Foreign Affairs: Russia uses UN veto leverage

Russia’s UN veto is not just a shield. It is a bargaining chip. That is the core of the Foreign Affairs argument published on May 7 — that Moscow has spent years attacking the “rules-based order” while still extracting power from the institutions inside it, especially the UN Security Council. The twist is that this strategy only really works if the United States keeps treating those institutions as worth preserving. If Washington starts acting the same way Russia does, the system gets weaker — and Russia can lose one of the tools it has learned to game. (foreignaffairs.com) ### What is the actual claim here? The piece is not saying Russia loves the UN in some principled way. Basically the opposite. The claim is that the Kremlin has long denounced Western-led rules while selectively using formal institutions when they help Moscow block, delay, or reshape outcomes. The Security Council veto is the cleanest example because(foreignaffairs.com). (foreignaffairs.com) ### Why does the veto matter so much? Because one “no” from a permanent member can paralyze the Council. That does not just kill a single resolution. It changes the whole diplomatic game. Other states start drafting texts with the veto-holder in mind, trimming language, dropping blame, or moving fights out of the Council entirely. Security Council Re(foreignaffairs.com)d Russia cast four of the eight vetoes on those failed drafts. (securitycouncilreport.org) ### How has Russia used that on Ukraine? A recent example came on February 24, 2025. Russia vetoed two European amendments to a U.S.-authored Security Council draft on Ukraine — one backing Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the other calling for a just and lasting peace in line with the UN Charte(securitycouncilreport.org) with five abstentions, and Moscow openly welcomed that outcome. (reliefweb.int) ### Why is that useful for Moscow? Because Russia does not need to win the whole argument to gain leverage. It just needs to stop language that hurts its position and push everyone toward vaguer wording. That turns the veto into a filter. The Co(reliefweb.int) they shape legitimacy and future diplomacy. (reliefweb.int) ### So why would a more unilateral U.S. hurt Russia? Turns out Russia’s tactic depends on asymmetry. Moscow benefits when it can violate norms while its rivals keep honoring the institutions that give those norms force. Notte’s argument is that (reliefweb.int)stopped taking seriously. (foreignaffairs.com) ### Doesn’t chaos still help the Kremlin? Sometimes, yes. A weaker West, fractured alliances, and a noisier international system can all help Russia in the short run. But the catch is that institutional decay cuts both ways. The same Foreign Affairs piece argues that Trump-style belligerence may erode U.S. standing while also diluting Russian influen(foreignaffairs.com)prestige and procedural power that come with being a veto-wielding permanent member. (foreignaffairs.com) ### Has anything changed at the UN itself? A little. Not enough to remove the veto, but enough to raise the political cost. Since April 2022, a General Assembly mechanism has required the Assembly to meet after a Security Council veto. That does not override Russia’s vote, but it does create a public follow-up forum and makes obstruction more visible(foreignaffairs.com)d to modify how veto use is handled. (securitycouncilreport.org) ### What is the bottom line? Russia’s veto power still matters. But its value comes from a system Russia mocks and still needs. That is the paradox here — Moscow has been strongest when it could break the rules while others kept the rulebook alive. (foreignaffairs.com)