Original text
Thank you, Mr Chair. This Friday, participating States will mark Victory in Europe Day. It is an appropriate moment for this Forum to reflect on the politico-military architecture that we collectively built in the decades after the Second World War to ensure, as the Helsinki Final Act’s first sentence put it, “true and lasting peace” in Europe. The OSCE’s politico‑military acquis was designed to reduce the risks of m...
Thank you, Mr Chair. This Friday, participating States will mark Victory in Europe Day. It is an appropriate moment for this Forum to reflect on the politico-military architecture that we collectively built in the decades after the Second World War to ensure, as the Helsinki Final Act’s first sentence put it, “true and lasting peace” in Europe. The OSCE’s politico‑military acquis was designed to reduce the risks of miscalculation and unintended escalation, and to strengthen stability across the OSCE area. Several instruments stand out. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was explicitly aimed at “eliminating, as a matter of high priority, the capability for launching surprise attack and for initiating large-scale offensive action in Europe”. Its implementation resulted in the verifiable destruction of more than 70,000 pieces of treaty‑limited equipment and thousands of on‑site inspections. This delivered unprecedented transparency and predictability in conventional forces. The Open Skies Treaty further strengthened confidence through jointly conducted, unarmed observation flights. Data from these flights was shared among all States Parties, providing an objective, shared basis for assessing military activities and reducing the risk of misunderstanding. The Vienna Document established mechanisms for military transparency, including prior notification and observation of certain military activities. Its risk‑reduction procedures, for clarification and communication, were designed to alleviate concern. The Code of Conduct on Politico‑Military Aspects of Security complemented these tools by setting clear norms on democratic control of armed forces and respect for international law. Taken together, this interlocking web of politico-military instruments helped to create predictability and stability for decades. That achievement depended on good‑faith implementation and a shared commitment to restraint. Russia’s ongoing full‑scale invasion of Ukraine has not only inflicted horrific casualties. It also represents a clear breach of the Helsinki Decalogue and wider OSCE acquis. In January and February 2022, Ukraine and other participating States used Vienna Document risk‑reduction mechanisms to seek clarification about an unprecedented military build‑up on Ukraine’s borders. The failure by Russia and Belarus to engage seriously in these mandated processes was an important early warning signal. This experience provides clear lessons for today and for the future. Arms control and confidence-and-security-building measures cannot stop a State that is determined to escalate intentionally. Indeed, they were not designed to. But their principles do remain valid for managing risk, reducing misunderstanding, and preventing unintended escalation. Especially in periods of heightened tension. Ukraine is bravely exercising its inherent right of self‑defence in accordance with the UN Charter. The United Kingdom will continue to support Ukraine, in line with international law and the OSCE acquis. As our King told the US Congress last week, our “unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people – in order to secure a truly just and lasting peace”. Ukraine has repeatedly expressed its readiness for a ceasefire leading to a just and lasting peace, including through President Zelenskyy’s latest call for a ceasefire. The United Kingdom stands firmly behind this call. We deeply regret reports that Russia launched further attacks overnight. Russia must demonstrate its commitment to peace by agreeing to a ceasefire as a first step towards a full and lasting cessation of hostilities. Mr Chair, we also condemn Moscow’s irresponsible threats to strike the heart of Kyiv and the warning to diplomatic missions to leave. Such threats are unacceptable: any deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and civilian objects constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law. Ahead of Victory in Europe Day, we should reaffirm a simple truth: Europe is safest when security is built on our shared rules and commitments. Thank you.
Speech Brief