On March 2, 2026, the United Nations Security Council convened in New York amid escalating tensions in the Middle East. However, the meeting that followed will likely be remembered not for its substance or diplomatic outcomes, but for the spectacle of loyalty and propaganda that surrounded it.
For the month of March, the United States holds the rotating presidency of the Council. Traditionally, such meetings are chaired by the country’s ambassador to the UN or another senior diplomatic official. Instead, the gavel was handed to Melania Trump, the First Lady of the United States and the wife of Donald Trump. While First Ladies have occasionally participated in UN events, March 2 marked the first time a sitting First Lady presided over a Security Council meeting.
Is this really a milestone worth celebrating? Or is it a troubling precedent?
What should have been a serious diplomatic forum addressing the fate of children in conflict zones instead became something closer to a theatre of the absurd. The world’s most powerful diplomatic body, responsible for maintaining international peace and security, was reduced to a display of political loyalty.
Melania Trump, by any objective measure, possesses no diplomatic experience, no policy background, and no formal governmental role beyond her marriage to the president. Yet she was entrusted with the gavel at the Security Council. Symbolism has its place in international diplomacy, but symbolism must never replace competence. Democracies do not hand positions of influence to spouses because of their surname. That is a hallmark of fragile regimes, not mature democratic institutions.
The contradiction was particularly stark. While President Donald Trump continues to lead the United States deeper into military confrontation abroad without clear congressional authorization, the White House simultaneously presents moral lectures about peace and tolerance on the world stage. American families are already burying their dead. Civilians across multiple regions are paying the price. Yet the message delivered from the Security Council chamber amounted largely to platitudes. Under Trump, competence and education is optional. Loyalty is everything. And the world sees it clearly.
This was not simply symbolism. It was nepotism and display of loyalty projected onto the global stage.
Ironically, the subject of the meeting was education for children living through conflics and war. In current circumstances, it is of profound importance. According to the UN, some 234 million children worldwide now live in conflict-affected environments and require educational support. Of those, 85 million are entirely out of school. Briefing the Council, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo described the moment as one of “exceptional relevance.” Digital learning, she noted, has become a vital lifeline for children trapped in war zones. Technology allows lessons to continue even when classrooms are destroyed or unsafe. Yet without proper safeguards, digital spaces can expose children to recruitment by armed groups, exploitation, and deepening inequality.
For Ukrainians, these concerns are not theoretical. They are a lived reality.
During the session, France’s representative reminded the Council that Ukrainian children routinely have their school days interrupted by air-raid sirens. At night, many complete homework in cold underground shelters while Russian missiles and drones target their cities. Education continues, but under conditions no child should ever face.
The discussion might have been constructive, had it not descended into familiar propaganda.
The representative of the Russian Federation took the floor and declared, with striking hypocrisy, that “armed conflict is the enemy of education.” He called on the international community to ensure education remains accessible during war and warned that children deprived of schooling become vulnerable to extremism and terrorism.
The statement might have carried moral weight, if it had not come from the representative of the country responsible for systematically destroying Ukraine’s educational infrastructure.
The Russian delegate went even further, insisting that “schools must remain safe spaces” and must never be attacked or used for military purposes. He then accused Ukrainian forces of targeting Russian schools and claimed that children in the Donbas region had lived under Ukrainian shelling for years.
The distortion is breathtaking. The reality is well documented. According to data compiled by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, nearly 3,600 educational institutions across Ukraine have been damaged since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale war. More than 400 schools have been completely destroyed or permanently occupied, leaving them beyond repair. Over 2,000 additional facilities have been attacked, roughly one in seven schools in the country.
The consequences have been profound. Entire regions were forced to shift to remote or hybrid learning as the unpredictability of missile strikes made normal schooling impossible. Teachers conduct classes online while students sit in bomb shelters or displaced housing far from home.
This destruction is not incidental. It is strategic. Education is where culture, history, and civic identity are passed from one generation to the next. By targeting schools, Russia is attacking more than buildings. It is attempting to fracture the cultural continuity of Ukrainian society itself. The Kremlin understands that classrooms shape the future. Destroy the classrooms, and you disrupt the transmission of language, memory, and national identity.
The strategy extends beyond physical destruction. Ukrainian families are forcibly displaced into neighboring countries or deported deeper into Russia. In occupied territories, school curricula are rewritten to promote Russian historical narratives and cultural mythology. Ukrainian language instruction disappears. Children are taught a version of history designed to erase their national identity.
In other words, the war against Ukraine is not only fought on the battlefield. It is fought in classrooms, textbooks, and the minds of children. Against this backdrop, the March session of the Security Council was more than disappointing. It was revealing.
Instead of serious leadership, the world witnessed political theatre. Instead of accountability, it heard propaganda. Instead of competence, it saw symbolism elevated above substance.
The global community deserves better. The millions of children whose futures depend on education deserve far better. The United Nations Security Council was created to safeguard international peace and stability. Yet on March 2, it served as a stage for spectacle, disinformation, and institutional erosion.
For those watching from Ukraine, a country where children learn mathematics between air-raid alarms, the contrast could not be clearer. When the world’s most important diplomatic forum becomes a platform for incompetence and propaganda, it does not merely embarrass the institution.
It weakens the credibility of international leadership at a time when the world needs it most.
Nadia Gereliouk
