Crossbench
ApprovedCurrentEvent
Title

Russia vetoes a Security Council resolution on its invasion of Ukraine

What happened?

The day after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the UN Security Council voted on a draft resolution demanding that Russia stop its attack and withdraw its forces.

Eleven of the fifteen members voted in favour, but Russia, a permanent member, used its veto. China, India and the United Arab Emirates abstained.

Relevant factual details

  • VerifiedVote held on 25 February 2022.
  • Verified11 in favour, 1 against (Russia) and 3 abstentions (China, India and the United Arab Emirates).
  • VerifiedThe draft would have required Russia to stop its attack immediately and withdraw all its troops from Ukraine.

Verified Confirmed against an original or authoritative source
Reported Taken from a secondary or reference source; to be confirmed against the original
Source to check Established knowledge, but the cited source has not yet been opened

Why is it politically significant?

A permanent member blocked action over its own use of force. The example illustrates the central structural weakness of the Security Council and the realist view that great powers pursue their interests regardless of international institutions.

Arguments and counterarguments

Which arguments does it support?

The UN Security Council is ineffective when great-power interests are at stake

Reasoning
The veto allows any permanent member to block action.
Evidence
Russia vetoed a resolution about its own invasion, despite 11 votes in favour.
How it supports the argument
The Council could not act on a major war between states because of a single veto.

Realism explains state behaviour better than liberalism

Reasoning
States put power and security ahead of institutional rules.
Evidence
A permanent member used its institutional privilege to protect its own military action.
How it supports the argument
The institution reflected the distribution of power rather than restraining it.

Which counterarguments exist?

A different conclusion

The vote still isolated Russia

Liberals argue that the vote showed most of the Council opposing Russia, while the abstentions of China, India and the UAE showed limited support for its position.

Other explanations

The wider UN system continued to act

When the Council is blocked, action can move to the General Assembly and humanitarian agencies, so the UN as a whole was not inactive.

Limits of the evidence

One veto does not define the Council

The Council continues to agree resolutions on many other issues, so one case should not be generalised.

Concepts and connections

Concepts it illustrates

No glossary concepts linked yet.

Sources and verification

Event25 February 2022
Added to bank4 November 2026
Last checked4 November 2026
Next check due4 May 2027
  1. 1
    Publisher UN NewsPublished 26 February 2022Type Official (UN)Checked 4 November 2026
    Opened

About this example

Is it still current?

Current

The facts and their significance still stand.

Why it is in the bank

The clearest recent case of the veto blocking action on a major conflict.

  • ✓Relevance to the specification
  • ✓Strength and reliability of the evidence
  • ✓Importance to a wider political debate
  • ✓Usefulness in evaluative essays
  • ✓Connections to other topics
  • ✓Sufficiently current
  • ✓Adds something new to the bank

Editorial status

Approved

Signed off for students.

Origin: AI draft (Claude) · Reviewer: Editor

Every fact on this page has been checked against original sources.