The simple answer to the question is yes – it is ‘for or against’ nuclear weapons, however, it cannot make up its mind. It has abandoned its core value of promoting ‘non-violent solutions to conflict situations’.

I therefore have the following questions for the ‘Green’ Party of England and Wales (GPEW):

• why have you abandoned your long term opposition to nuclear weapons?
• why have you abandoned your ‘core value’ of seeking non-violent conflict solutions for military aggression?
• are you calling for regime change in Russia or even threatening the existence of the Russian state?
• do you believe that Ukraine should be allowed, let alone encouraged, to seek NATO membership?
• do you agree with the current government decision that we should be bringing up the ‘pre-war generation’ ready to fight a war with Russia?

The ‘Green’ Party has once again jumped on a policy direction that they think will ‘win votes’ and have ignored a more nuanced and informed discussion. At a time when we need a strong anti-nuclear weapons stance and to plan for peace rather than war the ‘Green’ Party has failed the people. If they continue to take policy direction from The Daily Mail and The Sun we should ask “what is the point of the ‘Green’ Party”.

Support for NATO

GPEW voted in March 2023 to change its policy towards NATO from outright rejection to acceptance, with caveats. However, it is important to note that the Green Party of Scotland retains its opposition to NATO.

NATO describes itself as a nuclear alliance¹ and it seems difficult to explain how GPEW’s policy on nuclear weapons² is compatible with NATO membership.

NATO also carries out tactical nuclear weapon exercises in Europe. Last year it included “13 Allied countries and a mix of aircraft types, including advanced fighter jets and U.S. B-52 bombers that will fly in from the United States. Conventional jets and surveillance and refuelling aircraft also take part”³

GPEW has stated that it would require “A commitment to a ‘No First Use’ nuclear weapons policy, while pursuing near term global nuclear disarmament, and fostering the same policies in non-NATO countries”. Only two nuclear states – China and India – have No First Use policies and NATO, along with the nuclear states within the alliance (USA, Britain and France) have rejected it. Even with ‘No First Use’ GPEW would be supporting a nuclear alliance.

GPEW also believes that “the UK should join the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)”, however, this treaty has been rejected by all NATO countries and this policy is incompatible with its support for NATO.

The Netherlands was the only NATO country of the 29 members to take part in negotiations for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). It was the only country out of the 124 in the negotiation to vote against, stating this was due to the “incompatibility of the treaty with the country’s NATO obligations and its commitment to NATO”.⁴

GPEW states that they believe “that the use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to International humanitarian law”. The Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons from the International Court of Justice⁵ concluded that the use of nuclear weapons would be illegal except “in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake”. It has been stated that out of the five recognized nuclear states (USA, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France) only two of them (Russia and China) have nuclear policies that reflect this requirement⁶. So GPEW is joining an organization that it believes is behaving illegally.

When Russia states it policy of possibly using nuclear weapons when “the very survival of a State would be at stake”, it is often claimed that Russia is threatening to use nuclear weapons. This is only true if NATO threatens the existence of the Russian state.

Beyond this, GPEW naively sees NATO as a purely defensive alliance, which is not true – for example, NATO intervened in former Yugoslavia and in Libya. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO changed its future missions to respond to “complex new risks to…peace and stability, including oppression, ethnic conflict, economic distress, [and] the collapse of political order….”⁷

The reason for the sudden support for NATO is undoubtedly the conflict in Ukraine. At the same time, it is clear that one of the main reasons for the Russian aggression in Ukraine is the repeated statements that Ukraine will join NATO. Before I go into this, I would like to discuss core values more.

Core Values

Although not explicitly stated, many people see the opposition to nuclear weapons as one of the core values of the Green Party. However, this is not the only place where GPEW seems to be abandoning its core values.

While claiming to seek “non-violent processes of conflict resolution in order to achieve lasting settlements”⁸ recent statements, for example Caroline Lucas’s recent outburst on Question Time⁹ brings into question whether GPEW are abandoning these core values.

By definition, core values are immutable and, unlike various policies, cannot be changed due to circumstance. Either you believe in non-violent conflict resolution or you do not, either you believe that nuclear weapons should be abandoned or you do not. If these are your core values you cannot make exceptions to them.

Ukraine and NATO Expansion

Ukraine has always been a very divided country, as can be seen from the polling in 2012 elections.

In 2008 when NATO expressed the intention of extending membership to Ukraine and Georgia, there was a very strong reaction from the Russia Federation. The US ambassador in Moscow cabled to say that Russia was frightened that “In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.”¹⁰

This may be why in 1991 George Bush argued against Ukraine leaving the Russian Federation:¹¹

“Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”

Even in 1997 fifty academics signed a letter against NATO expansion¹² calling it a “a policy error of historic proportions” as did George Kennan¹³ (father of the containment policy towards the USSR) and William Perry (former US defence secretary)¹⁴.

In 2019 the Rand Corporation published a paper called Extending Russia which specifically calls for Provide Lethal Aid to Ukraine as part of a campaign to weaken Russian power¹⁵.

Dealing With Potentially Hostile States

There are three ways to deal with a hostile state:

• create treaties and security guarantees to deescalate the hostility
• ‘containment’ – i.e. contain the hostile state within its own sphere of influence, stop its power growing and limit is ability for geopolitical manoeuvring. This was the policy of Western nations toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
• Destroy the current state structure and/or regime change.

Regime Change And Threat to “the very survival of a State”

NATO and individual countries within the alliance have repeatedly called for regime change in Russia. NATO unreservedly supports the Ukrainian regime, despite it passing laws ruling out negotiations with President Putin¹⁶ and President Biden, amongst others, has said that Putin “cannot remain in power”¹⁷.

While the narrative given by the media is that Putin is the problem, it is important to note the difference between serious geopolitical analysis and the spin and dodgy dossiers given to it by politicians and the media that Putin is the problem. In 2022 Biden’s CIA director, William J. (Bill) Burns, stated:

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”¹⁸

USA left the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002¹⁹ and has established missile defence bases on the Russian borders in Poland²⁰ and Romania²¹. They have also abandoned the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty claiming that Russia had violated the treaty²². Russia has denied any violation and have proposed a draft inspection and verification regime²³.

It has been argued that the dissolution of Russia may be “good news for everyone”²⁴ and others are arguing for the breakup of Russia^{25, 26,27} although others have discussed the dangers of Russian disintegration²⁸. This view has also been put forward by the Prime Minister of a NATO country²⁹.

Former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has stated that the USA invested $5billion into the Euromaidan campaign³⁰. The CIA has also been working with Ukrainian security services since 2014 and have established 12 spy bases on the Russian border³¹. The European Union also investigated CIA special rendition prisons in Ukraine in 2007³². Even as far back as 2004 the Guardian reported US involvement in unrest in Ukraine³³.

Therefore there is strong reasons for Russia to believe that NATO countries have gone beyond containment and have been actively involved in destabilizing the Russian state and in particular are using Ukrainians as pawns in this campaign.

Plan For Peace Not War

Following the Maidan events in Western Ukraine in 2014 several areas in the Eastern side of Ukraine did not recognise its legitimacy and sought autonomy for the Donbas region. This resulted in an ongoing conflict in the area. Two international agreements were drafted – the Minsk Agreements³⁴ – were reached to try to end the hostilities.

However, Angela Merkel, one of the agreements’ sponsors later said that the agreements were “an attempt to give Ukraine time” – which it had used to become more able to defend itself³⁵.

There is strong evidence that the mass killings in Kyiv on 20 February 2014 were carried out by far-right extremists in order to bring Western support for the Euromaidan protests³⁶.

The Russian unease over Ukraine becoming a NATO member was well known before the Russian invasion in February 2022. Russia had even proposed a draft security agreement in December 2021³⁷. However, this was rejected by NATO and was not even used as a basis of further discussion with Russia.

In March 2022 Ukraine and Russia negotiated an agreement known as the Istanbul Agreement³⁸ although the details of this agreement have not been release, since it is hoped that they could be ongoing, there is a Ten Point Plan from the Ukrainian negotiators³⁹.

Even before the Euromaidan events there were attempt to find a non-violent solution. In November 2013 Russia offered to hold tripartite negotiations with Ukraine and the EU concerning trade and economic relations⁴⁰. However, this was flatly refused by the EU⁴¹.

Brazil and China have called presented a joint proposal for peace negotiations with the participation of Russia and Ukraine⁴² but there seems to be little reaction from Western powers. The proposal is very similar to that proposed by China in 2023⁴³ which likewise received little response.

Both President Putin⁴⁴ and Foreign Minister Lavrov⁴⁵ have said that they are still open to negotiations.

There is therefore a substantial bedrock on which peace discussions can begin. However, it is imperative to first understand the Russian position. Even if you disagree completely with their position then it is important to understand your enemy.

This crisis is often compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis. At the time President Kennedy asks why the Soviet Union would position missiles in Cuba and ‘forgets’ that they have moved missiles into Turkey⁴⁶ :

“JFK: That’s right, but what is the advantage of that? It’s just as if we suddenly began to put a major number of MRBMs in Turkey. Now that’d be goddam dangerous, I would think.

Bundy?: Well, we did, Mr. President.

U.A. Johnson?: We did it. We . . .”

Eventually, the USA removed missiles from Turkey and the Soviet Union removed missiles from Cuba and world armagedon was averted.

Despite the many opportunities for the security concerns between NATO and Russia to be resolved through negotiation, NATO has rejected these and pursued a policy of military escalation.

Defend The People Not The Vested Interests

While hundreds of thousand of young Ukrainians and Russians are killing each other as world leaders move their pawns across the geopolitical chessboard, GPEW has decided to support one king against the other. They have not only abandoned the people dying in Ukraine but are also joining the fomenting military escalation and arms race.

While it is not always easy to go against the paradigm set by current politicians and mainstream media we desperately need a political party that challenge the march to war. Unfortunately, The Green Party of England and Wales is not willing to do this.

---

1. Strategic Concept 2010; NATO; 2010 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_82705.htm) ↩︎
2. Peace, Security and Defence; Green Party of England and Wales (https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policy/peace-and-defence/) ↩︎
3. NATO holds long-planned annual nuclear exercise; NATO; 13 October 2023 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_219443.htm) ↩︎
4. NATO and the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons; Steven Hill; Chatham House (https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/01/nato-and-treaty-prohibition-nuclear-weapons/03-natos-concerns-about-tpnw) ↩︎
5. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons – Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996 – Advisory Opinions [1996] ICJ 3; ICJ Reports 1996, p 226; [1996] ICJ Rep 226 (8 July 1996) (http://www.worldlii.org/int/cases/ICJ/1996/3.html) ↩︎
6. NATO’s Nuclear Weapons: The Rationale for ‘No First Use’; Arms Control Association (https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999-07/features/natos-nuclear-weapons-rationale-first-use) ↩︎
7. A short history of NATO; NATO (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/139339.htm) ↩︎
8. Philosophical Basis; The Green Party of England and Wales; Autumn 2022 (https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/our-philosophical-basis/) ↩︎
9. Question Time 29/2/2024; BBC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjdAkMO7nhw&t=3360s) ↩︎
10. Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines; Ambassador William J. Burns; 1 February 2008 (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html) ↩︎
11. Bush says Ukraine should accept loose union with USSR; The Boston Globe; 2 August 1991 (https://web.archive.org/web/20140610054016/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7671451.html) ↩︎
12. Opposition to NATO Expansion; Arms Control Today; 26 June 1997 (https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion) ↩︎
13. Now a Word From X; Foreign Affairs; 2 May 1998 (https://eldyrin.livejournal.com/23389.html) ↩︎
14. Russian hostility ‘partly caused by west’, claims former US defence head; The Guardian; 9 March 2016 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/russian-hostility-to-west-partly-caused-by-west) ↩︎
15. Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground; The Rand Corporation; 2019 (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html) ↩︎
16. Zelenskiy decree rules out Ukraine talks with Putin as ‘impossible’; Reuters; 4 October 2022 (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-decree-rules-out-ukraine-talks-with-putin-impossible-2022-10-04/) ↩︎
17. Joe Biden Is Calling for Regime Change in Russia and This Time It Isn’t A Gaffe; Newsweek; 4 April 2022 (https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-calling-regime-change-russia-this-time-it-isnt-gaffe-1694867) ↩︎
18. Biden’s CIA Director Doesn’t Believe Biden’s Story about Ukraine; The Beinart Notebook; 7 February 2022 (https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/bidens-cia-director-doesnt-believe) ↩︎
19. U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty; Global Response Muted; Arms Control Today; July 2002 (https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-07/news/us-withdraws-abm-treaty-global-response-muted) ↩︎
20. United States missile defense complex in Poland; Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland) ↩︎
21. Deveselu Military Base; WIkipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deveselu_Military_Base) ↩︎
22. U.S. Completes INF Treaty Withdrawal; Arms Control Today; September 2019 (https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-withdrawal) ↩︎
23. Russia Expands Proposal for Moratorium on INF-Range Missiles; Arms Control Today; November 2020 (https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-11/news-briefs/russia-expands-proposal-moratorium-inf-range-missiles) ↩︎
24. Russia’s dissolution may happen quite swiftly. The West must not seek to delay the inevitable; Sergej Sumlenny; 25 October 2023 (https://cepa.org/article/russias-collapse-good-news-for-everyone/) ↩︎
25. Decolonize Russia; Casey Michel; The Atlantic; 27 May 2022 (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/russia-putin-colonization-ukraine-chechnya/639428/) ↩︎
26. National minorities of Russian Federation discuss its deimperialization in Prague; EuroMaidan Press; 25 July 2025 (https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/07/25/national-minorities-of-russian-federation-discuss-its-deimperialization-in-prague/) ↩︎
27. The Ukraine War might really break up the Russian Federation; The Hill; 13 August 2023 (https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4149633-what-if-russia-literally-splits-apart/) ↩︎
28. Putin’s War and the Dangers of Russian Disintegration; Foreign Affairs; 9 December 2022 (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/putins-war-and-dangers-russian-disintegration) ↩︎
29. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said that the disintegration of Russia into small nations is not a bad thing; Reddit; 19 May 2024 (https://www.reddit.com/r/NAFO/comments/1cvq389/estonian_prime_minister_kaja_kallas_said_that_the/) ↩︎
30. The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made; Truthout; 15 July 2015 (https://truthout.org/articles/the-ukraine-mess-that-nuland-made/) ↩︎
31. CIA maintains 12 secret bases in Ukraine, CIA head was in Kyiv last week; New York Times; 25 February 2024 (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html) ↩︎
32. Report on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners; European Union; 30 January 2007 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/tempcom/tdip/final_report_en.pdf) ↩︎
33. US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev; The Guardian; 26 November 2004 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa) ↩︎
34. Minsk agreements; WIkipedia; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements) ↩︎
35. Putin says loss of trust in West will make future Ukraine talks harder; Reuters; 9 December 2022 (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-loss-trust-west-will-make-future-ukraine-talks-harder-2022-12-09/) ↩︎
36. The Maidan Massacre Trial and Investigation Revelations: Implications for the Ukraine-Russia War and Relations; Russian Politics, Vol. 8, No. 2, (July/August 2023), pp. 181-205 (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4440100#:~:text=This%20Maidan%20massacre%20of%20protesters,illegally%20invading%20Ukraine%20in%202022) ↩︎
37. Agreement on measures to ensure the security of The Russian Federation and member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; Russian Federation; 17 Decembe 2021 (https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en) ↩︎
38. Ukraine and Russia explore neutrality plan in peace talks; Financial Times; 16 March 2022 (https://www.ft.com/content/7b341e46-d375-4817-be67-802b7fa77ef1) ↩︎
39. Ukraine’s 10-point plan; Faridaily; 29 March 2022 (https://faridaily.substack.com/p/ukraines-10-point-plan) ↩︎
40. Putin: Russia ready for tripartite talks with Ukraine EU, for UK, 22 November 2013 (http://en.for-ua.com/news/2013/11/22/154845.html) ↩︎
41. Barroso rules out possibility of EU-Ukraine-Russia tripartite negotiations, Voice of Russia, 29 November 2013 (http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_11_29/Barroso-rules-out-possibility-of-EU-Ukraine-Russia-tripartite-negotiations-3665/) ↩︎
42. Brazil and China present joint proposal for peace negotiations with the participation of Russia and Ukraine; Brazillian Government; May 2024 (https://www.gov.br/planalto/en/latest-news/2024/05/brazil-and-china-present-joint-proposal-for-peace-negotiations-with-the-participation-of-russia-and-ukraine) ↩︎
43. China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China; 24 February 2023 (https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html) ↩︎
44. Answers to media questions following the visit to China; Kremlin; 17 May 2024 (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/74065) ↩︎
45. Speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov at the XXXII Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy; Embassy Life; 19 May 2024 (https://embassylife.ru/en/post/53681) ↩︎
46. Off the Record Meeting on Cuba, The White House, Washington, October 16, 1962, 6:30-7:55 p.m. (http://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct16/doc3.html) ↩︎