UK Asserts: History Cannot Justify Forceful Border Changes in OSCE Statement

The United Kingdom has expressed its support for the recent ceasefire in Oleshky, which facilitated humanitarian aid and allowed for the evacuation of hundreds of civilians from dire circumstances. This development highlights the significant advantages that can arise from even a temporary cessation of hostilities.

Moreover, it illustrates that humanitarian measures can be implemented when there is a genuine political will to do so. However, it is concerning that such a vital action should depend on the personal involvement of high-ranking officials from other nations to secure a mere six days of safety for civilians.

Continued Hostilities and the Need for Comprehensive Ceasefire

Despite the ceasefire in Oleshky, Russian assaults persisted in other regions of Ukraine both during and immediately following the pause. Notably, attacks on a railway station in Dnipro and a humanitarian aid distribution point in Komyshuvakha resulted in the tragic loss of at least 55 civilian lives. These incidents underscore the urgent necessity for a comprehensive and enduring ceasefire, rather than sporadic and exceptional interruptions to fighting.

Ukraine has accepted a proposal for a full, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire put forth by the United States, which remains available for consideration. In contrast, Russia has consistently rejected this offer while insisting on maximalist demands that undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, security, and future.

Historical Claims and Sovereignty

President Putin has reiterated his view that Ukrainian territory constitutes “historical Russia,” reflecting an imperial mindset that underpins Russia’s territorial claims. This assertion is fundamentally flawed; the regions currently occupied by Russia do not possess a singular or exclusively Russian historical narrative. The borders established during the Soviet era were subject to frequent changes, both inwards and outwards. Portions of what is now the Russian Federation were once part of Soviet Ukraine, illustrating the complexity of historical claims.

Moreover, contemporary borders are not determined by selective historical interpretations, but rather by international law and the commitments made by sovereign nations. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia acknowledged Ukraine as an independent state within its internationally recognised borders, as evidenced by agreements such as the Budapest Memorandum and the legally binding Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation established in 1997.

The Importance of Upholding International Principles

Russia did not retain any right to alter Ukraine’s borders, nor did it condition its recognition of Ukraine on the latter’s foreign policy decisions, or claim a historical entitlement to Ukrainian territory.

In light of this, we pose a question to the Russian delegation: When does it believe European borders became established? Can each participating state choose a historical period, refer to an old map, and lay claim to its neighbour’s territory? Or is such a privilege reserved solely for Russia?

The Helsinki Final Act has definitively addressed this issue: borders cannot be altered through force. States possess equal sovereignty and the inherent right to shape their own destinies. These principles are not open to arbitrary historical reinterpretation.

Call for Commitment to Ceasefire

Mr Chair, the events in Oleshky have illustrated the benefits of halting hostilities, even if only for a short time. It is imperative that Russia agrees to the comprehensive ceasefire that Ukraine has accepted and adheres to the commitments it has previously made.

Thank you.