On Monday, the United Nations Security Council approved a U.S.-drafted resolution marking three years since Russia invaded Ukraine. The resolution signals a change in U.S. policy under President Donald Trump, who has adopted a neutral stance to facilitate peace negotiations. It contrasts sharply with the approach of former President Joe Biden, who led international efforts to support Ukraine throughout the war.
Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia called the resolution a sign of “constructive changes” in Washington’s position. “The resolution is not perfect,” he told the council, “but it is a starting point for future peace efforts.” Moscow has viewed Trump’s approach as a potential opening for negotiations.
The 15-member Security Council had been deadlocked on Ukraine since the war began, with Russia using its veto power to block any resolutions critical of its invasion. The General Assembly, which includes all 193 U.N. member states, has repeatedly passed resolutions affirming Ukraine’s sovereignty and calling for a complete withdrawal of Russian forces.
Unlike past U.N. measures, this resolution avoids direct criticism of Russia. It does not demand a withdrawal of Russian forces or reaffirm Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Instead, it focuses on promoting dialogue and a ceasefire without assigning blame to either side.
Trump has claimed he can end the war within weeks through diplomatic efforts. He has urged European nations to take the lead in peace talks while signaling a reduction in U.S. military and financial commitments to Ukraine. His administration has not yet provided details on how it plans to facilitate negotiations or what role the U.S. will play in the process.
European allies have raised concerns about Trump’s approach. “A neutral position could legitimize the invasion,” a European diplomat at the U.N. said. Some leaders fear that stepping back from a strong U.S. stance could leave Ukraine vulnerable to further aggression. Others worry that Russia will use peace talks to solidify its territorial gains.
The situation on the battlefield remains unchanged. Heavy fighting continues in eastern Ukraine, but neither side has made significant territorial advances in recent months. These attacks have disrupted power supplies across the country, affecting millions of civilians.
Ukraine has continued defensive operations but faces increasing challenges in securing new military aid. Some Western nations have slowed weapons deliveries due to shifting political priorities and economic constraints. Kyiv has insisted that it will not accept any peace agreement that involves territorial losses, reaffirming its commitment to full sovereignty.
Russia, however, wants any negotiations to reflect the “realities on the ground.” This signals that Moscow expects international recognition of the territories it has occupied. Ukraine has rejected such terms, calling them unacceptable and a violation of international law.
Trump’s administration has not clarified whether it supports Ukraine’s demand for full sovereignty restoration. His focus has been on diplomacy rather than additional military aid. Congress remains divided on Ukraine policy, with some lawmakers backing Trump’s push for negotiations while others argue that continued support is necessary to prevent Russian expansion.
The adoption of the U.N. resolution marks a turning point in international diplomacy. It opens the door for potential peace talks after years of deadlock. Whether this shift will lead to real progress remains uncertain.
China and India, both influential global powers, have previously called for dialogue over military escalation. Their representatives at the U.N. have expressed support for diplomatic solutions, welcoming Trump’s efforts to mediate. If successful, his approach could reshape the global response to the conflict.
The coming weeks will determine whether Trump’s strategy leads to meaningful negotiations. If the U.S. successfully facilitates talks, it could set a new precedent for resolving the war. However, if diplomacy fails, Ukraine may find itself in an even more difficult position without strong U.S. backing.
