Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on lasting peace in Ukraine — 107 votes and an important signal from the international community

The resolution initiated by Kyiv won broad support — but the vote also revealed divisions among key partners. Why this matters for Ukraine's security and diplomacy right now.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 24, 2026 · 2 min read

UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on lasting peace in Ukraine — 107 votes and an important signal from the international community
Андрій Сибіга (Фото: МЗС)

In brief

The UN General Assembly adopted the resolution "Supporting a lasting peace in Ukraine," initiated by Kyiv. 107 countries voted "in favor," 12 — "against" (Belarus, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, as well as Russia and Sudan), and the United States together with about 50 other countries abstained, reported Minister of Foreign Affairs Andriy Sybiha.

US amendment and the substantive vote

As Ukrinform reports, the United States proposed removing from the text of the resolution the provisions on territorial integrity and the need to achieve a just peace. The proposal to delete these formulations was rejected: 11 countries voted for the amendment, 69 against, and 62 abstained.

"We will continue to act — firmly and consistently — to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in accordance with the UN Charter and international law."

— Andriy Sybiha, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine

"We were actually aiming to reach 90+ votes to have a respectable result compared with last year. But it turned out 107. That's an excellent result and genuinely another victory for Ukrainian diplomacy in the sphere of international organizations."

— Heorhiy Tykhyi, spokesperson of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry

Why it matters

In essence, the resolution is a political signal: an international majority confirmed that it supports the idea of a long-term, just peace based on international law. The social proof here is the wide circle of states that voted "in favor," which increases diplomatic pressure on the aggressor countries.

At the same time, the abstention of some partners, including the US, and attempts to change key formulations indicate disagreements over the legal and political consequences of such declarations. This is not just a technical issue — the language of resolutions determines which mechanisms and obligations the international community will be able to use going forward.

Facts to remember

  • Vote result: 107 — in favor, 12 — against, about 51 — abstained (official statements from the Foreign Ministry and Ukrinform).
  • US amendment: 11 — for, 69 — against, 62 — abstained (according to Ukrinform).
  • UN report: over four years of the full-scale war in Ukraine more than 5,000 women and girls have been killed, and about 14,000 more wounded; the UN warns that 2025 became one of the bloodiest years in that period.

Next steps

The resolution has important symbolic value and creates a diplomatic foundation. However, its real power will depend on how much partners turn words into concrete actions — political pressure, sanctions, restoration of territorial integrity, and support on the battlefield and in the humanitarian sphere.

So the next move is with partners: declarations need to be transformed into signed agreements, funding and practical measures, otherwise a strong international signal risks remaining only on paper.

Experts' view

Diplomats and international law experts agree: the resolution is an important diplomatic victory for Kyiv, but it does not replace the need to strengthen operational support and pressure those who violated the UN Charter. In other words, political legitimacy is already there — now practical implementation is needed.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026