UK Politico-Military Counsellor Arron Newble rejects Russia's
portrayal of deterrence as a threat and asks which armed attack
it relies on under Article 51.
"Thank you, Mr Chair.
The United Kingdom wishes to express solidarity with Bulgaria and
Malta following the attacks in the Black Sea this week.
The United Kingdom also remains unwavering in its support for
Ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity
within its internationally recognised borders, and for a just and
lasting peace.
Last week, the Russian Federation presented this Forum with
twenty slides under the heading threats by collective West
officials. Almost every citation of Western officials depended on
one thing: a hypothetical Russian attack. The other quotes
describe sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or support for Ukraine's
right to self-defence. None describes a plan to attack Russia.
Strip away the selective editing and what remains is a collection
of deterrence statements. Deterrence is not a threat. It is a
promise that aggression will fail.
The Kremlin itself knows that NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO
is not at war with Russia, and it seeks no confrontation with
Russia. Every increase in defence spending by the UK and its
Allies, every change in force posture and every new NATO member
since 2022 is the result of Russia's full-scale invasion of a
sovereign neighbour. In 1997, NATO and Russia declared that they
did not consider each other adversaries. It was Russia, not NATO,
that abandoned that commitment through its repeated use of force
against sovereign states.
That use of force is precisely what the UN Charter prohibits.
Article 2, paragraph 4 obliges every State to refrain from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State, a principle every
participating State reaffirmed in the Helsinki Final Act and the
Code of Conduct. Last week, Russia told this Forum that its
actions are consistent with Article 51. But Article 51 preserves
the right of self-defence only if an armed attack occurs. Ukraine
did not attack Russia, and in more than four and a half years the
Kremlin has not identified an armed attack that could justify the
invasion of its neighbour. In 2022, the UN General Assembly
deplored Russia's aggression by an overwhelming majority, and the
International Court of Justice ordered Russia to suspend its
military operations immediately. It has not done so.
Russia has also claimed that States supporting Ukraine have
become parties to the conflict. This is wrong. Under the UN
Charter, a State that has been attacked has the inherent right of
individual and collective self-defence, and other States may
lawfully assist it. That is categorically different from
supplying the aggressor in breach of international law and UN
Security Council resolutions, as the DPRK and Iran have done.
Assisting the victim is lawful. Assisting the aggressor is not.
Publishing lists of civilian companies across Europe and implying
that they are targets is an attempt at intimidation, but it will
not work.
Mr Chair, we should ask why Russia invests so much effort in this
narrative. The answer lies at home. Open-source analysis
indicates that military spending reached a record 44 per cent of
federal budget outlays in the first half of 2026. A society is
being reorganised around war, and the Kremlin must justify this
to its citizens. It has therefore chosen to fabricate a threat
from the West.
Mr Chair, we therefore ask the Russian delegation a simple
question: what armed attack, by Ukraine or by any NATO Ally, does
the Russian Federation rely on to invoke Article 51?
If the Russian Federation is truly concerned about Europe's
investment in its own defence, the remedy lies entirely in its
own hands. It should agree to a full, immediate and unconditional
ceasefire, withdraw its forces from Ukraine's internationally
recognised territory, and engage seriously in negotiations
towards a just and lasting peace.
Thank you, Mr Chair."
