The third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reignited debate over its global impact. On 24 February 2025, the UN Security Council and General Assembly passed three resolutions reflecting both continued support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and calling for the end of the conflict. While the resolutions eventually reaffirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity, voting patterns exposed fractures within the West and a more practical role of the Global South in shaping diplomatic responses.
The Security Council’s Resolution 2774, tabled by the US, passed with 10 votes in favour, none against and five key European abstentions (France, the UK, Denmark, Greece and Slovenia). It was one of the first resolutions that the Security Council has managed to approve in years. The abstentions marked a break from past alignment with Washington, reflecting European concerns over shifting US priorities. While amendments explicitly naming Russia as the aggressor or addressing the war’s root causes failed, the final text urged an end to hostilities without direct condemnation. This outcome underscores the Trump administration’s 180-degree shift from Biden’s approach – prioritising de-escalation and negotiations over punitive measures. The first General Assembly resolution (A/E-S/L.10), led by Ukraine and European allies, took a stronger stance, condemning Russia’s invasion as a violation of the UN Charter and demanding an immediate withdrawal. While European countries introduced its resolution with a firm condemnation of Russia and an emphasis on Ukraine’s territorial integrity, it also laid out a broad range of issues – from accountability for war crimes to the global economic fallout of the conflict. It also pushed for mechanisms to hold Russia accountable for potential war crimes, highlighting the conflict’s dire humanitarian toll.
The second General Assembly resolution (A/E-E/L.11), initially drafted by the US and closely resembling the Security Council resolution that was ultimately approved, reflected Washington’s preference for a more detached approach – calling for peace without explicitly assigning blame. However, European amendments significantly altered its tone, inserting references to Russia’s “full-scale invasion” and reaffirming Ukraine’s sovereignty. Another key addition demanded a “just, lasting and comprehensive peace” in line with the UN Charter, reinforcing a stronger legal and moral stance. With these tougher amendments in place, the US ultimately abstained from its own resolution, highlighting the Trump administration’s prioritisation of securing an immediate peace deal – even at the cost of watering down language that could alienate Russia or complicate ongoing US-Russia talks.
In contrast to the 2022-2024 period, when UN resolutions on Ukraine typically secured over 140 votes in favour (for example, one key resolution recorded 141 in favour, five against, and 35 abstentions), the voting landscape in 2025 has splintered noticeably. The European-backed resolution (L10) now registered 98 votes in favour, 18 against and 65 abstentions. Notably, the US opposed this resolution, further distancing itself from Europe’s firm position on accountability. Other opponents included Eritrea, Israel, Mali, Niger, Russia and Sudan. The US-drafted resolution (L11), even after European amendments, saw 93 votes in favour, eight against and 73 abstentions. These shifts reflect a decline in outright support and a significant increase in abstentions, highlighting the emerging fractures within the international community. Apart from the already mentioned US abstention, other countries that abstained included countries like Brazil, China and India. Unsurprisingly, Russia and some allies like Belarus, Mali and Burkina Faso all voted against the resolution.
Many Global South nations, informed by their histories of non-alignment, have advocated for a resolution to the conflict through negotiation rather than further escalation, balancing their support for sovereignty with a commitment to diplomatic mediation. South Africa exemplifies this approach, voting for the amended US resolution while abstaining from the harsher condemnation. Pretoria justified its stance by emphasising diplomacy and the urgency of ending the war but avoided language that could limit future solutions. Over the past few years, Global South countries have shifted from a pattern of frequent abstentions – which critics argued weakened the collective stance against Russian aggression – to a more considered position that balances principled support for sovereignty with a desire to keep diplomatic options open. For instance, since 2023, South Africa has moved from occasional abstentions towards actively endorsing texts that call for peace without resorting to polarising language. Similar trends can be observed in other non-aligned nations like India and Brazil, which have accepted more ambiguous phrasing that could potentially lead to a solution. This recalibration reflects a strategic choice: by avoiding language that could escalate tensions or force them into a binary confrontation, these nations are seeking to protect their own national interests while still upholding international law. For Ukraine, this shifting landscape presents both challenges and opportunities. While it retains strong European backing, it can no longer count on unwavering US-European unity at the UN. The increase in abstentions suggests that moral arguments alone may not be enough to isolate Russia.
The passage of three resolutions – especially the first Security Council text on Ukraine in years – reflects both diplomatic progress and deep divisions. The UN’s credibility as a conflict mediator remains fragile and the risk of prolonged processes legitimising territorial gains looms large. The fragmented nature of these resolutions could make it even harder for the organisation to play a meaningful role in resolving the war. The challenge is not just balancing accountability and diplomacy but ensuring that any peace framework upholds core UN principles.
The Ukraine conflict is no longer just about sovereignty; it is a test of global power shifts. Europe remains firm in demanding Russian accountability, the US has pivoted to more pressure on the parties to end the conflict and the Global South is asserting an independent, perhaps more strategic, role. Whether these positions can be reconciled into a meaningful peace framework remains uncertain. Without alignment, instability in the former Soviet space will persist but the Global South’s growing influence could introduce new diplomatic avenues for resolution. Divisions within the West signal that traditional alliances are fraying. Meanwhile, the Global South’s increasingly pragmatic approach suggests that future peace efforts could benefit from a broader, more inclusive framework. However, this diversity also risks a fragmented outcome: without a unified front, any peace agreement may simply reflect compromises that fail to address the core issues, perpetuating instability. As global power shifts continue, the challenge for the international community will be to bridge these divergent approaches and forge a consensus that ends the conflict while upholding the UN’s long-term legitimacy.
As the Global South’s influence grows, understanding African states’ increasing interest-based views to global governance is crucial. In 2025, SAIIA, in partnership with the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation and the University of Stellenbosch, will analyse African responses to the Ukraine conflict to explore these shifting dynamics.
