29 April 2025
Mr. President,
To begin with, we would like to voice our fundamental disagreement with the presidency’s approach to inviting delegations to today’s meeting under Rule 37 and Rule 39. There are as many as seven of them, all of them are members of NATO and the EU. We have already repeatedly pointed out that inviting such a large number of participants, most of whom are driven by bloc-based discipline, bring no “added value” to the discussion, with rare exceptions.
We observe a negative trend whereby European countries, when presiding over the Security Council, tend to bring to meetings on Ukraine numerous “extras” who in chorus repeat the same talking points, which are virtually identical to those voiced by the representative of the European Union. All this do nothing but drag out the meetings with discussions at the UNSC losing the operational nature and value. We categorically object to transforming UNSC meetings into a lecture hall where a select group of countries lectures the rest of the world with sermons that are completely unoriginal. We doubt, for example, that the representative of Germany today will provide a clarification regarding the recent statement by his foreign ministry about Germany “negatively assessing” the Easter truce in Ukraine and being skeptical vis-a-vis the truce during the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War.
The prospect of reconciliation between Russia and Ukraine is like a bone in the throat for warmongering Europeans.
Mr. President,
Today’s meeting was requested by a number of the Kiev regime’s most stubborn European sponsors, and it reflects their fear of being sidelined in the context of the new U.S. administration’s efforts to find a long-term solution to the Ukrainian crisis. Hence the desire to derail this process and to restore for Zelensky’s Ukraine the image of a victim, which has faded in recent months, given the new facts that have surfaced.
Promoting this image is precisely what the Ukrainian Permanent Mission to the UN is doing almost on a daily basis by circulating the letters describing alleged Russia’s strikes targeting civilian objects. But as a matter of fact, this practice of stirring up emotions actually plays against Ukraine itself, which do not cease to obnoxiously propagate outright fakes. This was the case, for example, with the deaths of civilians in Krivoy Rog and Sumy on April 4 and 13, which appeared to be the result of an egregious violation of international law by the Kiev regime, as has already been irrefutably proven. We are deeply disappointed that, when assessing the situation in Ukraine, the UN Secretariat, through Ms. DiCarlo, is not only actively playing up to these fakes, but is also echoing what was said by the long-gone Biden administration. By doing so, the Secretariat is actually taking the side of the “war party”, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the obligation to remain impartial as per Article 100 of the UN Charter. Such an approach undermines trust not only in any of the Secretariat’s remarks on the Ukrainian crisis, but also in the assertions by its leadership to constructively contribute to a peaceful settlement.
We stress once again: the Russian Armed Forces are targeting exclusively the objects having to do with Kiev’s military capabilities. Civilian casualties occur only due to the deployment of Ukrainian air defense systems in densely populated urban districts and flawed operation thereof, as well as due to the fact that the Kiev regime is using its own citizens as human shields. The special operation is ongoing, and the April 18 strikes that served as the formal pretext for convening today’s meeting were carried out with precision weapons and targeted key drone manufacturing sites and infrastructure facilities at Ukrainian military airfields. All targets have been hit, and Kiev is perfectly aware of that.
By supporting such hypocritical and erroneous allegations of the Kiev clique and attempting to paint them as the truth, the European puppeteers of the Zelensky’s regime do nothing but completely unmask themselves and once again demonstrate their selective blindness and blatant “double standards”.
Thus, since last August, London, Paris, Brussels and their henchmen have not uttered a single word of condemnation regarding the barbaric attack by Zelensky’s cabal targeting cities, towns and villages adjacent to Ukraine’s border in Kursk Oblast (last week, the territory was completely cleansed of Ukrainian invaders). On numerous occasions, we have provided bloodcurdling data about the atrocities committed by the Ukrainian raiders in this peaceful Russian region: murders and mass executions, rapes, tortures, abductions and pervasive looting. We held numerous UNSC informal meetings whereto we invited witnesses to these crimes. The most recent crime is the April 24 attack of the Banderites on a masterpiece of wooden architecture – the New Jerusalem temple complex in Belgorod region – which led to its destruction. This was an operating church, and there were no military targets nearby. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian forces shelled this holy site, which resulted in a blaze; then they targeted firefighters, preventing them from extinguishing the fire.
During the week of April 21-27, Ukraine’s strikes targeted 98 civilians: 12 people, including one child, were killed and another 86, including four minors, were wounded. Civilian objects were hit with about two thousand munitions, including using multiple rocket launching systems, they were also hit by mines, grenades and artillery shells, including cluster munitions. Combat UAVs and small arms were used against unarmed civilians. The lion’s share of the weapons used to attack civilians were Western-made.
However, European sponsors of the Kiev regime are scrupulously avoiding any mention of the topic they are uncomfortable with, namely the Kursk misadventure by the Kiev princeling, which resulted in a complete rout of the Ukrainian armed forces and dealt a fatal blow to the combat capability and morale of the Ukrainian army.
The most active involvement in the liberation of Russian territory came from DPRK units. In doing so, Moscow and Pyongyang acted in full compliance with international law, specifically Article 4 of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty of June 19, 2024, which provides for the immediate provision of military assistance in the event of an armed attack on either party. We are deeply grateful to our Korean brothers, whose fortitude and bravery will forever remain in the memory of our people.
Mr. President,
In these circumstances, what has become the main goal of Kiev’s European accomplices (contrary to facts and common sense) is highlighting the alleged aspiration towards peace of the head of the Kiev clique, which, according to their unsubstantiated assertions, Russia doesn’t embrace. Today we have observed a number of such attempts on the part of our Western colleagues.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for London, Paris and Brussels to pursue this goal, as well as to camouflage the beastly, misanthropic and Nazi essence of the Zelensky regime, which manifests itself more and more clearly.
Russia has always prioritized diplomacy and peaceful scenarios for resolving the conflict and we have demonstrated this time and time again. Thus, despite Kiev’s sabotage of the 30-day moratorium on reciprocal strikes targeting energy infrastructure, which the Ukrainian armed forces violated more than 130 times, the Russian President demonstrated a gesture of goodwill announcing an Easter truce from 6:00 p.m. on April 19 to 00:00 a.m. on April 21. This truce could have allowed the Ukrainian side to show not in words but in deeds its good faith in upholding its commitments, and its readiness for peace. Having hastily rejected this initiative, Zelensky – apparently, being under pressure from his sponsors and caring for his image – soon changed his mind and supported the proposal.
Although the intensity of hostilities along the front line was indeed reduced during this period, the Russian Defense Ministry recorded 4,900 violations by the Ukrainian armed forces. Specifically, the Ukrainian military continued to carry out artillery strikes and drone strikes not only against positions of our troops but also against civilian objects in adjacent areas of Belgorod, Bryansk and Kursk regions, as well as in Crimea. Russia strictly observed the ceasefire regime and remained at the previously held borders and positions.
Thus, Zelensky has once again eloquently proved his inability to negotiate in good faith and his desire to torpedo any peace process. Realizing its imminent defeat, the Kiev regime is increasingly sliding towards blatant terrorist methods.
Thus, on April 25, when President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff was heading to a fresh round of negotiations with President Vladimir Putin, Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, was murdered. The suspect, Ignat Kuzin, pleaded guilty and said that he was recruited by officers of the Security Service of Ukraine in exchange for monetary remuneration. Last September, his Ukrainian supervisors assigned him to eliminate Mr. Moskalik, and he start working on implementing this assignment. Yesterday, the Ukrainian leadership officially acknowledged its complicity in this murder. Commenting on this case, the secretary of the Rada’s security committee, Roman Kostenko, announced that such methods would remain in the arsenal of the Ukrainian security services even after the end of the war – “for the next 10, 20, 30 years – as long as necessary”.
This is yet another proof of the criminal and treacherous nature of the Kiev regime, whose leader is concerned solely with saving his own skin and covering up the crimes that he has committed against his own people. Therefore, contrary to the aspirations of the Ukrainians, he is bent on escalating the conflict and reclessly rejects the United States’ balanced peace proposals.
Nevertheless, U.S.-Russian dialogue continues, and we are set to discuss a number of nuances of the future contours of the peace plan. From the very beginning of the conflict, we have stated that we prefer diplomatic methods to achieve the goals of the special military operation of ours. That is why Russia remains focused on sustainable and long-term solutions that would address the root causes of the conflict and prevent this conflict from recurring. As another step towards peace, President Putin has declared a ceasefire stating from 00:00 AM of May 8 to 00:00 AM of May 11. We trust that the Ukrainian side will follow suit. Such a step could be a prelude to direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine without any preconditions whatsoever, and we are ready to engage in these talks despite the existing problems regarding the legitimacy of the head of the Kiev regime.
Mr. President,
Our country’s principled approaches towards settling the Ukrainian crisis were voiced by the President of Russia in June, 2024. Let us recall that here we refer to Ukraine’s to respect for the rights of the Russian-speaking population, the country’s neutral, non-aligned and non-nuclear status, its demilitarization and denazification, as well as the recognition of the status of Crimea, Sevastopol, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions as constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the will of their inhabitants. This position is firmly rooted in the provisions of the UN Charter and is not subject to revision.
It is important that this is taken into account by those who really want to help find a long-term solution to this crisis provoked by the West. What we expect from them is not empty declarations and calls for a ceasefire, which our European colleagues are now so vociferously voicing only because they have realized that otherwise Ukraine will suffer a resounding defeat. We expect of them clear and concrete signals towards a peaceful settlement. This primarily concerns the cessation of arms deliveries to Ukraine and their readiness to convince Zelensky of the urgent need to engage in constructive dialogue.
And to this end, let us recall, there is a need for him, inter alia, to repeal the ban on direct negotiations with the Russian leadership, which was enshrined in legislation at his initiative. And more broadly speaking, he needs to finally honor the pledge made to Ukrainian voters back in 2019, which is to pursue peace with Russia and respect for the rights of the Russian-speaking population of his country. And in general, he needs to act in the interests of his country rather than for the benefit of those seeking to use Ukraine purely as a pawn in the geopolitical struggle waged against Russia.
When Kiev and its European mentors understand this and recognize the futility of the very idea of continuing hostilities, and when they grasp that the only alternative to this is the resounding defeat and surrender of Ukraine, then, perhaps, we will start moving in the right direction.
Thank you.