Sudanese activists have been highly critical of the UN for its slow response to the conflict.
It began last April after the army and a powerful paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Force (RSF), began a bitter power struggle.
The military controls the government.
Monday’s draft resolution, proposed by Britain and Sierra Leone, called on both sides to immediately end hostilities and begin negotiations aimed at agreeing a nationwide ceasefire.
He also called on the army and the RSF to respect previous agreements on the protection of civilians, but specifically mentioned RSF attacks in the western Darfur region and elsewhere in the country.
Sudan’s representative at the UN said that the necessary clauses were not included in the text.
Apart from Russia, all 14 other Security Council countries voted in favor of the draft, but the veto meant that the resolution was not adopted.
“This Russian veto is a disgrace, and it once again shows the world the true colors of Russia,” Lammy said at a meeting in New York.
“I ask the Russian representative with a clear conscience sitting on his phone: how many more Sudanese need to be killed? How many more women need to be raped? How many more children must go without food before Russia takes action?”
The US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, was equally outspoken, accusing Russia of obstructing steps “to resolve the catastrophic situation in Sudan and playing along with both sides – both sides of the conflict to achieve their own political goals at the expense of Sudanese lives. “.
Russia was previously believed to be supporting the RSF in the conflict, but it appears to have switched sides.
Russia’s UN representative, Dmitry Polyansky, said Sudan’s sovereignty was being ignored, adding that the UK-backed resolution was “an attempt to allow itself to intervene” in what is happening in Sudan.
“Shame on you Great Britain!”, he posted on X later, external. “For trying to advance a resolution that pours gasoline into (the) Sudanese crisis, leaving muddy waters for the Western countries they love so much in their former colonies to push their agenda.”
Sudanese analyst Alex de Waal described it as “an absolutely extraordinary argument in the face of a humanitarian disaster – the complete state collapse of Sudan and the fact that the government is only able to govern a very small corner of the country”.
In an interview with the BBC’s World Service Newsday programme, he added that it was “a very bad day for Africa” as the continent’s diplomats, through the African Union (AU), had earlier managed to bridge the Security Council’s differences between Russia, the US and China when it came to Sudan. .
Speaking after the conclusion of the Security Council discussion, Sudan’s ambassador to the UN Al-Harith Idris al-Harith Mohammed said that some “preconditions” were missing in the project.
He said Sudan wanted a clause condemning the United Arab Emirates’ support for the RSF, which the UAE has consistently denied.
He also wanted the RSF to be classified as “terrorists… because they are waging war to destroy the civilian population.”
Both the army and the RSF are accused of human rights abuses that could amount to war crimes.
Additional reporting by Nada Tawfiq of the BBC in New York
