America’s UN vote against Ukraine: Assessing the implications for British strategy
The Memorandum | No. 10.2025
On 24th February 2025, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted Resolution ES-11/10, condemning Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Although the resolution received support from 93 member states, it notably faced opposition from 18 countries, including the United States (US). This US departure signifies a strategic shift towards unilateral decision making, indicating caution towards multilateral resolutions, absent clear strategic gains or reciprocal advantage for America. Does the apparent strategic ambiguity posed by the vote reflect a reconsideration of long-term American security commitments in Europe? As well as analysing the implications of this shift for the United Kingdom (UK), strategic policy responses can also be proposed to reposition Britain as a leader in European diplomacy and security.
Washington’s evolving position signals a desire to disrupt established UN narratives which may limit flexibility in future diplomatic negotiations or inadvertently create policy constraints.
Recent US foreign policy trends indicate an increased priority given to narrative control and strategic flexibility. The decision to oppose Resolution ES-11/10 demonstrates a US preference for bilateral or North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-centric frameworks over broader UN-based diplomacy in managing Russia’s war against Ukraine. US policy makers appear increasingly wary that multilateral resolutions constrain their diplomatic manoeuvrability, particularly in scenarios involving future negotiations or evolving security circumstances. This tactical unilateralism affords the US leverage, enabling conditional engagement based on changing strategic priorities while retaining narrative control over conflict resolution.
Additionally, the US exhibits heightened caution regarding international commitments which lack direct strategic advantages or risk constraining future policy options which would lead to reciprocation. US decision makers appear increasingly reluctant to endorse multilateral initiatives without explicit burden-sharing arrangements or guaranteed strategic dividends.
Washington’s evolving position signals a desire to disrupt established UN narratives which may limit flexibility in future diplomatic negotiations or inadvertently create policy constraints. This recalibration may stem from dissatisfaction with the perceived effectiveness of certain UN actors or frameworks, aiming to redefine the diplomatic parameters surrounding Ukraine. The US vote on Resolution ES-11/10 serves as a strategic prompt for European nations to assume increased responsibility for regional security. Consistent with recent American rhetoric emphasising enhanced European defence investment and regional leadership, this action implicitly pressures European partners to escalate their contributions to security and diplomatic efforts on the continent.
Given its position as a pivotal European power outside the European Union (EU), the UK may become increasingly central as a diplomatic and strategic intermediary between Washington and European capitals.
Britain’s consistent and robust support for Ukraine within both NATO and UN frameworks risks encountering diplomatic friction should the US continue diverging from multilateral consensus. Washington may leverage strong British and European backing for Ukraine as strategic cover to recalibrate its own commitments, thereby increasing expectations on the UK and other European allies to lead diplomatic initiatives.
A more selective US approach towards multilateralism places additional diplomatic burdens on Britain, potentially necessitating intensified efforts to mobilise international and European support. His Majesty’s (HM) Government may be increasingly required to demonstrate strategic value in alignment with Washington while safeguarding its independent diplomatic credibility.
Indeed, adjustments in US diplomatic rhetoric could pose challenges for British diplomacy, particularly in maintaining coherent international pressure on Russia. The UK may be compelled to adapt its diplomatic strategy, carefully balancing US shifts while reinforcing a unified narrative within multilateral settings.
Given its position as a pivotal European power outside the European Union (EU), the UK may become increasingly central as a diplomatic and strategic intermediary between Washington and European capitals. Should US commitments diminish, the UK will likely bear greater responsibility for sustaining cohesive Euro-Atlantic security frameworks and maintaining robust support for Ukraine.
To respond effectively to America’s shift regarding its European security priorities, HM Government should implement policies which focus on filling the gaps left in the European strategic outlook. Four major responses are possible:
1. Reaffirm the British commitment to the free and open international order
The UK should explicitly reaffirm its support for the free and open international order, ensuring that any divergence from US positions does not undermine unity within NATO or the Group of Seven (G7). Diplomatic engagement should prioritise maintaining strong UN support for Ukraine while seeking close coordination with Washington to align strategic priorities.
2. Promote multilateralism and strategic alignment
Britain should continue advocating robust multilateral engagement, underscoring the long-term strategic benefits of UN-backed legitimacy for international security. Proactive diplomatic dialogues with US counterparts should emphasise the critical importance of multilateralism in enhancing collective deterrence and international credibility. Enhanced engagement with key EU partners will further strengthen Europe’s strategic posture amid shifting US priorities.
3. Adapt to US diplomatic shifts while preserving core principles
HM Government should adeptly manage its diplomatic posture, accommodating evolving US perspectives while steadfastly advocating accountability for Russian aggression. Strengthening strategic coherence within NATO and the G7 will mitigate potential disruptions from shifting US rhetoric, thus preserving diplomatic unity.
4. Reinforce European security cooperation
The UK should intensify security coordination with important European allies, particularly France, Poland and Germany, to demonstrate Europe’s capacity for increased strategic responsibility. Reinforcing NATO’s European defence initiatives and maintaining consistent military and financial support for Ukraine will counteract perceptions of reduced transatlantic engagement.
Although the Trump administration has instigated a deliberate strategic recalibration of its foreign policy – emphasising disruption, flexibility, clearer burden-sharing and selective multilateral commitments – this presents significant challenges and strategic opportunities for the UK. These include preserving unity within important alliances amid shifting US priorities; sustaining multilateral diplomatic pressure on Russia and securing continued US alignment with European security interests; and strengthening UK leadership within European defence and diplomatic frameworks to counterbalance any potential gaps in US commitments. By adopting a proactive and balanced diplomatic strategy, the UK can reinforce international solidarity with Ukraine as well as consolidating its role as a key node in transatlantic and European security.
Sarah Vaughan is a final year undergraduate studying History, Politics and International Relations at Royal Holloway College, University of London
To stay up to date with Britain’s World, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about this Memorandum? Why not leave a comment below?
You do not seem to accept the nature of Trump's America. Trump is no more an appropriate partner for Great Britain than Putin. The situation you are facing can not be managed by deft diplomacy or triangulation. I hope that Britain returns to the EU quickly and forms a core, last bastion of democracy before the more aggressive powers divide and conquer you.
If Trump remains in NATO it will only be so that he can be a disruptive factor. I pray that he leaves completely ASAP so that Great Britain and others will face reality. If you are still imagining that you can retain a special relationship with America you are stuck in a sort of Stockholm syndrome.
BTW, Trump's rhetoric encouraging you to increase defense spending is tactical only. It is a cudgel to inflame resentment against Europe. He prefers that you remain weak.
America will take decades to return to being a relatively benevolent democracy. We're already past Poland's bout with autocracy.