More than 51 countries in the UN (including Israel) called on Russia to agree to a ceasefire

On September 23, 2026, 51 UN member states issued a joint statement in support of Ukraine and called on Russia to agree to a complete, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire. The statement was made in New York during the UN General Assembly and against the backdrop of a separate Security Council meeting on Ukraine.

Author: Alexander Khmelnitsky

The essence of the document is not that Kyiv announced for the first time on September 23 its readiness to stop hostilities. Ukraine refers to the consent given back in March 2025, and the current statement shifts the next step to Moscow. Simultaneously, the signatories raised issues of civilian protection, the return of deported Ukrainians and children, prisoners of war, and the safety of shipping in the Black Sea.

What 51 states declared

The document emphasizes solidarity with Ukraine and the need to adhere to the principles of the UN Charter — sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of states, as well as their inalienable right to self-defense. It separately mentions “deep concern” over the escalation of Russian attacks on Ukraine’s civilian population and infrastructure: according to the UN assessment cited in the statement, recent months have brought a record high number of casualties.

“We call for full compliance with international humanitarian law, accountability, and the protection of civilians,” the document states. The signatories link the ceasefire not to a final peace treaty but to a transition to diplomacy and further negotiations.

The final formula of the statement is formulated without much diplomatic ambiguity: “Ukraine wants peace. We want peace. Russia must stop its aggression, agree to a ceasefire, and meaningfully join negotiations for a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in accordance with international law.”

The document was signed by most European countries, as well as Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Honduras, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Panama, and South Korea. However, the published summary of the statement does not contain a complete list of all 51 states, so it would be incorrect to reconstruct the remaining countries from earlier declarations.

Where the ceasefire formula came from

To understand the current statement, one has to go back to March 11, 2025, and the negotiations between the delegations of Ukraine and the USA in Jeddah. At that time, it was recorded in an official joint document that Ukraine was ready to accept the American proposal for an immediate temporary ceasefire for 30 days. This regime could be extended by mutual agreement, and it was supposed to come into force with Russia’s simultaneous consent.

Here lies a small but significant difference between the original formula and the current one. In Jeddah, they talked about a 30-day ceasefire as the first stage, whereas now Ukrainian diplomacy and the states supporting it use the wording “complete, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire.” Essentially, it is about one political line: first stop hostilities, then discuss more complex conditions for a possible peace settlement.

Kyiv continued to adhere to this scheme later. In June, Volodymyr Zelensky proposed a personal meeting with Putin and spoke about the need for a complete ceasefire during the further negotiation process. NAnovosti analyzed this episode separately in the article “I propose a meeting”: what Zelensky wrote to Putin.

Return civilians, children, and prisoners of war

A separate block of the statement is not related to where exactly the ceasefire line will pass. The states that signed the document demand that Russia immediately, safely, and unconditionally return to Ukraine all illegally detained, forcibly displaced, or deported civilians. Children are highlighted separately in the document, and along with them, it talks about the full return of prisoners of war and internees.

This is much broader than the usual formula for prisoner exchanges. It also concerns civilians who ended up in detention or were taken from occupied Ukrainian territories, so the humanitarian issue is practically a separate direction in the statement and is not tied to a future agreement on territories or security.

For Israel, there is a separate context here. Ukraine previously called on Israel to participate more actively in the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, and NAnovosti explained in detail what this initiative is and why Kyiv needs Israel’s participation in the article “It’s about children”: why Ukraine turned to Israel again. Later, Europol reported on an international operation during which new information about 45 Ukrainian children emerged — we wrote about this in the article on the Europol investigation.

Why the Black Sea appeared in the statement

Another noticeable block concerns Russian attacks in the Black Sea. The signatories believe that Moscow is trying to hinder Ukrainian grain exports, thereby creating a threat to global food security. They simultaneously supported efforts to reach agreements that should ensure freedom of navigation.

For Israel, this is not an abstract diplomatic formula. Ukrainian ships leave the ports of the Odessa region, pass through the Black Sea, the Bosphorus, and the Dardanelles, and then end up in the Mediterranean Sea. Ukraine remains one of the suppliers of agricultural products to the Israeli market, and problems with maritime logistics affect the cost of transportation, insurance, and alternative routes.

That is why for readers of NAnovosti — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency, this point has quite practical content. This does not mean that every strike on a Ukrainian port automatically changes the price of bread in Israel the next day, but the safety of the Black Sea route is directly related to supplies to the Eastern Mediterranean. We talked in detail about the routes of Ukrainian wheat to Israel in the article “Ukrainian wheat is going to Israel again”.

A narrower option was previously discussed, where a possible ceasefire could start with energy infrastructure and the Black Sea. This scenario was analyzed by NAnovosti in the article “Plan B” by Trump: energy, the Black Sea, and a chance for a winter respite. Now the topic of freedom of navigation has already appeared in a collective statement by dozens of states.

What Moscow responds

The Russian position remains different. On September 22, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Moscow is interested not in a temporary cessation of hostilities but in a “long-term and sustainable peace.” According to him, a temporary truce in itself “will not give anything” — this is the position of the Russian side, not a conclusion agreed upon by the participants in the negotiations.

On September 23, the day the statement of 51 states appeared, Peskov said that Moscow does not yet see “prerequisites” for transitioning to a peace negotiation process, although it simultaneously claims that Russia remains open to negotiations. Thus, the difference between the parties now concerns not only the future conditions of peace but also the sequence of actions: Kyiv and the states supporting it propose first stopping the fire, while Moscow refuses to consider a temporary cessation of hostilities separately from a broader settlement.

Explanation for Israeli readers: what is easy to confuse here

This is not a UN decision. The statement was signed by a group of 51 states that are members of the United Nations. It was not adopted by a vote of the General Assembly and was not approved as a binding Security Council resolution, so the wording “the UN demanded that Russia cease fire” would be inaccurate.

The Security Council and the group of 51 states are different things. The UN Security Council has 15 members, and Russia is one of the five permanent members with veto power. A joint statement allows a large group of countries to publicly record a common position, but it does not in itself create a legally binding ceasefire regime.

A ceasefire and a peace treaty are also not the same thing. The sequence proposed by Kyiv involves first stopping hostilities, and only after that negotiations on territories, security guarantees, exchanges, compliance control, and other elements of a possible settlement. In the original American initiative of March 2025, the first stage was supposed to last 30 days with the possibility of extension.

Israel signed the statement. In the published list of countries, it is directly named along with Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Honduras, Japan, New Zealand, Panama, and South Korea. However, the full list of all 51 countries is not available in the document’s summary, so it is more accurate to name only those states whose participation is directly confirmed in the publication.

What actually changed on September 23

Not Ukraine’s position: Kyiv agreed to the American proposal for a ceasefire back on March 11, 2025, and has repeatedly returned to this formula since then. What is new is that now it is simultaneously supported by a group of 51 states at the UN platform, and Israel is among the signatories.

The document, meanwhile, links several issues into one structure: stopping hostilities, transitioning to negotiations, protecting civilians, returning deported Ukrainians and children, releasing prisoners of war, and Black Sea security. Russia, for now, responds that a temporary ceasefire does not suit it and that Moscow does not see prerequisites for a full-fledged negotiation process.

This results in a fairly clear diplomatic fork. Ukraine and the states supporting it propose starting with a ceasefire and then discussing the conditions for a broader settlement; the Russian side insists that a separate temporary pause will not solve the causes of the war. This divergence was recorded on September 23 not only in the statements of Kyiv and Moscow but also in the joint document of 51 UN member states.