29 May 2025
Mr. President,
I would first like to thank Under-Secretary-General Rosemary DiCarlo and Ms. Lisa Doughten, Director of OCHA, for their briefings.
Mr. President,
Every day, Russia chooses to continue its attack on Ukraine. No narrative can conceal this blatant fact. No excuse can justify this fact. Every day, the people who die in this war are victims of a deliberate, repeated and unjustifiable choice made by Moscow.
Everyone is calling for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Everyone except Russia. Only Russia is impeding this process. A month ago in this very Chamber, in the presence of the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Mr. Jean-Noël Barrot, all members of the Security Council except Russia called for an end to hostilities. Ukraine recalled that, starting from March 11, it had been ready to accept an immediate, complete, and unconditional ceasefire.
What has happened since then? Ukraine has reaffirmed its readiness to end hostilities. It has repeated this consistently, including at the highest political levels. President Volodymyr Zelensky reitirated in Kyiv on May 10 this very fact, together with the leaders of Germany, France, Poland, and the United Kingdom. Once again, the Russian president dodged the issue. Once again, he refused to end his attacks. To divert attention and deliberately prolong the carnage, he called for direct negotiations in Istanbul, which he did not attend. President Zelensky, was there, in Turkey, waiting for him.
Everyone knows this. Russia did not respond to the ceasefire proposals with willingness to partake in real peace negotiations. Russia’s real response were massive strikes it undertook on Ukraine on May 23, 24, and 25, killing more than 15 people and injuring hundreds. The disproportionate means used by Russia speak for themselves. Motion of no action in Istanbul: a lower-level delegation, a rejection of an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, and vague engagements to continue discussions. Meanwhile in Ukraine, we saw Russian blatant contempt for the fate of civilians and human life. These are deliberate attacks on civilian targets, in violation of international humanitarian law. This is a record number of missiles and combat drones. This is the Kremlin’s unabashed inflexibility on its objectives, at a time when war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed, as documented by the recent report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine.
Mr. President,
Let’s hone in on the adjective “unconditional,” because it is vital for this Council to have a common definition of what it means. What does “unconditional ceasefire” actually mean? It entails, as Ukraine has showned its will to do so since March 11, stoping the hostilities immediately and without any conditions. It is not the way Russia sees it : a possible end to hostilities with an unspecifed timeframe, which hinges on a peace agreement being signed that is tantamount to a capitulation of the attacked party.
What does it mean to start “unconditional peace talks”? It means agreeing to participate in discussions that are not subject to any conditions. This is what Ukraine did in Istanbul on May 16, accepting direct negotiations with Russia without demanding any prerequisite for a ceasefire. It is not about setting maximalist conditions. Yet this is precisely how Russia interpreted this in Istanbul on May 16, demanding that Ukraine withdraw its troops from the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson. Let me repeat that, on October 12, 2022, the United Nations General Assembly condemned Russia’s “attempted illegal annexation” of this territories.
Mr. President,
France stands ready alongside Ukraine and its partners to engage in a virtuous process of discussion about a peace plan. France stands with the Ukrainian people to provide them with the humanitarian assistance they need. Russia has no credibility when it claims to be negotiating in good faith while intensifying its strikes on Ukrainian territory. That is why the Security Council must demand a complete, immediate and unconditional ceasefire. No, the demilitarization of Ukraine is not a prerequisite nor an objective of the peace talks. The aggressor cannot demand, before ending the aggression, that the aggressed State renounces its right to self-defense, as conferred by the Charter of the United Nations. A just, robust and lasting peace, as repeatedly called for by the United Nations General Assembly, will entail robust and credible security guarantees for Ukraine. Ukraine should be able to choose its future.
Thank you.