What official statements has Reform UK published on Ukraine and NATO membership?
Executive summary
Reform UK’s publicly recorded positions on Ukraine and NATO membership consist mainly of high-profile comments by party leaders rather than a single, detailed party manifesto: leader Nigel Farage publicly signalled unexpected support for Ukraine joining NATO in February 2025, while deputy leader Richard Tice has floated the opposite position — that Ukrainian accession should be off the table if it is an absolute Russian red line in negotiations [1] [2] [3]. The reporting assembled here is limited to media accounts of leader remarks and a deputy-leader intervention; no comprehensive, formal party policy paper on Ukraine’s NATO membership appears in the supplied sources.
1. Nigel Farage’s February 2025 shift — public backing for Ukrainian accession
In mid‑February 2025 Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, surprised observers by saying he would support Ukraine joining NATO, a change from his earlier emphasis that NATO and EU enlargement helped provoke Russia’s invasion; that reporting traces back to Politico and was republished by outlets including RBC and Ukrainska Pravda [1] [2]. Farage framed the move as part of a long‑term solution if a negotiated settlement could be reached — arguing that getting Putin and Zelenskyy “into a place” for a reasonable negotiation would make Ukrainian NATO membership “probably essential” [2]. The sources present this as an individual leader statement reported in the press rather than a formal, published Reform UK policy document [1] [2].
2. Richard Tice’s caveat — trade NATO for peace if it’s a Russian red line
Reform UK’s deputy leader, Richard Tice, publicly suggested a contrasting position: that Ukraine should not be admitted to NATO if membership were an “absolute red line” for Vladimir Putin in peace talks, signalling willingness to consider concessions on accession as part of negotiations [3]. That comment — carried in PoliticsHome reporting — positions Reform UK’s senior figures at odds with one another on accession and illustrates an internal or tactical divide between backing membership in principle and prioritising a negotiated peace that could require compromises [3].
3. Context: Reform’s past scepticism about NATO expansion and the media framing
Multiple media accounts emphasise that Farage historically criticised NATO’s eastward expansion and blamed Western policy for creating Russian pretexts, a record that made his reported February 2025 backing notable as a reversal or recalibration rather than a clean policy endorsement [1] [2]. Coverage from Ukrainska Pravda and others highlights that Farage’s comments were given against the backdrop of other Western leaders’ contradictory statements about accession — for example, US officials at times describing NATO membership for Ukraine as unrealistic — underscoring how his remark was read as part of a fluid international debate rather than a settled party platform [2].
4. What Reform UK has formally published — limits of the record
The sources supplied do not include a Reform UK manifesto or an official party policy document explicitly and comprehensively setting out Reform UK’s position on Ukraine’s NATO membership; instead, the record in these items consists of high‑profile public remarks by party figures [1] [3] [2]. Consequently, it is not possible from these sources to say that Reform UK has published an official, consolidated policy statement on NATO accession for Ukraine; available evidence shows leader statements and media reports rather than a formal party declaration [1] [3] [2].
5. How these statements map onto broader UK and NATO positions
Farage’s reported support for Ukrainian accession was contemporaneous with UK government restatements that Ukraine’s path to NATO was “irreversible,” language used by UK officials and NATO allies at recent summits, which the Commons Library and Downing Street readouts record — making Farage’s remark politically resonant even if not an official party text [4] [5]. At the same time, other Reform figures’ willingness to entertain blocking accession as a negotiation lever aligns uneasily with the UK government’s publicly declared support for Ukraine’s “irreversible path” and illustrates why media coverage treated Reform’s comments as politically significant rather than purely rhetorical [4] [5] [3].