Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), delivering a impassioned plea amid Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. “There are no security guarantees without friends and weapons,” Zelenskyy declared, emphasizing that “weapons decide who survives.” He criticized the UN as ineffective for war-torn nations like Ukraine, Sudan, Somalia, and Palestine, arguing that international institutions offer only “statements” while real security relies on armed allies. Zelenskyy highlighted the “most destructive arms race in human history,” driven by AI and drones, warning that autonomous systems could soon target infrastructure and people without human oversight. This speech has ignited global discourse: Does military might truly dictate survival in conflicts? And what does it mean for international law, ethics, and the future of warfare?
Ukrainian President at the UNGA:
Zelenskyy’s address was a bold critique of multilateralism’s failures, rooted in Ukraine’s three-year struggle against Russian aggression. He argued that without weapons and “powerful friends,” international law is toothless: “Only we can guarantee our own security.” Highlighting drone warfare’s evolution—from expensive tools of superpowers to cheap, long-range killers—Zelenskyy warned of an AI-fueled era where “drones fight drones” autonomously, potentially carrying nuclear warheads. “Stopping Putin now is cheaper than building bunkers later,” he urged, calling for global action to halt Russia’s expansionism, which he claimed threatens Moldova, Georgia, and beyond.
The speech raises profound questions: In an anarchic world order, does reliance on arms undermine diplomatic solutions? Zelenskyy’s pivot from idealism (UN reform) to pragmatism (more weapons for Ukraine) mirrors Ukraine’s battlefield realities, where drones have destroyed tanks and shifted tactics. Critics, including Russian officials, dismissed it as warmongering, while Western allies like the US pledged continued support post-Trump’s recent endorsement of Ukraine’s victory. This duality—seeking peace through strength—exposes the hypocrisy in global governance, where powerful states enforce rules selectively, prompting debates on equity in arms access and the UN’s relevance.
Global Law Situation:
International humanitarian law (IHL), codified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, aims to mitigate war’s horrors by protecting civilians, prisoners, and restricting weapons use. Core principles include distinction (between combatants and civilians), proportionality (harm not excessive to military gain), and necessity (force only when required). The UN Charter’s Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against territorial integrity, allowing exceptions for self-defense (Article 51) or Security Council authorization.
Implementation, however, falters in contemporary conflicts. In Ukraine, both sides face war crime accusations: Russia’s targeting of civilians violates distinction, while Ukraine’s drone strikes risk proportionality breaches. The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes violations, but enforcement is uneven—Russia rejects ICC jurisdiction, and veto powers like the US and China shield allies. In Gaza and Sudan, urban warfare complicates IHL: dense populations blur lines, leading to high civilian casualties despite claims of precision strikes.
Challenges include new technologies (drones, AI) outpacing regulation; non-state actors (e.g., ISIS) ignoring IHL; and hybrid threats like cyberattacks. The ICRC’s 2024 report notes urbanization and autonomy erode compliance, urging states to integrate IHL into military training and arms transfers. Yet, with 59 state-based conflicts in 2024—the highest since WWII—IHL’s protective role is undermined by power imbalances, where victors often evade accountability.
| Key IHL Principles | Modern Implementation Challenges | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Distinction | Drones/AI misidentification | Ukraine: Civilian infrastructure strikes |
| Proportionality | Escalating force in asymmetric wars | Gaza: High civilian toll from airstrikes |
| Necessity | Prolonged conflicts without end | Yemen: Saudi-led coalition’s blockades |
Overall, while IHL provides a framework, its enforcement relies on political will, often absent when “might” prevails.
Power dictates justice
The adage “might makes right”—where power dictates justice—contradicts IHL’s ideals but permeates international relations (IR). Realist theory posits anarchy forces states to prioritize survival via strength, as Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue illustrates: Athens crushed neutral Melos for strategic gain. In practice, yes: Russia’s 2022 Ukraine invasion defies UN Charter Article 2(4), yet annexations persist due to military leverage. China’s South China Sea claims ignore arbitration rulings, backed by island-building and naval might.
Historical examples abound: The US’s 2003 Iraq invasion bypassed UN approval, justified by preemptive might despite no WMDs. Post-WWII, nuclear powers’ deterrence embodies this—mutual assured destruction ensures “peace” through overwhelming force. Non-state actors like Houthis use cheap drones to challenge superpowers, democratizing might.
Critics argue IHL tempers this: Geneva Conventions bind all, with ICC prosecutions (e.g., Milosevic). Yet, vetoes in the UN Security Council enable impunity. In 2025, with rising multipolarity (BRICS challenging US dominance), “might is right” thrives in grey zones—cyber ops, proxies—where law lags. Zelenskyy’s speech underscores this: Without arms, Ukraine’s “right” to exist is moot, validating realism over idealism.
“Might Is Right” Doctrine?
The US champions liberal internationalism—rules-based order via UN, NATO—but critics decry its actions as might-driven exceptionalism. The Monroe Doctrine (1823) warned Europe off the Americas, evolving into Roosevelt’s 1904 Corollary for US interventions (e.g., Panama Canal seizure). Post-WWII, doctrines like Truman’s containment and Bush’s preemption (Iraq 2003) prioritized power projection, often sans UN nod.
Trump’s “America First” amplified this: Tariffs, NATO critiques, and Ukraine aid conditions reflect transactional might. Biden continued drone strikes in Somalia/Yemen, bypassing full oversight. US arms sales ($238B in 2024) fuel conflicts, while rejecting ICC jurisdiction shields allies like Israel. Chomsky labels it “hegemony,” citing 500+ interventions since 1945.
Counterarguments: US upholds IHL via Geneva ratifications and leads sanctions against violators (e.g., Russia). Yet, inconsistencies—human rights rhetoric vs. support for Saudi Yemen ops—suggest might trumps right. As the world’s top military spender ($877B in 2024), the US exemplifies the doctrine, though not alone; China’s Belt and Road echoes it economically.
Is This Accelerating the Race to Create Dangerous Weapons?
Zelenskyy’s warning rings true: Ukraine’s war catalyzes an AI-drone arms race. Drones evolved from costly reconnaissance (e.g., US Reaper) to swarms costing $25, with AI enabling autonomy. By 2025, global military AI spending hits $18B, with US-China rivalry intensifying: Pentagon’s Replicator initiative counters China’s “wingman” drones. Russia fields AI “Robowolves”; Ukraine plans 4M drones annually, including swarms.
Trends: Proliferation to non-states (Houthis’ Yemen strikes); ethical risks (autonomous targeting); nuclear integration fears. UN talks on LAWS stall, with 61% public opposition. Zelenskyy’s call for AI rules echoes Hawking/Musk warnings, but competition accelerates: China’s 2030 AI lead, US deregulation under Trump. This risks “forever wars,” destabilizing deterrence.
Balancing Might with Right for a Safer World
Zelenskyy’s assertion that “weapons decide who survives” captures realism’s harsh truth, but IHL offers a counter-narrative—if enforced. “Might is right” persists, with the US as a key enactor, fueling an AI-drone race that endangers humanity. To avert catastrophe, states must prioritize diplomacy, regulate autonomy (e.g., LAWS treaty), and reform the UN for equity. Ukraine’s plight demands action: Arming for defense is survival, but unchecked escalation invites global peril. As Zelenskyy implored, “Peace depends on all of us”—a call to reclaim law over might.
