Seton Hall Graduate Degree in International Affairs
Seton Hall Graduate Degree in International Affairs

BLUE SMOKE: A new monthly newsletter, from PassBlue and UNA–UK, which shines a spotlight on senior appointments at the UN

To Stalin, Ukraine Was an Independent Country


Joseph Stalin and Franklin Roosevelt at the Tehran Conference
The Russian leader Joseph Stalin and US President Franklin Roosevelt attending the Tehran Conference, Dec. 1, 1943. President Putin of Russia has claimed that Ukraine was “not a nation” to partly justify his invasion of the country. But in 1945, when the San Francisco conference was establishing the UN, Stalin demanded that Ukraine be admitted to the body as an independent nation, the author writes. US LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Vladimir Putin published an essay last year stating that Russians and Ukrainians were “one people.”

He wrote: “I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.” Thirteen years earlier, in a 2008 meeting with President George W. Bush, Putin went further, telling Bush that Ukraine was “not a nation.” But Putin’s assertive claims have long been contradicted by Russia’s most-notorious 20thcentury leader, Joseph Stalin — a man whose empire Putin aspires to reclaim and whose brutality he often imitates.

Seven years before his death, in preparation for the Soviet Union joining the newly formed United Nations, Stalin advanced the proposition that Ukraine was an independent state.

His pronouncement came about during the conference that established the UN in San Francisco in the spring of 1945. There, Stalin demanded that Ukraine be admitted to the body as a separate, distinct nation with all the rights and privileges that come with full membership, including its own ambassador and participation as a member state in all UN sessions. Stalin’s stance initially grew out of the Dumbarton Oaks conclave, which was held in Washington a year earlier, where the four sponsoring nations of the UN — Britain, the Soviet Union, the United States and China — met to draft the UN Charter.

At the Washington meeting, Stalin issued a surprising ultimatum on the matter of member states. He contended that the 16 republics of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine, should all be admitted as separate countries to the UN. Though he would not admit it, he was pragmatically (some say cynically) concerned that if he did not get these extra 16 votes in the body, the other partner states, including the Western European bloc, the Latin Americans, the African territories, the Middle Eastern nations and the Asian lands, would regularly outvote his nation.

Britain and the US opposed his proposal on the grounds that these 16 republics were not autonomous lands. This left Stalin’s proposition in abeyance. Later, in February 1945, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Stalin held a meeting in Yalta to finalize a deal on the UN. There, the three men ironed out the last details for the conference in San Francisco to set up the organization. By now, Stalin dropped his demand for his 16 republics. Instead, he insisted that only two be enlisted in the new body: Ukraine and Belarus.

His argument for both states was that they had borne the most agony, devastation and sacrifices of World War II, so they rightly deserved recognition as sovereign lands. His proposal, on the face of it, may have been a sham, as these two republics were still extensions of the Soviet imperium, but nonetheless from the world’s perspective, once they were in the UN, they would be treated as independent entities. Stalin hardened his position, making clear that unless these two admissions happened, he would back out of the UN conference.

Roosevelt gave his sign-off to the arrangement, with one proviso, that the assembly in San Francisco, rather than the participants at Yalta, ratify the inclusion of these states. Nobody at the time regarded that as an insurmountable problem. But once the meeting commenced, Stalin’s emissary to the conference, his foreign minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, faced difficulties in gaining approval for the entry of the two nations. He had to fight tooth and nail to gain their admission. He threatened to hijack the meeting if Russia did not get its way. Adding to his troubles, the 20 Latin nations at the conference, who had remained in the background, abruptly put forward their own ultimatum, insisting that one of their own brethren, Argentina, also become a UN member.

The Soviets angrily opposed this idea. Stalin heartily disliked Argentina because of its pro-Nazi leanings during the war. But the Latins remained defiant. They told the organizers that if they did not get their way on the issue of Argentina, they would cast all of their 20 ballots against the Soviets’ two countries, assuring their defeat. Such a rebuff, the US feared, would drive the Soviets from the conference. On the other hand, if the Latins were thwarted, they might pack up and depart San Francisco themselves.

American officials came up with a last-minute deal. Washington said it would stick by the Soviet Union and support the entry of Belarus and Ukraine, but at the same time collaborate with the Latin coalition and support Argentina’s entry, thus assuring Latin support for the admission of Belarus and Ukraine. Molotov publicly lambasted Washington for its stance on Argentina. Still, the conference went ahead and, by a large margin, voted in favor of the US position, leaving the Soviet foreign minister isolated.

Now what was going to happen? Would an indignant Molotov leave San Francisco and ruin the UN conference? Or would he stay? He decided to remain. The votes of these two lands were presumably too important to the Soviet Union to be sacrificed just to reject Argentina.

Ukraine’s membership in the UN has since then held steady for almost eight decades. And a series of Soviet and Russian leaders, including Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Putin, for 21 years, all in turn, accepted its legitimate standing within the guardian organization. Today, Putin’s own claim that Ukraine is a Russian territory is all but impossible to square with his country’s 77 years-long support for Ukraine’s legitimate member status at the UN.

Stalin got what he wanted and, none, save Putin, ever reversed him. Yet Stalin created his own Frankenstein by placing Ukraine in the UN, where it soon evolved into its own sovereign land. Putin is now coming on too late and too frantically and too cruelly to destroy what Stalin, Putin’s role model, created.

It is his war of impossibility.


We welcome your comments on this article.  What are your thoughts?

Stephen Schlesinger is the author of three books, including “Act of Creation: The Founding of The United Nations,” which won the 2004 Harry S. Truman Book Award. He is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in New York City and the former director of the World Policy Institute at the New School (1997-2006) and former publisher of the quarterly magazine, The World Policy Journal. In the 1970s, he edited and published The New Democrat Magazine; was a speechwriter for the Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern; and later was the weekly columnist for The Boston Globe’s “The L’t’ry Life.” He wrote, with Stephen Kinzer, “Bitter Fruit,” a book about the 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala.

Thereafter, he spent four years as a staff writer at Time Magazine. For 12 years, he served as New York State Governor Mario Cuomo’s speechwriter and foreign policy adviser. In the mid 1990s, Schlesinger worked at the United Nations at Habitat, the agency dealing with cities.

Schlesinger received his B.A. from Harvard University, a certificate of study from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He lives in New York City.

We would love your thoughts. Please comment:

To Stalin, Ukraine Was an Independent Country
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Baran Çankaya
Baran Çankaya
6 months ago

This is a great article, thank you very much. As you know, Ukraine served as a nonpermanent member of the Security Council two times during the Cold War. I believe it would be useful and enlightening to know the arguments/rationale employed by Kiev and of course by Moscow to obtain the necessary support for Ukraine’s candidacy in the UN General Assembly. The enthusiastic/diligent and brave researcher undertaking this work should look for materiel in two periods of the election process. The first group is the arguments/rationale used by Ukraine while putting forth its candidacy, i.e. those in its application form. The second category of material/data consists of the narrative used in the period following the official application. These are counter/defensive arguments made to refute the objections of certain countries in the Western Bloc and especially of the other candidate countries. They could have most probably questioned the merits of Ukraine’s initiative stating that it (Ukraine) is subservient to Moscow.

Stephen Schlesinger
11 months ago

To: Col. Ralph Hockley — Thank you for your comments. The truth is that I sent my Op-Ed piece on Stalin and Ukraine originally to the NY Times but the Times, in its infinite wisdom (and lack of imagination), somehow thought the piece was not relevant enough to today’s Ukrainian -Russia war to use it. Mostly the Times Op-Ed page these days seems to focus on personal tales or the inside machinations about Congressional legislation and does not publish a lot outside of that venue. Also, the State Department saw my piece as its International Division subscribes to but it also never followed up on any of my findings. I did get a lot of foreign press coverage from the site. In any case, I appreciate your personal interest in my article. Best, Steve Schlesinger

Ralph M Hockley
Ralph M Hockley
11 months ago

Dear Mr Schlesinger, Thanks for your article, I have been looking for your information since Putin poo-pooed Ukraine being an autonomous country. Should those facts not be a major point of attack against his actions? By the US and the UN? You can’t have it both ways. As a graduate of Syracuse University’s Soviet Area Studies program (1949) and a student of the UN at the time, I remember all these actions. Just because almost no one is alive from that period is not a reason to forget/ignore them. Proves that “those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to relive it.” I also escaped from France in 1941, served in the US Army in 1944-46 (as a Ritchie Boy), and 1950-51 as an Artillery Officer in the Korean War). Can you do an OpEd article for the NYT on this subject or “goose” the State Dept?

Ralph M Hockley, COL US Army-Ret, Author “Freedom is not Free”

Stephen Schlesinger
1 year ago

Thank you!!

Firdaus Kharas
1 year ago

Thank you for this article, which echoes what I’ve been pointing out since the Putin speech.

It wasn’t just at the founding of the UN that Moscow insisted Ukraine was an independent country but throughout the history of the UN, whenever anybody questioned why the Soviet Union effectively had three votes. Moscow vigorously outlined repeatedly how Russians and Ukrainians were different peoples. This resulted in not just the General Assembly votes but throughout the UN system, including Ukraine’s election to the Security Council a mere two years after the founding.

So Putin needs only to read his own diplomatic history to grasp the irony of his justification for this unjust war.

Steven H Johnson
Steven H Johnson
1 year ago

Thanks, Steve. Great piece!
Gibbs and I reconnect occasionally.
And fyi it was your late sister Kathy who served me the first quiche I ever ate.
All my best,
Steve Johnson

1 year ago

Thank you, Dr.Schlesinger. Interesting. Many moons ago I heard a similar story from a veteran UN colleague, however with minor differences. In particular, it was suggested that the deal was tripartite: US, UK and USSR. Ukraine was traded in for Argentina, and Byelorussian SSR — for India that wasn’t fully independent at the time. An interesting detail: Stalin’s demand for 16 Soviet votes was countered by FDR’s position that each of the 48 united states was more sovereign compared to the Soviet republics and thus should be granted an individual membership. Uncle Joe had to backpedal. In the end, his tactical victory of 1945 turned out to be a strategic defeat in 1991: a combination of 91% Ukrainians voting for independence and the UN membership made Kyiv’s departure from bear’s paws almost a fait accompli.

Related Posts
Seton Hall Graduate Degree in International Affairs


Global Connections Television - The only talk show of its kind in the world

Don't Miss a Story:

Subscribe to PassBlue

Sign up to get the smartest news on the UN by email, joining readers across the globe.​

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously​