(6 days, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Skidelsky
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their policy with regard to the Ukraine war following the new policy of the government of the United States of America.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Moraes) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the QSD, I remind all noble Lords participating of the now four-minute time limit for contributions, other than for the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the Minister. I ask all colleagues to stick to this time and begin winding their remarks before approaching the four-minute mark to protect time for other contributions and the Minister’s response. If we do run to time, speakers in the gap can have up to two minutes.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked the House to take note of the UK’s international position. My purpose today is narrower but more urgent; to ask the Government what their Ukraine policy now is. It is urgent because the Trump Administration have torn up the familiar script. I wish the Government had offered a full-length debate to consider the consequences of this.
I remind your Lordships of the script. The King’s Speech of 17 July promised full support to Ukraine and a clear path to NATO membership. That was of course before the American election. It echoed what David Lammy, Labour’s prospective Foreign Secretary, had written in May, which was that
“the British government must leave the Kremlin with no doubt that it will support Kyiv for as long as it takes to achieve victory”.
This, in turn, echoed the previous Government’s Grant Shapps: “We need consistently and reliably to do whatever Ukraine needs to win the war”. I have heard this repeated word for word all round your Lordships’ House in every Ukraine policy debate over the last four years.
Concerning Ukraine’s clear path to NATO membership, Peter Hegseth, US Defense Secretary, has just said that “NATO membership is not a realistic outcome of a negotiated peace”. So that is one plank of the King’s Speech gone.
What about full support for Ukraine’s war aims? Our leaders may have thought it necessary to pledge this to keep up Ukrainian morale, but there is not— and never was going to be—a Ukrainian victory, for the simple reason that the United States and NATO were never going to risk a war with Russia to achieve it. President Zelensky has now recognised this and accepted a ceasefire, and with it the reality of a compromised peace. In upending these pledges, the Trump Administration have upended our own reckless, dangerous and insincere quasi-commitments.
Words have real effects. Words such as “unprovoked”, “full-scale”, “barbaric” and “criminal” to describe Russian actions, which have tripped effortlessly off ministerial tongues, closed the door to diplomacy. You do not talk to people you label criminals and pariahs. It is an important step forward that no member of the Trump Administration has used this language since the President has been in office.
As far as I know, there has been—and the Minister might confirm this—no direct contact with the Russian Government since the war started. The Russian embassy in London has been treated as an unwelcome outpost of an enemy state. So much for the role of diplomacy in the last four years.
The UK needs to provide some thought leadership on how to end this tragic conflict. To his credit, our Prime Minister has made a start. At the London meeting of 2 March, Sir Keir Starmer proposed a four-point peace plan. The first point was to keep up military aid to Ukraine and economic pressure on Russia. I agree with this, but we should not be tempted to provide the kind of military help urged by some of our warmongers, which will only lead to a dangerous escalation.
We should also understand the limits of economic sanctions. Trump has threatened bad financial things if Russia rejects a ceasefire, but Russia is already the most sanctioned nation in the world. The purpose of sanctions, as often stated, was to degrade Russia’s ability to wage war. However, Russia has opened up alternative import routes for essential supplies and markets for its oil, energy and natural gas exports. The sanctions regime is, and will remain, much too full of holes to prevent Russia finishing its business with Ukraine. Nevertheless, the promise of its withdrawal does remain a powerful potential inducement to bring Russia to the negotiating table.
I agree with the second point that any lasting peace must guarantee Ukraine’s security, but Sir Keir said nothing about Russia’s security. He reflected the standard Whitehall view that NATO was never a real threat to Russia. This script, too, must be scrapped. Any durable peace must take into account the security concerns of both Ukraine and Russia.
I agree with the third point, that we must increase our military spending, but I mistrust the reason most often given, which is to meet the Russian threat. That is just a replay of Cold War rhetoric. European defence spending needs to go up, not because Russia threatens Europe but because Europe and Britain need to shoulder a larger share of NATO’s costs. We cannot go on expecting America to pay for our protection for ever.
Sir Keir Starmer’s fourth point is that the UK, with countries such as France, should place troops on the ground and aircraft in the air to enforce the ceasefire. This has always been a non-starter, despite the mindless repetition of the cliché “coalition of the willing”. The Trump Administration will not agree to provide the necessary backstop, and Russia, as could have been expected, has rejected the idea of NATO forces being stationed in Ukraine under a different name. Why make a proposal which is bound to be rejected unless the intention is to prolong hostilities? I concur therefore with Anatol Lieven when he says:
“Any peacekeeping force must come from genuinely neutral countries under the authority of the United Nations”.
Standing in the way of more realistic UK appraisals is the continuing misinterpretation of the motives of Putin and Trump. Time and again, I have heard noble Lords echo the Government’s line that, unless Putin is seen to fail in Ukraine, he will be “emboldened” to broaden his assault on Europe, starting with Georgia, Moldova, the Baltic states—and where will it end? I believe this profoundly misinterprets both his intentions and Russia’s capabilities.
Of course one can argue endlessly about what Putin’s intentions are, but I concur with many specialists who believe that, above all, he wants Russia to be surrounded by neutral states, not by NATO missiles. A slight knowledge of history will explain why this might be so. However, I agree with Professor Jeffrey Sachs that we should not provoke the bear by inflaming ethnic nationalism in Georgia, Estonia and Lithuania, as we did in Ukraine. A durable peace with a prickly nuclear power requires great prudence. As for Russia’s expansionary capacity, I will just cite Owen Matthews in the Spectator:
“the supposedly mighty Russian army has been fought to a standstill not by Nato … but by Ukraine’s once-tiny military”.
We must also scrap our Trump-phobic narrative. This views him as an amoral deal maker with no principles, cozying up to dictators. In fact, President Trump has consistently and persistently said “Stop the killing” —an eminently moral standpoint sometimes ignored by our own humanitarians. He has replaced a passive war policy with an active search for peace. If he does succeed in ending the war, he will richly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Government have been talking about a peace process based on sticks, but in diplomacy you need both sticks and carrots. Where are the carrots? What positive incentives are we offering Russia to make peace? I would like the Minister, in winding up, to endorse the blessed phrase “compromise peace”. Only if he does so can we be sure that the script has changed.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
The noble Lord again ploughs his eccentric but consistent furrow. I heard not a scintilla of criticism of President Putin, nor indeed of the invasion of the state of Ukraine.
I will make three brief comments. First, President Trump has thrown a large rock in the pond, and the changes will be profound and possibly long-term. Secondly, recent events have shown key insights into the President’s worldview and his negotiating position, which can be very brutal and show no sign of a sense of history. Finally, there is clearly a major gulf between the parties. We are told by the Americans today that President Putin agrees with President Trump’s philosophy; I wonder what that can mean.
Clearly, one major gulf is the security guarantees and what a backstop can mean. Does my noble friend agree that a backstop is absolutely necessary to buttress any forces which go in? Otherwise, it will be a clear green light to the Russians to bank on the relative weakness of Ukraine.
We were told that the ball was in President Zelensky’s court. Now he has made this major concession of accepting, without conditions, President Trump’s suggestion, but there has been no similar response from President Putin. Does this mean, or should it mean, that we can now expect some similar pressure on President Putin to agree to this ceasefire, or are we going to have more conditions, more prevarication and more time buying for his own ends?
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I think we should listen quite carefully to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made. I have some agreement with some of them, but I think he is missing one vital dimension that he did not and a lot of people do not mention: that we are living in a digital age, in which the fundamental nature of war has changed and in which the fundamental repository of power and influence and the nature of that influence, throughout the entire planet, have changed. If we had been confined to just two minutes, which I think was the plan at one time, rather than four, I was going to make—and I still will—just two basic points around that proposition.
The first is to plead that we do not overestimate, as we did in the 20th century, the power of the so-called great powers to fix things and to arrange their empires so that the world is fixed to their pleasure, with total disregard for the rest of the world—the smaller countries and so on. That is the language of the 20th century. It is not the language of the 21st century. It completely underestimates the power and influence of a multipolar world and the power and influence of mass hyper-connectivity around it.
My second point is that, just as we should not overestimate the capacity of Russia, one hears President Trump, in some of his more exotic moments, overestimating even the power of America—still a mighty, powerful country but not the automatic leader of the western world, because we no longer deal in automatic leaders; we deal in multi-powers. We do not even deal in a western world, because a great many of the powers that are deeply interested in this belong in the east and south of the planet.
I had a fascinating conversation with a very senior Japanese official last week, and the first thing he said was that if Russia’s unprovoked, or anyway unjustified and atrocious, attack on women and children, killing thousands of civilians—the killing continues, even while we talk of ceasefires—is in any way rewarded, that is the end of the international rule of law. That is the end of safety for nations of the kind that, on the whole, on and off, we have tried to preserve, not always with success, for the last few hundred years.
An equally senior Australian official came to me and said, “Australia is ready to contribute”. This is a world issue, not just a European issue, as Mr Trump seems to think, and some of our leaders here seem to think, although I acknowledge that our present leader and Prime Minister has played the hand very skilfully indeed. This is not just a European issue but an issue that threatens the balance of organisations and power throughout the entire planet.
I can understand the Japanese nervousness. If Xi Jinping gets the wrong signal, which is that having a go—violence of a limited kind—pays off, he will think about the same approach to annexing and suffocating Taiwan. That is the danger. This is a wider world issue. We should not assume that it is just a narrow matter between America and Russia to fix.
I am not a naive, and I do not think Davids will always beat Goliaths. Goliaths are always going to win by size, but the Davids are very powerful. I am told the Ukrainians have 1 million drones in manufacture, processing and deploying. The impact of this on the nature of war, on the nature of bigger and heavier equipment, is enormous. When we realise that the world has changed to that degree, we will have a much clearer vision of which way now to proceed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as events move apace, it is absolutely right that we in this House ask the Government to restate their policy, and in that regard the Government know of these Benches’ support for it. That does not prevent us asking questions or seeking that they go further and faster, and I will end on that point, but there is full support for the Government’s actions on these Benches.
As we have a couple of extra minutes, I thought that, for the benefit of the noble Lord, I would repeat the 10 points that President Zelensky outlined in September last year as the very reasonable and, I believe, fully justifiable points that he considered to be the basis of a peace plan. The first was radiation and nuclear safety for the people of Ukraine. Then there was food security, then energy security and the release of all prisoners and deportees. Fifthly, there was the implementation of the UN charter and the recognition of territorial integrity in any final peace agreement. The sixth would be the withdrawal of Russian troops and the cessation of hostilities. I hope that the latter part of that may well come to fruition. The seventh was justice for the very many war crimes that have been inflicted on the people of Ukraine, then the immediate protection of the environment and the prevention of escalation. The 10th was the official confirmation of the end of war in a treaty.
Those must all be considered sensible and justifiable, because we all, I hope, would want peace to help the victim of aggression, not to reward the perpetrator—otherwise, history will condemn us all. It seems that there is potentially an incentive in a pause for Putin to regroup, recruit and refinance. There are too many nations, many of them allied to us, that potentially see profiting opportunities and will now, worryingly, have carte blanche to trade with Putin because the US’s new stance will not be a block for them doing so. It is also likely that Putin will seek to insist on protracted discussions on concessions unpalatable to us and Ukraine. In the scenario where those concessions may be palatable to President Trump but not to us, how are we navigating that very delicate situation? I heard the Foreign Secretary speak with clarity earlier, but that must surely be the situation with regard to the position of President Trump.
From the American point of view, sometimes unpredictability can work. It is called strategic ambiguity. The key word is “strategic”, but that is lacking, in many respects, from the Trump Administration, especially since his last comments on seeking discussions on land and power plants and dividing up certain assets. If this was between Ukraine and Russia, perhaps we might have sympathy for it, but my worry is that the negotiations will be between Russia and the United States when it comes to dividing up certain aspects such as land rights and energy rights.
So can the Minister confirm that, in this new time of flux, we can move unilaterally to seize, not just freeze, assets; that we can work with a coalition of the willing, even if that means a more diluted American standpoint; and that we can embolden our strategic relationship with our European allies for defence procurement, defence co-operation and defence purchasing? Surely this is an opportunity for us to make sure that the victim does not pay the price for the perpetration from Putin.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
As he points out, peace is not only the absence of war but the presence of justice and of the conditions for human flourishing. Therefore, what we need is a just and lasting peace. This peace must address the causes of the war and provide for Ukraine’s security, sovereignty and freedom. We must recognise that this peace needs to be negotiated by all parties and cannot be dictated by the US. We must recognise that any ceasefire will need to be maintained through a combination of mechanisms, such as troops on the ground and trained mediators who can deal with the contentious and central issues, such as access to resources and the repatriation of civilians.
While there has been talk in recent days about the uplift in the defence budget, investment in new military platforms is also needed. We must also ensure that proportionate funds are spent on preventive diplomacy, conflict resolution tools and development. We need to see a step change in Britain’s investment in active peacebuilding and conflict resolution capabilities. Active peacebuilding will not on all occasions prevent a descent into conflict, but its focus on prevention and mitigation represents value for money for the taxpayer, given the extraordinary costs that war now involves.
Can the Minister say what consideration has been given along these lines and towards active peacebuilding, including development?
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for securing this debate and agree with much of what he said.
Stepping back and looking at the last three years of war—in Ukraine and Israel-Gaza—our Government and military policy have learned an enormous amount about up-to-the-minute warfare and states’ capabilities. We are living in the age of the drone and the hypersonic missile. Russia is clearly much weakened after expending its stores of men, munitions and money. So I query the assertion that it is eyeing greater swathes of eastern Europe, given its much-depleted status. This is not Munich. We appeased Hitler when his army was intact and bellicose and before a shot was fired, whereas we are now three years into a bloodbath.
If Russia is expansionist, we should calmly consider why. In the Cuban missile crisis, when the USSR parked its missiles on its doorstep in Cuba, the US understandably felt very threatened, and we were all a blink away from nuclear war. Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO presented a similar threat to Russia, as would a peacekeeping coalition of willing NATO countries’ soldiers—NATO’s missiles on its doorstep.
Turning to Trump, it is fashionable for commentators in this country and Europe to be scathing and disdainful, but there was no major war during his last presidency. Anthropologists say that war is failed trade and as deals are what drive him, he wants peace. He wants to be known for peace, requiring others to strive for peace too. That was what the Trump-Zelensky-Vance drama in the White House was all about. Listening to the whole press conference and the quiet Zelenskian aggression reveals that he, Trump and Vance were worlds apart. As Trump said at the end, it is going to be a tough deal to make because attitudes have to change. He did not play nice and now attitudes are changing.
There is also the important aim of keeping Putin out of the arms of Xi Jinping. Are the Government adjusting their expectations and encouraging others who might be in the coalition of the willing to do the same so that the West, broadly, is in line with Trump’s position?
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I apologise, as I have lost my voice, although I would love to deliver a few very short remarks.
The war in Ukraine has entered its darkest and most decisive phase. To the east, Ukraine faces the advancing Russian army, and to the west, a reluctant and ambivalent United States, alongside those who doubt our resolve to ensure Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign country.
What we debate here today matters. It matters to every Ukrainian woman, man and child. They did not start this war. For them, this is not a theoretical exercise but a struggle for survival. It also matters to us, the rest of Europe and, indeed, the world how this war ends, as much depends on ensuring that borders are never changed by force and that aggression is not rewarded. We must be clear: a just and lasting peace cannot be one that legitimatises conquest.
We have seen the consequences of such an approach elsewhere. The Dayton agreement brought the end of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but it left a legacy: a recognition of ethnic cleansing and genocide as tools that get rewarded and tolerated. As I have warned many times—sadly, to little effect—recent developments in the region have brought it to the brink of conflict again. The lesson is clear: rewarding aggression does not bring stability; it invites only further conflict.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s steadfast support for Ukraine and his commitment to standing firm against Russian aggression. However, I am concerned that he and others may come under pressure from the United States to support a flawed peace agreement. I ask for assurance from the Minister that the United Kingdom will not ever, as a part of any negotiated peace, recognise Russian sovereignty over Ukraine’s occupied territories.
History has shown that appeasement and weakness do not secure lasting peace. The shift in American policy is regrettable, but we must not let it dictate our response. If it teaches us anything, it is that we must firmly stand for Ukraine’s sovereignty, because a weak, divided Ukraine will make Europe and us less safe and less secure, and mark the beginning of an era in which the Europe we have known ceases to exist.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I spoke in a previous debate about two lazy and dangerous assumptions that are sometimes applied in areas of conflict: first, that everyone involved is a victim; and, secondly, that every side within a conflict is in some way a perpetrator or somehow culpable. Nowhere more clearly illustrates the fallacy of those notions than Ukraine. Let us be absolutely clear: Ukraine is the victim and Putin’s Russia is the perpetrator and the aggressor. It slightly beggars belief that I even have to reassert that fact.
Everyone in this House and beyond, and particularly the people of Ukraine, want to see peace. We realise that will mean peace with a level of compromise, which many of us will be deeply disturbed about; but we also want to see a peace which is lasting and, as much as possible, just. I believe that the best way to achieve that peace is through strength, security and deterrence. Those were watchwords that I know were talked about in relation to the Cold War by the noble Lord who asked this Question. Those were notions that served us well in the Cold War, which is appropriate, because if anyone in this world is a Cold War warrior, it is Vladimir Putin. He has a toxic mix of Soviet dominance and Russian nationalism and views many of the states that surround him as artificial concepts which, if given the opportunity, he would annex; or, alternatively, he would try to put in place a puppet regime sympathetic to his aims.
What should our response be to this in the West? I think there are five things that we need to do. First, we need to continue, both in public and in private, and in word and deed, to be tough with Russia. Yes, we want to see peace achieved, but it cannot simply be a peace dictated by the terms of Vladimir Putin, or on the timetable of Vladimir Putin.
Secondly, as the UK we need, in difficult circumstances, to try to maintain our relationship with the United States, and to act as that bridge between Europe and the United States, to try to ensure that the USA remains heavily involved in the European theatre.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister is right to try to build a coalition of the willing. That coalition must continue to deliver that military aid and do so in a manner that is speedy and ensures that there is a flow of support to Ukraine. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we need to look at this in a more global sense and look beyond simply the allies we can have within Europe, particularly to our friends in the Commonwealth, to build that broader consensus.
Fourthly, Ukraine needs security guarantees. It is naive to believe that simply economic links with Ukraine will be a sufficient deterrent; it has not proven that way in the past. Russia could see itself, if you like, overseeing a different contract on that basis.
Fifthly and finally, the one thing on which I largely agree with the American position is that we need a boost to our defence spending beyond the 2.5% to 3%. In the worst-case scenario, we are left with a United States Government who look at the world as spheres of influence and see Europe as not being part of their remit. The best-case scenario is that in the future we see an America that is much more focused on concerns about China. We have to step up in Europe and be able to provide our own support.
Those elements seem to me to be the direction of travel of both the previous Government and the current Government. While they continue to move in that direction, they will continue to have my support, and I suggest that they should have the support of this House—if not unanimous support then that of the vast majority. Let us all stand together with the people and Government of Ukraine.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I would like to make two points. First, we must not stand by and let President Trump force Ukraine to accept a surrender deal. That is the only fair way to describe what Putin’s, and indeed President Trump’s, terms amount to. Rewarding Russia’s aggression would make a third world war more rather than less likely, setting a terrifying precedent that an illegal invasion can become a permanent, internationally tolerated annexation. We might as well wave farewell to Taiwan and South Korea now; their fate would surely be sealed by such a surrender deal.
Blinking at the prospect of what was called a prickly nuclear power—I think the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that—would be the best possible advert for nuclear proliferation. The message it would send to a whole host of hostile countries would be: get nuclear weapons, then no one will take you on.
As for the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, of the precedent of the Cuban missile crisis, anyone who has read Max Hastings’s superb book Abyss, which I can recommend to this House, will know that the true message of history from that episode is that Russians respect strength. They can sniff out weakness, which we should not display. The Cuban missile crisis did not lead to Armageddon because the Russians knew that a nuclear exchange would lead to the total obliteration of their country, even if America would survive in some fragments. We need to project strength, not weakness.
My second point is that the case for giving Ukraine the frozen Russian state assets as reparations for Russia’s illegal invasion is compelling. Now it truly is urgent, and possibly even existential for Ukraine. It is time to move from a process of consideration to make a decision on this matter. There is at least $26 billion of these funds held in this country, and about $300 billion worldwide. Releasing these funds for Ukraine would, in a single stroke, fill the funding gap left by America’s U-turn at Russia’s expense, not our taxpayers’ expense. Surely it is time now to take this step.
In the past, it has been said at the Dispatch Box and by the Minister’s colleagues that this step must be taken in harmony with our allies in the G7. But a member of the G7 and still one of our allies—when I last checked the news—is America and Donald Trump. In winding up, can the Minister say whether the Government’s position is that the US should have a veto on releasing these funds to Ukraine, or will that be done in conjunction with other allies but not with President Trump? We all know what his position on this will be.
Secondly, a step that the UK could take unilaterally is to commit that under no circumstances will the £26 billion of frozen Russian state assets in this country go back to Russia, irrespective of whether and to whom they do go. I would welcome clarification of the Government’s position on this.
In conclusion, I thank the Government and the Minister for all the hard work that I know they are doing.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, pointed to some truths. First, we as a country and Europe in general have been saying things that we cannot deliver. The fact is that we have run our defence down over decades and we have now been found out, and in the most brutal way possible.
In my opinion, the reason why problems have arisen in Ukraine is that red lines were drawn in Syria to which President Obama did not adhere. Putin took a message from that, dug himself in with a warm-water port in the Mediterranean and has moved on from there, because he knew that our bark was worse than our bite. American military intelligence would have been able to foresee the tanks lining up in Belarus for the invasion. If President Biden had acted at that stage, the war could probably have been prevented.
There is no historical reason why the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation should be enemies. Many British merchant seamen lost their lives in World War II as they resupplied the Russians during the fight against the Nazis. Sadly, Russia has become an aggressive and territorially acquisitive country, led by thugs who think nothing of eliminating their internal critics, whether poisoning residents in this country—which nobody seems to mention any more—or throwing their opponents out of high-rise buildings in Moscow. They are interfering and stirring up trouble in the Balkans and in Africa. They are interfering in eastern Europe, part of which they see as a relic of the former Soviet Empire.
I understand the argument, “Is NATO coming closer?” Then what are we going to do about Finland and Sweden? They are now on the front line. NATO is not threatening Russia in Africa or the Balkans, so we have to get away from this idea that these people are some kind of victims. They are not. But I accept that diplomacy has failed: we have been talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
There is one big lesson from this, which the noble Lord, Lord Banner, mentioned. The big lesson of the last three years of war is: if you have nuclear weapons, hold on to them; if you do not, acquire them. That is the message. Had Ukraine retained its nuclear weapons and territory after the collapse of the USSR, there would perhaps have been no invasion in 2022. This lesson has been learned by North Korea, after they saw what happened to Gaddafi, and it is now informing Iran’s thinking.
While I welcome President Trump’s desire to see an end to the fighting, I do not agree with the recent public treatment of President Zelensky. I fear that Donald Trump is being deceived. I do not believe that even a token pause in the fighting will be anything other than a pause in the Russian campaign to acquire the territory of its neighbours. For instance, as far as Russia is concerned, Ukraine does not exist. That is the starting point. We are not natural enemies, but sadly there is a regime in that country that does not recognise any standards with which your Lordships or I would identify.
It is fearfully clear that Ukraine does not have the military capability to push Russia back. It did not get the support that it needed at the very start. There were mixed messages and there still are, so I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on that. However, Ukraine should not be forced to recognise its territory as part of Russia. It does not have the military capability, as I said, but annexation should not be rewarded by recognition, and nor should sanctions be removed from Russia. Ending the fighting is one thing, but giving recognition and reward is another.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on humanitarian aid policy, an essential component of our assistance to the people of Ukraine, but I would like first to commend the speech of my noble friend Lady Helic, with every word of which I agree. I am also grateful for the speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and I agree with her on support for active peacebuilding, conflict prevention and development. We are, of course, seeing development cuts across the US and, indeed, Europe; I fully support the increase in defence spending, but I fear that these development cuts will cost us from a national security perspective in the long term.
The UNFPA has highlighted that around 640,000 women and girls in Ukraine will be impacted by the USAID cuts to gender-based violence prevention and response services, including psychosocial support, economic-empowerment initiatives and life-saving information services. I appreciate that the Government will not comment on other countries’ decisions, but here in the UK we are providing at least £120 million in humanitarian assistance through to the end of this financial year, bringing the total humanitarian contribution to £477 million for Ukraine and the region since the start of the full-scale invasion—as an aside, I do not see how we can say that this is not a full-scale invasion; we should not shy away from saying that it is. This humanitarian support is very welcome. However, given the UK cut to ODA from 0.5% to 0.3%, is the Minister able to confirm that this assistance to Ukraine will continue as planned? Also, given the pressure on UK aid, will the current level be continued in future years?
My noble friend Lord Banner spoke about the broader Russian assets held in this country, and I want to focus on one specifically. One way to get significantly more money into humanitarian assistance in Ukraine would be to find a way to release the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea FC, which is £2.3 billion, plus interest, that is currently frozen in UK bank accounts. Given the UK ODA cuts, I hope that the Government are pushing for this as hard as possible. Can the Minister provide an update on these funds?
Finally, I will raise something that has perhaps not been highlighted as much as it should be in this debate. There have been more than 19,500 reports of unlawful deportation and forced transfer of Ukrainian children into Russia. I spent part of last week with a Ukrainian MP, who shared with me her concern that this had been forgotten. Will the Minister join me in remembering these children and condemning this practice, and will he argue for their return in the peace talks?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Labour, in opposition and now in government, has understandably and loyally supported the Government of the day in this time of war. That is what it is: we are engaged in a war. While I have expressed opposition in nearly 30 contributions since 2014, I am grateful to my party for its tolerance. I have repeatedly questioned the rejection of the Russian 2021 proposed talks on a draft treaty covering security guarantees, arms control, self-governance for Donetsk and Luhansk, and confirmation of non-nuclear barrier status from Finland to Georgia.
Our response to Russia’s demands for non-nuclear security guarantees over Ukraine has been a resounding “No”, with much of the press constantly questioning Trump’s attempts to bring a settlement. But there has been a heavy price to pay. The price of years of intransigence has been worldwide inflation, increased third-world poverty, a crisis in energy supply, the rewrite of American foreign policy on the back of a trade war, and vast population movements. We need a strategy that responds positively to Russia’s calls for non-nuclear barrier status and no combat troop deployments. Our contribution should be blue-helmet personnel stationed on demilitarised territory separating potential combatants. I worry over remnants of the Azov brigades challenging any peace process or settlement.
We need a sensitive negotiation with Russia over sanctions. It is out of dialogue that future problems can be avoided. Our policy should be to promote free debate in Russia in post-Putin conditions while ultimately welcoming it into the fold of western democracies. Russia will change. Autocracies inevitably die, and we have to help that process.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for securing this QSD. I do not agree with much that he said, apart from that I agree that European countries should pay their fair share of defence. At the time when we started expanding NATO eastwards, when I knew practically nothing, even then I felt queasy. We must accept that Russia has a persecution complex; the map that the Kremlin has of the world looks very different from our map of the world. However, I am extremely grateful that the Prime Minister and the ministerial team are doing everything they possibly can to resolve the problem while dealing with extremely unpredictable key players.
I am slightly worried about the size and terms of the combat power of any development, because it seems to have the combat power of an observation force rather than a peacekeeping force. I accept and hope that that may be academic, but what message does it send to the rest of the world about our willingness and capability to deploy at larger scale?
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my support for the charity Ukrainian Action, which provides emergency support, humanitarian aid, recovery and reconstruction. It has recently launched a programme to help injured servicemen and women to rehabilitate.
However, reconstruction is not merely about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about restoring hope, dignity and opportunity to a nation scarred by conflict, and it is about the people of Ukraine. Ukraine’s recovery must be comprehensive, addressing not only physical rebuilding but economic revitalisation and social cohesion. That requires international collaboration, innovative funding mechanisms and a commitment to ensuring that the rebuilding process is inclusive and transparent. The UK, alongside its allies, must play a leading role in that effort, offering expertise, resources and unwavering solidarity. It requires a guarantee on Ukraine’s security.
The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on his leadership in his work so far, as is the Minister. I also thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his wisdom in preparing for this speech, and the work carried out so far by the Council of Europe.
Democracy, as we know, is the cornerstone of a free and just society. It is fragile yet resilient, and must be nurtured with care. As Ukraine moves towards peace, we must ensure that its democratic processes are robust, secure and reflective of the will of its people. Ukraine needs time to recover, with so many potential voters serving on the front lines or living abroad as refugees. That means supporting civic participation at all levels, safeguarding against misinformation and cyber threats, and ensuring that electoral laws and practices meet the highest possible standards.
Democracy cannot be rushed. It must be built on a foundation of stability and trust. As policy is updated at pace, I wonder if the Government should consider building on the UK-Ukrainian 100-year partnership agreement by using Article 11 of the treaty to build civic participation and democracy into it, perhaps by hosting a conference on democracy. I hope the Minister may be able to answer that.
I want to see peace urgently, but how Ukraine moves forward as a democratic country is going to be fundamental to its future and to Europe. Let us reaffirm our commitment to standing with Ukraine, not just in its time of need but in its journey toward a brighter, democratic future.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, while I welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, initiated this debate, there was little of what he said that I could agree with.
Last week in relation to Ukraine I referred to the importance of maintaining cross-party unity in this House and the other place. Four days on, I think it is safe to say that the need for this Parliament to speak with one voice is even more important.
As noble Lords may be aware, last night Donald Trump told reporters that his Administration are talking to the Russians about “dividing up certain assets” belonging to Ukraine. That is an outrageous statement for any American President to make. For good measure, he said that land had also been discussed. He added:
“It’s a lot different than it was before the war”.
Indeed it is, but only because it is land stolen by the Russians. One can only imagine the demoralising impact these comments are having on the brave people of Ukraine, not least on its brave and fearless soldiers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned, other countries—not least Taiwan and other south-east Asian countries—are hearing these comments and no doubt are alarmed and troubled.
Today is St Patrick’s Day—happy St Patrick’s Day. In common with my noble friend Lord Empey, I have been privileged to be invited to the White House under different Presidents to attend the annual celebrations in honour of Ireland’s patron saint. My experiences of the Washington events were always positive. We did not always agree with decisions taken by the incumbent of the Oval Office, but we were granted an audience and treated with respect by the Administration of the day.
Sadly, respect is not a word I can associate with Donald Trump. I appreciate that Keir Starmer has a difficult task in trying to guide the US President to a position of continued support for Ukraine. However, in doing so, I urge our Prime Minister not to soften our country’s stance of total backing for the Ukrainian people.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
I refer noble Lords to my entry on the register of interests. Like many noble Lords who have spoken, I do not concur with the essence of the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, but I recognise the merit of free speech and debate.
In preparing my remarks for this debate, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was born in Manchuria in the 1930s, as indeed was my own mother. This is relevant because Manchuria in the 1930s was an epicentre of great power conflict and aggression, with some pretty uncomfortable parallels with where we find ourselves today.
My remarks on Ukraine focus on the very organisation that the British Government set up in the 1930s to counter malign great power influence. It was, of course, the British Council. In Ukraine today the British Council is supporting one in five teachers with conflict and trauma training, keeping children in school when their fathers are fighting on the front. It is teaching English to Ukrainian government officials because English proficiency is vital to building international support and to managing the complexities of any negotiations to come.
The British Council is building links between British and Ukrainian universities so that young people can continue to have a university education in Ukraine, and is supporting the protection of nationally important cultural sites, thereby safeguarding Ukraine’s heritage in the midst of war.
This wide-ranging British support has contributed materially to maintaining Ukrainian morale and resisting aggression, and all of this has cost just £2 million a year. For context, that is the cost of just one Storm Shadow missile. But the grit in the oyster is that all this vital work has been funded from overseas development assistance.
To the Government’s credit, they have already recognised the role of the British World Service as a force multiplier for the United Kingdom in these changed times. The British Council serves a similar purpose as a force multiplier because, in the future, for Ukraine and elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, recognised, countering disinformation matters. Conflict is no longer simply about who wins the war; it is about whose story wins. So, whenever the fighting stops, the clash of values will matter. I invite the Minister in his summing up to recognise the value of the British Council’s work in Ukraine and, more broadly, in situations of conflict and conflict prevention, as well as the role of soft power in complementing hard power.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am grateful to have been allowed to speak briefly in the gap. I declare an interest: I am acting as counsel pro bono for Ukraine in proceedings against the Russian Federation in the ECHR.
I will focus on a specific but very important consequence of the changes in American policy towards Ukraine that are playing out before us. NATO allies closest to Russia—the Baltic states, Finland and now Poland—are reconsidering their membership of certain conventional weapons agreements, such as the 1997 Ottawa treaty on landmines and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. Russia is not a party to these treaties, and nor is China. The US did not join because it did not want to put itself at a military disadvantage against potential adversaries. Britain and nearly all European powers joined because we felt safe under the American umbrella. The impact of Pax Americana was such that, probably for the first time in history, the weaker gave up weapons that their much stronger neighbour was still holding on to.
There is now talk of deploying British troops to Ukraine. I have some concerns, but, if the Government are serious about this, should they not consider whether we can continue to afford legal limits on conventional weaponry, to which we agreed under very different assumptions? Somewhat alarmingly, Prime Minister Tusk has also referred to non-conventional weapons. If we do not act fast enough, through diplomacy, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, suggested, but also by strengthening our conventional deterrence, do the Government share my concern that the far more fundamental legal architecture for our security, which goes back to the Cold War—the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in particular—could be in danger?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the choreography this evening seems to have got slightly muddled. I was all prepped to stand up and say how delighted I was to be speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, with whom I very much agreed. Two additional speeches in the gap later, I rise to say how very much I welcome the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, because he raised some issues that need to be taken very seriously.
Like most noble Lords in the Chamber this evening, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for raising the issue for debate. But, like my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, from these Benches I have to reiterate our support for His Majesty’s Government’s stance on, and absolute unwavering support for, Ukraine. There may have been a change of Government in the United States, but we do not need to criticise or denigrate the President of the United States to say that, whatever his views about Ukraine, our position is unchanged and must be unchanged.
Donald Trump says he wants peace; who should not want peace? In a world of injustice, there have been conflicts—during the Cold War and beyond—almost every single day since the end of World War II. So peace is something to which we aspire. But that peace should not be about appeasement. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London pointed out, it should be about justice. As my noble friend Lord Purvis pointed out, the aggressors should not also be the victors.
It is essential that the United Kingdom—with our NATO partners, to the extent possible—stands with Ukraine. We must keep trying to persuade our friend in the White House, who is still our ally, that it is vital that we support Ukraine now but negotiations with Vladimir Putin are not the way forward.
I have heard the calls from the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky, Lord Farmer and Lord Campbell-Savours. We need to think about what message we are sending to Russia—if there is any sense that we will negotiate a peace that changes the boundaries of Ukraine. Ukraine is a sovereign country; it has chosen a western-facing route, whether or not it will be a NATO member and whether or not the United States tries to impose a veto on that. It is a sovereign state that has been invaded not once—not just in February 2022—but twice. Russia still has Crimea, but it also has 20% of Georgia. Very few people talk about the 2008 invasion of Georgia, but the boundaries of that country seem not to have been sovereign. The West did not do enough then and the danger is that we are not doing enough now.
The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, pointed out that Poland and the Baltic states are looking at changing some of the international treaties to which they are signatories. There is an existential fear among some of our NATO partners and allies. We need to stand strong for Ukraine in order that each one of our NATO partners remains safe and secure as well. This cannot be a matter of negotiation.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and her passionate words, with which I almost entirely agree.
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for promoting this debate at an appropriately sensitive point in this dreadful war. It has been a long, hard, gruelling three years since Putin’s troops marched again into Ukraine. As ever, I pay tribute to the remarkable bravery and selfless sacrifice so many have demonstrated, in both the military and civilian population, in their struggle to resist the illegal invasion of their homeland and defend the sovereignty of their country. They are indeed an example to us all.
We have seen a flurry of activity over the past few weeks, some positive, some less so, which leads one to hope that the end of this war may indeed be in sight. As a couple of noble Lords have mentioned, the President of the United States has said that the killing has to stop. But, of course, that is all down to Putin. As many noble Lords have mentioned, Ukraine and the United States have agreed to a deal for an unconditional ceasefire for a period of 30 days. They now tacitly await a decision from the Russian President—the ball is now clearly in his court. But what we have seen in the last few days are shameful delaying tactics. The increased military pressure can be construed only as an obvious attempt to manoeuvre into a stronger, more threatening position on the battlefield, and so gain advantage, strength and an enhanced posture when it comes to the negotiating table.
We must resist this. The Prime Minister has done a very commendable job in navigating this geopolitical storm, and we will continue to support the Government in all these endeavours. But if Russia does not show a willingness to engage, we and our allies must be prepared to go further. Can the Minister expand on the steps that the Government are considering, or will take, if President Putin refuses to agree to a ceasefire? It is through an initial ceasefire that diplomacy can move towards some form of lasting peace.
Ukraine has come to the negotiating table, the United States has come to the negotiating table and Europe stands ready to commit significant peacekeeping troops in some form or another, should it be necessary. It is time for Russia to demonstrate that she, too, is ready for peace. The world waits with its breath held. This is an opportunity that must be taken for the sake of us all, but most particularly for the warring factions and even more particularly for the brave peoples of Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this very important and significant debate this evening and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on the way in which he presented his arguments. They are not always the arguments that are the most popular but, as I have said on many occasions, it is a great tribute to our democracy and our Chamber that it contains those with different and competing views and views that do not always garner the widest support, and that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, can say that without fear and without his right to do so being undermined. That is extremely important. Sometimes we take our democracy for granted, and sometimes hearing speeches in this Chamber that we may not all agree with is a reminder to us all of that right.
I shall come to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made in a moment, as well as points made by other noble Lords. I wanted to make a couple of introductory remarks before I did so. There are a significant number of questions among the 20-odd contributions that have been made this evening, and I shall make sure that we go through Hansard. If I have not answered sufficiently or have missed anybody’s contribution or question, I shall write to every noble Lord who has contributed to the debate with answers from the Government and I shall place a copy in the Library. I hope that that is satisfactory for noble Lords.
As the Prime Minister has said himself in recent days, as negotiations are ongoing for a deal, now is not the time to take our foot off the pedal. Partners must coalesce around a coalition of the willing and provide concrete proposals. The West must maintain maximum pressure on Russia to bring an end to its illegal war, and there can be no negotiation on Ukraine without Ukraine.
Instead of being rolled over in days, Ukrainians have shown untold bravery. Let us remind ourselves again that Ukraine’s front line is also the front line of European security. What happens here will define our continent, and what happens in Ukraine will define our continent and the international rules-based order for the next generation. This Government are not complacent. Noble Lords have mentioned some of this, but we have seen efforts between ourselves and France in recent weeks to establish a pathway to support any agreement that should be reached. We have also established the need for us to spend more on defence, as we have seen with the recent announcement of reaching 2.5% by April 2027, as well as plans to achieve 3% in the next Parliament. Whatever the rights and wrongs with respect to what President Trump has said, he was surely right to encourage Europe to do more and spend more on its own defence, which countries across Europe, including our own, are doing now.
We are working with allies to give Ukraine a strong voice in the negotiations which have taken place and are taking place. The key aim for us is working to build a secure, lasting and just peace within a European-led security framework, with critical US security assurances in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked me what our plan is and then proceeded to agree with three out of the four points. Let me remind noble Lords that this is the plan that the Prime Minister set out. I thank noble Lords for their praise for what the Prime Minister has done, with the support of other parties, taking up points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and by others across this Chamber and across this Parliament, and I think, by and large, across the country—if not unanimously, then certainly by a very significant majority. The Prime Minister has laid out a plan that will, first, keep the military aid flowing and keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia in order to strengthen Ukraine now.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, mentioned warmongers. I do not think it is about warmongers in NATO and in the UK; it is about providing military aid to Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian aggression that it faced. We agree, as the Prime Minister pointed out, secondly, that any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and security, and Ukraine must be at the table. That is a fundamental principle of the plan that the Prime Minister has laid out for this country. As other noble Lords have reminded the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, Russia was the aggressor and NATO is a defensive alliance, not an alliance that sets out to attack others.
Thirdly, in the event of a peace deal, we will keep boosting Ukraine’s own defensive capabilities to deter any future invasion. We do not expect the US to do this for us, although we do look for assurance from the US. We will go further than we have done to develop a coalition of the willing to defend a deal in Ukraine and to guarantee the peace—a point that many noble Lords have made in this debate. Whatever comes after the negotiations, we need to be able to ensure that we have a security guarantee for a sovereign Ukraine, and that is a fundamental principle for us. A strong, just and lasting peace has now to be our goal. It is vital, it is in our interest and, in its pursuit, Britain, the UK, will lead from the front. For the security of our continent, of our country and of the British people, we must now win the peace.
Turning to other points, I agree with my noble friend Lord Anderson about the need for US security assurances, and we continue to work with the US with respect to that. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the broader implications of what is happening in Ukraine and gave the examples of Japan and Australia; indeed, we have often made the point about the inter-connectivity of conflict between regions and the fact that many countries across the world are concerned about what is happening in Ukraine and look to us and to others to ensure that aggression is not seen to succeed.
Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his support for the unity of purpose across this Chamber, and I think that is a really significant and important point that will be noted by those who read our debates and listen to our discussions. The point he made is that, as I have reiterated, the negotiation must involve Ukraine, and we are seeking to enhance our relationship with Europe in order to move forward with respect to that. I hope that, over the next few months, we will see that develop.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London about the importance of the sovereignty of Ukraine, and of course we support any efforts to bring about the peace that we all want to see.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has often made the point about the importance now of drones and hypersonics, and he is right to draw attention to that, to the changing nature of warfare and to President Trump’s efforts to achieve peace. We are working as hard as we can to act as that bridge between the US and Europe. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and other noble Lords: let us make no mistake that the US-UK strategic relationship is vital, not only with respect to Ukraine but with respect to other challenges that we face in Europe and elsewhere. We see the US as extremely important with respect to that, as I know many other noble Lords do as well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir, for his points about how strength, security and deterrence serve us well and the importance, as I have just said, of the US-UK special relationship.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, that I know of his family involvement, and we are very grateful for it. I hope that the noble Lord can convey our support for Ukraine, its people, their continuing brave struggle and all that they achieve. I know that will be particularly emotionally important for him and his family. We are working hard with respect to Russian assets and we are sanctioning more individuals and tankers. We are doing what we can. We will have to work with our allies to do this and I know that is of some frustration to the noble Lord. However, we are pursuing every lawful route we can with our allies to see what more we can do about sanctioning Russian assets. But make no mistake: we are taking more action against more ships and individuals to do what we can.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, as always for the various points that she made, particularly referencing her interest in the western Balkans. While we have a particular reflection, for obvious reasons, on Ukraine currently, we need also to remember some issues that are occurring in the western Balkans.
It is very interesting to listen to people saying that the US is not interested in Europe and referring to Secretary of State Rubio’s remarks about Bosnia and the need for us to protect the Dayton Accords. It shows that the US is interested in many aspects of Europe and what we deal with.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for the support he outlined with respect to Ukraine and to the importance of ensuring sovereignty.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, about children. We are doing what we can about that, and on the issue of child deportations. We are also doing what we can to deal with Chelsea Football Club.
I think I am running out of time to deal with all of this, so there are some noble Lords whose questions I will have to respond separately to. I do, however, want to finish by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, who spoke for His Majesty’s Opposition, and to all noble Lords across the House that Ukraine’s fight is our fight. It is a once-in-a-generation moment for the collective security of our continent. Only a lasting peace in Ukraine that safeguards its sovereignty will deter Putin from future aggression. Ukraine’s security is our security. NATO’s support for Ukraine remains ironclad and our support will be sustained. That message needs to ring out loud and clear from this Chamber tonight.