S/PV.9866 Security Council

The representative of France has asked for the floor on a point of order.

The file we are considering today, three years to the day following the widescale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, calls for a unified Security Council. It calls, at very least, for the Council to take the time to conduct true negotiations, in a spirit of confidence and with the serenity necessary for dealing with such a subject, a subject that is essential to European and collective security and to international peace and security. We would like to express our concern that the draft resolution submitted to us (S/2025/112) was introduced without any true negotiations between the members of the Council. That is why I have the honour to present, on behalf of France, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Greece, a proposal seeking to adjourn this meeting, in line with article 33 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, until 3 p.m., 25 February, in order to enable us to take the time necessary to examine this issue. Dame Barbara Woodward (United Kingdom): I wanted to say that we strongly support the request made by France to adjourn this meeting until tomorrow at 3 p.m. We note that the draft resolution authored by the United States (S/2025/112) was circulated late on Friday evening without consultations, depriving Council members of the opportunity to fully consider and negotiate the text. We would urge colleagues to vote in favour of the proposal to adjourn the meeting under rule 33 of the provisional rules of procedure, noting that there has been a precedent for such a request.

The United States strongly opposes the proposal to delay voting on our draft resolution (S/2025/112). I would note that the United States already acceded to the request of some members of the Security Council to delay this meeting, because we had originally requested to have the meeting convened this morning. And as we just discussed in consultations, numerous consultations did take place between the United States and every single mission represented in the Council. The United States drafted this text to mark the commitment of the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular, to bringing a durable end to the war in Ukraine. Our draft resolution is simple, straightforward and focused on the future, not the past. The United States calls on member States to vote on the draft resolution today, the third anniversary of the conflict’s escalation, when we have momentum behind us and because we do not have another day to spare. Every day that goes by without peace means more people dead, more destruction and more misery. The United States has consulted with Council members throughout the weekend, all morning and into the afternoon. We believe the Council has had sufficient time to consider this simple text. The draft resolution implores a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace. We can and should and must agree on that. It is time to vote.

The representative of France advanced a proposal to adjourn this meeting until 3 p.m. on 25 February. The representative of the United States of America expressed her opposition to that proposal. Pursuant to rule 33.3 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, I shall put the proposal by the representative of France to the vote. In favour: China, Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Against: Panama, Somalia, United States of America Abstaining: Algeria, Guyana, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone

The proposal by the representative of France received 6 votes in favour, 3 against and 6 abstentions. The proposal has not been adopted, having failed to obtain the required number of votes. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. Members of the Council have before them document S/2025/112, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by the United States of America. The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. I shall now give the floor to those members who wish to make statements before the voting.

I would like to thank the presidency of the Council for scheduling this meeting today. Today we stand on the precipice of history with a solemn task: creating conditions to end the bloodiest war on the European continent since the successive cataclysms that spurred the creation of the Council. In June 1945, the nations of the world stood together, bloodied from two brutal wars, and made a decision. On the day we signed the Charter of the United Nations, we cast aside despair and chose hope. We set aside hatred and chose reason. Most importantly, we turned away from the death march of war and charted a path to peace. It is time for us to bring the United Nations, and specifically the Security Council, back to its original purpose: the maintenance of international peace and security, including the peaceful settlement of disputes. Let us now step up as Council members to chart a path forward, so that the Security Council can do its job and end the horror. Generations of Ukrainians and Russians have died — husbands who will never return home to their wives, children who will never find the arms of their mothers, parents who will never again see their sons and daughters. The scale of the suffering is staggering. The war has also brought the world closer to a nuclear confrontation, once again raising the spectre of fire, ash and total destruction. It is therefore our responsibility as Security Council members to help to end the agony and pull ourselves back from the brink. Continuing to engage in rhetorical rivalries in New York may make diplomats feel vindicated, but it will not save souls on the battlefield. Let us prove to ourselves and our citizens that we can come together and agree on the most basic principles. Let us show one another that the bold vision of peace that once pulled us out of hell can prevail. Our draft resolution (S/2025/112) is elegant in its simplicity — a symbolic, simple first step towards peace. The three brief paragraphs echo the spirit of the United Nations Charter and must, as in 1945, affirm that this war is awful, that the United Nations can help to end it and that peace is possible. We hear our European colleagues when they say that they want a durable peace but not at any cost. To them, I would say: rest assured that we too seek that durable peace. And we would remind those colleagues that the draft resolution is not a peace deal, and it imposes no costs. Rather, it represents the path to peace. We urge all On a final note, the United States requested this meeting, which has already, with the assent of the United States, been rescheduled once. Dame Barbara Woodward (United Kingdom): We are introducing draft amendments on behalf of Denmark, Greece, France, Slovenia and the United Kingdom (S/2025/114, S/2025/115 and S/2025/116). There can be no equivalence between Russia and Ukraine in how the Security Council refers to this war. Russia chose to launch a war of aggression against a sovereign State, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. The Council must be clear on that to find a path to sustainable peace. We must also be clear that peace must respect the Charter of the United Nations and Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. Those are core principles. Upholding the Charter is the responsibility of every member of the United Nations, especially in the Council. Earlier today, in the General Assembly, there was widespread support for these draft amendments among the wider United Nations membership. We hope that all in the Council will be able to support similar language. As such, we request: first, to replace “the Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict” in the first preambular paragraph with “the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation”; secondly, to insert a new, third preambular paragraph to read “Reaffirming its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine, within its internationally recognized borders, extending to its territorial waters”; and thirdly, to amend operative paragraph 1 so that it reads “Implores a swift end to the conflict and further urges a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Ukraine and Russia, in line with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of the sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States”.

The draft amendments that we are proposing and that the representative of the United Kingdom has just introduced (S/2025/114, S/2025/115 and S/2025/116) are aimed at showing our resolute commitment, after three years of war, to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine — a peace that must be based on the Charter of the United Nations and international law, a peace that must respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine, and a peace that cannot in any way mean the surrender of the State under attack. The draft amendments are also aimed at recalling that, in this conflict, there is an aggressor and a victim. I recall that, three years ago to the day, Russia brutally attacked a sovereign State — Ukraine — that posed no threat to it whatsoever and of which it had already illegally occupied part of the territory since 2014. Already, this morning, France, along with 23 European Union member States and the United Kingdom, proposed three draft amendments to the draft resolution submitted by the United States in the General Assembly (A/ES-11/L.11). We will remain fully committed to supporting the Charter of the United Nations and its principles and guaranteeing that the peace that we are all calling for in Ukraine is solid, lasting and just.

In general, we consider the United States draft resolution on the Ukrainian crisis (S/2025/112) to be a common-sense initiative and a step in the right direction, which reflects the will of the new Administration in the White House to make a real contribution to a peaceful settlement of the conflict. We appreciate what President Trump has repeatedly stated, namely, the understanding that the Ukrainian crisis has its own deeply rooted causes. To ensure that the initiative is more in line with the understandings reached in the course of Russian-American contacts at the highest levels, we propose a draft amendment to it, stating the need to eradicate the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis. After “swift end of the conflict”, insert “including addressing its root causes”. (spoke in Russian) Without that, there can be no sustainable and lasting settlement, as stipulated in the document’s only operative paragraph. We also submit a second draft amendment, which is a more accurate reflection of the Security Council agenda item under consideration and of the nature of the crisis. We propose the following. (spoke in English) In the first preambular paragraph, “Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict” should be replaced with “the conflict around Ukraine”, and in the operative paragraph “between Ukraine and Russia” should be replaced with “in Ukraine”. (spoke in Russian) We cannot agree with the interpretation of the conflict as an exclusively two-way confrontation, when, as became clear a long time ago, it is the Western — primarily European — sponsors that are acting through the Kyiv regime. For them, presenting this as a Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a very convenient view of the world, and it is comfortable for them to hide behind it. Otherwise, they would have to acknowledge the unseemly role they played in the genesis of the Ukrainian conflict. We call on the Council members to support those amendments. With regard to the amendments submitted by European countries, they blatantly distort the essence of the American text, turning it into yet another anti-Russian ultimatum in the spirit of the Bürgenstock process. We are going to vote against them, and we call on others to follow suit.

Members of the Council have before them five proposed amendments to the text of the draft resolution contained in document S/2025/112, submitted by the United States of America. Three of the amendments were submitted jointly by Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and two were submitted by the Russian Federation. Rule 36 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure states the following: “If two or more amendments to a motion or draft resolution are proposed, the President shall rule on the order in which they are to be voted upon. Ordinarily, the Security Council shall first vote on the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal and then on the amendment next furthest removed until all amendments have been put to the vote, but when an amendment adds to or deletes from the text of a motion or draft resolution, that amendment shall be voted on first.” Accordingly, I intend to put the proposed amendments to the vote first. I shall now put to the vote the proposed amendment to the first preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 1, submitted by the Russian Federation, and contained in document S/2025/118.

The proposed amendment received 1 vote in favour, 7 against and 7 abstentions. The proposed amendment has not been adopted, having failed to obtain the required number of votes. I shall now put to the vote the proposed amendment to the first preambular paragraph, submitted by Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and contained in document S/2025/114.

The proposed amendment received 6 votes in favour, 1 against and 8 abstentions. The proposed amendment has not been adopted, having failed to obtain the required number of votes. I shall now put to the vote the proposed amendment to insert an additional and third preambular paragraph, submitted by Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and contained in document S/2025/115.

The proposed amendment received 9 votes in favour, 1 against and 5 abstentions. The proposed amendment has not been adopted, owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of the Council. I shall now put to the vote the proposed amendment to operative paragraph 1, submitted by Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and contained in document S/2025/116.

The proposed amendment received 11 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 3 abstentions. The proposed amendment has not been adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of the Council. I shall now put to the vote the proposed amendment to paragraph 1, submitted by the Russian Federation and contained in document S/2025/117.

The proposed amendment received 4 votes in favour, 6 votes against and 5 abstentions. The proposed amendment has not been adopted, having failed to obtain the required number of votes. It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution contained in document S/2025/112, submitted by the United States of America. I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now.

The draft resolution received 10 votes in favour, none against and 5 abstentions. The draft resolution has been adopted as resolution 2774 (2025). I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements after the voting.

The United States sincerely appreciates Security Council member support for this resolution (resolution 2774 (2025)) and applauds the action, the first on Ukraine the Council has taken in three years, to firmly call for an end to the conflict. This resolution puts us on the path to peace. It is a first step, but a crucial one and one of which we should all be proud. Now we must use it to build a peaceful future for Ukraine, Russia and the international community. Dame Barbara Woodward (United Kingdom): Today marks three years since Russia’s unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Today we remember the millions of Ukrainians displaced, the tens of thousands of civilians killed and the lives destroyed by President Putin’s imperial ambition. As the Secretary-General said again yesterday, this war is illegal, a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a threat to the core principles of the United Nations. No one wants peace more than Ukraine, but the terms of that peace matter. Only a just peace, one that honours the terms of our Charter, will endure. And the terms of the peace must send a message that aggression does not pay. That is why there can be no equivalence between Russia and Ukraine in how the Council refers to this war. If we are to find a path to sustainable peace, the Council must be clear on the war’s origins. We also owe it to the people of Ukraine who have suffered so much. Russia chose to launch a war of aggression against a sovereign State but again today is seeking to obfuscate that fact. We must also insist on respect for the Charter of the United Nations and Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, within its internationally recognized borders. Upholding the Charter is the responsibility of every Member of the United Nations and especially every member of the Council — every member. What, how and on what terms this war ends can only be decided by negotiations with Ukraine. No peace will be sustainable without Ukraine’s consent. We regret that our proposals making those points clear were not taken on board, and we therefore could not support this resolution (resolution 2774 (2025)). But we share the ambition to find a lasting end to this war, supported by robust security arrangements that ensure Ukraine never again has to face Russia’s attack. As my Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom remains ready to play its part. We will continue to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to protect and defend itself and its people. We remind the Council that Russia could achieve that tomorrow by ceasing its aggression and withdrawing its forces from all of Ukraine.

It is exactly three years since the Russian Federation launched its aggression against Ukraine in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations. After three years of death and destruction, a just and lasting peace is long overdue. There is nobody who wants peace more than Ukrainians and Europeans. The fundamental question remains: how should the Council, tasked with upholding international peace and security, pronounce itself on peace? Perhaps we should lend an ear to the Secretary-General, who, for three years, has been underlining that a lasting peace needs to be firmly anchored in the United Nations Charter and its principles. The saying goes that a person convinced against their will is against you still. There will be peace, but it needs to be just, and it needs to last. We understand and respect the aim of the United States resolution (resolution 2774 (2025)): to set in motion a path leading to peace and to agree on a baseline leading to peace negotiations. We fully support that aim. However, for us it is vital to determine the framework accompanying any peace negotiations at the very outset. If we do not know where we are going, any road will lead us there. The least on which we should be able to agree is for the peace negotiations to be conducted within the framework of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including its principle of the Slovenia recognizes that the Council is finally moving towards its primary task with regard to the war on Ukraine, namely, that of ensuring a just and lasting peace. Slovenia has been calling for peace in Ukraine for a long time. We hope to soon continue our work towards a resolution on Ukraine that reflects the views of the countries of the region.

For all States, large and small, the Charter of the United Nations is more than a promise. It is protection. It is a bedrock of global security. It represents protection of our sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence and protection from a world in which the strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must. That is why we must stand up against aggression whenever and wherever it occurs and why we must uphold the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. That is why we have stood with Ukraine for three years. For Denmark, those principles are non-negotiable. We joined the Council with a promise to stand up for international law. We intend to keep that promise. Let there be no doubt: no one wants peace more than Ukraine. Denmark welcomes efforts and shares the ambition of bringing this senseless war to an end and of the Council upholding its responsibility. But peace must be on the right terms. Regrettably, today’s resolution (resolution 2774 (2025)) falls far short of that vision. We need to reject the false equivalence between aggressor and victim. We need to reaffirm our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We need a peace that is comprehensive, just and lasting and in line with the United Nations Charter. Our amendments sought to address those issues. They represented the minimum that we believe we should all support. For those reasons, Denmark abstained in the voting on today’s resolution. Let me conclude by directly addressing the people of Ukraine. Denmark stands with them. We stand by their right to freely choose their future, to chart their own path and to simply exist. Denmark will not impose a peace upon them. We will work with them. We will support them.

We believe that there are two goals on which everyone can agree. First, this senseless and unlawful war must come to an end as soon as possible. Secondly, we must strive to uphold the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Now is the time to gather our wisdom and determination to simultaneously achieve both objectives as much as possible. In the light of that, the Republic of Korea voted in favour of the amendments proposed by five European countries and the resolution proposed by the United States (resolution 2774 (2025)), although it is regrettable that the amendments that we supported were not reflected. This war of aggression, waged by a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia, against a sovereign State and the deadliest in Europe since World War II, has tragically claimed countless innocent lives and caused widespread destruction to the critical infrastructure of Ukraine. The war is also shaking the structural foundations of the international order and the rules and norms that underpin it. The Security Council adopted this resolution of historic significance today, emphasizing the international community’s aspiration for a swift end to the war, while also calling for lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia. In that connection, we hope that the adoption of the resolution will provide an opportunity for all relevant parties to further accelerate diplomatic efforts so as to achieve a just, sustainable and comprehensive peace and stability. The Republic

Guyana acknowledges the efforts of the United States aimed at achieving a peaceful resolution of the three-year old war in Ukraine. At the outset, Guyana stresses the importance of an inclusive and transparent path to that end, involving all parties concerned. Guyana believes that the resolution just adopted (resolution 2774 (2025)) is an important step towards a peaceful end to the war. Notwithstanding, my delegation believes there would have been added value in affirming support for the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the obligation for Member States to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. That is the reason why Guyana voted in support of the third amendment presented by the delegations of the United Kingdom, France, Slovenia, Denmark and Greece, as the proposal addressed that important priority in addition to emphasizing a just and lasting peace. Notwithstanding the omission of that element, Guyana supported the text, recognizing that it is an important contribution towards efforts aimed at ending the war. Our support for the resolution was also premised on the understanding that whatever agreements are made to secure an end to the war will be consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. As we have consistently reaffirmed, there is no military solution to the conflict. Therefore, as the parties move towards implementation of the resolution, Guyana urges the prioritization of dialogue and diplomacy as the only viable path to peace. For its part, Guyana remains committed to engaging constructively with all members of the Council and in any other diplomatic efforts that can secure a just and lasting peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

Pakistan voted in favour of the United States-sponsored resolution (resolution 2774 (2025)), known as “The path to peace”. The resolution is in line with Pakistan’s clear and consistent position on the conflict in Ukraine and our repeated calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a negotiated settlement of this conflict. Pakistan remains deeply concerned about this tragic conflict, which, now entering its fourth year, has already left in its wake immense human suffering and massive damage to infrastructure, the economy and society. In addition to escalating geopolitical tensions, the economic consequences of this conflict have been particularly severe, especially for the large majority of developing countries who have been advocating a peaceful resolution of this conflict through dialogue and diplomacy. However, even as the security, humanitarian and economic crisis has intensified, the pursuit of peace has so far remained largely absent and elusive. Perhaps a different approach was required. We therefore support this resolution’s general call for a pacific settlement of the dispute and for bringing a swift end to this conflict in a manner that ensures lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine. This is a process that may be difficult and complicated, as with any such process. But three years now since the start of the conflict, it is time for such a process to take hold. In that context, I would like to make the following points. First, peace is a common goal. It is through a collective, inclusive and comprehensive approach that we can best achieve that goal. Secondly, the Charter of the United Nations and its principles should unequivocally serve as the North Star for all Member States, especially in matters of international peace and security. Pakistan’s position on this and other conflicts is based on adherence Thirdly, in today’s interconnected world, confrontation and the severance of communication cannot — and should not — be chosen as an alternative to cooperation and dialogue. We are encouraged that efforts to bring an end to this conflict have gathered broader support. In that context, we take note of the recent high-level contacts between the leadership of the United States and the Russian Federation. Fourthly, the Council sine qua non of dispute resolution is mutual respect and recognition among the relevant parties, comprehensive understanding of the underlying causes of the dispute, acknowledgment of the legitimate interests of all parties and, last but not least, political will and sincere commitment from all sides to resolve the conflict. Pakistan welcomes all efforts and initiatives that could help the parties arrive at a pacific and sustainable settlement of the conflict through constructive and inclusive diplomacy, in full respect for the United Nations Charter, international law and relevant multilateral agreements, in a manner that responds to the legitimate national security interests of all sides. We believe that the conflict in Ukraine could have been averted through dialogue and diplomacy. It must be brought to an end now. We earnestly hope that the adoption of this resolution will induce positive dynamics, bring a swift end to the conflict and lend impetus to an inclusive peace process that yields a durable solution in accordance with international law and the United Nations Charter. Pakistan stands ready to play a constructive role to promote that endeavour, in cooperation with all Member States, united for this purpose — the path to peace.

We commend the delegation of the United States for its initiative to present the resolution known as “The path to peace” (resolution 2774 (2025)). Panama believes that putting an end to the war is an urgent priority. This war should never have begun and should have ended a long time ago. It has claimed thousands of civilian and military casualties, with billions of dollars wasted on financing costs and supplies, and has spilled over into the global arena, causing economic instability and distress. We support the resolution’s call for an end to the war. This resolution is not objectionable on account of its simplistic content in and of itself, although the silence of what it omits speaks more eloquently than its words, and perhaps it is insufficient. Panama understands the consequences of violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and, for our own historical reasons, we have always rejected the aggression of one State against another and the use of force or the threat of its use as a method of resolving conflicts. We recognize the importance of healing wounds with justice under the protection of international law. Unfortunately, after three long years, the solution of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia has been elusive, and efforts made to date have been fruitless and frustrating. It seems unwise to continue to procrastinate and, by doing so, repeating the error of remaining silent. It also seems unwise to miss an opportunity to make a step forward on the urgent path towards a lasting peace. In that context, we urgently call for negotiation strategies to put an end to the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine to be now reflected in formal agreements to be signed. These should include terms, conditions, commitments and assurances that lead to the establishment of a just and, therefore, lasting peace for all, in line with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with sufficient guarantees for the future security of Ukraine. Our vote in favour of this resolution aimed to contribute to ensuring that all parties cease hostilities as soon as possible on the path towards a just and inclusive peace. Panama reiterates its support for all efforts enabling a constructive conclusion of this war once and for all.

At the outset, I would like to recall my country’s position on this conflict, which we have long expressed. We support abandoning the logic of confrontation, escalation, and polarization, and believe that the security and safety of the peoples of the region, who are suffering every day, should be our top priority. We also stress the need for strict adherence to the rules of international law, including the rules of international humanitarian law. From the Chamber, we have called time and again for priority to be given to a comprehensive and constructive dialogue between the parties and for them to engage in a path of negotiations in a serious manner, whether directly or indirectly, in order to reach a just and permanent peace in the region through a peaceful resolution based on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and taking into account the legitimate security concerns of the parties. Our call was the only criteria that Algeria used to determine its position today, expressed through our vote. Algeria will maintain the same determination and steadfastness, ready to support any diplomatic efforts that will put an end to the bloodshed and achieve a permanent and just peace in Ukraine and the region as a whole.

We acknowledge the constructive changes in the United States position on the Ukrainian conflict, and, as we understand it, the resolution that we considered today (resolution 2774 (2025)) is an attempt to implement that. We also understand the rationale of the authors in offering a short and general text. To support that overall sensible approach, Russia did not propose any substantive additions to the text. We limited ourselves to two very modest but important proposals in the context of the Security Council’s correct assessment of the Ukrainian crisis (S/2025/117 and S/2025/118). We regret that our draft amendments were not adopted. European delegations, in both the General Assembly and the Security Council, adopted a position of openly seeking to sabotage the potential positive progress towards resolving the crisis. They sought to saturate the text with imbalanced and politicized passages, which in no way bring peace closer but rather are aimed at putting paid to such prospects. Even the proposal to work within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations was phrased in a disingenuous manner, because of all the principles, only one is emphasized — respect for the territorial integrity of States. The European Union and the United Kingdom are trying not to mention respect for human rights and the right of nations to self-determination with respect to Ukraine, even though it is the Kyiv regime’s non-compliance with those principles that lies at the heart of the Ukrainian conflict. We could not allow such a reversal of concepts. It is clear that Europe, which has embarked on the path of militarization, is today the only player internationally that wants to continue the war and is resisting with all its might any realistic initiatives to settle the conflict. The resolution adopted is not perfect, but it is essentially a first attempt to adopt a constructive and future-oriented product by the Security Council, speaking of a path to peace rather than fanning a conflict that has a very complicated genesis and does not boil down to a confrontation between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, unlike the position being imposed on us by Ukraine itself and its European puppeteers. We call on all those who genuinely want to achieve sustainable peace in Ukraine not to let the expired Kyiv princeling and his puppeteers thwart the efforts being made by Russia and the United States.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of China. The manner in which China cast its votes on the resolution submitted by the United States (resolution 2774 (2025)) and the draft amendments proposed by the United Kingdom, Russia and other countries reflects our consistent principles and propositions on the Ukraine issue. At present, when the Ukraine issue is at a critical juncture for a negotiated settlement, we expect the international community to create a favourable atmosphere for promoting a political solution to the crisis. We expect the United Nations and the Security Council to play a constructive role in garnering consensus for peace among Member States, and we expect the actions of the Council to further the call for peace by promoting peace talks. The ultimate resolution of any conflict lies at the negotiation table. As we speak, the call for a negotiated settlement of the Ukraine issue is increasing, and the window for peace is opening. Complex problems hardly have simple solutions. Although the parties’ positions may not be aligned, dialogue is still better than confrontation, and talks are better than fights. China supports all efforts dedicated to peace. China supports the United States-Russia agreement to start peace talks. China expects all parties and stakeholders to participate in the peace talks at an appropriate time, so as to find a just and lasting solution that takes into account each other’s concerns and to reach a binding peace agreement acceptable to all. As the war is taking place on European soil, Europe ought to play its part for peace, to jointly address the root causes of the crisis and find a balanced, effective and sustainable security framework and achieve long-term security and stability on the European continent. China’s positions on the Ukraine issue are as objective and fair as they are rational and pragmatic. China has always advocated for an early and peaceful resolution of the crisis, actively promoted peace talks in accordance with the four “shoulds” proposed by President Xi Jinping and emphasized that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, that the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations should be adhered to, that the legitimate security concerns of all parties should be taken into account and that all efforts for peace should be supported. China has sent its Special Envoy to actively engage in diplomatic mediation, has maintained contacts with the parties concerned, including Russia and Ukraine, and has also partnered with Brazil and other countries in creating the Friends of Peace group, thereby constituting an important force for supporting and promoting peace. China stands ready to continue to play a constructive role in the political settlement of the crisis at the request of the parties concerned, while taking into account the concerns of the international community, especially those of the global South. I now resume my functions as President of the Council.