ZELENSKY AND LAVROV SPEAK TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL

The term “historical” is often used inappropriately. It is therefore better to stay away from this definition. Sometimes, however, the temptation is strong, as when representatives of two countries at war with each other sit in the same room. It happened on September 20 at the United Nations, even though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had already left when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov arrived. However, not too far from the Kiev head of state sat Moscow’s ambassador to the UN Vasilij Nebenzja, who was careful to point out that his head of diplomacy was very busy and could not arrive earlier.

Zelensky came down hard when opening the session of the Security Council, held on the sidelines of the General Assembly. The view is very direct and clear. «It is impossible to stop the war because all attempts are vetoed by the aggressor.» «Most of the world,» he said, recognizes that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are «criminal and unprovoked and aimed at seizing Ukrainian territory and resources.» The Security Council, he added, raising some criticism towards the United Nations, «remains stuck in a stalemate due to opposition from Moscow.» As a direct consequence, Zelensky asked, as he had already done in the past, that the Kremlin be deprived of the right of veto. The president also justified the request: the right of veto belonged to the USSR and not to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which uses it in an «illegal» way to «disguise aggression and genocide.»

The request appears extremely difficult to implement, also because Russia itself could stop its course. However, there is a precedent dating back to 1971, when the United Nations General Assembly stripped Taiwan of the veto power it held as a representative of China, handing it instead to the communist government in Beijing. In second place, the Ukrainian leader called for an expansion of the Security Council with permanent seats to be assigned to Africa, Asia and Germany. But here too one might wonder whether such an extensive organism would be more efficient or would it be unmanageable.

The issue to be resolved now, however, remains the conflict and on this the Ukrainian president has his own ideas which, obviously, are not even officially taken into consideration by the other party. Kiev’s plan is made up of 10 points and places the restoration of the borders prior to the invasion of Crimea in 2014 as an indispensable condition. Currently the issue does not appear to be under discussion.

Instead, the discussion was on a question of form, which obviously, in multilateral meetings becomes substance. The fact that Zelensky spoke first provoked protests from the representative of Moscow, according to whom this procedure would «undermine the authority of the Security Council», transforming it into a «one-man show».

The Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, the current president, took it upon himself to re-establish the priorities: «There is a solution, stop the war and President Zelensky will not speak.»

After the Ukrainian leader left the room, the challenge was resumed between the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, supported by all his Western colleagues, and Lavrov. The head of US diplomacy accused Russia of having «torn the UN Charter» and of committing «crimes against humanity» every day in Ukraine. The Secretary of State also tried to reassure the Global South by emphasizing the fact that it is a «false choice» between remaining alongside Ukraine and addressing other crises, such as climate change, arguing that «we can and must do both». Lavrov, for his part, accused the US and its allies of having interfered in Ukrainian affairs since the fall of the USSR to impose pro-Western policies on Kiev and placed the blame for the increased risk of a «global conflict» on the West». In particular, he lashed out at NATO, guilty of refusing to engage in dialogue that could have prevented tensions in Europe. Then came the moment of the most predictable rhetoric, with the statement, now a recurring theme at the Kremlin, that any anti-Russian government in Kiev is nothing more than a «puppet» of the US, suggesting that Washington could at any time «order» Zelensky to negotiate with Russia.

«Moscow does not reject negotiations, it is Zelensky who signed a decree to prohibit dialogue with President Putin,» Lavrov recalled, ending by defending the legitimacy of the Russian veto power.

In short, the doors seem closed to dialogue, even if China has tried to take credit for its role as mediator, claiming to have been constructive «in its own way» in the attempt to create a way out of the war in Ukraine and urging other countries to avoid «pouring fuel on the fire».

Who knows if it was a historic day. Who knows if they will make a film about these events, such as that which recalls the phrase uttered by the US ambassador to the UN on 25 October 1962, amid the Cuban Missile Crisis. During an emergency session of the Security Council the American diplomat pressed the Soviet representative, Valerian Zorin, asking him if his country was installing missiles in Cuba and demanding an immediate response: «Don’t wait for the translation!» When Zorin refused to answer, Stevenson compounded the matter by assuring that he could wait: «Until hell freezes over.» In that case it ended well, the third world war was averted. But evidently history and the films that portray it teach little if sixty-one years later we find ourselves, more or less, in the same situation.