Ambassador Holland condemns Russia's recurrent strikes on
Ukraine's energy infrastructure, highlighting severe humanitarian
impacts and nuclear safety risks. Russia's proposals for a
settlement would last only until Moscow decided it wanted more. A
settlement that rewards territorial theft would only guarantee
future war.
"Thank you, Chair. Last weekend, Russia again struck
Ukraine's power system with large waves of drones and missiles,
killing civilians, damaging energy facilities across multiple
regions and triggering blackouts.
Russia has insisted that it targets only military-relevant
facilities and that anything short of plunging Ukraine into total
darkness – which would bring with it a nuclear catastrophe – was
showing restraint. This argument collapses on contact with
the facts.
The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission has assessed Russia's
campaign against Ukraine's electricity network as likely
violating international humanitarian law because of its
predictable, severe and widespread civilian impacts on heating,
water, sanitation, healthcare and education. Recurrent
strikes on energy infrastructure are not restraint. They
are deepening humanitarian harm as winter approaches.
These attacks also endanger nuclear safety. The IAEA has
warned repeatedly that degrading Ukraine's external power
supplies and striking grid nodes that feed nuclear facilities
create a persistent risk to reactor and spent-fuel cooling.
We are one accident away from a catastrophe for the region.
Recent incidents forcing plants to use backup power underline how
fragile safety margins are in a war zone.
True to form, Russia returns to deception and deflection, using
its disinformation machine to spread lies of “western sabotage”
rather than demonstrate some responsible behaviour.
Chair, we do not doubt the sincerity of Russia's stated desire
for a “long-term settlement” to this war. For Russia, it
has been a strategic disaster, has sadly resulted in more than a
million Russian casualties, and has led Russia's economy into
very troubled waters. But what Russia actually wants is to
bake its violation of our shared principles into any
settlement. To force Ukraine and the rest of us to accept
aggression as the new normal. Its so-called conditions for
peace would reward invasion, legitimise occupation, and give
Russia a veto over its neighbour's future. That is not
peace: it is coercion dressed up as diplomacy. And it would
not be for the long-term: it would last only until Moscow decided
that it wanted more.
Russia has argued that its security interests need to be
considered in any settlement. In fact, the UK agrees with
this. But we believe that Russia's security interests –
like the rest of ours – are best served by respecting the
principles and laws that we have all collectively agreed.
But when the Kremlin talks of its security interests, it does not
mean the many; it means the few.
The UK remains strongly in support of peace – and has been firmly
behind US and Ukrainian efforts to end this
war.
A just and lasting peace is not a slogan; it means upholding the
foundational principles of global peace and security that we have
all committed to. A settlement that rewards territorial
theft would only guarantee future war. Peace built on
justice and shared principles can endure. Peace built on
fear and force will not.
Thank you."