Debating the continuing transfer of arms supplies to the warring parties in Ukraine, speakers in the Security Council meeting requested by the Russian Federation voiced concerns over the potential diversion and proliferation of weapons in this and other conflicts, with many calling the military cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang “alarming”.
Adedeji Ebo, Director and Deputy to the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, briefing the 15-nation organ, observed that transfers of arms and ammunition – heavy conventional weapons, armored combat vehicles, combat aircraft, large-caliber artillery and missile systems – as well as other military assistance to Ukraine, have continued. There have also been reports of States transferring or planning to transfer uncrewed aerial vehicles, ballistic missiles and ammunition to the Russian armed forces and that those weapons have been used or are likely to be used in Ukraine. In addition, recent reports also refer to the presence of third-party military personnel in the Russian Federation to assist its military operations against Ukraine.
He expressed concern over the use of cluster munitions, highlighting the widespread contamination that these weapons cause. Stressing that “humanitarian imperatives have long driven disarmament efforts”, he said that measures to prevent and mitigate the risk of weapons are key to preventing instability in Ukraine. He urged that importing, producing and transit States prevent illicit trafficking and misuse by enhancing physical security, stockpile management and border control measures. Also noting the cross-border strikes using missiles and uncrewed aerial vehicles by Ukraine inside the Russian Federation’s territory, he stressed that the use of explosive weapons in the populated area is “the most significant threat to civilians in armed conflict”.
“If ever a war was needlessly provoked, the war in Ukraine is that war”, said George Szamuely, Senior Research Fellow at the Global Policy Institute, noting that this war came about as a result of the Western powers’ “single-minded insistence on scooping up every country on the European continent into NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]”. Recalling two draft proposals for a new security architecture of Europe, issued by Moscow in December 2021, he observed: “At the heart of Russia’s proposals was a commitment by NATO to no further expansion and no NATO membership for Ukraine.” Furthermore, in its 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty, Ukraine declared “its intention of becoming a permanently neutral State”.
From February 1990 on, Western leaders were giving Moscow repeated assurances about not expanding NATO, “only to walk back those assurances the moment they had secured whatever concessions they were seeking”. While the Russian Federation’s leaders repeatedly expressed interest in NATO membership, the alliance’s leaders showed “not the slightest interest in exploring these offers of genuine partnership”. As well, Moscow’s leaders were “only too aware that NATO had long set its sights on eventual Ukraine membership”, knowing that it would be “the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite”. He added: “The current war in Ukraine was always about NATO expansion.”
The Russian Federation’s representative, noting that the Western States decided to “use the hands of the Kyiv regime” to inflict strategic defeat on his country, observed that “their plans are a fiasco” as the “head of the Kyiv junta” is blackmailing the world by saying that Ukraine will get nuclear weapons. Also pointing to the “military escapades” in the Kursk region, he said that without the West’s direct involvement, Ukraine’s military would continue to retreat. In 2023, Ukraine seized two times less territory that the Russian Federation managed to liberate per month. Following the calls to lower the draft age to 18 to 21 years old, men are fleeing “Zelenskiy’s concentration camp”, he said, reporting that between February 2022 and 2023, over 5 million Ukrainian refugees arrived in the Russian Federation. Also spotlighting the 100,000 to 170,000 Ukrainian defectors, he noted that, since the special military operation’s start, at least 15,000 mercenaries from 100 countries arrived in Ukraine. “The course they [Western countries] have chosen – fighting Russia with using Ukraine’s hands is unjustified,” he added.
With all kinds of arms that keep flowing in, “the battlefield has become a show of weapons”, China’s representative said, emphasizing that “weapons may help win wars, but they cannot win lasting peace”. Noting that “the Ukraine crisis is, essentially, an eruption of the building-up security tensions in Europe, a result of the long-term accumulation and worsening of the trust deficit,” he pointed out that the United States is creating divisions in Europe. “It is precisely the US that has repeatedly discredited China’s peace efforts, constantly [tying] China to Russia and [driving] the wedge between China and Europe,” he stated.
The representative of Algeria observed that the predominance of escalation and confrontation in the Ukraine crisis “risks plunging the whole region into a spiral of conflict and unending crises”. Further, the flow of weapons and munitions towards the conflict zone does not “just worsen the situation but takes us further away from a possible peaceful political process” to resolve the conflict. “It is important that we give more space to diplomacy,” he stressed.
Adding to that, Sierra Leone’s delegate stated: “It is clear that a military solution to the conflict is not feasible,” urging dialogue and diplomacy as “primary tools” for a just, sustainable peace. The conflict’s impact also extends to the global economy, he added, noting that the prices for wheat, maize, edible oils and fertilizers have risen exponentially over the past three years due to reduced agricultural production and supply-chain disruptions.
Some Council members voiced concern over the potential arms diversion and proliferation, with the representative of Ecuador noting that, even years after a ceasefire, the weapons used in a conflict can continue to affect civilians and cause instability. “Ecuador knows the negative impact of the diversion of weapons first-hand,” he recalled. Building on that, Mozambique’s delegate stressed that the transferred weapons risk turning up in future black markets, including in Africa, and potentially fueling illicit arms trade on the continent.
For his part, Japan’s representative stated that “no reasonable person would believe” Moscow’s claims that the so-called “transfer of Western arms to Ukraine prolongs the war of aggression that Russia itself has started”. Calling the military cooperation of the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea alarming, a stance expressed by other Council members, he said that the escalation will result in Pyongyang “likely gaining something in return”. Concurring, the Republic of Korea’s delegate underscored that Pyongyang expects “generous returns” for its contributions, potentially including nuclear and ballistic missile-related technology.
Meanwhile, China’s representative, refuting the comment by the United States representative who spotlighted China’s provision of weapon components and relevant technology to Moscow, declared that his country “has not provided weapons to any party related to the conflict in Ukraine” and “has strictly managed dual-use items” according to the World Trade Organization and market rules. “Who is obstructing peace and who is supporting peace – this is clear to the eyes of the international community,” he said.
The United States’ representative also pointed to the “irony of Russia calling this meeting”, during which he received reports of “8,000 DPRK [the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] soldiers in Kursk oblast” there to potentially join Russian forces against Ukraine. Noting that Moscow’s military cooperation with Pyongyang violates many Council resolutions, he stressed that “even with the addition of DPRK troops, Russian forces will not prevail in Ukraine.” To the representative of the Russian Federation, he asked: “Does Russia still maintain that there are no DPRK troops in Russia?”
Slovenia’s representative weighed in, emphasizing that “if true, this would represent a serious development and an unacceptable act of material support to the ongoing aggression.” Similarly, the representative of Switzerland, Council President for October, speaking in her national capacity, expressed dismay over the intensification of external support for Moscow’s military aggression, while Guyana’s representative noted that a prolonged war poses risks to all Member States.
Expressing regret that the Russian Federation persists in using the Council’s time and resources to express its dissatisfaction with “how the victim, Ukraine, is defending itself against this aggression”, Malta’s delegate stressed that such meetings are “nothing more than futile attempts to justify the unjustifiable”. As well, France’s representative, calling the meeting a “disinformation campaign” in line with Moscow’s repeated attempts to hold others responsible for the war it started in Ukraine, said that his country will support Kyiv as long as necessary – politically and militarily.
Pointing to the economic damage the Russian Federation’s “out-of-control defence spending” is having on that country’s economy, the United Kingdom’s representative said defence and national security will consume more than 40 per cent of its entire federal spending in 2025. “The Russian Government is spending more on killing Ukrainians and trying to steal their land than it is on the health and education of its own people,” he observed, noting that the costs of Moscow’s aggression expand into “hemorrhaging of human capital at home”. “We urge Russia to take a different path, and to bring to an end its unjustified, unprovoked and self-harming invasion,” he said.
