In a powerful and sobering address to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered a stark message about the fragility of international law and the global order. Speaking to a gathering of world leaders, diplomats, and representatives from across the globe, Zelenskyy underscored a grim reality: international law, despite its lofty principles, is rendered ineffective without the backing of powerful allies and, crucially, military might. His remarks, reported by TRT World, came amid ongoing global conflicts and a growing sense of disillusionment with the mechanisms designed to maintain peace and stability.
“You know very well that international law doesn’t work unless you have powerful friends who will stand with you,” Zelenskyy declared, his voice carrying the weight of a leader whose nation has been embroiled in a brutal war with Russia for over three years. “Even that doesn’t work without weapons.”
Zelenskyy’s speech was a clarion call to the international community, urging a reevaluation of the global security architecture. His remarks highlighted the limitations of institutions like the United Nations, which, while founded on ideals of cooperation and diplomacy, often struggle to enforce their mandates in the face of aggression from powerful states. The Ukrainian president’s address was not merely a critique but a reflection of his nation’s lived experience, as Ukraine continues to fight for its survival against a larger and better-armed adversary.
The Primacy of Military Power in a Fractured World
Central to Zelenskyy’s speech was the assertion that military strength, rather than international law or diplomatic cooperation, is the ultimate determinant of a nation’s survival in times of crisis. “If a nation wants peace, it must take care of weapons,” he stated emphatically. “Not international law and cooperation, but precisely weapons decide who survives.”
This statement, delivered with unflinching candor, reflects the harsh lessons Ukraine has learned since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022. Despite widespread international condemnation of Russia’s actions, including sanctions, resolutions, and statements of support from the UN and other bodies, Ukraine’s survival has hinged on its ability to secure military aid from allies, particularly the United States, NATO member states, and other Western partners. From Javelin anti-tank missiles to HIMARS rocket systems and, more recently, advanced fighter jets, these weapons have been critical in enabling Ukraine to resist Russian advances.
Zelenskyy’s emphasis on armament over diplomacy is not a dismissal of international law but a recognition of its limitations in the face of existential threats. International law, as enshrined in documents like the UN Charter, is intended to provide a framework for resolving disputes peacefully and upholding sovereignty. However, as Zelenskyy pointed out, the enforcement of these principles often depends on the willingness of powerful nations to act. Without such support, smaller or less powerful states are left vulnerable to aggression.
The Ukrainian president’s remarks resonate beyond the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In a world marked by rising geopolitical tensions, from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific, the ability to project military power remains a critical factor in national security. Countries like Taiwan, facing increasing pressure from China, or nations in the Sahel region grappling with insurgencies, are acutely aware of the need for robust defense capabilities. Zelenskyy’s message serves as a reminder that, in the absence of a global enforcer, states must rely on their own resources and alliances to deter aggression.
A Critique of International Institutions
Zelenskyy did not shy away from criticizing the effectiveness of international institutions, particularly the United Nations. “Because international institutions are weak, this madness continues,” he said, referring to the ongoing conflicts and crises that plague the world. His critique was not limited to the UN but extended to the broader global system, which he argued has failed to deliver meaningful solutions to those suffering from war and oppression.
The UN, established in 1945 to prevent another global conflict like World War II, has long been a symbol of international cooperation. However, its ability to address modern conflicts has been hampered by structural limitations, particularly the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council— the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. Russia’s veto power, for instance, has repeatedly blocked UN efforts to address its aggression in Ukraine, rendering the Security Council ineffective in this case.
Zelenskyy highlighted the UN’s tendency to issue statements rather than take decisive action. “What will Sudan, Somalia, or Palestinians living through war expect from the UN and the global system—for years just statements,” he remarked. His words underscored a growing frustration among nations facing protracted conflicts, where diplomatic pronouncements often fail to translate into tangible support or resolution.
The Ukrainian leader also pointed to the case of Syria, a nation devastated by over a decade of civil war and international involvement. Despite recent political changes in Syria, including the fall of the Assad regime in late 2024, the country continues to grapple with the economic strangulation caused by international sanctions. “Even now, Syria, after all changes, has to appeal to ease sanctions that are choking its economy. It has to ask and wait,” Zelenskyy said. This example illustrates the bureaucratic inertia and political complexities that often hinder effective international responses to crises.
Zelenskyy’s critique is not new but reflects a long-standing debate about the UN’s role in a multipolar world. Critics argue that the organization’s structure, rooted in the post-World War II era, is ill-equipped to address the complexities of modern conflicts, which often involve non-state actors, hybrid warfare, and competing geopolitical agendas. Reform of the UN, particularly the Security Council, has been a topic of discussion for decades, but progress has been slow due to resistance from powerful states.
The Expanding Threat of Russia’s War
Zelenskyy also used his platform to warn that Russia’s aggression is no longer confined to Ukraine but is spilling over into neighboring countries, threatening regional and global stability. “Russia’s war is expanding beyond Ukraine,” he stated, citing incidents involving Russian drones entering the airspace of Poland and Moldova. These violations, while not necessarily deliberate attacks, underscore the broader implications of the conflict and the potential for escalation.
Poland, a NATO member, has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine, providing military aid, hosting refugees, and serving as a logistical hub for Western assistance. The presence of Russian drones in Polish airspace raises concerns about the risk of miscalculation, which could draw NATO into direct confrontation with Russia. Similarly, Moldova, a non-NATO country with a pro-Western government, faces increasing pressure from Russian-backed separatists in its Transnistria region, as well as economic and political challenges exacerbated by the war.
Zelenskyy’s warning about the expanding scope of the conflict highlights the interconnected nature of global security. The war in Ukraine, while geographically concentrated, has far-reaching consequences, from energy crises in Europe to food insecurity in Africa and the Middle East. Russia’s actions, including its weaponization of energy supplies and grain exports, have amplified these challenges, underscoring the need for a coordinated international response.
The Broader Context: A World in Crisis
To fully understand the weight of Zelenskyy’s remarks, it is essential to place them within the broader context of global instability in 2025. The world is grappling with multiple crises, from ongoing wars to climate change, economic inequality, and the resurgence of authoritarianism. Zelenskyy’s speech reflects a growing sense of urgency among leaders of smaller or less powerful nations, who feel abandoned by a global system that prioritizes the interests of major powers.
In Sudan, a civil war between rival military factions has displaced millions and triggered a humanitarian catastrophe, yet international attention remains limited. In Somalia, ongoing conflict with al-Shabaab and recurring droughts have left the country on the brink of collapse, with little progress toward stability. The Palestinian territories, meanwhile, continue to endure the devastating effects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with civilians bearing the brunt of violence and economic hardship.
Zelenskyy’s reference to these regions was not merely rhetorical but a call to action. By highlighting the plight of nations like Sudan, Somalia, and Syria, he sought to draw parallels with Ukraine’s struggle, emphasizing that the failure of international institutions to address these crises undermines global stability. His remarks also reflect a broader trend of disillusionment with multilateralism, as countries increasingly turn to regional alliances or unilateral action to address their security needs.
The Role of Powerful Friends
Zelenskyy’s emphasis on the importance of “powerful friends” speaks to the reality of international relations, where alliances often determine a nation’s ability to navigate crises. For Ukraine, the support of the United States, European Union, and NATO has been critical in sustaining its resistance against Russia. However, this support has not come without challenges, including delays in aid deliveries, political debates in donor countries, and concerns about “Ukraine fatigue” among Western publics.
The reliance on powerful allies also raises questions about sovereignty and dependency. While Ukraine has benefited from Western military and financial aid, it has also had to navigate the political and strategic priorities of its partners. For instance, the United States and European countries have been cautious about providing certain advanced weapons systems, such as long-range missiles, due to fears of escalation with Russia. This dynamic underscores Zelenskyy’s point that even with powerful friends, a nation’s survival depends on its own military capabilities.
The concept of “powerful friends” also extends to the broader geopolitical landscape. In the Middle East, for example, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have leveraged their alliances with the United States to bolster their security and influence. In contrast, nations with fewer allies, such as Yemen or Syria, have struggled to secure meaningful international support, leaving them vulnerable to prolonged conflict and instability.
The Path Forward: Reimagining Global Security
Zelenskyy’s address was not merely a critique but a call for a reimagining of global security. While he did not propose specific reforms, his remarks suggest a need for a more effective and equitable international system—one that can respond swiftly and decisively to aggression, regardless of the perpetrator’s status. This could involve strengthening regional alliances, reforming the UN Security Council, or creating new mechanisms for conflict resolution and enforcement.
One potential avenue for reform is the expansion of the UN Security Council to include more diverse representation, such as permanent seats for countries from Africa, Latin America, or South Asia. Such a change could address the perception that the UN is dominated by a handful of powerful states, making it more responsive to the needs of smaller nations. However, any reform effort would face significant hurdles, as current permanent members are unlikely to relinquish their veto power.
Another approach is the strengthening of regional organizations, such as the African Union or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which can play a more active role in addressing local conflicts. These organizations, while not without their own limitations, may be better positioned to respond to regional challenges without the bureaucratic constraints of the UN.
For Ukraine, the path forward involves continuing to build its military capabilities while deepening its partnerships with Western allies. Zelenskyy’s government has already taken steps to modernize its armed forces, including investments in domestic weapons production and the integration of advanced Western technologies. At the same time, Ukraine must navigate the delicate balance of maintaining its sovereignty while relying on external support.
The Human Cost of Inaction
At the heart of Zelenskyy’s speech was a reminder of the human cost of international inaction. The war in Ukraine has claimed tens of thousands of lives, displaced millions, and devastated entire cities. The suffering of Ukrainian civilians, from the besieged residents of Mariupol to the families displaced by Russian missile strikes, serves as a stark illustration of what happens when aggression goes unchecked.
This human toll is not unique to Ukraine. In Sudan, over 10 million people have been displaced by the ongoing civil war, with thousands killed and millions facing starvation. In Somalia, decades of conflict and environmental crises have left the population in a perpetual state of vulnerability. In the Palestinian territories, civilians continue to endure the consequences of a conflict with no clear resolution in sight.
Zelenskyy’s reference to these crises was a plea for the international community to move beyond statements and take meaningful action. Whether through increased humanitarian aid, stronger sanctions against aggressors, or more robust peacekeeping efforts, the global community has a responsibility to address the suffering caused by conflict and instability.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s address to the United Nations General Assembly was a powerful indictment of the current state of international law and global governance. By emphasizing the primacy of military power and the importance of powerful allies, he highlighted the harsh realities of a world where might often trumps right. His critique of international institutions, particularly the UN, underscored the need for reform to ensure that the global system can effectively address modern challenges.
As the war in Ukraine continues to reshape the geopolitical landscape, Zelenskyy’s words serve as a wake-up call for world leaders. The expansion of Russia’s aggression, the suffering of nations like Sudan and Syria, and the limitations of the current international order demand a renewed commitment to collective security and justice. While weapons and alliances may be necessary for survival in the short term, the long-term goal must be a world where international law is not just an ideal but a reality backed by action.
Zelenskyy’s speech, delivered with the urgency of a leader on the frontlines of conflict, challenges the international community to confront its shortcomings and work toward a more just and secure future. Whether the world will heed his call remains to be seen, but his message is clear: in a world of competing powers and persistent threats, survival depends on strength, solidarity, and the courage to act.
