On Wednesday, September 24, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivered a searing critique of the United Nations (U.N.) during his address to the General Assembly in New York, branding the international body as a feeble institution incapable of stopping wars or enforcing meaningful peace. His remarks came against the backdrop of Ukraine’s grueling three-and-a-half-year defense against Russian aggression, a conflict that has claimed countless lives, displaced millions, and reshaped global geopolitics. Zelensky’s speech underscored the growing frustration of nations caught in protracted conflicts, who view international organizations as increasingly irrelevant in the face of modern warfare and great-power rivalries.
A Platform for Words, Not Action
Speaking from the iconic green-marble podium of the U.N. General Assembly, Zelensky did not mince words. He painted a stark picture of the U.N.’s shortcomings, arguing that its structure and mechanisms have failed to deliver on its foundational promise of maintaining global peace and security. “Nations can speak about their pain from stages like this, but even during bloodshed, there isn’t a single international institution that can truly stop it,” Zelensky declared, his voice carrying the weight of a leader whose country has endured relentless bombardment, territorial occupation, and humanitarian crises since Russia’s invasion in February 2022. “That’s how weak these institutions have become.”
Zelensky’s criticism was not merely rhetorical; it was a pointed indictment of the systemic flaws within the U.N., particularly its Security Council, where Russia wields veto power as one of the five permanent members. This veto authority has consistently paralyzed the council, preventing it from adopting resolutions that could impose sanctions, authorize military interventions, or hold Russia accountable for its actions in Ukraine. The Ukrainian leader argued that this structural weakness has rendered the U.N. a bystander in the face of aggression, allowing conflicts to fester and escalate unchecked. “And because international institutions are too weak, this madness continues,” he said. “Weapons decide who survives.”
Zelensky’s remarks resonated with many smaller nations and conflict-affected states in the audience, who have long felt marginalized by the U.N.’s inability to act decisively in crises. His speech highlighted a growing sentiment that the post-World War II international order, designed to prevent global conflicts, is ill-equipped to address the complexities of 21st-century warfare, where hybrid tactics, cyberattacks, and proxy battles have blurred traditional notions of conflict.
The New Arms Race and Global Security
Central to Zelensky’s address was his assertion that the world is witnessing the emergence of a new arms race, one that is reshaping international relations and prioritizing military might over diplomacy. “Weapons decide who survives,” he reiterated, emphasizing that the lack of effective international mechanisms has forced nations to rely on their own military capabilities or alliances to ensure their survival. This observation reflects the broader geopolitical shifts that have unfolded since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has prompted countries across Europe and beyond to bolster their defense budgets, modernize their militaries, and seek stronger security partnerships.
The Ukrainian president’s warning about an arms race carries significant implications. In Europe, NATO members have ramped up defense spending, with countries like Poland, Finland, and Sweden accelerating their military modernization programs in response to Russian aggression. Globally, nations such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia have also increased their defense budgets, driven by concerns over rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific and the ripple effects of the Ukraine conflict. Zelensky’s speech underscored the paradox of this trend: while international forums like the U.N. were established to prevent such escalations, their ineffectiveness has instead fueled a cycle of militarization.
Zelensky also highlighted the role of Russia’s veto power in perpetuating this cycle. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council alongside the United States, China, France, and the United Kingdom, Russia has consistently blocked resolutions aimed at addressing its actions in Ukraine. This has included proposals for sanctions, ceasefires, and investigations into alleged war crimes. The veto power, a relic of the U.N.’s founding in 1945, was intended to ensure consensus among major powers but has instead become a tool for obstruction, particularly in conflicts involving permanent members. Zelensky’s critique thus extended beyond the U.N. to the broader architecture of global governance, which he argued is outdated and incapable of addressing contemporary challenges.
Zelensky’s Diplomatic Push and U.S. Support
Zelensky’s appearance at the U.N. came on the heels of a significant diplomatic achievement during his visit to the United States. On Tuesday, September 23, he met with U.S. President Donald Trump, securing a notable shift in the latter’s stance on the Ukraine conflict. In a post on Truth Social, Trump expressed support for Ukraine’s goal of reclaiming all territories currently occupied by Russia, including Crimea and the eastern regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. This marked a departure from Trump’s earlier suggestions that Ukraine might need to cede territory to Russia in exchange for peace, a position that had drawn criticism from Ukrainian officials and their allies.
The meeting with Trump was a critical moment for Zelensky, who has worked tirelessly to maintain bipartisan support in the United States, Ukraine’s largest military and financial backer. Since the onset of the war, the U.S. has provided billions of dollars in aid, including advanced weaponry such as HIMARS rocket systems, Patriot air defense systems, and Abrams tanks. However, political divisions in Washington, particularly among some Republican lawmakers, have at times threatened to disrupt this support. Zelensky’s ability to secure Trump’s public backing for Ukraine’s territorial integrity was thus a strategic victory, reinforcing the importance of U.S. leadership in the international coalition supporting Kyiv.
In his own address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Trump raised the possibility of imposing additional economic sanctions on Russia to pressure the Kremlin into ending its aggression. However, he conditioned any U.S. action on Europe taking a more proactive role, a stance that reflects the complexities of transatlantic coordination. While European nations have imposed their own sanctions on Russia, including restrictions on energy imports and financial transactions, achieving consensus across the 27-member European Union has proven challenging. Political divisions, economic dependencies, and bureaucratic hurdles have slowed the implementation of more robust measures, such as a complete embargo on Russian energy or the seizure of frozen Russian assets.
Trump’s call for European leadership also underscores the broader debate over burden-sharing within the Western alliance. The United States has shouldered a significant portion of the military and financial aid to Ukraine, prompting some U.S. policymakers to argue that European nations, particularly those geographically closer to the conflict, should contribute more. Countries like Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have increased their support for Ukraine, but domestic political pressures, including rising energy costs and populist movements, have complicated their efforts. Zelensky’s speech, while focused on the U.N.’s failures, indirectly reinforced the need for stronger multilateral cooperation, as no single nation can bear the burden of supporting Ukraine alone.
The Broader Context of Ukraine’s Struggle
Zelensky’s address must be understood within the broader context of Ukraine’s ongoing war effort. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has faced immense challenges, including devastating attacks on its civilian infrastructure, widespread displacement, and economic turmoil. Despite these hardships, Ukrainian forces have achieved remarkable successes, including the liberation of significant territories in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions and the sinking of Russian naval assets in the Black Sea. However, the war remains far from over, with Russian forces continuing to occupy roughly 18% of Ukraine’s territory and launching regular missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities.
The conflict has also had profound global repercussions. The disruption of Ukraine’s grain exports, once a cornerstone of global food security, has contributed to food shortages and price spikes in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Russia’s weaponization of energy supplies, particularly its restrictions on natural gas exports to Europe, has exacerbated global energy crises, driving inflation and economic instability. These ripple effects have underscored the interconnectedness of modern conflicts, where the consequences of war extend far beyond the battlefield.
Zelensky’s critique of the U.N. also reflects the broader disillusionment with international institutions that has grown in recent years. The U.N.’s inability to address conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and now Ukraine has fueled calls for reform, with proposals ranging from expanding the Security Council to abolishing the veto power of permanent members. However, such reforms face significant obstacles, as they require the consent of the very powers that benefit from the current system. For Ukraine, this structural impasse has meant relying on ad hoc coalitions, such as the U.S.-led Ramstein group, to coordinate military and humanitarian support.
Zelensky’s Call for Action
In his speech, Zelensky did not limit himself to criticism; he also issued a call to action, urging the international community to move beyond rhetoric and take concrete steps to support Ukraine. He emphasized the need for increased military aid, including long-range weapons and air defense systems, to counter Russia’s relentless assaults. He also reiterated his call for a “victory plan,” a strategic framework he has been developing to secure Ukraine’s position in potential negotiations with Russia. While Zelensky has consistently rejected territorial concessions, he has expressed openness to diplomatic solutions that preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty and security.
The Ukrainian leader also highlighted the importance of accountability for war crimes, calling for international tribunals to prosecute Russian officials and military personnel responsible for atrocities in places like Bucha, Mariupol, and Izium. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has already issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and other senior officials, but the lack of enforcement mechanisms has limited their impact. Zelensky’s push for justice reflects the broader struggle of war-torn nations to secure accountability in an international system where powerful actors often evade consequences.
Global Reactions and the Path Forward
Zelensky’s speech elicited a range of reactions from world leaders and diplomats at the U.N. General Assembly. Representatives from NATO countries, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, expressed solidarity with Ukraine and reaffirmed their commitment to providing military and humanitarian aid. However, some leaders from the Global South, while sympathetic to Ukraine’s plight, emphasized the need for diplomatic solutions to avoid further escalation. Countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa have maintained neutral stances, advocating for dialogue while avoiding direct criticism of Russia due to economic and historical ties.
The Russian delegation, predictably, dismissed Zelensky’s remarks as “propaganda” and accused him of exploiting the U.N. platform to advance Ukraine’s agenda. Russia’s ambassador to the U.N., Vassily Nebenzia, reiterated Moscow’s narrative that the conflict was provoked by Western aggression and NATO’s eastward expansion. Such rhetoric has become a staple of Russia’s defense at the U.N., further highlighting the polarization that has paralyzed the organization.
Looking ahead, Zelensky’s speech is likely to intensify debates over the future of global governance. The U.N.’s relevance has been questioned not only by Ukraine but also by other nations frustrated with its inability to address pressing challenges, from climate change to nuclear proliferation. For Ukraine, the immediate priority remains securing the resources and support needed to continue its fight. Zelensky’s visit to the U.S. and his engagements with world leaders at the U.N. are part of a broader diplomatic offensive to maintain international focus on Ukraine, even as competing crises, such as tensions in the Middle East and economic instability, vie for attention.
Conclusion
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2025, was a powerful reminder of the limitations of international institutions in the face of modern warfare. His scathing critique of the U.N.’s weakness, coupled with his warning about a new arms race, underscored the urgent need for reform and action. As Ukraine continues its existential struggle against Russian aggression, Zelensky’s words serve as both a plea for support and a challenge to the global community to rethink how it addresses conflict and security. While his diplomatic efforts, including his recent engagement with President Trump, have yielded important victories, the path to peace remains fraught with challenges. The world now faces a critical juncture: will it heed Zelensky’s call to strengthen collective security, or will the failures of institutions like the U.N. continue to embolden aggressors? Only time will tell, but for Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher.
