Trump Bucks World Opinion about Ukraine and Hedges Committing Support

President Donald J. Trump’s love-hate-love relationship with Russian führer Vladimir Putin, the recognized global terrorist, is not only throwing the international community into a state of stagnation, shock and confusion but it is contributing to Moscow’s continuing bloodshed in Ukraine.

As I stated in my previous blogpost, while the former captive nations of Russian aggression, having experienced its enslavement, are solidly in Ukraine’s corner, the United States under Trump does not want to commit itself, believing that its tepid or even cold support will sooner end the war.

According to the Kyiv Post and other news outlets, the Trump administration recently unexpectedly demanded a revision and removal from a UN resolution of formulations that affirm Ukraine’s territorial integrity and condemn Russia’s occupation of Crimea and other regions. Details of such discussions were reported by two sources familiar with internal discussions at the UN. The annual resolution titled “The Human Rights Situation in the Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine, Including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol” is considered an important diplomatic instrument that confirms support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and records human rights violations in the occupied territories.

This is not an example of the UN’s wishy-washy position about a Russian threat to Ukraine’s existence.

Rather the resolution highlights systematic human rights violations in the occupied territories, including the persecution of Crimean Tatars, pressure on pro-Ukrainian activists, journalists, and members of religious minorities. It also condemns Russia’s actions involving the forced deportation of Ukrainian children, including their illegal adoption or transfer into custody. The UN calls on Russia to immediately and unconditionally return all forcibly displaced children to Ukraine. Most notably, this document marks the first UN resolution in which the General Assembly explicitly refers to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine as a “war of aggression against Ukraine.”

The UN document explicitly affirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, condemned Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and described the deteriorating human rights situation in the occupied territories. Washington is seeking to remove these formulations and proposes presenting the resolution in a broader format – under the title “The War in Ukraine” – without references to “territorial integrity” or “aggression.”

Western allies have expressed concerns that such a step would significantly weaken the UN’s main annual document, which has consistently condemned Russia’s invasion, and could mark a sharp departure from the bipartisan consensus that has existed since 2014.

Going back in time, the United Nations, thanks to the hard work of the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the UN, as well as allied member-states such as the United States and others, on December 20, 2016, officially condemned Russia, a member of the UN Security Council, as an “occupier” of foreign lands just like Nazi Germany and other tyrannical empires were.

What is significant about this resolution is that while Ukraine, the United States and a few other countries favorably inclined toward Ukraine have condemned Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea, a resolution by the UN, a global representative body, casts a different light on this crime. Just like the albatross in “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” Russia, the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin have been publicly stigmatized as global lawbreakers, invaders and terrorists for current and future generations to see.

This resolution sends a clear message to Russia and Putin that as “occupying authorities” they are responsible for the persecutions and violations of the human rights of the residents of Crimea and will be brought to justice.

The 71st General Assembly adopted on Monday, December 19, a resolution on human rights in Crimea, titled “Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine),” which was initiated by Ukraine and supported by the UNGA Third Committee. Seventy-three UN member-states, including Ukraine, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and others backed the document, 76 abstained, and Russia plus 22 others voted against it.

The resolution cited the word “occupier” in relation to Russia’s enslavement of Crimea four times.

Most importantly, the resolution condemns “the temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine —the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (hereinafter “Crimea”) — by the Russian Federation.” It also notably reaffirmed its “non-recognition” of Russia’s unlawful annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea after a fabricated and rigged referendum. The use of “temporary” is significant but it underlines that the occupation of Crimea is not permanent, it is not legal and it should revert to its previous state as an indivisible part of Ukraine. By employing temporary, the international community composes and supports a concept of preeminence of national territorial integrity and sovereignty, wherein passive or aggressive foreign authorities have no rights whatsoever.

The General Assembly had called on the Russia “to take all measures necessary to bring an immediate end to all abuses against residents of Crimea, in particular reported discriminatory measures and practices, arbitrary detentions, torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and to revoke all discriminatory legislation.”

It also urged Russia to “immediately release Ukrainian citizens who were unlawfully detained and judged without regard for elementary standards of justice, as well as those transferred across internationally recognized borders from Crimea to the Russian Federation.”

Russia must also “address the issue of impunity and ensure that those found to be responsible for abuses are held accountable before an independent judiciary.”

The world body insisted that the Russian occupying authorities “create and maintain a safe and enabling environment for journalists and human rights defenders to perform their work independently and without undue interference in Crimea; to permit the reopening of cultural and religious institutions.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine had welcomed the resolution, pointing out that this important document provides a clear definition on the status of Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine, condemns the temporary occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and does not recognize its attempted annexation by the occupying state.

“That’s why the fixation and condemnation by UN resolution of the systematic human rights violations carried out by the Russian occupation authorities, including extrajudicial executions, abductions, politically motivated persecution and restriction of basic political rights of Crimean residents should become an important step towards defending rights and civil liberties of citizens of Ukraine that live under this occupation.”

The trend continued. As countries and companies individually lined up to denounce Russia’s despot Putin for invading Ukraine, in 2022 the UN further added insult to injury by condemning Russia and its tyrant and overwhelmingly adopting a resolution demanding Russia’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine.

This resolution, which was not the first UN document that castigated Moscow’s aggression in recent years, demonstrated the global community’s ongoing extreme disapproval of Putin and his bloody, criminal belligerence.

After more than two days of extraordinary debate, 141 out of 193 member-states voted for the non-binding resolution seen as a severe rebuke of Moscow’s inhuman and lawless behavior. China was among the 35 countries which abstained, while just five voted against it – Belarus, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Eritrea.

The resolution “deplores” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “in the strongest terms” and condemns Putin’s decision to put his nuclear forces on alert.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued remarks following the vote and called for an end to the war raging in Ukraine. “The General Assembly has spoken. As Secretary-General, it is my duty to stand by this resolution and be guided by its call,” Guterres declared in comments delivered to the press.

“The message of the General Assembly is loud and clear: End hostilities in Ukraine – now. Silence the guns – now. Open the door to dialogue and diplomacy – now.”

The UN chief additionally expressed concern about the conflict’s implications for global stability as the world continues to combat the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Today’s resolution reflects a central truth. The world wants an end to the tremendous human suffering in Ukraine,” he said.

Ukraine’s UN Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya had said Russian forces “have come to the Ukrainian soil, not only to kill some of us ... they have come to deprive Ukraine of the very right to exist.” He added: “The crimes are so barbaric that it is difficult to comprehend.”

Turning to today’s events, according to The Kyiv Post: “For Kyiv, this document has significant implications – the resolution not only condemns Russia’s occupation but also creates a legal basis for future mechanisms to hold Russia accountable at the International Criminal Court and other venues. Along with this, the new UN report documents crimes in the occupied territories, including killings and forced displacement, corroborated by eyewitness testimony and video material from the Commission’s field missions.

“In the capital and beyond, concerns are growing among allies: many diplomats believe that Washington’s stance mirrors previous trends of drifting away from coalition lines – from suspending aid to Ukraine in 2019 to attempts to soften formulations on Russia’s accountability. While official statements continue to emphasize support for Ukraine, Western partners view these signals as part of a broader tendency to reduce mentions of Russian aggression in multilateral formats.

“Experts emphasize that the key issue is not only terminology, but how the international community will evaluate the occupation: whether to recognize it as illegal or to treat it as a fact. As the vote approaches, allies expect a revision of the position from the U.S. administration. Yet at the moment, signals from the White House are unequivocal: the commitment to defending Ukraine’s borders – previously a pillar of transatlantic unity – may come under pressure from political compromises.”

In other words, Ukraine may lose for the sake of global expediency as was the case numerous times in the past.

The Kyiv Post further observed: “The Donald Trump Administration has pushed for the removal of references in a UN resolution to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the condemnation of Russia’s occupation.” According to the newspaper, diplomatic sources at the United Nations say Washington wants to recast the resolution under the broader label “war in Ukraine” and omit wording such as “territorial integrity” or “aggression.” Such a shift in the U.S. position could affect allies’ trust and Ukraine’s support. It also sets a potential precedent in which aggression may be seen as more acceptable or inevitable.

"This is another example of Washington walking away from Ukraine's core interests at a critical diplomatic juncture," a European envoy told Kyiv Post. “If the language goes, the message to Moscow is that the US is no longer leading the defense of the international order.”

In February 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio called on UN member-states to support the US draft resolution on the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which does not mention the occupied Ukrainian territories or Russian aggression. “This resolution is consistent with President Trump’s view that the UN must return to its founding purpose, as enshrined in the UN Charter, to maintain international peace and security, including through the peaceful settlement of disputes,” Rubio said.

The US official further urged: “If the United Nations is truly committed to its original purpose, we must acknowledge that while challenges may arise, the goal of lasting peace remains achievable.  Through support of this resolution, we affirm that this conflict is awful, that the UN can help end it, and that peace is possible.”

Trump’s White House wants to tone down any criticism of Putin and Russia while erasing all uses of aggression and invasion. It also misguidedly calls the butchering of innocent Ukrainians by Russian cutthroats a mere “conflict” that is “awful.”

As ironic as it sounds, many member-states of the UN as well as the international body itself have been promoting a stronger condemnation of Russia, the age-old enemy and oppressor of Ukraine, while Trump’s United States has been avoiding such a step.

This will lead history to ask: Mr. Trump, “Who lost Ukraine?”