Ukraine at UN: an Impressive Year-End Outcome with Three Kyiv-Sponsored Resolutions adopted in Just Two Weeks

They are united by the formal documentation of Russian aggression in official UN instruments and by sustaining international attention on the war.

Within a two-week period, the UN General Assembly meeting at UN Headquarters in New York adopted three Ukraine-initiated resolutions: on the return of children deported by Russia, on addressing the consequences of the Chornobyl disaster, and on human rights violations in the currently Russian occupied territories. Taken together, not only these resolutions record the humanitarian and legal consequences and crimes of Russian aggression, but also serve as an indicator of Ukraine’s continued ability to mobilize support within the United Nations amid a protracted war and broader geopolitical turbulence.

Abducted Children: A Matter of Morality and Humanity

The resolution “Return of Ukrainian Children,” adopted during a special emergency session on December 3, was unprecedented. For the first time in UN history, a standalone document was dedicated specifically to the issue of children abducted and deported by a foreign state. The resolution was supported by 91 countries (with Costa Rica joining subsequently), opposed by 12, while 57 abstained.

The resolution explicitly demands that Russia ensure the “immediate, safe, and unconditional return” of all forcibly displaced and deported children. It condemns practices of illegal adoption, the imposition of Russian citizenship, and ideological indoctrination. References to the Geneva Conventions and the Convention on the Rights of the Child firmly anchor the discussion in a clear legal framework.

Statements by the Ukrainian delegation and the leadership of the General Assembly underscored a central premise: the return of abducted children is an indispensable element to any just and sustainable peace. At the same time, the figures involved—at least 20,000 children deported and only around 1,850 repatriated —transform the resolution from a declaratory statement into a stark indicator of the scale of the crime.

Photo via Facebook / Andrij Sybiha

Deputy Ukrainian Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa, who presented the draft resolution and conducted negotiations with multiple delegations to secure support for the document, described the voting outcome in a comment to Ukrinform as “a tangible victory for Ukrainian diplomacy under the current challenging geopolitical conditions.”

According to Mrs. Betsa, it is particularly telling that as few as 12 countries voted against the return of Ukrainian children, including Russia itself. This list, she stressed, is worth remembering: the Russian Federation, Belarus, Burkina Faso, North Korea, Iran, Niger, Sudan, Burundi, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua, and Cuba.

Photo via Facebook / Andrij Sybiha

Betsa described these states as “a traditional axis of evil,” emphasizing that other countries which did not support the resolution either abstained or did not vote.

“A just peace is impossible without the return of every child, and the issue of their return is an integral part to the broader peace process,” the Deputy Minister stressed.

She said that, despite unprecedented pressure exerted by Russia on countries of the Global South to discourage support for the document, the voting outcome demonstrated that disinformation campaigns and political coercion have failed to deliver the desired effect.

She highlighted, in particular, the support from South Africa, a country that does not consistently vote in favor of Ukrainian resolutions, describing this as “a highly significant result.”

Betsa noted that she personally held approximately 30 bilateral meetings over the course of a day and a half with delegations from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Arab world. Her central argument, she explained, was that the issue of children transcends politics.

“This is not about politics; it is about humanity and human dignity,” she emphasized.

Mariana Betsa also underlined the need to ensure that, in the future, Russia is held accountable for its daily war crimes, including violations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The adopted resolution, she concluded, constitutes an important political instrument in advancing this objective.

Chornobyl: Remembrance, Security, and Accountability

The second resolution, considered on 11 December, titled “Strengthening International Cooperation and Coordination of Efforts to Study, Mitigate and Minimize the Consequences of the Chornobyl Disaster,” received 97 votes in favor, with 8 votes against and 39 abstentions.

The resolution was opposed by Russia, Belarus, China, North Korea, Nicaragua, Cuba, Niger, and the United States.

Formally, this is a routine UN resolution, traditionally adopted every three years to support ongoing international programs. This time, however, it acquired a distinctly political and confrontational dimension. Russia and Belarus submitted an alternative draft that deliberately avoided references to military aggression and current threats to nuclear safety.

The Ukrainian draft introduced qualitatively new elements, including:

documentation of damage to the New Safe Confinement caused by a Russian drone attack in February 2025;

an explicit call for international assistance to restore the facility; and

the use of correct transliteration in line with Ukrainian linguistic standards, employing Chornobyl instead of Chernobyl.

Photo via Facebook / Andrij Sybiha

Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrii Sybiha explained that advancing the “Chornobyl” resolution this year became one of the most challenging multilateral diplomatic processes in recent years. According to Mr. Sybiha, a document that had previously been adopted by consensus turned into an object of political manipulation by Russia and Belarus, which sought to instrumentalize the Chornobyl issue to obscure Russia’s crimes and appropriate historical memory.

In particular, Belarus hastily submitted its own draft resolution, hoping that Ukraine would join it. Instead, as the minister noted, Kyiv introduced its own draft, incorporating the correct transliteration “Chornobyl,” explicit references to Russian attacks on Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant facilities, and acknowledgment of the impact of the war on nuclear safety.

The Ukrainian delegation succeeded in securing a procedural decision to alter the order of consideration of draft resolutions, which resulted in Ukraine’s text being put to a vote first, despite Belarus having circulated its draft earlier. Subsequently, the General Assembly rejected all amendments proposed by Belarus and adopted the Ukrainian draft in its entirety. At the final stage, the Assembly applied the no-action motion procedure, removing the Belarusian draft from consideration on the grounds that it had become irrelevant following the adoption of the more substantive Ukrainian resolution.

Ukraine has used this procedural tool before. First Deputy Foreign Minister Serhii Kyslytsia recalled that during consideration of the draft resolution “Humanitarian Consequences of the Aggression against Ukraine” on 24 March 2022, the Ukrainian delegation succeeded in having an alternative draft proposed by South Africa removed from consideration, citing its similarity to the Russian text and the absence of consultations with Ukraine. At that time, the General Assembly adopted the resolution with 140 votes in favor and voted to block the alternative draft.

By adopting the Ukraine-initiated resolution this time, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed Ukraine’s ownership of the Chornobyl dossier and formally recorded the impact of Russian aggression on nuclear and global security, including the risks posed to Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant facilities.

Andrii Melnyk / UN Photo

As noted by Ukraine’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Andrii Melnyk, Belarus has forfeited any moral authority and the right to initiate resolutions on the Chornobyl issue within the UN framework, given its role in facilitating Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as well as the resulting consequences for the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant and surrounding exclusion zone.

The vote revealed several unexpected dynamics, as some states appeared to assume that both resolutions could be adopted. For example, Kazakhstan and Armenia, which typically abstain on Ukrainian resolutions, voted in favor of Ukraine’s draft. Evidently, both countries had planned to support both texts in order to demonstrate neutrality; as a result of the procedural outcome, they ultimately sided with Ukraine.

At the same time, the United States intended to vote against both resolutions, as it objects to any references to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Such references were included in both the Ukrainian and Belarusian drafts. Consequently, the United States cast a negative vote only on the Ukrainian resolution.

Photo via Facebook / Andrij Sybiha

Human Rights Violations in Temporarily Occupied Territories (TOT

The third resolution, adopted on 18 December, titled “Situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”, was supported by 79 states, with 16 voting against and 73 abstentions.

The resolution was opposed by Russia, Belarus, China, Burkina Faso, North Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, Cuba, Sudan, Burundi, Eritrea, Mali, Zimbabwe, the Central African Republic, Niger, and Equatorial Guinea.

Voting patterns on any UN resolution addressing human rights violations — whether concerning the currently occupied territories of Ukraine, Iran, or North Korea — clearly illustrate the domestic political realities of the states voting “against.” As a rule, opposition comes from delegations representing authoritarian or weakly legitimate regimes, a significant number of which are functioning as Russian proxies in Africa.

Prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion, support for UN resolutions on human rights violations in occupied Crimea was significantly lower than it is today. In 2022, following the launch of the full-scale war, the resolution received its highest level of support to date.

The voting record on this resolution over the past five years — in favor / against / abstentions (non-voting) — illustrates a clear trend towards growing international recognition of Russia’s systematic human rights violations in the occupied territories.

2021: 63 – 19 – 72 (39);

2022: 94 – 14 – 73 (12);

2023: 78 – 15 – 79 (21);

2024: 81 – 14 – 80 (18);

2025: 79 – 16 – 73 (25).

Within the United Nations, a clear correlation can be observed between the level of support for a resolution and the stringency of its language. The more explicit and uncompromising the wording, the smaller the number of states willing to support the document; conversely, resolutions formulated in broader, less specific terms tend to attract wider backing.

The resolution addressing Russia’s violations of human rights in the currently occupied territories of Ukraine is among the most robust and explicit in substance, which largely explains both its political significance and the voting dynamics surrounding it.

The resolution contains an unequivocal condemnation of the Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine, reaffirms Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, underscores the non-recognition of any attempts to alter the status of Ukrainian territories, and demands that Russia immediately cease its aggression and withdraw all its forces from the territory of Ukraine.

The resolution applies to all temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, is grounded in the findings of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry, and explicitly condemns torture, enforced disappearances, sexual violence, militarization, and forced conscription. It places particular emphasis on the systematic persecution of Crimean Tatars, journalists, and human rights activists, as well as on Russia’s refusal to provide information regarding the fate of prisoners of war and abducted civilians.

The Cumulative Effect

The three resolutions adopted in December differ in subject matter and levels of support, yet together they form a coherent and complementary framework. The resolution on deported children appeals primarily to moral and humanitarian imperatives; the Chornobyl NPP resolution addresses security concerns and underscores the loss of moral and political standing by Belarus and Russia to initiate UN decisions on this issue; and the human rights resolution focuses on systemic accountability for crimes committed during the war and the immutability of Ukraine’s borders.

What unites these resolutions is the formal documentation of Russia’s aggression in official UN instruments and the sustained preservation of international attention to the war in Ukraine.

These resolutions have become an important indicator of Ukraine’s diplomatic effectiveness within the UN General Assembly.

First and foremost, Ukraine demonstrated a high degree of procedural sophistication, which proved decisive in securing the adoption of the Chornobyl-related resolution.

The resolution on the return of Ukrainian children highlighted the broad geographical diversity of supporting states—ranging from Europe and North America to Africa, Asia, Latin America, and some Pacific island countries. Particularly noteworthy was the support from Global South states, including those that had previously maintained cautious or neutral positions.

All three resolutions enshrined key formulations of strategic importance for Ukraine: the recognition of the forced deportation of children as a grave violation of international law; the explicit linkage of the Chornobyl agenda to contemporary nuclear security threats resulting from Russia’s actions; and a strengthened focus on war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine’s currently Russian occupied territories.

These formulations are now embedded in the institutional memory of the United Nations and may be invoked in future political, legal, and judicial proceedings.

In all three cases, Russia and its allies sought to derail or dilute the texts—through alternative draft resolutions, proposed amendments, and pressure on delegations, particularly those representing the Global South. The final voting outcomes demonstrated the limited effectiveness of these efforts and, at the same time, underscored Ukraine’s capacity to mobilize international support even under adverse geopolitical conditions.

Taken together, these factors indicate that the December resolutions of the UN General Assembly were not merely substantive documents but also diplomatic markers: Ukraine continues to retain the initiative, demonstrates its capacity to operate effectively in multilateral formats, seeks to broaden its circle of partners, and consistently integrates the issue of Russia’s accountability into the United Nations agenda.

UN Photo

Implications for Those Voting “Against” or Abstaining

Ukraine’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Andrii Melnyk, assesses the UN General Assembly resolutions adopted in December as a diplomatic success for Ukraine, while cautioning that the overall situation at the UN is becoming increasingly challenging and requires non-standard approaches.

In comments to Ukrinform, he noted that the results achieved were optimal given the growing difficulties both on the battlefield and in the diplomatic arena.

At the same time, Melnyk acknowledged a quantitative decline in support for Ukraine within the UN. “We must be honest: the situation for Ukraine at the UN will become more difficult going forward,” he said. Whereas at the outset of Russia’s full-scale invasion Ukrainian resolutions garnered more than 140 votes, today “the highest result barely reaches around one hundred.”

“This is a serious problem. It would be a mistake to sugarcoat it and pretend that everything is fine,” the Permanent Representative emphasized.

According to Melnyk, Ukraine urgently needs to develop “creative, bold, and even tough solutions” to reverse the voting dynamics and restore higher levels of support.

He explained that a number of states deliberately abstain or avoid participation in votes in order to minimize perceived political risks. “If you do not vote in our favor, we treat all other options as a vote against us,” Melnyk stated, stressing that Ukraine-relate resolutions concern “matters of war and peace, black and white,” rather than neutral or technical issues.

He underscored that such positions will have consequences for the states that consistently abstain or vote against Ukraine. “For us, this is of fundamental significance. We cannot afford to simply ‘take note’ of such a stance,” the diplomat concluded.

According to Mr. Melnyk, the “normalization” of Russia’s aggressive policy through tacit acquiescence at the UN poses a serious threat to the entire international order. “The risk is that aggression could become the rule rather than the exception,” he warned.

The Permanent Representative added that the diplomatic front is an integral part of the broader struggle. “This front stretches from Pokrovsk and Kupiansk, across the ocean, and runs right here, at the United Nations,” he noted.

Volodymyr Ilchenko, New York

Headline Photo / UN Photo