Ambassador Holland sets out the facts demonstrating that Russia's
war resulted from Moscow's deliberate decisions, not alleged
failures by Ukraine or Europe. Russia has always had the best
opportunities to ensure peace in Ukraine and could end the war
tomorrow by withdrawing its forces.
"Thank you, Mr Chair.
Let me start by strongly condemning Russia's continued attacks
against civilian infrastructure. Russian strikes on energy
infrastructure have deprived millions of heat and water during a
harsh winter. And earlier this week, a Russian drone hit a
passenger train in Kharkiv, killing innocent civilians. We
cannot allow these tactics to become normalised: we have a
responsibility in this forum to continue to condemn these
barbaric attacks in the clearest terms. The UK does so today.
Mr Chair, there is a persistent Russian narrative claiming that
its illegal war against Ukraine could have been avoided had
Europe and Ukraine “seized opportunities” for dialogue between
2014 and 2022. That narrative does not withstand scrutiny. Allow
me to set the record straight.
The events of 2014 did not begin with a “coup”. They began in
November 2013, when President Yanukovych abruptly suspended
preparations to sign the EU‑Ukraine Association Agreement,
despite strong public support, following intense political and
economic pressure from Russia. Peaceful protests were met with
escalating violence by state security forces.
On 21 February 2014, President Yanukovych and opposition leaders
signed an EU‑mediated agreement providing for constitutional
reform, a national unity government, and early presidential
elections. Russia declined to sign that agreement. Had Russia
lent its support, perhaps the outcome might have been different.
Soon after, amid nationwide outrage at killings in Kyiv,
Yanukovych fled the country, along with key governmental figures,
leaving no functioning authority to implement the agreement. In
response, Ukraine's parliament voted that Yanukovych had removed
himself from his constitutional duties and called early
elections. This was an extraordinary response to an extraordinary
situation – not a coup d'état.
Russia took advantage of the situation to violate Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity by seizing Crimea, in clear
breach of the UN Charter. This was condemned by an overwhelming
majority of UN General Assembly members.
The Minsk Agreements that followed offered a framework to halt
the fighting in eastern Ukraine. They failed because
Russian-backed forces repeatedly violated the ceasefire and
refused to meet the security conditions required for political
steps to proceed. Russia was not a neutral mediator. It supplied
weapons, fighters, and command support to armed formations in
Donetsk and Luhansk, while insisting that Ukraine implement
political provisions without the security guarantees that Minsk
itself required.
Finally, Russia claims its December 2021 proposals represented a
last attempt at diplomacy. In fact, they demanded unacceptable
limits on NATO, denied sovereign states the right to choose their
own security arrangements, and sought to rewrite the foundations
of European security; all with totally unreasonable tight
deadlines. The United States and NATO responded with concrete
offers to discuss arms control, transparency, and risk‑reduction
measures. We engaged with these proposals and did not refuse
dialogue. What we refused was an ultimatum incompatible with the
Helsinki Final Act.
Mr Chair, colleagues, facts matter. Russia's war against Ukraine
was not the result of missed opportunities by others, but of
deliberate choices taken by Russia itself. Russia has
always had the best opportunities to ensure peace: it could have
chosen not to illegally annex Crimea, not to orchestrate war in
the Donbas, not to launch a full-scale invasion. And
equally, Russia – unlike Ukraine and Europe – could achieve peace
tomorrow by withdrawing its forces from Ukraine's
internationally-recognised territory. We urge them to do
so.
Thank you."
