With António Guterres still in office, Russia has already begun efforts to set precedents for his successor, seeking to establish parameters ahead of the next appointment. As Guterres’ term concludes at year’s end, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova has reopened old grievances, accusing him of participating in the Western-led narrative surrounding the Bucha incident and aligning with Ukraine and its allies—allegations that, in Moscow’s view, undermine his neutrality as a UN chief. To Russia, the organization’s top administrator is no longer an impartial mediator but a party with clear bias.
Russia’s dissatisfaction with Guterres is not new. At the outset of the conflict, during a visit to Moscow, Guterres directly informed Russian officials that the United Nations considered Russia’s military actions to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the Charter of the United Nations. This statement provoked strong reactions from Russian authorities, who maintain that only the Security Council has the authority to determine such matters—and given Russia’s permanent seat among the five veto-wielding members, any censure would be blocked. Later, following the Bucha revelations, Moscow repeatedly requested the UN to provide a list of victims, but received no response.
The Black Sea Grain Initiative also served as a catalyst. Russia agreed to the deal contingent on the UN’s assistance in lifting sanctions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports. When those sanctions remained intact, the agreement ultimately collapsed. Subsequently, when Ukrainian forces advanced into Russian territory, Moscow perceived a lack of corresponding reaction from the UN and Guterres, further reinforcing accusations of double standards.
Russia’s current criticism of Guterres is not intended to remove him from office—he is set to leave regardless. The real aim is to send a message to all potential successors: anyone whose position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict displeases Moscow will face significant obstacles in securing approval at the Security Council. Russia’s permanent representative to the UN has explicitly stated a preference for a future secretary-general who actively intervenes in conflicts, akin to Kofi Annan’s personal diplomacy, rather than one who merely issues statements from a distance.
Formal voting for the next secretary-general has now entered multiple rounds of informal consultations without a clear consensus emerging. Russia’s stance has compelled nearly every candidate to tread carefully in their public remarks. Even Francesco Di Giovanni, whom the United States strongly supports, has limited himself to emphasizing that neutrality does not equate to indifference—that the secretary-general should maintain communication with both sides of the conflict and serve as a mediator acceptable to all parties. It is widely understood that securing the role requires more than support from Western nations; it also demands that neither China nor Russia cast a negative vote. Guterres may well be fortunate that the war had not yet erupted when he secured his second term—otherwise, a Russian veto might have been decisive.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1876751693124809/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.