“Key Russian initiative,” “global majority,” “broad international support” — these expressions were used by the Russian Foreign Ministry on November 11, 2026, to describe the results of the vote in New York. The day before, on November 10, the Third Committee of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly approved a resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism, which Moscow has been promoting year after year. The document was supported by 117 countries, opposed by 53, and nine abstained. At first glance, the diplomatic triumph seemed convincing.
Author — Elena Gunko, NANews. November 13, 2026.
However, the decision that Russian diplomacy is proud of contains a provision that directly condemns Russia’s use of the fight against neo-Nazism to justify territorial aggression against Ukraine. This provision was included despite Moscow’s objections. The Russian delegation then voted for the amended resolution but specifically announced that it refused to support its fourth point. This sequence of events is not explained in the Foreign Ministry’s laudatory message.
Foreign Ministry Triumph: Nuremberg, 45 Co-authors, and “Global Majority”
The Director of the Department of Multilateral Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Grigory Lukyantsev, reported that the initiative was supported by 45 co-author states from various regions of the world. The publication mentions countering the falsification of history, revising the outcomes of World War II, and whitewashing Nazi criminals and their accomplices. The destruction of monuments to fighters against Nazism and attempts to ban the symbols of the “Great Victory” are separately mentioned. The result of 117–53–9 was presented by the diplomat as recognition of Russia’s position by the “global majority.”
An anniversary background was also chosen. In 2026, it marks 80 years since the verdict of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, delivered on October 1, 1946, and 25 years since the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action against Racism, adopted in 2001. The Foreign Ministry listed anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Christianophobia, Afrophobia, Arabophobia, and Russophobia, declaring the rejection of ideologies of racial, national, or religious superiority. Western countries were accused of attempting to replace the discussion of Nazism with political accusations against Russia.
The real picture posted by the Russian embassy in Israel – here it is https://t.me/RussiaInIsrael/7189
In another message, the Foreign Ministry separately reproached Germany, Italy, and Japan, the former Axis powers, for voting against the resolution — their role in World War II was turned into an argument in modern diplomatic polemics.
The very subject of the document cannot be declared a fiction: neo-Nazi symbolism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and the justification of Nazi crimes indeed require counteraction. The project presented by Moscow condemned the glorification of the Nazi past, manifestations of racism, and the use of digital technologies to spread hatred. The dispute arose not over the right of Nazis to rehabilitation, but over whether such an initiative can be separated from the war, which its author justifies with the word “denazification.”
Russia has been promoting resolutions on this topic since 2005, but after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the diplomatic context has changed.
The amendment Moscow did not want to see
Before the final vote, the United Kingdom presented amendment A/C.3/81/L.44 on behalf of eight countries: the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Albania, Australia, Japan, Liechtenstein, the Marshall Islands, and Norway. Its meaning is specific: to record concern that Russia has attempted to justify territorial aggression against Ukraine with the alleged necessity of eradicating neo-Nazism. Such use of the fight against neo-Nazism as a pretext, the amendment emphasizes, undermines real efforts to counter this ideology. The wording was based on the conclusions of the former UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, Tendayi Achiume; a similar point was included in resolutions of previous years, starting from 2022.
The British delegation also referred to Russia’s letter to the UN Secretary-General from June 2026 as another example of using the previous justification for war.
The amendment was supported by 64 countries, opposed by 44, and 55 abstained. The Russian delegation called it politicized and sought its rejection; Belarus, Cuba, and China also criticized the inclusion of a specific country mention. But the amendment passed, becoming operational point 4. After this, the already amended, not the original Russian project A/C.3/81/L.2, was put to a vote.
The result of the second vote was the one celebrated by the Foreign Ministry: 117 “for,” 53 “against,” 9 abstained; another 14 countries did not participate in the vote.
Russia voted “for,” and then its representative officially distanced from point 4. It is important to distinguish between legal procedure and diplomatic statement: Russian disagreement did not remove the point from the approved text. Similar distancing was declared, in particular, by Belarus, China, Cuba, Egypt, Sudan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Eritrea, and Burkina Faso. This also shows why 117 votes cannot be mechanically recorded as support for every line of the adopted document.
The Third Committee deals with social, humanitarian, and human rights issues.
Its decision on November 10 is approval of the project at the committee level, not the final resolution of the plenary session of the entire General Assembly; subsequent consideration must take place separately. Even General Assembly resolutions of this type usually do not create new binding legal norms. Therefore, the Foreign Ministry’s definition of “international legal instrument” should not be confused with a court decision, sanction mechanism, or recognition of the legitimacy of Russian actions.
193 countries on the scoreboard: majority for the text, Western democracies against
On the published UN voting scoreboard, green marks indicate votes “for,” red — “against,” yellow — abstained; the absence of a mark means the state did not vote.
NANews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency compared four categories: 117, 53, 9, and 14 countries respectively. Among those who supported the document were Israel, Russia, China, Belarus, North Korea, India, Brazil, Argentina, Serbia, UAE, and a significant part of the countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Meanwhile, Venezuela was among the 45 co-authors of the initiative but did not participate in the recorded final vote.
For — 117: Azerbaijan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bahrain, Belarus, Belize, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Bhutan, Vanuatu, East Timor, Vietnam, Gabon, Haiti, Guyana, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Grenada, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Israel, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Yemen, North Korea, Cape Verde, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Cameroon, Qatar, Kenya, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Ivory Coast, Cuba, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritius, Mauritania, Malaysia, Mali, Maldives, Mexico, Mozambique, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Nicaragua, UAE, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Serbia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Uruguay, Federated States of Micronesia, Philippines, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Africa, South Sudan, Jamaica.
Against — 53: Australia, Austria, Albania, Andorra, Belgium, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, United Kingdom, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Georgia, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Italy, Canada, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, USA, San Marino, North Macedonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Finland, France, Croatia, Montenegro, Czech Republic, Sweden, Estonia, Japan.
Abstained — 9: Bahamas, Madagascar, Malawi, Myanmar, Panama, Samoa, Turkey, Fiji, Switzerland.
Did not vote — 14: Afghanistan, Benin, Bolivia, Venezuela, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Iraq, Iran, Kiribati, Morocco, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Syria, Eswatini.
The USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, almost the entire European democratic group, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand opposed. In particular, Hungary and Slovakia, whose relations with Moscow often differ from the policies of other EU countries, voted against. But the expression “all civilized countries against” would be factually incorrect: among those who voted “for” are democratic Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Costa Rica. Voting on a thematic resolution is not a universal test of a state’s democracy or its attitude towards war.
Israel said “for,” but made a principled reservation
The Israeli representative, after the vote, reminded of the Holocaust, the rise of anti-Semitism, threats to Jewish communities, and terrorist attacks on October 7.
He urged states to use the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism — the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, explicitly calling this tool legally non-binding. It was the fight against anti-Semitism and the glorification of Nazism that the representative explained Israel’s vote “for.” At the same time, it was clarified: support for the resolution should not be seen as legitimizing inappropriate comparisons of Nazi ideology or the Holocaust with the ongoing war in Ukraine. Israel rejected the political exploitation of the memory of Holocaust victims.
Israel did not state that it supports Russian aggression or its justification.
But it also did not join the 53 countries that rejected the final project.
For the Israeli reader, this distinction is especially important: the diplomatic vote is recorded on the scoreboard with one mark, while the reservation reveals the state’s position only in the transcript. Voting alongside Russia, China, Belarus, and North Korea does not make the listed governments a single alliance; however, the explanation of the Israeli delegation cannot simply be removed from the analysis, leaving only one green square.
The shared history of Jews in Ukraine and Israel gives this dispute specific faces. NANews told about Anatoly Shapiro, a Jewish officer of the Red Army from Ukraine, who participated in the liberation of Auschwitz, and about Yaroslava Levitskaya, a Ukrainian Righteous Among the Nations, who lived in Haifa. January 27, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, is the UN-established International Holocaust Remembrance Day; Israel also has its own Yom HaShoah, observed according to the Jewish calendar. The memory of the exterminated Jews and those who saved them belongs not to the diplomatic department but to the history of families, cities, and communities.
Ukraine, USA, and Europe: one voice “against,” different grounds
The Ukrainian delegation explained that it rejects Nazism, neo-Nazism, and anti-Semitism, but considers the Russian initiative a means of justifying the invasion.
In its speech, it linked the term “denazification” with the denial of Ukrainian national identity, the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians, as well as forced displacement and ideological indoctrination of children. At the same time, the Ukrainian representative reminded of the millions of residents of Ukraine who died in World War II. Ukraine supported the amendment but opposed the project even in its amended form.
The United States cited another additional motive: the provisions of the resolution, according to the American representative, allow for excessive restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, including through criminal punishment for statements.
The American position was that anti-Semitism and racist violence must be countered without turning the fight against hatred into a tool of censorship. The European Union, represented by Ireland, emphasized Russia’s attempts to use the UN platform to justify aggression and Moscow’s refusal to fully discuss the text. Japan also opposed substituting anti-Nazi work with the justification of territorial seizures.
Eight northern and Baltic states explained their “against” with the history of Soviet occupation of the Baltic countries. The Swedish representative reminded that calls to fight “Nazism” have already been used as a propagandist explanation for violence and loss of independence. For these countries, the problem is not in condemning Nazi crimes, but in the possibility of reapplying familiar historical language to justify a new war. Australia separately criticized the lack of open consultations on the Russian project after 2021.
Not all supporters of the document share Kremlin’s policy. Mexico, for example, abstained in the vote on the amendment and supported the final resolution, although its representative directly condemned Russia’s use of force in violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. China, on the other hand, openly rejected the inclusion of a country-specific point, and other supporting countries believed that a thematic document should not mention a specific conflict. Iran did not participate in the final vote, Turkey and Switzerland abstained. Such a set of positions does not fit into a simple picture of “117 allies of Russia against 53 opponents of Nazism.”
The war makes the historical dispute far from academic. NANews reported on the Russian strike on an underground gymnasium in Kamyshevakh, where civilians received humanitarian aid, as well as on the work of the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center under ongoing aggression. Another example of direct connection between countries is the meeting of the new Israeli ambassador Roi Rozenblit with Rabbi Moshe Reuven Asman in Kyiv, where they discussed assistance to Jewish communities during shelling and power outages. Here, historical memory, humanitarian work, and the current consequences of the war connect without diplomatic slogans.
What really happened — and what the vote did not prove
Two results on November 10 cannot be substituted by one.
First, 64 delegations achieved the inclusion of a provision condemning Russia; then 117 countries voted for the entire text, already containing this provision. Some participants supported the final resolution for its anti-racist content but rejected the point on Ukraine. Others, including Ukraine, the USA, and most Western democracies, decided that even the amended document remains politically and substantively problematic. Third parties, like Israel, supported it with their own public reservation.
The vote itself did not cancel Russian aggression, did not create a binding international court decision, and did not prove that the states voting “for” approve the invasion. The resolution also does not indicate that the countries voting “against” are tolerant of Nazism: their representatives explicitly condemned Nazi ideology and explained objections to this specific text. The next formal stage is the consideration of the project by the entire General Assembly. Until then, the numbers 117–53–9 reflect the committee’s decision, not the completed procedure of the General Assembly.
The Nuremberg verdict reminds not only of the responsibility of Nazi criminals. It is also associated with the principle that aggressive war cannot be justified by a political myth. In 2026, Russia preferred to highlight the fight against the distortion of the memory of World War II but did not explain to its audience why the document it called a victory included a point against using that very memory to justify the attack on Ukraine. This is the main fact that was missing in the Foreign Ministry’s triumphant message.
Documentary basis: statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry from November 11, transcript of the 41st meeting of the UN Third Committee from November 10, projects A/C.3/81/L.2 and A/C.3/81/L.44, scoreboard of the roll-call vote from November 10, 2026. The UN transcript is formed by automatic speech recognition, so the positions presented in the article are conveyed mainly as a retelling, rather than verbatim quotes.