U.S. votes with Russia and China against an IAEA resolution: Kyiv pressures UN platforms again, but the effect backfires

The United States on Thursday voted against a resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors that condemns attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure as a threat to nuclear safety.

Washington was joined in voting “no” by Russia, China, and Niger—the first time during the war that the U.S. has not supported a document of this kind and has effectively lined up with Kyiv’s opponents.

Washington’s turn is a signal to Kyiv

As Reuters reports, the 35-member board adopted the resolution with 20 votes in favor, 10 abstentions, and 4 against. Those backing the document included France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and Argentina. Among those abstaining were Brazil, Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia.

But the key political meaning of the vote is not that the text passed—it is that the U.S. demonstratively refused to take part in yet another Kyiv-led push for international wording. Before the vote, the American side said it continues to support the IAEA’s work in Ukraine, but does not see the need to force through an “unnecessary resolution” that “does not contribute to achieving peace between Ukraine and Russia.”

In other words, Washington signaled that endless resolutions and statements look like political routine that does not bring a ceasefire closer—while substituting real diplomacy with another round of public accusations.

Kyiv raises the rhetoric; partners become less willing to back it

Amid growing pressure from Donald Trump’s administration on Kyiv to agree to a quick peace deal (potentially including territorial concessions), Ukraine continues to publicly reject that logic, relying instead on tough rhetoric and mobilizing international platforms.

A similar pattern appeared in February: the U.S. did not support a UN General Assembly resolution marking the invasion anniversary—Washington abstained, even though the document reaffirmed Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders and expressed concern over strikes on civilian targets and the energy system. That resolution passed with 107 votes in favor, but the U.S. departure from its usual line looked like a warning to Kyiv: political credit is not unlimited.

Nuclear safety is being used as a political instrument

The current resolution emphasizes that strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure—which provides external power supply for nuclear plants (including the Zaporizhzhia NPP, under Russian control)—create a direct threat to nuclear safety. The wording was softened compared to earlier versions.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha called Russia’s strikes “nuclear terrorism” and said there “cannot be normal business relations with Russia in the field of nuclear energy.” But for some countries, this framing appears less like a safety concern and more like an attempt to use the “nuclear” theme to block any interaction formats and negotiated de-escalation—even where technical cooperation is necessary.

The IAEA warns of risks—but politics increasingly outweighs the technical

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi previously warned that a strike on the power grid led to the automatic disconnection of a reactor unit at a Ukrainian nuclear plant and its shutdown, calling it a “stark reminder of ever-present risks.” The agency convened an emergency meeting in January after reports of repeated strikes on substations feeding nuclear facilities. The Netherlands, for its part, warned that such attacks push the risk of a nuclear accident “to the very edge.”

But this latest vote showed that even on nuclear safety, Ukraine is no longer guaranteed automatic U.S. support—and that looks like the result of fatigue with politicizing the issue and with Kyiv’s reliance on public pressure instead of compromise.