implement this package of measures, including the comprehensive ceasefire. That timely resolution was the culmination of hard work that had prioritized preventive diplomacy. That event was supposed to serve as an example to follow in demonstrating the benefits of constructive dialogue and the virtues of negotiations in ending fighting and violence. Unfortunately, however, events did not take that desired course of action, and history has not recorded that successful story. On the contrary, as we meet today, the situation in the region has become more complex than it was before. Confrontations have expanded and intensified, and day after day we continue to record more losses of innocent civilian lives, including women and children. The security and humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate, with the displacement of millions of people, in addition to major destruction of civilian infrastructure, such as housing, hospitals, schools, universities, energy infrastructure and vital facilities. Worse of all, the hope that accompanied the Minsk agreements has been lost over the past years, which have not witnessed any constructive or inclusive dialogue between the two parties. Algeria therefore believes that it is important to pause today, take stock of this milestone and draw some lessons from it. In that regard, we would like to emphasize the following points. First, the Minsk agreements may have failed to deliver on their outcomes, but they will undoubtedly bear witness to an even greater failure: the failure of the logic of force and confrontation to provide peace and security in the region, a point to which Algeria continues to refer. The consequences of the failure to implement those agreements on the ground are unfortunately visible and tangible today, given the current situation in the region. Secondly, those agreements remain an example of what serious, constructive and inclusive dialogue might achieve in the progress towards peace and security, and of the disastrous consequences that can result from deviating from the path of diplomacy and dialogue. The Black Sea Grain Initiative and the various prisoner exchange agreements between the two parties are other examples of what can be achieved through dialogue and negotiations. Thirdly, as members of the Security Council, our first task and ultimate goal should be to work diligently to provide peace and security in the region, which, in our view, can be achieved by encouraging both parties to engage in a genuine negotiation process. The failure to implement the Minsk agreements does not prevent us from being inspired by its spirit. That is the same spirit that nurtured consensus

I thank Assistant Secretary-General Mr. Miroslav Jenča for his briefing. We also take note of the contribution of Mr. Roger Waters. Sierra Leone welcomes the participation of the representative of Ukraine in this meeting. In seven days, we will mark the end of the third year of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which has resulted in more than 40,000 civilian casualties and the widespread destruction of vital civilian infrastructure, including homes, schools, hospitals, markets and energy facilities. A severe humanitarian crisis is unfolding in Ukraine, with limited access to food, income and essential services. According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, there are approximately 3.6 million internally displaced persons within Ukraine, and some have been displaced for more than a year. Additionally, the conflict has prevented more than 6.8 million refugees from returning to their homes, creating the largest displacement crisis in Europe since the Second World War, as reported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The deliberate targeting of critical energy infrastructure, including thermal, hydro and nuclear power plants in both Russia and Ukraine, poses significant regional and global risks. The attack on the former Chornobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine last Friday, which damaged protective infrastructure meant to prevent radiation leaks, exemplifies the dangerous consequences of targeting energy facilities. The impact of this conflict has been particularly devastating for millions of children, many of whom have suffered physical injuries from bombings and live in constant fear. Their mental and emotional health has been deeply affected, and this has been compounded by poor sanitation, disease outbreaks, the loss of loved ones, separation from families and prolonged displacement. Sierra Leone reiterates that attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure are strictly prohibited under international law. We call on all parties to comply fully with international law, especially international humanitarian law. Reflecting on the Minsk agreements, endorsed by resolution 2202 (2015) in 2015, we acknowledge the original hope that they would lead to a cessation of hostilities and facilitate political dialogue. Unfortunately, that outcome was not realized. Regardless of the reasons for that failure, the priority now must be to find a pathway to an immediate ceasefire and lasting peace that will end the suffering of men, women and children on both sides. The conflict in Ukraine will not be resolved by military means. It is essential that a political settlement, based on full adherence to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, ensure respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. At the same time, the legitimate concerns of all parties must be addressed. A solution to this protracted conflict must consider its protracted and entrenched nature, addressing the drivers of the conflict since 2014. Over that period, 15,961 civilians have been killed in Ukraine, with significant casualties also in Russia. Diplomatic negotiations in 2014, culminating in the signing of the second Minsk agreement, demonstrate that peace is achievable through the willingness and good-faith participation of both parties, with support from influential third parties. We acknowledge the concerted efforts made by various countries over the years to facilitate ceasefires through the Minsk agreements, bilateral talks, multilateral actions and General Assembly resolutions. First, the peace process must be guided by a clear articulation of the end goals, with a shared understanding of the steps that must be taken by the parties, intermediaries and other stakeholders. The process must also be underpinned by a robust management framework and compliance mechanisms that have proven effective in ensuring that States adhere to agreements. Secondly, considering the significant differences in the peace proposals from Russia and Ukraine, careful consideration should be given to their alignment with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The long-term implications for regional and global stability must also be addressed, as peace agreements must reflect the realities of people’s lives and the global context. Thirdly, the legitimacy of the peace process and its outcomes must be affirmed at the national, regional and international levels. It is critical that all relevant stakeholders, including political actors, women, youth and civil society, be consulted and actively participate. Furthermore, the necessary legislative and constitutional processes must be followed. At the international level, the Security Council has demonstrated its commitment to supporting lasting peace and should continue to do so. Regional arrangements can also play a complementary role and should also be engaged. In conclusion, we are fully aware that the process demands patience and persistence. We urge the parties to refrain from escalating the conflict further and to commit to diplomatic engagement, which will lead to the cessation of hostilities and the peaceful resolution of the conflict.

I extend my appreciation to Assistant Secretary-General Jenča for his briefing. I also welcome the participation of Ukraine in today’s meeting. Denmark relishes any opportunity to address the unjust war in Ukraine and the suffering of the Ukrainian people. However, today’s meeting is just another attempt to distract from reality and justify Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine. The war remains a blatant violation of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. Along with other members of the Council, Denmark supported the Minsk process and the Normandy format. These negotiations were launched in good faith to maintain peace while preserving Ukraine’s territorial integrity. We all know who blatantly ignored the commitments under the agreements and effectively killed the Minsk process, with President Putin himself proudly declaring that the Minsk agreements no longer existed. This meeting is part of an ongoing disinformation campaign to try and detract us from the real objective: the subjugation of Ukraine and the denial of its sovereignty and independence. Denmark stands by Ukraine. We are committed to its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s war of aggression. Tragically, that illegal war of aggression has raged now for almost three years, resulting in terrible human suffering and serious global consequences. Deliberate attacks against civilian targets, including hospitals, schools, residential areas and critical infrastructure, have continued unabated. In fact, those attacks are escalating. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has briefed the Council on the dramatic 31 per cent increase in civilian deaths in 2024, compared to 2023. Human rights abuses, both in temporarily occupied Ukrainian territory and in Russia itself, have also persisted. They include the widespread and systematic torture of prisoners of war and other civilian detainees and the abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children, which constitute war crimes. Denmark condemns those crimes in the strongest possible terms. There must be accountability for Russia’s crimes in Ukraine if there is to be a just and lasting peace  — accountability for the crimes committed and for the crime of aggression. Justice must prevail. We therefore welcome the ongoing work of the International Criminal Court and commend Ukraine for its ratification of the Rome Statute. We further welcome the important work towards establishing a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine, hosted by the Council of Europe and open to support from all countries. In conclusion, let us all be clear: there is only one aggressor in this illegal war. We support Ukraine in achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace. Peace in Ukraine cannot be separated from Europe’s security. There can be no lasting peace without Ukraine and without Europe. The war could stop immediately if Russia stopped attacking Ukraine and withdrew its forces. We call on Russia to do just that — to bring the senseless war to an end once and for all.

I, too, would like to thank Assistant Secretary-General Jenča for his briefing. I also take note of the statement by Mr. Waters, and I welcome the representative of Ukraine in the Chamber. The Minsk agreements were supposed to bring peace to eastern Ukraine and reintegrate separatist-controlled areas into the rest of the country. Slovenia has therefore always supported the agreements, and we have consistently encouraged both sides to fully implement them. After almost three years of intense fighting, it is imperative to repeat that peace in Ukraine is long overdue. The Minsk agreements provide an important lesson for us all in that respect. With that in mind, I would like to submit the following points. First, specificity is required. We need something more than Minsk III. The abstract nature of the Minsk agreements allowed for arbitrary interpretations, which provided an alibi for the violations thereof. Any future ceasefire or peace agreement must be much more specific. It will need clear timelines, defined sequencing and strong monitoring mechanisms. Secondly, trust is necessary. It must be the key issue in the negotiation of any future peace agreement and, above all, in its implementation. Through its invasion, Russia violated international law, the Charter of the United Nations, the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, on the inviolability of borders in Europe. For Ukraine and Russia to reach a deal, rebuilding trust will be a tremendous task. Russia will need to demonstrate to Ukraine, the rest of the European continent and the entire world that it can be trusted to live up to its commitments. The Russian invasion put an end to our hope that the Minsk agreements could bring peace, stability and reintegration to eastern Ukraine. However, in the quest for lasting peace in Ukraine, it is counterproductive to linger over past agreements, in particular those that met a premature end because of one’s own actions or inaction. We need to learn from past failures, not dwell on them. That is the first step on the way to building trust and securing future stability in eastern Europe. From the very beginning, Greece supported the efforts undertaken to establish and strengthen the ceasefire in Ukraine through the Minsk agreements. We considered their application, mediated by the Normandy format, as the only path to de-escalate tensions and settle the conflict in eastern Ukraine. We actively participated in the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine by providing experienced observers and contributing to the Mission’s budget. However, despite concerted efforts by France and Germany, a relatively brief period of optimism concerning the Minsk agreements was followed by harmful actions, such as the recognition by Russia of the independence of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republic, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories. By doing so, Russia violated the Charter of the United Nations, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Let us be clear: no interpretation of the Minsk agreements can ever justify the invasion of Ukraine, which constitutes a clear, blatant violation of the United Nations Charter. On the threshold of the fourth year of war, Russia has not heeded the calls of the international community enshrined in multiple General Assembly resolutions, adopted with overwhelming majorities, to withdraw its forces from the international recognized territories of Ukraine and to respect its sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. On the contrary, it has intensified its attacks on civilian targets and energy assets across Ukraine with heavy weaponry, combat drones and ballistic missiles, in total disregard for the lives of civilians. We reaffirm our strong condemnation of all such attacks. January saw an increase of almost 40 per cent in civilian casualties, compared to the previous month, 22 of whom were children. We are deeply concerned about the repercussions of the war on children, whose lives have been either ended or disrupted, often beyond repair, and we call for accountability for all violations against them. We also deplore the attacks against Ukrainian cultural landmarks, such as the missile attack in Odesa in the final days of January, causing damage to more than 15 UNESCO-protected buildings in the centre of a city that holds great historical significance for my country. In a few days, on 24 February, the General Assembly will once again declare its stance on a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine by taking action on a new draft resolution. Greece fully supports that initiative, in the hope that the collective voice of the General Assembly will finally be heeded and respected. Before closing, let me reiterate our full support for the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and our support for efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, while stressing that there can be no solution without Ukraine and without Europe at the table.

It is important to stick to the facts. In Ukraine, there is an aggressor, Russia, that is violating international law and that has attacked a sovereign State that posed no threat whatsoever and there is an aggressee, Ukraine, that, under the Charter of the United Nations, has the right to defend its independence and territorial integrity. It was that same aggressor, Russia, that, a few days before launching its large-scale invasion of Ukraine, chose to put an end, unilaterally and by force, to the But Russia chose escalation, and then war. Despite the lip service it paid to respecting the Minsk agreements, it has constantly fuelled tensions in Donbas and worked to destabilize Ukraine. Posing as a neutral mediator and denying its military involvement, it was in reality — as early as 2014 — a party to the conflict in Donbas. By supplying arms and intelligence to the separatists and withdrawing from the ceasefire verification mechanism in 2016, Russia worked to frustrate the Minsk agreements. Its attempts to blame Ukraine or France and Germany for their failure are not fooling anyone. As early as April 2021, it began massing troops and materiel on the Ukrainian border. Then, on 21 February 2022, it unilaterally recognized the independence of the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. On 24 February, it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law. I would remind the Council that Russia had spent almost eight years repeating its support for the Minsk agreements, to which it was a signatory, and which were endorsed by Council resolution 2202 (2015). By launching its war of aggression against Ukraine, Russia alone took the decision to tear up the Minsk agreements. It chose to put an end to dialogue and negotiation. It chose war. Those who wonder about the failure of the Minsk agreements can start by looking at Russia. Russia must comply with the ruling of the International Court of Justice, which ordered it to suspend its military operations immediately as of 16 March 2022. Nor can it continue to ignore the resolutions of the General Assembly, which condemned its aggression on seven occasions and called for Ukraine’s territorial integrity to be respected. In one week, we will be meeting again to mark three years since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine will present a draft resolution to the General Assembly that charts a course towards a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It has our full support. Ukraine, a sovereign State, and Europe, whose security is at stake, must take part in any negotiations and be able to decide their own destiny. A settlement of the conflict decided without them would not be sustainable. It would enshrine the superiority of might over right, and the claim to spheres of influence in defiance of the sovereign equality of States. France is ready to step up its support for Ukraine. We will continue to do so for as long as it takes. At this very moment, consultations between European leaders are being held in Paris, at the initiative of the President of the Republic, Emmanuel Macron, on the situation in Ukraine and the security challenges in Europe. Those efforts may continue in other formats, with the aim of bringing together all the partners interested in peace and security in Europe. Dame Barbara Woodward (United Kingdom): I would like to thank Assistant Secretary-General Jenča for his briefing. Russia is once again using a Council meeting in an attempt to distort the truth behind its illegal war. I will make three points about lessons. First, the events of the past decade in Ukraine originate from a simple, sad reality — Russia’s imperialist ambition and failure to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. Russia is not a reliable party to agreements or treaties. When it freely signed on to the Minsk agreements, Russia had the opportunity to ensure peace. Russia and Ukraine Secondly, Russia continues to violate the Charter of the United Nations and international law in multiple ways. In its war in Ukraine, Russia has targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools and energy infrastructure. It has abducted children; it has raped women; it has compromised nuclear safety and security, flouted international law, and tortured detainees. For all those reasons, it is no surprise that the International Criminal Court issued an indictment against President Putin. We will not tolerate Russia’s attempts to spread disinformation and divert the Council’s attention away from its atrocities or its efforts to subjugate a sovereign State. Russia is the sole architect of the war in Ukraine and could end it now, if it chose to, by withdrawing its forces. Thirdly, the international community must stand firm in support of peace and security. No one wants this war to end more than Ukraine. But Putin’s so-called preconditions for talks  — reaffirmed by his Deputy Foreign Minister just a few days ago — have been that Ukraine withdraw from its own sovereign territory and abandon its sovereign right to choose its alliances. No country could or should accept that. We can and must create the conditions for a just and lasting peace that protects Ukraine’s security, sovereignty and independence. That will require robust security arrangements from the outset, which ensure Russia is never able to invade again. Putin has shown, time and again, that he will break a weak deal. The United Kingdom will continue to play its part. We will continue to provide concrete support for Ukraine’s self-defence and security for as long as it is needed. And we are clear that Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any negotiations. Let me conclude by reminding Russia that the suffering of so many Ukrainians today simply would not exist if Russia fulfilled its most basic obligation as a Member of the United Nations: to respect the principles of the Charter.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of China. At the outset, I would like to thank Assistant Secretary-General Jenča and Mr. Waters for their briefings. Ten years ago, the parties concerned with the Ukraine issue reached the Minsk agreements through negotiations. The agreements were subsequently endorsed by the Security Council in its resolution 2202 (2015), which was adopted unanimously and represents the correct direction of resolving differences and disputes through dialogue and negotiation. Regrettably, after the conclusion of the agreements, most of their provisions were not fully and effectively implemented. A situation that should have gradually de-escalated has instead become even more tense, ultimately leading to the full escalation of the crisis and a large-scale conflict that continues to this day. The failure of the Minsk agreements is deplorable, and its historical lessons warrant deep reflection. China consistently advocates that disputes and conflicts should be resolved peacefully through dialogue and consultations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations The same is true of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. China did not create this crisis, nor is it a party to it. However, we do not sit idly by, or still less exploit the situation for selfish gain. Since the onset of the crisis, China has been calling for a political solution through dialogue and consultation. President Xi Jinping has put forward a four-point proposal, emphasizing that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, that the purposes and China has been actively engaged in diplomatic mediation, and it maintains contact with the relevant parties, including Russia and Ukraine. China participates meaningfully in the consideration of the Ukraine situation under the framework of the United Nations and its Security Council, and it plays a constructive role in promoting a ceasefire and a political settlement. China also partnered with Brazil and other countries in creating the group of friends for peace, to garner the collective wisdom of the countries of the global South and form an important force to support and promote peace. The development of the situation proves that China’s approach is objective, just, rational and pragmatic, in full alignment with the broad consensus of the international community. At present, the Ukraine issue is about to face a critical moment, with prospects for a negotiated solution. The endpoint of any conflict is the negotiation table, and ultimately, history always turns out to be just. We welcome all efforts committed to achieving peace, including the United States-Russia agreement to start peace talks. At the same time, we also hope that all parties and stakeholders will participate in the peace talks and reach a fair, lasting and binding peace agreement that is acceptable to all. As this conflict is taking place in Europe, Europe has a role to play for peace. We hope that all parties will work together to resolve the root causes of the crisis through negotiations, find a balanced, effective and sustainable security framework, and achieve long-term peace and stability on the European continent. 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’s meeting speaks volumes. I wish to take this opportunity to thank our European colleagues and their allies for the fact that today, in their statements, they have yet again eloquently demonstrated European diplomacy’s complete lack of ties to reality and their inability to in any way whatsoever engage in any frank analysis. That diplomacy lives in the past, and it will remain there. The objective it pursues now is to extend as long as possible the agony of the Kyiv regime in the hope that that regime will manage to weaken the Russian Federation. Our colleagues can continue to harbour that illusion, but we will move forward, and, one way or another, we will resolve this crisis. Our British colleague today lectured us, and I would advise her to read the material a little more closely prior to taking part in these meetings. The Minsk agreements were concluded not between Ukraine and Russia but rather between Ukraine and the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. She has only to read the document — she will see it in the text, as it is accessible to all. Today, there are attempts to shift the blame and to accuse Russia of not having fulfilled the Minsk agreements, which we conscientiously sought to compel Ukraine to comply with and which were consequently sabotaged by Ukraine, with support from its Western sponsors. Blame is being shifted to us for having announced the end of the Minsk agreements. However, in doing so, we merely established the facts: at that point, the Minsk agreements, which our Western colleagues — the guarantors of the agreements — have all sabotaged, were already dead, and that is thanks to those colleagues and their efforts.

I thank the Assistant Secretary-General, Mr. Miroslav Jenča, for his briefing. Today’s meeting serves as a reminder of how the Russian Federation treats those agreements to which it is a party, and the Minsk agreements are a powerful example and one of many. On this very day in 2022, in this very Chamber, the delegation of Ukraine, along with many Security Council members, expressed concern over dangerous developments triggered by the Russian Federation (see S/PV.8968). Those included the build-up of troops along the border with Ukraine and the line of contact in Donbas and a parliamentary appeal urging Putin to recognize the temporarily occupied parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine as so-called “people’s republics”. Both actions ran counter to Russian Federation’s obligations under the Minsk agreements and were aimed at laying the groundwork for escalating its aggression against Ukraine to the level of a full-scale war. Let me recall that, at that meeting, Russia assured the Security Council that “there is no alternative to that momentous document” (S/PV.8968, p. 10), notably the Minsk agreements. Almost immediately, the Russian Federation killed the Minsk agreements brutally and deliberately. Four days later, on 21 February 2022, the Russian Federation recognized the so-called “independence” of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine. A week later, on 24 February 2022, the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine. Let me reiterate that, although it was not adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, resolution 2202 (2015) was a very important message from the Council to all parties, including to the Russian Federation, to implement the Minsk agreements. Let me also recall that the entire history of the Minsk agreements since the first documents were signed in September 2014 was a long list of violations and disregard by Moscow of its own commitments, as happened with paragraph 4 of the Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, envisaging the “establishment of a security area in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation”. It is interesting how such a commitment could align with Russia’s claims that it was not a party to the agreements. Needless to say, it was never implemented by Russia. Paragraph 9 of the Minsk Memorandum, signed by Russia on 19 September 2014, stated that “all foreign military formations and military equipment, as well as militants and mercenaries, are to exit the territory of Ukraine under OSCE monitoring”. This was also never implemented by Russia. Finally, a week after the third Minsk document, a package of measures, was signed on 12 February 2015, the Ukrainian city of Debaltseve sustained a full-fledged offensive and was occupied by regular Russian troops and their proxies. These are just a few examples of how the Russian Federation violated the agreements almost immediately after signing them, and all these violations finally paved the way to the Kremlin’s decision to invade my country. While Ukraine took unprecedented steps to find ways to achieve a peaceful settlement and put forward numerous proposals to that end, Russia spared no effort to obstruct the process under various pretexts, effectively stalling the work of the Trilateral Contact Group long before the full-scale invasion. Naturally, it always blamed Ukraine and manipulated quotes from foreign officials to justify its actions. Nothing has changed, as we can see from today’s statement by the Russian delegation. To summarize all the propaganda contained in that statement, it would be no surprise While the Russian Federation continues to put the blame on others, just last week we witnessed how Moscow yet again brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster by carrying out a drone strike on the New Safe Confinement structure over the fourth reactor of the Chornobyl nuclear power plant. Here again, the criminal blamed the victim. Unfortunately, it was not the only propaganda we heard today in this Chamber. It is baffling that such a simple idea  — that the people of Ukraine are pro- Ukrainian, and that is why we defend and will continue to defend our native soil and ourselves — does not occur to those spouting Russian propaganda. It is baffling that these advocates of “diplomacy” and “common sense” fail to understand that to prevent wars, they should never have been started by the aggressor. Even if the aggressor calls the very real war a “special operation”, how dare one deprive an entire nation of its identity? It is a disgusting manifestation of colonialism at its core. It is because the people of Ukraine are pro-Ukrainian that the Russian Federation has failed in its war. It is important to remember that Russia’s approach to new arrangements will not change either. What responsible States see as commitments to be upheld, the Russian Federation treats as a tactical ploy. It will readily break any agreement the very moment its new aggressive plan requires it. That is why any arrangement involving the Kremlin must include an enforcement mechanism and preventive measures. Weak agreements will not bring about real peace — they will only lead to greater war. That is why we are working with our partners to find strong and effective solutions. Peace cannot be bought, especially not at the expense of law and principles, and especially the principles of territorial integrity and sovereign equality. Peace cannot be replaced with appeasement. History offers many relevant examples. Our task is to avoid repeating past mistakes, as the cost of those mistakes is more blood, suffering and destruction.

I now give the floor to the representative of Germany.

Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to address the Security Council today. I would also like to thank Assistant Secretary- General Jenča for his informative briefing. Today’s meeting references the joint diplomatic efforts of France and Germany to support the peace negotiations following Russia’s initial aggression against Ukraine in 2014. Through the Normandy format, as we all know, France and Germany engaged extensively with Ukraine and Russia at political and senior official levels to pursue a peaceful resolution on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations. After their endorsement by the Security Council in 2015, the Minsk agreements initially succeeded in substantially reducing the violence unleashed by Russia, with an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) mission monitoring their implementation on the ground  — a mission organized by the organization under Chapter VIII. The agreements outlined a political solution based on Ukraine’s constitutional order. However, after initial progress, Russia began to systematically undermine the process and violate the Minsk agreements. This included administrative measures, such as issuing Russian passports to Ukrainian citizens in Donbas, but also military action, such as persistent ceasefire violations and the failure to withdraw heavy weapons. With the so-called Duma elections conducted in the occupied territories in 2021, Russia further disregarded Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. I wish to stress: the Minsk agreements were a diplomatic initiative designed to prevent further bloodshed and establish a political pathway to peace in Ukraine, in full respect of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. This war should not have been started in the first place. This war could end tomorrow, and the suffering of millions of innocent civilians would cease immediately, if Russia were to simply terminate its military aggression and withdraw all its forces from Ukrainian territory. Germany — and even more so Ukraine — is longing for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace. With the third sad anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion in sight, I ask all Member States to unite behind the draft General Assembly resolution on advancing peace in Ukraine. If we want diplomacy to have a meaningful chance, we need to reiterate our unwavering commitment to the United Nations Charter in its entirety. This not only matters to Ukraine, but will be in the interests of everyone.