History cannot justify changing borders by force: UK statement to the OSCE
Ambassador Holland rejected Russia’s selective historical claims to Ukrainian territory, stressing that modern borders rest on international law and commitments between sovereign states. The UK welcomed the humanitarian respite in Oleshky and called on Russia to agree to the full ceasefire already accepted by Ukraine.
The United Kingdom welcomes the ceasefire that recently took place in Oleshky. It enabled humanitarian assistance and the evacuation of hundreds of civilians from desperate conditions, demonstrating the immediate benefit of even a limited pause in the fighting.
It also showed that humanitarian arrangements are possible where political will exists. But, much as we are grateful for her action, it should not require the personal intervention of the First Lady of the United States to secure six days of safety for civilians.
Russian attacks continued elsewhere in Ukraine during and immediately after the pause in Oleshky. Russian strikes on a railway station in Dnipro last week, and on a humanitarian aid distribution point and nearby shelter in Komyshuvakha this week, killed at least 55 civilians. These attacks underline the need for a comprehensive ceasefire, rather than brief and exceptional pauses.
Ukraine has accepted the proposal from the United States for a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire. That offer remains on the table. Russia continues to refuse it and to pursue maximalist demands that would deprive Ukraine of sovereignty over its territory, security and future.
President Putin recently repeated his description of Ukrainian territory as “historical Russia”. This reflects the imperial premise behind Russia’s demands: that selective claims about the past entitle it to seize another sovereign state’s territory.
The claim itself is false. The territories occupied by Russia do not share a single or exclusively Russian history. Soviet borders changed repeatedly and in both directions. Territory within today’s Russian Federation was previously administered as part of Soviet Ukraine. Russia cannot select one moment from a complex history and present it as an enduring title deed.
More fundamentally, modern borders do not depend on competing interpretations of history. They rest on international law and commitments made by sovereign states.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia repeatedly recognised Ukraine as an independent and sovereign state within its internationally recognised borders. It did so through, among other instruments, the Budapest Memorandum and the legally binding 1997 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation.
Russia did not reserve a right to redraw Ukraine’s borders, make recognition conditional on Ukraine’s foreign policy, or retain a historical entitlement to Ukrainian territory.
So, we ask the Russian delegation: at what point does it believe Europe’s borders became fixed? May every participating State select its preferred century, consult an old map and claim its neighbour’s territory? Or does Russia reserve that privilege for itself?
The Helsinki Final Act settled this question. Borders cannot be changed by force. States have equal sovereignty and the right to determine their own future. These principles are not subject to arbitrary historical revision.
Mr Chair, Oleshky demonstrated the benefit of stopping the fighting, even briefly. Russia should agree now to the full ceasefire Ukraine has accepted and honour the commitments it has made.
Thank you.