Ukraine

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

16:11

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

Next month marks four years since Russia launched its illegal and barbarous full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but Ukraine has stood strong. We have stood alongside Ukraine and will continue to do so. I am particularly proud that this week also marks one year on from our agreement of a crucial 100-year partnership with Ukraine—I know that it enjoys wide support across the House—which we will celebrate and take further forward this week.

This has been four years in which the Ukrainian people have stood firm, bravely resisting the assault on their sovereign territory, and four years of enduring relentless drone and missile strikes that have killed civilians and torn through homes, infrastructure, hospitals and schools. Like many hon. Members across the House, I have been in Kyiv while such attacks have been under way. I have seen the devastation and damage caused and the implications for the civilians—the ordinary people of Ukraine—who face that. I have been in the bunkers where children have to take their lessons because of the attacks, and I have heard the harrowing stories of those who have been abducted and taken by barbarous and illegal Russian action.

Just last week, Russia launched 252 drones and 36 missiles at targets across Ukraine in yet another attack that killed and injured dozens of civilians and left millions without power or heating as temperatures plunged to minus 20°. The attack also included an Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile that struck critical infrastructure near the Polish border. Russia’s use, for the second time, of a hypersonic IRBM in Ukraine—this time close to NATO territory—is a reckless and dangerous escalation. Moscow claimed that it was responding to an alleged Ukrainian attack on one of Putin’s residences, which is a baseless allegation and yet another example of Russia using disinformation to justify its actions. Just last week I discussed disinformation with hon. Members at the Foreign Affairs Committee. I know that it is an issue that many of us across the House take deeply seriously.

As an aside, I note the absence in the Chamber yet again of one party—we all note that, as there is a strong cross-party consensus on Ukraine. Of course, that party has willingly repeated Russian narratives on NATO and Ukraine, and indeed its former leader in Wales took bribes from Russia to share those narratives. Reform Members might like this to go away, but it is not just their words that speak volumes; their absence does, too.

I genuinely commend the Opposition and the other parties present, because I have had many conversations with the Members here, and I think all of us, whichever side of the House we are on, have stood resolutely with Ukraine since the start of this conflict. That very much represents where the British people stand on this illegal and barbarous aggression on our continent. We know from our own history what such aggression can mean, and we will continue to take that stand. I am proud of those in my constituency and all our constituencies who continue to support Ukrainians in the UK, and continue to stand with Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

Russia’s barbaric actions come against the backdrop of US-led peace negotiations. Time and again, Ukraine has shown that it is the party of peace, and just last week, President Zelensky came together with world leaders and the United States in Paris to discuss next steps. We welcome the significant progress that has been made, and the work of President Trump and many others to take that forward. Alongside France, the UK has led the coalition of the willing, carrying out detailed military planning on the security guarantees that are needed to insure against future Russian aggression in the event of a peace settlement.

In Paris, at the largest meeting yet of the coalition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined President Macron and President Zelensky to sign a declaration of intent. That declaration confirms that in the event of a peace deal, the UK and France would deploy forces to Ukraine. It paves the way for a legal framework under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil, securing its skies and seas and regenerating its armed forces for the future. As the Prime Minister has said, if British troops were to deploy under this agreement, the matter would come before this House for a debate and a vote. The Paris declaration agreed between us and our coalition partners sets out the security guarantees that are to be activated once a ceasefire takes effect.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I have previously suggested that to have an occupied eastern part of Ukraine under Russian control while the western part of unoccupied Ukraine was left as a military vacuum would be a recipe for disaster. However, it is of concern that the alliance that stood firm at the end of world war two to ensure that West Germany did not get encroached upon by Soviet forces from the east is not still in being, as far as Ukraine is concerned, because of the ambiguous attitude of President Trump. Does the Minister have a view on why President Trump is so clear when it comes to dictatorship in and aggression by Iran, yet has such a strangely different view when it comes to the same two features of Russian behaviour?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but I would gently disagree with his suggestion. On President Trump’s leadership, in the important discussions that took place in Paris with the United States and other coalition partners, it was set out clearly how security guarantees would be activated. More broadly, I am proud that we continue to stand with the United States in NATO, and proud of our commitment to article 5 and to defending the security of the alliance. That is absolutely crucial to our security, and the security of all of us in the alliance.

We of course support all the progress towards a just and lasting peace, but it is crucial that we keep Ukraine in the fight. We all know that its armed forces are fighting heroically and with great determination. Like many Members, I have met those who have served on the frontlines in Ukraine, and seen the extraordinary bravery and fortitude that they show, but we must recognise that they are under immense pressure, so we need to get them the support that they need to defend themselves, and to ensure that they have support in the future.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

Today the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has been given an open letter from the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk. He has been here, and I have met him a few times. He is urging

“the immediate delivery of air defence and air-to-air missiles”.

Ukraine is in desperate need of them, and he has asked all NATO members to speed up this delivery as much as possible.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his comments, and for sharing what the Speaker of the Rada has said. I too have met him. He is a remarkable individual, as indeed are all the Ukrainian MPs we have all met. They stood up to defend their Parliament at the most difficult of times: at the time of the invasion. He raises important points. These are all matters that the Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister for the Armed Forces and others are looking at.

We are very much looking at all the immediate needs, and of course, we stand ready to support Ukraine wherever we can. Indeed, that is why we have led the 50-nation Ukraine defence contact group, alongside Germany. We secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year, and we are going further. In Project Octopus, we have developed an advanced air defence interceptor drone, which is to be mass-produced in the UK. We are developing a new long-range ballistic missile to boost Ukraine’s firepower and defend against Putin’s war machine.

We continue to lead, not only on supporting Ukraine, but on galvanising partners to maintain support. I met my good colleague from Portugal this morning, and discussed the contribution that Portugal has made. Indeed, many countries across Europe, large and small, have stepped up, and it is important to acknowledge that European partners increased aid by more than 50% in 2025, compared to the year before. In December, as colleagues will know, the European Council agreed a €90 billion loan to help meet Ukraine’s needs, and of course we are also providing up to £4.1 billion in support through a World Bank loan guarantee that runs until 2027.

Of course, as well as the military support that we need to provide to Ukraine, now and into the future, so that it can defend against and deter future threats in the event of a settlement, we must rachet up the pressure on Putin to de-escalate the war, engage in meaningful negotiations and come to the table. I am proud that this Government have sanctioned over 900 individuals, entities and ships under the UK’s Russia sanctions regime, including Russia’s largest oil companies and 520 oil tankers. Last week, as colleagues will know, the UK supported the United States in intercepting the sanctioned vessel Bella 1 in the north Atlantic as it made its way to Russia.

We are working with international partners on further measures to tackle the shadow fleet. Those include additional sanctions, steps to discourage third countries from engaging with the fleet, increased information sharing, and readiness to use regulatory and interdiction powers. By choking off Russia’s oil revenues and squeezing its war economy, we are showing Putin that he cannot outlast us.

Our sanctions are biting hard. There is clear evidence of their impact: Russia’s oil export revenues are at a four-year low. We are preparing to implement further significant sanctions this year, which have been announced, including bans on importing refined oil of Russian origin, and a maritime service ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which a number of Members have rightly called for over past months.

As a result of our actions and those of our partners, Russia’s economy is now in its worst position since the full-scale invasion began. We are also taking the crucial steps to stop the third-country circumvention of sanctions. Whether it is intercepting crypto networks that are flooding resource into Russia, the components and other things on critical lists that it might be using in drones, or the energy revenues that it is generating, we will not cease till we find every way in which Putin is attempting to circumvent our regimes. I am proud to work closely with colleagues in Departments across Government on this, but also, crucially, with European, United States and other partners. That is having a tangible impact, and is as crucial as the direct support that we provide.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I agree that the foreign exchange earnings of the Russian economy have been badly damaged by the sanctions, but we are also coming to the conclusion, are we not, that it is legal for Western powers to intervene on the fake flag fleet—the shadow fleet—as we saw last week? What plans do the Government and our allies have to make the whole business of exporting Russian oil and gas far more risky, by undertaking a large-scale interception of the shadow fleet?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member will note that I chose my words about future actions carefully. I will obviously not go into specifics, but let me just say that we know what Putin is doing. We know where he is taking things and what is happening, and we will not hesitate to act where we can, lawfully, to choke off those revenues that go towards fuelling the war against Ukraine. Let us remember that that is exactly what they do. Let this be a warning: we will not hesitate to use the powers we have—lawfully, of course—wherever we can.

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. In December, I went on a cross-party trip with NATO to South Korea; we heard that its Government have changed their position on Russia and are now looking to open plants in Russia. They spouted the Russian lines against NATO. I have fed that into Government, but we have recently signed a huge trade deal with South Korea. Is it a concern in Government that people we are trading with are now shifting their position on Russia?

[Stephen Doughty]

We continue to work and engage with all partners around the world about the reality of any loopholes or routes that could be supporting the war. As we all know, troops from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were brought in by Russia to fight. There are also often entities and individuals operating within countries, and we try to bring those to the attention of the authorities of our partners and friends, so that they can take action, but we will not hesitate to sanction and take action, where appropriate.

Turning to the crucial issue of accountability, we are working closely with Ukraine and its allies to hold Russia accountable for its heinous crimes in Ukraine. We are a founding member and chair of the conference of participants of the register of damage, which allows Ukranians to record losses, injury or damage caused by the war. In December, I was proud to visit The Hague to sign, on behalf of the UK, the convention to establish an international claims commission, which will assess claims under the register of damage to determine future compensation. We are also supporting the office of the prosecutor general of Ukraine and the International Criminal Court to ensure that allegations of war crimes are fully and fairly investigated, using independent and robust legal mechanisms.

As I mentioned, tens of thousands of boys and girls have been snatched from their families, deported and indoctrinated by Russia. We are clear that this is a campaign to erase a nation’s future. We cannot allow that to happen, so we are backing crucial efforts to identify those children and bring them home, and we are working with partners on that. We have committed more than £2.8 million to helping to trace and return them. We welcome all that colleagues have been doing to raise awareness of the issue globally.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

Last year, I moved my constituency office into Bosnia House, a former police station that was taken over by Anes Ceric, the CEO of the Bosnia UK Network, and his organisation. The network supports all communities, including Ukrainians, Syrians and Bosnians. There are such facilities not only in my constituency, but across the country. More help needs to be provided to ensure that the Ukrainians who settle in this country are fully supported, not only to achieve a better life, but to integrate with other communities. If any support—for example, any money drawn from sanctions—can be targeted at those organisations, it would be most gratefully received.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the contribution of the many organisations across the country that have reached out to support Ukrainian communities. I have certainly seen that in Cardiff, where some fantastic groups have done that; I know that is reflected in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There is a strong heritage in this country of individuals who fled conflict working to support others who have done the same. I have seen that repeatedly in many different groups. I pay tribute to all of them, and to all the people up and down Britain who have brought Ukrainians into their homes and supported these efforts in many other ways.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

While we are on the subject of Russian war crimes, James Scott Rhys Anderson is one of the only Britons to have been captured by the Russians. He was tried—the Foreign Office believes on false charges—and charged with being part of a terrorist group and illegally entering Russia. He was sentenced to five years in a Russian prison, and will then be transferred to a Russian penal colony, rather than being treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. What progress has been made on securing his release?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the number of cases. Russia has obligations under the Geneva convention, and we expect them to be upheld. We regularly raise these cases at the appropriate levels. I am happy to talk to him separately about that specific case, but he can be assured that I am well aware of that and a number of other cases. We are clear that international law must be upheld, including the basic principles of treatment of prisoners of war and situations involving children. That goes to the heart of the nature of what the Russian regime has been doing and the lengths it is willing to go to. We urge the upholding of the commitments to basic decency and the treatment of individuals, to which we are all signed up.

We are standing with Ukrainian people on the ground in their hour of need. We have provided more than £577 million in humanitarian support for vulnerable citizens since the invasion began, including those forced to flee their homes. This year we will spend up to £100 million on support, including to help families through this harsh winter. We have upped our support in energy, particularly in response to regular attacks on energy infrastructure. A lot of our work is to help to mitigate that, but the scale of those attacks is severe and they have a daily impact, as Members can see in media reporting and from what we know on the ground.

There is no firmer friend for Ukraine than the UK. Indeed, our commitment runs deep. I have mentioned the crucial 100-year partnership that the Prime Minister signed with President Zelensky in Kyiv. That agreement has enhanced co-operation across defence and security, science, trade and culture.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his update, particularly the in-depth overview that he is giving us. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), I would appreciate an update on the work that the Minister is doing to support families in this country. I commend to him the work of the Ukrainian community centre in Reading, where there is a Ukrainian language library. It is one of the very few in the south of England, and people visit from west London and Oxford to use it. It is important that families are able to maintain their native language and that children can retain their culture at this difficult time. Will he say a few words about the importance of that form of domestic support?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. Indeed, there is a similar initiative—a Ukrainian language library—in my constituency. It is absolutely crucial that that support is given, not only because it is the right thing to do for those young people, enabling them to maintain a connection to their culture, heritage and language, but because it stands in stark contrast to the attempts by Putin to wipe out their language, culture, history and heritage—not least through the abduction of children and continued attacks. One of the most moving moments during my visit to Kyiv was in a bunker under a school, where I saw the remarkable fortitude and resilience of young people and their teachers in the face of Russia’s attempts to destroy their lives physically and psychologically. They stand firm and resilient, as Ukrainians do. That should be a lesson to us all.

Under the 100-year partnership, as well as the joint development of drone technology, trading links, digital connection and other matters, we also have important school-twinning programmes. Those things will, collectively, deliver long-term economic growth and security for the UK and Ukraine, and strengthen ties between our nations.

I will end my remarks as I know that many Members wish to contribute. The UK’s support for Ukraine is iron-clad. The Ukrainians’ security is our security. We fully support US-led efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. As we have said repeatedly, only the Ukrainian people can decide their future. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must never be changed by force, and any deal must guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and security—and, indeed, Europe and the United Kingdom’s security—in the future. In the meantime, we will not hesitate to keep supporting Ukraine and ensure that it has the military equipment to defend itself, while sustaining the economic pressure on Putin to cut off the revenues funding this barbaric war, and ensuring accountability for the appalling scenes of destructions and devastation, be they against children, infrastructure or the whole nation of Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

16:34

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

We are at a crucial juncture in this conflict and the stakes could not be higher. It has been nearly four years since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, a period nearly as long as the duration of the first world war, with many of the same horrors that our soldiers witnessed in those days—trench warfare, a war of attrition—being witnessed today by a generation of young Ukrainians and Russians who are being decimated in their hundreds of thousands. We have also, tragically, seen the horrific mass deportation of 20,000 Ukrainian children. This is nothing short of a war crime. Make no mistake: on the line is the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The freedom and democracy enjoyed by its people and also the entire security architecture of the west are at stake. The threat is especially acute in the eastern flank, for countries such as Moldova, and in the Black Sea, but this reaches far beyond the region; it is about the security of us all.

European countries are already having to protect their borders from malign Russian activity. We have had to do so for years, and will continue to do so, but I felt that 2025 was a real turning point. We need only look at what has been happening in Poland, whether Russian drone incursions or railway sabotage. Romania and Estonia have both had their airspace outrageously violated by Russia. And the Royal Navy has had to be activated to intercept Russian ships, including the Yantar, and we all know the real purpose of that ship.

Russia is already waging a sophisticated hybrid and sub-conventional campaign against us. The reality is that we must be prepared for sustained tension with Russia for many years to come. But the outcome of the war in Ukraine is central to whether that threat is checked or emboldened, and this extends beyond just Russia. The fact that Putin is now reliant on North Korean personnel and ammunition should shame him, but it should also warn us. The war has become a testing ground for an authoritarian axis that will not stop at Ukraine if it is allowed to succeed.

All of us want to see this war end. It is unjust, unprovoked and entirely of Putin’s making. It is therefore of no surprise that Putin appears completely insincere about wanting to reach a genuine ceasefire. We understand that initiatives to end this war, led by the United States of America, are progressing, at least on the Ukrainian side, and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister, when he winds up the debate, his latest assessment of those talks and their direction of travel.

It is also important to recognise where responsibility lies. Time and again, Ukraine has shown a willingness to engage in discussions aimed at ending the conflict. Russia, by contrast, has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of seriousness and sincerity. If ceasefire proposals are rejected or negotiations undermined, the obstacle to peace lies not in Kyiv, nor among Ukraine’s friends, but firmly in Moscow.

One principle must remain non-negotiable: the Ukrainian people must be sovereign in their own land. They have paid in blood to defend themselves and their homeland, and decisions about their future, their borders and their security arrangements must be made by Ukraine and Ukraine alone. No peace imposed from outside will endure, and no settlement that ignores the will of the Ukrainian people can be sustainable. As we have done throughout history, Britain must continue to show international leadership in defending that principle, so I would welcome an update from the Minister on what the UK is doing diplomatically to that end.

It is crucial that we achieve a just and lasting peace. Putin must not emerge strengthened from a potential settlement; we must not give in to him, because the lesson of the last 20 years is that he always comes back for more, with a persistent desire to exert control over neighbouring states and to challenge the post-cold war settlement in Europe. It is clear from the statecraft he is using that he has his KGB playbook out right now. Putin has not abandoned his territorial ambitions. He wants to subjugate Ukraine lock, stock and barrel.

A lasting peace is not about conceding to aggression. Territorial concessions would mean rewarding Putin’s barbaric attacks on the Ukrainian people. Britain must lead the way again on sanctions and keep tightening the screws on Putin’s war machine. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits and the EU should step up and ban Russian oil and gas sooner than it currently plans, in 2027. Will the Minister confirm whether he has been pressing his counterparts in the European Union and European capitals to do exactly that? The Atlantic alliance must lead a new pincer movement to further constrain Russia’s energy revenues and stop Putin getting his hands on military equipment.

The issue with Russian oil persists. Countries are allowing the purchase and whitewashing of Russian oil on their watch. We know the businesses, refineries and individuals who are profiting from Russian energy exports, so do the Government plan to take further action against those enablers?

It is clear that we need to go a lot further on sovereign Russian assets. We welcome the £2.26 billion loan made by the UK to Ukraine off the back of the profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, but the Government cannot view that as the end of the road. Instead, Ministers need to be working around the clock, including with the City of London and our allies, to find innovative and workable solutions that allow us to go even further and to drive other G7 and European states to do the same. What is the current status of talks with the EU, the United States and the G7 partners? Specifically, what recent discussions has the Minister had with his Belgian counterpart? What is the UK doing to help move things along? Does the Minister agree that when those sanctioned assets are mobilised they should be used not just for the reconstruction of Ukraine but to support the Ukrainian people as fast as possible?

For all the talk of negotiations, we must not lose sight of the fact that the GDP of the UK and our allies combined colossally outweighs that of Russia, and we need to leverage that in every right way. We need to ramp up our defence industrial base now for the long term, because we know that, for Russia, sustaining its war economy will come at an enormous price at a time when it is already reeling from sanctions, with interest rates at high levels not seen in decades and with welfare payments having to be slashed.

Last week we learned of the Government’s vision for British troops on the ground in Ukraine, should a peace agreement be reached. That deployment of British troops is, I believe, one of the most serious decisions a Government and a Parliament could ever take, so there are a number of vital details that we need to understand about what exactly the Government’s plans are for any future deployment. These include the rules of engagement, troop numbers, how rotations could work, the composition of the force, whether any British soldiers will be actively involved in policing or patrolling any border or demilitarised zone, and what air and naval assets would be provided as part of any multinational force for Ukraine. The British people will expect answers to those vital questions before we consider sending our boys out to a conflict zone, potentially risking the lives of courageous British servicemen and women.

The Government must confirm the contributions of other countries and the nature of any security guarantees, particularly with regard to the United States and Germany. We need Ministers to confirm whether soldiers operating in Ukraine will be subject to the European convention on human rights during any deployment. Will the Minister clarify which Government budget such an operation will be funded from? Does he agree that this underscores the imperative of spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament? His Majesty’s Opposition have called for that and I hope that the Government will do the same. Kicking the can into the next decade, with no road map, is simply not going to cut it in the world in which we currently live. We must do everything in our power to deter an invasion of this kind of any other country. In principle, Britain must be involved in any and every effort to provide deterrence against such aggression in future.

Two things are also critical in the immediate term. First, Ukraine must continue to receive the military aid it needs to fight back against Russia’s increasingly savage war, and Putin’s ability to wage this war must be further undermined, for example through biting new sanctions. Secondly, any initiatives to secure an end to the conflict must deliver peace on the terms of the Ukrainian people, and with full involvement of Ukraine. We cannot allow Putin to be strengthened. Will the Minister provide an update on how the UK is ensuring Ukraine is able to meet the increasingly savage tactics being used by Russia?

To conclude, in the early days of the war, the previous Conservative Government played a pivotal role in coming to the aid of the Ukrainian people. Just as Margaret Thatcher stood up to the threat of Soviet domination in eastern Europe, and fought for the freedom and the democracy of eastern Europeans, ultimately leading to the fall of the Berlin wall and the break-up of the Soviet Union, my party led at the outset of this invasion, and continues to stand with the people of Ukraine.

As usual, it was British leadership that set the direction of travel for many European countries. It was the British people who provided approximately £12 billion in overall support, including military and humanitarian aid. With our allies, it was Britain that imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, to cripple Putin’s war machine. It was Britain that hosted the Ukraine recovery conference in 2023, raising billions for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction. And it was Britain that established Operation Interflex, which has now trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil since the illegal invasion of 2022. When freedom is threatened, Britain stands resolute.

Today, we feel as passionately as we did four years ago about defending and restoring the freedom that the Ukrainian people earned back in 1991. Long has Britain stood for the cause of freedom, and long may that continue.

16:48

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I have been complaining at home recently because the heating broke down, and I felt that was not being taken seriously by my other half. It was minus 1°C, I was really cold and I had been moaning about it for a week. Then it was pointed out to me that right now in Ukraine, in Kyiv, it is minus 12°C, although it feels like minus 16°C, and overnight it will be minus 17°C. To stop myself moaning, I have put the temperatures in London and in Kyiv on my phone.

I keep remembering that in Kyiv ordinary men and women are having to battle against the cold, and their infrastructure is being deliberately attacked by Putin to try to undermine their morale. What happened on Monday night? There were 293 drones and 18 missiles in a bombardment. Air defences shot down 240 drones and seven missiles, but there was damage to critical civilian infrastructure in Kyiv and across Zaporizhzhia, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv and Donetsk.

There are now several hundred thousand households without any power or heating. There are 500 high-rise tower blocks where people are really cold, and they have acute shortages of electricity. The Russians are doing this on purpose. This is not proper warfare. This is such a basic thing—you are not supposed to target civilians when you are at war; it is against the law. When you are at war, you are at war, so go for the combatants; do not go for the children, nursery schools and housing estates. Do not bomb blocks of flats. That is not right or proper; it is illegal, immoral and wrong.

The people are exhausted. They are about to hit their fourth year of being at war with Russia, but what is so amazing is the strength, focus, fortitude and bravery of these people, which has absolutely hit me in the heart when I have talked to Ukrainians. They are absolutely determined to keep their country Ukrainian, and they will not allow the Russians to win. No matter how hard it is, how cold it is or how many people are lost, they will continue to fight. They stand resolute, and we stand with Ukraine and with those brave people.

On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have had the honour of not only visiting Ukraine, but having a number of meetings with the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Committee. Its members have varied over the years. During the most recent meeting, the chair was the only person we could see. I joked about it to start with—I was going, “They ought to turn the lights on.” What an idiot! They do not have any lights or any power. The members were talking to us from their cars, because they could put on the heating and a light in their car and talk to us that way. That was how we had a meeting with the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Committee, but the members of the Committee showed up and told us what they had to say. We stand with Ukraine—this bravery!

There are many things that we can do. I am really encouraged to hear that we are bolstering the work that we need to do when it comes to the shadow fleet. If anybody does not understand it, the shadow fleet is a fleet of ageing ships of obscure ownership that are uninsured and often environmentally unsound. They are being used to transport sanctioned Russian oil products to get around the oil price cap.

I hope that we can find legal grounds for deploying military assets against the shadow fleet under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and do insurance spot checks on false-flag ships, some of which were expelled by the countries for which they used to wave the flag and claim they came from. Some of those countries do not even have a shipping register, yet the ships still claim that they belong to those countries. If the ships are not insured, we can really take action, and I am glad to hear that we are going to step that up. That sort of sanction busting must stop.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

On that point, two tankers from the shadow fleet were scheduled to go through the channel earlier today. The shadow fleet exists solely to keep money flowing to the Kremlin, while threatening maritime safety and environmental security. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK Government should be mindful of other aspects relevant to this debate as we continue to pursue the shadow fleet that allows Putin to wage his unwarranted and unlawful invasion?

[Emily Thornberry]

I agree completely. We need to be as creative as possible when it comes to the shadow fleet, and there is always more that we can do. The Foreign Affairs Committee and many of its talented members are always available to give as many suggestions as the Government wish to hear. One thing that worries me is that it is all very well having creative ways of imposing sanctions, but they are only as good as their enforcement. When I push the Government on exactly how much effort they are putting into enforcement and how much investment is going in, I am always concerned that although those sanctions may look good on paper, things may be slipping through the net. We need to ensure that we mean what we say, and that we do it.

There are a couple of other issues that I would like to briefly cover. First, although there is a hot war going on in Ukraine—that is one war that is going on in Europe—we are all agreed that Europe is also at war with Russia on another basis. That is the new hybrid warfare, the sort of warfare that is more difficult to identify, whether Russia is subjecting us to sabotage, cyber-attacks, or misinformation and disinformation. We are at war with Russia, and it is trying to undermine our democracies and our countries. Nowhere is that clearer than around the Black sea, which is of huge strategic importance to Russia. The countries around the Black sea, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, have all been subjected to a level of hybrid warfare that we need to look at, not just because we need to be of assistance to them—we are all in this together—but because that is a portent of what could happen to us.

Yesterday, the Committee heard from Ana Revenco about the ongoing hybrid warfare that Moldova is subjected to. It is at the forefront of hybrid warfare; it faces cyber-attacks, illicit financing schemes, prolific information manipulation campaigns and political rhetoric espoused by Kremlin-linked actors. Some of us in the Chamber might be thinking, “We already have some of that—in fact, we probably have all of that”, but we only have it at a low level. However, we are heading for elections, and elections are always a time when a democracy is at its most vulnerable. We must not be complacent, but I fear that sometimes we are. We are a great democracy; we have been going for a long time, and we think, “Oh, it’ll be fine”, because of course we are an island. If, like Finland, we had Russia right on our border, we would have a very different attitude, but in modern times, whether or not we have a land border, Russia can still try to influence our democracy by undermining us. If we open our eyes, we can see that there is ongoing disinformation that is trying to undermine our democracy right now, and the problem is that the public are not alive to it. The last thing anybody ever wants to admit is that they have been lied to and they have fallen for it. Trying to explain to them afterwards that they have done so is just impossible, so we need to ensure that we counter that disinformation right now.

For the Russians, Britain is the No. 1 enemy in Europe. Looking at their rhetoric and the sorts of things they say about us, it is Britain they loathe more than practically any other country. I am proud of that, but we need to be mindful of what it means for our country. The Russians believe that we are responsible for triggering the second world war and many subsequent conflicts. In today’s context, that is projected on to the war in Ukraine, where Britain is portrayed as not merely a supporter of Kyiv, but the architect and main driver of the conflict. Listening to some of the things their secret service has been openly saying about us, it is as if everything that is happening in Ukraine is down to us—I wish it were, but the rhetoric is definitely against us. They advance a conspiratorial vision in which Britain is acting as not just Ukraine’s ally but the mastermind behind a proxy war, persuading Europe to fight to the last Ukrainian. The chairman of the state Duma even alleged recently that we were orchestrating specific incidents, such as the shelling of Belgorod, close to the Ukrainian border. So it goes on. Russian propaganda routinely accuses the UK of being involved in terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage targeting Russia, or Russian nationals. The allegations include the poisoning of Litvinenko, the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic sea—it seems that all of this is down to us—and the terrorist attack committed by Islamists at the Crocus City Hall.

Russian propaganda continues to point the finger at Britain. It used to be America, but for some reason America is not in Russian sights so much any more, and we are. In a way, we should be proud of that, but we need to be mindful of it, and we need to stick together and stand with Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine—the Ukranians are fighting the war for us, and we continue to give them every support—and we should be proud of that. I am proud of the fact that in this country and in this House—with the exception of those who are not present in the Chamber this afternoon—we are united behind them. We remain united, and we must remain united until the end—until victory. Slava Ukraini!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

17:04

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I welcome the time for this debate on Ukraine today, as we meet at a key moment. American peace proposals welcomed by the Kremlin suggested demilitarised zones and buffer areas. Those phrases sound technical, but their consequences could be catastrophic. The Ukrainian people see such proposals for what they are: a ruse to circumvent Ukraine’s defences and continue the invasion later. Russia’s relentless assault in the east has intensified, despite it passing the grim milestone of a million Russian troops killed or injured on the frontline. Zaporizhzhia, a city of 670,000 people, is now under serious threat. Russian drones are striking the city. The emergency services have prepared a plan to evacuate a third of the population if fighting damages the nearby nuclear power station. That is the reality of Putin’s war.

President Trump is unreliable, unpredictable and disdainful of the rule of law—one need only look at his actions in Venezuela. Britain must take an active role in ensuring that Ukraine’s interests remain at the heart of all future negotiations, reinforcing collective deterrence and signalling that European security and Ukraine’s sovereignty remain non-negotiable. That also requires honesty about the United States. What concrete security guarantees have actually been secured, and can the Government seriously assure this House that those guarantees would endure beyond the next conversation between President Trump and Vladimir Putin?

The United Kingdom and France have committed to the potential deployment of troops in Ukraine, should a peace deal be agreed. Any discussion of UK or French troops on the ground must be about deterrence, not escalation, and limited in scope, tied to a political settlement and never an open-ended deployment. It is right that the Prime Minister has committed to putting any deployment of British forces to Ukraine to a vote in this place, but any such commitment must be credible. That means having the personnel, the equipment, the logistics and the funding in place not just to deploy, but to sustain a force over time. Serious questions remain about our current ability to do that.

Will the Minister set out in clear terms how the Government intend to ensure that any future deployment to Ukraine will be fully resourced, properly equipped and sustainably funded, and not announced before the means to deliver it exist? The Government must increase the size of our armed forces, plug gaps in military capability and fix the broken procurement processes. The lack of a clear defence investment plan for our military undermines the credibility of announcements of overseas deployments.

Alongside military deterrence, we must also apply maximum economic pressure. Yesterday morning, residents in my constituency were surprised to wake up to find various fruits and vegetables and cans of milk distributed across our beaches in Seaford and Newhaven. A container ship passing through the channel had shed some containers in the past few weeks, and those have now washed up. Another day, my residents could find their beaches covered in oil leaked from a sanctioned Russian tanker from the Russian shadow fleet also passing through the channel. That is why we must take every action possible to restrict the shadow fleet, not just to prevent the flow of money into Russia, but because it presents an active threat to this country’s economic, military and environmental security. We therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of a ban on UK companies providing services such as insurance or maintenance to ships carrying Russian liquefied natural gas. That is a big step in the right direction and we genuinely welcome it.

Carriers owned or insured by the UK have transported £45 billion-worth of Russian products since 2022. We must do more. The Government’s recent oil price cap reduction is insufficient. Liberal Democrats believe that the cap should be lowered at least to $30 dollars a barrel, with stricter enforcement to ensure that no UK money supports Russia’s war effort. The Government should also be giving serious consideration to a total ban on Russian oil and gas exports. I think that many people would share my astonishment at the news that the UK still imports £1.7 billion-worth of goods and services from Russia, and that the figure actually increased in 2025.

The most impactful contribution that the Government could make is pushing for allied action to unlock frozen Russian assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has introduced a Bill to enable billions in frozen Russian assets to be seized and the proceeds to be directed to Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. It is also welcome that the Government are threatening legal action to secure £2.5 billion from Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea sale. Liberal Democrats have called for that for over a year. It should never have taken as long, but we welcome forward movement. Putin must be punished, not rewarded, and it was deeply disappointing to see the European Union fail to agree on a reparations loan using Russian assets. Britain must show greater resolve and make Putin pay—literally—for his invasion.

We are all appalled by the abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. That is a war crime. We support the Bring Kids Back initiative and the Yale School of Public Health’s humanitarian research lab, but those initiatives are in danger because President Trump has cut their funding. Again, frozen Russian assets could be used to fund the shortfall. Support for Ukraine also means doing right by Ukrainians here in the UK: Ministers must provide certainty on length of leave to remain and urgently resolve the status of young Ukrainians studying at our universities and colleges, who cannot be left in prolonged legal limbo.

Russia continues to pose a profound strategic threat through its invasion, cyber-attacks and energy coercion. That threat extends far beyond Ukraine, to the Baltic states in particular, and deterrence must therefore be pan-European if it is to be credible. It would be wholly inappropriate to contemplate restoring Russia’s G7 membership, and the UK must oppose its readmission. The UK must also step up its contribution to European defence through NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force and deeper co-operation with our European allies, and must be unequivocal in defending the sovereignty of all NATO partners in areas including the High North and Greenland. Aggression and violations of sovereignty will not be rewarded.

As we debate in comfort, Ukrainian soldiers man defensive positions in freezing conditions. Ukrainian civilians flee their homes; Ukrainian families live with the daily terror of drone and missile strikes. They are fighting for freedom, sovereignty, and their very existence. They are fighting for principles that we claim to hold dear: democracy, the rule of law and self-determination. Will we stand with them for as long as it takes, or will we allow fatigue and the bullying of autocrats to erode our resolve? Liberal Democrats are clear: we will not look away; we will not accept an unjust peace; we will push for the maximum economic pressure, for seizing frozen Russian assets, for proper support for Ukraine’s defence, and for democratic oversight of any British military involvement.

The unity of this House, with one party a small but notable exception, reflects the strength of the British people’s commitment to our Ukrainian friends. They must be tired, but we must never tire of talking about them in this place. They are fighting for all our futures, and we must continue to stand by their side for as long as it takes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Sixteen Members wish to speak. I do not want to impose a time limit, but if everyone speaks for about eight minutes and monitors their speaking time, everyone will have an equal time in which to speak. Let us try to be mindful.

17:08

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I shall try to follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me begin by paying tribute to what Members have said already, and also to the fact that a number of Members in all parties have contributed in many different ways in trying to stand up for the Ukrainian people, not only in speeches in the House but through the initiatives that they are taking.

I want to talk briefly about my own motivation, which starts in Syria. Here I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes a reference to my role in that regard. As Members will know, I have a deep-seated passion for seeing that the Syrian people have a proper free and inclusive future after years of brutal dictatorship from Assad, and, of course, Putin was central to that. Half a million people died in Syria because of the actions of Assad and Putin, and I question whether Putin would have felt emboldened to invade Ukraine—Crimea—in 2014 if our country and the United States had taken a stronger role back in 2013, when that red line was set.

I want to take a moment to reflect on what the Minister said about parties not being present, because another party is absent too: Your Party. Members of that party and of the hard left look at this conflict in Ukraine and blame the west. Hon. Members may remember the ridiculous statement that blamed NATO expansion for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Let us be absolutely clear: there was no excuse, and there never will be any excuse, for Putin’s actions in Ukraine.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if anybody has any doubt about Putin’s motives or morality, they should look at who his partners are in this war? Iran is a country that is killing its own people on the streets and is now executing them. Is it not the case that Putin is an absolute disgrace, and anybody who shows any sympathy for him really should look at who his friends are?

[David Taylor]

I think we know who Putin’s friends are, and that is a matter of public record. I completely agree, and if I had had time during my question on the Iran statement yesterday, I would have spoken about the role that Iran is playing in Ukraine. Shahed drones, which all of us who have been to Ukraine have had to cower from, are being provided by the Iranian regime, so the sooner it falls the better.

I want to praise Conservative Members for the role they played, alongside my own, in the lead-up to the conflict. In particular, I praise Ben Wallace for his role, especially in putting in place the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, because it was so crucial at the start of the conflict that Kyiv did not fall. Much as we may praise the actions of our Government or any other Government, we must of course praise the bravery of the Ukrainian people at the start of that conflict in stopping the tanks rolling into Kyiv.

I am very grateful for the work that Ministers and the Prime Minister are doing to support the Ukrainian people, and we have heard some of the figures about the billions going on defence spending. I am particularly grateful for the £3.5 billion that will be spent on hardware under the defence industry support treaty, and the continued support for Operation Interflex training and for the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has over 50 partners, as well as for the British built octopus drones that will be so crucial.

I absolutely welcome the talks towards a ceasefire. Who would not want a ceasefire? I also welcome the commitment with France to deploy peacekeepers at some point in the future. However, we must continue to support the Ukrainian people, because I fear that the Russians will use any pause in fighting as an opportunity to re-group and go again. We cannot be under any illusion about the threat from Russia. Many of us have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I had an opportunity to visit our fantastic troops in the Tapa base in Estonia just before Christmas, which really brought home just how real the threat from Russia continues to be.

I have made a couple of trips to Ukraine since the conflict started. The most recent one, almost a year ago, focused on drone technology and the imperative of supporting the Ukrainians in defending themselves. I had some absolutely amazing meetings while I was there, including with Deputy Defence Minister Sergiy Boyev, as well as with Ukrainian MPs who many hon. Members will know, such as Dmytro Natalukha and Oleksander Marikovskyi, who are members of the Economic Affairs Committee. Dmytro referred to the vital importance of drones and the need for what he called the Kalashnikovs of the sky. A Kalashnikov is of course a very durable weapon, and if it does break in any way it is very easy to repair. As well as the most important high tech, the Ukrainians continue to need the everyday drones that can help on the frontline to do reconnaissance, so that they know the Russian positions, and help them as they try to advance. Yes, we need investments in advanced technology, but we also need the Kalashnikovs of the sky—weapons for which parts are easy to come by and that are easy to repair.

On drones, I echo a point made by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I agree that we need to look at how we can get more UK finance into Ukraine through joint ventures that can help with the production of drones. If we can work with the City of London to look at ways in which we can unlock any barriers that may exist, that would be a worthwhile venture, because we need to get more capital into the country to help Ukrainian companies, as well as our own, to build drones. The Octopus drone scheme is a brilliant example of our trying to work with the Ukrainians. There is a real opportunity here. The Ukrainians have the data, and the lived experience that can help us to build drones together. That will help us, and will help them in this war. I hope that, in the wind-ups, the Minister can talk about how we can work with the City of London to unlock more capital that will go into the country.

I want to talk briefly about a second trip I made, way back in 2024, when I was but a humble candidate. There are a number of organisations up and down the UK involving ordinary people who are trying to help in a grassroots way, in any way that they can. At a time when there is so much talk about charity beginning at home, and about problems here, it is remarkable that so many ordinary people have stepped up to help people they will probably never meet. Some have gone to Ukraine, and I want to pay tribute to them. I went there with an organisation called Help99. It delivers pick-up trucks that farmers do not need any more. Soldiers use them on the frontline to get from A to B. To go back to an earlier point, long-range missiles and expensive technology are really important, but we also need the things that will help soldiers on the ground. I pay tribute to those organisations. I had the privilege of hosting an event on this subject in Parliament last year, at which over 60 individuals and over 30 organisations from around the country came together.

I encourage the Government to look at ways that any excess vehicles on the Government estate, be they at the Home Office or at Network Rail, can be donated cheaply. Let us get the Treasury to write off these vehicles. It would not cost that much money, and it would make a difference to ordinary soldiers on the frontline.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

17:16

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you want us to keep our comments fairly brief, so to save time, let me say that I associate myself completely with what was said by the Minister, the Opposition spokespeople and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in support of Ukraine. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. They are a brave and noble people showing enormous courage. None of us here has any sympathy whatever for Putin and what he has done. We should be reasonably confident and not downhearted. We should be proud of what we have done as a nation from the very start.

We should not assume that Putin will necessarily win. He has an economy the size of Spain, or perhaps Italy. We have vastly more resources. These regimes can seem very strong, but they can collapse very quickly. Who knows what will happen? He is only a prototype dictator. In these four years, he has only marched 30 miles; Stalin marched all the way from the Volga to Berlin. Yes, all right, he is refusing all these peace offers, and he is determined to get the rest of the Donbas. I agree that over four years, with thousands more dying and his economy destroyed, he might get another 30 miles, and get the rest of the Donbas, but so what? What will that achieve for his country? It is so cruel, unnecessary and pointless. There is criticism of Mr Trump, but at least he is trying to get some sort of peace deal. Our influence is limited, but we should support his efforts. One thing we cannot support is cravenly getting a peace deal that allows Russia to grab territory that it has failed to get over the past four years, and get the fortresses that Ukraine needs for its survival.

There is hope. I know that some people think that this is almost as bad as Germany invading Poland in 1939. It is almost worse. I have made it my job over the past 40 years, partly because my wife is half Russian, to try to understand the Russian psyche. It is worse, in a sense, because so many nationalist Russians, who are not the Russians I know or associate with, view Ukraine—Ukraine means “border country”—as part of Russia. They view Kyiv, the source of the Russian Rus, as we view Canterbury, so I am afraid these Russian nationalists will not give up. They want to grab the whole country, so we must remain firm.

I would go along with anything the Government wanted to do in support of Ukraine in terms of sanctions: upping sanctions, stopping tankers—anything they like. However, in the few moments that I have, I want to question the Government on the idea of sending a small force of British troops. We are part of the coalition of the willing; I do not want it to be the coalition of the naive willing.

I have sat through so many of these debates: the debate on Iraq—I was one of only 15 Tory MPs to oppose Blair’s invasion—the Afghanistan debates; and the Syria debate, in which I refused to support Mr Cameron. There is so much danger in deploying perhaps just 7,000 under-resourced British troops to a country the size of France, with a population the size of France’s and an 800-mile front—a country where 7,000 people have been dying every month. Now, if America was prepared to come in, or if there was a NATO operation, I think the House would be very willing to accept our involvement, but compare this with what happened in West Germany. Compare the size of our Army now to the size of our Army then. Do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had 120,000 service personnel in Germany? We had 55,000 British troops, excluding the RAF, in West Germany; we had 900,000 NATO troops in West Germany, including the Bundeswehr. America was totally committed.

I noticed what was said by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary). They did not immediately say that they would support the Government. Instead, they asked some quite serious questions. If we have this debate, we have to go on asking those questions. What are the rules of engagement? What happens if I am right, and Putin accepts some temporary ceasefire and then marches in again? What would happen then to our 7,000 troops?

[Emily Thornberry]

I am listening very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I take on board his points, but we have yet to give sufficient emphasis to whether Putin actually wants peace. I fully understand that plans need to be made in case there is a peace, but that is rather based on the idea that he wants to stop, and I, for one, am not really sure that he does.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree with that entirely. I am not sure that this will ever happen. I am not sure there will ever be a ceasefire. I think Putin is determined to carry on for another four years and another 30 miles. However, as the national Parliament, and given the size of our Army and the resources that we have, I think that we have a right to question the Prime Minister on this. Now, I quite understand that for the Prime Minister, this is hell. He has to deal with the NHS, the farmers, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats—much better to grandstand on the world stage and say, “Yes, we are prepared to put our troops on the ground,” but it is grandstanding, and it is extremely dangerous.

I will end on this point. Just imagine—I know it is probably not going to happen—that there is a ceasefire, and we put troops in, and Putin marches again. Does anybody here really, in their heart of hearts, want to be involved in a shooting war with Russia? I have grown-up children. Does anybody here want their son to be called out there, and to be killed by a Russian drone, as thousands of brave Ukrainians have been? This is serious stuff. I am pleased that the two Opposition parties are asking the questions—that is what we all need to do.

17:24

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

It will come as no surprise to colleagues across the House to hear that the issue I want to focus on is the treatment of the Ukrainian children. When I first visited Ukraine, this was the issue that struck me to my core. Russia has stolen 20,000 Ukrainian children from their home, and Russian authorities themselves report that more than 700 Ukrainian children have now been officially registered in Russia—a heinous war crime that continues unabated today.

Some 1.6 million children in the occupied territories are being subjected to militarisation and indoctrination. In recent months, we have seen clearer and deeply disturbing evidence, and have heard harrowing testimony from Ukrainian children who have been abducted by Russia, and from those trapped in the occupied territories, that the militarisation of Ukrainian children is accelerating at pace. It is no longer about propaganda quietly slipped into classrooms. We now see the deliberate transformation of schools into instruments of war—an $8 billion down payment on Russia’s future military.

Ukrainian children are being placed on so-called specialised tracks and funnelled into paramilitary movements that are now formally embedded in the education system. Children are prescribed mandatory hours of military training and are forced to attend military camps. If they refuse, they risk failing their secondary education, which leaves conscription into the Russian military as the only future left to them.

One child told Save Ukraine:

“They showed us different types of grenades and mines. How much pressure a mine can withstand when it explodes. How to lay mines, clear areas, set tripwires, dig trenches. While I was digging a trench, they deliberately threw in a grenade to make it feel like a real battlefield.”

Another child recently rescued by Save Ukraine reported that Russian soldiers conduct psychological testing, asking them questions like, “How do you feel about killing? Do you enjoy hurting people? Do you want to be a tank operator or a pilot?”. The fear of violence, punishment and forced conscription is not an isolated experience. It has become a daily reality for those living in the occupied territories. This is not education; it is coercion. It is cold, calculated and chillingly familiar from the darkest chapters of history on occupation.

Those children who are not trained to fight are trained to police. They are being shaped into the next generation of law enforcement officials. Whose laws are they being taught to enforce? Putin’s. They are laws that silence dissent through violence, that tear children from families, and that allow children as young as 14 to be prosecuted for terrorism, with penalties reaching life imprisonment, simply for opposing Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Children in the occupied territories live under constant surveillance. Their phones are checked, their social media is monitored, and any sign of Ukrainian consciousness is routinely treated as suspicious, disloyal and extremism. Russia’s treatment of Ukrainian children reveals its long-term strategy, with deep security implications for Europe and NATO.

I am proud of the leadership that the United Kingdom has shown in standing with Ukraine, in everything from the arms we have supplied to the sanctuary we have provided, but I am deeply concerned; although reports suggest that we are 90% of the way towards a peace agreement, the language on the abducted Ukrainian children remains disturbingly vague. There is no clarity on how the stolen children will be traced. There is no clarity on how they will be returned, and bear in mind that many have been trafficked to Belarus or North Korea.

What happens to the youngest children who were ripped from their homes, who may not be able to remember a time before they were placed with Russian families? Who will adjudicate if there are disputes about children’s documentation, bearing in mind that many mothers in the occupied territories were forced to register their children as Russian simply to secure maternity care?

There remain disparities between the individuals whom we in this country have sanctioned for the forced deportation of Ukrainian children and those sanctioned by the EU and the US. I have flagged those disparities with the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I completely understand that he cannot comment on further designations, but I urge him to look again at that list.

I thank the Minister sincerely for his efforts, and I know that he takes this issue incredibly seriously. To that end, I urge him to ensure that the same determination and resolve shown to the international coalition of the willing is now, at this pivotal time in peace negotiations, shown to the international coalition for the return of Ukrainian children. Will he push for a meeting of that coalition again at the earliest opportunity so that it can establish a clear post-war plan to secure international consensus on the fate of the abducted children, and to make it clear that their return must be a non-negotiable next step in any peace deal between Russia and Ukraine? There can be no lasting peace without the return of the stolen children. Slava Ukraini!

17:38

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I shall be as brief as I possibly can be. I very much welcome the debate, although it did come as a bit of a surprise. I think one of the reasons why not many Members are in the Chamber is that they were not really prepared for it, the Prime Minister is not here and there is no proper motion. Out of 400 Labour MPs, fewer than 20 are in the Chamber, which I think projects an unfortunate message for a Government debate on Ukraine. I welcome it nevertheless, but I look forward to a proper debate on a proper motion to which everyone will have to turn up—there might even be whipping—to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, particularly about the deployment, which I will come to.

I will not repeat the speech I had the privilege of delivering in the debate granted to me by the Backbench Business Committee on 4 December. However, I will reiterate that Russia cannot win this war militarily; it will only win because of western weakness—our weakness and lack of resolve. If we support Ukraine, Russia cannot win. That is why its diplomatic efforts are so vigorous.

There is far more that we could do. In particular, we could rearm our own armed forces much more quickly. I get smiles from Government Front Benchers when I say that, because they agree with me, but the Government are not delivering the scale of defence spending increases that we need.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Briefly, because I want to be as swift as possible.

[Ian Roome]

Just today it has been reported that 18 tankers from the Russian shadow fleet have passed through the channel since the Defence Secretary’s statement to the House on 7 January on curtailing Russian oil exports. Does the hon. Member agree that we must show the Russians that we mean what we say?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I completely agree. There should be a NATO operation to intercept every ship that comes into NATO’s operational area in the north Atlantic and the North sea around the north of Scotland. We could choke off a significant amount of this, but we are not doing so; we are letting it carry on. Getting all of Europe’s NATO powers in line with that is a problem, but let us do it. Together, the NATO nations in Europe could show Trump that we are prepared to deliver for European security, but we are not doing that at the moment.

It is essential for us to discuss the so-called coalition of the willing. We all know that there are already some armed forces personnel in Ukraine providing advice, logistics, training and intelligence, and supporting planning and headquarters—that sort of thing. There is probably more that we can learn from the Ukrainians about fighting the Russians than we can teach them. But is 7,500 troops in formed units—a brigade—supporting a combat battalion or two what we are talking about? I have grave doubts about that, including on the rules of engagement and how we would provide core security. Would we not just be presenting a lovely target for the Russians to attack? They might not attack it directly—it might be “accidental”—but it would blur areas and create all sorts of problems if we were so overt. I have my doubts, unless we have a force in there that can actually fight and defend itself against the Russians. How we would respond in such a situation, were Russia to escalate, is a very open question.

I have no desire to be an armchair critic of the Government’s policy, and this brings me to the main point that I want to make. It has become fashionable to believe that Parliament has a right to tell the Government when and when not to deploy troops, but there is no constitutional basis for this whatsoever. In fact, the Prime Minister assumes his office, takes the seals of office and takes the responsibility upon himself about when to direct the armed forces into harm’s way. There is no constitutional impediment to him doing that.

What we saw in the Syria debate—I commend the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) for his excellent speech—was a humiliating abdication of the Government’s responsibility. They knew that it was right to deploy armed force in Syria, but they then volunteered not to do so because of a finely balanced debate and vote in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister stood there and said, “I get it.” This was really O-level politics and O-level statecraft. It was ridiculous, and the hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that it projected weakness when we knew that the Russians were supporting the Syrian Government in deploying chemical weapons and murdering their own people. It was also weak of Obama to say this was a red line and then fail to do anything about it. We projected weakness and we invited Putin to try again, and I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about the consequences.

The point is that the Government have the responsibility to make this judgment. They cannot pass this judgment on to 650 armchair generals jaw-jawing in the House of Commons when we do not have the intelligence or the assessments. We can express our views and we can hold the Government to account for the outcome of what they decide, but I put it to the Minister that in that debate on Syria we learned that a Prime Minister does not resign when he loses such a crucial vote. Part of that was to do with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. If he had made it a vote of confidence, would he have won it? If not, would there have been a general election? No, there would not have been. He might have had to resign, but there would not have been a general election. We were at a very artificial point.

I put it to the Minister that if the Prime Minister were to bring a vote to the House of Commons this time and lose it, he would either have to resign and hand over to somebody else or call a general election, because we no longer have a fixed-term Parliament. We are back to real accountability, and the accountability that counts is at the ballot box, in the final analysis. The one power the Prime Minister has is to call a general election and ask the King to dissolve Parliament. If he had lost such a vote, that would be the only honourable thing for him to do. He cannot come here and engage in the kind of abject, humiliating abdication of responsibility that we saw before.

On the other experience, the Government of the day won the Iraq vote, and I happen still to think that was right. We have a democracy of sorts in Iraq, and Iraq is no longer a Russian puppet, but who in this House still believes that was the right decision? The polls went in favour of the Iraq war at the last minute, and maybe that helped Tony Blair get the vote over the line. Was that a good basis for making a decision? No, it was not. Either the Government make such a decision for themselves and hold themselves accountable to this House, or the Prime Minister should not accept the seals of office and become Prime Minister, because that is the job.

17:38

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I would like to start by thanking the Leader of the House for giving us this debate. He could have chosen any topic to fill the space this afternoon, but he chose this debate on Ukraine. It is a privilege to serve as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine. I can see many members of the APPG here. The group is not full, so other Members can still join. We would like to have every Back-Bench Member of the House as a member of the APPG.

I want to start with a first-person narrative about what is happening in Ukraine now, as we approach the midway point of the Ukrainian winter, in the middle of January, and the reality of the lived experience of what midwinter in Kyiv really means and feels like. Russia continues to have the ability to strike on a daily basis and to take out Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Its energy security is constantly under fire.

I spoke with Lesia Vasylenko—I know many people here know Lesia—who chairs the British group in the Rada, and who is in Kyiv. She told me:

“I have had no heating in my flat for four days and it’s minus 10”

—this was yesterday; it is now minus 13°—

“This is the situation in half of Kyiv. No electricity too, apart from a couple of hours in the night. Some buildings have no water. I’m writing this to you in total darkness and wearing four layers. Schools are not working. The sound of generators is less and less heard as they are breaking down en masse, given that they are not designed to work non-stop”

and in such low temperatures. She continues:

“Hospitals are also working at limited capacity. And every night Russia is deliberately hitting more and more power generating facilities and gas infrastructure. The task is to freeze Kyiv out. At one point mayor Klitschko even appealed to the people of Kyiv to leave the city. Putin’s invasion nearly four years ago has resulted in millions fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and relentless attacks on hospitals, homes and schools. This includes Russian state sponsored abductions of Ukrainian children,”

which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) spoke brilliantly about,

“and the arrest of my colleagues at the OSCE, Dmytro Shabanov, Maksym Petrov, and Vadym Golda,”

who I know my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) is raising as an Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe rep on Ukraine. Lesia is the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly chair of the parliamentary support team for Ukraine. I am happy that we can support her and continue to support the work going on now. On our support for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Octopus signed a significant deal with DTEK, a large private energy company in Ukraine, for £100 million. We need to see much more like that.

I was pleased my hon. Friend the Minister spoke about that bunker under the school on the south bank of Kyiv that we went to together when we were in opposition. We need to think about those children now—not in that school, which has a generator, but in their homes freezing, and all those other millions of people in Kyiv now being frozen out. We need to do more not just to provide emergency energy generation, but that long-term, secure renewable energy. For us, renewable energy is a matter of the energy transition—we just had the statement right before this—but for them, it is national security. It is the difference between being able to heat their homes, keep the lights on and use their mobile phones, and not being able to do so. It is much easier for the Russians to take out a gas-fired power station or a nuclear power station than it is to take out a wind or solar farm. We need to ensure that we do everything we can on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

As chair of the APPG, I write many letters every week to enable Members of the Ukrainian Rada to visit us here. That is not just about Members of the Rada but right across the piece, because so many Ukrainians have family members here and other ties to the UK. It is still so difficult for Ukranians to get visas. I ask the Minister how we can further reduce bureaucracy for Ukrainians to come here and how we can liberalise those short-term travel visas, which are still difficult to get.

Sanctions are one of the few non-military tools capable of influencing Russian policy. They act as leverage that should not be given away without meaningful concessions. Without conditions, such as a withdrawal to the 1991 borders and binding agreements on reparations, a ceasefire could freeze the conflict in a way that perpetuates instability. Europe and the UK cannot repeat the mistake of 2014, when sanctions over Crimea and the Donbas were limited and political will dissipated. That leniency enabled Moscow to believe that further escalation would be tolerated and led to the full-scale invasion in 2022. Whatever happens—whatever negotiation or agreement —we need to keep Russian sanctions in place and continue to restrict its ability to operate, because my concern is that otherwise we will allow future conflicts to happen, because Russia’s territorial ambitions are not constrained just to Ukraine or to any agreement to freeze the conflict.

[Phil Brickell]

Will my hon. Friend give way on the topic of sanctions?

[Alex Sobel]

I will.

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for the UK-Ukraine relationship, including through the 100-year partnership. Does he agree that it is worth commending the Government for the action that has been taken in the past month on issuing a licence through the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation to move the £2.5 billion of Chelsea football club proceeds that have remained frozen for four years now? That money could be used to support the victims of conflict, including in Ukraine. Will he join me in calling on the Government to move faster on unlocking the more than £700,000 of assets that belong to Petr Aven, one of Putin’s closest oligarch friends? They have been frozen for quite some time now by the National Crime Agency and could also be used to support the Ukrainian people.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has taken too long to see that Chelsea money. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) talked about the aid convoys. Imagine what they could do to support Ukraine, the generators we could buy and the energy infrastructure we could build with the billions from the Chelsea sale.

[David Taylor]

I hope that if that money is unlocked, we look at ways to compensate for the money that is going into Ukraine by freeing up money that might be able to go to other conflicts around the world, where we have sadly made some reductions due to the cut to the aid budget.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is inviting me to comment on our official development assistance cuts, on which we probably share the same opinion. There is a principle here about reparations, whether they are from the Russian state, from individuals who have benefited from this war or from the gangster kleptocracy that runs Russia. We need to do both those things. There is a wider discussion to be had about how we can support Ukraine and retrench some of the money for other areas, particularly Syria and, hopefully, Iran, that need ODA money from the UK now and in the near future.

As my time is nearly up, I will ask a couple of questions that the Minister can answer at the end of the debate. On the much-vexed question of our deployment of troops to Ukraine, it is very early. I want to counsel some Members that when they are talking about this, their language and approach is very reminiscent of the run-up to the second world war and Lord Halifax’s approach. There was an agreement in Munich, Chamberlain said that it would be a peace in our time, and then the war started—it came to us. Russia’s territorial ambitions are not limited; they are unlimited. We need to be cognisant of that. We need to be on the front foot, not on the back foot. I understand all the concerns about our ability to deploy troops. What planning are we doing at this stage? What is the process? What can we do to reassure MPs and the public that we are making the right planning steps towards that?

On what we can do now, the plans announced to develop new tactical ballistic missiles with Ukraine to strengthen its ability to defend itself against Russia are welcome. I am sure the Defence Minister will be able to answer this question: can the Government talk more about how and when we will do that and what the timelines are? Our own air defences are insufficient. We need to think about the future. If this war is protracted—if Putin does not settle and we do not get to a ceasefire—we ourselves could be threatened by drones, missiles and all the things we hear about every day in Ukraine. We need to be ready for our own defence, as well as the defence of Ukraine.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There are still 12 Members who wish to speak. I was not going to propose a formal time limit. Perhaps, before I do, Members could restrict themselves to about five minutes and learn from each other’s examples?

17:49

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I associate myself with the Minister’s comments, for which I thank him.

I have some significant and substantive questions to ask, but I will reflect for a moment on the human side of this conflict, which is important. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) did that very well, as she always does. I have travelled a lot to Ukraine over the past 20 years for work and other purposes. One of the most significant visits was on Thursday night, when I drove into Kyiv during the bombardment. I was reminded that that bombardment, in the early hours of Friday morning, was not aimed at any military target, but at the energy infrastructure, as temperatures in Kyiv reached minus 15°C and minus 20°C. It was nippy, Madam Deputy Speaker, but, unlike so many people, I had somewhere warm to go. What told us perhaps a little more about the Russian Administration, and the way in which they conduct their war, was the double-tap strikes. They hit apartment blocks, and shortly thereafter they hit again, killing the ambulance workers who are reacting.

I then travelled to Sumy—I believe I was one of the first British Members of Parliament to do so since the full-scale invasion—which has a partnership agreement with Angus council in my constituency. The sense of solidarity must go beyond Kyiv, and I am sure that our friends in Kyiv would not mind that. I want to give a shout out to the people of Sumy who welcomed me. As we lay flowers for the 37 people who were killed in an artillery attack as they were out shopping, we were moved on very quickly—we could not even mourn or mark our respects for much longer. As the governor of Sumy told me, that human element is so important. I give a shout-out to Timmergreens primary school in my constituency. Miss Baird’s class, led by Mrs Biesok, wrote letters to children in Sumy. Although I took other gifts, including a tartan scarf—colleagues from Scotland will understand—and mentioned other areas of connection, it was those simple letters from primary school children in my constituency that meant so much to everybody in Ukraine. They were exceptional and beautifully written.

I pay tribute to those children, because their efforts remind us of the more serious issues that we are dealing with. That human element tells us why Ukraine is fighting and why we have a responsibility, across Europe, to help Ukraine in its time of need.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be accountability for those Russians who have carried out massacres and raped, violently tortured and killed people, and they must be taken to court and put in prison?

[Stephen Gethins]

Accountability is so important, as I know the hon. Gentleman and other Members agree.

On the local element, will the Minister say something about the 100-year agreement? I know that this place has an important role in the response to the war in Ukraine, but the message I received during my travels at the weekend was how important local-to-local solidarity is. Will he say something about the conversations that he has had with devolved Governments and local administrations on the 100-year agreement. Matters such as education are for those administrations, rather than the Government, and it is important to involve others going forward.

The most substantive issue is that we face a significant challenge in European security and have done for some years. The transatlantic relationship is not quite what it was—we must look to Canada in many ways. The common European approach to defending Ukraine, which is, after all, defending us, will be incredibly important. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), has been very thoughtful on these issues, and it would be good to hear his reflections on deepening that co-operation.

Over the weekend in Ukraine, I heard so many thank yous—we hear that so many times when we visit. But that is the wrong way around. We should be saying thank you to Ukraine from us all.

17:53

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

We have heard powerful speeches today. Those of us in the Chamber are united in support of our friends in Ukraine. Members have spoken about their own experiences of support, and about the support given by Members who are not present. But we must remember this: Members of the Ukrainian Parliament—the Rada—are doing far more than we could ever do. They are fighting the war; they are on Putin’s hit lists.

We here must show that resolve, because what we say in this Chamber is not heard and watched only on the TVs of our constituents; it is watched by our allies and our adversaries, so what we say here does matter. We also know that our ally, Ukraine, depends not just on words: the Ukrainians need the tools to carry on the job, and they must know that they have no truer friend than this country and that we will be with them until the very end.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

As we know, Russia is trying to destroy Ukrainian identity, so I am absolutely delighted that Epsom is putting on a Ukrainian “festival of friendship” week this month. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely vital that we provide the opportunity for Ukrainians in the UK to celebrate their culture here?

[Kevin Bonavia]

Absolutely; the hon. Lady makes a good point about Ukrainians we have given sanctuary to in this country. They are making a fantastic contribution and should be proud of their identity; just as many of us, even if we are not doing it today, wear the Ukrainian flag alongside the Union Jack, they should be proud of that and never lose that identity wherever their lives may take them.

Going forward, the world must be clear about this country’s position on the future of this horrific conflict. Yes, we want peace, but not at any price, and we must be clear that no peace can be made without the people of Ukraine. We have a proud history in this country of defending democracy, but we have blots on our history, too. We decided the future of Czechoslovakia without the Czechoslovaks; we must not do that now, and we should urge our allies that they must not do that either. That must be at the heart of this Government’s policy.

Beyond that, this is about soft and hard power. There are people talking about hard power politics out there. I speak as a lawyer who believes in the rule of law, but law without the power behind it is just empty words, so I commend efforts by this Government to increase that hard power. This country is getting serious and needs to get more serious, and I am sure many Members in this House will support the Government to do precisely that. If we do not, and if there is a peace, which is just a pause for Putin, we know what will happen next. Those Ukrainians are on the frontline of Europe and—make no mistake— not just Europe: this hostility goes right across the world to our allies across the Atlantic and beyond.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the world should know and be in no doubt about the UK’s position on Ukraine, and nor should we be in doubt about Putin’s ambitions. He described as a geopolitical catastrophe the falling apart of the Soviet Union, and Russia’s 800-year most modern history is one of almost relentless expansion. Does he agree, therefore, that anybody who denies Putin’s ambitions for territorial expansion is denying both that statement by Putin and Russian history?

[Kevin Bonavia]

Absolutely, and we must not underestimate Putin. He is clearly a student of history, but he draws the wrong lessons from it. That man was a KGB agent in East Germany; when the Berlin wall fell, his world fell apart. He is now trying to rebuild that world. So this does not stop in Ukraine; it goes right across all those members of the then Warsaw pact. When I went to eastern Poland last year as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I saw our Typhoon jets being scrambled to check out a Russian plane right on the edge of that. This is happening day in, day out; that man’s ambitions have no borders.

So I urge this Government, this House and this country to be resolute in defending the future of Ukraine, because its future is also our future.

17:59

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to put it out there to all Members that, in the coming weeks or months, we will potentially vote to put our troops in harm’s way. I have put a friend on the back of a Hercules, in a coffin, in a foreign conflict. That is not something I want to see in this conflict. I am the only Member of this House on the Ukraine-NATO interparliamentary council and I stand in complete support of Ukraine, but it is not a given that we will put troops in harm’s way. We need to set that out clearly.

I want to talk about deployment based on my experience. First, I want to look at two historical deployments, both of which I was on—in Bosnia and Kosovo—to set out some of the challenges to which it would be good if the Minister responded later. Bosnia is 12 times smaller than Ukraine, and at the start there were 2,400 troops. That increased to 11,500 troops during the mid-’90s when the British armed forces numbered a quarter of a million. In 1999, I was in Kosovo, which is 55 times smaller than Ukraine, and the number of troops, including those on stand-by, was 19,000. The British armed forces then numbered over 200,000. For reference, the number of British armed forces today is at around 136,000—significantly fewer. That figure has been declining for 30 years.

What would a deployment look like today? No numbers have been disclosed formally, but the number we have seen so far in the media is 7,500. That equates to 15,000 per six-month period, as there would be 7,500 deployed and 7,500 on pre-deployment training. Over 12 years, that would equate to 30,000 troops tied up in, preparing for or coming back from Ukraine. That is almost half of our Army. It does not necessarily include the naval and air assets that would need to be in the region, which would represent a significant commitment as well.

If we are looking at stabilisation in any peace deal provided by British troops in some way, shape or form, we need to bear in mind, as we have all stated today, that Putin does not respect international law. We do not believe he wants peace. If he says, “I am going to have peace,” and we put British troops right on his border, we have to consider seriously what we will do if he changes his mind or reneges on any deal.

There are 39 million Ukrainian residents. The rule for military deployment of a stabilisation or peacekeeping force, as the Armed Forces Minister will know, is about 20 to 25 troops per 1,000 residents. That will equate to 600,000 to 800,000 troops, roughly the size of the Ukrainian armed forces. What will our 7,500 and France’s 7,500 do with a highly capable Ukrainian military that has been there for a long time?

There is a cost, and I would like to understand what considerations there are and what information will be made available over the coming weeks and months, because this will be a hot topic. How are we planning for a withdrawal and how are we planning to put troops in? We must have a clear, coherent strategy for how our troops will operate, for how long and under what commitment. Why are we looking to operate outside NATO or the JEF? Both Bosnia and Kosovo were NATO missions. We have that framework, and I am very concerned that the coalition of the willing will not work as coherently as the JEF does with NATO. How will the deployment be funded? Even this week, the chief of the defence staff has said that there are in-year pressures and that if cuts are not made, the budget will be exceeded, which is not allowed.

I have concerns about the rules of engagement. Putin does not respect any international law. How will our troops be protected, not just in the short term but in the long term? These are questions that we should be bringing to the House early on. Without a major intervention from the Government for an increase in funding—we need at least a brigade’s strength more to put the proposed level of troops into that region, given the numbers we have in the UK armed forces, both on the sick and deployable—we do not, I believe, have the operational capability to have sustainable forces, in conflict or peacekeeping, in Ukraine.

11:30

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

I had the privilege of joining a parliamentary delegation to the Yalta European Strategy conference in Kyiv in September. That conference came at the very moment of the incursion of Russian drones into Polish airspace, reminding us that it is far from only the future of Ukraine that is at stake: their fight is our fight and it is Europe’s.

At the conference, the Foreign Secretary, on her first international visit in that role, announced 100 sanctions against Russia, and crucially £142 million to support civilians in frontline communities. I will focus my brief remarks on the importance of humanitarian support for some of those in Ukraine’s civilian community who have been most acutely affected and harmed, and whose experiences and voices need to be more widely heard.

When Russia brutally invaded Ukraine in 2022, millions of people were forced to flee, but to leave their homes has not been an option for many disabled people or for more than 260,000 Ukrainian people with learning disabilities. Dependent on their families and carers, they have had to stay in the midst of the invasion. Missile and drone attacks are terrifying for the whole community, but particularly for autistic people and those with learning disabilities.

Raisa Kravchenko has been at the forefront of supporting and protecting disabled people over these past traumatic years. On my visit to Kyiv, I met Raisa and her colleague Yulia Klepets, who founded the all-Ukrainian non-governmental organisation coalition for persons with intellectual disabilities. They told me how Raisa spent 25 days sheltering in a basement with her son Oleksiy, who has a learning disability, without food, electricity or gas, and how support and coping strategies that parents have used to support their children have been wrecked by the invasion. They told me about Vitaliy Zegelev, who had not left his Kyiv apartment in three years, who was terrified by air raid sirens and wholly dependent on his mother. That took a toll on his health and safety, and Vitaliy died. These are war crimes for which Russia must be held accountable.

Before the invasion, Raisa and Yulia were campaigning to move more disabled people out of care institutions and into community support. That work has been utterly frustrated, and now disabled people in care institutions have been targeted by Russian forces for kidnapping, as highlighted in the vital report by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter).

The disabled community in Ukraine is at breaking point and beyond. We are providing support. The £25 million funding from the UK Government for the social protection for inclusion, resilience, innovation and transformation—SPIRIT—programme for Ukraine is welcome, as it will provide support for disabled children, but we have to go further and do more. The international community needs to do more to intervene in the human rights emergency for disabled people, as for so many other groups in Ukrainian society.

I am keen to engage further with colleagues in Government on these issues. Alongside the all-Ukraine coalition, Inclusion Europe and UK Friends of Ukraine, I have published a report on the impact of the invasion on disabled people, which I hope will help Parliament consider what more we can do to support that community of Ukrainian people who have been so badly affected.

The experience of disabled people is just one aspect of the crimes committed against the people of Ukraine. We must look to the prospect of a peace agreement, but at this moment we have to ensure that we are doing all that we can to support Ukraine militarily, and in terms of the humanitarian need, including for disabled people and those who provide care and support.

The resilience of Raisa, Yulia and their colleagues is awe-inspiring. Their lives have been devastated for the sake of Putin’s ambitions. We must understand the scale of the task of reconstruction, the cost of which is estimated at $1 trillion. We have to hold Russia accountable for that. Russia must be penalised financially to ensure that we can support a full reconstruction and all of the communities that have been so badly affected and harmed because of Russia’s illegal actions. We must do all that we can to intervene in this humanitarian crisis.

18:08

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Like many in this House, I stand with Ukraine and its defence of the frontline of Europe, and I am proud to do so.

A couple of weeks ago, I was helping some of the local Ukrainians who are living in my constituency under the Homes for Ukraine scheme to move home. They were being visited by their father, who is a senior officer in the Ukrainian navy. He was very grateful for the fact that we are keeping his family safe, and he said how important it was to the Ukrainians that we were able to do so. However, there are still some things that we need to do to ensure that they safely remain here in the UK. One of the daughters had just applied for the extension to Homes for Ukraine—the Ukraine permission extension scheme—to which people can apply only 28 days before their visa runs out. She had been waiting for more than 28 days, and she was worried that she would not be able to stay without a visa. I ask the Government to look at enabling the renewal of those visas sooner than 28 days before they end. Last year, I was able to win an extra two years’ certain stay for Ukrainians on those visas. That was fantastic, and I thank the Government for doing that. However, we still do not know how that is going to work and whether we will still have the problem of the 28 days and people having to wait right up until the very end of their visas.

None of the Ukrainians I know in the UK are sitting back and waiting for help; they have all gone out and got jobs. They are starting businesses, doing things and rebuilding lives here, and we need to look at how we can make that work. One of the issues for the family was qualifications. Their daughter had highly rated qualifications in maths and physics from a Ukrainian school that were not recognised by the school in the UK. It would be helpful if the Government could provide guidance to our schools on the extent to which they can recognise qualifications from Ukrainian schools. That was one of the family’s explicit asks.

Let me add that we should look at what we can do in terms of dentistry. I have a Ukrainian dentist in my constituency who is going through an elongated process to try to requalify to practise dentistry in the UK. Goodness knows that we need all the dentists we can get, so let us help them and make it easier for them to settle here for longer.

There is a problem with the Ukraine permission extension scheme. If Donald Trump is able to magic a ceasefire out of thin air, which I and probably this House feel is very unlikely, we will be in a position where we technically and potentially have peace in Ukraine—I dream of that day, but I do not expect it to be soon. However, if we have peace, we know that the Ukrainian visas will be ended. The visas will finish, and we will expect people to go back, but we all know that there is a difference between peace and safety. We know that Ukraine is covered in unexploded ordnance and landmines, which could take up to 40 years to clear. The land could gain peace, but it will not be safe.

I have a lady in my constituency whose village is in the Russian-occupied zone; it has been demolished, and her house is rubble. She has lost her husband, brother and father, and she has nothing to go back to. I want to ensure that we look for settlement in the long term. Ukraine has recently changed its law to allow people to hold second passports, but the UK is not yet on the list of countries with that agreement. I urge the Government to look at that to ensure that we have a process towards long-term settlement in the UK, so that those industrious Ukrainians who have started businesses can thrive and develop and contribute not only to our economy, but to the rebuilding of Ukraine.

We can do many things. I applaud the Government for all that they are doing, but we can do more. I ask that they please help the Ukrainians to help themselves and to help us. Slava Ukraini!

18:09

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

At the outset, may I acknowledge your staunch and consistent support for the people of Ukraine, Madam Deputy Speaker? You have most recently represented Mr Speaker at the international Crimea platform to reinforce Ukraine’s sovereignty.

My heart goes out to the people of Ukraine both in Ukraine and in Bournemouth. I commend Ukraine Relief, which has a donation centre at Castlepoint shopping centre in my constituency, and the work of Karol Swiacki and other Ukrainians across Bournemouth.

Whether the peace that President Trump creates is durable will depend on whether he applies sufficient pressure to Vladimir Putin to secure it. We do not yet know the final outline of a peace deal or even a ceasefire, but we know that the Trump Administration have pressed Ukraine before to make concessions. When granted a summit with President Trump in Alaska, Putin demanded more territory than he had already seized in his war of aggression to date. The Administration responded not by pressuring Russia, but by putting more pressure on Ukraine. Arms were withheld and intelligence was withdrawn, and the assistance that remained was limited and slow. Kyiv has been left perpetually uncertain about the reliability of US support, and the offer of a 15-year US security guarantee as part of a peace plan should give us pause, too. Fifteen years will go by in the blink of an eye unless the guarantee is exceptionally robust, and unless the armed forces of Europe’s democracies—ours included—are integral to enforcing it. Otherwise, I fear that Moscow will wait, rebuild, and return when the clock runs out. As the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) was saying, we need to be mindful about what a deployment looks like, and we need to ask the serious questions. I know that the Prime Minister—a good, serious and patriotic man, having to deal with the insanity abroad and difficult conditions at home—is charting that course as best he and this Government can, and I know that he puts the safety of British troops at the heart of what he does.

Without genuine stability, Ukraine cannot rebuild in peace; boardrooms will not make investments over the long term. We know, too, that this would not be peace; it would be merely a ceasefire, a temporary pause. Given the temptation to renew aggression—a temptation that we know Putin cannot resist—brutish competition for continental dominance would define this decade and, sadly, the next. We have to keep the peace, as well as make it, and the only way that we can do that is through robust security guarantees. Unfortunately, that means that we need to come to terms with a changed world. We have not known this fear for a long time, but it is a feeling that Ukraine knows every single day in its bones.

Uniquely, although the United States has been the richest and most capable country in world history, nations have not chosen to balance against it; they have chosen to ally with it—this is a reversal of all we have known in history—because America sought collective security, self-determination, open trade, institutions, legitimacy and purposeful democracy. However, today, that strategic capital is being diminished consciously, as a matter of policy, by the Trump Administration. That is not happening everywhere in the US security apparatus, it should be said, but it is happening at the highest level, where political decisions are being taken. I have lived in America, I have travelled it widely, I have had the privilege of studying international security at one of its universities, and I have a deep affection for its dynamism and its democracy. However, we must face the fact that in its national security strategy, Ukraine and Europe are less of a priority than other parts of the world. European defence planners now have to spend their days tracking Russian troop movements; calculating whether Putin might, before the end of the decade, order an attack against a NATO member, as he did against Ukraine; and wondering whether the United States will come to our defence. We need to rearm faster, and we need to improve and significantly increase our weapons manufacture.

We also need to move closer to European democracies on defence and security—not closer to the EU per se, which may be too inflexible, but closer to our like-minded European democratic friends who care about peace and democracy, and who will themselves put forward a programme of rearmament. In facing the world as it is, and trying to rearm and increase our diplomatic influence to meet it, we need to recognise that there will be people in our country who do not like this. In France and Germany, we see the rise of the far right and the populist right, who are seeking to make an issue of rearmament. We in this House need to be united. We know that there are those on the Opposition Benches, but not in attendance today, who will protest against our rearmament and our commitment to Ukraine. We in this House need to be united behind Ukraine, democracy and peace. As far as we can, we should not play party politics; we should rebuild the consensus that has lasted for so many years. To me, that consensus seems to be under threat today.

18:18

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I have spoken about Ukraine and, indeed, initiated debates on Ukraine a number of times over the past 12 years. Of course, 12 years ago was when the war that Russia is waging on Ukraine started, with the annexation of Crimea. Over those 12 years, I have visited Avdiivka, Mariupol and Berdyansk, all of which are now under Russian occupation.

I am proud that as a result of our pressing the Government over that time, the UK started supporting Ukraine through Operation Orbital. That was before the full-scale Russian invasion, but since then, we have been in the vanguard. That is because we have a duty as an original signatory to the Budapest memorandum, and because we believe that independent sovereign states should not lose territory as a result of military aggression, but also because Ukraine is our frontline. Putin’s threat extends not just to the territory of Ukraine, but to all those countries that used to be part of either the Soviet Union or the Warsaw pact, particularly the Baltic states.

I am proud of the extraordinary resilience and courage shown by the Ukrainian people. People have talked in this debate about the fact that it will be minus 16ºC tonight, when 70% of Kyiv has no electricity—and that is also the case for large parts of Odessa, Kharkiv and a number of other cities. The losses during this war on both sides have been truly horrendous; there have been well over a million Russian casualties. Although the number for the Ukrainian side has not been released, it is almost certainly well over 100,000. We can understand why the Ukrainians want to see an end to this war, but they want a just and lasting peace.

The original plan advanced by Steve Witkoff and President Trump—the so-called 28-point plan—was utterly unacceptable. It required Ukraine to accept the loss of its territory, and to commit to never having NATO troops on its soil. The plan that is apparently now coming forward is, we are told by President Zelensky, 90% agreed, but he has described the requirements on territory as being “very difficult”. While it must be for Ukraine to decide on the terms of any peace, the idea that Russia will be allowed to keep any of the sovereign territory of Ukraine is difficult to stomach.

As we have debated, the peace plan may involve the deployment of troops as a security guarantee, and I share the concerns that a number of Members have expressed about how that will operate. While it is important that we talk about how a settlement might be enforced, there is a strong chance that we will not get one. Sergey Lavrov has said in the past 24 hours that the prospect of a ceasefire is simply not serious. Since talk of this peace plan was advanced, Russia has stepped up its attacks. The number of drones and missiles landing across the whole of Ukraine has gone on increasing. The settlement plan may involve stationing NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, as we have been debating, but Putin has made it absolutely clear that that is a complete red line, and something that he will not accept.

We need to prepare ourselves for the real risk that this war will go on for a long time, so I say to the Minister: where is plan B? Plan B has to involve much tougher action against Russia. It needs to involve seizing Russian assets and stopping trade with Russia. It means arming Ukraine to an extent that has not been possible. I welcome the recent announcements, including on Project Nightfall in the past week or so, through which we will supply Ukraine with long-range missiles.

On assets, the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning heard from the chief executive of the Chelsea humanitarian fund, and representatives of the legal firm advising it, about the difficulties in achieving what we all want, which is the use of the money from Chelsea football club to support Ukraine. Will the Minister please meet them? There are some serious legal obstacles. They said that they have a solution, but they are anxious for an opportunity to discuss it further with the Minister.

I would love to think that this war will come to an end soon—my friends in Ukraine pray for that every night—but let us be prepared for the fact that it may go on for much longer, and that we will need to do a lot more to put pressure on Russia to stop.

18:23

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I have spoken consistently about the need to protect the international rules-based system. Not only is that system under direct and indirect threat throughout the world, but in Ukraine it has clearly failed, in so far as Russia invaded. This is a moment not to jettison it, but to redouble our defence of it, as we have done in the past. Britain has a proud track record: the world wars; the cold war; the liberation of the Falkland Islands, Kuwait and latterly Iraq; our actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Kosovo; and the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. In each case, we defended brave victims against bullies. We used military force to uphold the rights of nations and of human beings.

We know that intervention has a chequered history. Arguably, the warlords and some dubious Governments noticed the abject failure of the international community to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. Even in cases where we took military action, others watched and drew conclusions. Malevolent actors around the world must have looked upon the former Yugoslavia and noticed that a quarter of a million civilians were killed before the international community got truly serious, with American leadership finally ensuring that NATO took decisive action. Need I add that Saddam Hussein got away with breaching every known international law before the Americans, this country and others belatedly took action? Belated tough action, feeble action, or the absence of action—which is itself an action—all have profound consequences. Many people forget that Russia’s move to consolidate its strategic military influence in Syria only proceeded apace once the west and the international community had signalled that they would not enforce the most basic of red lines and act against Assad for using chemical weapons. Surely that must have emboldened Russia in other in other parts of the world, such as Ukraine—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor). Despite the excellent efforts of the British military and diplomatic missions in Ukraine, which ramped up military and other support long before 2022, and which I commend, we can say with hindsight that it was self-evidently insufficient.

I have always been hugely reassured by the almost universally cross-party nature of this Parliament’s steadfast support for Ukraine—this is Parliament at its best—but at this crucial moment, we must do everything we can to ensure that the sacrifice of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians is not in vain. More generally, we must make sure that the rules-based system does not wither on the vine.

I want to say something about what is happening in my constituency, where there are two home fronts at work. One is our own, here among British citizens. It is crucial that they realise just what is at stake. It is not an exaggeration to say that if we get this wrong, or if we do not get it sufficiently right, war will come ever closer to these shores. The public will have to make sacrifices, because that is what is needed to defend democracy. Secondly, there is the extended Ukrainian home front in communities such as mine in Rugby, where families, schools and businesses have welcomed Ukrainians as they flee conflict. It is being supported by civil servants nationally, and especially by settlement teams in, for instance, Warwickshire county council, who do excellent and compassionate work alongside their district council colleagues, charities, volunteers and, most important, our citizens. It is also supported by community groups such as the Rugby branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, whose work I have seen. This is Britain at its best, living up to our values of welcoming those in need.

Let me share with the House some direct testimony from Ukrainian families who have been in touch with me this week. This is what they said:

“Russia is systematically targeting the energy system, using hundreds of drones and missiles. Radiators go cold and water freezes in the pipes.

People no longer live by the clock, but by the moments when electricity briefly returns. Children do their homework at night. Parents cook food in the dark hours.

Civilian life itself is the target, not military locations. The aim is to break people, to exhaust them, to destroy society from within.

And then there are the night attacks. Sirens, explosions, the constant fear, they don’t let you sleep.

Your body is tired, but your mind stays awake, waiting for the next sound.

This is what it does to your mental state: you live in constant anxiety. You are always on edge…Even in silence, you are listening.

Supporting Ukraine’s energy system, its air defence and its logistics is not abstract assistance. It is the simplest and most effective way to save millions of lives and to prevent a new humanitarian catastrophe in Europe.”

There is a great deal at stake, but, as the Government have made very clear, we will not turn our back on Ukraine; quite the reverse. We will strengthen international law and the rules-based system, which, in conjunction with military power, keeps us, our allies and the wider world safe.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Members will be interested to know that I will call the Front Benchers at 6.40 pm. There are four more speakers, with a total of 12 minutes.

18:28

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Four years ago, when Putin invaded Ukraine, people around this country opened their hearts and their homes to Ukrainian people, and I thank them for their generosity. I particularly thank those in my constituency who welcomed people to their homes, supported them, and continue to support them to this day.

According to the latest council figures, there are just over 1,000 people from Ukraine in Lincolnshire, and I want to focus on them. Just last weekend in Sleaford, I met a group led by Kelly Breislin and Betty Berthebaud. I thank them for their work in trying to bring the Ukrainian community together, and in helping them to navigate the various different systems within the British state. I met women, predominantly, and children. I also met an accountant, a doctor and a dentist, and I met a masseuse who had set up her own business in my constituency. They were grateful first to the British state and to the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson for supporting them and their country, but they were also thankful to the people who had supported them as their hosts.

The Ukrainians told me of their trips out of Ukraine and the fear that many of them felt. I met two young ladies, who were just 18 when they left, as friends together, to come across to live with a family in Ruskington. I thought of my own daughter at a similar age, and how it would be to let her go to an unknown country, to live with an unknown family, in such circumstances. They told me about the cultural and language challenges they had. One of them told me about her recent visit to Ukraine at Christmas and the five days of power outages she had there, as well as about the difficulties and fear she had going back for that short period.

One lady explained about how her life was on hold. When the Ukrainians first came here, they were quite content just to be safe and to have no fear of bombs. However, as time has gone by, they think of the jobs and careers they had, the futures they want to have and the difficulties they have in progressing them. For example, one young lady talked about the training challenges. She cannot do an apprenticeship because her visa does not last long enough for that, and if she wants to do a university course or a training course, she will have a similar problem. Someone wanting to stay has to apply for a new visa, and they cannot apply until 28 days before they are due to leave, but that causes problems with employment, and they are all very keen to work.

I want to ask the Minister specifically about Ukrainians in the medical profession, because it seems to me that we have a shortage of both dentists and doctors. For example, the cardiothoracic waiting list went up not just last month, but over the last year, and it is higher than it was when we left office. Yet there is a cardiothoracic surgeon in my constituency who is currently unable to practise, and is instead working in a factory. I appreciate that time is very short, so I am not able to go through all the examples I would like to give, but could he or the relevant Minister write to me with the various schemes available for people with such skills to be able to use them to the fullest while they are in this country?

18:31

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I want to speak briefly about Russian intent, the coalition of the willing and sanctions on Russia, and I will of course do so using open-source reporting and analysis. First, however, I want to praise the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people, because we of course look to them for our own safety. That is not an exaggeration, and I think it is worth articulating what we mean when we say that Putin will not stop at Ukraine.

Putin has previous experience, including of invasions, in Georgia, Crimea and Moldova. In this conflict he has talked about the legacy of Kyivan Rus’, and what Russia now refers to as “Russkiy mir”—the so-called Russian world—meaning that part of the world which is Russian in culture and Russian speaking. Indeed, 25% of Estonia’s population and 25% of Latvia’s population are ethnically Russian. NATO members have ethnic Russians living in them, and it is to them that we must look for the defence of Europe.

We must think about the coalition of the willing, which the Government were talking about last week. I have frequently asked about security guarantees for Ukraine, but I am still uncertain about the purpose of this proposed deployment. We have heard the term “reassurance”, but we have also heard the word “peacekeeping”. Is this peacekeeping, peace enforcement, deterrence, defence or a tripwire? A little bit more information would be needed before this House votes on what is meant by the coalition of the willing.

The west has repeatedly called Putin’s bluff successfully. We did so when we provided armour such as the Challenger 2, fighter jets such as the F-16 and deep-strike weapons such as Storm Shadow. However, the deployment of British troops is different because of the ambiguity about what the west would do if the troops were targeted. I accept that might be intentional, and that we might practise deliberate ambiguity, but just as we have deliberate ambiguity, Russia tends to use plausible deniability. A former Defence Secretary said on the radio last week that we could see a situation in which an attack on British troops is claimed by Russia to be the work of separatists in Ukraine, or even a false flag operation.

I appreciate that if this does ever come to a vote, we will get an opportunity to have a much more extensive debate, but those are my comments for today on the coalition of the willing.

18:34

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Last year in Ukraine, a Ukrainian MP told me that her husband had served on the frontline for eight years. She asked me if, in the event of a peace agreement, I would support British ground troops. I have, of course, questions about British ground troops, but I said that I would and that I am also potentially liable to serve myself. As a reservist soldier, I am proud to be under the same obligations to serve as any British soldier, because we live in times of enormous peril and we have a responsibility to lead.

We are threatened in the east by dictators and in the west by autocrats. Indeed, it is an open question whether liberal democracy will succeed in this century as it did in the last. Ukraine has been bearing the brunt of that fight and its sacrifice has bought us time. Ukraine still has a credible path to a just peace. European NATO GDP alone is 10 times the size of Russia’s, yet Russia has been spending $40 billion a year more than Ukraine and her western allies on the war in Ukraine. If we closed and exceeded that gap today, by seizing the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, then not only could Ukraine secure a just peace, but we would deter Putin from crashing into eastern Europe and testing article 5.

With President Trump disgracefully threatening NATO allies as well, smaller democracies must ensure that we are economically and militarily strong enough to defend ourselves together. It is the example of the United States, a country that I love, that can show us how. In the 1940s, refugees fled from the Nazis to the United States. They built the atomic bomb and they won the war. In the process, they developed a method of public research and development that academics now acknowledge has powered US technological and economic dominance ever since.

The Chancellor has recognised that. In the spring statement, she used the £2.2 billion increase in defence research and development to upgrade long-term UK GDP growth by £11 billion a year. The current and former Presidents of the European Central Bank called on Europe to borrow to invest in defence research and development not only to deter Russia, but to lift Europe out of the economic stagnation that has held back the continent and the United Kingdom since the financial crash in 2008. We can do this too.

President Reagan described America as a beacon. Sadly, it appears that that light is now fading, but I believe it has burnt long enough for other democracies to see it. Now, it is up to us, the smaller democracies, to ensure that we are also humanity’s best last hope.

18:37

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

A serious concern shared by Ukrainians in Wokingham relates to the crimes of the Russian army. Over 20,000 children have been abducted since the start of Russia’s invasion. This disgusting tactic of the Russian armed forces, authorised by Putin, threatens to rob Ukraine of its future. I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government recognise that those massive abductions constitute war crimes. Will they hold Putin to account for those crimes by implementing the outstanding International Criminal Court arrest warrant against him?

It is not just Putin who has been shown to be a bad actor. My constituents write to me all the time to express their disgust at Trump’s behaviour. Whether it is bullying Zelensky in the White House or extorting a vulnerable country for its minerals, the President has acted shamefully. If Ukraine cannot rely on Trump, then Europe must be all the more united in its support of Ukraine. Trump has shown time and again that he does not care about international rules and obligations, and is more interested in cosying up to autocrats and increasing the coffers of the wider Trump family. Threatening to invade Greenland is the latest proof that Trump is not pro-democracy and cannot be trusted by the international community. The Government clearly must focus on joining with our European neighbours to support our friends’ territory and way of life, and not just Ukraine. If we do not do so, history tells us that the aggressor will turn their attention to the UK, which is a situation we really do not want to happen.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.

18:39

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

To start, I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made in his opening speech: we are at a major crossroads in this conflict and the stakes could not be higher. On the line is Ukraine’s sovereignty, the freedom of its people and the wider security of Europe—in truth, the security of all of us.

It can be easy in this House to speak in abstractions, such as the rules-based order, hybrid threats or deterrence, but the reality is brutally concrete. When Russia is allowed to advance by force, the consequences do not remain on the eastern flank; they spill into energy markets, cyber-attacks, disinformation and sabotage. Most importantly, they shape the calculations of every hostile actor watching to see what the west will tolerate. We all know that Russia is waging a sustained and hostile campaign against all of us and we must therefore be prepared for long-term tension. The outcome of the war in Ukraine remains central to dealing a decisive blow to that wider threat.

I will touch on a number of the points that we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members across the House today, kicking off with the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) spoke powerfully about the lion heart and resolve of the Ukrainian people, talking about their day-to-day life and how they have been attacked repeatedly by the brutal regime in Russia. She talked about energy and the barbaric nature of Putin’s regime and what it is forcing on the Ukrainian people, which needs to stop. She also raised a number of points about the shadow fleet, which I will comment on later.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), raised an important question about deployments of British troops to Ukraine. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) spoke of an almost unified position across the House, with the exception of a few parties. I really hope that the parties that do not support that unified approach take a long, hard look in the mirror and work out whose side they are actually on. I want to align myself with the hon. Gentleman’s words about former Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace, who played a decisive role in the early few years of the Ukrainian war.

The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), made the point that Ukraine’s fight is our fight—a point that we mainly agree on. We cannot consider giving Putin territory that he has failed to capture over the past four years.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked powerfully about the 20,000 stolen Ukrainian children. To put that into context, that is 20 schools-worth of children who have been taken over the Russian border. It is a disgusting and almost inconceivable practice, and we must not allow the world to forget what Putin’s regime has done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has raised the issue of Ukraine numerous times over the past few years; I think we can all agree that when he speaks, everyone listens. He raised the diplomatic efforts that Russia is now trying to push along, which are so intense because, I think, it has worked out that militarily it cannot win. We know that is the rule of the game now, so we must increase pressure on the Russians and play them at their own game.

The chair of the Ukraine APPG, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), talked about the pressure that the Ukrainians are currently under, again referring to heat and energy. I thank him for the work he has done to connect Ukrainian MPs with Members across this Parliament. I know how cold it gets in Arbroath, so when the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) talks about it getting down to minus 20° in Kyiv and says that it is a bit nippy, I know that he speaks from experience. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made a number of important points about the fact that we all want peace, but that it cannot be peace at any cost. That is a point that we must continue to discuss.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is a former soldier and a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, raised really important questions about the nuts and bolts of the politics. I will discuss troop deployments later in my speech.

There were valuable insights and contributions from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker); from my constituency neighbour, albeit separated by an estuary, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley); from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes); from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who has done a great deal for Ukraine over the years; and from the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger).

My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) talked about the generosity of her constituents who had welcomed Ukrainians into their homes—a story we have heard across all our constituencies—and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who is also my constituency neighbour and a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, talked powerfully about Russian intent.

We all thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) very much for his service and his willingness to deploy if there is a deployment to Ukraine. Lastly, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked about war crimes. We need to remember that and enforce the law once there is peace.

We all want this war to end, but we have seen delay, obfuscation and maximalist demands from Putin when it comes to peace—a familiar strategy designed to divide allies and buy time. So I say to Ministers: pursue diplomacy, of course, but do so with your eyes wide open. As Churchill warned, “You cannot negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” It is important to state that if a weak settlement is reached, it simply starts the clock on rearmament. Putin will not stop.

As has always been the case, it is for Ukraine to decide its own future, and any settlement must involve Ukraine, to secure a just and lasting peace under its terms. What matters most is that Putin cannot emerge strengthened. Conceding territory rewards aggression and sets a dangerous precedent far beyond Europe. Nor should Putin’s regime be welcomed back into the international fold, as if this was some sort of misunderstanding. This is a war of choice, an imperial project, and Putin has not abandoned his ambition to subjugate Ukraine.

That brings me to sanctions, assets and energy, where rhetoric must now become action. Although we welcome the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine taken from profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, I believe we need to go further—a number of points were made on that today.

Several points were made about the Russian shadow fleet, and I welcome the reports that the Government are exploring a clearer legal basis to detain stateless vessels. But what matters now is resolve. Sanctions that are not enforced are not sanctions at all; they are merely suggestions. As the Minister for the Armed Forces and I know all too well, Britain has world-class maritime forces in both the Royal Marines and special forces, with near unrivalled experience in complex boarding operations. We should be working with allies to deter, disrupt and degrade the Russian fleet.

A number of unfolding situations are linked to Ukraine. The regime that is currently in power in Iran has been funding the Ukrainian war. Will the Minister say a few words on the unfolding situation in Iran and on UK troops being taken out of middle-eastern bases?

I visited the United States shortly before Christmas, and a congressman made a point to me that should land in every European capital: Americans cannot care more about European security than Europeans care about their own security. The gap between ambition and readiness cannot be closed by speeches. We have heard comments today from the Chief of the General Staff about the separation between the strategic defence review and the need to increase defence spending.

We must now match moral clarity with seriousness. Putin will not stop because we ask; he will stop when he is made to stop. This is the moment to get real and do the right thing. We stand with Ukraine and we will ensure that Ukraine wins the peace as well as the war.

18:49

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their thoughtful and considered contributions, and for their continued commitment to a free and sovereign Ukraine. It is worth pausing to note that Russia has now been at war with Ukraine longer than it was involved in world war two, and just last month there were 35,000 Russian casualties—just think about that. So when we talk about planning, plans, regeneration and capabilities, the severity of the situation in Ukraine is not lost on the Ministry of Defence or on this Government.

As we approach the fourth anniversary, and indeed the fifth year of fighting, since Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion began, and as we intensify work towards a just and lasting peace, it is our collective commitment and our unity that sends the strongest message to Kyiv and the Kremlin that we, the United Kingdom of Great Britain Northern Ireland, stand with Ukraine.

I say this gently: be wary of the words we say in this House, because they are interpreted very differently in Moscow. Yes, we have to be honest to the democratic process, but we must also recognise the second and third-order implications of what we say here and how that reverberates around the world. When we said “for as long as it takes”, we meant it. So before I address the questions raised in the debate, I want to be clear that Ukraine’s security remains our security, as so many hon. Members said today, and without a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, Europe is less secure and the UK is less secure. That is why we, on both sides of the House, have been at the forefront of international efforts to increase pressure on Putin’s war machine and seize the opportunity to secure a just and lasting peace. That has arisen from President Trump’s commitment to the end of the war. It is also why we will continue to do all we can to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to secure that peace and sustain it.

I appreciate the support for our approach that has echoed from almost all aspects of the House. I will try to address the questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked through security guarantees. I reassure him that our Chief of the Defence Staff, our Secretary of State for Defence and our Prime Minister have worked tirelessly to deliver, and hopefully put in place, the security guarantees. That is really important, because it is linked to peace and force posture. No security guarantees mean no peace and indeed no force posture—they are all intrinsically linked. I also reassure him that I have complete and utter confidence in our military’s ability to generate the force, prepare the force, deploy the force, and sustain and then reconstitute the force, if they are asked.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) made the excellent point that, in sum, history does not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. With Georgia, Chechnya one, Chechnya two, Syria, Libya, Ukraine and Ukraine again, Russia is repeatedly and consistently disregarding, in all ways, shapes and forms, the historical norms put in place after the second world war. I also welcome his comments that Ukraine unites us all and is above politics. That is one of the greatest strengths of this House.

I empathise with what was said by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and absolutely support him in saying that there are no braver forces than those standing in front of the Russian machine. What I would say is that I would never ask someone to do something that I would not do myself. If I believe that our way of life or that of our allies is under threat, I will happily go to the front.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on behalf of all Members of the House for the sterling work she has done to highlight the plight of 20,000 children, and put in place the process to return them to their rightful home. It is worth noting that that is Russian doctrine in action. We are dealing with a barbaric nation that has, as part of its doctrine, to steal, kidnap and re-educate large swathes of the population. We are seeing that playing out in Ukraine.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) raised a valid point linked to the details of the operational plan. There will be a time and place where we will need to talk and discuss cross-party what that looks like. To do the detail in the Chamber would do nothing other than give the advantage to our adversary.

I also welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about armchair generals. I have full confidence in our generals, admirals, air vice-marshals and air marshals to deliver. When tasked, we must ensure that we do not apply political pressure on them to such an extent that we end up with politicised advice. I would also agree that the inability to vote on Syria emboldened Russia and resulted in a whole cascade of events, which, one could argue—if one played this game back in Ukraine—leads back to some of those decisions in the first place.

I completely agree with the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) that Ukraine must be at the centre of any negotiations. I deeply respect the gallant insight and understanding of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson). He talked about putting troops right on the Russian border, and about numbers, rotation, peace support operations, peacekeeping and comparisons with the Balkans. Language really matters when we are talking about military tactics and doctrine. It is really important, and it is our job in the Government to ensure that those Members with a vested interest understand that detail when the time is right, so that we can represent it correctly in the House. Again, I have complete faith in our military leadership. I absolutely commend the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for his work on supporting disability inclusion in Ukraine.

I shall sum up the questions and allude to some of them later in my speech. On the comments made by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), the peace negotiations are not down to us; they are down to the Ukrainians. We are enabling and supporting, but the Ukrainians must be the very centre of gravity of those negotiations, and we are supporting them to do so. On the shadow fleet, I completely concur that we have some of the best capabilities in the world. There is much to be done. We have done a lot already, but there is more to do and I would say: watch this space. On Qatar, I will not be drawn into comments on force posture, but I can say that the safety and security of our forces is absolutely at the forefront of my mind during any period of instability.

The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) asked about the details of the deployment. From my perspective, the conditions that he puts on us are almost as many as Putin would put on the peacekeeping force itself. To talk about troop numbers, rotations, border policing, naval assets and jets at this point in time would give away too much information to our adversaries who are watching, or perhaps to individuals who are not on these Benches today. It is really important that that information is shared at the right time and place and in the right forum so that we can unify the House and come up with the right political and military decisions to deliver the support to Ukraine that is required.

[Stuart Anderson]

I welcome the Minister’s summary of this debate. Will he commit to ensuring that every Member outside this place can have that information to help inform our decisions when the time is right and without operational security breach?

[Al Carns]

We will always provide the briefings at the appropriate levels.

I would like to thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She made a really important point about hybrid warfare. This is important. There have been several comments about there being no border with Russia, but let me tell you, there may not be a border but there is a frontline. That frontline sits in the north Atlantic, in cyber-space and in influence space, and it has been breached every day of every year. According to the National Cyber Security Centre, there were 20,000 attacks in 2024, 400 of them serious and 89 nationally serious. This costs the UK £15 billion every year. Hostile state activity against the Ministry of Defence is up by 50%, and global instability at the start of this conflict increased food prices, through fertiliser cost inflation, to their highest point in 45 years.

One of the key lessons that many Members have mentioned is the resilience of the Ukrainian people, and this is why we need to think about resilience here in our nation. A country’s security is measured not only by what it can deploy overseas but by what it can deny its adversaries at home. A society that can absorb shocks from pandemic, cyber-attacks, economic disruption, corruption and, importantly, disinformation leaves hostile state actors with far fewer options. Resilience is not a soft concept; it is a hard requirement of modern deterrence. I support Ukraine 110%, as I know the House does. Briefings will come at the right time and in the right place to deliver the right decision here in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.