Russia has expressed skepticism about how former U.S. President Donald Trump’s newly proposed Board of Peace would coordinate with the United Nations Security Council, the body responsible for overseeing global peacekeeping since World War II.
Trump first introduced the idea of the Board of Peace last September, presenting it as a tool to end the conflict in Gaza. He later expanded its envisioned scope to address other international disputes—areas traditionally managed by the UN.
Among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United States has joined the board so far. The other members—Russia, China, Britain, and France—have not participated.
Kirill Logvinov, a senior official at Russia’s Foreign Ministry, told TASS that the board’s charter aims to “replace mechanisms that have too often proved ineffective,” raising concerns about potential overlap or conflict with the UN’s existing structures.
He also noted that the board’s mandate does not specifically reference Gaza and questioned how its functions would align with the UN Security Council, which remains the internationally recognized authority for maintaining global peace and security.
Russia highlighted that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has not been invited to any of the board’s meetings to date, signaling a lack of coordination with established international institutions.
The board’s charter states that it will carry out “peace-building functions in accordance with international law,” granting Trump, as chairman, broad powers including veto authority and the ability to remove members, albeit with some limitations.
For comparison, the UN Security Council was established in 1945 and held its first meeting in London in 1946. Its ongoing role has been to prevent conflicts, mediate disputes, and authorize peacekeeping operations globally, with headquarters in New York.
Experts say the introduction of the Board of Peace raises questions about overlapping mandates and the potential for tension between unilateral initiatives and multilateral institutions designed to ensure broad legitimacy.
Russia’s position underscores a wider debate about the role of alternative peace structures and the importance of involving established international bodies in conflict resolution.
