Mr Chair, the United Kingdom remains unequivocally committed to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine one that protects Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the right of every participating State to choose its own security arrangements, in line with the Helsinki Final Act. Our support for Ukraine is long-term, and we support every credible diplomatic effort to bring this war to an end. But credible diplomacy requires seriousness, a willingness to engage directly, and to negotiate in good faith.
The Russian Federation has not done any of these. It is not choosing negotiation. It is choosing to continue the war. This is the contradiction at the heart of Russia’s position. Russia speaks of dialogue but rejects the conditions that would make talks meaningful. Russia speaks of peace but refuses a ceasefire. Russia speaks of diplomacy but continues to attack Ukrainian cities. Russia’s message is negotiation but Russia’s method is war.
On 23 June, President Putin again claimed Russia was open to peace. Yet the Russian Federation continues to refuse a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire. President Putin has not accepted President Zelenskyy’s repeated offers of direct dialogue, including in his recent open letter to the Kremlin. A State serious about peace does not refuse every opportunity to meet, to talk, and to stop the killing.
A short while ago on 6 May, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued formal notes to Embassies in Kyiv. On 25 May, after one of the largest single-night attacks on Kyiv since the start of the full-scale invasion, the Russian Ministry of Defence advised diplomatic personnel to leave the city “as soon as possible”. And on 24 June, in this Forum, Russia reiterated that this threat “remains in force”.
This is not diplomacy. It is pressure. It is an attempt to intimidate the diplomatic community, undermine confidence in Ukraine’s capital, and present Russian escalation as inevitable. The response has been clear Embassies have not left or announced plans to leave Kyiv.
Last week, in this Forum, the distinguished representative from Belarus stated the Union State framework includes the use of, in its own words, “all possible means available, including nuclear means”. The Russian Delegation repeated and amplified this nuclear signalling multiple times. This rhetoric is irresponsible and coercive nuclear signalling. This does not support negotiation. This is designed to intimidate. This does not bring peace closer, it increases risk. But let me reiterate, this is not a nuclear crisis, and nor should it become one.
The Russian Federation’s conduct of the war tells the same story. It continues to sustain casualties of some 38,000 a month, for negligible gains on the ground. It persists in the reckless use of Oreshnik nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missiles against Ukrainian cities. It intensifies long-range strikes that kill civilians far from the front line. These are not the actions of a State seeking peace. They are the actions of a State seeking to sustain the war while blaming others for the absence of negotiations.
The Russian Federation must stop the war and engage meaningfully in negotiations. Peace will not come through rhetoric while the Russian Armed Forces continue to fight. Peace will not come through threats while Russia refuses direct engagement. And peace will not come through claims of openness while Russia rejects the ceasefire.
Mr Chair, we continue to call on the Russian Federation to de-escalate, starting by ending its illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The Russian Federation should agree to an immediate ceasefire and open the channels with Kyiv that President Zelenskyy has repeatedly offered. The path to peace is clear and Russia can choose to take it at any time. Thank you, Mr Chair.