(1 day, 11 hours 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, almost exactly 12 months ago, we debated Ukraine here in this Chamber. Let us once again proudly say that, in that time, there has been no weakening of our resolve or that of the British people to support Ukraine; no stepping back from our determination to stand up with our NATO allies and beyond for democracy and freedom; and, so importantly, no division among us—virtually unanimously, this party, all parties and none, as I look across this Chamber, and both this Government and the last Government stood up against Russian aggression. And we will see it through, as will the British people. NATO has been strengthened, not weakened, and Europe stands ready to do what it takes. Let that message resound from this Chamber today.
Twelve months ago, Ukrainians were approaching their third winter of courageous resistance, defending their homes and homelands against Putin’s full-scale invasion, including many women on the front line. Let me start by paying tribute to the Ukrainian people, their resolve, their determination and their bravery. They humble us all, bringing tears to our eyes, including mine, when you see this at first hand. Whatever our words today, let that always be at the forefront of our thoughts, and we look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, the former Ukrainian ambassador, making his maiden speech today.
Today, as they approach their fourth winter, on a macro level, depressingly, the picture remains broadly unchanged. While, thanks to Ukrainian courage, determination and ingenuity, and support from allies, Putin has still not achieved any of his overall strategic war aims, Russian forces continue to ruthlessly wage his illegal war, continuing to inch forward in a full-frontal assault on Ukrainian sovereignty and international laws and norms.
Let us remember, as we debate this here in the beauty of this Chamber, proud of our democracy, that Putin is increasingly hitting and killing Ukrainian civilians, with, according to the UN, a 40% increase in the number of civilians harmed this year compared with last. He continues to send Russians to their death in horrifying numbers, coupled with the targeting of Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure. These are sickening and cynical tactics that expose Putin’s comparative failures on the battlefield, where a long and increasingly blurred line of contact, and Ukrainian courage and ingenuity, have turned an invasion that Russian planners thought would be measured in days and kilometres into a quagmire, measured in years and metres. A special military operation to remove President Zelensky, take Ukraine and weaken Europe in days was the original intention—a puppet Government in Kyiv. A protracted war for four regions that Russia has proved itself incapable of taking has galvanised President Zelensky and, indeed, galvanised Europe.
Yet, behind this familiar big picture, much has changed over the last 12 months. The Government, with the overwhelming support of Parliament and the British public, have massively increased the scale of UK support for Ukraine as, together with partners, we have ramped up our sanctions to constrain Putin’s war machine, and after three and a half years of brutal and deadly war, the strength of Ukraine’s resistance and European resolve, coupled with the election of President Trump, have finally put peace talks on the agenda.
Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary outlined the latest tranche of UK sanctions designed to weaken Putin’s war machine and ensure that his thirst for war comes with a clear cost. She set out measures that outlawed 19 new Russia-related individuals and entities, including Russia’s two largest producers of oil—Rosneft and Lukoil. We warmly welcome President Trump’s decision to mirror those sanctions.
The latest UK sanctions package also targeted refineries around the world that import Russian oil, suppliers of drones and missile components, and 44 additional shadow fleet vessels, taking the total number of Russia-related individuals and entities sanctioned by the UK to over 2,900, including more than 500 shadow fleet vessels—more than any other country. That uptick in our Russia sanctions mirrors the uptick in our support for Ukraine.
To help get bomb-damaged power supplies back up and running, and help Ukraine through the winter, the Foreign Secretary announced £142 million in UK aid during her visit to Kyiv last month. To help protect Ukrainian civilians from Russia’s urban bombing campaign, ensure Ukraine can stay in the fight and secure a just and lasting peace from a position of strength on the battlefield, we have used interest from immobilised Russian sovereign assets to step up UK military support, with this year’s military package hitting £4.5 billion—the largest ever level 4 UK support for Ukraine.
We have invested £600 million this year to arm Ukraine’s forces with a variety of drones, which is on track to boost the number delivered by the UK from 10,000 in 2024 to 100,000 drones this year. The Defence Secretary’s 50-day delivery drive over the summer provided nearly 5 million rounds of small-arms ammunition and around 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles, along with drones, counterdrones and air defence equipment. Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we would continue to provide Ukraine with long-range capabilities and confirmed that the expansion of a UK missile-building programme will enable us to deliver 140 air defence missiles ahead of schedule—part of the £1.6 billion deal for more than 5,000 lightweight, multirole missiles that are being made by workers at Thales in Northern Ireland.
Over the last 12 months, we have also extended Operation Interflex, the multinational training operation that has now trained more than 60,000 Ukrainian personnel here in the UK, until at least the end of 2026. As a demonstration that the whole of Europe has stepped up military support for Ukraine, in the eight months since the Defence Secretary took on the role as co-chair of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, we have raised pledges of military aid totalling over £50 billion. Of course, we also continue to work with the United States.
Because Ukrainian resistance has turned a war that Russia thought it would win on the battlefield into a war of production, let us never again read of Ukraine retreating because of a lack of equipment. We are greatly intensifying our support for and collaboration with Ukraine’s defence industries, which are at the cutting edge of drone development and are building increasingly effective long-range strike capability. We have entered a new technology sharing agreement with the Ukrainian Government, an industrial partnership, to develop and advance a new air defence interceptor drone—co-operation that will boost our respective capabilities and also boost British jobs. That builds on the recent £200 million investment in the UK by Ukrspecsystems—one of Ukraine’s biggest drone-manufacturing companies—which will see the latest drone technologies being developed and manufactured in and around East Anglia, creating 500 jobs.
The intensification of our military support and co-operation should not be necessary, because, this month, President Trump again opened a door and invited President Putin to stop the fighting and pursue peace. President Zelensky is ready to order a ceasefire and step through that door. The UK and Ukraine’s other allies are ready to support negotiations and have advanced plans to support peace. But Putin stubbornly refuses, choosing instead to instruct Lavrov to shun President Trump’s call for meaningful negotiations towards a lasting peace and, just a day later, fire another barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles and drones into Ukrainian cities, killing at least seven people, including a mother and her 12 year-old and six month-old daughters in Kyiv, and hitting a kindergarten full of children in Kharkiv, where one person was killed. Putin, again, chose war and civilian deaths over negotiations and peace.
Our Prime Minister, together with President Zelensky and 11 other prominent European leaders, issued an unequivocal joint statement in response to Putin’s latest rejection of President Trump’s diplomacy, insisting that Ukraine must be in the strongest possible position before, during and after any ceasefire, and that we must ramp up the pressure on Russia’s economy and defence industry until Putin is ready to make peace. That is why we so warmly welcome the new US and EU sanctions and why the UK and France continue to lead more than 30 nations in a coalition of the willing that will, in the event of a ceasefire, strengthen Ukraine’s path to peace and stability by deploying a multinational force for Ukraine, to secure Ukraine’s skies, secure safer seas and regenerate Ukraine’s forces.
Multinational force planning was discussed by the Prime Minister at the recent coalition meeting in London attended by President Zelensky. Command structures have long been agreed. Reconnaissance missions to Ukraine have been completed and the Defence Secretary has accelerated funding to ensure the UK force contingent is ready to go when called upon. UK and European partners are also working up options to use the full value of the immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine.
Today, we will debate battlefield tactics and strategies for peace. We will debate our support for Ukraine’s defence and how to ratchet up pressure on Putin’s war machine. We will debate how we stop Russia bombing civilians and—let us remember—how to reunite the thousands of abducted Ukrainian children with their parents, for which the First Lady of Ukraine deserves huge credit, as indeed does the First Lady of the United States. In 2025, children are being used as a weapon of war—what a disgrace, and what a shocking indictment of Putin and Russia.
It is beyond debate that Putin’s war remains illegal, immoral, unjust and unjustifiable. He could stop it today. In fact, he should stop it today, because rather than weakening Ukrainian statehood, Putin is galvanising it. Instead of turning a peaceful neighbour into a vassal state as he planned, he has turned Ukraine into one of Europe’s most capable military forces, which, after three and a half years of a brutal invasion, will never accept Russian rule or a Russian puppet Government. Each day that this war continues, Putin not only strengthens Ukrainian resolve but he also strengthens our resolve and the resolve of our allies and of our people. The last Government, this Government, all parties across this Chamber, and our European allies, remain in no doubt that democracy and the rules based international order matter, and that is what is at stake in Ukraine today.
Ukraine’s security is our security and Ukraine’s fight is our fight. The front line of European security runs through Ukraine. I am proud, as a UK Defence Minister, to say at the beginning of this debate that, as we approach Remembrance Sunday, this country has always stood up for freedom, democracy and human rights. We will never forget that, or the sacrifice of so many; a sacrifice that continues to inspire us today as those values are once again threatened by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Let it ring out from this Chamber today—however hard, however challenging, we can, we will, and we must prevail. Democracy, human rights and freedom demand it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government for tabling this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his powerful, passionate and clear introduction to it. This debate is timely for three reasons. It enables the political presence in the United Kingdom, so articulately described by the Minister, to show a continuing united front against President Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. That powerful unity of purpose and resolve is very important. The debate facilitates an informed discussion among Members across this Chamber, with the wealth of experience that they reflect, to offer thoughts, opinions and ideas. Prominent among them is the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, to whose maiden speech we eagerly look forward. We will certainly be very interested to hear his contribution.
Perhaps most importantly, this debate is our opportunity to send a clear and uncompromising message to President Putin that the United Kingdom stands against bullies, has always stood against bullies and will always do so. We know the peril of appeasement; the facile delusion that you can do business with a bully; the fatal misapprehension that the bully is well intentioned towards his enemy, when the bully’s only interest is himself and the clinical and ruthless advancement of his illegal and brutal agenda. The United Kingdom sees that clearly, and I pay tribute to the Government for their steadfast support of Ukraine.
It is clear from the coalescence of support around Ukraine, whether from European neighbours who see President Putin for what he is, the coalition of the willing being progressed by the Prime Minister, or the more formal activity being pursued through NATO, that this continuing threat posed by President Putin to Europe must be primarily addressed by Europe. Of course, we welcome the continuing and vital support of the United States, but the responsibility falls on us and our European friends to demonstrate that we can step up to the plate and pay our way. European and western Atlantic security is our joint responsibility. We have to guard it, we have to fight off any challenge to it, and we have to be visibly determined in our resolve to do that.
For that strategy to be delivered, I suggest that in relation to Ukraine we need three things: greater clarity, perhaps, about the shape of the short term; the planning and resource necessary to sustain the medium term; and an outline of the longer term, in relation to both the rebuilding of Ukraine and the broader construct of Euro-Atlantic security.
Taking the short term first, we—the United Kingdom and our allies—must continue to supply Ukraine with what she needs to defend herself, and that includes training, so I was very encouraged to hear the Minister’s comments on that. On the broader front, when she responds, will the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, say whether there is clarity across the piece about who is supplying what, how this is being co-ordinated and whether we can have, perhaps in written form, an update on what UK military assets are currently being provided—although I accept the noble Lord has been very explicit about part of that supply? In her response, can the Minister confirm that in the supply of weaponry there is clarity that for Ukraine to respond proportionately to this illegal invasion, she must be free to target the locations within Russia being used for hostile attacks on Ukraine? Implicit within this is the political will to fund in a stable and predictable manner our UK defence capability. When dealing with such an overt threat to our security, the Prime Minister must provide that leadership, supporting his Chancellor and requiring the Treasury to fund to the levels necessary. It is so axiomatic that I do not expect the Minister to comment, other than to observe that if there is any hesitancy in providing such leadership, the only person clapping his hands with glee will be President Putin.
Moving to the medium term, if President Putin is recalcitrant, the supply of military assets must continue. We also need to audit, both as a country and with allies, the effect of sanctions on Russia. After this length of time, it must be possible to have a reasonably accurate measurement of the consequences of these sanctions. I appreciate that the Minister may not have detailed information to hand, and I am very happy for her to confirm that by letter. If, as is widely understood, sanctions are having a savage effect on the Russian economy, there needs to be a concerted coms strategy by us and our allies to get that message through to the Russian people. This has been discussed before— I remember the matter arising when I was a Defence Minister—but if the Minister can update the House on any progress, that would be helpful.
Looking to the longer term, that projection must embrace what is necessary to rebuild Ukrainian infrastructure. What is required to reinstate a functioning economy, and what political reforms are necessary to facilitate these objectives? It is clear that some excellent work is already being done, and the noble Lord the Minister referred to the contribution from the United Kingdom. Elsewhere, Hope for Ukraine, based in the United States, has a comprehensive programme to assist. The EU, through the EBRD, the European Investment Bank and the European Commission, has provided a total of €30 million to help Ukraine prepare large-scale infrastructure projects and, apparently, more funding is due from EU countries and donors. Can the Minister give us a more detailed update on what the UK is doing on this front? In aggregate across the overall contribution of support, we are not sure what that map looks like. How is macroeconomic support being given to Ukraine? Is it international loans and international financial guarantees? Is there, for example, a workable basis for the operation of commercial insurance indemnity across a range of commercial activity? I look forward to the Minister’s response on these specific issues.
Turning to what political reforms may be required within Ukraine, corruption in that country is sadly unarguable. Everything that the allies and friends of Ukraine are prepared to do to help carries a reciprocal obligation by Ukraine to fix what is bad. Without that explicit recognition from Ukraine, there can be no confidence among the international community that it is worthwhile providing help. This is serious. It gets to the heart of what we want a post-conflict Ukraine to look like. I suggest that Ukraine has to tackle judicial corruption. There are ongoing issues with judicial appointments and a lack of trust in the courts. There is war-related corruption. The ongoing conflict has apparently created new avenues, such as, we understand, officials demanding bribes for leave or diverting foreign aid meant for the front lines. There appears to be top-level and systemic corruption. That includes issues with state contracts and the influence of oligarchs, who, we understand, remain a problem that hinders foreign investment and economic growth.
It would appear thatsqueeze-col3 any progress in addressing this is glacial, particularly where large interests and big players are involved, such as natural resource extraction and large infrastructure projects. Will the Minister confirm what the United Kingdom is doing, either alone or with partners, to provide advice and support to Ukraine to try to help tackle these serious problems? Is it possible to provide any in-country support and advice? If there is any update she can provide to the House about progress on these essential reforms, that would be very welcome.
I conclude, as I started, with appreciation that this debate is taking place. I have endeavoured to encourage thinking across a time period about what is required as this conflict progresses. I have tried to be constructive and, I hope, conciliatory in suggesting positive proposals, but not shying away from what, under no circumstances, this Government should shy away from: the paramount obligation, for the safety of us all, to secure stable and predictable funding for defence. I look forward to hearing contributions from Members. I very much look forward to listening to the noble Baroness the Minister’s response. I end with the most important observation: His Majesty’s Opposition will support the Government’s continuing support for Ukraine.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Government for initiating this debate today and very much look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barrow.
It is nearly four years since the full-scale and unprovoked invasion in February 2022. Ukraine faces a fourth harsh winter, with constant drone attacks, concerns about energy supplies, power cuts and, for many women and men, continued gruelling life on the front line, in the trenches. The huge psychological impact and disruption to family life, most particularly for children, is hard for us to imagine.
It is hugely important, as through the debate today, that the Ukrainian people know that there is no wavering in the UK’s support for Ukraine. There is strength too, as other noble Lords have said, in the continued cross-party consensus in this country on Ukraine. With the notable exception of some in Reform UK, Ukraine and Ukrainians can feel secure that they continue to have the support of all mainstream political parties in the UK.
It was very welcome that both the Prime Minister and the King continued to give public demonstrations of support during President Zelensky’s visit to London last week. Such things are symbolic but none the less remain incredibly important. For that reason, I profoundly disagreed with the leader of Kent County Council, from Reform UK, when she said in May that flying the Ukrainian flag was a “distraction” and removed it from County Hall. Flying Ukrainian flags on public buildings is a powerful symbol, and one that I know all my Ukrainian friends hugely appreciate when they come to London and see their flag flying all over Whitehall.
Ahead of the debate today, I was in contact with former colleagues and friends in Kyiv. Their messages to me this week have been characteristically determined, but they have made for sober reading. They fear that, once again, we will do too little, too late, and will not take the brave decisions that need to be taken now. One of their greatest fears is the rise of the populist right in Europe. Disinformation, political interference and manipulation are now very real threats across Europe and beyond. As President Zelensky has said on many occasions—and the Minister repeated—the war in Ukraine is our war too. Ukraine is fighting for our values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. For this to be more than just words, we have to find ways to continue to take the people in this country with us.
Last month, I had the privilege of attending the Sarajevo Security Conference; I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests. I was struck by the conversations I had with military representatives from some of the Nordic and Baltic states. Clearly, those countries that have borders with Russia feel and fear the consequences of the war in Ukraine much more directly. It is not surprising that they are rapidly changing their approaches to defence spending, military service and civil defence. The head of the Norwegian Civil Defence talked to me of their all-society approach to defence and security in Norway, an approach very much embraced in Finland and other Baltic states. It is an approach that puts trust, building resilience and public engagement at its centre. As people face an increasing number of hybrid threats, from power outages to disinformation campaigns and electoral interference, it is incredibly important that people understand that this is now the reality of hybrid war in the 21st century. It is directly connected to the war in Ukraine, and combatting it is all part of our wider defence and security policy. Developing such an all-society approach to defence is contained in the Government’s recent strategic defence review by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I would be grateful if, in her closing remarks, the Minister could say a little more about the plans to implement this in practice, as well as about the Government’s wider approach to implementing Article 3 of NATO.
Although people in the UK remain firmly supportive of Ukraine, as all recent opinion polls show, I think that, for many people, it is regarded as something that is happening far away that is not directly relevant to their lives. I genuinely worry that, if the conflict were to escalate, we have not yet built up the resilience or capacity in this country to deal with such a situation. As we substantially increase our defence spending, we have to take people with us. We need to do this through public engagement, as well as through education. We have much to learn about resilience, as well as about technologies and the realities of hybrid war, from Ukraine. In that, I very much agree with what the Minister said.
As the fourth winter of this war approaches, the backdrop remains bleak. President Trump continues to constantly change his mind about his relations with President Putin. The sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil are welcome, if late in the day. We must hope that the reality will one day finally dawn on President Trump that he has been humiliatingly played by the Kremlin.
With the exception of Hungary and Slovakia, it is welcome that the European allies remain united. The principle that only Ukraine should be able to decide Ukraine’s future remains the dominant view in Europe. It is welcome too that a move to increase European defence spending is agreed in principle. This will inevitably mean strengthening Europe’s military industrial capacity and streamlining procurement, but progress is slow and the processes cumbersome.
We face an incredibly difficult period ahead in relations with both Russia and China. New Russian weaponry, including hypersonic missiles, are a threat not just to Ukraine but to us all. When we now look back at the West’s response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014, I would argue that the absence of a powerful and united response was a strategic error. It allowed President Putin to believe that he could carry out the full-scale invasion of 2022. He gambled on Ukraine being weak and divided, as well as on the West’s inability to unite. If he utterly misjudged the response of the Ukrainian people, he also largely misjudged the West’s response. This has, however, been made significantly more complex since President Trump returned to the White House in January this year.
It is hard to know if the current US-led discussions will lead to a ceasefire and an eventual peace. However, I very much hope that the UK will continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring that any such discussions adhere to two key principles: namely, that boundaries must never be redrawn by force and that only Ukraine should be allowed to decide upon its own future. I believe that history will harshly judge any solution that does not adhere to those principles.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate on Ukraine and the opportunity that it presents. Mine will be an uncomfortable but honest contribution. I start by observing that it is difficult to draw any comfort from an analysis of the tactical situation on the ground, and it is even more difficult to derive any moral satisfaction for what we are continuing to ask Ukraine to do.
I say this primarily because the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to be a limited war—limited by both the means and the geography. These limitations are ones imposed by the United States and by NATO more widely. They almost exclusively constrain Ukrainian activity to Ukrainian soil and deny Ukraine the capabilities required to carry the fight to Russia. They do so, arguably, and understandably, to avoid provoking Russian escalation—hence a preference for financial sanctions as opposed to Tomahawk missiles. But such choices limit Ukraine’s ability to hurt Russia in ways that might bring the war to a conclusion on acceptable terms.
In short, therefore, we continue to accept that Ukraine is fighting a proxy war on behalf of NATO that we are denying it the means to win. Reflecting on this, I worry that we forget that war is not ultimately a battle of physical exchange but a battle of human will. Sadly, the trajectory of this war increasingly looks like one that is hurting Ukraine more than Russia. More specifically, it is hurting Ukrainian society more than Vladimir Putin. Putin appears content to incrementally grind this war towards a ceasefire that will be humiliating to Ukraine and embarrassing to western Governments.
To set alongside and to help balance this gloomy prediction is the potential reality that, even with a ceasefire that rewards Russia, Russia will finish this war in strategic deficit. Finland and Sweden will have joined NATO, the Baltic will have become a NATO lake, NATO’s European members will be en route to spending 5% of GDP on defence and Russia’s war economy may be starting to exhaust it domestically.
However, those who draw comfort from that should remind themselves of the human nature of warfare. So long as Putin remains in power, danger lingers. He recognises the reticence of America to intervene decisively and will observe the relative sluggishness of NATO rearmament. Potentially, Putin will boil at Britain’s boasts regarding its part in inflicting such huge casualties on Russia. He will see Britain as America’s proxy. He will have a fully mobilised set of armed forces, an untouched suite of strategic capabilities, a fully mobilised war economy and a window of opportunity to act while NATO—certainly the UK at the moment—still prioritises welfare benefits over national security.
Even if such a scenario is misjudged, it presents real dilemmas for the Ministry of Defence, particularly those now engaged on the defence investment plan, the exercise that determines how the MoD will spend its money for the remainder of this Parliament. Noble Lords may recall that the Government pledged £10 billion of new investment money to prime the capability priorities of the strategic defence review, but £6 billion of that has to come from defence efficiencies, and the MoD has now discovered an in-year black hole which the service chiefs are now scrambling to fill with in-year savings. The reality of the financial situation is dire, and I suspect that uncomfortable announcements lie ahead.
I can imagine that the main decisions to be taken on defence investment will be the hard choices regarding three separate policy objectives. The first is the combination of spending on Ukraine and re-establishing deterrence through a return to warfighting readiness. The second is in making the nation more resilient to hybrid threats, not just critical national infrastructure but society itself. The third is the investment in the technology needed to give substance to the concept of the integrated force, a force capable of achieving decisive advantage from a position of significantly enhanced lethality. All three policy objectives need huge investment. Without such investment, we potentially fail both Ukraine and NATO, we expose society to hybrid threats, and we completely undermine the only real hope of credibility that the defence review offers our Armed Forces.
Hard investment choices have for ever been the challenge of peacetime planners, but we should not be engaged in peacetime planning. We face an outcome to the current conflict that leaves behind a humiliated Ukraine, a residually dangerous Russia and an impoverished Britain devoid of threat awareness with an unfunded SDR. I have worried for the last 15 years that when it comes to national security the Government of the day have consistently put their perceived duty to reassure society above their duty to respond to geopolitical realities. I hope the Minister can reassure the House otherwise, but I am lost as to what hard facts he can call upon to do so. We need to do more.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, it is good that we are having this debate, and I hope that we have similar debates quite regularly. We all look forward to the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who brings special expertise and knowledge to our considerations today.
Anyone who still holds doubts about the kind of threat that the West faces need only look at the pictures from just a few weeks ago of the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Beijing. The sight of President Xi, President Putin and President Kim Jong Un watching the robotic military parade in Tiananmen Square should have sent a shiver down the back of all western leaders. Those leaders that day were not on holiday or on some weekend break in China’s capital; they had been there with Prime Minister Modi the previous day and, remotely, with the mullahs in Tehran. They were there mobilising for a world order that reduces the power and the values of the West. The Shanghai group was assembled at that time to show support for Putin’s assault on Ukraine and as a signal that traditional foes were now demonstrably united and conspiring against us.
The stakes in eastern Ukraine, as has already been said, are high, and they go well beyond the geography of the Donbass. If the invasion of a sovereign state such as Ukraine is successful, then make no mistake about the consequences for us and for our way of life. The Ukrainians are fighting tenaciously and resolutely for their lives and their land, but they are fighting and dying for us too, because the inviolability of existing borders is part of the post-Second World War settlement and, if it unravels, we will pay a huge price in the cascade of disruption that will follow.
Today in the grey zone, Putin deploys cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns and election interference. Sabotage has been contracted out to organised criminals, attacks across Europe are systematic and our critical national infrastructure is on a knife edge. The Kremlin strategists intimately know all our vulnerabilities. Undersea cables carry 98% of all the data that we use, and 77% of all the gas supplies to this country come in one pipeline from Norway. Homeland defence was a key aspect of the Government’s strategic defence review. UK national resilience has to be as serious a priority as it is in Scandinavia.
A few weeks ago, Mr Martin Jaeger, the president of Germany’s federal intelligence agency, addressed the Bundestag, and his words should chill us. He talked about a looming “hot confrontation” with Russia, and he said: “Our enemy never rests and we are already under attack”. Moscow’s goal, he said, was “to undermine NATO, destabilise European democracies, and divide Western societies in order to drive them into self-destructive paralysis”. Those are wise and sobering words but, as the strategic defence review soberly says:
“Defence’s wider ways of working remain suited to a peacetime era”.
But we no longer live in a peacetime era, and, in contrast, our adversaries are in attack mode. Sir Basil Liddell Hart, the great master of strategy, wisely said that
“the issue of battle is usually decided in the minds of the opposing commanders, not in the bodies of their men”.
The lesson from that is that we need to impress on the architect of this terrible invasion that he simply cannot win, and that we will continue to provide Ukraine with the means to get it into Putin’s mind that pursuing this war cannot and will not achieve his deluded dreams of the total subjugation of Ukraine.
Under Putin’s leadership, Russia, a land of basically good and decent people, has lost or had maimed a million and a half young Russians, the seed corn of that country’s future. At least 300,000 have died on Putin’s chosen battlefield, and another half million have left the country to escape his authoritarian claws. His economy is overheating, and this year he managed to capture only 0.4% of Ukrainian territory. He is failing, and he is failing Russia. We must not grasp defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, as we look to the future of what is happening in Ukraine, it is important to bear in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has just done, the extent of the Ukrainian achievement so far. We talk about victory and defeat but, when one thinks of what Putin was setting out to do and what he has achieved, there is no doubt that, so far, Ukraine has achieved a considerable victory. It has withstood the Russian invasion; Russia has acquired only some 20% of the territory; it has banished the Black Sea fleet from the Black Sea; and it has made the Russian economy largely dependent on China, a very humiliating situation for Mr Putin. It has done extremely well, and we must pay tribute to that.
However, to put it mildly, the outlook is not so good. Like World War I after the first battle of the Marne, the war has settled down into a war of attrition but, unlike the two sides on the Western Front, Russia and Ukraine are far from equally matched. They are much more like the rivals in another great war of attrition, the American Civil War, when the resources of the north were so much greater than those of the south.
If war, short of some devastating Napoleonic coup, is largely a matter of resources, the outlook for Ukraine is becoming increasingly difficult and it is important to be realistic about that, as indeed are many Ukrainians. A Gallup poll in July showed 69% in favour of a negotiated peace as soon as possible, versus 24% for continuing to fight until victory. The Economist recently reported that the independent Ukrainian polling organisation the Rating Group found that 59% of Ukranians would accept a loss of territory if that brought about peace.
More eloquent than these figures is the number of Ukrainians who have fled their country. In September this year—not so long ago—the UNHCR estimated that to be 5.7 million. We have heard about the problems facing Russia and people leaving Russia, but that is a very substantial drain of the Ukrainian population. Many of those people, I realise, went in the early months, but the drain has continued, and it has continued of men of military age as well as other people. Not many have returned. This exodus and its implications must be borne in mind as we admire the guts, resourcefulness and stamina of the Ukrainian front-line troops and the heroism of the civilians who put up with bombing and bombardment of every sort.
Against that background, it is no wonder that Russia believes that it is in its interest to squeeze Ukraine like a python squeezes its prey. Russia must believe, against the background I have just outlined, that it may yet force a military collapse. Failing that, it must believe that the longer it goes on, the more Ukraine will be left in a devastated situation when peace eventually comes. That will, of course be bad for Ukraine, but it will be bad for us and our European allies too, because it is we who will have to support the recovery of Ukraine and the revival of its civic society, economy and armed forces.
So we must continue to support Ukraine militarily and financially, as other speakers have said, and through sanctions on Russia, with the twin aims of bringing Russia to the negotiating table if possible, and certainly of preventing a Ukrainian collapse. But we must also align ourselves with those elements in the Ukrainian Government and society that want to seek ways to end the war by negotiation on terms that Russia can accept, if that is possible. That way lies the best hope of rebuilding Ukraine’s economy and society after the guns have fallen silent.
We must continue our support of Ukraine at war, but we must bear in mind that, in the long run, what we want is a prosperous, free and democratic Ukraine, and we want it to emerge from the war with the ability to create a society of that kind.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I too am much looking forward to the maiden speech of my friend and long-time colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Barrow. The House is about to discover that, unlike the present speaker, the noble Lord really knows what he is talking about, having been ambassador in Ukraine and Russia, as well as many other senior posts.
I too warmly welcome the fact that this Government are showing staunch support for Ukraine, in seamless continuity with the approach of the previous Government. That bipartisanship in politics is really important in giving Britain the authority to lead the European response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, which is now approaching its fourth anniversary. The coalition of the willing that is taking shape under British leadership is growing, in my view, into the European pillar of NATO, which I think could be of long-term strategic significance, given the evolution of the US approach to Europe.
It is playing a crucial role in co-ordinating support for Ukraine but also in planning, as the Minister said, for the post-conflict period. We are seeing in Gaza the risks of getting to a ceasefire without arrangements in place to avoid a security vacuum. Ukraine is of course different, but it is encouraging that plans are in place for a multinational force Ukraine. Of course, we will want to scrutinise at the right time the tasks and rules of engagement of the force.
In the meantime, we have to get to a ceasefire. The Prime Minister deserves great credit for his deft handling of President Trump. He and other European leaders have repeatedly shown they can be very effective in countering Putin’s efforts to tempt Trump into selling out Ukraine’s vital interests. For all President Trump’s efforts to get a ceasefire deal, it is crystal clear that Putin does not want one; he thinks he is still winning, as many noble Lords have said. He thinks that we in Europe will tire, and that we will find that he has driven a wedge between us and the United States. So my main point this morning is that the only way to get Putin to accept a ceasefire is to ratchet up the pressure on Russia to the point where he feels his grip on power is in jeopardy.
We have collectively done a lot already on weapons deliveries and on sanctions. But, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, we have always been too slow in giving Ukraine the weapons it really needs. We have got to be bolder. We have to give Ukraine the long-range weapons that it is calling for, including persuading President Trump to send Tomahawks. Could the Minister tell us when the Government expect to secure agreement with the EU on the SAFE arrangement, which would allow British defence industries to co-operate across Europe?
On sanctions, we should finalise as soon as possible the deal to use frozen Russian assets to underwrite a loan for Ukraine, of a size that will give it economic security for several years. The Government have said that the £25 billion or so in the UK will be part of that deal. I hope that the £2.5 billion that Abramovich received for the forced sale of Chelsea football club will be there before long as well. The main block, of course, is in Belgium, but this has dragged on too long. We need now to get this settled and get the money to Ukraine.
Yes, we should intensify our sanctions on Russia—again, we have done a lot. President Trump has suggested that the extra 25% tariff he put on India led Modi to say that the Indians would reduce their purchases of Russian oil. But then we see in the FT that there is a large-scale sanctions evasion operation apparently linked to ArcelorMittal. I hope we too are pressing the Indians to reduce sanctions evasion. Are we looking for other ways of applying decisive pressure to Russia economically: for example, against Russia’s central bank?
I have one final thought, adding to what other noble Lords have said. Given all the pressures on public spending, we need to take every opportunity outside this Chamber to emphasise that our partnership with Ukraine is not just about sending money and giving development aid; it provides huge benefits for this country. The Ukrainians are indeed fighting and dying for our security. They are more skilled than anyone in the world at countering Russian cyberattacks. They are world leaders in drone technology and tactics. This is transforming not just the battlefield in Ukraine but every future conflict.
We have an enormous amount to learn from Ukraine’s hard-won experience, and the agreement that Ukraine will share data for the benefit of British defence industries is excellent news. I hope that that can be widely available across the defence industry because, unless new defence equipment is taking account of how warfare now works in Ukraine, it is going to be obsolete before it comes off the production line.
In short, however the war in Ukraine finally ends, we will share a continent with a hostile Russia for the foreseeable future, and a strong partnership with a free Ukraine is in our long-term national security interest.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, while noting in the Lords register the interests in relation to my advice to PricewaterhouseCoopers and RIDNE, I strongly welcome this debate and the excellent opening speech by my noble friend Lord Coaker, bringing this debate to life—as he did 12 months ago, too. It is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and I strongly endorse his final point about the need to ensure that the British public understand the importance of the defence of Ukraine and the skills that they are developing in our own defence and development. I strongly support and welcome the Government’s commitment to the defence of Ukraine and to combating Russian aggression. I add to the long list that my noble friend provided in his opening speech particular praise for the training of Ukrainian recruits, in which this country has played a significant role. I am sure that has saved many lives on the front line and has helped in other ways too.
I strongly support the coalition of the willing and that development, not just for this conflict but in general terms, as we need to take a global stance against aggression and authoritarianism. In particular, it is important that we remember that that coalition is wider than just our European allies; it includes Japan, for example, and other countries that are as strongly committed to the defence of Ukraine and combating Russia as we are. I would like some indication from the Government, towards the end of this debate, that that understanding of the importance of a global coalition of the willing, not just a European one, will be something that we maintain.
As part of that effort, I hope that the Government, while building up our hard power—long overdue and definitely essential—recognise the importance of soft power too. At times over the past 12 months, it has been suggested that we would perhaps replace our efforts at soft power by more efforts on hard power. They have to go hand in hand, as we need to ensure that we have global support for this effort and are building a strengthening of democracy and the rule of law around the world, not just in this particular conflict on the eastern border of Europe.
I welcome the commitment to increased action on sanctions generally by the Government over this past month, but I highlight the issue of the more than £2 billion raised in the sale of Chelsea Football Club over three years ago. While the Government of the day definitely made some mistakes in the speed at which that was done and the nature of the agreement with Mr Abramovich, there was definitely some action happening and momentum building, towards the end of the previous Government, to secure the use of these assets for humanitarian purposes under the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as Foreign Secretary and Andrew Mitchell as Minister for Development. I urge the new Foreign Secretary—perhaps this is a message that both my noble friends, as Ministers, could take back to her—to put the foot back on the pedal on this issue. It is criminal that these resources are still waiting to be used, when they could make such a difference in Ukraine and have such an impact elsewhere to ensure that the humanitarian purpose, agreed back in May 2022, could be fulfilled.
Finally, I endorse the comments already made by noble Lords about the stolen children of Ukraine who still lie behind Russian borders. Organisations such as Bring Kids Back UA and others have highlighted this issue very effectively and continue to campaign and work for the release of individual children, to bring them back across the border to their homeland. In another place, Johanna Baxter MP has been at the forefront of raising this issue. She recently wrote to Minister Doughty in the Foreign Office, raising specific issues that the UK could usefully support—the tracing of these children, the data that is available and the support for rescue missions, reintegration and, crucially, the rehabilitation of these children, who have been subjected to such trauma. There are thousands, potentially tens of thousands, of children still in this position. It is a weapon of war being used by President Putin to strike fear in the heart of every Ukrainian family. We need to stand firmly with those children and not, as happens far too often in war around the world, forget about them shortly after the war comes to a conclusion with a ceasefire. We must maintain the pressure over the years to bring every child back.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his speech. He laid out what is at stake for us and what this country is doing in the contribution that we are making, which is considerable. If I might say so, I would very much like the wider public to be more aware of exactly what the UK is doing. This is a communications job, which could well be done, and that would strengthen the already solid position in this country. It would also inform our allies, which need to know what each of us is doing.
The Minister rightly said that Ukraine’s security is ours too. I want to comment briefly on some of the wider aspects of the situation in Ukraine. Putin is so tied now to the position he has taken that he cannot back off the war without claiming a success in the land taken, which in his mind means that he has to have more than what Russia currently holds. Conversely, President Zelensky is not free to give away bits of Ukraine to Russia. Indeed, a political crisis would threaten in Ukraine if he tried to do that. His strength lies in the political support in the country to fight for it; his weakness is a lack of reliable finance to continue fighting, a lack of long-range weapons to penetrate much further into Russia, and ultimately—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat—a much smaller population to bear arms, which in the end will count. Time is frankly not on our side, although there is some.
Since the meeting in Alaska, I think that President Trump has realised that Putin has been playing him along, and his reaction has been quite vigorous. He has cancelled talks and increased sanctions on Russia, which is important. He has moderated his peace ambitions to stopping the fighting along the battlelines rather than suggesting that Zelensky should be prepared to give up land not lost in battle. But he has not allowed Ukrainians to have the weapons that they are asking for—nor do I think he will. There seems to be a consistency here with the policy of the Biden Administration, which refused to let Ukraine have escalation capability in relation to Russia. This is perhaps where some of the anxieties begin.
During his state visit, President Trump said that Europeans were much closer to the front line than the US, the implication being that, while Europeans needed to get on and build our defences, about which he is quite right, somehow the US had less at risk and was less implicated. That is dangerous territory for the NATO alliance, as it suggests that the US is not so affected by Russian military activity. There is an important task here to close the perception gap. In particular, we need a joint and forceful response to other things that the Russians are doing, particularly their increasing incursions into NATO airspace and waters. Failure to respond will encourage the Russians to go further. Let us not forget the consequences of having failed to react to Russia’s activities in Crimea and its invasion there. That was a failure of deterrence, and we risk further such failures if we do not vigorously show that we are not going to put up with what the Russians are doing. Failure to respond saps the alliance and will also, in the end, reduce our capacity to deal with the Russian threat.
It is worrying against that background that, at a time when we need to bolster our capabilities, we cannot decide our priorities, and we are unable to decide that using part of the sanctioned Russian financial assets to pay for increased Ukrainian capability is more justified and important than preserving them inviolate in the vault. While the allies dither, the Russians gain political ground. We must stop them.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, it is extraordinarily difficult for most people in this country to get an accurate feel for what is really happening in Ukraine. Where are we after three and a half years of intense combat? All estimates of territorial gains and casualties must of course be treated with caution, as there are no completely reliable or definitive sources, but conservative judgment suggests that the Russian offensive of 2025 netted something like an additional 0.4% of Ukrainian territory. Average Russian daily advances in sectors such as Kharkiv have been smaller than those that the British Army achieved at the Battle of the Somme in 1916, and they have taken no objectives of strategic significance—although Pokrovsk now seems to be under serious threat. All of this at a cost of just under, or perhaps well over, 100,000 Russian dead. Total Russian casualties since March 2022 probably now number around 1 million. The number of dead is likely to be approaching a quarter of a million and, importantly, more than 5,000 officers have been killed, a significant proportion of whom were the lieutenants and captains who provide the critical tactical leadership in a Russian army that lacks a strong non-commissioned officer cadre.
It is just as hard to estimate Ukrainian losses, but military deaths since March 2022 may come close to 100,000. This is significantly fewer than the number of Russian casualties, but of course the Ukrainian population is commensurately smaller. I have not so far mentioned civilian deaths, the damage caused by indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, the kidnapping of Ukrainian children and the vast quantity of Russian military equipment that has so far been destroyed. The sum total of devastation and human misery is appalling, and it is little surprise that people want it to end.
I focus on the horrific statistics of the war because they carry another, different message: even if there is a ceasefire at or around the then existing battlefield positions, it will not be peace. Peace occurs when there is a political settlement that gives both sides sufficient stake in maintaining the post-conflict status quo rather than seeking to overturn it. That will not be the case with such a ceasefire. Ukraine cannot in the long term accept the loss of a significant part of its territory and citizens as a consequence of the naked aggression that has killed so many of its people and devastated the country. Putin will not accept a situation that so signally fails to achieve his strategic objective at such a horrendous cost.
At the least, the war would for a time move back into the grey zone. We will be faced with the modern equivalent of the inner German border of the Cold War running across Ukraine, with armed camps on either side. The Russians will certainly not demilitarise, and the inward investment so necessary to the reconstruction of Ukraine will not be made if there is inadequate capacity there to deter or defend against further Russian aggression. More widely, Russia’s attempts to destabilise and undermine NATO will continue, and it will rearm as rapidly as possible in order to threaten western security and attempt to isolate Ukraine. We will at best have an armed pause, not peace.
Meanwhile, the events of the past few years will have driven another nail into the coffin of nuclear non-proliferation, if they have not already sounded its death knell. Which state in possession of nuclear weapons would now be mad enough to give them up, having seen how the international community has treated the deal that Ukraine struck in Budapest in 1994? We must be clear-eyed about the likely future. It will be perilous. It will require strength and resolution if we are to avoid, or at least contain, the dangers it poses. NATO must continue to rebuild its deterrent posture. Members of the alliance, including the UK, must match their rhetoric on defence with the commensurate investment—and that investment must be made urgently, not at some indeterminate point in the future, which seems to be the current plan of His Majesty’s Government.
Those who advocate a rapid negotiated end to the fighting must recognise that it would not be the end of the war. Those who imagine that it would mean a return to business as usual must understand that the long-term context for European strategy has fundamentally changed because of the events of 2022. Facing the consequences squarely will be difficult and expensive; failing to do so would be catastrophic.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, to this House. He clearly brings with him a great degree of expertise, and I am looking forward to his maiden speech later. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his excellent opening remarks, said that Ukraine’s security was basically our security. This is a message that was repeated constantly when I was on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—I got thrown off shortly after the election because of the appalling results for the Conservatives. All the time, it was recognised at that stage that we could not allow Putin to win in Ukraine. Basically, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has referred to, Putin will claim victory from whatever settlement comes out of this.
The extraordinary thing is that we have always had the capacity in the West to defeat Putin in Ukraine, but the trouble is that we have never used the capability that we have. We all know well that wars are won by the grim determination of the troops on the ground—the Ukrainians certainly do not lack that—combined with technology. Technology is absolutely critical. Where we in the West have a lead over all other countries in the world is in the air, particularly with the F35. Bear in mind that the F35 is the only fifth-generation jet in the world and has a capacity to jam all attacks on it. It flies in at 65,000 feet and can protect 11 other aircraft with inferior defences, so it is an absolutely lethal weapon, but we failed to use it. Why did we fail to use it? There was a man under the Biden Administration called Jake Sullivan, and I think he was responsible for the narrative that went, “Well, we don’t really want to remove Putin as a dictator in Russia because we don’t know what will replace him. We suspect that the whole of Russia will break up into fiefdoms with nuclear weapons and they’ll be much more difficult to negotiate with”.
That, of course, was also laced with the whole concept that Putin was keen to deploy, which was that this could all develop into the third world war with an exchange of nuclear weapons. President Putin, an ex-KGB man, knows about nuclear deterrence, even if other people seem to have forgotten about it, and he probably also knows that his nuclear deterrent is infinitely inferior to anything in the West. I do not think he wants to be remembered for saying goodbye to Moscow. I think that much of this is exaggerated, and the Ukrainians have every right to feel that they have been shedding a lot of blood on our behalf. We could have done much to change that.
I turn to the whole question of sanctions. If President Trump has decided that he is not prepared to deliver Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, this reduces the capability of Ukraine to degrade the Russian economy by taking out its oil refineries and so forth and making it more difficult for it to export oil. In those circumstances, we lean very much on the sanctions that are being imposed on Rosneft and Lukoil. What I do not quite understand is why we do not sanction all Russian oil. Presumably you could have a situation where some rusting oil tanker is stopped at sea; the captain is asked “What are you doing?” and he produces a sheaf of papers and says, “I’m not carrying oil for Lukoil or Rosneft— I’m carrying it for some other company that was created yesterday”. How do we then say, on that basis, that we will stop that oil being delivered? Perhaps when the Minister comes to sum up, she can spell out to us how this will all work.
Other than that, the coalition of the willing, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has pointed out, will have a very difficult task. We have to ensure that air power plays a major role in that. I would like to see aircraft based in Ukraine, doing their training in Ukraine in a NATO base, not a Ukrainian one. We should then be determined to make sure that peace is maintained, which I am sure will come eventually.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, it is inevitable that many speakers today will be covering the same ground, but I do not think that is important because the full impact of the war in Ukraine should be aired in this Chamber. I am delighted that this has been an opportunity to do that.
Putin’s “special operation” in Ukraine went wrong from the beginning. Five Eyes intelligence identified that it was about to happen, in great detail, and, very unusually, we actually promulgated that fact. That was quite a blow to Putin and his team. We know from our own intelligence what an impact it had. Of course, the Ukrainians resisted, and we saw the breathtaking incompetence of the Russian military. I have to say that, after many years watching Army intelligence try to work out what real threat the Russian army was, one did have to wonder slightly when it did so badly in that invasion. But all that is history.
The invasion of a nation state that Putin had categorically admitted was such—he had recognised that it was a nation state—showed him for what he had become. It is clear from his statements and writings that he believes Russia should have the same borders as the old Soviet Union, controlling vassal states within those borders. He went as far as to claim that Ukraine posed an existential threat to Russia.
The war has now been going on for three and a half years, as many speakers have mentioned. All of us, I think, reinforce what my noble friend the Minister and others have said: we must all admire the bravery, steadfastness and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people. What they have been through is quite incredible—there is nothing like having people shooting at you and having people around you dying to make you realise how appalling that can be. When it is civilians, it is incredibly impressive.
There is no doubt that our front line, as has been mentioned before, is in Ukraine, because already there is a grey zone war with Putin, which I will come back to. If Putin is successful in forcing Ukraine into defeat and surrender, he will be emboldened and will invade his next victim, be it Transnistria, South Ossetia, Moldova or maybe even the Kaliningrad corridor. We really have to stop him now.
There is no doubt that the Russian military is more competent than it was in the early days. It is doing better on the front line than it was in those days, and its drone attacks are putting Ukrainian forces under immense pressure. A number of speakers have talked about the huge pressure on Ukraine, which is extremely worrying. However, the Russians are suffering massive casualties, and there is no doubt that it is western support—weapons and other support—that allows Ukraine to continue to fight.
The Russian economy is weathering the storm better than we predicted, not least because of the huge Chinese financial and other support. Russia has also been helped by countries such as India—much to my surprise, given that we have done a lot to help India—and Iran, and by troops from North Korea. Putin told Xi Jinping about his “special operation” before he launched it, saying that it would be over in three weeks. This has fully confirmed the Chinese view of the unpredictable risk of wars, and China is very unimpressed by how it has gone. At present, the support of Putin suits Xi, as he wishes the established world order to be toppled, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. But he has no love for Putin, and I think Putin needs to look carefully, because he is supping with the devil in dealing so closely with him.
The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit held in Tianjin should be a wake-up call for the US and for us. I found it quite horrifying that that was happening. Basically, it is showing that it wants to dismantle and change the world order that we established, with the Americans, at the end of the Second World War, which has given huge security to the globe and increased the wealth of many parts of the world. This meeting really showed that. The fact that this world order is under threat stems from the Ukraine war and is very worrying. It all adds up to the importance of thwarting Putin in Ukraine.
Our primary object must be to keep Ukraine in the war until the damage to Putin, financially and militarily, makes him recognise that he must reach a peace accord. What exactly that comprises, how it is implemented and the European involvement is downstream work to that primary purpose. What is needed now is commitment to major arms supplies and long-range, in-depth weapons, the imposition of secondary sanctions, which will make China and India stop giving their support, and the use of the frozen assets in Belgium to purchase Ukrainian arms and help reconstruction.
The important message to Putin will be delivered through NATO increasing defence spending. Putin is a dangerous maverick. It is extraordinary that he is already conducting a war in the grey zone. There have been two WMD attacks in Britain. His lackeys are constantly attacking our cyber networks. They are conducting online work to destabilise our society. He has facilitated kinetic attacks on our CNI. He is threatening to carry out attacks on our underwater cables. He is regularly penetrating NATO airspace. We must succeed in thwarting Putin’s illegal and appalling attack on Ukraine, or events could gain a momentum of their own, leading, I believe, to a major world war.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, and thank the Minister for his excellent speech at the commencement of this debate.
Russia continues to inflict terror and destruction upon the people of Ukraine. Speaking to the regional administration in the Chernihiv Oblast this week, it was reported to me that Russia, in clear violation of international law, had deliberately targeted its civilian infrastructure, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without power. Of course, this is the case elsewhere in the country, and winter approaches.
The war in Ukraine has exposed the fragility of western readiness and tested a complacency which for too long has characterised much of Europe’s defence, so dependent on the United States. Quite simply, defence spending remains key, and our resolve regarding aggression and stability must be matched by our own capacity. If there is one nation that has truly grasped the scale of this new reality, it is Poland, which has emerged as a model—indeed, as the iron shield of NATO’s eastern flank, so important for us and for Ukraine. The role that it now plays in the security of Europe cannot be downplayed, for Poland today spends some 4.5% of its GDP on defence. It is worth noting that, just a decade ago, UK spending was the third highest in NATO as a percentage of GDP; it is now 12th. Poland has achieved strategic clarity that places deterrence and preparedness at the centre of its defence policy.
I declare an interest as a director of the think tank the Council on Geostrategy, which has presented a blueprint for a trilateral initiative between the UK, Poland and Ukraine, building on the trilateral agreement signed in 2022, to increase closer and more structured co-operation between the three countries. Rekindling the trilateral format could help give British industry an additional boost over our competitors as Poland’s defence spending grows through its intense co-operation with its near Baltic neighbours. It is a country that is uniquely essential for the security of Ukraine. It is sending a very clear message to an ever-aggressive Russia for the future, to our national benefit and our security.
The Government’s announcement of the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership is a landmark. However, significant work must be undertaken to develop this excellent agreement. As we rightly continue to arm and assist Ukraine, we must also help it prepare for the peace that ultimately will happen. Prior to the full-scale invasion, Ukraine recognised, through its own constitution and reform agenda, that its path on a European trajectory was reliant on proper decentralisation and empowered local government. War has necessitated centralisation in Kyiv, but when martial law is lifted, power has to flow back to the regions, cities and communities that will be tasked with rebuilding Ukraine from the ground up. This is where the UK can well support the future of Ukraine.
I note that this model is already being quietly exported through paradiplomacy. Several English counties, including my home county of Suffolk, have forged regional partnerships with Ukrainian oblasts. These partnerships have the real potential to be engines of recovery, matching British expertise and experience with Ukrainian innovation and determination. In the Chernihiv region, the Kent With Ukraine partnership has already delivered tonnes of humanitarian aid and instigated English language programmes, and is commencing innovative projects on agriculture through to veterans’ rehabilitation. All of this is being incredibly well received by our friends in Ukraine.
This war, of course, is well beyond a regional conflict. It is a global inflection point. How we react and continue to react will affect generations to come.
Lord Barrow (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and perhaps even a bit overwhelming to join your Lordships’ House, although it is a great comfort to see some familiar faces among the Benches. I do not think I will live up to the billing that so many have kindly given me, but I did want to give my maiden speech in this debate, because I have spent over a decade of my career in Ukraine and Russia: I have been ambassador to Kyiv and to Moscow. When one serves abroad, one lives as well as works abroad. It is an obvious point, but it is salient to what this war and conflict—illegal, unjustified and cruel as it is—means to me. Three of my children went to school in Kyiv. So, right from the start, I associate myself with the comments of my friend the Minister and others about the plight of the abducted children from Ukraine.
Before I go on to this subject, I should first say some thanks to all those who have helped me as I have joined this House. First, I thank the staff: Black Rod’s office, the clerks and the doorkeepers, who very kindly welcomed me warmly from the first day and then politely averted their eyes when I scuttled back past them, having gone the wrong way. I also thank my supporters. I thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who, among other things, I knew from my last stint in Brussels. The other pillar of my career in diplomacy was in Brussels, where I also spent over a decade working on, in and with the European Union, including in many negotiations, culminating perhaps for me in the negotiation of the Windsor Framework. I thank my other supporter, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. It is a truth in life that one is wiser to have the noble Baroness at one’s side. For me, it also represents something I tried to do when National Security Adviser: to make sure that we gave more weight, time and space to the internal and domestic aspects of an issue or crisis, as much as to the international and foreign ones.
Finally, I thank all noble Lords for the generosity and courtesy of their welcome. Do not worry—I have understood the velvet menace in the phrase “self-regulating Chamber”. I have understood that maiden speeches should be brief and bland. The House will be glad to know that my family, ever supportive, have said to me that, after nearly 40 years as a diplomat, I am well versed in one of those skills—and, helpfully, there is the large clock to deal with the other.
It was to Kyiv that I first went before going to Moscow for my substantive posting in 1990, starting in the Soviet Union and finishing in Russia. I still well remember that Christmas Day in 1991 when I was summoned from the festivities to the embassy. Something was afoot in the Kremlin. It turned out to be Gorbachev’s resignation broadcast and it was only many hours later that I returned home. I discovered that I had left the turkey in the oven: it was unrecognisable and inedible. I would like to say that I spent my evening reflecting and seeking to digest the momentous events of that day, but I think I was more preoccupied with the fact that I could not digest the turkey.
There was an important lesson for me from that time. One of the reasons why President Yeltsin would not sign up to Gorbachev’s attempts to create a new federal structure was that Ukraine would not sign, and he would and could not be the Russian President who lost Ukraine. I think that same sentiment resounds all too loudly in today’s Kremlin. This is a war on Ukraine, but it is also about Russia. I remember, when I was in Kyiv, a Ukrainian friend and Minister saying to me, “If only you in the West would care about Ukraine a little more and Moscow care about us less”.
It is in that vein that I warmly endorse and welcome the Minister’s comments about the continued commitment of this country to Ukraine. It has really mattered that this is across Benches and bipartisan. From the eve of the war through those first days and these dreadful years, it has been a clear commitment from successive Governments, and I can tell noble Lords how often Ukrainian friends have noticed and felt that. They need to hear it again, as has been said.
Unfortunately, while our commitment continues, I see no diminution in Moscow’s intent. They have repeatedly said what they mean. You do not need an old Kremlinologist like me; there is no mystery here. They deny the legitimacy of Ukraine as a nation, and they act on their words. If this invasion had been about only some parcels of land, it would have been fully focused on the east. It was not, as other noble Lords have said. It was focused on Kyiv. They came for the capital, the Government and the country. They were checked by the heroism of the Ukrainian people and the courage of President Zelensky, who stayed and stood in that capital. However, this is an ambition thwarted but not abandoned.
So I salute all those who work towards peace, but completely associate myself with the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and others. It feels like a long shot. We should support all those seeking to move this forward—including, of course, President Zelensky and his team, with whom I have had the privilege of working for many hours on this question—but, if we are to get a peace, the only route is through strength, as others have said, by keeping Ukraine in the fight and keeping the pressure on Moscow. If there is a peace, we need to take fully into our policy the theory and practice of our 100-year partnership of continued commitment and engagement, to make sure that Ukraine is strong and that we also learn the lessons. It would be all too easy, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, for this peace to be just a pause and, if our attention wavers, for Ukraine to face a re-energised and revitalised enemy.
I have three questions for the Minister in conclusion. I do not believe that the frozen assets will prove readily and quickly available, so what is the Government’s intention with regard to the prioritised Ukraine requirements list to keep Ukraine in the fight? How does the Minister see the path to progress on the Hague summit defence investment pledge? This is not just about Ukraine, as so many noble Lords have said, so what are the Government doing to develop and strengthen a new deterrence doctrine in all its aspects—political, military and diplomatic—and who will be our partners in such an enterprise? We will need this because, whatever happens in the next days and years in Ukraine, this is a challenge for us as well, and that challenge will not go away.
Finally, I join all those who have said so eloquently and powerfully that the message from this Chamber today must be one of strong, continued support for the Ukrainian people as they face another desperate winter.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, as he makes his first intervention in your Lordships’ debates. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, suggested, the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, has aptly shown that we can look forward to rich contributions from a distinguished diplomatic career.
I was fortunate enough to work with the noble Lord in Brussels, London and a little bit in Moscow. I well recall bringing the P5+1 to Moscow as part of our negotiations with Iran, and the noble Lord hosting senior representatives from France, Germany, the US and China to dinner in the embassy. It is not an everyday occurrence, said the noble Lord, wryly, at the time. They were different times, of course—different circumstances—but a demonstration of the adaptability of the noble Lord in all circumstances. I am sure all noble Lords will join me in wishing him well in his career in your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to the opportunity to hear him enriching our debates in the future.
I thank my noble friend for instigating this debate. I am reminded that this war is well over a decade old. In the autumn of 2013, President Yanukovych of Ukraine walked across the lobby of a hotel in Vilnius and told me that he could not sign an agreement that had been seven years in the making, had been initialled and had brought together most of the European leaders in celebration of its signing. He told me then that he could not sign because of pressure from Moscow.
Standing in Maidan in Kyiv in November 2013, in the deep cold of winter, I watched thousands of people with their European banners demand that the promise made of a stronger and deeper relationship with Europe be fulfilled. Their passion was reflected in similar demonstrations all across the country. I spent many hours with the then President, trying to persuade him; more hours with politicians and representatives from across Ukraine, trying to help solve problems that we know now were just beginning; and, of course, a great deal of time with the Russian Foreign Minister and with President Putin.
From that time, I was aware that President Putin was driven by that combination of history and legacy. His desire to recreate what he perceives as Russia’s glory in empire is combined with the refusal to be the leader—as the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, mentioned in the context of President Yeltsin—who, in his mind, loses Ukraine. Whatever the fallacy of this situation, it is important to understand that, as we consider support for Ukraine not just now but into its future.
We must remain steadfast, as other noble Lords have said. Visits to Ukraine before this phase of the war broke out and broke cover in 2022 revealed that people in Ukraine often felt forgotten. People killed by missile strikes in the Donbass while I was there seemed barely to merit responses in capitals across the world. It felt to me as I left in early 2020 that this cold conflict could fast become frozen.
I remind noble Lords, too, that the conflict in Georgia remains in such a state. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, held by Russia, with barbed wire separating them from the rest of their country, remind us too that in any final resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, we have unfinished business elsewhere.
Ukraine does not take our support for granted, of course. Meeting with colleagues and friends recently in Warsaw, I was conscious of their determination and steadfast nature and of their gratitude to us. I look across this House, at a time when politics seems to thrive on division and anger, and see a united House on this issue—long may that remain. But I also see, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said of her friends and colleagues, the tiredness and anxiety of my friends, who need to know that we will stay with them. I commend the Prime Minister and the ministerial team, including my noble friends, on their strong leadership.
It will one day not only be about the supply of weapons, training of soldiers and coalition of the willing—it will be about how we support Ukraine in resolution of the conflict and stay with this country into the future. Wars end with ragged edges, not with straight lines, with challenges and with dangers. As we help build Ukraine’s future, democratic and free, there is always the risk that conflict will be renewed without the safeguards to prevent it.
What will make the difference is how far the support of the willing is prepared to go. I remember well in negotiations with countries such as Iran, or with Russia itself, that I was conscious that those who sat opposite me in negotiation did not look just at me but at who stood behind me. We must stand squarely behind Ukraine. Ukraine will determine its own future, but those who look from the opposite side at it should see in the role directly behind it no turning away from the steadfast, determined support. For as long as it takes, we must give Ukraine strength in war and strength in peace.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, to this House and congratulate him on his outstanding maiden speech. He is a fine addition to this House. I also declare my interest as a serving Army Reserve officer with the 1st Battalion London Guards.
I wish to start my contribution to this debate with two verified first-hand accounts from Ukraine published in the last week, first from a civilian resident of Kyiv:
“I was sitting in the corridor, waiting out the attack, when I heard a powerful explosion. For a moment, I thought our building was collapsing but it turned out it was the one next door. It was terrifying … We just have to endure it”.
The second is from a soldier describing front-line conditions:
“They hit all cars. They just see someone driving by, and they’ll hit absolutely every car”.
These two testimonies encapsulate the human reality of the conflict in Ukraine: ordinary people enduring unimaginable danger and soldiers facing relentless threats. They remind us that behind strategy and policy are lives, homes and hopes under fire. We must take note of three interlinked dimensions: the ongoing war and its human toll; the effectiveness and limits of our sanctions and support response; and the broader strategic implications for the UK, Europe and the rules-based order.
First, the war continues with full intensity. Civilians live under missile, drone and artillery fire; Ukrainian forces struggle with shortages of manpower and matériel. The front line described by that soldier reveals the brutal randomness of front-line danger. The war is not stabilising; rather, it is grindingly persistent.
Secondly, our sanctions and support regimes are vital but not a panacea. The UK and its allies have introduced strong measures: freezes on assets, bans on Russia’s major oil companies, targeting the shadow fleet, and cutting off key revenue sources. Yet, as the Royal United Services Institute has warned in recent commentary, Russia’s war economy remains capable of sustaining brutal operations because of its high sacrifice ratio and strategic diversion of resources.
Moreover, as explained in a recent report from the Henry Jackson Society, sanctions are undermined by persistent global demand for Russian energy and goods, largely from countries not aligned with the sanctions regime or through a complex web of global financial markets and derivative products, far beyond the comprehension of a simple infanteer such as myself. This universe of loopholes means that Moscow retains avenues to continue revenue flows. I add my voice to the calls to the Government from other noble Lords: even if there is persistent obstruction to the utilisation of frozen Russian assets, could not the interest from those assets be diverted to the Ukrainian cause?
Sanctions are crucial; they must be co-ordinated, multilateral and ruthlessly enforced to have the best chance of success. As we have heard from other noble Lords, the implications for the UK and Europe are profound. If Russia can afford to consider a second front against NATO or Europe via grey-zone tactics, our strategic planning must go beyond Ukraine. Russia must not be allowed to open a second front like Ukraine, but it could wage lower-intensity but highly destabilising actions while Europe falters.
To counter this threat and bring about a just peace that favours Ukraine, we must ensure sanctions remain tight and enforceable, crack down on evasion and co-ordinate with non-Western partners to ensure that frozen assets are leveraged effectively to support Ukraine and hold Russia to account. We must prepare for hybrid threats and have a strong deterrence posture —grey-zone warfare is real. The UK must invest in cyber defences, disinformation resilience, strategic communications and strengthening NATO’s readiness.
We must plan for post-war Ukraine and provide security guarantees. Ukraine’s sovereignty must be underpinned by credible guarantees, and the UK must be part of the coalition of the willing that takes long-term responsibility. We must not falter. We must back the resilience of the rules-based order, with strength and resolve. Let us take note, not only in words but in action.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on how he introduced the debate, which was brilliant. I congratulate the Front Benches on their unanimity of support for Ukraine.
I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who speaks with great authority. His experience of Moscow is much more recent than mine. I was there when Brezhnev’s Moscow invaded Prague and put down Dubček—but perhaps not much has changed. I am very diffident about predicting what will happen in this war, because so much has changed since my time—in particular, America has changed. US policy now seems to be extremely difficult to predict, so the problem my successors face is much bigger than the one I had. We are not sure now about our side, we are not sure where NATO’s core country stands and we cannot be sure that that stance will not change overnight.
By contrast, predicting what Putin does is all too easy—he has told us. All along, he has been completely consistent. In his 2021 essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”, he explains very clearly, going way back into Tsarist history, why he believes that Ukraine has absolutely no right to an independent existence as a country. His Foreign Minister, Lavrov, when asked who advised Putin, said, “Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Ivan the Terrible”. It seems that, for once, Lavrov may not have been lying.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, explained, if Kyiv were to fall, that would not be the end: there would be consequences for parts of Georgia, effectively all of Belarus, and Transnistria in Moldova. If there were a ceasefire, it would be fragile, at least for as long as Putin rules Russia, because he does not accept Ukraine’s right to exist.
Probably 80,000 to 100,000 Russians have been killed in the Ukraine war in this calendar year. Attack is much costlier in lives than defence—five or six to one is the ratio—particularly as drones now transform the battlefield. There are not that many people on these front lines—we are not talking about something like the Somme—but those who are there do not stay long. A Russian blog recently claimed that life expectancy on the front line is 12 days, 11 of which are spent in training—Russian humour can be very bland. Will heavy casualties stop Putin? I do not think so. Will the huge economic damage to Russia stop him? I do not think so.
How long can Kyiv, with its smaller population, sustain a war of attrition? I do not know—but its people’s courage, determination and technological innovation are remarkable. Clearly, we must ensure that they do not lose, because, as has been said from all sides of this House, their war is our war, their defence is our defence and their survival is in our national interest.
Of course we want a ceasefire—what is going on is horrific—but our Government are right to say that the West will have to be ready to provide security guarantees. Given the fate of the Budapest memorandum—the Russians tore it up when they invaded Crimea in 2014, and we shamefully looked the other way—security guarantees would have to be made enforceable by the deployment of forces in Ukraine. Given the position and unprecedented unpredictability of the United States, the bulk of the armed forces would have to be European.
Therefore, I support what our Government are trying to do and accept the concept of the coalition of the willing, which was explained today by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. My one criticism of the Government’s position is that the need for our involvement has not yet been sufficiently spelled out to the British people. The defence White Paper rightly called for rearmament, but sometimes it made it sound like a useful job creation scheme that was more about national economic growth than national defence and survival.
I believe that we are in a 1938 situation. If the Donbass goes, Putin will be back for the rest. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, was right to point to the fragility of the Baltic states and the conclusions those countries have drawn from their fragility, and to mention the concept of all-society defence. Finland has a population the same size of that of Scotland, but in a crisis, Finland can put 1 million men under arms and, as a result, it will not be attacked—it is secure.
I hope that, one day, relations with Russia can be rebuilt. The evil done by the state machine is not the fault of the people. However, while Putin or any like-minded successor is in power, we must help Kyiv hold him at bay and we must explain to the British people why that really matters. Looking back on last year’s election, it is a pity that defence and the question of Ukraine rarely featured. The unanimity of this House in support of Ukraine is excellent, but rather than just agreeing with each other in here, we need to be out there persuading the country that what we say is true.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I join others in warmly welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, to the House and thank him so much for his inspirational maiden speech.
As we all know, it is now more than three years since Russia’s wicked invasion of Ukraine, which shattered the peace of Europe and the understanding on which our post-Cold War security rested. What began as an attempt to subjugate a foreign neighbour has called into question the positionality of an entire generation, as we in the West continue to falter in our resolve, resilience and the values we claim to cherish.
This time last year, this House spoke of the courage and endurance both of the Ukrainian people and of the western alliance supporting them. Since then, the world has changed drastically, with the return of President Trump, who has forced us to reconsider approaches we thought were axiomatic. Where NATO allies once spoke in unison, there is now always a sense of looking over one’s shoulder to see where Washington might have landed on an issue. Yet, amid the shifting language of diplomacy, one truth remains constant: Ukraine’s fight is our fight, for the purposes of sovereignty, freedom and the rule of law.
Noble Lords will remember that, in February, our International Relations and Defence Committee reflected soberly on what the war has revealed, concluding that Russia’s invasion marked the return of conventional warfare to Europe and, with that, the end of complacency. We have had to face the sombre reality that NATO’s defence posture has failed and that the United Kingdom and her allies alike are unprepared for war. Indeed, our defence industrial base, resources and endurance were all found lacking. Granted, the defence review began to address some of these weaknesses, but, if we want to be taken seriously on the world stage and protect our security from non-traditional threats, this is only the beginning. Our security cannot depend upon assumptions nor upon the good will of others. Instead, it must rest on readiness, risk mitigation and realism.
While the people of Ukraine continue to fight under relentless bombardment and humble us all with their courage, the least they can ask of the democratic nations of the world is not to falter in our championing of them. Be it through military supply, humanitarian relief or diplomatic advocacy, the voice of United Kingdom still carries. We must ensure that it continues to do so, not through rhetoric alone, but through consistent action. Tears in the fabric of the western alliance only embolden Moscow and signal to others, such as Beijing and Tehran, that the resolve of democracies is fallible.
It is undeniable that we have learned a great deal from Ukraine in terms of innovation and strategy in the last few years, but we must not forget to consider the moral arena too. Ukraine reminds us that freedom is never free, that deterrence must be actionable and that the financial burden of defence can never outweigh a national duty. As the world becomes ever more divided and relations that have existed for generations start to change, we see new powers coming to the fore, and the United Kingdom must remain centre stage. We stand by Ukraine not merely because it is right, but because our own peace depends upon its defence against the tyranny of oppression. Let us therefore recommit in word, in will and in deed to ensuring that Ukraine prevails, that aggression fails and that liberty endures.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and the strong unanimity which has been shown by our Front Benches and, indeed, right across the House. Like others, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, whom I have encountered in the past, and I very much appreciate what he had to say and look forward to hearing much more from him.
I want to take noble Lords back to 5 December 1994, when the Budapest memorandum was signed. From Ukraine’s perspective, it was a cast-iron security guarantee in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. The Russian signatory was Boris Yeltsin. He was replaced by Putin at the end of 1999. Shortly after that, I became a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where I served until 2005. In my early meetings there, there were outspoken voices on the Russian delegation warning of the erosion of democracy within Russia and of Putin’s malign intent. By the time I left the Council of Europe, those voices had disappeared.
The second Chechen war started in 2001. The late Lord Judd, distinguished and much-missed Member of this House, was the rapporteur for the Council of Europe. Russia refused him a visa to visit the region, and the Assembly suspended the voting rights of the Russian delegation. A week later, Tony Blair took Putin to meet the Queen.
My point is that the hostile intent of Putin’s Russia became apparent to me very early on in his rule, but, sadly, the British political establishment refused to recognise it. Indeed, at that time, Conservative MPs even left the mainstream group in the Council of Europe to join the European Democrat Group alongside Putin’s MPs.
The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky—a very brave man, whom I had the privilege of meeting this week—and the seizure of the assets of Yukos, Russia’s most successful post-Soviet company, raised barely a ripple here; the media was not interested. At the time, the Magnitsky scandal went pretty much unnoticed. It took the murder, attempted murder and unexplained deaths of Russian expatriates in the UK to wake people up to the Russian threat. Of course, the most high-profile example of this was Alexander Litvinenko.
Then, in 2008, Russia annexed Ukraine. Still, we did not react. Encouraged by our weakness, Putin invaded in February 2024. Yes, he misjudged it badly; he failed to recognise the resolve of the Ukrainian people. If Budapest meant anything, if the threat to the front-line states needed to be countered, we had to act. We have acted very late and in concert. It was a little ironic that President Trump was proposing to meet President Putin in Budapest of all places.
Nevertheless, the support has so far been enough only to contain the Russians and, for the Ukrainians, exhausted and facing increasing build-up of Russian strength, the situation, as many people have commented, does look bleak. It may be that, over the next five years, the commitments that European states are making will build up a defensive capacity that will fully deter Russia from expansionism. However, with US vacillation and focus on China, the situation could deteriorate very rapidly.
So, what steps can the UK and the coalition of the willing take, first, to enable Ukraine to hold back Russian advances and, secondly, to make the Kremlin understand that it cannot win? We should make it clear that our war is not with the Russian people, many of whom may believe it is the West that is the aggressor, because that is what they have been told. We ended the Cold War and—naively, as it turns out—celebrated a peace dividend, only to arrive at a place today where we have a hot war that is getting hotter.
We should salute the bravery and the resilience of the people of Ukraine, but we should recognise their exhaustion and suffering. They are at the cutting edge of innovation in fighting this kind of war. We should value the strength and realism of the front-line states, as my noble friend and others have said—the Baltics, Finland, Sweden and Romania. They are our front line of defence if Russia moves and are much better equipped than we are to defend us than we are to defend ourselves.
Somehow, we must get across to the United States that swithering and vacillation only encourage Putin, who has to be faced with determination to be convinced that he cannot win. We should not underestimate the extent to which we here in the UK are effectively already at war with Russia. We know what it is doing to our infrastructure and the threats that it is making, and our social media is infiltrated by Russian algorithms designed to sow anger and division. No wonder Nigel Farage and Alex Salmond had a platform on Russia Today. Right now, Putin thinks he can win, and he is playing us along. Unless he believes the price is too high, maybe he will. We really have to step up to make sure he does not.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, on his insightful and authoritative maiden speech.
As missiles slam into a kindergarten and little children are heard asking their rescuers, “Am I going to die?”, it is almost impossible to fathom the depths of depravity to which the mass murderer Putin has descended. How does anyone regard the development of weapons designed to send huge, radioactive waves smashing into civilian infrastructure as somehow representing progress? Yet that is exactly how Putin described this new development only a few days ago.
Putin is pure evil—rational, sadistic, senseless evil. And he is on the march, painstakingly, incrementally, insidiously, but on the march none the less and, if he has his way, far beyond Ukraine, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and my noble friend Lady Eaton reminded us. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, we no longer live in a peacetime era. We know that any rewards for his sadistic aggression in Ukraine will only increase, rather than sate, his appetite. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, implicitly asked: are we alive as a society to the scale of the threat, or are we so desensitised by over three years of horrors unfolding on our TV screens, only a few hours away by plane, that we refuse to see what comes next if Putin is not repulsed now?
I can completely understand why anyone should find it difficult to contemplate the possibility that the savagery being visited on a fellow European democracy could be visited on us. It hardly bears thinking about, and yet we need to. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said in answer to my question of 25 February:
“The idea that this conflict does not directly affect the people of the United Kingdom is wrong. It is important that we remind people in our country that the conflict in Ukraine and the invasion by Russia are a threat to our security here”.—[Official Report, 25/2/25; col. 1657.]
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, pointed out, Putin believes we are prioritising welfare benefits over war-fighting regiments. If reports in today’s media of the terms of the PIP review are accurate, he is correct. My fear, as a primary stakeholder of the welfare state, because of my disability, is that the welfare state will not survive contact with the enemy. Indeed, we may need warfare to protect welfare and so much else that we take for granted.
In conclusion, I simply say to the Minister who is wrapping up the debate that I hope next month’s Budget will reflect today’s consensus in your Lordships’ House: that Ukraine must be given the means to finish the job and put Putin back in his box. The sad truth is that we cannot afford to do otherwise.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, it is possible that future historians will assess Vladimir Putin as one of the most strategically incompetent dictators in Russian history. A man who intended to destroy and denude Ukraine of its sovereign defence-industrial base has in fact has led to a stronger capability on the part of Ukraine than at any point in its independent history. A man who determined night and day to sow discord across NATO has nevertheless caused the accession of Sweden and Finland, as we have heard. A man who preaches the virtues of imperial Russia finds himself a supplicant to Beijing and Pyongyang. But all of that is cold comfort, given the critical situation now facing Ukraine, as we have heard from the noble and gallant lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord West.
As President Zelensky has reminded us, the situation right now in Pokrovsk is on a knife edge, with potentially much wider ramifications for the fortress belt and for Donbass. Putin clearly has no interest in a ceasefire that would be viable for an independent Ukraine, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, in his excellent and judicious maiden speech, was quite right to warn and remind us that the only route to peace is through continuing Ukrainian strength.
Future historians might, however, also look back at our own response: not that of the successive British Governments, whose leadership on Ukraine has been outstanding, but on the broader sluggardliness of the response when it comes to funding or materiel that Ukraine has needed. It is over three years since President Zelensky first raised the question of allowing Ukrainians access to the frozen Russian assets. It is over a year ago that the European Union first began debating that and, within the last week, we find that again scuppered by Belgian concerns. We need to continue to apply the economic vice much more vigorously at a time when, after initial resilience, the Russian economy is now showing genuine signs of strain. In the real world, inflation is probably running at over 20%, as against the 8% being reported by the Russian central bank. Russia’s critical oil and gas revenues are down by 20% year on year, with a further squeeze about to come. Now is not the time to relent.
On weapons systems, again, it is only fair to conclude that we collectively have been too slow in getting Ukraine the weapons systems it requires. That is true whether it has been HIMARS, ATACMS, Abrams tanks or F16s. On each occasion, we have been given pause by the cognitive warfare or the bluster from the Kremlin as to theoretical red lines, which turn out to be non-existent. We are about to make the same mistake again in respect of the deep strike capabilities that the Ukrainians require through Tomahawks. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, rightly said at the outset, civilian casualties are rising in Ukraine; part of the reason for that is because of the capabilities that exist deep behind the Russian border. It is Tomahawks that will be in a position to degrade capabilities such as the Shahed drone factory in Yelabuga or the Engels-2 strategic bomber air force base being used for the new precision glide bombs. These are the capabilities that Ukraine needs now.
As Prime Minister Donald Tusk rightly reminded us all this past weekend, and as we have heard with unanimity in the Chamber this morning, this is not just a fight for Ukraine; this is our fight, but not some fight beyond our borders. This is a fight happening in Europe right now. We have seen within the last few weeks MiG-31s in Estonian airspace. We have seen drone incursions in Poland, Germany, Denmark and Norway, and electoral interference in Moldova and Romania. This is happening now. Putin thinks that the consequence of this will be to strike fear in our hearts. The far bigger risk is insouciance, phlegmatism and distraction. We need to raise our game and strengthen our critical national infrastructure. We need to send much clearer messages of deterrence and impose costs on the Russians for these actions, and to make sure that our fellow citizens understand precisely what is going on.
Lord Brennan (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have to declare a connection with Ukraine. In April 2018, as a barrister, I advised the Government in Kyiv about joining the European Union. I went with them in a delegation to Brussels at the end of that month, so if it turns out that I know people, that is the background as to why.
In my submission, the real question about the emphasis over the next four months should be in relation to military assistance or a more intelligent commercial attack on Russia. In terms of continued assistance, the Minister is to be commended for the nobility of the deep commitments he has given Ukraine from our country.
Why? I got some evidence yesterday morning from the man who runs the drone force for the Ukranians. He sent an electronic radar picture, like a photograph, which tracks all the bombs, drones and missiles across Ukraine during the night. The image that it produced for Wednesday night was horrific. Everywhere was due to be bombed or hit—in particular the area to the west of the Dnieper River. They are called the Heights. Once you get over 20 or 30 kilometres of the Heights, you hit flat land and it is then a straight run to Kyiv. The Russians are clearly bent on getting control of the Heights, in terms of bombing and men. We must continue to help the Ukrainians as best we can.
When will Russia stop or change its mind? Some noble Lords may have read Peter Frankopan’s article in the Financial Times this week about Putin’s reading list. He has got all the information from the Trump office and other places. Putin has drowned people with whom he has been negotiating with long pieces about Russian medieval history, which in Peter Frankopan’s terms he put into a “thousand-year continuum”. The Ukraine extension is part of that history of Russia and its inevitable process of expansion. It is quite remarkable. In the history that Frankopan describes, one of the main areas of interest for Putin was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which at that time had a massive land force connection across southern Russia.
What could he do next? The fight has to go on. Four years next February, after a chill winter, it will be the same as the whole of the First World War or two-thirds of the Second World War. In the middle of central Europe, this is happening to our people, fellow citizens.
So keep the support on the military front. What about financial pressure? Sanctions, reparation fund requirements, are so obvious a weapon that it is remarkable that it is only in the last couple of months that America in particular has started to push hard in terms of oil and gas sanctions: ways of attacking the Russians economically. That is very, very important. The Russian GDP figure for the inclusion of oil and gas shows a drop of nearly 10% in the last 12 months—money coming in through GDP—and 26% in month-on-month public finances receipts. Those are enormous amounts of money that they are losing. We should stick hard on that front. The Russians have just put up for international sale Lukoil and Rosneft, their two biggest foreign oil companies, because they are not making money from them. Trump seems to have pushed the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries in particular into pursuing the oil market going across Asia.
After this trouble, perhaps after next February, Ukraine will need a new President. It is due electorally by the laws of the country. Zelensky has been President since 2019. Next year will be his seventh year. It is time enough. Ukraine needs a man or woman who is smart, effective and able to control, to take over the country anew once we get through the next six to 12 months— and to be supported in doing that. As far as Putin is concerned, I was once in Moscow and a Russian told me, “You can get the man out of the KGB, but you can’t get the KGB out of the man”. That is Putin.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I was president of the CBI when the Ukraine war started, when Russia illegally invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022. On the Monday after the war started, I went to see ambassador Vadym Prystaiko at the Ukrainian embassy to offer the help of British industry. It was then that I heard 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. We must remember that the war started over a decade ago—in Crimea in 2014.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said in his excellent speech, Moscow’s aim was to undermine NATO, but here is blunder number two by Putin. The week after the invasion, I was scheduled to speak to the EU ambassadors at their regular meeting at the EU embassy in Smith Square. During my speech I looked at the ambassadors of Finland and Sweden and said, “Are you ready now to join NATO?” They said, “We are ready 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. They have a far longer border with Russia—more than 1,400 kilometres—than Ukraine does. Both countries are also formidable defence manufacturing powers: rifles, artillery, aircraft, you name it.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his excellent opening speech, said that there is a lack of equipment. We cannot support Ukraine in a half-hearted way. Every Peer who has spoken in this debate, whether independent or from any party, is united in defending and supporting Ukraine, but we must do it all the way. Why do we not give them the Tomahawks? President Zelensky said, “Give me wings”, when he came here and addressed us. As an honorary group captain in 601 Squadron of the Royal Air Force, I am so proud that it is the RAF that is now training Ukrainian pilots to fly F16s. I am like a stuck record. In the 2019 debate on the 70th anniversary of NATO, I said that when we were spending 2% of GDP on defence, we should be spending 3%. Does the Minister agree that that is what we should be doing?
Russia’s illegal invasion continues to devastate Ukraine as a country, displace millions and undermine European and global security. The fighting is intense, yet Russia’s progress is limited. Ukraine still holds the fortified fortress belt. Russia has now intensified its missile and drone campaign. In one week earlier this month, it launched more than 3,000 drones, 92 missiles and 1,400 glide bombs. Financial support for Ukraine has been amazing and, on top of that, I am proud of the way the UK leads the coalition of the willing with France. I am proud at the way the UK leads in the United Nations and with other resolutions that are required.
Why are we worried about escalation? Already, the Russians have incursions in Estonian airspace and in Poland. We have got to deal with this and face up to it. Importantly, Ukraine has now become a testing ground for modern warfare, pioneering FPV drones, small-unit manoeuvres, electronic warfare protection, naval drones and drones for logistics and prisoner capture. This is fantastic. Ukraine has institutionalised a Test in Ukraine programme. We need to learn from the Ukrainians. No one has mentioned that £3.5 billion in UK export finance has enabled Ukraine to build and reconstruct six bridges in the Kyiv region and supported delivery of mine countermeasure vessels. I am proud of that. On top of that, there are 2,800 sanctions.
Yet, since November 2022, Russia has gained only 1% of Ukrainian territory. Its losses are horrific. More than 1 million soldiers have been killed or wounded, as has been mentioned. Russia is also losing huge amounts of material—4,000 tanks, 9,000 armoured vehicles, 2,000 artillery pieces—and is failing to achieve its goals on the battlefield. I acknowledge the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, with all his expertise.
Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, said that he would be prepared to station Britain’s troops in Ukraine in peace. Will the Minister confirm that? The European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and leaders of Nordic countries have said that they are confident that the use of Russian frozen assets for Ukrainian benefit would be approved by December. Do we support that?
Nick Robinson recently interviewed Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, our former Chief of the Defence Staff. He said this:
“If a snail had left Rostov-on-Don in Russia on February 24, 2022, by now it would have crossed all the way through Ukraine and would be halfway through Poland. That’s how difficult Russia is finding it just to get those four oblasts. If Russia carries on at the pace that it currently is, it will take it 4.4 years to get the remaining territory in those four oblasts. And having lost 1 million people killed and wounded, it will lose a further 2 million people killed and wounded. So this is about Ukraine’s bravery, Ukraine’s courage, our support to Ukraine to keep them in the fight and to keep imposing that cost on Russia”.
I conclude with this quote from Yuval Noah Harari in the Financial Times:
“War is not won by the side that conquers more land, destroys more cities, or kills more people. War is won by the side that achieves its political aims. And in Ukraine, it is already clear that Putin has failed to achieve his chief war aim—the destruction of the Ukrainian nation”.
The voice from the House of Lords to the world, to this country and to Ukraine is loud and clear: the United Kingdom stands by Ukraine 100%, all the way.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, welcome him to this House and thank him for the work that he has done and will continue to do for the people of Ukraine. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for bringing this important debate to the House.
After more than three and a half years of full-scale war in Ukraine, the human cost remains staggering. According to the UN, more than 10,000 civilians have been killed and 20,000 injured since Russia’s invasion in 2022. Around 6.5 million Ukrainians remain displaced abroad, 90% of whom are women and children; and 3.6 million are internally displaced, 59% of whom are women. Behind those numbers are families, homes and futures interrupted, and, for many women, lives marked by violence and loss that cannot be spoken aloud.
As many colleagues know, I have worked for decades on the women, peace and security agenda. I will therefore focus my remarks on the gendered impact of this war, the importance of accountability and the practical steps that the UK can take to ensure justice and recovery for survivors.
The Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, where I serve as a global ambassador and adviser, continues to document these realities through its conflict tracker for Ukraine. Its data shows that, since 2022, there has been a sharp escalation of conflict-related sexual violence, particularly in occupied areas. Survivors have described systematic abuse used to terrorise communities, yet prosecutions remain painfully rare.
The institute’s research also finds that, despite this suffering, Ukrainian women are not only victims but leaders in humanitarian response, local peacebuilding and governance. Women’s organisations, despite their critical front-line role, receive less than 1% of international aid—a gap now widened by US foreign aid cuts. They are organising shelter, food, trauma care and documentation of war crimes. Many have also joined the armed forces, with 100,000 now recorded within Ukraine’s military personnel, including a large number on the front line. Those women are redefining what resilience under fire looks like. But, as Georgetown reminds us, inclusion must extend beyond courage; it must shape peace. Women must have a seat at the table in all reconciliation, reconstruction and accountability processes. Without their voices, recovery will be incomplete.
Justice, too, cannot wait. Here I wish to raise three practical issues that deserve scrutiny. The first is the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club, which many of my colleagues have mentioned and which we debated recently. The interest accrued on those frozen funds as well as any associated tax revenue should be directed to survivors of human rights violations caused by this war. It would be inappropriate for those revenues to flow into the Treasury’s general budget when they are morally and publicly earmarked for the victims of aggression. I hope the Minister will update the House on whether that interest is being held, reinvested or applied towards reparations.
Secondly, I wish to ask about the £800,000 seized from the Russian oligarch, Petr Aven, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These funds currently sit in a holding account while the department decides their destination. Directing them towards reparation for survivors would send a strong signal that the assets of such individuals will not rest comfortably in limbo but be used to repair harm and help the cause.
Thirdly, I would welcome progress on establishing an international claims commission for Ukraine under the Council of Europe. That mechanism could become a cornerstone of accountability if it is survivor-centred, inclusive and adequately resourced. I ask the Government to confirm what steps the United Kingdom is taking to encourage other states to sign and ratify the convention; whether we plan to contribute technical or financial support; and how we will ensure that the commission covers violations dating back to 2014, as survivors and civil society have requested. From my conversations with Ukrainian women leaders, their message is clear: justice must not begin in 2022; the trauma of Crimea and the Donbass cannot be erased.
As we debate sanctions and mechanisms, we must remember the missing children, whom many of my colleagues have mentioned, and that behind every policy are survivors—women searching for their missing husbands, children uprooted by occupation and grandmothers holding together entire families.
The World Bank now estimates Ukraine’s reconstruction costs at over $486 billion, a figure based on a joint assessment of damage up to December 2023, yet rebuilding infrastructure alone will not restore what has been lost. Rebuilding trust, safety and justice are absolutely important.
I also wish to acknowledge the remarkable role of Ukraine’s civil society, often led by women’s organisations such as La Strada Ukraine, which provides support for survivors of sexual violence and trafficking, which is still happening despite the war. Those organisations continue to operate under shellfire, often without funding, while ensuring that evidence reaches international investigators.
The UK has a proud history of championing the women, peace and security agenda, beginning with our own national action plan and the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative. We must now ensure that those commitments are more than words on paper; that means sustained funding for survivor-centred justice and constant diplomatic pressure for accountability.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for bringing forward this debate, and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, on his excellent maiden speech. Russia’s full-scale invasion launched over three years ago is an act of unwarranted aggression and a complete repudiation of the rules-based international order that this House has long defended.
Today, I wish to focus on the appalling humanitarian crisis caused by Russia’s disgraceful abduction of Ukrainian children, which underlines the UK’s moral obligation to explore every possible opportunity to support Ukraine’s economy so that its armed forces can continue to push back against Putin’s war machine.
Of all the crimes committed by Putin’s regime, none is more barbaric than the systematic, state-sponsored abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children. The figures are staggering: Save the Children estimates that more than 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly transferred to Russia or Russian-occupied territories. This is not some unfortunate accident or a by-product of modern conflict; it is designed to fatally undermine Ukraine by destroying its future. We hear reports that these young lives are being exposed to forced militarisation and placed in camps, military bases and foster families, all with the intent of dissolving their Ukrainian roots.
The UK has rightly played an important role in marshalling international pressure on Moscow, yet this is the bare minimum. We have an absolute moral obligation to do everything we can to ensure Ukraine’s survival and eventual triumph. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I remind noble Lords that the UK was one of four signatories to the 1994 Budapest memorandum, by which Ukraine agreed to relinquish its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal in return for security assurances. The failings of the West to stand by these assurances, combined with Russia’s endless and increasing threats, have demonstrated to autocrats across the globe that nuclear weapons give you the right to act with impunity. We therefore have a moral obligation to ensure that the international pressure on Moscow is not just maintained but dramatically intensified. Every individual, every facilitator and every institution complicit in this monstrous scheme must face the full force of our sanctions and travel bans.
The safe and immediate return of those children is not negotiable. It is a moral duty and a prerequisite for any just peace. But moral clarity alone is not enough. The past century has decisively demonstrated that peace is secured through strength, and that strength must be economic as well as military. Ukraine cannot defeat Russian aggression without a resilient and self-sustaining economy. We have been leaders, rightly pledging £21 billion in support since 2022, but our focus must now shift firmly to the long term. Military aid is vital—it buys time—but economic aid buys a future. We must ensure that Ukraine has the fiscal stability to pay its teachers, heat its homes and rebuild its infrastructure, all while fighting a war of national survival. We must recognise that trade is a superior long-term strategy to aid. While we rightly send funds and military equipment, we must also ensure Ukraine can earn its own way to recovery.
The UK’s free trade agreement with Ukraine has been a critical lifeline, allowing Ukrainian farmers and manufacturers working under the most impossible conditions to sustain their industries. Those exports generate crucial foreign revenue, with the tax receipts directly funding Ukraine’s armed forces. There is, however, a looming cut-off for Ukrainian poultry and eggs, which were singled out for a two-year extension, as opposed to five as originally intended. At this critical stage, we must ensure that Ukraine can earn every last penny it can, and I call on the Government to ensure that Ukrainian farmers retain tax-free access to the UK market.
Let us reject the defeatism that says this conflict is a stalemate. Let us reject the moral blindness that accepts the abduction of children as an inevitable consequence of war. Let us instead commit to a policy rooted in two unshakeable pillars: first, the tireless pursuit of justice and the return of every single Ukrainian child, and secondly, the unwavering provision of maximum economic support, ensuring Ukraine does not just survive this brutal invasion but emerges victorious and whole.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lady, Baroness Pidding. As widely acknowledged, far from crumbling, Ukraine under President Zelensky’s inspiring leadership and with western help has held off all Russia has unleashed over nearly four years of combat. Putin’s 2022 special operation assumed that there would be sufficient support for it throughout Ukraine and that Russian forces would quickly achieve a decisive result; time has shown that this was a complete miscalculation. So, after yet another summer of combat, with heavy losses in equipment and manpower, Russia seems little nearer to achieving its strategic aims. Why?
Despite Russia’s numerical advantage in manpower, technology and operational strength, has it really committed to an all-out effort to win but lacked the right operational tactics? Was its whole strategy just that inept? While some in the West might agree, it is naive to think that the Russians are such a basket case.
Certainly, and rightly, the West considers Russia a real threat to NATO. Although maybe not with quite the same expansionist fervour of the communist regime of the old Soviet Union, but with a mix of attack capabilities and nuclear, Russia would be a formidable foe for NATO.
Let us take a look at NATO through a Kremlin telescope. Far from being the defensive alliance it claims, NATO has advanced further and further east across Europe, having now advanced, with ever-greater capability, right up to the very borders of western Mother Russia. America and Canada could threaten eastern Russia across the north Pacific and from the far north in a large-scale NATO pincer movement. Themselves past masters of deception and falsehood, the Russians must presume on this evidence that NATO’s defensive claim is as false a claim as any that Russia makes.
Oleg Gordievsky, the highly rated KGB colonel run so successfully by MI6, gave us massive high-grade intelligence. We should particularly recall one piece of it. He said that the Kremlin’s then abiding fear was that NATO would attack Russia. Is that perhaps even now its abiding fear? Has Russia not committed itself fully against Ukraine to ensure that its response to any NATO action would be robust and, if need be, even nuclear?
We rightly acknowledge that there are still too many weaknesses in NATO’s defence and deterrent posture, for which more money must be found, but rather than descend into some further arms race abyss, surely the time for diplomacy and peaceful resolution of the existing tensions and warfare has never been greater. Is this achievable with Putin in the Kremlin? The Wagner Group revolt against Putin in 2023 fizzled out and its leader, Prigozhin, was eliminated. Since then, some high-ranking military commanders have been disgraced, accused of failure or corruption. Are they a pool of resentment, even of revolt?
The impact of sanctions, albeit slow, is increasing. Fuel rationing is being introduced. The large numbers of battlefield casualties, to which reference has been made, will become more widely known. All these are strong downsides for Putin, but will he accept a ceasefire or frontier freeze if he does not have under Russian control not only the Ukrainian regions annexed prior to February 2022 but at least all the Donbass and some neighbouring cities as well, and, of course, a guarantee that there is no chance of Ukraine ever joining NATO or the EU? Anything less would look like failure. He would be a goner. To make real progress, must a less intransigent individual or Government first take over? Time will tell.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister’s inspiring speech emphasised, and the excellent maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, reiterated, all the indications are that Russia is preparing for a long war. The Kremlin continues to invest in the militarisation and mobilisation of Russian society and its defence industrial base. Indeed, it is now mobilising reservists on a rolling basis to fight in Ukraine.
The Institute for the Study of War assesses that Russia has entered its “Phase Zero” stage, investing in the “informational and psychological condition-setting” to prepare for a possible war even beyond Ukrainian borders. The West has made progress in recognising the Russian threat and has started gradually to increase its defence industrial capability to support Ukraine and our own defence, but we remain in a reactive posture. We have yet to mobilise our support of Ukraine fully, and yet to counter Russia’s growing malign activities in Europe meaningfully. As a result, Putin sees little reason to stop. The latest balloon attacks on Lithuanian airports from Belarus are a case in point. As Edward Lucas pointed out in the Times yesterday:
“This is brazen psychological warfare against NATO”.
Yet the West has all the necessary capacity to counter the Russian threat and take us off this trajectory towards a wider war. Russia is not weak, but it is weak relative to its present goals. Three years into the war, Putin has failed to achieve any of the stated aims of his so-called “special military operation” and, as we heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, there have been over one million Russian casualties.
The battle for Pokrovsk has now been going on for one year, three months, one week and five days. What has helped Putin mask Russia’s many vulnerabilities is western incrementalism: gradual, incohesive pressure on Russia that has granted him military sanctuaries and space to reconstitute. Yet, as Nataliya Bugayova of the Institute for the Study of War has pointed out:
“The combined gross domestic product (GDP) of NATO countries, non-NATO European Union states, and”
the US’s
“Asian allies is over $63 trillion. The Russian GDP is on the close order of $1.9 trillion. … China is enabling Russia, but it is not mobilized on behalf of Russia … If we lean in and surge, Russia loses”.
To prevent the West achieving this kind of unity and momentum, the Kremlin continues to wage its cognitive war effort aimed at persuading us not to take more vigorous action—in particular, by giving or selling long-range missiles—which would deny Putin his military sanctuary spaces deep inside Russia. Russia’s way of doing this ranges from a continued nuclear blackmail and mixed diplomatic signals to blaming the West and Ukraine for Russia’s own failure meaningfully to engage in negotiations.
All too often, Russia’s useful idiots in the West amplify its disinformation campaigns. To break this cycle, we need to put Putin on the defensive. Ways of doing this have been clear all along—primarily, helping Ukraine to realise its full defence industrial base potential.
Ukraine went from a single-digit capacity before the invasion to a capacity of $30 billion today. Ukraine’s homegrown weapons systems have been a consistent source of her advantage. Hopefully, in January, Flamingo will be deployed: a deceptively named 1,800-mile range, 560 mph, jet-powered cruise missile with a 1,150 kg warhead.
We need to stop imagining that we can ever achieve a lasting peace in Europe without helping Ukraine inflict decisive battlefield defeat on Russia. Above all, we must get into a proactive—and out of our reactive—posture and do everything possible to help Ukraine degrade Russia’s capacity to continue the war. We are part of the coalition of the willing, but all too many other western countries are part of the coalition of the waiting.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will start with the one uncontroversial thing I am going say, which is to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Barrow. I look forward to his contribution, particularly in view of his past career.
I am speaker number 28. With the exception of my good and noble friend Lord Skidelsky, I do not imagine that anyone apart from me is going to upset the consensus. The fact of the matter is that, first, the British public are not united behind what we are trying to do. They do not actually understand what we are trying to do. They do not know what we are trying to do. They do not know how much money we have sent to Ukraine, and how much we have subsidised Ukraine.
I have visited the Ukraine on 11 occasions, so I am not someone who has just been a holiday-maker or looked from afar. I spent a lot of that time actually in the east, in the Donbass, where it was quite clear to me that the great majority of the Russian-speaking population were in no way friends of Kyiv. Most of them wished it to go away, and the more laws that were passed in the capital that did things such as restricting the Russian language and placing other burdens on Russian- speaking families, the further they divorced themselves from the support in the east. I remember going to one polling station in an election I looked at. We got to the count, and the box was emptied. There were about 3,000 votes in it, and just three were not for the party of the regions, which was the local party. The returning officer said, “Oh well, three people who can’t read”, disallowed the votes and allowed the votes for the opposition.
The fact is that we made a complete mess. We supported the American drive, which was basically to break up Ukraine. Let us be in no doubt about it. President Yanukovych, who was elected largely with the votes of the east, was destabilised to a point where, when he left Ukraine, the east basically left Ukraine as well. They thought, “Our part of this democracy is gone”.
Of course, it was a very odd democracy. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is on the Front Bench for the Liberal Democrats. She will know that her former colleague in the European Parliament, Pat Cox, was the special envoy to Ukraine. He did a huge amount of work, but he could not get the two sides together. They just did not want to talk. They preferred to drift towards where they are now.
Where are we going to? We are going to a rubble-strewn country that will make Germany look like a garden city. We are looking at a country that is going to be ruined for years, and where, when the war is over, we will find that the Americans, as ever, are missing. Just look at Afghanistan or one or two other places if you want some of that. It has got to be rebuilt. Frankly— I never thought I would say this—President Trump is probably the best hope we have. He is the only person who is willing to concede that there could be a ceasefire without there being reparations or blame on one side or the other.
The other point is that China is certainly not going to follow our rules. If you look back to my interview in 1965 when I joined the Foreign Office, I was asked by some ageing diplomat—they always put a diplomat on the selection panel—“Where do you think we’ll be in 100 years’ time, Balfe?” I said, “China will be the worst enemy because we do not understand Confucianism”. We still do not. We still group the two together. They are very different. China will outwit us long before we have beaten any Russians.
My final point is, please, let us try to get this war stopped. People will lose; people will not get all they want; but they never will. Our aim as a country should be to join President Trump in getting the war stopped.
I told you no one would like it.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to the continued plight of Ukrainian women who have lost their husbands in the ongoing conflict. Many of these widows are facing immense emotional, physical and financial hardship while striving to provide stability and hope for their children amid the devastation of war. Behind every life lost on the battlefield or in bombardment stands a bereaved family—a widow left to rebuild her life and protect her children in circumstances few of us can truly imagine.
When the conflict escalated in 2023, the United Kingdom showed great compassion by opening its doors to families fleeing the violence. I declare an interest and acknowledge the valuable role played by the Loomba Foundation, in association with Barnardo’s, which provided direct financial support to 1,000 Ukrainian families during that difficult time. That partnership demonstrated how civil society, when working alongside government, can offer practical and immediate relief to those most in need.
However, the scale of suffering among Ukrainian widows continues to grow. While the exact numbers are difficult to verify amid the chaos of war, reports from Ukraine indicate that tens of thousands of women have lost their husbands since the invasion began, many of them young mothers now raising children alone. The burden they carry extends far beyond financial strain. They face deep emotional trauma, loss of identity, and the daunting challenge of navigating a shattered economy and disrupted services.
Through my work with the Loomba Foundation over many years, I have witnessed how conflict affects women left behind. From south Asia to sub-Saharan Africa the story is tragically similar. Widows often become invisible victims of war, excluded from social support, denied opportunities for work and stigmatised by cultural attitude. Without targeted assistance, their children risk falling into cycles of poverty and insecurity that can persist for generations.
In Ukraine today, many widows lack access to counselling, information and even basic income support. Those displaced within Ukraine and across borders are particularly vulnerable, often unaware of what help is available. It is therefore essential that both international and domestic sponsors recognise the specific needs of these women and their children. I ask the Minister to inform the House how many Ukrainian families have so far been allowed to come and settle in the United Kingdom under the various visas and sponsorship schemes. Further, what specific support has been provided to them through access to social security, healthcare and education for their children?
Finally, I urge the Government to continue working closely with the Government of Ukraine and charitable organisations to ensure that widows and their families, both in Ukraine and here in the UK, receive the long-term emotional, financial and practical support they so desperately need. By helping them rebuild their lives, we not only uphold our humanitarian obligations but contribute to the future resilience and recovery of a nation that continues to fight courageously for freedom.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare the financial support that I received for a visit this month to Ukraine with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Explosive Weapons and their Impact, as recorded in the register, and as I spoke about in Committee on 16 October. I feel I should declare that, this year, I am a student on the Royal College of Defence Studies’ Global Strategy Programme, with parliamentarians from other major parties.
The work that I saw in the context of the APPG’s visit is my starting point today. Ukraine is now, as a result of the long-term Russian aggression, at the leading edge of experience and practice in clearing mines and other explosive weapons, and the hideous booby trap weapons that we saw at a visit to the Lviv State University of Life Safety. Sadly, Ukraine now has world-leading experience in treating their victims, particularly those needing prostheses, both civilian and military. It is also having to deal with the awful threats from antimicrobial resistance, particularly in battlefield wounds. I heard how front-line medics there are adapting to the issue in ways from which our medics can certainly learn.
Many noble Lords have spoken about supporting Ukraine, and I and the Green Party very much back that approach. However, I want to stress how much the Ukrainians can teach us and share with us. Last night, I joined Sofiia Bodun from the Green Party of Ukraine, speaking from Kyiv, and Viktoriya Ball from the Rozviy climate initiative at an online event run by the Green Ukraine solidarity campaign. Among the major topics of our discussion was how Ukraine is already starting work on delivering a green transition while rebuilding from Russian attacks. Under extraordinarily difficult conditions, Ukrainians are seeing the need to build back better rather than just replacing old, outdated technology approaches. We can learn from that.
The destruction of the Kakhovka dam drew international attention to the environmental impacts of Russia’s invasion. It has widely been referred to as ecocide, and it has spurred even further a drive to highlight such actions and ensure that they are punished. While I was in Ukraine, I met a fellow member of the Ecocide Alliance, the MP Yuliia Ovchynnykova. They are working really hard in this area.
Ukrainians have been at the forefront of facing up to the hybrid war being waged by Russia—that is action being taken by Moscow, as other noble Lords have said, not just against the Ukrainians but around the world, including in the UK. I will briefly focus on a particular part of that, the propaganda operations, or what has been called political warfare: the use of social media bots, the fuelling of internal conflicts and rifts, and black propaganda. We saw this played out very clearly at Donetsk and Luhansk, as exposed in 2019, in what have become known as the Surkov leaks. Such tactics are not as new as some have claimed; I note the CIA’s attempts to smuggle tonnes of printing and books behind the Iron Curtain from the 1950s onwards. Understanding that is important, while recognising that political warfare is now at a new scale and reach. As the Ukrainians have found in seeking to support and strengthen their democracy under the most difficult conditions, physical and technical defences against such efforts can go only so far.
Turning to our situation for a second, dealing with the weaknesses in our own society is something that we have to confront, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said at the start. When we hear talk about the Russian political war, disinformation and other dark arts, we need to acknowledge that we in the UK are made vulnerable by poverty and inequality, corruption and the failure to stand up to the rhetoric of those who would fuel division and hatred. The comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, should be considered in the context of that, particularly when we are thinking about welfare spending.
The forces that have driven poverty and inequality—that is, neoliberal ideologies and policies—have to be acknowledged. One of the questions raised at the Green event last night was how, after the war, we stop the IMF and other international financial institutions doing disastrous damage to Ukraine with policies of austerity, as neoliberal ideology in post-USSR Russia drove the disastrous rise of the oligarchs and President Putin. Part of my answer was to say that we have to be part of building a different world. To support the Ukrainians, our international positions should be uncompromisingly in support of the right to self-determination, human rights and the rule of law. It is important that we support those everywhere, without favour.
In that context, I have to note what has emerged this week about British arms being used in the execution of war crimes by the RSF in Sudan—weapons apparently supplied via the UAE. We have to stand for principles. That is in our own interests and those of the Ukrainians.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, on his maiden speech and look forward to many more of his speeches to come. I also congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for such a powerful opening, particularly in the light, perhaps, of some of the recent speeches in this debate. I refer the House to my support for the charity Ukrainian Action, which provides emergency support, humanitarian aid, recovery and reconstruction. I thank all the hundreds of volunteers who make a difference every day.
When I visited Kyiv recently, I saw at first hand not just the scars of war on that brave country but the determination of a nation fighting for its future. We must recognise that what is at stake extends beyond the front line, as many noble Lords have said today, and indeed beyond the borders of Ukraine. The war launched by the Russian Federation against Ukraine is not simply territorial; it is existential. It threatens the principle that a free people can choose their own path. That is why the United Kingdom’s ongoing support for Ukraine is not charity; it is principled and necessary.
The numbers tell a stark story. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that, in July, at least 286 civilians were killed and 1,388 injured—the highest monthly casualty figure since May 2022. In the first half of the year, some 6,754 civilians were killed or injured, a 54% rise compared with the same period in 2024. Nearly all the harm recorded occurred in territory under the Ukrainian Government’s control, emphasising the brutality of long-range missile strikes and the assaults by Russia on civilian lives.
At the same time, since Russia’s illegal invasion, the United Kingdom Government have committed up to £21.8 billion in support to Ukraine for military assistance and in humanitarian support. This is significant and underscores the depth of our involvement not as spectators but as partners to our friends and allies in Ukraine, as powerfully outlined by many noble Lords today. Our continued role must be sustained and strategic. I wish to identify three priority areas where the Government’s focus is most urgent.
Ukraine must not just survive; it must be secured. The UK has pledged military support “for as long as it takes”, but words alone do not suffice. We need an architecture of deterrence. That requires security guarantees, backed by credible capability, allied resolve and UK leadership. That means a long-term commitment to training, logistics and intelligence sharing, building on the success of Operation Interflex, which has already been mentioned today and has already trained more than 60,000 Ukrainian personnel here in the United Kingdom.
We must also ensure that any future peace settlement does not leave Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression but establishes the kind of durable security that allows reconstruction. War has destroyed and damaged much of Ukraine, but rebuilding offers renewal. In Ukraine, communities are already turning rubble into resolve, reopening schools, restoring infrastructure and keeping civil society alive under fire. The UK has committed significant sums towards reconstruction efforts, yet the scale must match what the moment requires. The UK must use its expertise, whether in infrastructure, finance or civil society, to support Ukraine’s recovery and ensure that the future it rebuilds is resilient and one where Ukrainians can flourish and the scars of war can begin to heal.
Let us not forget that there are horrific crimes being committed by Russia in Ukraine. Families are being torn apart and the very identity of Ukraine is under threat. Some 7.5 million children have been impacted by this war, affecting their health, education and family life. Russia is using children as a weapon, with up to 35,000 children taken from their families and forced to forget their lives; they are being psychologically coerced to stay in Russia and to forget their identity. Others are being conscripted into the Russian youth army and could be forced to fight against their own people, their own friends and family. The trauma that these families are facing is constant; it is hard to imagine having your son or daughter taken—children and babies just months’ old taken from their mothers’ arms—and relocated to a country they do not know. The Government must ensure that our support assists with evidence preservation, assists Ukrainian judicial institutions and helps to make sure that Russian war criminals are brought to justice. I also pay tribute to Johanna Baxter from the other place for her work in this area.
Ukraine’s battle is not just for the future of its sons and daughters; they are fighting for the principle of self-determination and democracy. The United Kingdom must stand by our friends in Ukraine, as well as our values, and our support must be enduring, not because it is easy but because it is the right thing to do.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad to take part in this interesting and very worth while debate. I begin by congratulating my noble friend the Minister on his excellent opening speech. Like him, I declare an interest: I am very proud of the fact that my son-in-law is a senior officer serving in the RAF.
I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who lived up to his billing, if I may say so. To say that he brings with him the qualifications to speak in this debate is a classic British understatement. Anyone who has been ambassador to Ukraine, ambassador to Russia and ambassador to the European Union and National Security Adviser deserves the highest respect, and he is a very welcome addition to this House.
This debate is officially listed as being about the situation in Ukraine, and of course that situation is not at all good—but it is quite right that we take the opportunity to debate it today, and I thank the Government for allowing the time to do so. After all, Ukraine’s fight for its security is ours too. I am not sure that anyone could have predicted that this war on our European doorstep would still be going on more than three and a half years since the invasion began, but we can be very proud of the significant amounts of practical, moral and military assistance and the fact that we have welcomed and taken in Ukrainian refugees as well as scientists.
In the short time that I have available, I want to make a few points and ask a few questions of my noble friend the Minister who will be replying. My first point relates to the nature of the threat that we face from the Russian Federation. Recently, in the last couple of weeks, we have heard a lot about whether China is or is not regarded as an enemy state under the outdated Official Secrets Act, but the situation is perhaps clearer when it comes to Russia. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, referred to by our maiden speaker, said in conversation with the Lord Speaker recently that
“we’re already at war with Russia. It’s a different sort of war, but the hostility, the cyber attacks, the physical attacks, intelligence work is extensive”.
Chancellor Merz of Germany has said that Europe is
“not at war … but no longer at peace”
with Russia. When I was a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy earlier this year, there was no doubt that we regarded Russia as an obvious threat. Can my noble friend characterise for the House precisely what the Government’s official description is of the threat that Russia poses to the UK after nearly three and a half years of war in Ukraine?
My second question relates to the economics of this war and how it has changed. Can I ask my noble friend about the status of the frozen Russian assets? I believe that they amount to about $140 billion. Is there now agreement among the relevant countries that they will now be utilised in the form of loan to provide Ukraine with much-needed financial support? Does my noble friend agree that the use of those frozen assets, together with US sanctions on the two Russian oil companies, might finally begin to put real pressure on President Putin?
My third question relates to the changing nature of modern warfare. Like others, I remember seeing at the beginning of the war that line of tanks on its way towards Kyiv. They did not get very far—and how very dated that now seems, compared to the bleak but savage reality of the conflict now, with its extended great warlike trenches and killing zones, and its grey warfare. I am no expert and I do not pretend to be, but it is obvious to me that this has developed into the first truly drone war in history. The fact is that drones are less costly to lose, easier to replace and sustain, and lower costs mean that you can buy more of them. But this is a war that is also being fought on the basis of intelligence and data, and future wars will be won less by bullets and more by data. Can my noble friend the Minister say what lessons the Government have learned from this terrible conflict and whether she can reassure the House that they are carefully and comprehensively taking into account these lessons when applied to the strategic defence review, which we have already debated?
Next, I ask my noble friend what she can say about the coalition of the willing and its recent meeting. We have to deal with the destabilising unpredictability of the US president, whose approach to this war has zigzagged all over the place, but can my noble friend reassure the House that despite this, the Government’s expectation is that the United States will continue to help Ukraine in vital areas such as targeting and intelligence information?
Now I come to the possibility of a ceasefire, or an “armed pause”, as it was put earlier in this debate. We know that Russia has recently rejected the idea of a ceasefire, doubtless because President Putin thinks that he still holds the advantage in the long run, despite terrible losses. What is the Government’s attitude to a possible ceasefire plan? Were President Trump to finally walk away from the Ukraine war, does my noble friend agree that it is not unimportant that he does not blame Ukraine or the West for that impasse?
My final point is this. I belong to the generation born after the war, only too conscious of the sacrifice made by the generation above me that enabled most of the West to live in relative peace for my lifetime. Given the changing geopolitical landscape of the world in which we now live, can my noble friend say something about the intention of the Government to educate the public about the nature of the threats we face, whether they are hybrid warfare, cyber warfare or attacks on our critical national infrastructure, and how we should prepare for them? My noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen has spoken frankly about the need for public education, but there are new generations of UK citizens to whom the serious possibility of conflict or war has never occurred. There is a balance to be struck between causing alarm and raising awareness, but perhaps my noble friend can address this issue in her final remarks.
My time is up, but I hope it will never be up for Ukraine.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I do not know whether it is a punishment or a privilege to be put last in the list of Back-Bench speakers, as I invariably am when it comes to a debate on Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was powerful and eloquent in opening, and it is clear that my noble friend Lord Barrow is going to be a great addition to our collective wisdom.
Two factors have upended the policy of successive British Governments: the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, and the unexpected economic and military resilience of Russia. Until the end of last year, the agreed policy, as stated by then incoming Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, 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. Once Ukraine has prevailed, the United Kingdom should play a leading role in securing Ukraine’s place in NATO”.
I have heard this formula endlessly in the last three or four years. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether this is still the policy of the British Government? If not, why not? That policy, to my way of thinking, was always dishonest and in fact, morally repugnant, since we were never going to give Ukraine all it takes for victory, for the very good reason that any such policy carried an unacceptable risk of escalation. I am really worried by the insouciance of those noble Lords speaking today who talk about unleashing long-range missile attacks on the most heavily armed nuclear power in the world.
Now, after nearly four years of false pledges cashed in the lives of hundreds of thousands, we have reluctantly accepted that there is not going to be a Ukrainian victory anytime soon, and in fact, there is a very real prospect of Ukrainian defeat, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, pointed out. The real question now is, how can the coalition of the willing prevent this outcome? First came the suggestion that we would send in NATO peacekeepers to police a ceasefire, but our Government must have known that this would never be accepted. It would not be accepted by Russia and would not be accepted by the United States, which was supposed to provide a backstop. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether this obvious spoiling tactic is still on the table?
The latest plan is the so-called European Peace Facility, whose aim is to strengthen Ukraine’s war facility, a classic case of Orwellian “doublespeak”. The idea is that Europe should ramp up arms deliveries to Ukraine and put more pressure on Russia with new sanctions on oil exports, with loans coming from confiscated Russian assets. But no one thinking straight can believe that such measures, even if agreed and applied, will affect the course of the war in time to avert further territorial losses by Ukraine. In fact, a negotiated peace is the only way now of averting a Russian victory. That is my core position.
I want to be constructive, so I will suggest three ways in which our Government could help achieve a negotiated settlement. First, they should propose a demilitarised zone under a UN peacekeeping force to police a ceasefire. I am not nearly as pessimistic about the prospects of a ceasefire as some noble Lords have been—I remind the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that the armed pause of the Cold War lasted 50 years. China must also be brought into such an endeavour. It can exert much more leverage over Russia than we can. Trump seems to realise this, but all we seem able to do is talk about Chinese spies and underground tunnels. China is the missing piece in this whole process.
Secondly, we should start talking to Russian officials. Do not leave all the talking to the United States. To get a conversation going, we have to ignore the ICC arrest warrants, which in any case could be enforced only by a complete Russian defeat. Thirdly, we should urge UN-organised referenda in the four contested oblasts to allow the people who live there to decide democratically on their own future. Holding such referenda would offer both sides a credible and democratic pathway to end the conflict. Through initiatives of this kind, our Government could still turn a war mission into a peace mission. I beg Ministers to discover the courage to negotiate, for reasons of both realism and humanity.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government for tabling this debate for us. It was enriched by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, which was not bland and, thankfully, not too brief. We learned from it and will do so from him in future. He is a great addition to this House and we welcome him.
The fact that we are not marking the 46th month of a puppet regime in Kyiv is testament to the bravery, resilience and resolve of the people of Ukraine, but it has come at an enormous cost to the civilians and young people called to serve and to those who have had to flee to safety. UK families have provided a shelter in the storm for Ukrainian families, and we thank them, but the storm continues. As my noble friend Lady Suttie so movingly said, the victims include the youngest Ukrainians, whose suffering is unacceptable; we still see children being abducted and separated from their families, and prisoners of war brutalised and tortured—the Geneva conventions so contemptuously disregarded by Putin’s regime.
When the right honourable Ed Davey and I met the Speaker of the Ukrainian parliament recently, he told us of the value of the UK’s continued support of Ukraine in military, diplomatic and societal terms. He also highlighted, as referenced by the Minister and others in this debate, that we can learn from our relationship with Ukraine since the start of this war. This learning includes how to conduct defensive warfare—to be adaptive, changing and cost effective—and the value of intelligence and technology.
We are also learning that leaders in Ukraine have maintained a democratic institution in a parliamentary system. As a parliamentarian, it is a badge of honour for me that, between the last debate on Ukraine and this one, I have now been sanctioned, as have others in this House, by the Russian regime simply for speaking out in a parliamentary setting in defence of democracy. It is worth remembering that part of the failed Russian plan in the first 48 hours of the invasion was to attack and immobilise the parliament of that country, the Verkhovna Rada. I repeat the call that I have made previously—it may sound minor, but it could well be symbolic—that we should award the George Medal to the Ukrainian parliament. I would love to see on its flag, as Malta had, a clear demonstration of civilians defending democracy and the rule of law.
These Benches have supported the actions of the previous Administration, and Ministers know of our continuing support. Ministers also know that this has not prevented us, on occasion, wanting faster and deeper action. We have sought constructively to press Governments, previous and current, to go further. It is a reality that, in too many respects, the Putin Government have been able to adapt and circumvent sanctions which have been piecemeal and often reactive. As our sister party in Ukraine has told us, on too many occasions sanctions have been perpetually too little and always late. That has meant that the Putin regime has been able to adopt and adapt.
The sober assessment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was not a warning from history but a realistic prediction that, while we may get a cessation of violence, we will not have peace as long as Putin is president. We must prepare for this reality in the medium to long term. That preparation is not just militarily but in communicating to our public the new reality of risk.
There is another reality, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, of concern about soft power being diminished while we debate hard power. Putin realised quite quickly, and then more recently more clearly, that while western countries said they wanted to create a wide coalition against the Russian economy, those same countries have massively cut development partnership funding for many developing nations. The continuing sale of Russian fertiliser, fuel, equipment and energy was at the same that the UK, and now more recently the USA, made dramatic cuts in partnership programmes.
In a fascinating event on Tuesday in the Moses Room, with the Elders, chaired by my noble friend Lady Miller, on nuclear weapons, it was telling that the former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark started her remarks, just next door, by regretting the UK cutting 40% from development partnerships. It is not correct, in our view, that development and defence should be seen as being in competition. Development is complementary to defence; it should not be set against it. Cutting the Balkans resilience programme, conflict prevention programmes and the British Council to the bone is not in our national security interests.
In March 2022, I raised a concern that the UK was keen to progress a trade agreement with India, offering market access to the very entities that were expanding energy trade with Russia through a rupee-rouble swap. Subsequently, we have been offering similar access for Chinese state enterprises trading with Russia. Moscow has observed very clearly that some western powers have not chosen to make a sufficient sacrifice to pay for the economic price on the Russian economy, and the Ukrainians fear that there has been insufficient pressure on the Russian war economy. I hope recent decisions by the US Administration—which I hope will not be changed—could add further, real pressure on the economy. Russia will know that delays in using Russian assets to help Ukraine are potentially sowing areas of division within the western powers. We cannot afford for those divisions to be in place, and nor can Ukraine.
I ask the Minister when she responds to this debate to update us on where the Government are in working with our allies on securing those assets that the people of Ukraine need to fight the war. In my view, it is inconceivable that, if there is a ceasefire, we would give the money back to the Russian state enterprises that we have frozen, so why are we not using it for the people of Ukraine to fight the war that they need to fight?
If we have to be realistic, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, about what peace may mean, we can nevertheless consider what victory may mean. It might not be that clear, but it is a victory in itself that Ukraine will not be part of Kievan Rus’, which is Putin’s narrative; nations have a right to self-determination, and borders are decided diplomatically and not by military aggression, as the noble Lord, Lord Mott, said so clearly.
I refer to my noble friend Lady Suttie’s superb speech: the sacrifices of the people of Ukraine are also sacrifices for our security and our safety, and the Russian threats to Ukraine are also threats to us. We must mobilise our population, with a sense of urgency and a lack of complacency, and appreciate the risks going forward. History is indeed watching us; we must not repeat previous complacencies. Ukrainians will be in the bloody filth of the mud this winter to defend their land, but they are fighting for the very rights that we hold dear in our country. We must ensure that they have the tools to persevere and to prevail and that Russia pays for the long reconstruction that, regrettably, will be needed.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Government for bringing forward this important debate. Yet again, we have seen some fantastic contributions on this topic. As always, I was encouraged to see virtual unanimity, across those of all parties and none in the House, in support of the valiant Ukrainian people and in condemnation of the vile dictator currently—but, I hope, temporarily—residing in the Kremlin.
It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who brings so much practical diplomatic experience of the situation on the ground in Russia and Ukraine. For part of my time in ministerial office, I served as the UK representative on the EU’s General Affairs Council, when the noble Lord was the UK’s Permanent Representative in Brussels, and I can certainly testify to his commendable hospitality in the Brussels residence in which I stayed. We had some great late-night discussions on many subjects, but I particularly remember him fondly telling me about his time and experience as an ambassador in Moscow. I know that the House will greatly benefit from that experience in many debates to come. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, remarked, he can reassure his family that the speech was fairly brief, but it certainly was not bland.
It is now well over three years since Putin launched his illegal war on Ukraine, a war that has seen a European nation invaded and horrific war crimes committed against the people of Ukraine, as many of the great contributions today have testified. As I said, across this House, we have almost all remained united in our condemnation of that invasion. We as a nation can be proud of that, and we credit the Government for continuing the steadfast support that we gave to Ukraine when we were in office.
However, as has been said, Ukraine’s war is not yet won. Ukraine still desperately needs our full support. One area that has been crucial has been the removal of UK tariffs on Ukrainian goods, which has ensured a vital source of foreign revenue for the Ukrainian Government and wider economy. However, there is a looming deadline on 31 March 2026, when tariff-free access for Ukrainian poultry and egg produce is set to end. Ukraine has increased its poultry exports to the UK in recent years, but this has not impacted British farmers, who face production constraints and cannot meet that rising demand; rather, it has displaced exports from other countries, including China, Brazil and Thailand. The reimposition of tariffs on poultry and egg produce will harm UK consumers and deprive the Ukrainian Government and wider economy of a crucial source of revenue. Facilitating trade should be a key pillar of the support that we provide to Ukraine, as the revenues raised from exports are a crucial source of funding for the Ukrainian Government and the Ukrainian people and directly fund the country’s armed forces. I hope the Minister could speak to some of her colleagues in the DBT on that matter and help ensure a pro-Ukrainian resolution to that.
Although we all remember those fraught weeks in February and March 2022 when Ukraine’s fate hung in the balance, we must not forget that Ukraine’s struggle did not start then; it began much earlier than 2022. They have been fighting for their independence, democracy and freedom from Russian interference since 2014—and before then, some may argue. In 2022, Putin sought to bring an end to Ukraine’s long struggle for independence by force of arms, but the indomitable spirit of the Ukrainian people and the selfless sacrifice of so many brought the invasion to a halt and rolled back Putin’s forces. Those of us watching on our TV screens cheered them along every step of the way. However, sadly, Russian forces remain entrenched today in Ukrainian territory, and Ukraine is still locked in a desperate struggle for its very survival.
Between 2022 and 2024, the previous Conservative Government provided major financial support for Ukraine. We shipped huge quantities of military hardware to Kyiv. We know the crucial role that NLAW missiles played in the early part of the war. I am pleased to say that we have gone on to provide tanks, air defence systems, artillery and long-range precision strike missiles. Every Ukrainian that visits the UK who I get the pleasure of meeting is eternally grateful for the support that we have provided them.
We have brought in tough sanctions against Russia, including some of those individuals close to Putin, who have played their own role in support of that illegal war. I commend the Government on continuing to strengthen those sanctions against Russia. I hope they will continue to do so and that they will perhaps look at sanctions on members of United Russia, Putin’s patsy political party, in the future.
We also took the initiative on protecting those displaced by the war in Ukraine; many Members have referred to the Homes for Ukraine scheme. While leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, to his great credit, supported us when we took that action. He has continued to build on our work, and we offer him our support now. Since his Government took office, we have seen further support for Ukraine. We fully support that help.
Across the previous and current Governments, the UK has so far committed up to £21.8 billion in a difficult financial environment to Ukraine, which, in my view, is money well spent. The Government have also worked to establish the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine’s future security and signed the UK up to a slightly bizarre UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership. That is better than some of their other 100-year agreements, I have to say.
All this builds on the strong relationship we fostered with Ukraine when we were in office, and we welcome the steps forward as we continue to support the people of Ukraine in their hour of need. But, despite all our support, Ukraine remains at war. Despite suffering around a million casualties, Russia remains committed to that illegal invasion. I wonder if, in her closing remarks, the Minister could update the House on the latest attempts to use our influence internationally to bring Russia to a position where a just peace can be achieved. Is the Government’s position that peace and, crucially, long-term security for Ukraine can be achieved only through primarily diplomatic means, or do they believe that there is a military solution? What is the Government’s position on the deployment of those frozen Russian assets to further aid Ukrainian defence and eventually to partly help pay for the rebuilding of their country? Finally, can the Minister reassure the House that the UK is working to further develop our intelligence in respect of Russia and her allies? Can she give the House a sense of how well that information is being shared with Ukraine?
Russia’s war on Ukraine is an assault not just on the Ukrainian nation, but on the values of independence, sovereignty and the right of a democratic nation to forge its own future. Ukraine’s security is essential to European security. The Ukrainian flag still flies proudly above government buildings up and down Whitehall, and the rest of the country. It should not come down again until Ukraine enjoys peace on its own land once again. We must continue our firm support of Ukraine until that happy day comes.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both Opposition Front Benches for their continued support for our approach to Ukraine. It is, perhaps uniquely, something that brings us all together—perhaps, as noble Lords suggested earlier, that is one of the reasons it does not excite the media and the public in a way that some of those issues on which we do not agree so readily sometimes do. I will resist the temptation to respond to the jibe from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about 100-year partnerships—we can get into that on Tuesday, and I look forward to it.
I will attempt to answer all the questions that have been put to me this afternoon. If I miss anything, it is an omission, and I will write to noble Lords—particularly my very good noble friend Lord Stansgate, who by my count asked me 28 questions in his contribution.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, and his quite remarkable maiden speech. I was looking forward to it, as were many others in this House. We very much welcome him and look forward to what will be, I am sure, many more well-informed, thoughtful and immaculately crafted contributions in the years to come. I do not mind a bland speech from time to time, as long as it is well-informed and a point is being made, rather than a speech that is incredibly entertaining but does not actually say anything. I am sure that we will all enjoy listening to him and his future contributions.
As the Foreign Secretary said a few weeks after her visit to Kyiv:
“As Ukraine stands firm against Russia, the UK stands firm with Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security, and the security and stability of the whole of Europe is vital for our security here in the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/25; col. 390.]
To all those this afternoon who have been urging us to go further and faster, suggesting new measures and telling us to stay the course, we thank you. We encourage every noble Lord to stay resolute and to keep making this encouragement loudly and publicly. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others on the need to secure public support are well made and are accepted by the Government.
Ukrainians have defended their country with courage for over three and a half years. They have made clear their desire for the war to end and for a just and lasting peace. While President Zelensky has affirmed his readiness for a ceasefire and meaningful talks, Putin’s response has been to launch some of the largest attacks seen in Europe since the height of the Second World War. Our focus remains on ensuring Ukraine gets the support it needs to stay in the fight and protect its cities and infrastructure from Russia’s increasingly brutal attacks. We are ramping up the pressure on Putin to force him to conclude that his military objectives are unachievable and that he should engage in talks that result in a sovereign, secure and independent Ukraine.
Shortly before the Russian delegation walked out of the UN Security Council chamber last month, our Foreign Secretary told Foreign Minister Lavrov directly that this is our aim. Despite throwing everything it can at Ukraine, Russia has achieved none of its objectives, while the costs of the war are piling up. Russia has gained less than 1% of Ukraine’s territory since November 2022 and sustained over a million casualties in the process, and its economy is stagnating and economic pressure is biting. The UK will continue to work with partners and allies to go further.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, asked about the deported children. I sincerely thank them for making sure that that was part of the debate this afternoon. Children should never be pawns of war. Russia’s forcible deportation, adoption and militarisation of Ukrainian children is a despicable and systematic attempt to erase Ukrainian identity and with it Ukraine’s future. The UK raises this issue continually with our partners and allies. We are playing our full part in international efforts to reunite these children with their families, where they belong.
Last Friday, the Prime Minister welcomed President Zelensky to London, and he co-chaired a virtual meeting of the coalition of the willing with more than 20 leaders. The Prime Minister urged them to act, to take Russian oil and gas off the global market, to make progress on using immobilised Russian sovereign assets to unlock billions in funding for Ukraine, and to provide more long-range capabilities to ensure Ukraine can defend itself. The Prime Minister underlined the group’s support for President Trump’s position that the fighting must stop immediately and that the current line of contact should be the starting point for negotiations. Leaders reiterated their determination to put robust arrangements in place for Ukraine’s future security so it can deter and defend itself against any future attack. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, that includes the deployment of a multinational force to help secure Ukraine’s skies and seas and regenerate Ukraine’s armed forces once hostilities have ceased.
Leaders expressed their intent to address Ukraine’s pressing financial needs for 2026 and 2027, which includes, as many noble Lords have argued, working up options to use the full value of immobilised Russian sovereign assets so that Ukraine has the resources it needs to defend its territory and rebuild its armed forces.
The Prime Minister announced that we are accelerating our UK programme to provide Ukraine with more than 5,000 lightweight multirole missiles, aiming to deliver an additional 140 missiles ahead of schedule, which will help bolster Ukraine’s defences through the depths of winter in the wake of Russian attacks on energy infrastructure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked about NATO and the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, asked about defence investment. We have made a historic commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is a generational increase, underlining the UK’s commitment to national security and our leadership in NATO.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about non-military support, we work to support Ukraine to implement vital democratic, economic and security reforms. Allies will continue to support progress towards interoperability with NATO.
For months now, President Zelensky has said that he is ready for a ceasefire and to engage in meaningful talks with President Putin. Yet Putin continues to stall and play for time, rejecting the opportunity for talks to end the war while escalating his attacks against Ukraine. So, we continue to work closely with our international partners to keep Ukraine in the fight, enable it to defend itself against Russia’s attacks and ratchet up the pressure on Putin to end his illegal war.
Our most powerful tool to bring Putin to the negotiating table is mounting economic pressure applied through sanctions. Since July 2024, the Government have introduced almost 900 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. In our most recent package, announced earlier this month, we sanctioned 90 targets across Russia’s energy, financial and military sectors. That includes Russia’s two biggest oil producers—two of the largest in the world—Rosneft and Lukoil. We also announced our intention to ban the import of oil products refined in third countries from Russian-origin crude oil, further restricting the flow of funds to the Kremlin.
We have led international efforts to disrupt Russia’s shadow fleet, sanctioning over 520 shadow fleet vessels to date. This hits Russia’s ability to transport oil to third countries. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, referred to India. We welcome decisions taken by certain Indian refineries to suspend future purchases of Russian crude. We welcome the sanctions packages announced by the US and EU last week, with the US matching our sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil and the EU sanctioning Rosneft.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. She has just produced some very impressive statistics on economic sanctions. What effect have they had?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
They are having a very real effect on the economy of Russia. I would perhaps describe it by saying that this is a battle, yes, on the front line, but it is also becoming a battle of military-industrial complex. Our ability to supply is at stake, and we are in competition with Russia. The more we can do to damage the Russian economy, the stronger we become. But we cannot do that alone. We need to do it alongside our partners and allies, and that is the work that our Prime Minister is engaged in.
Indeed, sanctions have denied Russia access to at least $450 billion, equivalent to an estimated two years of funding for this horrendous war. Noble Lords of course know that we do not speculate on future designations to maximise their impact, but they should be in no doubt that this Government will continue to ratchet up measures as we pile pressure on the Kremlin to change course.
In recent months, Russia has intensified attacks against Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia has fired thousands of drones at Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, resulting in ever more civilian casualties. These strikes are having a devastating impact on communities enduring extreme hardship, compounding displacement, trauma and loss. Drones are being used to target humanitarian responders as well. A clearly marked UN convoy delivering humanitarian assistance to front-line communities was hit earlier this month. I am sure noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to the selfless humanitarian aid workers who continue to operate in high-risk environments, not just in Ukraine but in Gaza, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and elsewhere to reach those most in need, often under fire.
Several noble Lords asked specifically about women. The needs of women and girls have been embedded in our support for Ukraine, including funding for humanitarian aid, civil society and inclusion, sexual and reproductive health services and assistance to tackle gender-based violence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for talking about children. UK funding delivered via partners is providing mental health and psychosocial support to Ukrainian rehabilitation professionals, the burns unit in Kyiv, Ukrainian Red Cross staff and volunteers, and adults and children in front-line oblasts. The British Army is supporting the morale and resilience of Ukrainian troops through the delivery of combat mental resilience practitioner training, and we will train 180 Ukrainian soldiers this year.
As winter begins to bite, Russia is stepping up its attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure once again. Russia’s aim is to plunge Ukrainians into cold and darkness, and it carried out its largest-ever attack on Ukraine’s gas infrastructure earlier this month. This threatens to deepen the humanitarian crisis for millions of people now facing a bitter winter without heat, electricity or access to basic services. That is why the Foreign Secretary announced £142 million in aid during her visit to Kyiv last month to support Ukraine through the winter and into next year. That includes £42 million for vital repairs to the electricity transmission network and critical protection for gas and power infrastructure as temperatures plunge, as well as £100 million in vital support for humanitarian assistance to get emergency relief to communities on the front line, a clear commitment that we stand with our Ukrainian friends in the face of Russia’s intensified attacks.
My noble friend Lord Coaker made an inspiring speech at the beginning of this debate and set out details of our military support as we continue to work with our Ukrainian partners to ensure that they have what they need to stay in the fight. In addition, the UK has been the leading bilateral donor since the start of the full-scale invasion, with a commitment of up to £1.2 billion to fund humanitarian assistance, energy resilience, stabilisation and reform, recovery and reconstruction. UK funding continues to provide urgent assistance to front-line communities to protect the most vulnerable. We are supporting efforts to bolster the rule of law, pursue justice and fight corruption. We are bolstering the growth and resilience of Ukraine’s economy, and we are helping Ukrainians to revitalise community services as they build more efficient and inclusive systems of social protection.
I conclude this debate by echoing the words of the Deputy Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly in New York just a few weeks ago:
“We must all strive for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, which maintains the integrity of our UN Charter and sees Ukraine emerge from Russia’s brutal war as a sovereign, secure and independent nation”.
As we speak, he said:
“President Putin rains down ever more drones and missiles on the Ukrainian people”,
yet President Zelensky continues to affirm his commitment to peace at every turn, and the Ukrainian people continue to demonstrate their resilience and determination to resist Russia’s aggression. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, our message to our Ukrainian friends is clear:
“We will stand with you today, tomorrow, and one hundred years from now”,
as we sustain the UK’s unwavering support for our shared future for decades to come.