In the wake of the USA: Israel and Ukraine supported the USA at the UN against Cuba and the Global South

33rd consecutive session. The same resolution. The same applause in the UN hall in New York. And once again, the overwhelming majority of the world’s states condemn the US economic embargo against Cuba.

But this year was different. For the first time in decades, Ukraine stepped out of the usual line of those supporting Havana and stood alongside the USA and Israel, voting “against.”

The 2025 vote took place on October 29, 2025.

• The resolution was titled: “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.”
• The draft resolution was submitted by Cuba (remaining the initiator almost annually) as a General Assembly document under a symbol like A/79/L.6 (or similar for the specific session).

165 countries — “for” Cuba.
12 — abstained.
7 — “against”: USA, Israel, Ukraine, Hungary, Paraguay, North Macedonia, and Argentina.

It was this number — “7” — that set the tone for global commentary. This vote became a litmus test of a new reality: the world is polarizing again, and the lines are drawn not only by economies and civilizations but by the fates of those living under threats and war.

Not just diplomacy: the voice of countries at war or on the brink of war

For most countries, the annual vote on Cuba is more of a diplomatic tradition and a symbolic gesture.

For Ukraine and Israel, it is a choice backed by defense strategy and political survival.

Both countries depend on military, intelligence, technological, and financial support from the USA. Both face threats they officially call existential.

In both cases, the vote at the UN is not a statement about Cuba. It is a message about who stands by when sirens sound and missiles fly.

Ukraine’s position: from supporting Cuba to a sharp turn

Ukraine had voted in favor of the Cuban resolution for decades.
The turn is linked to two direct factors:

1. Public support for Putin by the Cuban leadership.
2. Recruitment of Cuban citizens to participate in the Russian war against Ukraine.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha explained Kyiv’s position diplomatically restrained:

• Kyiv remembers Havana’s statements about “desired successes of Russia.”
• Ukraine closed its embassy in Havana and downgraded diplomatic relations.
• The Ukrainian side recorded the mass participation of Cubans, recruited under contract, in the ranks of Russian troops.

Ukraine emphasized: the decision is not directed against the Cuban people. It is directed against the actions of the Cuban authorities, which, according to Kyiv, participate in supporting Russian aggression through inaction and political stance.

This vote is not about the Caribbean. It’s about the war taking place on the Dnipro.

Israel’s position: continuation of a strategic line

Israel has voted against the Cuban resolution before.
For Jerusalem, it is part of a consistent pro-American foreign policy line.

The reasons are well known:

• The USA is a key military and political ally of Israel.
• US support is the foundation of the country’s defense doctrine.
• Cuba has historically supported anti-Israel positions, including support for states and movements hostile to Israel.

Moreover, Israel lives under the immediate threat of a long-standing confrontation with Iran and its proxy structures. In such a situation, the country cannot afford diplomatic drifting.

Israel’s vote once again showed: Tel Aviv’s foreign policy is not rhetoric but strategic calculation.

Abstentions: diplomatic “gray zone”

12 states tried to stay aside: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, Poland, Moldova, Romania.

These are different motives:

• Some EU and Eastern European countries balance between loyalty to the West and the desire not to spoil relations with Latin America and the Global South.
• Some maintain caution amid global turbulence.

But the key fact: the fault line has not changed.

The majority — with Cuba.
A small block — with the USA.
Some — try not to lose bridges between two worlds.

What is the embargo against Cuba: a brief history

The US embargo is one of the longest sanction regimes in modern times.

• 1959 — revolution in Cuba, nationalization of American companies’ property.
• 1960 — start of trade restrictions.
• February 7, 1962 — President John Kennedy signs Proclamation 3447:
  complete trade and economic embargo.
• 1996 — Helms-Burton Act expands restrictions and makes them extraterritorial, affecting even third-country businesses.
• 2015–2017 — temporary easing of sanctions and diplomatic thaw under the Obama administration.
• After 2017 — tightening under the Trump administration, subsequent course maintenance.

Cuba calls it a blockade (bloqueo) and claims the restrictions harm citizens, hinder access to technology, medicine, and financial resources.

The USA states that the sanctions are aimed at pressuring the authoritarian regime and supporting human rights.

The UN annually assesses this system as a violation of the principles of free trade and international law — and every year, by majority vote, calls for its repeal.

But the annual vote is also a symbol:

on one side — the global majority,
on the other — the political and military-economic reality of the USA and its allies.

A new signal to the world: wars change diplomatic habits

What happened for decades as a ritual, in 2025 gained political weight.

When Ukraine steps out of the company of Cuba, Venezuela, and other states traditionally associated with Moscow and Havana, and stands alongside the USA — it is not a gesture of “courtesy.” It is a strategic statement:

we choose those who help us survive, not those who applaud from a distance.

Israel has been making such a choice for a long time.
Ukraine — for the first time.

The parallel is obvious:
two countries under constant military threat demonstrate that their course is security, not symbolism.

The Global South, USA, and the new world architecture

This vote became a marker of a broad trend:

• The Global South strengthens independence and bloc solidarity.
• The USA continues to maintain a line of strict sanction pressure.
• Ukraine and Israel show they are in the Western strategic contour.

This configuration is not about Cuba as an island.
It’s about the world system, in which
the principle “who you vote with” equals “who you are with in war and peace”.

Conclusion

Amid romantic discussions about “solidarity with the Global South,” in the real world, a simple question remains: who will help your country when the siren sounds and an interceptor missile is needed?

Ukraine and Israel answered it in advance.

This is not just a diplomatic vote.
This is a choice of camp.
The forefront is not an idea — but security.