(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That this House takes note of the situation in Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to Corporal Christopher Gill, who lost his life in a training exercise a few days ago. He made an enormous contribution to defence, including to Operation Interflex. Our thoughts are with his family.
We are fast approaching the third winter of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. There is no weaking of the resolve of everyone in this Parliament, across all parties, and of the British people to see this through with our allies. It will be the third winter in which the extraordinary Ukrainian people are fighting to defend their homes and families and fighting for the right to exist as a free and sovereign nation. It will be the third winter of war that Putin did not plan for when he attacked Kyiv two and a half years ago. His blitzkrieg offence, which quickly turned into a retreat, has evolved into a deadly and dystopian meat-grinder tactic, where 20th century trenches meet 21st century drones and a medieval mentality.
On average, more than 1,100 Russians have been killed or wounded each day since May, many from poor, provincial backgrounds. In total, there are likely to have been around 675,000 Russian casualties, either killed or injured. Confidential payment records obtained by the BBC show that 17,000 Russian prisoners died in the assaults on Bakhmut over a 12-month period. Putin’s tactics demonstrate his complete disregard for human life, whether Ukrainian or Russian. His war of imperial aggression was launched on the back of decades of internal repression that failed to stem a Russian brain drain, with hundreds of thousands of educated Russians heading into exile since the full-scale invasion.
In the other direction, it is now highly likely that the transfer and deployment of hundreds of combat troops from North Korea to Russia has begun. This return of big-state warfare in Europe has been a twin attack on the Ukrainian people and on the global, rules-based international system. Ukrainians have endured rape and pillage, bombardment and occupation, death and destruction, as Russian forces have abducted thousands of Ukrainian children and cynically targeted civilian infrastructure to use the winter as a weapon of war.
Putin’s war is also a sustained attack on the UN charter and the rules and norms that underpin our security and prosperity. That is why Russia must lose and be seen to lose, because global security is indivisible. What happens in Ukraine has an impact around the world, in the same way as what happens in the Indo-Pacific has an impact on global security. It is in no one’s interests to let a violation of territorial integrity stand, and that is why the front line in Ukraine is also the front line of UK and European security.
That is also why we—all of us—will continue to do everything we can to help Ukraine prevail. Ukraine has repeatedly demonstrated great ingenuity to stay in this long war: the miliary ingenuity to hit supply lines deep in Russia, with its next-generation drone capabilities; the ingenuity to stake out a buffer zone in Kursk, which might yet prove to be an act of great diplomatic ingenuity; the ingenuity to force the Russian fleet out of the western Black Sea, although, regretfully, as noble Lords will have seen, Russian missiles have struck several commercial vessels this month; and the miliary ingenuity not only to push the much larger Russian force out of more than half the land it originally seized but largely to hold that line ever since. While Russia’s advances are generally measured in metres rather than miles, I do not seek to downplay the strain on Ukraine’s front-line forces or the military challenges it faces, particularly as Russia’s recruitment gets more desperate and its forces now openly admit to using riot control agents, a chemical weapon, on the battlefield.
Alongside Ukraine’s military ingenuity, President Zelensky has also shown great diplomatic skill and statecraft, repeatedly rallying western allies into giving the support that his country and forces need to stay in the fight. Most recently, he toured US and European capitals to outline his victory plan. He has had no greater ally than this Government, both now and in the past. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister welcomed President Zelensky back to No. 10 to discuss the vital support that his nation needs to make his victory plan a reality. The Prime Minister discussed that with President Biden, President Macron and Chancellor Scholz in Germany last week.
That was but the latest conversation in a summer of diplomacy, stretching from the Washington NATO summit and the meeting of the European Political Community in Blenheim Palace in July to countless visits to European capitals. That culminated last week in the meetings of NATO and G7 Defence Ministers and the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg, which was the first time in more than two years that the UK has had a presence in that conversation. These are the latest steps of a crucial diplomatic marathon to give Ukraine the support and military assets that it needs, with the provision of multiple weapons and weapon systems provided as quickly as we can. We are learning lessons about the need for stockpiles and the future of miliary tactics, to strengthen us against the various diplomatic, military, intelligence and industrial threats that make up this tapestry of European security.
That is important, because regardless of who wins the US election, it is pretty clear that a new US President will be looking towards European NATO allies to step up and to take greater responsibility for European security, and for giving Ukraine more of the military capabilities it needs to defeat Russia.
We all know how grave the costs can be when aggression is met by hesitation. Only this year, we were reminded of that when we marked 80 years since Europeans faced down Hitler’s imperial tyranny. It was Clement Attlee who forged NATO from the shrapnel of that attack on European values to deliver ironclad deterrence for generations to come. Today, that defensive alliance, through all Governments since that time, remains the cornerstone of European and global security. It has been bolstered by the accession of Sweden and Finland, which represents a huge strategic own goal by Putin. The Prime Minister recently met with the new NATO Secretary-General to reaffirm the Government’s NATO-first approach and outline how we are stepping up military aid to Ukraine.
On Tuesday, the Chancellor announced an innovative and significant new funding stream. We are committing more than £2.25 billion under the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine scheme, which is money generated from the interest on seized Russian assets and part of a larger £50 billion loan package from G7 countries for Ukraine’s war effort, economy and reconstruction.
On top of this, the Prime Minister has committed to President Zelensky that the UK will provide £3 billion of military support every year for as long as it is necessary. On day two in office, the Defence Secretary travelled to Ukraine to speed up the delivery of that support. Since the election, we have gifted a range of equipment to strengthen Ukraine’s air defences and boost its fighting power, from tens of millions of rounds of ammunition, anti-armour Brimstone missiles and lightweight multi-role air defence missiles, to demining vehicles and AS90 artillery guns.
At the ministerial meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group in Ramstein in September, the Defence Secretary announced that the UK would extend Operation Interflex until at least the end of 2025, the UK-based multinational training programme that has already trained more than 48,000 members of the Ukrainian armed forces.
Over the course of its full-scale invasion, Russia has launched over 1,000 attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. In response, we have provided over £370 million to bolster Ukraine’s energy security and resilience through grant-in-kind support and loan guarantees, which includes £40 million for essential repairs and equipment this year alone, which will help the Ukrainians through the winter and beyond. We should pay tribute at this point to the steadfastness of the Ukrainian population in the face of what they have suffered.
In the spring, we saw the impacts of US military support getting bogged down on Capitol Hill. Stagnation in supplies and delivery serves only Russian interests. So, as Ukraine works to ramp up its indigenous production capacity, we are doing all we can to ensure that the UK defence industrial sector plays a prominent role, with the Defence Secretary hosting a meeting between President Zelensky and UK industry leaders in July and signing a defence industrial support treaty with the Ukrainian Defence Minister worth £3.5 billion, and with the Minister for Armed Forces speaking at the International Defence Industries Forum in Ukraine earlier this month.
In addition to our military, political and industrial support, the Government are determined to use sanctions to impose a heavy price on Putin and his enablers for his war, and we are determined to give existing sanctions greater bite. At the Blenheim Palace meeting in the summer, over 40 European leaders signed our call to action, agreeing—importantly—to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers that transport Russian oil to third countries in order to undermine sanctions. The UK has since sanctioned 43 oil tankers, disrupting their freedom to operate, barring them from UK ports and leaving them unable to access British maritime services. Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary also sanctioned Russian soldiers and officials behind the use of chemical weapons.
Cross-party parliamentary support, the work of previous Ministers and the previous Government, as well as ourselves, which continues, has led to the UK imposing some of the toughest sanctions ever seen on Russia—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Before the Minister finishes his excellent speech, will he tell us the Government’s policy on allowing long-range missiles for strikes further inside Russia?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The policy with respect to Storm Shadow remains the same. Russia knows that Ukraine has a right to self-defence, and that is within that principle and conforms to international humanitarian law. That is the policy as it stands, and there has been no change to that policy as we speak in this debate.
As I was saying, cross-party parliamentary support has been important and has led to the UK imposing some of the toughest sanctions ever seen on Russia. With more than 1,800 individuals and entities sanctioned since the full-scale invasion, locking over $400 billion away from the Russian state, the equivalent of four years more funding for their illegal invasion. To give those sanctions sharper teeth, the Government recently launched a new unit to enhance compliance and punish companies and individuals that fail to comply.
Noble Lords will know that Putin is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He is facing charges from the International Criminal Court for war crimes, and his forces have committed many atrocities that shake the soul of our shared humanity. Putin’s willingness to lower the bar, from hitting hospitals and homes and targeting energy infrastructure, to the mass deportation of Ukrainian children and the use of chemical weapons, makes Ukraine’s resolve all the more remarkable. The UK will do everything we can to ensure that Ukraine’s allies mirror that resolve. There will be discussions, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says, but let us remember that we remain united in our resolve to tackle the illegal invasion of Ukraine.
As economists warn that Putin’s prolonged campaign and increasingly hungry wartime economy are unsustainable and will increasingly hurt Russia’s poorest people, democracies must recommit to thwarting Putin’s plans in order to outline our collective interest and resolve. If Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop there. If autocratic states are allowed to redraw international boundaries by force, the sovereignty and security of all nations is undermined.
That is why we are maintaining the constant drum beat of international diplomacy and military aid in support of Ukraine. It is why any just and sustainable peace for Ukraine needs to reflect the principles of the UN charter—principles to which the international community has signed up and which even the BRICS Kazan Summit declaration called to be upheld. It is why we are getting behind Ukraine’s victory plan, and working with our European, NATO and other democratic allies to ensure that they get behind it too. This winter, the values and freedoms that the Ukrainians are fighting for are the ones that underpin every democracy. The security that Ukraine is fighting for underpins the security of our entire continent and that of the rules-based order across the world.
Freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are at stake. They are worth standing up for, as they always have been, and as this country has always done. This country, with our allies across Europe and beyond, will be at the forefront of that struggle for as long as it takes. I beg to move.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said, this is an exceptionally important debate. I thank him for bringing it to the House and for his excellent speech, which we can agree with in totality. Before I start, I should say that I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, which we will hear later.
I reiterate what noble Lords said from the opposite side before the election: these Benches are fully behind the Government’s position on Ukraine. I paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, from a debate before the election, in saying that this House’s unity in that support is an important element of the United Kingdom’s position. The situation in Ukraine is concerning. Noble Lords agree, I am sure, that we must stand firm with Ukraine.
I join the Minister in sending condolences to the family and friends of Corporal Christopher Gill, who lost his life during a recent training exercise. He served this country for 13 years, and served it well.
We have seen some developments in the conflict in Ukraine. I share His Majesty’s Government’s concerns in relation to North Korea. Putin has called the UK’s support for Ukraine “escalatory action” numerous times but, this week, we have seen a real escalation in Russia’s illegal invasion. Let us be in no doubt: this agreement between Putin and Kim Jong-un is a threat to democracy in the West and is yet further proof, as the Minister said, that Ukraine is fighting not only in its own defence but in the defence of Europe.
Russia has already procured munitions and ballistic missiles from North Korea. The transfer of these weapons in the first place was not only completely unacceptable but a deliberate violation of the UN sanctions that Russia itself voted for. We know that the transfer of North Korean weapons, and now the threat of combat troops, is an act of desperation demonstrating weakness, not strength, on Putin’s part. We must not be deterred. We must do the right thing and continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine.
The previous Government took decisive action to help constrain the transfer of weapons between North Korea and Russia. We imposed sanctions on the arms-for-oil trade between Russia and North Korea, including asset freezes, travel bans and transport sanctions. In turn, the new Government have responded appropriately to this new threat. Can the Minister confirm what further steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to support Ukraine in the face of this new threat?
Given the need to continue providing further military capability to Ukraine, we welcome Monday’s announcement that the UK will contribute £2.26 billion to the G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loan scheme for Ukraine. The Conservative Government were a vocal advocate for mobilising frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. We strongly welcome the additional funding. Can the Minister tell the House when exactly those funds will be made available?
In conclusion, I am sure that many in this House will have been raised on stories of the last Great War in Europe. We vowed then never to let it happen again. We must stand strong with Ukraine. I encourage His Majesty’s Government to continue the great work done by the previous Conservative Government in supporting Ukraine.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. As a country, we have stood united to support Ukraine for almost three years. As the Secretary of State said in the other place just three days ago, we were then on day 973 since the illegal invasion of eastern Ukraine. Now, it is day 976.
It is often suggested that Ukraine’s war is our war. I suspect that most noble Lords across the Chamber will echo those sentiments today. I also suspect that one or two will suggest that we need to take a slightly different approach, but it is very important that all three main parties stand united in our support of Ukraine. I very much echo the Secretary of State’s remark that the Ukrainians are fighting to regain their sovereignty, but they are also fighting to protect the peace, democracy and security of all of us.
The context of today’s debate is a war that has been ongoing for nearly three years, but one that seems no longer to be hitting the headlines. We do not hear what is happening on a day-by-day basis, but the brave Ukrainians have continued to fight for their sovereignty, to defend their territory and to fight for freedom and democracy. We should pay tribute to them.
I associate these Benches with the tribute paid to Corporal Christopher Gill and the service he gave. May he rest in peace.
The diplomacy that has taken place over the past few months, and which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, discussed, has been vital. The work of NATO, the G7 Defence Ministers and the European Foreign Affairs Council is important, as is the sense that we stand together. We on these Benches very much welcome the decisions taken by the G7 to provide further financial support to Ukraine and to use the interest on the frozen Russian assets—which, I point out, was called for by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed back in January, so he is particularly grateful. Obviously, those decisions are very important.
It is a particular relief to know that upwards of £2.25 billion is not coming out of the UK’s defence budget, so I do not have to ask the Minister where that money is coming from. However, I have a specific question about how Ukraine will be able to draw down that funding. Are we talking about cumulative interest that has already accrued, which Ukraine will be able to draw down as soon as the facility is in place?
Our defence support for Ukraine has been very clear. We recommit to that willingly, but in recent weeks and months the context has become ever more dangerous. We appear to be seeing an axis of authoritarian states, with Russia, North Korea, Iran and China working together in various ways. This week we saw the meeting of the BRICS in Kazan. Prime Minister Modi is in Kazan, representing India as part of the BRICS. As the leader of the largest Commonwealth state, he has chosen to be in Russia rather than Samoa, where the CHOGM is taking place. I suspect that President Putin was not unaware of the dates of the CHOGM when he decided that the BRICS meeting should be held virtually to coincide.
What assessment do His Majesty’s Government make of the decision of various Commonwealth leaders to be at the BRICS meeting rather than at the CHOGM? Could it be an opportunity for leaders such as India’s to exercise caution? One of the things that Steve Rosenberg said in an excellent report from the BRICS meeting yesterday, where he had been trying to hold President Putin to account, was that although there was a lot of economic agreement and so on among the BRICS leaders, there was a lot of opposition to the war. Do His Majesty’s Government think that this is also being put forward by Prime Minister Modi? Is there an opportunity for us to work with India to try to exercise some leverage indirectly? Russia stepping back from war would be in everybody’s interests.
Apart from the BRICS, we have the most unwelcome North Korea-Russia defence treaty and the prospect of Korean soldiers on European soil. The Korean War appeared to stop 70 years ago, but it was never formally concluded. There was never a peace agreement. Our international ally South Korea neighbours North Korea. We appear to be seeing a dangerous escalation. What assessment do His Majesty’s Government make of that? Where do we need to be giving additional support to Ukraine? We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. What more can and should we be doing?
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, this has been a difficult year for Ukraine, with a shortage of weapons and personnel hampering its efforts to deal with the grinding war of attrition that Russia is pursuing, but we should not assume that all the pressures are on the Ukrainian side. The appearance of North Korean soldiers in the conflict and the widening of the pool of prisoners from which Russia seeks to recruit soldiers for the front line underscore the difficulties that Putin is facing. The FCDO says that these difficulties will reach crisis proportions by the end of 2025 and beginning of 2026. The question is how Ukraine is to stay in the fight until then. For Ukraine to stay in the fight, Europe—and ideally the United States—must stay in the fight. In both regions, however, there are signs of growing war-weariness and a desire to end the conflict, whatever it takes. This would be a disastrous mistake. To illustrate the point, let me explore the logical consequences of some kind of near-term settlement.
First, what would be the instrument through which such a settlement would be given effect? Presumably it would be in the form of an international agreement signed by both sides, but we have been there before and have seen only too clearly how little Putin regards or respects such agreements. The moment he feels they constrain his ambitions, he casts them aside without a second thought. Any piece of paper to which he puts his name would have about as much value as the one that Neville Chamberlain waved in front of the cameras at Heston aerodrome in 1938. In fact, neither side would be satisfied with an outcome that left the other in control of part of Ukraine. Putin would simply pursue his assault on his neighbour by undercover means, while the Ukrainians would do the same in an effort to regain their lost territory, until open fighting eventually broke out again—unless there was some kind of security guarantee involving the employment of western military power in the event of a breach of the agreement. That would involve a far greater risk of direct conflict between Russia and NATO than currently exists and is therefore unlikely to be acceptable. In that event, a near-term agreement would not end the conflict at all.
Then we must consider the effect on nuclear proliferation. Whatever we might say, many would see the failure of resolve in the West as the result, at least in part, of Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling. The message to potential aggressors would be, “Attain or retain nuclear weapons and no one will dare to stand up to you”. There is also another side to the coin. Many already regard Ukraine’s agreement in 1994 to transfer the nuclear weapons on its soil to Russia as a catastrophic mistake. Some will no doubt reflect on this and decide that they need their own nuclear deterrent, not just against other nuclear powers but against potential aggressors more widely. This could be the final nail in the coffin of counterproliferation efforts.
The impact goes beyond nuclear weapons, though. Lithuania has already voted to withdraw from the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions and other Baltic states are considering whether to follow this lead. This highlights the stresses within NATO and the EU that would follow any decision to make concessions to Russia. The Baltic states and Poland already—and rightly, in my view—feel threatened. Their concerns would be greatly multiplied should Russia’s aggression be seen to have succeeded even partly. If that success was as a consequence of a lack of resolve on the part of some of their western partners, they might begin to wonder where their best interests lie. RUSI has already suggested that Russian success could spell the end of NATO, at least in its present form. Nothing would delight Putin more.
More widely, Russia would certainly insist that any settlement included a restoration of its dominant position in the northern Black Sea and would very likely use this to render untenable Ukrainian grain exports through that route. Since February 2022, Ukrainian grain provision to Europe has increased from less than 2% to 50% of total exports. Meanwhile, Russia is providing grain to African nations that were supplied by Ukraine prior to the war. It is targeting those nations where it calculates that it can gain strategic influence. Its increasing use of food as a political tool will serve only to spread Russia’s malign influence more widely.
There are many other severely damaging consequences of even a limited Russian success, but time does not permit me to go into them today. I do not aim to convince either the Minister or the Government—I do not doubt their resolve—but European leaders need to do a much better job of explaining to their citizens the dire consequences that would attend a failure of nerve over Ukraine. Negotiating from a position of relative weakness would not bring an end to the conflict. It would carry huge nuclear risks, create fissures within western Europe, weaken deterrence and make a wider war more rather than less likely. It would leave our children and grandchildren a fearful legacy for which they would surely and rightly condemn us.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, it is a sad truth that as wars go on, public attention often dissipates. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and other noble Lords for reminding us that while coverage of the war in Ukraine has waned, daily suffering there has not, so our moral responsibility continues.
While others have focused on this responsibility in terms of military support, I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on another very important and positive aspect of our response to the war, in the hope that the new Government will build on its successes. As noble Lords will be aware, the Ukraine family scheme and the Ukraine sponsorship scheme, set up in March 2022, were two of the only legal routes for people seeking asylum in the UK. More than 200,000 visas were issued to Ukrainians, and thousands of families from across the political spectrum offered their homes to those fleeing the war.
So heated and polarised has the debate around asylum become in the intervening years that it is worth remembering how generously the public responded to the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Polling from March 2023 found that 71% of Britons believed that it was a good thing that the UK had taken in more than 150,000 Ukrainian refugees by that time. Only 16% disagreed. In research by More in Common, the majority of host families also reported positive experiences: nearly nine in 10 said that they were glad that they took part in the scheme. Not only did most hosts say that they were willing to continue accommodating refugees from Ukraine, but many said that they would be happy to host an Afghan refugee who would otherwise be living in a hotel.
As a result of this hospitality, many Ukrainians successfully integrated into British society. By April this year, for example, around 70% of working-age Ukrainian refugees were in employment—a higher rate than typically seen in other refugee groups—and two-thirds are fluent or can speak a good amount of English. Integration in this case did not mean assimilation. Ukrainian churches and cultural organisations held events and celebrations enabling refugees to maintain a connection to their homeland, as well as build friendships across social supports.
For example, Sofia, a young ambassador for the Children’s Commissioner, who was 15 when the war broke out, said:
“I felt the incredible support from the British people when I arrived, and I am very grateful for it. I was very pleasantly surprised because the caring British people were able to unite the Ukrainians into one big local community who also came to England as refugees. Thanks to the British people, we were able to find both English and Ukrainian friends”.
This is an example of interculturalism, which is, in my view, the most promising way forward for a diverse Britain, recognising and giving space for different cultural expressions such that we can learn from one another and live well together, rather than in homogeneous silos.
This kind of integration does not happen by accident. Funding from local authorities, and support from schools, universities and community groups played a role. So did political rhetoric and editorial angles. Choosing to speak compassionately about Ukrainian refugees and focusing on the kindness of families hosting them created the opportunity for refugees to discover how to be both Ukrainian and British—to begin healing from the trauma of war and displacement, and to start building a new life that honours the old.
None of this is to imply that the Ukraine scheme has been without challenges, but those are for another debate. Rather, it is to pose the question of why this is not the norm. If the major political parties and the general public see this as the right response to an outbreak of war, and if we are able both to give people in desperate need a new start and to benefit from their skills, why only Ukraine? Why not make this the model for a sustainable way of welcoming all refugees seeking sanctuary in the UK?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this important and timely debate to demonstrate, once again, the United Kingdom’s steadfast support for Ukraine. I warmly welcome the tone and substance of the detailed introduction by the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I align myself totally with what he said so powerfully and the words of my noble friend Lord Courtown and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I also acknowledge the wise words and wisdom, insights and expertise of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. A bit of learning for Ministers: listening to him was something that I found extremely beneficial. I associate myself, as have others, with the condolences expressed to the family of Corporal Gill.
I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar. The noble Lord and I have known each other for a very long time. We were in different Houses until recently and remain in different parties, but we share many insights into the world stage and he will bring great expertise and knowledge to the field of international affairs.
I also express my gratitude and take this opportunity to put on record the work undertaken by my dear friend the former Foreign Minister of Ukraine, His Excellency Dmytro Kuleba, who recently left office. We had our first meeting back in 2019, before Russia’s illegal invasion but, when this tragic war began, we co-ordinated our activities as he ably, consistently and passionately made the case for countries to stand with Ukraine, as we are demonstrating again today. He discharged his duties, notwithstanding the challenges and pressures he faced, with devotion, dedication and —importantly for a diplomat—a deep sense of calm. I am sure I speak for all in your Lordships’ House who wish him well in his future endeavours.
I will focus specifically on the United Kingdom’s support for victims of sexual violence in this conflict. I had the honour to lead this agenda for the last seven years and, during this time, the UK has shown clear leadership. I met many survivors across the world, indeed survivors of sexual violence from Ukraine. Those, like me, who hear these experiences feel the shock of their testimony turn to sheer awe and admiration for their immense courage and resilience.
In Ukraine, our support for these brave survivors of sexual violence has spanned several areas. From investigations and accountability, the UK has supported efforts to ensure, both through the FCDO and the MoJ, that we work closely on financial and technical assistance, including support to the International Criminal Court. On training and capacity building, the UK offered specialist training for local and international organisations, involving documenting and addressing sexual violence. Of course, in the area of humanitarian aid, the UK has contributed aid specifically to support victims of sexual violence, including psychological and social medical services.
In this regard, I pay tribute to the First Lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelenska. I worked closely with her for many years, as we sought to see how the UK could best support these courageous survivors. In the multilateral space, the UK again worked resolutely with Ukraine on resolutions. I recall the launching of the Murad code at the UN Security Council in April 2022, a gold standard for Governments and NGOs on collecting and protecting evidence to ensure justice for the victims of sexual violence. In the hours before the launch of this important code, we worked at breakneck speed to ensure that it would be available in the Ukrainian language. The previous Government also worked extremely closely with the Office of the Prosecutor General, as we sought to build the infrastructure and systems to ensure that accountability would be possible and perpetrators held to account.
In providing this brief summary, I look to the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—for her ironclad commitment that our support for Ukraine in this important area of protecting and supporting victims of sexual violence is upheld. Perhaps some of the additional financing that has been announced can be allocated to some of the initiatives that I have underlined. Will she share with your Lordships’ House what meetings have been held with Ukrainian interlocutors on this important agenda since the Labour Party entered government?
The Minister is aware that, in November 2022, the UK hosted the international conference of PSVI. I launched and was honoured to serve as the first chair of the international alliance. There are 26 members; Colombia currently chairs and Ukraine will take over in 2025. I would welcome an update on the progress made to support Ukraine in this regard as well. The Minister may expect this, but we are now four months into the term of the new Government, so I implore her to take forward the announcement of the appointment of the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the recent BRICS summit hosted by Russia and the senior level of engagement there. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the role that we can play in the delivery of President Zelensky’s 10-point peace plan as the framework and foundation to ending this tragic war in Europe?
Lord Spellar (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, after that warm welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, I cannot wait to hear myself speak.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
But first I thank not only the noble Lord but many other noble Lords from all sides of this House, many of whom I knew as Members of Parliament, for their very warm welcome to your Lordships’ House. I add to that my thanks to the clerks, Black Rod, the attendants and all the staff for their very willing and cheerful assistance in establishing new Peers in this House. I speak on behalf of many other new noble Lords—it is much appreciated.
I am constrained by time and have to compress a 50-year political career and a 10-year war into six minutes. I will attempt to do my best. First, mine is the classic route of the baby boomer generation—pass the 11-plus, go to the direct grant school, study PPE at Oxford. Then there were 23 years working for the electricians’ union, which merged into the AEEU, where the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, who was one of my sponsors, was president of that combined union. That union had been controlled by the Communist Party and I was working for those who had fought it and taken back the union into the members’ control.
We were at the heart of the Cold War both here and internationally, defending free trade unionism around the world, most notably Solidarność, the Polish trade union movement, which we assisted—supporting it in Poland and in its campaigns here. It is a part of my life of which I am extremely proud. I firmly believe that trade unionism is essential not only for the dignity of people at work but as a backbone of democracy.
At that same time I was also active in Labour politics. I was elected to council in December 1970. I was the youngest councillor in London at that time and defeated the Liberals on a 28% swing. It has been downhill ever since.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
Once in Parliament, I was also on the London Labour Party executive—a similar battle—along with my colleague who will speak shortly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who is one of several in this House who were on the long march to get the Labour Party back to being electable and elected. As a Member of Parliament, I briefly represented Birmingham Northfield—1983 was not a good year for seeking re-election—and was then an MP for 32 years in the borough of Sandwell. I pay tribute to those who made that a worthwhile and very enjoyable time—my constituency party, the local councillors, and my staff in the constituency and my Westminster office.
I pay tribute too to my excellent successor, the new Member of Parliament, Gurinder Singh Josan. Given the disgraceful defeat of Patrick Gordon Walker in Smethwick in 1964, Gurinder’s election shows the enormous and welcome change not only in Smethwick but in the country. Smethwick was also the home of the Soho Works of James Watt and Matthew Boulton at the start of the Industrial Revolution.
My ministerial career is in the public record.
I move quickly on to the subject we are discussing: the war in Crimea. I said 10 years because too many regard this war as having started in 2022, when it really started in 2014. It is an ongoing struggle—a major conflict. We salute the Ukrainian people, whom many experts underestimated in terms of both their resolve and their ability to fight against the Russian monolith. That demands not just our support but our admiration. I also warn, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, did, against the complacent view that a deal with Putin that allows him to claim victory will end the war. It may end the battle; it will not end the war. We need absolutely to understand that. The Baltic nations understand that, the Scandinavians understand that, and the eastern European countries that lived for so many years under the Soviet yoke, with periodic invasions of tanks, understand that. We should listen to them very carefully.
The struggle will not just be kinetic. There is a lot of talk about hybrid war and the grey zone. It is also about the battle for hearts and minds, which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referenced. What frustrates me is that we used to be very good at this. In the Second World War with the Political Warfare Executive, and during the Cold War with the battles right across society in different realms, we and the United States were very good at this. We have lost a lot of that capability. We need to recreate it rapidly, and it is an all-of-government operation—that needs to be understood.
In the same context, we need to look at industrial supply. I mentioned the Industrial Revolution. Since that time, as much as wars are won on the battlefields they have been won in the factories. We have allowed our industrial capacity to be eroded—not just our military capacity and defence factories but our engineering capacity—and the Ukraine conflict has brought home very strongly to us that that is no longer sufficient. This requires a change of mind and of attitude. Why we have to keep learning the lessons of successive wars sometimes escapes me. This is a decision facing the Government and this Parliament. We must make the right decision.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, that maiden speech will have told you something about my noble friend but I will share a few less familiar things.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
When I first met a ginger-headed, ginger-bearded young trade union political officer, or “fixer” as we called him, a couple of things were already evident: his persistence as an accumulator of newspaper cuttings, including black intelligence on the infiltrating militant, and his ferocious memory for political facts, figures and gossip. Even now, his daily “Spellar News”—available only to friends—summarises all the material any similar-minded colleague needs to know.
Dulwich School and Oxford University taught him about organisation, and it was organisation that he put at the disposal of the then troubled Labour movement. John Golding’s book is testimony to the role that my noble friend played in bringing Labour back from the brink of obscurity to the 1997 election victory. Similarly, over two dozen references in my own book show how he helped swing the NEC behind the then leader, my noble friend Lord Kinnock.
Alongside this, as my noble friend said, he became a local councillor, MP for Birmingham Northfield and later for Warley, Defence Minister, Minister of State for Transport, and for Northern Ireland, and a much-feared Whip. In his maiden speech in the Commons, 42 years ago, when he represented Cadbury, Bournville and British Leyland, he criticised the Government for acquiescing in a move out of manufacturing and into services—disastrous for the Midlands, as we have heard today. He continues to rail against any public body, and indeed any friend, who fails to buy British-made cars or to support the defence industry.
Few will doubt my noble friend’s Labour, defence, manufacturing or union credentials. His maiden speech was a fitting example of his knowledge, motivation and work ethic. We look forward to many more contributions from him.
It is hard to add any words to those already spoken about the bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people, and of the horrors inflicted on them by the Russians, and the need to understand that their fight is our fight. They are the front line against military aggression. If they lose there will be no Ukraine, but there will also be no security along Russia’s extended border, and few of us will sleep safe in our beds.
I have never quoted from one of my speeches before, but on 25 February 2022, in that first shock of invasion, I confessed that I did not know the Ukrainian equivalent of “Ich bin ein Berliner”—though I knew why we wept for Ukraine. Today, nearly 1,000 days on, we weep for the lost people of Ukraine, for the lost homes, farms, factories, jobs and lives, and for the loss of security.
We weep too for the loss of families. The children’s charity Coram has pointed out that a distinctive feature of this war is the very large number of mothers and children who have left the country. Those children are attending schools and receiving services in the UK that are a far cry from those available back home. Significant support will be needed to modernise children’s social care at speed when they return.
Two things have continued in these past 32 months. The first has been Russia’s determination to win at whatever cost to its people or its economy. Indeed, its huge defence spending next year will effectively turn its economy into a war economy. The second, however, has been the ongoing support of the British public for Ukraine and the cross-party consensus on the role we should play. I congratulate our new Government, the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Defence Secretaries and my noble friends in this House on their efforts to seek a successful outcome of the war. Today’s debate is testimony to this House’s endorsement of the Government’s policy. However, success will depend on our resolve and contribution—military, economic and diplomatic—but also, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, on the support of the US, European and British public. Continuing this must be a priority.
We have seen the ruthlessness with which Russia is willing to prosecute the war, regardless of the harm to the very earth it seeks to colonise, the deaths and injuries caused, or even the effects on those miles away. We see Putin’s willingness to use his own prisoners or North Korean soldiers for his own personal war. Meanwhile, Russian attacks on port infrastructure in the Black Sea stop vital grain supplies being delivered to the global South—any price, it seems, for Putin’s survival and his strutting on the world stage. Today, we recommit to supporting the Ukrainians as they stand up to might in the name of sovereignty, security, peace and future prosperity.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest. My wife is Ukrainian, our two children are British-Ukrainian and all of her family live in Ukraine. They are from Donetsk. They lost everything in 2014 when the Russians first illegally entered the country. Having relocated to Kyiv, the illusion of safety there proved only temporary when full-on war broke out in 2022. Not all of them have survived. Those who have suffer the daily terror of air raid sirens, Iranian suicide drones, the ever-longer shadow of Russian attrition and the prospect that eventually it will prevail—and then what?
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, there is occasional talk here of “war fatigue”. Some people say they have had enough of talking about it, of spending money on it, of taking risks on it. To those people I say, “Count yourselves lucky”. The Ukrainians do not have such luxury, and that luck will run out if we let Putin win and let the pariah states that support him go unpunished.
Ukraine is on the front line of a concerted attack on European freedom and democracy. Left unchecked, it will be only a matter of time before Russia and its evil allies encroach deeper and further towards us. The wolf does not stop after taking one lamb. This is not just the Ukrainians’ war: it is our war, and we have to win it. Wars are not won with words and platitudes. Wars are not won with banknotes and sanctions alone, although they clearly help. Wars are won with actions and with weapons.
We are fast approaching a point where the ability to use Storm Shadow missiles to their full extent against Russia is truly an existential issue for Ukraine: the difference between winning and losing, between repelling this tyrannical invader or allowing our fellow Europeans —for that is what Ukrainians are—to be assimilated into an autocratic new Russian empire. Yes, this may come with some risk, but when did this great nation ever duck out of a right decision simply because it carried risk? Churchill would not have wasted a second before authorising full use of the Storm Shadows and making sure our allies did, too. Besides, the risk of inaction is greater than the risk of action. Without the Storm Shadows, the alternatives are defeat or a surrender deal that rewards Putin for his illegal invasion and allows him to keep his ill-gotten gains. What message would that send to the would-be enemies of democracy and freedom around the world?
This is not just about the Storm Shadows; there must also be proper reparations, including full use of frozen Russian state assets towards rebuilding Ukraine and compensating the victims of Putin’s war. We must also dial up the heat on Putin’s henchmen: the evil regimes in North Korea and, in particular, Iran—the axis of evil fighting democracy and freedom on multiple fronts. One day Iranian missiles and drones rain down on Tel Aviv, the next day on Kyiv. One day Iran funds Hamas, the next day it arms Putin. One could be forgiven for thinking it was no coincidence that the Iranian-backed attacks on Israel last October distracted the world from the Iranian-armed Putin’s atrocities in Ukraine. The co-ordinated assault on freedom requires a suitably co-ordinated response. The existing sanctions, and the threat of more, are clearly not acting as a sufficient deterrent on their own. It is time to stop pulling our punches with these perpetrators of evil before it is too late.
I salute both Ministers for all the work that they and, no doubt, colleagues are doing behind the scenes for Ukraine. I am sure there is an awful lot that they would like to talk about but cannot. I genuinely thank them, and long may that good work continue.
I will end my speech by reading out a message from my 11 year-old niece, Zlata, who lives in Irpin. Noble Lords might have read about its annihilation in the news last year. She asked me to pass this message to the House: “Good morning. I would like to talk about what every Ukrainian is going through. February 2022 became the most terrible time. Each of us thought this day could be our last. Many of my friends’ fathers went to war to defend their homes. Some have now lost their fathers. Many more are being held captive. But if you think about it from another perspective, something good has also happened. Many have become closer to each other and have learned to value one another. I visited England and I thank you for your help. And to every country that helps us, thank you! PS: please send more weapons to the Ukrainian army so it can defend us”.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the terms in which he restated this country’s position on Ukraine. I think he captured the sentiment of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Spellar, brought a very practical view to what we need to do to win this war. He is right to say that it is won partly on the machine bench, and through our ability to produce what we need to produce in order to defend ourselves and our allies.
Earlier this week, some Ukrainian councillors from Lviv were in town. I will say just a word about their visit, which revealed some of the things that the Ukrainians are undergoing. We heard a moment ago from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, about it. They also showed something of the same picture. Among other things, they showed us some photographs of young people with artificial limbs sitting in wheelchairs, reminding us that this is an aggressor who makes no distinction between combatants and civilians, and that war crimes are being committed every day of the week.
Lviv has become a national centre for the development of artificial limbs and prostheses. The councillors are looking for international partners. This country has a considerable reputation in that area, and I hope we can pursue this and increase our contribution to what they are able to do. They certainly need help in certain technical areas.
Another point the councillors made, which is directly relevant to the ability to win this war, is that Lviv Airport, a major connecting point between Ukraine and western allies, is still shut. That makes it considerably more difficult to get in the war supplies and to do the trading they need to do with the West than would otherwise be the case, so reopening the airport is a priority. They say they now have the necessary air cover. London insurers are involved so I hope that, just as our insurance companies were able to open up the Black Sea routes, which are being used for the transit of grain these days, we can bring our weight to bear and get this airport opened as quickly as possible.
The councillors made one last point during their visit that is directly linked to UK military assistance to Ukraine. They told us that the Danish and especially Norwegian Governments are successfully promoting ties between Norwegian private sector innovators and Ukrainians working on the ground who are together developing weapons using database technologies. That is obviously extremely relevant to the war, and also potentially an investment opportunity. The Ukrainians said they would like to see the UK doing the same thing. Perhaps we can take a leaf out of the Norwegian book. This issue came up when the group called on the Minister, so I hope that we can take this idea forward.
I turn briefly to the conduct of the war. Other noble Lords have remarked on the worrying introduction of North Korean soldiers into the Russian campaign. One cannot help feeling rather sorry for those wretched men from North Korea. It has been widely remarked in the media that resorting to foreign manpower shows Russian weakness. At the same time, shared aggression draws its promoters closer together, cements political blocs and increases instability and the risk of wider war. This is not a good or welcome development. Western allies worry about taking action in relation to Russia that might result in escalation of the war in Ukraine and understand the issue about Storm Shadow. I hope the FCDO is right about Russia’s increasing exhaustion, but the longer it takes to win the war and the longer it drags on, the more it offers Russia the opportunity to draw the political wheel against us. That would be a losing game, not just in Ukraine but more widely.
What we see happening in Ukraine is the expansion of the tension that exists in Europe being transmitted to other parts of the world and then being brought back to us. The way in which a link has been established between an Asian country, which has its own quarrel with South Korea and is now active on our continent, is serious. We need to be extremely concerned about the length of the war that we may have found ourselves involved in.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to join others in warmly congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, on his exemplary maiden speech. I have three short questions to ask the Minister before I make some remarks about North Korea. First, can she tell us what progress has been made in releasing funds to Ukraine from the £2.5 billion sale of Chelsea Football Club and the £783,000 recovered in the Petr Aven case? Secondly—this is the issue I raised with her on Monday—what prosecutions will be mounted against United Kingdom insurers that cover the 12 sanction-busting liquefied natural gas tankers currently benefiting from UK protection and indemnity insurance? Thirdly, will we look at amending the legal limitations in Sections 51 and 58 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 that prevent the UK prosecuting core international crimes and at the role that universal jurisdiction might play in ensuring justice?
During Question Time on Wednesday, I referred to Monday’s meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, which I co-chair with Sir Iain Duncan Smith. At that meeting we discussed how 10 years ago a United Nations commission of inquiry described North Korea as a country without parallel that was guilty of crimes against humanity. It called for the Security Council to refer the leadership to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. We have never tabled a resolution to do that. The Minister kindly promised to reflect on that issue.
The same North Korean regime has violated Security Council resolutions, developed weapons of mass destruction and circumvented sanctions. Emboldened by this failure to hold it to account, it has shipped at least 16,500 containers of munitions, perhaps as many as 4.8 million artillery shells and scores of ballistic missiles to sustain Putin’s war in Ukraine. Robert Koepcke, a US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, believes Russia has launched more than 65 missiles of North Korean origin at targets in Ukraine. With Iran and China widening and escalating the existential war in Ukraine, this threatens free societies the world over, as other noble Lords have said.
I visited North Korea. I saw grinding poverty, food shortages and stunted growth caused by malnutrition. Its dangerously provocative missile tests cost about $1 billion a year, around 4% of North Korea’s economy, and at least 16% of government expenditure is on its war machine—money that could be used to feed its people 10 times over. It constantly threatens its neighbours, with dictator Kim calling for an exponential increase of nuclear warheads, mass production of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons and the development of more advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles designed to reach the US mainland. Now, as part of what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, has described as a “deadly quartet”, an axis of dictators, anything between 2,000 and 13,000 North Korean soldiers are being trained in eastern Russia for combat in Putin’s war.
This is part of a global struggle; it is ultimately about dictatorship versus democracy. We have been here before. During the Cold War we saw security and our democratic values, openly expressed and promoted in the Helsinki process, as two sides of one coin. That was exemplified by the leadership of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher with singular others, such as Václav Havel, Lech Wałęsa and John Paul II, understanding the enormity of the challenge and the opportunity it also presented.
The same earnest desire for freedom that brought down the Berlin Wall 35 years ago next month is there in North Korea. Ask the more than 30,000 escapees, some of whom experienced the Gulags in which 100,000 people are still held and which are characterised by torture, brutality and degradation; or the young soldier who in August risked his life to walk through a minefield to gain the freedom of democratic South Korea; or the family who last year managed to get out of North Korea in a small boat, one of whom described how he had been forced to watch the execution of a 22 year-old caught listening to South Korean music and viewing banned movies; or the North Korean teenagers sentenced to hard labour for being caught looking at K-drama.
Be clear: this is one of the most repressive and controlling states on earth, so we must reach over the heads of Putin and Kim before more young men are sent to their deaths, this time on the front line in Ukraine. By physical or cyber messaging, they must be told that they can walk to freedom across the front line in Ukraine with a route to a new life in Seoul, with citizenship guaranteed under South Korea’s constitution. This is not a flight of fancy. In 2016 Thae Yong-ho, deputy North Korean ambassador in London, walked out of the embassy with his family and never returned. In due course he was elected to the South Korean National Assembly. He told me that his observation of our way of life had convinced him of the case for democracy rather than dictatorship.
In addition to boldly offering an alternative to totalitarianism, why are we not using our place at the Security Council to assert our belief in the rule of law and demanding that the UN’s own findings of crimes against humanity reach the ICC or the ICJ? If that is vetoed, we should create our own special court as we did in 1945. The responsibility for crimes against humanity, WMD, violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions and now soldiers being sent to fight in Europe resides with the Workers’ Party of Korea and the singular authority of its supreme leader, Kim Jong-un, and they must be held to account and brought to justice.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is worth remembering that this debate we are having is probably going on in parliaments across the world, and in every single one of them there will be different views on the outcome and what is going to happen. In fact, there is no consensus at all on what the end is going to be. Frankly, although we talk about the end, there is no end in sight at the moment to the hideous, horrible, child and woman-killing, family-destroying, unprovoked and poisonous attack on Ukraine that we are watching. Nor will it be settled on the battlefield, as the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, rightly said in his excellent maiden speech.
Of course the battlefield is important and horrible, but it is a stalemate scene at present, and the breakage and undermining of the stalemate will come from quite different sources. Why is that so? Because the battle with Russia, the autocracies, its Chinese ally and some others is just as much being fought in what is happening in Iran and the Middle East, Turkey, Syria, Egypt and the whole of that region, because this is a war like no other ever fought in history. It has its old-fashioned bit —its Somme, its trenches and all that horror—but it also has an entirely new dimension. A leading figure from Ukraine technology was here in Parliament last week telling us that the system in Ukraine, which is military and civilian bound together, is seeking to organise and manage 1 million drones. Those drones are either in the air or in the supply chain, being directed or not directed in various places, including right over the border out of Ukraine into Russia itself. These are features that have never occurred in battles before.
There is a very good article in Foreign Affairs pointing out that the entire United States arms structure is not ready for this sort of war; it simply is not organised on that basis. Nor, of course, was Russia itself. I think how Putin must regret how he was advised by the generals—advice that he took—that, “It’s just going to be another question of tanks, just like Prague and Budapest: we’ve done it all before”, but of course it has turned out to be totally different, with the amazing combination leading to a drone war and an anti-drone war too, with new technologies on a scale that simply was not envisaged even two or three years ago.
Thirdly, there is no obvious limit on resources. We shall of course go on supplying Mr Zelensky—although he will complain that it is not fast enough for him—with the equipment necessary to stop the Russians advancing to maintain the stalemate. That could go on and on, but I am afraid that any idea that Russia can somehow be brought to an economic halt is for the birds. Here is just one figure: the estimate is that next year Russian oil and gas revenues will rise by 73%. In fact, the Russian economy is doing extremely well. Our planners forget, when we go in for sanctions, that wartime is a fantastic innovator for all economies. In the Second World War, that was what happened even in Germany when it was being bombed to bits, and certainly in this country when we were being bombed. The Russian economy is well-equipped, with its dark ships selling oil right across the world. We are trying to control them but failing to do so. With its enormous development of gas sales in Asia, it is supporting the entire energy drive of the Asian economies. All that provides ample resources.
Chinese exports to the world were $3.7 trillion last year, and to Russia alone they were $110 billion. That tells you on which side China’s bread is really buttered. The BRICS meeting was mentioned earlier. BRICS is to do with Governments and leaders standing on the central stage and making a great noise. By contrast, I remark that CHOGM, of Commonwealth countries, is a meeting of peoples, and on the whole peoples are going to win out in future against the sort of Governments that we are dealing with.
The clear need in our approach is to recognise that these are tyrannies that have huge momentum. They are moving across Africa, east and west Asia and the small islands of the world, and hoovering up the Commonwealth. Tyrannies are smashed by attacking their intellectual belief roots, and that is what we have to do. We have to show that our liberal capitalism is going to destroy and undermine the illiberal capitalisms that they are practising. We can do that if we are really determined, although we are not making much effort at the moment.
We have to show that, in Putin and Xi’s other war, which is in Africa—where, as I say, they are hoovering up Commonwealth countries and invading or seducing large parts of central Africa and indeed Latin America—is where the final decisions are going to be made. That is where we are going to see Ukraine’s endless war brought to a halt. If we operate in those areas—the intellectual, the broader areas of the developing world—then the chances of an end to Ukraine’s horror are there. Otherwise, I am afraid there will be no end at all to the horrors and the killing of young boys and girls for decades ahead.
Baroness Fall (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the sacrifices that the people of Ukraine have made and continue to make for their freedoms since the invasion over two and a half years ago. I find their determination and courage humbling and a reminder of the values that we hold dear but are often complacent about.
I pay tribute too to the series of UK Governments for their sustained leadership and steadfast support for the people of Ukraine in meeting their military needs and addressing their humanitarian support; to those who welcomed Ukrainian families into their homes and communities; and to all in the West who give their support, with the higher price of bread or the cost of heating our homes. It has been a long time since we paid the price of peace in terms of our own personal sacrifices.
That realisation has also focused us in the West on our political values. It is because of Putin’s aggressive actions that we now have a reinvigorated and expanded NATO. Who would have thought that Finland, staunchly neutral for decades, would join NATO or indeed that Sweden would do so, proving that Putin’s strategy against NATO expansion has failed? He has effected the very thing that he most wished to avoid—and now there is the potential of Ukrainian membership of the EU too, an important step, along with the enlargement of NATO, towards marking a line in the sand for potential Russian aggression and whatever might happen down the line. In all the talk of peace, not least from President Zelensky, peace can only be as successful as the security guarantees that we place beside it. Otherwise, Putin will bank his battle gains, take his time and come back for more, as he did after Crimea.
We enter the most strategically difficult phase of the war in Ukraine off the back of a very tough year. A re-elected and reinvigorated Putin, supported by an economy on a war footing, strengthened through his alliance of rogue friends around North Korea and also China, has seen Russia on the offensive. Navalny’s death at the start of the year was a stark reminder of how those who oppose the regime are treated but also, in Navalny’s bravery, that Putin does not speak for all Russia. We hear that message loud and clear in the words of his widow.
Strategically, the worry is that Putin eyes up the longer term, hoping that western resolve will begin to wane as the cost of a third year of war focuses minds and inflationary pressures hover. It is a year of elections, especially when the USA has begun to question American resolve and the known unknown is: what happens if Trump wins? Will the Americans scale back their support or even just leave the war to Europe? What does that mean for us?
What can we do? We can keep making the argument, as my noble friends Lord Ahmad and Lord Cameron—the former Foreign Secretary—so skilfully did, that Ukraine is value for money for the Americans if we are intent on the West winning. To let Putin win would be the wrong thing not only for Ukraine but for Europe and the West. That means the USA, and it will play into the hands of those of our enemies—Iran, North Korea and China—who want the West to look weak and be weak. It is not a coincidence that Putin invaded after we left Afghanistan.
We are days from the US election, the result of which is critical to the future of Ukraine but also of Europe and the West. We cannot know what Putin will do next, with a militarised Russia selling its oil and gas east, eyeing its neighbours in near Russia and leveraging its influence widely as it chairs the BRICS this week. Russia’s ambition should not be underestimated but nor should Western resolve. Given the very fact that Putin sought a quick victory over Ukraine and today remains in a costly, intractable war, we must remember that although Ukraine is not appearing to win that war, nor is Putin. It falls to us in Europe to be prepared to step up. That means working with our European allies to prepare and to talk to the public, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, about how and why we pay the price of peace. I hope that the Minister will pass on the resolve of this Chamber today.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests. I wholeheartedly endorse the first comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, about the sacrifice of the Ukrainians. It humbles and inspires us, and it should continue to do so. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Coaker on his magisterial opening of this debate and the Government on continuing the policy and approach of the previous Government, showing that this country remains united in support of Ukraine and against the Russian invasion.
I warmly welcome and congratulate my new noble friend Lord Spellar on an excellent maiden speech. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that the Russian invasion of Ukraine began in 2014, not in 2022, with the invasion of Crimea and then the eastern part of Ukraine. But we should also draw attention to the fact that this is not a solitary exercise. We see violence and aggression sponsored, and sometimes directly actioned, by Russia in west and central Africa; in Syria, of course, in support of the Assad regime; and in the suppression of democracy and freedom in Kazakhstan, Georgia, Belarus and elsewhere on the Russian border. We should never underestimate the scale of this effort to influence not just life in Russia and the neighbouring countries but our lives and the rest of the world.
We must salute the resilience of the Ukrainian people, who I do not believe were given much chance by many people around the world when the invasion took place. I draw attention to their work not just on the battlefield, where they have given so much and shown so much innovation and expertise, but on reconstruction. That is the other half of the Ukrainian Government’s efforts, which have been so admirable through these last nearly three years. An outstanding digital public services system, for example, has been developed, which is giving people access to public services and public information, even when they are in bunkers underground, hiding from the bombs that are raining down above. They are trying hard to rebuild schools, provide health facilities and create the industrial infrastructure that will help to protect them in the future.
We need to continue to do all we can to help the Ukrainians, not just on the battlefield but particularly in those preparations for reconstruction, by ensuring that they have as much access as possible to British companies and expertise, and that we support them through the rebuilding of their public services. A very good example of that practical British support for Ukraine is in the Interflex programme that my noble friend Lord Coaker referred to, which I have seen up close with my own eyes at one of the training camps in the UK. That is an outstanding example of work here in the UK to support the efforts of the sometimes-inexperienced recruits to the Ukrainian army in going back on to the front line.
I endorse the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the need for us to win the battle of ideas—to explain and convince across Europe and elsewhere, not just to provide practical support. He was joined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in talking about a global struggle for peace, democracy and freedom. I would be very interested to know from the Minister, at the end of this debate, whether the Government are giving any thought to the fact that President Biden, when he took office, talked about a global alliance of democracies and building that resilience against the authoritarian states—motivating and convincing the rest of the world to understand our values but also adopt them. But, of course, that is perhaps in danger in the American elections in just two weeks’ time. Are the Government giving any thought to the role that the UK can play in building that global alliance for democracy and freedom?
On the practical support, I would like to hear more about what the Government are doing to take forward the issue of releasing the funds that have been sanctioned from those Russians who have supported the Putin regime. In particular, it is now over two years—nearly two and a half—since Chelsea Football Club was sold. Over £2 billion is sitting in an account here in London, waiting to be spent on the reconstruction and humanitarian effort not just in Ukraine but in those countries elsewhere in the world that have been affected by the situation in Ukraine, particularly in relation to food security, for example. What are we doing? The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, managed as Foreign Secretary to step up the action in the Foreign Office on this and was starting to work towards a goal of releasing these funds. Are the new Government as determined as he was? Will we see some resolution of this issue over the coming months?
Finally, in advance of the Budget next Wednesday, in all of this, if we have a global struggle on our hands, we need to be actively engaged in conflict prevention around the world—not just dealing with the consequences of conflict but preventing it. The Integrated Security Fund that replaced the CSSF in the Budget earlier this year is a critical tool in the armoury of the UK and our global allies in fighting conflict and preventing it. I checked yesterday and there has not been one Statement by the new Government since the election in July about the Integrated Security Fund in either House of Parliament. I would like to know whether the Integrated Security Fund and its objectives are going to be protected in next week’s Budget.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, to this House and congratulating him on his maiden speech. I had the pleasure of getting to know him some years ago, when we were both on a delegation to Washington, and look forward to hearing more from him in the months and years ahead.
I turn to the war in Ukraine. It is impossible at present to say that either side, Russia or Ukraine, has been the victor. Russia has clearly gained far more territory but that is a far cry from its original aim of taking over the whole country in a matter of weeks. By comparing what it set out to do with what it actually has done, it is fair to say that Ukraine has had the better of the battle. Russia’s army has been shown up as incompetent and its navy has lost control of the Black Sea. Russia has become the junior partner in its alliance with China and, as the presence of North Korean troops demonstrates, it is having to turn to countries which it would once have regarded as satellites to help it keep its army in the field. All in all, Ukraine has done remarkably well.
We are now at a tipping point. Both sides face increasing difficulty maintaining the supply of troops they need. We have seen that in the case of Russia, but there are also newspaper reports about the problems the Ukrainians are having getting people to join the army. It is rather like the press gangs that operated at the time of Nelson’s navy, going round trying to pick up people in the streets and make them join the navy.
Ukraine suffers from the additional disadvantage that its infrastructure is being steadily degraded to the detriment of its military capability, its economic power and, above all, its social cohesion. The question for Ukraine, which comes through very clearly in newspaper reports from that country and from what one sees on the television, is no longer how much territory it can regain but how much it can hold on to. In these circumstances, it is for the Ukrainians to decide what they should try to do. It is not for us to tell them when they should make peace or the terms on which they should do so; it is for the Ukrainians to make those decisions for themselves.
There are, however, three things that Ukraine’s allies, including ourselves, should do. One is to keep up the flow of arms while they continue to fight, and to consider what other arms might be necessary in order to secure the battlefield advantage. Secondly, it is at the same time very important indeed that we should make clear the limits of what we are prepared to do, so that the Ukrainians’ decisions are not based on any false assumptions about the help they might receive. That might well be difficult to do. Thirdly, we must pledge generous help once the fighting stops, in order to rebuild their economy and defence capability. They must know that we, their western allies, will stand behind them in peace and in war and seek to safeguard their security.
In my view, however, this does not mean joining NATO. We think of NATO as a defensive alliance, but we must understand that the Russian people—I emphasise, the Russian people—regard it as a hostile military pact aimed at them. They have been confirmed in that view by the alliance’s expansion eastwards ever since the unification of Germany. One does not have to entirely accept the argument that the Russians were misled on this point at the time of unification and promised that NATO would not expand; but one has to understand that, to the Russians, something that ended at the German border has now been expanded to their border and appears, to them, to be hostile. That provides Putin constantly with the arguments he needs to justify his aggression to the Russian people and to persuade them to support his war, and so it would for his successors. In any case, talk of joining NATO is counterproductive, since clearly, a number of NATO members would veto any suggestion of Ukrainian membership. Therefore, talk of NATO makes it harder to reach a settlement in Ukraine and is disruptive to the alliance.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I greatly welcome the statements of His Majesty’s Government regarding their continued support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s horrific and illegal invasion. It is my hope that the Government will continue remorselessly to be one of the leading supporters of Ukraine.
The current situation in Ukraine is of great concern, in terms of the assault on legal and moral international norms that Russia has unleashed, and of our strategic interests in deterring any potential further aggression towards NATO by Russia. As it is, in the light of my discussions with businesses in Ukraine, the electricity and water supply has diminished considerably. Although Putin failed in his initial war goal of establishing a client state, this surely remains his ultimate goal. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.
One feature of the war in Ukraine that is sometimes overlooked and is worth reminding ourselves of is the degree to which the conflict has highlighted the necessary and growing links between the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific. Russia’s continued offensive actions are in large part enabled by ammunition, and indeed soldiers, supplied by North Korea, and by weapons and dual-use equipment supplied by Iran and China. But Australia has helped to supply Ukraine with military equipment, and South Korea and Japan have been increasing their levels of support for Ukraine. These Indo-Pacific nations have realised how interlinked their own security is with the situation of the Euro-Atlantic. North Korea is sending soldiers, but I would encourage the Government to persuade South Korea to step up its support for Ukraine to include directly supplying military equipment. South Korea has in its possession a number of T-80 tanks given to it by the Russians. The Ukrainians are already familiar with these tanks and could put them to excellent use there.
Another issue is the eastward shift of the centre of gravity of European security. Poland will soon possess Europe’s premier fighting force on land, and Finland and Sweden, having joined NATO, are increasing their defence spending; indeed, that is true of other nations too. They are seeking to deter Russia and support Ukraine more fulsomely. Does the Minister agree that we would be wise to consider how to be in a better position to support these allies and work hand in glove with them to bolster security among NATO’s eastern flank?
Happily, much supported by the eloquent noble Lord, Lord Spellar, the Council on Geostrategy has recently published a report, along with Polish and Ukrainian think tanks, outlining how the trilateral initiative between the UK, Poland and Ukraine can be used. The trilateral initiative was announced just days before Russia’s full-scale invasion. The report sets out how the three nations can support the Ukrainian war effort and help shape a post-war Europe. In the military context, this includes allowing Ukraine to launch western missiles at targets in Russia, and ramping up support for Ukraine to develop and build long-range attack drones in greater numbers. It also recommends putting much greater pressure on the Russian economy. In combating corruption and aggression, the Minister will know of the Financial Action Task Force. I ask the Minister, why, under the auspices of the FATF, Russia is not on this organisation’s key grey list.
The BBC has admirably highlighted the mental health issues afflicting Ukraine, as acknowledged by the Ukrainian health ministry. The Lancet reported that 54% of Ukrainians have PTSD, an estimate shared by the World Health Organization. MedAid, a British not-for-profit organisation, is financing support groups to provide mental health experts free of charge to those suffering grievously in this terrible conflict and is teaching how best to offer support. The expertise of Combat Stress, the UK veterans mental health organisation, is also deeply appreciated.
The fabric of Ukraine will require huge funding for reconstruction and renewal in due course, but there will remain the absolute need for demining. It is estimated that up to 2 million land mines have been laid in the past two years. The agricultural output of Ukraine has been badly hit by this, let alone the appalling human consequences. We can be proud that mine clearance is being carried out by British experts but, post war, the task will be enormous and deserves our support.
Finally, I have raised the matter before of the deaths of millions of Ukrainians in 1932-33, the Holodomor, literally “by starvation”, caused by Stalin’s ruthless attempt at agricultural collectivisation, but also by the enforced suppression of Ukraine’s spirit of independence, a gruesome foretaste of Russian brutality today. I can hope only that the newly elected Government will give fresh consideration to officially recognising this horrific event as genocide, for that it unquestionably was.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate after my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup. It is a well-known fact that the Cross-Benchers do not toe any party line, but I can say without any hesitation that I agreed with every single word in his contribution. It is also a privilege to speak after the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar. I was delighted that he raised the issue of what we are doing to counter the disinformation of the Russian regime of Putin. I raised that in the first debate that we had, two days after the invasion, and I am still waiting for a reply. When the Minister responds to this debate, I hope that in reply to the noble Lord’s maiden speech she will say something on that aspect.
My own contribution to this debate will be about the diplomatic, political and historical background to it, about which I have some modest knowledge, rather than the all-important military background, of which my experience is slight. It must be clear to any observer now that the West’s position of virtually unqualified support for Ukraine, backed up by economic sanctions and supply of funding and weapons, is getting less backing from what is known as the global South than it did at the outset of hostilities, when Russia invaded Ukraine. Some of that loss of support is due to a fairly classical game of playing two sides off against each other, which is like mother’s milk in the diplomatic services of developing countries, but some of it goes deeper and deserves careful consideration and countering. It is striking, to say the least, that so many of the states that have abstained in recent UN General Assembly votes on Ukraine, or voted against them, are small countries with larger and better armed neighbours that run the risk of being treated by them as Russia has treated Ukraine. That is pretty odd. Do they not appreciate the risk, or do they just discount it? We need to talk that through with these Governments in a calm and dispassionate way and try to persuade them that we all have a collective interest in deterring behaviour like Russia’s. It is all very well talking about a moral high ground, but the bottom line for every country tends to be its national interests.
Then there are those—a few in this House and many more elsewhere—who feel that we should push Ukraine to come to terms with Russia, accepting some pretty large losses of territory. I have just spent a few days during the Recess in the French regions of Alsace and Lorraine, and have become more familiar with their tragic historic background—conquered by France from the Holy Roman Empire in 1676, seized by the newly established German empire in 1871, returned to France in 1919, seized again by Hitler’s Germany from 1940 to 1944, and only finally at peace and in security within the post-war establishment of what has become the European Union. In between that time and during that course of events, many millions of people died because of those botched settlements and the determination to overthrow them. That is the risk of going down what could be called a Minsk III route.
Then there is the double standards argument, cited in many different forms—Suez, Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the failure to recognise a Palestinian state and neglect of the civil war in Sudan, as well as many more expressions of what I am afraid can be described as “what about?” arguments. Some of these have validity in their own right, but not one contains a scintilla of justification for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, in blatant disregard of its own guarantee of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity when that country handed over its nuclear weapons in the 1990s. Not one of those arguments contains a smidgen of legal or political backing for bombing and seizing large swathes of Ukrainian territory inhabited by Ukrainians. There are things that can and should be done to address the double standards criticisms, but those do not alter the basic case for reversing the aggression against Ukraine.
All this leaves the impression that there is much that an active diplomacy by western countries needs to do but that there is no justification for changing our basic policy of solid support for Ukraine—quite the contrary.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for introducing this debate. It is both timely and necessary. I start by remembering what the Budapest memorandum was all about. Signed in 1994 by Russia, the USA and the UK, it was intended to reduce the threat of nuclear war. It prohibited all three countries from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, except in self-defence or otherwise, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations. So Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan were to give up their nuclear weapons—to Russia.
Ukrainians thought they were getting a solid guarantee of security in return for surrendering their nuclear arsenal to Russia. Then Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, and no one did anything to stop it. So here we are, helping Russia to continue this tragic, unnecessary and illegal war by not providing Ukraine with the defences that it needs to give it a chance to get Russia to the negotiating table. Ukraine has been made to fight with one hand behind its back. I absolutely agree with the excellent speech from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who spoke so eloquently on this.
I am proud that my country has been at the forefront of helping Ukraine to fight for its right to remain a sovereign country and not be overtaken by its belligerent neighbour. But I ache for the thousands of Ukrainians killed on the battlefield, with their families and homes destroyed and so many of them now displaced around the world due to the horrors of war in their homeland. Policymakers around the world have been amazed and humbled by the fighting spirit, bravery and dedication of their forces. They believed, as probably so many did at the beginning of this war, that Ukraine could never win against such might—but I challenge that, because I also believe that Russia’s forces have shown that they are not what we thought they were. Maybe their propaganda has hit its intended mark. Their losses are hugely more than those of Ukraine, and their advances not nearly as important as they would like us to believe them to be.
The media, drinking in this rubbish from the Kremlin, portray each tiny advance by Russia as a huge gain, when the reality is very different. In truth, Ukraine’s powerful and effective resistance has been a shock to them. Given the proper means to defend itself, Ukraine could at least help to save the lives of countless numbers of its citizens and so force Putin to the negotiating table. Will the Government use Russia’s frozen assets to make reparation both to individual Ukrainians and to the country as it rebuilds after the war?
Volodymyr Zelensky has produced a plan to bring some closure to the war, but the United States will not wear it. This is very disturbing as it was originally such a strong supporter of Ukraine, and I really caution it against dismissing Ukraine from its sights. Russia’s promises are not worth the paper they are written on; it cannot be trusted to keep its word on anything. Russia is willing to break every international agreement within the state system. It has lied about so many things, not least the invasion of Ukraine, and even if a deal were struck Ukraine needs more than words to keep Russia from further infiltrating its borders. It has already stated that it wants the complete destruction of Ukraine, so where is there room for any compromise with Putin? We must not make any concessions to him.
If we give in to Russia now, where will it go next? What of the Baltic states, as we have heard? Then it will be on into Europe to make the nightmarish dream of this despicable dictator to rule like a tsar come true. If Putin wins, might that be a green light for China to challenge the West? What do we think China might do? It will see the West’s weakness and go for Taiwan.
Finally, I want to mention visas. The temporary visas given to Ukrainians when they first came here will run out soon. What are the Government doing to extend these? Will the Minister ensure that, at least here, Ukrainians can build new lives and contribute fully to our society, by giving them the right to remain and work here? Many of them have professional qualifications and want to earn their own living. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester spoke about this. Giving them skilled visa status would be the best way to recognise them. Does the Minister agree, and will the Government provide them that status? To all our new friends who have made their lives here now, who mourn for their broken homeland and their families who could not escape the Russians’ barbarity—those who have to live with the reality of terror every day—we owe our loyalty and assistance.
Ukraine is a proud, sovereign nation. It deserves our full support and our thanks for halting Russia’s further advances into Europe. Its brave fighters and citizens need us to step up now, especially in the face of some reluctance by other nations. I hope and pray that we will never let them down.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I add my welcome to this House to the noble Lord, Lord Spellar. He and I have been on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for some time, during which time he has demonstrated a certain steel in his support for NATO, a steel no doubt tempered during his time fighting the communists in the electricians’ union. I look forward to his contributions in the future, which I know will be very robust.
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly reiterates all the time that we cannot afford to let Ukraine lose the war against Russia. All I would say is that, if that is the attitude of the West, it has a very funny way of going about it. Let us face it: we win wars by the grim determination of our troops on the ground—the Ukrainians have demonstrated that in full—and with technology. Every time there has been a suggestion of new, advanced technology being deployed in Ukraine, there has been delay and prevarication, whether it is tanks, F16 aircraft or missiles. We are still arguing, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned, about whether Storm Shadow can be used in Russia. We should be firing cruise missiles into Russia. They have a 1,000-pound warhead and could do incredible damage when they arrive, but they are not being allowed to do so. All the time, we are saying that we support Ukraine and want Ukraine to win, but then we do not give it the kit to do so.
Let us be honest: even if we did deploy this technology, we would adjust the stalemate that exists in Ukraine a little in its favour, but we would not win the war. The only way to win the war is by deploying air power, which is where we have effortless superiority over Russia. That would make a serious difference. I am not going to push that case yet again, because I know there is no support for it and everybody thinks it would end in the third world war, which I do not think is true. The problem is this whole attitude towards escalation, which has come from the United States, and particularly from an adviser called Jake Sullivan. There is an election coming up and one of the great advantages is that he will presumably move on and somebody else will take over. His advice to Biden has always been that we risk escalation the whole time in anything we do in Ukraine, and therefore we do not want to up the ante at all. On that basis, you never win anything.
I want to return to a recent Question Time, when the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said that the future of Ukraine lay in Ukrainian hands. I am afraid that this is not wholly accurate. The future of Ukraine and of this war lies with the United States of America. It is the major donor to Ukraine and, if it threatens to withdraw the support that it gives, Ukraine will have to comply. If Trump wins the election in a fortnight’s time, he has said—I do not know whether he will keep to this—that he will force a peace deal on Ukraine before he is inaugurated. If Harris wins, I suspect the same process will take place but it will just take a little longer. The West is not going to live with a stalemate in Ukraine. Indeed, one slightly argues, what is the point of living with a stalemate? If you stand to win the war ultimately, there is some point in hanging in there. If you are never going to win, which is the position we are in now and I cannot see it changing, we might as well settle sooner rather than later.
Then we have to consider what will actually happen. The Americans will go to Kyiv and tell Zelensky that he has to settle; Zelensky will say he does not want to settle; and the Americans will say, “If you don’t, we will cut off all arms supplies, you will lose the war even more heavily and you will have a worse settlement at the end than you would if you did it now”.
We must look to the security guarantees that Ukraine puts in place to make sure that it does not get invaded again. Ukraine keeps saying that it needs to join NATO. I have to say that it is never going to join NATO as long as it has a frozen conflict with Russia and Russia occupies a lump of its country, which is likely to be the outcome of any peace agreement. Therefore, we should look to other people within NATO. I look to the Joint Expeditionary Force, set up by NATO in south Wales in 2015, and made up of the Baltic states, Norway, Denmark and Holland, led by the British. In 2017, two additional members joined the Joint Expeditionary Force, the two neutral countries of Sweden and Finland, neither of which were, at that stage, members of NATO, so there is no reason why Ukraine should not join the Joint Expeditionary Force. The British Ministry of Defence, because it does not want to be seen to split NATO, constantly says that the Joint Expeditionary Force is mainly a training organisation. I am fine with that. Let us set up training in Ukraine, both for aircraft and for troops on the ground, so that we have a NATO presence in the post-war settlement. We must have F35s, because they are critical, but let us have them training in the Ukraine, which will act as a deterrent to Russia ever invading again.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, on his maiden speech. I hope he enjoyed listening to himself—certainly, we enjoyed listening to him. He was of course a Northern Ireland Minister at one point and I share the recollection from the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, of a trade trip he led to Washington some years ago which I had the pleasure of participating in. I have no doubt that we will hear interesting contributions from him in the days and months ahead.
There is a risk of a self-congratulatory mood around the House today because, by and large, with some tweaks here and there, we all share a general approach of support for Ukraine. The tragedy is that we are in this mess because of failures some years ago. We did nothing when Crimea was invaded; we carried on with business as usual and our German colleagues made themselves almost wholly dependent on Russian gas. We have seen where that has led us.
There is another thing that Putin is banking on. He is looking back to the 1930s: “Well, we only went into the Rhineland—our back yard”. We are repeating the same thing all over again. He has judged, pretty accurately, that, when push comes to shove, many of our colleagues do not have the bottle or appetite for this. The war of attrition of course suits him. Historically, Russia has been a giant sponge—a vast geographical area that absorbs armies. One after the other has tried and failed. Yes, the Ukrainians have punched through the border and occupy a piece of land; that is fine from their point of view, but Russia is a vast nation and Putin controls all the high ground of propaganda and so on, so it is hard to judge what the impact will be.
As for the western response, yes, there have been weapons but, as other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, have pointed out, they have come late and with limitations. There have been delays. At the end of the day, how long can we ask an invaded population to be in the trenches and see their country destroyed around them when they are doing a job for all of us in the democratic world? We have to recalibrate what we are doing.
We have made this mistake even more recently. We had the Arab spring not that long ago—and what did we do there? There were speeches from this building encouraging the Syrians to resist, but we did not lift a finger when the red line of chemical weapons was crossed. Putin has moved into that country and has a warm-water port; he has taken over the whole place, destroyed the country and got Assad back into office. Now we are trying to pave the way to reintegrate Assad into the western world. The fact is that our eyes are bigger than our belly. We say the right things but, if you are not prepared to put boots on the ground, shut up and stay out of it, because these things will never be settled by meetings in committee rooms in Whitehall or elsewhere.
There has to be a reinvigoration of the political long-term objectives because, the way things are going, we are allowing the Ukrainians to be ground down. Allowing Russia get into a grinding war is the worst thing we could possibly have done. It does not care how many people it loses, by and large. There will be no political repercussions. It is not using the elites around Moscow and St Petersburg, but impoverished people from regions miles away who have absolutely no political influence over Putin whatever.
We now have the potential arrival, in some form or other, of North Koreans. Whether they will replace troops or will be used to try to flush out the Ukrainians from the Kursk region or whatever, they will free up Russian forces for the front line. This is the biggest single escalation since the war commenced its next phase in February 2022. What are we going to do about it? What is NATO going to do about it? The failure came at the very outset when people could see the tanks building up north of Kyiv. The President of the United States could have rung up Putin and said, “If one of your tanks accidentally crosses that border, I will destroy it”. The defensive posture of NATO has been challenged and called out, and we have fallen at the first fence. So we have to rethink things, be much more vigorous and make our minds up. Do we want to take this on or not? We are using the poor people of Ukraine to be crushed and destroyed. That would be a worse sin.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I echo the many congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Spellar. He has always been wise and brave. That will be much appreciated in your Lordships’ House.
I will refer in particular to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, earlier in the debate. His insights were very valuable to this debate. I raised the Storm Shadow issue with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, earlier and I hope we will hear from the noble Baroness the Minister that the years of simply slipstreaming United States decision-making are over. We may within days have to face a very different United States and we cannot rely on the past for a good future.
My noble friend Lord Alton raised the way in which sanctioned moneys are used. In the criminal jurisdiction of this country, within which I have operated for decades, when we confiscate money from a criminal, we do not simply use the interest: we use the capital. We should do exactly the same with the money confiscated from Russians who are, in reality, international criminals. We may well be told that that involves examining some treaties, but, if we examine treaties which affect Putin and his cronies, it will not worry him because he ignores every relevant treaty that affects what he has been doing. It is time we changed our attitude and used that money to revive the fortunes, literally, of Ukraine.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, did, I will talk about the city of Lviv. It has been subjected to serious bombing, damage and death. I went there first in 1991 in the company of a brave woman called Frederika Katzner. She was my mother. She was brought up in Lvov, as it was then. It was part of Poland. She married a husband there who was murdered, like so many of my ancestors, by the Nazis. She was an extraordinary Holocaust survivor. She did not return to Lvov—as she always called it—for 50 years, because my father would not let her go back. I took her there in 1991. It was a most remarkable experience because, throughout my childhood and earlier adult life, I had heard so much about Lvov and the way she described it. She always spoke of a Polish and also Habsburgian city where she had an advantaged childhood and a wonderful education, and was steeped in western and central European culture.
Putin has an obsession with not the Soviet but the White Russian past; he claims that Ukraine is part of Russia and always has been. That is what drives him to a great extent—helped in many ways, I regret, by the Russian Orthodox Church. Those are completely irrational views. My visit to Lviv in 1991 and my few visits since have confirmed to me that there is no rational basis for saying that Lviv or Ukraine are Russian. I have visited other parts of the country too, including staying in Kyiv. I hope we will not resist reminding Putin at every possible turn that this is an independent central European country which shares far more with us than it does with “Mother Russia”.
Indeed Ukraine, as a result of its post-Soviet adoption of rule of law standards and its new political system, largely thanks to the election of Zelensky after some difficult political changes, has established itself as part of our European family. In my view, this debate is ample demonstration that, as we have heard from many noble Lords, we must stand by Ukraine. But I agree to a great extent with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that we do not stand by Ukraine if we simply say so. It is in that context that we live. To me, it all feels a little bit like 1938, and I do not think there should be another 1938.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I too welcome this debate and associate myself with the wise words of noble Lords, particularly those of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Spellar.
Europe is divided between countries that understand Russia—those that have experienced Soviet occupation and domination—and countries that have been fortunate enough not to have experienced Soviets on their soil. We are lucky that our allies today are countries like Poland and the Baltic states, whose leaders have experienced Soviet domination in living memory. They have been sounding the alarm about Russian intentions for years, and were often wrongly accused of being alarmist, or of even poisoning good relations with Moscow.
It is encouraging that the new candidate for EU High Representative is the former Prime Minister of Estonia, Kaja Kallas, who has been a consistently clear voice on what Putin’s Russia stands for and what must be done to help Ukraine as it fights to defend its own territory and peace in Europe. In her words:
“Russia’s imperialistic dream never died.”
Post-2022, it is difficult to argue against this.
Russia’s war on Ukraine presents a challenge to Western interests and to countries collectively and individually. How we respond to its illegal war of aggression speaks of our values and our strength. To fight back, we need strong defence, policies that shore up collective security in Europe where it is threatened by Russia, the support of the British people, and moral clarity. We must be able to counter Russia in Ukraine as well as beyond Ukraine, not only militarily but by pushing against its false narrative of self-defence, its spread of disinformation and its so-called successful battle for the hearts and minds of global public opinion, in which it is cynically portraying itself as a country in pursuit of peace while the West supposedly fuels war.
In this context, I will focus on three issues. First, we must be honest with the British people that Britain is at war and that investment in defence and the industries that support it, as well as in the FCDO, is a grave need, not a matter of luxury or choice. We must be clear: freedom, security and peace have a cost attached to them. Is the Minister confident that the defence budget will be set at 2.5% not in some distant future, but on 30 October?
Secondly, Russia crossed many red lines well before February 2022—in Moldova, Georgia and Crimea, and in Donbass in 2014. For decades it did so almost unchallenged. As our experience in Ukraine shows today, for us, this has been a costly mistake, and we seem to have learned little from it. In the Balkans, the most unstable part of Europe, the West is collectively acting as if none of these lessons have been learned. Russian infiltration and meddling have been normalised. Russia funds, trains and supports secessionists in Bosnia, Kosovo and North Macedonia, and fuels discord and disinformation, using the Russian Orthodox Church, with no consequences.
Serbia, Russia’s main proxy in the region, has been rapidly rearming, buying drones from Iran and cyber from China, and as of last week signing a co-operation agreement between its intelligence service and the FSB. Russian and Belarusian dissidents languish in Serbian prisons waiting for their extradition to Russia or Belarus.
The West’s response has been not one of appeasement but of actually helping the rearming effort. A couple of months ago, France sold 12 new Rafale fighter jets. Calls for the creation of a “Serbian world” to expand Serbia’s territory seem to have become normalised, just as the notion of a “Russian world” was.
Speaking about the Balkans two weeks ago, President Zelensky said:
“If Russia had managed to invade our country and threaten all of Eastern Europe, there is no doubt that the next region that Moscow would use to destabilize Europe would be the Baltics or the Balkans”.
If this does not ring alarm bells and inspire us to take more robust action, it shows that we have learned nothing from the tragedy in Ukraine. With this in mind, what plans are there for a full review of the West’s chaotic and failing strategy in the western Balkans, particularly following our defence agreement with Germany and closer co-operation with the European Union?
Finally, to overcome the Russian challenge, we need more than military might and determination, however admirable that is. We must have moral clarity and strength on our side, not only in Ukraine but beyond. Sadly, this is not the case. The head of the Norwegian Refugee Council, Jan Egeland, said:
“Since we all agree that Russian occupation of Ukraine is very bad, how come Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza seems to be tolerable?”
This loses us support among the countries that should be on Ukraine’s side. Just look at yesterday’s BRICS meeting and the noble Baroness’s comments about India: Putin the aggressor was embraced, not isolated. This alienates us not only from future allies and friends but from our own people here in Britain. We need the British people to support what we are trying to do in Ukraine, and they have to believe we are on the right side elsewhere as well.
Ukraine is fighting for its own survival. It is also, by extension, fighting for peace and security in Europe and beyond. If borders can be changed in Ukraine, a message will go out that they can change elsewhere too. We must do everything in our power so that this does not happen, whether in Europe or anywhere else in the world.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I greatly welcome my noble friend Lord Spellar, with his huge reputation. He and I agree on almost everything—apart from on this war.
I am not a pacifist; I have supported wars in the Falklands, eastern Europe and intervention in Iraq, but not the war in Ukraine. This is my 23rd contribution in opposition. Too many lives have been lost and too much property has been destroyed. The war has destabilised the world economy and redirected aid from the poorest to fund arms and reconstruction in the developed world. It has moved Russia from west to east, and it has hugely reinforced the position of those in Russia whose corrupt practices were being progressively exposed by courageous dissidents. It has provoked a population movement of 8 million at the heart of Europe as people seek sanctuary in neighbouring states, interrupting the education of millions. It has provoked a debate over NATO’s future, while destroying Ukraine’s GDP, with prospective reconstruction bills topping £400 billion.
We are witnessing a failure of foreign policy perhaps unmatched in history. I think back to a period of hope: the fruitful period of early discussions between Putin, Blair and my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen in the early 2000s. It was a period of opportunity, only to be undermined as militaristic opinion in America hijacked the debate in favour of NATO expansion. It is that threat of expansion that stands at the heart of this conflict. With Yeltsin’s death, the die was cast. With the removal of Yanukovych, Putin’s paranoid obsession with NATO expansion, built on Russia’s understandable obsession with Second World War losses, turned ugly and defensive.
Events further deteriorated after the Maidan with Zelensky’s election. His demands at the 2019 Paris conference and the rejection of Putin’s counterproposals opened the door to war. I believe Russia’s obsession with NATO expansion could have been defused if the nuclear-free barrier status of a string of states stretching from Estonia in the north to Georgia in the south had been maintained, pending progressive liberalisation of all things in Russia. Yes, it is a slow process, but this process would have accelerated in a post-Putin era of increased international travel and commercial, cultural and student exchange. It was only a matter of time. Russia was on a trajectory now reversed at huge cost to the international community. The question is: how can we revitalise the whole process? My personal view is that we need a new initiative. A war dependent on the endless demands of Zelensky is not one to be won. Trump could do a deal, but he comes with baggage.
So what can we do? We need a new forum for talks, convened by a non-combatant or munitions-contributory power. I would not rule out a representative of the BRICS—perhaps China. Its relationship with Russia is no more than commercially opportunist. We ignore its potential role in world affairs at our peril. The attendees should include Germany and the UK, the drivers behind the 2020 talks, and of course the United States and Russia.
Russia has repeatedly called for talks, admittedly on an escalating agenda of military and territorial demands, but Russia is equally exhausted by the war. It wants security for its people in hostile territory. A talks agenda should concede on the issue of non-NATO membership for Ukraine and no nuclear deployments in the barrier states, all against a background of a review agreeable to all sides, perhaps within a 20-year negotiable timeframe. Donetsk and Luhansk should be subject to a form of international protectorate status, delivered under the international guarantee, which would include Russia. The protectorate would decide on official languages and all forces would withdraw in conditions of a ceasefire.
We need to defuse the conflict. It cannot be left to Zelensky; he is locked into conflict. We, the West, cannot influence events unless we advocate at least some basis for a realistic negotiating position. We need to promote in Russia at least some basis for a debate on war aims. We learn from history that Russia will fight to the last. Ukraine needs to rebuild influence on the public debates in the UK. It has to move from the military to the political. I believe there is a solution; we just need to start talking.
I leave the House with a thought: Russia lost 20 million —some say 25 million—people in the Second World War. We must never underestimate its fear of what it mistakenly believes to be external threat. It drives Russia’s fear of the West.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, a remarkable aspect of the bitter fight between the Russian aggressor and Ukraine is that the latter has not been overwhelmed by now, as it was in Crimea. The Ukrainians are admired for their national commitment to this fight. Western nations have greatly aided their ability to withstand the Russian assaults.
But it is surprising that the Russians, so much stronger on paper than the Ukrainians, have still not emerged victorious—far from it. The Ukrainians’ Kursk push into Russia earlier this summer is still not repelled. Why has Russia not proved to be the overwhelming master of the battlefield? Why has it not used all its air power to establish air superiority over Ukraine? Ukraine started with very few fighters. Its ground-based air defences and drones have proved a challenge for the Russian air forces, but that alone should not have been the deciding factor. Why have the Russians come up so short against Ukraine?
One reason, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, is that Russia itself is fearful of what it sees as the advances of NATO, now closer than ever to the very borders of Mother Russia. NATO is a defensive, not an offensive, alliance. That was true at its formation in 1949 and is just as true today. But Moscow may believe that its truth about NATO is a very different one. Far from remaining a treaty of the original transatlantic and west European nations—at first 12—it has expanded, grown and advanced east. There are now 32 member countries. Old Warsaw Pact countries have been signed up into its grasp. Most recently, Sweden and Finland have become members.
Now, from Norway in the far north and all the way down to Turkey, NATO borders Russia itself. It is said that Ukraine will be welcomed into NATO when the time is right, and it has pushed into Russian territory, now less than 350 miles from Moscow. Russia has also seen NATO operating for two decades from 2001 in Afghanistan. Its perception of NATO must be as an offensive threat of great concern.
Add to that its military doctrine of maskirovka, the concept of masking one’s intentions by disguise and deception, which is well practised in many fields by Russia. It was exploited by assurances before Russia’s special operation in Ukraine in February 2022 that it had no intention of attacking. Lying to conceal the truth is sound doctrine for the Russians. They must assume it to be good doctrine too for NATO and the West. After all, surprise is one of our key principles of war. Perhaps they might even fear a real nightmare, a secret Article 5A—not, as in Article 5, that an attack on one is an attack on all, but that an attack by one is an attack by all.
Does the Kremlin believe that NATO tells lies too and acts to deceive and surprise it? If that is its assessment, surely it will be fearful of committing all its forces against Ukraine and being too weak against what it fears from NATO. Is that an explanation for why it relies so much on North Korea and Iran for war-fighting support, and is seen to be using old Soviet-generation tanks and bombs and dated weapons in its fight with Ukraine? It must face the threat of NATO, as it sees it, with adequate capability and war stocks.
I postulate these thoughts not in any way to defend Russia’s recent actions against Ukraine, or earlier in Crimea. These actions are against international law. They must be called out on that basis and the right of any country to live in peace behind its borders. But if one is to have one’s own successful strategic thinking, how the opposition may think is important too. NATO is right to stress its defensive posture and its key reliance on Article 5 of the treaty. The importance of that as a deterrent to any Russian desire to push back against so successful a NATO cannot be overstated. Putin’s position is not as strong or as lasting as he once may have hoped.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House because it is very difficult to say anything original after about 20 speeches. What is nice about this debate is that there is nothing party political about it. I congratulate the Minister, who is currently not in his place, because I agree with almost everything, if not everything, he said. It was an excellent and very robust speech. I also congratulate my friend and former pupil, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, on his speech, which covered much of what I wanted to say, and the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, on his excellent maiden speech, with which I also agreed on almost everything.
I will make several points that are not necessarily entirely related. We in the West need to realise that this is the most dangerous time of our lives since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. There is a real danger of all-out war, which we must avoid if at all possible. We need to prepare the population, however, by warning the nation and getting everyone onside with this danger, as mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, and my noble friend Lady Helic. We must prepare ourselves as a nation. We must fill our munition bunkers, which were emptied because we gave all the munitions to the Ukrainians; the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, mentioned that in relation to our industrial needs. We must allow Ukraine to fight, as Russia does, an all-out war, which includes letting them use any munitions we give them, including Storm Shadow, to attack Russia.
We must spend a huge amount more on defence and not pussyfoot around on 2.5%. We face a war situation, and the only way to deter war is to be prepared for it. I suggest that we probably need to double defence spending. Yesterday, the Defence Secretary, the right honourable John Healey, said that we are not prepared to fight a war at the moment. We of course do not want a shooting war between NATO and Russia—I have a personal, family reason for not wanting to see British soldiers killed in Ukraine—but Putin threatens a nuclear war. The aggressor threatens us, saying: if we escalate, we will have nuclear war. I am afraid that we need to call his bluff. He is the aggressor. Luckily, China will constrain him from using any nuclear weapons.
From another angle entirely, it worries me that the Americans do not seem to study history. Do they not know what happened with isolationism in the 1930s and where that led?
There was the BRICS meeting in Kazan only this week. South Africa and India, two nations that should have been at CHOGM, were there listening to Putin rather than listening to the Commonwealth meeting.
There is a so-called axis of evil, with Iran, North Korea, China and Russia. Iran and North Korea are already helping Russia in its fight. Luckily, China is now the senior member of this partnership. Previously, as those with knowledge of history will know, under Stalin, China got very miffed because Stalin used to try to bully the communist Chinese in the early 1950s.
The noble Lord, Lord Spellar, said that this is a 10-year war. However, I was sanctioned in 2015, as I think he was, because I said that Putin had an aggrand-isement policy in Crimea. I suggest that Putin has been attacking the West for more than 10 years. Litvinenko was murdered not two miles from here 18 years ago. Then, 16 years ago, Putin invaded Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Last week, we had the warning —we should remember this—from Ken McCallum of MI5 that Putin intends to disrupt, and cause chaos in, our nation. This is war.
This is the most dangerous time of our lives, not just for us but for NATO and the West. The situation is getting worse. There is an urgency here. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for whom I have a great regard, is conducting a defence review—incidentally, I do not defend the defence policies of the previous Government. I wish him well, but we cannot wait very long; the West needs to act. If you go to Poland, the Baltic states or Finland, they will tell you that we need to act now, not in a year or two. If we want to keep peace, prosperity and security in Europe, we must see the West defeat Putin.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the chance to debate the situation in Ukraine as we approach 1,000 days of war, and as we witness growing Russian aggression across Europe and violations of NATO airspace almost every weekend. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for leading this debate and setting out the level of government support.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, on his maiden speech. I greatly admired his contributions in the other place and look forward to his future contributions here. He reminded us that the initial occupation of Ukraine was in 2014, so this occupation has been a lot longer than might seem the case.
The human cost of the occupation and hostilities in Ukraine has been high, and my heart goes out to the families of the fallen and injured on both sides of the divide. Ukrainian soldiers have fought to defend their land with courage and resilience, and the conflict is set to run for longer yet.
I shall focus my remarks on neighbouring European states. The recent referendum in Moldova and the alleged Russian interference in the democratic process there sets alarm bells to ring. But there are a host of other former satellite countries in the vicinity that feel increasingly threatened, not least, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referred to, the Baltic states and Poland. Perhaps, therefore, it is not surprising that current defence spending of NATO members puts Poland on 4.1% of its GDP, then Estonia on 3.4% and the US on 3.4% too. The UK, as we know, is on 2.3%.
Sweden and Finland share a very large land border with Russia and now are members of NATO. They take the threat of Russian aggression seriously and devote resources to it. The threat is felt also keenly in Denmark, whose Government regularly issue safety and survival advice, most recently including advice to take iodine to counteract radiation poisoning, although apparently it helps only the younger generation—the children. My late mother grew up in occupied Denmark, and memories last long. The current threat is very real.
The fact that in two weeks’ time, the results of the election in the United States may signify a change of policy towards Ukraine is deeply worrying. President Zelensky has bravely and skilfully led Ukraine through these violent and dangerous times. We owe it to the people of Ukraine to continue to support them in this war on an independent sovereign state. Were Russia successful in foisting a disadvantageous settlement on Ukraine, that would be a dereliction of a peace settlement honouring the boundaries of a democratic, independent state. Worse, it would permit Russia to perpetrate further aggression on another, yet unidentifiable, front. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
A hallmark of the British constitution is a seamless transition from one Government to another overnight at a general election. I welcome the fact that it is very positive that the new Government are building on and developing the policy in regard to Ukraine pursued by the outgoing Government. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I hope the incoming President of the United States will continue to support Ukraine in the defence of their country, while we in Britain play our part in defending European borders.
I was in Berlin on 9 November 1989, the day the wall fell. The euphoria at the newfound freedom was palpable and memorable. We must never return to a full-scale occupation of Europe, and I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker: the front line of Ukraine is also the front line of UK and European security. We must defend it.
I end with a question to the Minister, for when she responds. I am very taken by the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom that we could invite Ukraine to join the Joint Expeditionary Force. It does excellent work and meets regularly, and it would embed Ukraine in the European family. Will the Government look favourably on such a suggestion?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I was president of the CBI when the Ukraine war started after Russia illegally invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022. On the Monday after the war started, I went to see the ambassador, Vadym Prystaiko, at the Ukrainian embassy to offer the help of British industry. It was then that I learned from the horse’s mouth that Ukraine was going to fight. Putin thought that, in the same way as the Taliban walked into Afghanistan after our withdrawal and the Afghan army capitulated, he would be able to walk into Kyiv and take over the whole of Ukraine. As the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, said in his excellent maiden speech, this war actually started a decade ago, when Russia took over Crimea in 2014.
I come to blunder number two by Putin. The week after the invasion, I was scheduled to address the EU ambassadors at their regular meeting at the EU embassy, just across the road in Smith Square. During my speech, I looked at the ambassadors from Finland and Sweden. I asked them, “Are you now ready to join NATO?” They said, “Within five minutes”. Sure enough, Finland and Sweden have now joined NATO—two formidable defence powers, with Finland able to muster hundreds of thousands of trained troops within weeks and having a far longer border with Russia than Ukraine does, at 1,400 km. Both countries are also formidable defence manufacturing powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, said, when it comes to rifles, artillery and aircraft.
Here we are, almost three years into a war of attrition with Putin not giving up. In his excellent opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, spoke of the 675,000 Russian casualties. Russia has lost 3,400 tanks and 8,500 armoured vehicles, while 26 vessels in the Black Sea have been either destroyed or damaged. Tragically, among Ukraine’s civilians and troops, thousands of lives have been lost. I do not whether noble Lords are aware of this but there are 80,000 amputees in Ukraine as a result of this awful war. Young lives—indeed, whole families—are being ruined.
Putin is making another blunder. He is worried about Ukraine joining NATO. At the 2024 Washington summit, allies stated that they will continue to support Ukraine on its irreversible path to NATO membership. Look at Australia. It is thousands of miles away but has pledged to supply 49 surplus M-1A1 Abrams tanks to the Ukrainian war effort. This could not have come at a better time, because the 47th Mechanized Brigade, the Ukrainian army’s sole user of American-made M-1s, is running out of tanks.
The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, is absolutely right. We cannot go about supporting Ukraine in a half-hearted way. We are all united. Every party in this House and every independent Peer—we are all united in defending and supporting Ukraine. However, I fear that we are doing it half-heartedly. We should be going all out. I ask the Minister: what about the planes? No one has mentioned planes. When President Zelensky came here, he said, “Give me wings”. We have given those wings. When are they going to be used? Are we going to be able to use weaponry in Russian territory?
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned in his opening speech, the UK has approved a military loan of £2.26 billion for Ukraine, using profits from frozen Russian assets. This is excellent news. In the summer, the leaders of the G7 countries agreed to cream off the profits from around €280 billion of Russian sovereign assets that have been frozen. This is the sort of thing that we need to be doing. Of course, Russia must pay for the 470,000 damage cases registered in Ukraine and the trillions of dollars-worth of damage that it has caused.
Everything hinges on what happens in America in a few days’ time. Are we prepared for what might happen on 5 November and who might win that election? Republican support in the US for Ukraine seems to have waned. Will it continue if we have a Trump presidency? There is also a growing relationship between Russia, Iran and North Korea. China, which continues to exploit Russia’s weakened position, is using that for its own strategic interests.
Of course, we must not forget the £457 million of humanitarian aid that we have given to Ukraine. The UN has been useless recently. It has been totally ineffective, except in helping to get the grain to flow out of Odessa. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned India, which will be the largest economy in the world by 2060. Are we working with India to try to resolve these conflicts? India is an ally of ours. Are we working with and talking to it?
I conclude with this—I am a stuck record. In 2019, on the 70th anniversary of NATO, I said that we should spend 3% of our GDP on defence. We need to do that now more than ever. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said in a previous debate and in his excellent speech today, we have a shrinking and hollowing-out of our Armed Forces. As the noble Lord, Lord West, said, money is the elephant in the room. I keep saying this: the price of freedom is not free. We must save Ukraine and help it to win this war.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said, there is a limit to what can be added, as nearly the 30th speaker, to a debate where there is such a heartening and profound level of consensus on all sides of the House, particularly as I am acutely conscious that this is not my usual field, unlike those other noble Lords who speak with deep expertise in defence, security and foreign affairs. Before I address one specific issue, I will therefore do no more than add one further small voice in support of the Government’s sure-footed execution of policy in relation to Ukraine, following in the footsteps of the previous Government, for which the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was such an excellent Minister in this House.
Even when there is such a high degree of cross-party agreement, however, there are still difficult and potentially controversial judgments to be made, such as on the use of Storm Shadow. I wish the Government well in making those judgments with the benefit of their consultation and communication with both Houses of Parliament. I very much enjoyed and was informed by the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Spellar. In the months and years to come, your Lordships’ House may give time—not too much, I hope, given the many other pressing issues—to the question of this House’s composition. Over the years, I have heard suggestions from some quarters that too many former MPs were being appointed. I have always disagreed with this and believe that my noble friend’s speech powerfully supports that argument.
I should like to use the rest of my time to talk about the challenges for independent news reporting in Ukraine generally and for journalists individually. I declare my interest as entered in the register as chair of the Thomson Foundation, which trains journalists and supports sustainable independent media, principally in countries with low incomes and/or low press freedom. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 17 journalists and media workers have been killed in the conflict since Russia’s invasion in February 2022. These numbers may seem small in the context of the horrifying numbers of deaths of combatants and general civilians, but as a proportion of those journalists and photographers still reporting from the war zone, it is significant and a tragic reminder of the risks that are being incurred every day by those who are determined to report truthfully to the people of Ukraine and internationally on the events of the war and the political developments around it.
That reporting is completely vital to broad understanding of the conflict on which public support is based. Government, of course, has its own intelligence, but even then independent journalism can be an important additional source of information. My noble friend Lord Spellar and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, talked about the need to counter the disinformation of the Putin regime. The UK and other Governments have supported media in Ukraine throughout the conflict in the form of physical assistance and grants to support reporting, establishing new networks and finding an audience in exile. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that however much the cost of supplying military and reconstruction aid rises, the support for media will be maintained and, I hope, increased? Emergency support during the peak period of conflict is vital, but so too is support post conflict, whenever that may be, when organisations such as the Thomson Foundation, its cousin the Thomson Reuters Foundation and BBC Media Action can more easily play a role.
Following the invasion and annexation of Crimea, for instance, the Thomson Foundation—funded in this case principally by the EU—trained over 1,000 journalists in Ukraine, including on conflict-sensitive reporting about the thousands of internally displaced people. The online news site Kyiv Independent, of which a Thomson alumnus was a co-founder, was established three months before the 2022 invasion. It was a breakaway from an established Ukrainian news outlet whose proprietor had sought to impose editorial censorship on its journalists. It has become a vital source of day-to-day reporting on the war and all other matters Ukrainian, of the sort advocated so strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham.
I will end by briefly broadening the issue beyond Ukraine. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, described how Russia is using grain supply to strengthen its support among African countries, where China has also systematically and strategically sought to build geopolitical alliances. The FCDO has already provided vital funding for media development work in Africa, as well as in other regions such as the western Balkans. Can my noble friend the Minister ensure that, even with the public spending challenges of these times, the Government maintain and increase their commitment to this spending, as a highly cost-effective part of the defence of the international rules-based order?
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for allowing me to speak from the Cross Benches while my leg is misbehaving.
I was recently asked by a member of the public, “When are we going to stop giving all this money to Ukraine? Surely we should be spending it on things that matter, like the NHS”. I naturally agreed that the NHS matters—of course it does—but I also said, as my noble friend Lord Banner’s family sadly knows at first hand, that one of the first places that Putin bombed was a maternity hospital. There is no reason to think that St Thomas’, for example, would not be in his sights. What better way to terrorise the British people and make them realise the price of standing up for Ukraine than to bomb a landmark hospital across the river from where we are sitting today?
Does any noble Lord seriously think that that could not happen and that Putin is not capable of such an outrage? Indeed, why would bombing St Thomas’ be any more outrageous than the crimes that his forces have already committed? If ever we need to be educated in Putin’s macabre mindset, we need only remember what his soldiers did in Bucha. As my noble friend Lord Robathan implied, the British public cannot assume that his bloodlust will not be visited on us, even if only by drones, cyberwarfare and missiles rather than by soldiers.
Yet, as the International Relations and Defence Committee of your Lordships’ House has warned, we are underprepared, including as a society. Everyone said “Protect the NHS” during the Covid pandemic, but does the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman —agree that investing in the NHS is academic if we have not also invested adequately in the military means to defend it and our other civilian infrastructure? Can she reassure the House that this is being factored into determining the relative priorities of defence versus health and other domestic spending?
Surely the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, in his powerful maiden speech, are right when they warn that too many western policymakers still delude themselves that a compromise with Putin is possible. Indeed, I agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, reminded us, that following such a futile approach, as we did in 1938, will simply postpone and magnify the pain, as we deluded ourselves that Hitler could be appeased.
Effective deterrence may be expensive, but it is an awful lot cheaper, both financially and in human costs, than war. Yet, despite the horrors visited on Ukraine and the awful scenes from the Middle East following Hamas’s barbaric invasion of Israel from unoccupied Gaza only 12 months ago, I sense that too few outside your Lordships’ House and the other place can compute the devastation that awaits us should Ukraine be defeated. As the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker —said, Putin must be seen to lose for that devastation to be avoided.
Reports suggest that the goalposts on government debt are going to be moved in a few days’ time. I worry that the net result will be that, just when we need to reduce debt and prepare for war—so as not to have to fight one—our economy will become even more vulnerable to global life shocks. I hope sincerely that the extra £50 billion window that is being reported in the press will benefit defence.
I conclude with one further question for the Minister —the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—to answer when she replies. She will know that the economic and financial dialogue between the UK and China was paused after the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. Since repression there is now so much worse and since more than 60% of the components used to prosecute Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine come from China, can she reassure the House that the UK will not seek to deepen trade relations with China? Not only is China making possible the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine but its illegal sanction- busting involvement is making a third world war far more likely.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, obviously, like the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, I too think that the NHS matters, but when the geopolitical facts change our defence posture needs to respond accordingly. Inevitably, I am afraid that will mean a far higher priority for defence spending than we have seen over the past several decades. At this stage of the debate, in an effort to be non-duplicative, I will try to focus a few remarks on the defence industrial lessons that we have seen from Ukraine over the more than two and a half years since the full Russian invasion began.
Parliament often legitimately criticises the Ministry of Defence for its procurement, but I suggest that today it would be fair to congratulate the Ministry of Defence on the speed and effectiveness of its mobilisation and on its material support for Ukraine, particularly under Op Scorpius. I think 34 countries have provided military support, but the UK’s is the third-largest contribution after the US and Germany. Indeed, there have been disproportionate contributions from countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. We have committed over £7.8 billion of support from the reserves and, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said right at the beginning, there is the very welcome commitment to at least £3 billion of funding support a year, stretching out to 2030 as required.
As the National Audit Office pointed out in September in one of its more favourable reports—I say this as a connoisseur of National Audit Office reports, not all of which have had quite that flavour—there has been tremendous innovation and good practice in defence procurement, including at Defence Equipment and Support in Abbey Wood, in shortening procurement timescales, in getting anti-aircraft equipment in six weeks that would normally have taken one to two years, in getting small contracts out the door in 115 days, and in using a degree of creativity in reverse engineering Soviet-era T72 tank tracks using old blueprints at the Tank Museum in Bovington. All this is to be welcomed.
Reading between the lines, there might have been one government department that did not quite get the memo. The NAO says that the formal approval process from HM Treasury
“can take place months after the funding total has been publicly announced”.
It goes on to say that after the then Prime Minister had committed the Government to
“£2.3 billion funding for Ukraine”
in the year just gone, it took the Treasury until 10 months after the First Lord of the Treasury made that announcement to formally agree that that funding should be released. I can imagine the accounting officers of the departments have been arguing over those sentences before they saw the light of day.
Let us not let that detract from the broader point, which is that HMG has a great deal to be proud of. That, however, should not blind us to three uncomfortable revelations on the defence industrial side of the equation from the last several years. The equipment that the UK had donated to Ukraine up until March 2024 had a current value of £172 million; the cost of replacing it is estimated at £2.7 billion. That underlines just how atrophied and time-expired much of the equipment and munitions available to our Armed Forces are. It forcefully illustrates former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace’s point about the “hollowing out” of the Armed Forces and, indeed, comments that the current Defence Secretary, John Healey, has again made this week. The two years of donations we have made will, according to the NAO, take us until 2031 to replace, which underlines the lack of depth and resilience in our defence industrial base. As we have all been well aware, delays in supplying Ukraine with critical-use permissions for major pieces of equipment—the Storm Shadow debate and others—arise partly because of export permit approvals being not forthcoming from other countries, which underlines the importance of sovereign defence capability.
In short, congratulations are due to the Ministry of Defence for what it has done with the hand it has been dealt. Nevertheless, the experience of the last two and a half years has shown some profound weaknesses in the defence industrial base, which the forthcoming strategic defence review and the subsequent spending review must confront head on.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, to the House. I have known him for a long time. When I was in a different party, we used to go to the London Labour Party conference, where he would stride up to the platform and announce, “John Spellar, EETPU”, at which point there was sustained booing before he had said a single word. I am sure that the noble Lord will contribute vigorously to this House.
I am not part of the consensus here, as noble Lords might realise by now. We need to stop this war and start talking, preferably from our present position which is one of moderate strength. We do not want to talk in the aftermath of a downturn in American support when Putin thinks, quite rightly, that the whole game is over in his favour.
As for Storm Shadow, all it will do is prolong the war. They will be able to hit further into Russian territory, and the Russians will retaliate. As many Members will know, I have quite a few Russian friends. I had one here to tea yesterday. She tells me that morale in Russia is very high and the war economy is actually going very well. One of her relatives has taken advantage of the IKEA company withdrawing from Moscow to set up an IKEA lookalike in their city. So do not let us be under the impression that the Russians are going to collapse—they are not.
I draw attention to this week’s meeting in Kazan. The reason why the leaders of India, South Africa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka were in Kazan, not Samoa, is that Kazan matters to them and, frankly, Samoa does not. It is as simple as that. One of the most significant developments in Kazan is the bringing forward of the new international payments system that has been devised by a number of the BRICS countries. That could fundamentally shift the balance of power in the financial West, and one of the reasons is that if we want to freeze their assets and give away their money, then they are not going to put any more here. It is as simple as that. When countries like Abu Dhabi are willing to set up a banking system to challenge us with a lot of support, that is what will happen.
Something that has hardly been mentioned in this debate is the rest of Europe. There are severe reservations in Germany as to where this effort is going to lead and whether it is worth it; there is an election there next year, and that is going to be a major issue. The French are not that far on board, and Giorgia Meloni in Italy is most certainly looking for a way out.
So let us get real. I shall give one example. A few days ago, Cardinal Zuppi, the Vatican representative to the conflict, met Sergei Lavrov in Moscow and they discussed the conflict. The Vatican position is that there should be negotiations and that Russia must be included. A Ukrainian peace plan that does not include Russia is, frankly, not worth anything at all. Cardinal Parolin, the Secretary of State in the Vatican, has made it very clear that he is willing to act as a good envoy between the two sides.
We should be looking at things like that, because we are not going to win; Napoleon found that out, and Hitler found that out. I am sorry to say to those people who think we are that the Russian people are behind Putin, as are many in the third world, who see this as our little fight. I say to our Front Bench: try to get peace talks going. That is what is needed, because there is no such thing as victory in this case. What is victory? We do not know, because there is no such thing.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to the vast majority of speeches in this debate. I will comment on a few of them, but I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who has perhaps put an element of realism into this debate, even though I do not agree with all his conclusions. We are faced with a much bigger problem than many speakers have acknowledged.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Spellar and welcome him to this House. I have known him for half a century or more. He and I used to be opposite numbers in rival trade unions for many years. Over the years, we have not agreed on everything, but his experience, his knowledge and particularly his understanding of the industrial side of our life will be a great benefit to this House, and I bid him welcome.
I was slightly surprised that it took quite a long time before the biggest elephant in the room—or possibly elephant out of the room—was mentioned. It fell to the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, who is not in her place, to say that what happens in the war in Ukraine, despite us deploring the terrible suffering of the Ukrainian people and the destruction of the infrastructure and the grain and the obscenity of Putin’s war, will be decided, to a large extent, in a fortnight’s time in Washington—or rather, in polling booths across the United States. If President Trump wins, it changes the situation entirely. He says he is going to try to get peace within 48 hours, and he is going to cut off the current level, as least, of the support America is giving in arms, military support and money to Ukraine. I have to say that, even if Kamala Harris wins, there may well be an increase in support in Congress for the Republican Party, which might well have the same result if it can block expenditure on Ukraine.
That transforms the situation for Europe. If America is not Ukraine’s backer, we are in a situation where it will be even worse than the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, indicates. There will be no peace, but there will be further Russian success. There are ways of offsetting that, and it is of course possible that President Trump will not actually do what he says he is going to do—it has been known—but I think we will have to gauge public opinion as well as political opinion within the United States. They are tiring of this Ukrainian war and, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, this is also the case in parts of Europe.
One of my great regrets is that, during our membership of the European Union, both parties in Britain by and large resisted the European Union developing its own defence capabilities. I think that now has to be rectified. I am glad to see that my right honourable friends John Healey and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, have been making approaches to Germany, France and the European Union as a whole to try to pull together a more coherent European-level defence capability. But, as far as Ukraine is concerned, it is probably too late. I commend those efforts and I hope that they increase. I hope that we and the French and Germans, in particular, can give Ukraine additional help in terms of mobilising the defence industries of those three countries, which are very formidable, in support of Ukraine’s efforts. But, in the short term, at least, there will be a shortfall of help to Ukraine, and the Ukrainians, despite their terrible losses and their superhuman efforts to resist the Russian invasion, will be faced with having to make some sort of accommodation with the Russians. It will not be a formal peace. We cannot accept the illegal occupation of any Ukrainian territory in any formal way, but there may well be a ceasefire that will see the Russians still in occupation of parts of what is legally, and ought to be, part of Ukrainian territory. That is a terrible outcome, but I am only being realistic here.
If the Americans belie what has been said before the election and continue to support the Ukrainians, we should continue to support them. If they do not, however, we have to build up within Europe, particularly with the French and Germans, a united approach to stop Ukraine being completely smothered by Russia and to ensure that there is an unsatisfactory and unjust peace, or ceasefire, at least, that stops the suffering and the destruction of Ukrainian society, the killing and maiming of Ukrainian civilians as well as military personnel and the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure. If we manage to freeze the situation, it will involve a superhuman effort at European level, which will have to be led by the current Government, because the French and German Governments are lame ducks. Chancellor Scholz and President Macron may not be there in two years’ time and we will have to take the lead. I hope that my colleagues are up for it, because a superhuman effort will be required, not just for Ukraine but for Europe as a whole and, indeed, the free world.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, I rise as the 33rd speaker in your Lordships’ debate. I am pleased to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—I cannot call him my noble friend any more.
I was very cheered to hear the echo of 1938. I was born too late for that but now, at last, I will be in the third world war. I might say that it is about time that I had some fun in my life. What we are discussing right now, let us be clear, is that we are willing to start the third world war—or, rather, that Putin has already started the third world war and we are going to co-operate with him in having a nice third world war.
Of course, there is the £23 billion hole that the Conservatives left for us, we have to redefine our debt calculations and we do not have money for pensioners for this winter, but we will find the money—maybe £100 billion, maybe more; I do not know what it is. But that is fine. I think there is all-party agreement that we are going to go to war—and who am I as a Cross-Bencher to object to that?
As the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches pointed out, India was absent at the Commonwealth meeting. At that Commonwealth meeting, there is a huge demand for reparations, which we may not be able to escape. Forget about that. But if India was at Kazan and not in Samoa, there is a reason. Prime Minister Modi—whatever you may think of him—is the only person who was able to tell Putin that it was not the time for war when he invaded Ukraine, and he is the only person who has been to both Russia and Ukraine. He is, I think, the only statesman right now who may be helpful to us, if we can take advantage of his membership of the Commonwealth. But, of course, we do not want to do anything like that—we want to fight. So, let us fight. Let us have a proper five to six-year war, which would be very good for us. After all, Russia has been encouraged in this war effort. There was an article in the New Statesman by Wolfgang Munchau only last week saying how much better the Russian economy was now because of the war. Let us remember that, while we have sanctions on Russia, India has helped Russia to sell all its oil, because we are not the only power in the land. NATO is not the only power in the land. There is BRICS, there is China and there are others.
But so what? We are going to fight because we are determined to fight. It is good, therefore, that we should all be combined and should be able to fight. I am not an expert on defence, but I have been hearing and reading in newspapers that we do not have enough soldiers in our Army; we have problems with our Navy and need more money there; and we need more money in the Royal Air Force. But we will find the money somewhere, it does not matter where, because peace is always a misery and deficits matter. In war, deficits do not matter. So thank God that, at least five days before the Budget, we have decided to go to war so we can have a new Budget calculation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So I think we are in a good position, and I congratulate the new Government—and we have decided, with this Labour Government, that times were going to be tough, and now they are going to be tougher. We are going to fight a war, and I am sure that in about five or six years we will be the victor, as we were in the last war. We remember the last war very fondly, so let us have another war, and let us once again be proud that we defended ourselves.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I join in the sentiments of praise for the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar. I certainly look forward to his future contributions.
Throughout the debate we have heard so much about the echoes of history and of former conflicts. Of course, historians will draw on the proceedings of your Lordships’ House and the other place as primary evidence when they write about wars and this country’s place in them. That got me thinking about the great parliamentary debates of wartime, and perhaps the most famous in the other place, the Norway debate of May 1940 or the Saturday Sitting of the other place during the invasion of the Falkland Islands in April 1982. These moments distil the conduct of war into the conduct of parliamentary debate. That set me wondering just what conclusions the historians of the future will draw when they look back and examine the Hansard records that we are creating today, as they analyse the United Kingdom’s posture at this particular moment of the war on Ukraine.
I am anxious—along with my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Robathan and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in the sentiments they have expressed—that when it comes to Storm Shadow those historians may find some evidence to suggest that the UK was, at this precise time, not in the position of global leadership that it should be when it comes to the defence of Ukraine. That is not a comfortable view and not one that is necessarily easy to face up to—and none of it, I should say, is to question the intentions, commitment or good nature of the Government and all those engaged so tirelessly from the UK side in Ukraine’s defence. I join noble Lords from across the House in praising and thanking Ministers who are working so hard and tirelessly on this vital issue. But it is an anxiety that I have arrived at through some first-hand experience.
I have been fortunate to travel to Ukraine multiple times since the illegal invasion, to have visited Kyiv, Lviv and other areas, and even to have met on a number of occasions President Zelensky and his Ministers, alongside our former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. During my most recent visit last month, I found the Ukrainians as resolute and determined as ever to defend their people, their country, their democracy and their absolutely justified right to national sovereignty. But as I arrived in Kyiv, the headlines in London were all about western Governments’ delay in allowing the Ukrainian armed forces to deploy Storm Shadow in the way they had requested. Indeed, as President Zelensky said in August this year when he visited London, talking specifically about the pace of support:
“Unfortunately, the situation has slowed down recently”.
Those comments should make us uneasy, because the United Kingdom has rightly been the country that has so consistently been in the very front of the vanguard of support for Ukraine, committing £12.8 billion— £7.8 billion in military support and £5 billion in non-military support, according to the latest figures—as well as training more than 47,000 Ukrainian personnel under Operation Interflex and providing shelter to more than 215,000 Ukrainians in the UK, including more than 150,000 via Homes for Ukraine. Those are the figures as of earlier this month. With such a distinguished and proud record of support, why is it that the Ukrainians themselves feel something of a slowdown?
Last month I was able to visit a recovery centre in Kyiv for wounded veterans, where I think I heard the answer to that question. I met many veterans who were severely wounded, having lost limbs and been disfigured. As those veterans spoke in a quiet ward, in a hospital surrounded by trees in a suburb of Kyiv, what came across time and again in their testimony was that they thought that for Ukraine to win, the military reality demands an ability to project force over longer distances, to engage Russian targets at greater ranges, to provide deep strike capabilities and, crucially, not just to send the weapons but to allow them to be used now. That is the current military calculation from those at the sharp end; let future historians note that testimony.
Hearing the stories of those soldiers and seeing their pain, but also their determination, moved me. It made me realise so vividly that as a young person enjoying a peaceful life in the UK, my freedom is resting on a wave of heroism and sacrifice from every generation in Ukraine, but particularly the young. It is a sister democracy and a brother nation, just a short flight away. That is why we must all, as parliamentarians, use our faculties here to make the case for NATO membership for Ukraine, true freedom to use Storm Shadow and other decisive weapons, and a rapid execution of military, diplomatic, financial and political strength, with the United Kingdom at the absolute forefront to help deliver a Ukrainian victory.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I am usually put last on the speakers’ list in any debate on this topic, but I treat that as a badge of honour. I welcome the opportunity we have been given to take note. I have been taking note of the Government’s position on Ukraine for over two years now. It is unchanging: the promise, endlessly repeated, to support Ukraine “up to the hilt”—to do “whatever it takes”. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has simply repeated this with his usual eloquence.
What Ukraine thinks it takes is shown by President Zelensky’s latest victory plan: the Russian army must be driven out of Crimea and Donbass. However, who now believes that Ukraine can achieve this kind of victory at the present level of western support? Rather, there is growing agreement that without expanded western support, Ukraine, despite its courage and determination, faces defeat. This was always likely once Russia started to mobilise on a larger scale.
The demographics alone indicate this: you have a country of 36 million fighting one of 147 million. In the last four years, Ukraine’s population has shrunk by 20% while Russia’s has grown. A population the size of London has simply disappeared through war and migration; that is the reality on the ground. Of course, North Korean involvement has added a new front in this debate, but we must not delude ourselves that Russia needs North Korean troops to go on fighting. So the question arises: what more must we do to do what it takes?
There are two basic answers. The first is to tighten economic sanctions, for example by confiscating seized Russian assets. The idea that economic sanctions will cripple Putin’s war machine lingers on in the face of much evidence to the contrary. Since sanctions were imposed, Russia’s economy has boomed, Ukraine’s has slumped and the EU’s has stagnated. I hope that Treasury officials will expand on the lesson given by my noble friend Lord Desai as to why this has happened and persuade their sanctions-addicted colleagues at the Foreign Office to ease up on their enthusiasm for this approach.
I want to repeat the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. Have the Government taken note of the two-day BRICS summit in Kazan, where Putin hosted a meeting of 36 countries including India and China? It was also attended by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. One wants to ask: in this evolving world order, who is the pariah?
The other notion going around is that we should give Ukraine permission to use long-range missiles and navigation systems, supplied by us and other NATO countries, to strike targets deep in Russia. Do the Government support this? It is crucial, because without that support their strategy collapses. Ukraine needs something else. Are the Government prepared to provide that long-range ability to strike deep into Russian territory?
The victory at any price school relies on two exceedingly dangerous fallacies. The first is that defeating Russia in Ukraine is the key to the security of Europe. For understandable reasons, Ukraine presents itself as Europe’s shield against Russia, and many noble Lords have endorsed this. The argument goes: “If you do not defeat the Russians in Ukraine, they will keep on coming at you. Who next—the Baltics, Georgia, Poland or Moldova? Where will a maniac like Putin stop?” I call this the Munich reflex. It affects the thinking of all British elites because Britain, by its surrender to Hitler at Munich, unleashed him on the rest of Europe. They feel guilty about it and say: “We must not repeat that mistake”. But this is contextually blind. As Owen Matthews pertinently pointed out,
“the supposedly mighty Russian army has been fought to a standstill not by Nato—which, as Zelensky joked … ‘hasn’t turned up yet’—but by Ukraine’s once-tiny military”.
The second conceptual flaw is the discounting of Russian retaliation. That is very dangerous. Putin has already said that Russia would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to any massive air and space attack over Russia’s border by a non-nuclear power. Is it the Government’s view that he is bluffing?
Is there a way to bring the fighting to an end? The most hopeful recent development in this deadly game of chicken has been a statement by President Zelensky reported in the Financial Times two days ago:
“Russia putting an end to aerial attacks on Ukrainian energy targets and cargo ships could pave the way for negotiations to end the war”.
At last, there is a breakthrough to realism. Will the Government seize this opportunity to start some serious diplomacy? I mourn those who have died. What now moves me above all else is the thought of the thousands more young men, women and children yet to die if this war is not quickly brought to an end. I beg the Government to play their part in bringing the killing and destruction to a close.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government for bringing this debate to the House and the Minister for his clear opening remarks, on which there is consensus across the House. He knows of the support of these Benches, which my noble friend Lady Smith indicated. I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, to his place and look forward to the valuable contributions he will make as a Member of this House.
My noble friend said at the start that we are debating a war in Europe, but the conflict has global ramifications. We have just heard reference to the competing international fora of the Commonwealth of Nations and BRICS summits, with perhaps jarring narratives and, as some have said, competing political relevancies. BRICS has become political rather than a trading co-operative body because of Moscow. As I will return to in a moment, redoubling our efforts in that regard will be important.
We have supported the Government’s actions, most recently the £2.25 billion facility of interest. As my noble friend said, we had pressed the previous Government on this, and we are delighted to see action. I hope the Minister will give a bit more detail on what practical impact that will have and when because, as we know, the timing is imperative.
We on these Benches have been pleased to play our part in the cross-party consensus that it is in the UK’s interests for Ukraine to prevail in its defensive struggle. That is also in our wider interests for global development, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said. Last week, we discussed the SDGs in his debate, as well as the tensions in modern Ethiopia. Next week, we will have a debate on the wider Horn of Africa. Across all those areas, we see Russia’s malign work to destabilise, to misinform and to support terror activities from Yemen to Sudan and the Sahel. As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, said, we see that closer to home in the western Balkans. The reach of the conflict, therefore, shows the 21st-century nature of hybrid warfare, with the many commercial interests that feed into it. As the Minister alluded to, this is both modern and medieval: in Ukraine, there is hand-to-hand combat in freezing mud trenches, while above in the skies there are drones controlled hundreds of kilometres away, with social media covering it instantly.
Support in the form of equipment and military materiel is vital, as the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Spellar, said. However, we need to do more with our allies on reconstruction in Ukraine, such as providing technical support for restarting air services at Lviv Airport, an area the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, spoke so movingly about. One of the ways we can show that Russia will fail is if the reconstruction following its damage occurs almost as quickly it happens. The resilience of the Ukrainian people must be the resilience of their economy and industry, and the UK can play an important part in that.
We also need to do more on having a greater impact on the Russian war economy. There are headwinds resulting from those willing to continue to trade with, and circumvent sanctions on, Russia. This is where my noble friend’s reference to the BRICS summit is of great importance: we need to deploy greater diplomatic activity with trading partners such as India and the UAE—the latter has not been mentioned in the debate, but it is part of the BRICS fora, alongside Iran—to exact pressure on Russia. We also need to be willing to review our trading preferences and liabilities. We are allies and friends, but we need to ensure that there is pressure on Russia. We also have our standards: if countries have trading preferences with us, they must be based on what we consider to be global norms.
We need to be cognisant that, with some justification, some see double standards in the UK and the West’s position on Ukraine compared to that on Gaza, in our funding of international development assistance, and in our funding for Ukrainians here in the UK but not for those in Sudan. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, all that may be true, but it is no justification for the aggression of Russia and the Putin regime.
Some—I am one of them—have seen the Russian chairing of BRICS as stretching credulity. In the official literature of the Kazan summit, the Russian Government are now trumpeting what they want to see as a development of interparliamentary relations and ties. This is a country with a travesty of a Parliament, systematically seeking to destroy the continuing functioning of a democratic Verkhovna Rada in Kyiv. It has no moral basis to argue that there should be parliamentary strengthening. The Commonwealth of Nations and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association need to have their support redoubled, especially when we debate this in our functioning Parliament. We should remind ourselves that Members of our Parliament, including some of those taking part in this debate, have been sanctioned by the Russian Government.
Another thread of the debate that I support strongly is working with our partners in the European Union. My noble friend Lady Smith and I spoke in a debate the week before last, calling for closer security co-operation with European allies. Ukraine shows how important that is. With the coming to an end of Hungary’s presidency of the EU, which is to be taken over by Poland, there is a good opportunity for the UK to take advantage of that—to have closer, structured, treaty-based security relationships, moving away from the blocking role played by Budapest.
Finally, something that has been touched on, but not fundamentally, is the human impact of this, primarily on younger people. If my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield were here, she would have raised the issue of the need for psychosocial support for children as a result of this conflict. This is often underreported, but I believe it is vital that we do more, and not only in this conflict. UNICEF has said that 2.2 million children in Ukraine are in need of psychosocial support but, in the Sudan conflict, 10 times as many as that, 20 million children, are out of school and are the principal victims of the conflict. In Gaza, 600,000 children are out of school, impacted by the conflict as the IDF has damaged or destroyed 90% of schools.
I have previously said in debates that, if the UK has an offer, the offer should be defending education in conflict and its quick restoration if there is some cessation of violence, because immediate trauma support when there is a cessation of conflict will be an investment that is in our interests for the future. Why is it vital? We know that, in this hybrid warfare environment, where misinformation and disinformation are militarised and used as a tool, they thrive when there is no education. A whole new generation of conflict-scarred children in our continent, in the Middle East and in Africa, terrifies me for the next generation.
Therefore, I am very pleased to be an ambassador for an organisation called Do Not Look Away, which is focusing on young people and violence. It published its first video just this week and it includes Yaryna, an 11 year-old Ukrainian artist whose work, as some noble Lords may recall, was put on the side of the Ariane 5 rocket and blasted into space. She and her family believe that Ukraine’s destiny is as part of the European continent, with safety. In the video, her mother said something that struck me. As a Ukrainian who left and sought refuge, she said that she did not want to be called a refugee, because it was not her fault or her desire to leave Ukraine. She said she was just a temporary traveller who wants to go home. We and our allies have provided shelter in a storm for many people, but we now know that our imperative is to make sure that there is a home for her and her family to return to. For the children affected by conflict, we need to play a much bigger role.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this vital debate on the ongoing, terrible war in Ukraine. It is a conflict that has truly shaken Europe and, indeed, the whole world. On these Benches, as my noble friend Lord Courtown said initially, we stand firmly in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and right to self-determination.
We have heard some great contributions today. I thought the debate was very well opened by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I agreed with every word he said—which makes a change. We heard other excellent contributions, not least the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, which I thought was a witty, erudite contribution. We all greatly look forward to his future contributions to your Lordships’ House. He graced the other place for many years and I am sure he will be in this House for many years to come.
Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion is not only a gross violation of international law but a direct assault on the very principles of liberty, democracy and national sovereignty that we as a nation, across parties, all hold dear. The American diplomat George Kennan famously warned of Soviet expansionism and observed that the Soviet Union was
“impervious to the logic of reason”
but
“highly sensitive to the logic of force”.
This simple truth remains as relevant to Russia today as it was to the Soviet Union back then.
One of the single most important things that my party did during our time in office was to side unequivocally with Ukraine. Under both Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, we were often the first mover on vital military aid and we frequently pushed our allies to go further than they initially wanted. We should be proud of that. We were at the vanguard of the sanctions response, we delivered vital humanitarian support and we were constantly looking at new ways of constraining Putin’s war machine. In that spirit, I am truly delighted to see the new Government continuing, in the same vein, to offer unwavering support to Ukraine in terms of both military aid and humanitarian assistance.
As many noble Lords have reminded us, it is imperative that we also recognise the tremendous resilience and courage of the Ukrainian people. Their resistance in the face of Russian aggression has been nothing short of heroic. We all hold in great admiration President Zelensky and his Government because they have demonstrated remarkable leadership and true bravery in the most harrowing of circumstances. Those of us who take part in politics in a free and democratic nation take for granted the right to turn up, take part in debates and go about our normal business. Many Ministers in government in Ukraine—not least President Zelensky—are putting their very lives at risk by doing it. Whatever small criticisms we may have of some of his decisions, we should always bear that in mind. They are defending not only their nation but the future of freedom in Europe.
The UK has played an important role in this defence, of which we should be proud. Through the provision of cutting-edge military equipment, including tanks, artillery and air defence systems, we have helped Ukraine to withstand and—in some cases, happily—actually to repel Russian forces. But we must remain vigilant and proactive. This war is, sadly, far from over. As the situation evolves, so too must our support.
As many others have remarked, I was particularly interested, and not a little depressed, to hear the contribution of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about how hard it will be to negotiate an enduring political settlement. As we all know, we really cannot believe a word that Putin says or any treaty that he signs.
Beyond military support, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, reminded us, we must not forget the humanitarian aspect of this conflict. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, their homes have been destroyed and their future has become increasingly uncertain. Again, the UK has a moral duty to continue offering refuge to those fleeing the horrors of war and to support Ukrainian reconstruction efforts once peace is finally achieved. This will require not just government action but collaboration with many international organisations, NGOs and the private sector. In her summary, will the Minister confirm that His Majesty’s Government are still prioritising the Homes for Ukraine scheme, building on the previous Government’s great work in this area?
I will also touch briefly on a point that is sometimes overlooked in this debate, which is the strategic importance of energy security. Russia has long sought to use its vast energy resources as a weapon of coercion and the war in Ukraine has underscored the urgent need for Europe to wean itself off Russian oil and gas—indeed, to wean itself off oil and gas completely. The previous Government took steps to address this not only through diversifying energy supplies but by increasing our investment in renewable and nuclear energy. Again, I hope the Minister recognises the importance of continuing with those policies.
Finally, while we must remain resolute in our support for Ukraine, we must also be clear-eyed about the path forward because, as many others have said, there is no quick or easy resolution to this conflict. Any lasting peace must be based on justice, on the full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and on assurances that Russia will not be able to repeat such aggression in the future, which probably means some military guarantees.
We should be under no illusion: this war is not just about Ukraine. It is about defending the principles that have underpinned peace and stability in Europe since the end of the Second World War. It is about ensuring that might does not always make right, and that the sovereignty of nations, no matter their size, is respected by all.
In conclusion, I urge the House and the Government to continue their cross-party support for Ukraine. We have to stand firm in our defence of freedom, and we must remain committed to ensuring that Ukraine prevails in this struggle for, in doing so, we are defending not only Ukraine but the security and future of the entire free world.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his closing speech. I agreed with everything he said. From being a scrappy, feisty Minister, he has become a genuinely statesmanlike shadow Minister.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, but would particularly like to welcome my noble friend Lord Spellar. I have known him for quite some time, and I am not sure he is accustomed to bathing in the warm glow of adoration in many of the places that he has spoken over the years, so I hope he has not found things here too uncomfortable. We are genuinely pleased that he is here. Perhaps there can now be fewer conversations between him and my husband on Sunday mornings; sometimes, there have been three people in my marriage. For all his feistiness and no doubt his decades of fighting the extreme politics on the left of our country, there is a softer side to my noble friend; he has been—and I hope continues to be—a leading light in the APPG on horticulture. I very much look forward to his future contributions in this House.
I have made many notes during this debate. I will try as hard as I can to reply to all the questions that have been raised but, if I fail to do so, please allow me to check Hansard after the debate and I will endeavour to answer any questions that I miss in writing.
As the Foreign Secretary said at the UN Security Council last month:
“Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is in his interest alone”,
but the consequences matter for us all. If Putin wins in Ukraine, the threat posed by Russia to UK and European security will increase. The credibility of international law will be severely undermined, and a signal will be sent to authoritarian leaders elsewhere that aggression pays and that the commitments and statements of the UK and her allies are worthless. We cannot allow this to happen.
As we approach 1,000 days of war, the situation on the front line for Ukraine is incredibly difficult. Russia has made some tactical advances and continues to intentionally target Ukrainian energy infrastructure, to punish millions of innocent Ukrainians ahead of winter. This month, Russian missiles have struck several commercial vessels in the Black Sea, some loaded with grain destined for global markets—yet another grim reminder of Russia’s disregard for international law and global food security. But Ukraine continues to prove that with the right tools it can defend itself, and proves its determination to do so. I note the calls for Storm Shadow and other measures from this Government, and I do not for one second complain about any noble Lord who is pushing us to do more, to go faster, harder, and to be further ahead. I welcome that. I just hope that in return, noble Lords will appreciate that I need to be careful what I say, and that, at the moment, the position of the Government remains as it was. I know that this is entirely what noble Lords expected me to say, but I want to be clear that we do not resist or complain about any contributions that urge us to do more in our support for Ukraine.
Earlier this year, Ukraine successfully headed off a Russian attempt to establish a new foothold in Kharkiv. In August, Ukraine launched a bold offensive across the Russian border into Kursk, targeting Putin’s supply lines, exposing the vulnerabilities of his front-line forces and demonstrating Ukraine’s ability to achieve strategic surprise. In recent weeks, Ukraine has conducted several successful strikes on major Russian munitions depots, restricting Putin’s ability to resupply his forces.
The UK’s support for Ukraine is, as many have said, ironclad. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said that freedom does not come for free. I would say that failing to support Ukraine would have a far higher price than the one we are paying now. We have provided £12.8 billion in support for Ukraine, including £7.8 billion of military support and £5 billion of non-military support. I note the thoughtful comments from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about psychological support for children and post-traumatic support. He made a very good point; it is something that the Government are mindful of and support. We have been clear that we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. Helping Ukraine to emerge from this war as a strong, secure and sovereign nation, able to deter future Russian aggression, is in the best interests of both the UK and our international partners.
I shall now address some of the important questions that have been asked in today’s debate. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Banner, made memorable speeches. They bring extensive personal knowledge and enriched our debate enormously. We thank them for that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Banner: please thank your niece for her letter to us. We do not need her thanks but we do appreciate them. Please tell her that we—in this House, in particular—stand with her.
The UK is taking action to support Ukraine using all the levers at our disposal. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, were correct to remind us that we must constantly remind ourselves and others of why this matters. It is not an act of charity; it is about self-interest and collective interest all at once. If the territorial integrity of Ukraine is lost or compromised, the message we send to the world is that war wins.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, my noble friend Lord Spellar and others about our military-industrial policy. The Government are well aware of those points, which were well made. That is why we are appointing a national munitions director, both to help co-ordinate this work and to ensure that our military obligations to Ukraine can be met.
So far, the UK has provided £7.8 billion in military support to Ukraine. As many noble Lords noted, we announced on Tuesday that, on top of that money, we will provide an additional £2.26 billion to enable Ukraine to purchase essential military equipment; this represents the UK’s contribution to the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans to Ukraine scheme, which was agreed by the G7 leaders in June. This historic loan, which will be repaid by revenues stemming from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, will ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused Ukraine.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked in his excellent speech when that money will be available. There will be further announcements in the Budget. We anticipate that it will be soon or in due course—whatever form of words we are using at the moment—but we are not going to hang about. Some legislation will be needed to allow for this.
I am grateful to the noble Lords who encouraged the use of all diplomatic and political means. That is why the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have continued to engage closely with international partners: to ensure that Ukraine gets the military support it needs now so that it can defend itself against Russian aggression. The Prime Minister discussed this with his Quad counterparts in Berlin last Friday. We remain in close discussion with Ukraine on the support—be it military, financial or humanitarian—that it needs to secure a just and lasting peace.
Several noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—mentioned the BRICS and CHOGM summits. We had noticed these. This week, Putin hosted the BRICS summit in Kazan. With mounting evidence of Russia’s war crimes, the international community must remain united in demonstrating to Putin that such actions will not go unchallenged. We must ensure that engagements with Putin are never treated as business as usual. We urge all our partners to use every opportunity to impress on Putin the need to end the war immediately by withdrawing the Russian forces from Ukraine and ceasing his illegal attacks.
Since the start of the Russian invasion, the UK and our international partners have implemented the most severe package of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. They are working: Putin himself has admitted that sanctions are causing a “colossal amount of difficulties”. Where we can do more, we will. Thanks to efforts by the UK and its allies, Putin faces extreme costs from the conflict. The UK has sanctioned over 2,000 individuals and entities under the Russian sanctions regime, with over £22 billion of Russian assets now frozen because of UK financial sanctions.
The noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Alton, asked about Chelsea FC. I assure noble Lords that we are committed to making progress on this. The money is held in an account, and it will leave that account only when we are sure it will go on humanitarian work, but we are moving forward with that. This has resulted in depriving Russia of over $400 billion—or four years of funding for Putin’s war machine. The UK continues to co-ordinate through the G7 to undermine Putin’s war efforts and engage countries that have seen an increase in the trade of sanctioned goods.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked a number of questions specifically about North Korea and the discussions we had earlier in the week on liquefied natural gas. We discussed this during a sanctions SI debate in the Moses Room on Monday. I do not have the full answer, and I do not think he expected me to have it today, but there has been a letter to which we will respond in full. For now, however, the UK has taken significant action to constrain Russia’s LNG revenues. In the past month, we have sanctioned nine vessels carrying Russian LNG, including vessels loading from the US and UK-sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project. This is in addition to our 2023 ban on the import of Russian LNG and export ban on energy-related goods to restrict Russia’s longer-term LNG production. We will continue to explore options to target Russian LNG revenue, while balancing impacts on global supply and energy security.
On the DPRK, we are committed to accountability for the most serious international crimes. The UK consistently supports strong resolutions on human rights in the DPRK at both the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly. We also joined 53 other countries in a co-sponsored joint statement noting the 10th anniversary of the UN commission of inquiry into DPRK human rights and calling on the DPRK to co-operate with the special rapporteur. The UK will continue to build on momentum from the COI’s 10th anniversary and reinforce the commission’s call for the UN Security Council to consider both the human rights situation in the DPRK and appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral to the International Criminal Court.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised the issue of disinformation, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, spoke about journalists. This is really important and I am very grateful that they raised the point. Russia has made no secret that it is making a strategic priority of this. There is a reason why Russia is establishing cultural centres and language learning through Africa and Latin America. It is powerful and is working to Russia’s advantage. However, we also have some strength in this space. I point to the work of the World Service, particularly when we are talking about Ukraine. The most reliable record of Russian war dead is being compiled by the BBC and the World Service. They have been supported well by families inside Russia. They have found that people as young as 18 or 19, and people well into their 70s, have been killed in Ukraine. Their work is commendable. It will probably come as a surprise to many people here in the UK, but we should promote and acknowledge it because it comes at no little risk to some of those journalists involved.
Since February 2022 the UK has committed £5 billion in non-military support. This includes £4.1 billion in fiscal support through World Bank loan guarantees and £937 million in bilateral assistance. I pay special tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, especially on sexual violence. He asked me about the special envoy. We will make an announcement on that in due course, but I assure him that the work he did will continue. We thank him for that work.
This year £242 million of bilateral funding to Ukraine will fund humanitarian, energy, recovery and reconstruction programmes. Furthermore, the UK has provided more than £370 million for energy security and resilience in Ukraine through grants and guarantees, including £64 million to repair, replace and protect energy infrastructure that has been targeted by Russia—as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, pointed to—with ongoing support for solar panels to power hospitals, back-up generators to keep the lights on and power generation equipment in Kharkiv and Odessa.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, for bringing a delegation from Lviv this week to discuss a wide range of issues with me and many other noble Lords, including recovery and those regional partnerships. We will work closely with a range of international partners to deliver reforms and economic support for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction, through the Ukraine Donor Platform and bilaterally.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, spoke of the welcome that Ukrainian refugees have received and the extensive contributions that they have made to our communities. I was asked about visas and our plans for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I assure noble Lords that there will be an opportunity for Ukrainians here to extend their visa if they want to, starting after Christmas. They will be able to extend on the same terms they have now for another 18 months.
To those who are motivated by a desire for peace and who are urging the Government to do more to urge the Ukrainians towards a conclusion to this war, I say this: it is for the Ukrainians to determine their position on a ceasefire or peace negotiations. Together with more than 90 countries, we made clear at the June peace summit that for peace to be just and lasting, it must be based on international law, the UN charter and the will of the Ukrainian people. Putin cannot be trusted. Russia has violated multiple previous agreements, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, recalled, including the 1994 Budapest memorandum in which it committed, among other things, to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and national borders in return for Ukraine agreeing to give up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal.
Putin has also ignored the demand of 141 countries of the UN General Assembly for the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. Make no mistake: we will be sure to hold Putin and his cronies to account for the hideous atrocities they have committed. In May 2022, alongside the EU and the US, the UK launched the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group to support the office of the prosecutor-general in Ukraine in its domestic accountability efforts. So far the UK has provided £6.2 million to support Ukraine’s domestic work to document, investigate and prosecute war crimes. This is in addition to £2 million that the UK has provided to the International Criminal Court to collect evidence and support survivors. The UK will support work towards establishing a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine, to ensure that those responsible for these barbaric crimes are held to account for their actions.
I end this debate by echoing the Prime Minister’s words at the UN General Assembly last month. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, because the alternative would be to confirm that international law is merely a paper tiger and that aggressors can do whatever they like. We will never let that happen because it is our duty to respond to a more dangerous world with strength and to keep our people safe. Putin must not be allowed to expand his mafia state into a mafia empire. We see his actions. We know who he is. We support Ukraine. Ukraine must and will prevail.