9

Media reports suggest that the UN Security Council accepted a US-Drafted resolution authorizing western-led international peacekeeping force in Gaza, Palestine:

Reuters (Nov 2025): The UN Security Council on Monday voted to adopt a U.S.-drafted resolution endorsing President Donald Trump's plan to end the war in Gaza and authorizing an international stabilization force for the Palestinian enclave ... The text of the resolution says member states can take part in the Trump-chaired Board of Peace envisioned as a transitional authority that would oversee reconstruction and economic recovery of Gaza. It also authorizes the international stabilization force, which would ensure a process of demilitarizing Gaza, including by decommissioning weapons and destroying military infrastructure.

... Russia, which holds a veto on the Security Council, earlier signaled potential opposition to the resolution but abstained from the vote, allowing the resolution to pass.

Note that a somewhat similar proposal was also advocated for the ongoing Russian - Ukrainian war, where in a western dominated force (mostly from NATO / EU countries) would act as peacekeepers between Russia and Ukraine after the cessation of hostilities between them. Russia had outright rejected this proposal saying that it would only consider UN international peacekeepers under the aegis of the UNSC, and not NATO or EU.

Has the Putin administration, any Russian politician or government official clarified why Russia chose to abstain rather than veto this proposal?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
16

Russia's official position is as follows: https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2060230/
(Reduced to core points for brevity - see link for full version)

Resolution 2803, as adopted, does not grant the Security Council the requisite prerogatives to maintain peace and security. It contradicts the spirit of genuine peacekeeping and universally recognised international legal decisions, which envisage the creation of an independent and territorially contiguous State of Palestine within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, coexisting peacefully and securely with Israel.

Russia abstained in the voting, taking into account the stance of the PNA leadership, the position of concerned Arab and Muslim countries in support of the American document, and to avoid a recurrence of violence and military actions in Gaza.

In short, "a bad peace is better than a good war".

The real reasons for abstaining are always the same: you don't want to anger either side of the debate. Russia supports the two-state solution and wouldn't want to go on record voting in favor of anything else. But they have explicitly berated the US for vetoing "bad peace" resolutions before:

It bears reminding that the war and the suffering of civilians in the enclave could have been halted long ago had Washington not consistently – six times in the past two years – used its veto to block draft resolutions demanding an immediate ceasefire.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.