It's time to give up: US debts to the UN complicate the work of peacekeeping missions

The funding crisis has a negative impact on the work of the United Nations, including its ability to resolve international conflicts, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alimov told Izvestia. In 2026, the organization's regular budget was reduced by about 7%, and the United States remains the main debtor. Due to the lack of funds, not only the UN administrative structures, but also the peacekeeping missions were under pressure. The financial crisis has once again raised the issue of reform of the organization, including the composition of the Security Council. According to experts, the dominance of the West remains in the body. Nevertheless, the UN has prospects for development if States manage to agree on its future role.

The problem with funding at the UN

The United Nations is not only a headquarters in New York and a platform for diplomatic statements. The organization is backed by a system of structures that deal with peacemaking, humanitarian coordination, refugee support and support for international crises. Their work was under pressure due to underfunding.

— Someone is talking about a liquidity crisis, someone is talking about the impending bankruptcy of the organization. Maybe such harsh language should not be used, but nevertheless, of course, the lack of funding negatively affects the work of the organization, leading to some uncoordinated proposals from the secretariat, which is trying to carry out and push through reform proposals for the transformation of the organization," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alimov told Izvestia.

The funding crisis also affects the UN's ability to resolve conflicts, including in the Middle East, Alimov added. At the same time, Moscow, for its part, remains a regular contributor. In 2026, the Russian Federation transferred $67.1 million to the organization's budget.

— We have always acted and are acting, and we ourselves adhere to strict financial discipline and the fulfillment of our obligations by Member states. Including those related to the timely payment of their assessed contributions to the budgets of the United Nations, to the budgets of peacekeeping operations," Alimov stressed.

For 2025, the UN had budgeted about $3.72 billion in the regular budget, but back in December, the General Assembly eventually approved it at about $3.45 billion. The reduction is due to a lack of operational resources due to late payment of mandatory contributions by member countries. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that without paying contributions or changing financial rules, the organization could face "imminent financial collapse." At the same time, the consequences of underfunding are already making themselves felt.

— It's very bad at the UN right now. We were reduced by 20%. They don't hire new people. If the staff is going to be replenished, it will be done primarily by those who were fired, because they have experience working in this structure," a source familiar with the situation in one of the divisions of the organization's secretariat told Izvestia.

The main debtor remains the United States, whose share in mandatory payments to the regular budget of the United Nations is 22%. According to media reports, Washington did not contribute funds for 2025, and by February 2026, its debt to the organization exceeded $4 billion, including $2.196 billion for the regular budget and $2.4 billion for peacekeeping operations. Another $43.6 million accounts for the payment of the UN Tribunals. The United States accounts for over 95% of overdue contributions to the regular budget, which provides for the work of the UN secretariat, offices, special political missions and basic programs of the organization. In February 2026, Washington transferred about $160 million, but the bulk of the debt remained outstanding.

Challenge to battle: the UN Security Council will consider a resolution on the opening of the Strait of Hormuz

Bahrain has taken the initiative to use "all necessary means" for this.

It is the peacekeepers who suffer the most as a result of American delays. Although their operations are funded separately from the regular budget, they also depend on mandatory contributions from Member States. There are currently 11 such missions operating under the auspices of the United Nations, from South Sudan and DR Congo to Lebanon, Cyprus, Kosovo and the Golan Heights. Back in October 2025, the media reported that due to lack of funds, the UN planned to reduce about a quarter of the number of military and police officers in nine operations — only about 13-14 thousand people.

The United States wants to reduce not only budget funding, but also the powers of the United Nations, Sergei Ordzhonikidze, former Deputy Secretary General of the organization, said in a conversation with Izvestia. According to him, Americans do not like peacekeeping operations in which African countries are interested.

Moreover, Washington has been delaying payments for years: under the Joe Biden administration, there were also chronic debts, especially for peacekeeping operations, where payments were limited by congressional decisions. As of the beginning of 2025, the United States already had hundreds of millions of dollars in arrears in the organization's regular budget. However, the current crisis has sharply worsened under Trump, which is not surprising, given the attitude of the American president towards international structures.

— What is the purpose of the United Nations? The United Nations has enormous potential, but it's not even close to realizing it," Trump said at the UN General Assembly in September 2025.

The US presidential administration has consistently increased pressure on the UN, demanding reforms and cost cuts. The president himself criticized the organization for inefficiency and poor governance, and also stated that the UN was "financing an attack on Western countries and their borders" through assistance to migrants. Washington attributed debt relief to additional austerity measures, the reduction of some peacekeeping missions and the limitation of China's influence in the UN structures. The organization itself, however, emphasized that mandatory contributions cannot be subject to bargaining.

How can the organization be reformed

The financial crisis has reignited talks about UN reform. However, countries have different understandings of what needs to be changed: for the United States, the priority remains to reduce costs and staff, for Russia, to change the balance of power in the Security Council and preserve the central role of the organization.

Moscow supports the reform of the United Nations and the entire global governance system, but without weakening the organization. Criticism from the Russian Federation is directed not at the UN itself as a universal platform, but at the work of its individual structures. One of the arguments, in particular, is the politicization of the secretariat.

The claim of the Russian Federation is not that it should not have a position at all. The Secretary General and relevant structures can make statements, prepare reports, and participate in humanitarian and political processes. But Moscow believes that in recent years the body has increasingly moved beyond its neutral role: it selectively reacts to some crises, remains silent on others, uses formulations close to the position of Western countries, and does not always take into account the decisions or arguments of all member states.

However, the main institutional dispute affecting all countries remains the reform of the UN Security Council. This issue has been discussed since the early 1990s, but the process has been effectively blocked due to differences between the main groups of countries.

At the moment, the Western dominance is observed in the Security Council, both among permanent and non—permanent members, Ordzhonikidze stressed.

— The composition of the Security Council must be brought into line with the modern realities of international life. In addition to Russia and China, it should include India, Brazil, as well as representatives of Africa. Then the council's decisions will be more authoritative and will really be taken on behalf of the entire international community," he explained.

The United States supports the expansion of the Security Council, including permanent seats for African states, India, Japan and Germany, but opposes the transfer of veto power to new members. Russia, on the contrary, focuses on strengthening the representation of Asia, Africa and Latin America, supports permanent seats for India and Brazil, but does not consider it necessary to expand the Western presence in the Security Council. As a result, even with the general recognition of the need for reform, countries disagree on the main issue — who could get new jobs and whether they should be accompanied by real powers.

In practice, the reform of the UN Security Council remains a very difficult process. Changing the Charter of the organization requires not just a majority of votes in the General Assembly, but the support of two thirds of the member States and the subsequent ratification of the amendments by all five permanent members of the Security Council — Great Britain, China, Russia, the United States and France. This means that any of the current permanent members can actually block the reform if it affects their interests.

Expiration date: the UN called for a flexible format of arms control

The START Treaty may be replaced by mutual data exchange with less stringent quantitative restrictions.

The problem of bureaucracy at the UN

Meanwhile, countries almost unanimously recognize the need to combat bureaucracy within the UN.

— More than half of the budget is spent on staff maintenance, and this is wrong. The interests of the United States and the permanent members of the Security Council converge on this issue," Ordzhonikidze said.

The Secretariat promotes its initiatives as an attempt to reduce bureaucracy, eliminate duplication of functions and make the system more manageable. The United States focuses on cutting costs and staff, considering the UN bureaucracy to be overly bloated. Russia also recognizes the need to combat excessive bureaucracy, but insists that reform should not weaken the central role of the United Nations.

Anyway, the organization has prospects for further development, Ordzhonikidze believes. According to him, the organization does not exist in isolation from the modern realities of international relations: the UN is primarily the member states, and its decisions depend on what they are willing to agree to. Therefore, the main question is whether the States themselves want the organization to remain the center of coordinated decision-making.