Lords Chamber
Friday 31st October 2025
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:06
Debate: Situation in Ukraine
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Motion Motion for Motion for debate. Motion for debate. The Motion for debate. The situation in Ukraine.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Coaker my Lords. I'd like to move the motion on on the Order Paper my Lords. Almost exactly 12 months ago, we debated Ukraine here in this chamber, unless once again
Debate: Situation in Ukraine
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Motion Motion for Motion for debate. Motion for debate. The Motion for debate. The situation in Ukraine.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Coaker my Lords. I'd like to move the motion on on the Order Paper my Lords. Almost exactly 12 months ago, we debated Ukraine here in this chamber, unless once again
10:07
Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
in this chamber, unless once again proudly say that in that time there has been no weakening of our resolve or that of the British people to support Ukraine. No stepping back from our determination to stand up with our NATO allies and beyond for democracy and freedom, and so importantly, no division amongst us as virtually unanimously in this party, all parties and none. As I look across this chamber and both this government and indeed the last government stood up against Russian aggression, and we will see it through, as will the British people.
NATO has been strengthened, not weakened, and Europe stands ready to do what it takes and let that message resound from this chamber today. 12 months ago, Ukrainians were approaching their third winter of courageous resistance, defending their homes and homelands against Putin's full scale invasion, including many women on the front line. Let me start by paying tribute to the Ukrainian people, their resolve, their determination and their bravery. They humble us all, bringing tears to our eyes, including myself. When you see this at first hand.
So whatever our words today, let that always be at the forefront of our thoughts and we look forward to Lord Barrow, a former Ukrainian ambassador, making his maiden speech today. Today, as they approach their fourth winter on a macro level, depressingly, the picture remains broadly unchanged because whilst thanks to the Ukrainian courage, determination and ingenuity and support from allies, Putin has still not achieved any of his overall strategic war aims. Russian forces continue to ruthlessly wage his illegal war, continue to inch forward in a full frontal assault on Ukrainian sovereignty, international laws and norms.
And let us remember, as we debate this here in the beauty of this chamber, proud of our democracy, Putin is increasingly hitting and killing Ukrainian civilians with, according to the UN, a 40% increase in the number of civilians harmed this year compared to last. And he continues to send Russians to their death in horrifying numbers. Coupled with the targeting of Ukraine's civilian energy infrastructure, these are sickening and cynical tactics that expose Putin's comparative failures on the battlefield. We're along an increasingly blurred line of contact.
Ukrainian courage and ingenuity have turned an invasion that Russian planners thought would be measured in days and kilometres into a quagmire measured in years and metres, turned a special military operation to remove President Zelensky. Take Ukraine and weaken Europe in days. That was the original intention. My Lords, a puppet government in Kyiv. So a protracted war for four regions that Russia has proved itself incapable of taking. That has galvanised President Zelensky and indeed galvanised Europe. Yet behind this familiar big picture, much has changed over the last 12 months.
The government, with the overwhelming support of Parliament and the British public, a British public, has massively increased the scale of UK support for Ukraine. As together we partners, we've ramped up our sanctions to constrain Putin's war machine. And after three and a half years of brutal and deadly war, the strength of Ukraine's resistance and European resolve coupled with the election of President Trump are finally put peace talks on the agenda. Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary outlined the latest tranche of UK sanctions designed to weaken Putins war machine and ensure his thirst for war comes with a clear cost.
She set out measures that outlawed US business with 19 EU Russia related individuals and entities, import Russian oil supplies of drone, drones and missile components, and 44 additional shadow fleet vessels, taking the total number of Russia related individuals and entities sanctioned by the UK to over 2900, including more than 500 shadow fleet vessels, more than any other country. That uptick in our Russia sanctions mirrors the uptick in our support for Ukraine to help get bomb damaged power supplies back up and running, and help Ukraine through the winter.
The Foreign Secretary announced £142 million in UK aid during her visit to Kyiv last month, and to help protect Ukrainian civilians from Russia's urban bombing campaign and ensure they can stay in the fight and secure a just and lasting peace from a position of strength on the battlefield. We've used interest from immobilised Russian sovereign assets to step up UK military support, with this year's military package hitting £4.5 billion, the largest ever level for UK support for Ukraine. We've invested £600 million this year to arm Ukraine, Ukraine's forces with a variety of drones, which is on track to boost the number delivered by the UK from 10,000 in 20 24 to 100,000 drones this year.
The Defence Secretary's 50 day delivery drive over the summer provided nearly 5 million rounds of small arms ammunition. Around 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles, along with drones, counter drones and air defence equipment. And last week, the Prime Minister announced that we would continue to provide Ukraine with long range capabilities, and he also confirmed that the expansion of the UK missile building programme will enable us to deliver 140 air defence missiles ahead of schedule. Part of the 1.6 billion deal for more than 5000 lightweight multi-role missiles that are being made by the workers of Thales in Northern Ireland.
And over the last 12 months, we've also extended into Operation Interflex until at least the end of 2026, which is the multinational training operation that has now trained more than 60,000 Ukrainian personnel here in the UK. And as a demonstration that the whole of Europe has stepped up in terms of military support for Ukraine. In the eight months since the Defence Secretary took on the role as co-chair of the Ukraine Ukraine contact Defence group. We've raised pledges of military aid totalling over £50 billion and of course, we continue to work with the United States.
And because Ukrainian resistance has turned a war, Russia thought it would win on the battlefield, into war, into a war of production. Let us never again read of Ukraine retreating because of a lack of equipment. We have also greatly intensified our support for and collaboration with Ukraine's defence industries, who are at the cutting edge of drone development and are building an increasingly effective long, long range strike capability. We've entered a new technology sharing agreement with the Ukrainian government and an industrial partnership to develop and advance new air defence interceptor drone cooperation that will boost our respective capabilities but also boost British jobs.
And building on the recent £200 million investment in the UK by Ukraine's Spec Systems, one of the Ukraine's biggest drone manufacturing companies. That will see the latest drone technologies being developed and manufactured in and around East Anglia, creating 500 jobs. The intensification of our military support and cooperation should not be necessary because again this month, President Trump opened the door and invited President Putin to stop the fighting and pursue peace. President Zelensky is ready to order a ceasefire and step through that door.
The UK, UK and Ukraine's other allies are ready to support negotiations and have advanced plans to support peace. But Putin stubbornly refuses, choosing instead to instruct Lavrov to shun President Trump's call for meaningful negotiations towards a lasting peace and choosing instead, just a day later, to fire another barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles and drones into Ukrainian cities, killing at least seven people, including a mother and a 12 year old and six month old daughters in Kyiv, also hitting a kindergarten full of children.
In Kharkiv, where one person was killed. Putin again choosing more wars and more civilian deaths over negotiations and peace. And our Prime Minister, together with President Zelensky and 11 other prominent European leaders, issued an unequivocal joint statement in response to Putin's latest rejection of President Trump's diplomacy, insisting that Ukraine Ukraine my Lords must be in the strongest possible position before, during and after any ceasefire and that we must ramp up the pressure on Russia's economy, economy and its defence industry until Putin is ready to make peace.
That is why we so warmly welcome the new US and EU sanctions. And it's why the UK and France continue to lead more than 30 nations in a coalition of the willing that, in the event of a ceasefire, will strengthen Ukraine's path to peace and stability by deploying a multinational force for Ukraine to secure Ukraine's skies, secure safer seas and regenerate Ukraine's forces. Multinational force planning was discussed by the Prime Minister at the coalition meeting in London, recently attended by President Zelensky.
Command structures have long been agreed. Reconnaissance missions to Ukraine have been completed, and the Defence Secretary has accelerated funding to ensure the UK force contingent is ready to go when called upon. UK and European partners are also working up options to use the full value of the immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine, my Lords. Today we will debate battlefield tactics and strategies for peace. We will debate our support for Ukraine's defence and how to ratchet up pressure on Putin's war machine.
We'll debate how we stop Russia bombing civilians, and let us remember also how to reunite the thousands, thousands of abducted Ukrainian children with their parents, for which the First Lady of Ukraine deserves huge credit, as indeed does the first lady in the in the United States. My Lords in 2025 children used as a weapon of war. What a disgrace. And what a shocking indictment of Putin and Russia. But what is beyond debate is that Putin's war remains illegal, immoral, unjust and unjustifiable.
He could stop it today, and in fact, he should stop it today because rather than weakening Ukrainian statehood, Putin is galvanising it. Instead of turning a peaceful neighbour into a vassal state as he planned, he has turned Ukraine into one of Europe's most capable military forces. That, after three and a half years of brutal invasion, will never accept Russian rule or a Russian puppet government. Each day this war continues, Putin not only strengthens Ukrainian resolve, he strengthens my Lords our resolve and the resolve of our allies and the resolve of our people.
Because this government, both the last government and this government and all parties across this chamber, including our European allies, remain in no doubt democracy and the rules based international order matter. And that is what is at stake in Ukraine today. Ukraine's security is our security, and Ukraine's fight is our fight. Because the front line of European security runs through Ukraine. So I'm proud, proud. My Lords as the UK defence minister to say at the beginning of this debate that as we approach Remembrance Sunday, that this country has always, always stood up for freedom, democracy and human rights.
We will never forget that or the sacrifice of so many. A sacrifice that continues to inspire us today, as those values are once again threatened by Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. And my Lords, let it ring out from this chamber today. However hard, however challenging we can, we will and we must prevail. Democracy and human rights and freedom demand it.
NATO has been strengthened, not weakened, and Europe stands ready to do what it takes and let that message resound from this chamber today. 12 months ago, Ukrainians were approaching their third winter of courageous resistance, defending their homes and homelands against Putin's full scale invasion, including many women on the front line. Let me start by paying tribute to the Ukrainian people, their resolve, their determination and their bravery. They humble us all, bringing tears to our eyes, including myself. When you see this at first hand.
So whatever our words today, let that always be at the forefront of our thoughts and we look forward to Lord Barrow, a former Ukrainian ambassador, making his maiden speech today. Today, as they approach their fourth winter on a macro level, depressingly, the picture remains broadly unchanged because whilst thanks to the Ukrainian courage, determination and ingenuity and support from allies, Putin has still not achieved any of his overall strategic war aims. Russian forces continue to ruthlessly wage his illegal war, continue to inch forward in a full frontal assault on Ukrainian sovereignty, international laws and norms.
And let us remember, as we debate this here in the beauty of this chamber, proud of our democracy, Putin is increasingly hitting and killing Ukrainian civilians with, according to the UN, a 40% increase in the number of civilians harmed this year compared to last. And he continues to send Russians to their death in horrifying numbers. Coupled with the targeting of Ukraine's civilian energy infrastructure, these are sickening and cynical tactics that expose Putin's comparative failures on the battlefield. We're along an increasingly blurred line of contact.
Ukrainian courage and ingenuity have turned an invasion that Russian planners thought would be measured in days and kilometres into a quagmire measured in years and metres, turned a special military operation to remove President Zelensky. Take Ukraine and weaken Europe in days. That was the original intention. My Lords, a puppet government in Kyiv. So a protracted war for four regions that Russia has proved itself incapable of taking. That has galvanised President Zelensky and indeed galvanised Europe. Yet behind this familiar big picture, much has changed over the last 12 months.
The government, with the overwhelming support of Parliament and the British public, a British public, has massively increased the scale of UK support for Ukraine. As together we partners, we've ramped up our sanctions to constrain Putin's war machine. And after three and a half years of brutal and deadly war, the strength of Ukraine's resistance and European resolve coupled with the election of President Trump are finally put peace talks on the agenda. Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary outlined the latest tranche of UK sanctions designed to weaken Putins war machine and ensure his thirst for war comes with a clear cost.
She set out measures that outlawed US business with 19 EU Russia related individuals and entities, import Russian oil supplies of drone, drones and missile components, and 44 additional shadow fleet vessels, taking the total number of Russia related individuals and entities sanctioned by the UK to over 2900, including more than 500 shadow fleet vessels, more than any other country. That uptick in our Russia sanctions mirrors the uptick in our support for Ukraine to help get bomb damaged power supplies back up and running, and help Ukraine through the winter.
The Foreign Secretary announced £142 million in UK aid during her visit to Kyiv last month, and to help protect Ukrainian civilians from Russia's urban bombing campaign and ensure they can stay in the fight and secure a just and lasting peace from a position of strength on the battlefield. We've used interest from immobilised Russian sovereign assets to step up UK military support, with this year's military package hitting £4.5 billion, the largest ever level for UK support for Ukraine. We've invested £600 million this year to arm Ukraine, Ukraine's forces with a variety of drones, which is on track to boost the number delivered by the UK from 10,000 in 20 24 to 100,000 drones this year.
The Defence Secretary's 50 day delivery drive over the summer provided nearly 5 million rounds of small arms ammunition. Around 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles, along with drones, counter drones and air defence equipment. And last week, the Prime Minister announced that we would continue to provide Ukraine with long range capabilities, and he also confirmed that the expansion of the UK missile building programme will enable us to deliver 140 air defence missiles ahead of schedule. Part of the 1.6 billion deal for more than 5000 lightweight multi-role missiles that are being made by the workers of Thales in Northern Ireland.
And over the last 12 months, we've also extended into Operation Interflex until at least the end of 2026, which is the multinational training operation that has now trained more than 60,000 Ukrainian personnel here in the UK. And as a demonstration that the whole of Europe has stepped up in terms of military support for Ukraine. In the eight months since the Defence Secretary took on the role as co-chair of the Ukraine Ukraine contact Defence group. We've raised pledges of military aid totalling over £50 billion and of course, we continue to work with the United States.
And because Ukrainian resistance has turned a war, Russia thought it would win on the battlefield, into war, into a war of production. Let us never again read of Ukraine retreating because of a lack of equipment. We have also greatly intensified our support for and collaboration with Ukraine's defence industries, who are at the cutting edge of drone development and are building an increasingly effective long, long range strike capability. We've entered a new technology sharing agreement with the Ukrainian government and an industrial partnership to develop and advance new air defence interceptor drone cooperation that will boost our respective capabilities but also boost British jobs.
And building on the recent £200 million investment in the UK by Ukraine's Spec Systems, one of the Ukraine's biggest drone manufacturing companies. That will see the latest drone technologies being developed and manufactured in and around East Anglia, creating 500 jobs. The intensification of our military support and cooperation should not be necessary because again this month, President Trump opened the door and invited President Putin to stop the fighting and pursue peace. President Zelensky is ready to order a ceasefire and step through that door.
The UK, UK and Ukraine's other allies are ready to support negotiations and have advanced plans to support peace. But Putin stubbornly refuses, choosing instead to instruct Lavrov to shun President Trump's call for meaningful negotiations towards a lasting peace and choosing instead, just a day later, to fire another barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles and drones into Ukrainian cities, killing at least seven people, including a mother and a 12 year old and six month old daughters in Kyiv, also hitting a kindergarten full of children.
In Kharkiv, where one person was killed. Putin again choosing more wars and more civilian deaths over negotiations and peace. And our Prime Minister, together with President Zelensky and 11 other prominent European leaders, issued an unequivocal joint statement in response to Putin's latest rejection of President Trump's diplomacy, insisting that Ukraine Ukraine my Lords must be in the strongest possible position before, during and after any ceasefire and that we must ramp up the pressure on Russia's economy, economy and its defence industry until Putin is ready to make peace.
That is why we so warmly welcome the new US and EU sanctions. And it's why the UK and France continue to lead more than 30 nations in a coalition of the willing that, in the event of a ceasefire, will strengthen Ukraine's path to peace and stability by deploying a multinational force for Ukraine to secure Ukraine's skies, secure safer seas and regenerate Ukraine's forces. Multinational force planning was discussed by the Prime Minister at the coalition meeting in London, recently attended by President Zelensky.
Command structures have long been agreed. Reconnaissance missions to Ukraine have been completed, and the Defence Secretary has accelerated funding to ensure the UK force contingent is ready to go when called upon. UK and European partners are also working up options to use the full value of the immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine, my Lords. Today we will debate battlefield tactics and strategies for peace. We will debate our support for Ukraine's defence and how to ratchet up pressure on Putin's war machine.
We'll debate how we stop Russia bombing civilians, and let us remember also how to reunite the thousands, thousands of abducted Ukrainian children with their parents, for which the First Lady of Ukraine deserves huge credit, as indeed does the first lady in the in the United States. My Lords in 2025 children used as a weapon of war. What a disgrace. And what a shocking indictment of Putin and Russia. But what is beyond debate is that Putin's war remains illegal, immoral, unjust and unjustifiable.
He could stop it today, and in fact, he should stop it today because rather than weakening Ukrainian statehood, Putin is galvanising it. Instead of turning a peaceful neighbour into a vassal state as he planned, he has turned Ukraine into one of Europe's most capable military forces. That, after three and a half years of brutal invasion, will never accept Russian rule or a Russian puppet government. Each day this war continues, Putin not only strengthens Ukrainian resolve, he strengthens my Lords our resolve and the resolve of our allies and the resolve of our people.
Because this government, both the last government and this government and all parties across this chamber, including our European allies, remain in no doubt democracy and the rules based international order matter. And that is what is at stake in Ukraine today. Ukraine's security is our security, and Ukraine's fight is our fight. Because the front line of European security runs through Ukraine. So I'm proud, proud. My Lords as the UK defence minister to say at the beginning of this debate that as we approach Remembrance Sunday, that this country has always, always stood up for freedom, democracy and human rights.
We will never forget that or the sacrifice of so many. A sacrifice that continues to inspire us today, as those values are once again threatened by Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. And my Lords, let it ring out from this chamber today. However hard, however challenging we can, we will and we must prevail. Democracy and human rights and freedom demand it.
10:20
Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
Motion be agreed to. debate and the noble Lord Lord Coaker for his powerful and passionate and clear introduction of the debate. This debate is timely, I think, for three reasons. It enables the political presence in the United Kingdom as so articulately described by the noble Lord, the Minister, to show a continuing united front against President Putin's illegal war in Ukraine, and that powerful unity of purpose and resolve is very important. But the debate facilitates an informed discussion from members across this chamber with the wealth of experience which they reflect, to offer thoughts and opinions and ideas.
And prominent amongst that is, of course, the presence of the noble Lord, Lord burrow, to whose maiden speech we eagerly look forward, and will certainly be very interested to hear his contribution. But perhaps most importantly, this debate is our opportunity to send a clear and uncompromising message to President Putin that the United Kingdom stands against bullies, has always stood against bullies, and will always do so. We know the peril of appeasement, the facile delusion that you can do business with a bully.
The fatal misapprehension that the bully is well intended towards his enemy. When the bullies only interest is himself, and the clinical and ruthless advancement of his illegal and brutal agenda. The United Kingdom sees that clearly, and I want to pay tribute to the government for their steadfast support of Ukraine. My Lords. It is clear from the coalescence of support around Ukraine, whether from European neighbours. We see President Putin for what he is, the coalition of the willing being progressed by the Prime Minister, or the more formal activity being pursued through NATO, that this continuing threat posed by President Putin to Europe must be primarily addressed by Europe.
Now, of course, we welcome the continuing and vital support of the United States, but the responsibility falls on us and our European friends to demonstrate that we can step up to the plate and pay our way. European and Western Atlantic security is our joint responsibility. We have to guard it. We have to fight off any challenge to it, and we have to be visibly determined in our resolve to do that. Now, my Lords for that strategy, strategy to be delivered, I suggest we need, in relation to Ukraine, three things greater clarity, perhaps about the shape of the short term, the planning and resource necessary to sustain the medium term, and an outline of the longer term, both in relation to the rebuild of Ukraine and the broader construct of Euro-Atlantic security.
Taking the short term, first, we, the United Kingdom and our allies must continue to supply Ukraine with what she needs to defend herself, and that includes training. So I was very encouraged to hear the noble Lord the minister's comments on that. But on the broader front, I wonder if I could ask the noble lady, the minister, when she responds, if there is clarity across the piece about who is supplying what. How is this being coordinated? And can we have perhaps in written form, an update on what military assets from the UK are currently being provided? Although I accept the noble Lord has been very explicit about part of that supply, may I also ask that noble Lady the minister in her response? If in the supply of weaponry, she can confirm there is clarity that for Ukraine to respond proportionately to this illegal invasion, she must be free to target the locations within Russia being used for hostile attacks on Ukraine.
My Lords. Implicit within this is the political will to fund and a stable and predictable manner. Our UK defence capability and when dealing with such an overt threat to our security, the Prime Minister must provide that leadership, supporting his Chancellor and requiring the Treasury to fund to the levels necessary. It is so axiomatic that I do not expect the noble Lady the Minister to comment, other than to observe if there is any hesitancy in providing such leadership. The only person clapping his hands with glee will be President Putin.
Moving to the medium term, if President Putin is recalcitrant, supply of military assets must continue. And we also need to audit both as an individual country and with allies. The effect of sanctions on Russia. After this length of time, it must be possible to have a reasonably accurate measurement of the consequences of these sanctions. Now, I appreciate that the noble Lady the Minister may not have detailed information to hand, and I am very happy for her to confirm that by letter.
But if, as is widely understood, the sanctions are having a savage effect on the Russian economy, there needs to be a concerted comms strategy by us and our allies to get that message through to the Russian people. Now, this has been discussed before, and I remember the matter arising when I was Defence Minister. But of the noble Lady of the Minister can update the House on any progress that would be helpful. Looking to the longer term, that projection must embrace what is necessary to rebuild Ukrainian infrastructure.
What is required to reinstate a functioning economy, and what political reforms are necessary to facilitate these objectives. Now it is clear that some excellent work is already being done in the noble Lord. The Minister referred to the contribution, the very positive contribution from the United Kingdom, but elsewhere hope for Ukraine, based in the United States, has a comprehensive programme to assist the EU through the Ebrd, the European Investment Bank and European Commission has provided a total of 30 million to help Ukraine prepare large scale infrastructure projects and apparently more funding due from EU countries and donors.
But I wonder if the noble Lady the minister could give us a more detailed update on what the UK is doing on this front. What I think is unclear that in aggregate, across the overall contribution of support, we're not sure what that map looks like and how is macro economic support being given to Ukraine, its international loans, its international financial guarantees? Is there, for example, a workable basis for the operation of commercial insurance indemnity across a range of commercial activity? I look forward to the noble Lady of the Minister's response on these specific issues.
Turning to what political reforms may be required within Ukraine, sadly, corruption in that country is unarguable and everything that allies and friends of Ukraine are prepared to do to help carries a reciprocal obligation by Ukraine to fix what is bad now. Without that explicit recognition from Ukraine, there can be no confidence by the international community that it is worthwhile providing help. And this is serious. It gets to the heart of what we want a post-conflict Ukraine to look like.
So my Lords, I suggest that Ukraine has to tackle judicial corruption. There are ongoing issues with judicial appointments and a lack of trust in the courts. There is war related corruption. The ongoing conflict has apparently created new avenues, such as we understand, officials demanding bribes for leave or diverting foreign aid meant for the front lines. There appears to be top level and systemic corruption, and that includes issues with state contracts and the influence of oligarchs, whom we understand remain a problem that hinders foreign investment and economic growth.
Now, it would appear that addressing this and that making any progress is a glacial situation, particularly where large interests and big players are involved, such as natural resource extraction and large infrastructure projects, so can the noble Lady the Minister confirm what the United Kingdom is doing, either alone or with partners, to provide advice and support to Ukraine to try and help to tackle these serious problems? Is it possible to provide any in-country support and advice? If there is any update she can provide to the House about progress on these essential reforms? I think that would be very welcome.
My Lords, I conclude as I started with appreciation that this debate is taking place. I have endeavoured to encourage thinking across a time period as to what is required as this conflict progresses. I have tried to be constructive and I hope, conciliatory, in suggesting positive proposals, but not shying away from what? Under no circumstances this government should shy away from the paramount obligation for the safety of all of us all to secure stable and predictable funding for defence. I look forward to hearing contributions from members.
I very much look forward to listening to the noble Lady, the Ministers contribution when she makes her response. I conclude perhaps with the most important observation His Majesty's Opposition will support the government's continuing support
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for Ukraine. My Lords, I too would like to thank the government for initiating thank the government for initiating this debate today, and I very much look forward to hearing Lord Barrow's maiden speech. It is Barrow's maiden speech. It is nearly four years since the full scale and unprovoked invasion in scale and unprovoked invasion in February 2022. Ukraine faces a fourth harsh winter with constant drone attacks, concerns about energy supplies, power cuts and for many women and men, continued many women and men, continued gruelling life on the front line in the trenches.
The huge psychological impact and disruption to family life, most particularly my Lords for children, is very hard my Lords for children, is very hard for us to imagine. It is hugely important as through this debate important as through this debate today, that the Ukrainian people know that there is no wavering in the UK's support for Ukraine. There
And prominent amongst that is, of course, the presence of the noble Lord, Lord burrow, to whose maiden speech we eagerly look forward, and will certainly be very interested to hear his contribution. But perhaps most importantly, this debate is our opportunity to send a clear and uncompromising message to President Putin that the United Kingdom stands against bullies, has always stood against bullies, and will always do so. We know the peril of appeasement, the facile delusion that you can do business with a bully.
The fatal misapprehension that the bully is well intended towards his enemy. When the bullies only interest is himself, and the clinical and ruthless advancement of his illegal and brutal agenda. The United Kingdom sees that clearly, and I want to pay tribute to the government for their steadfast support of Ukraine. My Lords. It is clear from the coalescence of support around Ukraine, whether from European neighbours. We see President Putin for what he is, the coalition of the willing being progressed by the Prime Minister, or the more formal activity being pursued through NATO, that this continuing threat posed by President Putin to Europe must be primarily addressed by Europe.
Now, of course, we welcome the continuing and vital support of the United States, but the responsibility falls on us and our European friends to demonstrate that we can step up to the plate and pay our way. European and Western Atlantic security is our joint responsibility. We have to guard it. We have to fight off any challenge to it, and we have to be visibly determined in our resolve to do that. Now, my Lords for that strategy, strategy to be delivered, I suggest we need, in relation to Ukraine, three things greater clarity, perhaps about the shape of the short term, the planning and resource necessary to sustain the medium term, and an outline of the longer term, both in relation to the rebuild of Ukraine and the broader construct of Euro-Atlantic security.
Taking the short term, first, we, the United Kingdom and our allies must continue to supply Ukraine with what she needs to defend herself, and that includes training. So I was very encouraged to hear the noble Lord the minister's comments on that. But on the broader front, I wonder if I could ask the noble lady, the minister, when she responds, if there is clarity across the piece about who is supplying what. How is this being coordinated? And can we have perhaps in written form, an update on what military assets from the UK are currently being provided? Although I accept the noble Lord has been very explicit about part of that supply, may I also ask that noble Lady the minister in her response? If in the supply of weaponry, she can confirm there is clarity that for Ukraine to respond proportionately to this illegal invasion, she must be free to target the locations within Russia being used for hostile attacks on Ukraine.
My Lords. Implicit within this is the political will to fund and a stable and predictable manner. Our UK defence capability and when dealing with such an overt threat to our security, the Prime Minister must provide that leadership, supporting his Chancellor and requiring the Treasury to fund to the levels necessary. It is so axiomatic that I do not expect the noble Lady the Minister to comment, other than to observe if there is any hesitancy in providing such leadership. The only person clapping his hands with glee will be President Putin.
Moving to the medium term, if President Putin is recalcitrant, supply of military assets must continue. And we also need to audit both as an individual country and with allies. The effect of sanctions on Russia. After this length of time, it must be possible to have a reasonably accurate measurement of the consequences of these sanctions. Now, I appreciate that the noble Lady the Minister may not have detailed information to hand, and I am very happy for her to confirm that by letter.
But if, as is widely understood, the sanctions are having a savage effect on the Russian economy, there needs to be a concerted comms strategy by us and our allies to get that message through to the Russian people. Now, this has been discussed before, and I remember the matter arising when I was Defence Minister. But of the noble Lady of the Minister can update the House on any progress that would be helpful. Looking to the longer term, that projection must embrace what is necessary to rebuild Ukrainian infrastructure.
What is required to reinstate a functioning economy, and what political reforms are necessary to facilitate these objectives. Now it is clear that some excellent work is already being done in the noble Lord. The Minister referred to the contribution, the very positive contribution from the United Kingdom, but elsewhere hope for Ukraine, based in the United States, has a comprehensive programme to assist the EU through the Ebrd, the European Investment Bank and European Commission has provided a total of 30 million to help Ukraine prepare large scale infrastructure projects and apparently more funding due from EU countries and donors.
But I wonder if the noble Lady the minister could give us a more detailed update on what the UK is doing on this front. What I think is unclear that in aggregate, across the overall contribution of support, we're not sure what that map looks like and how is macro economic support being given to Ukraine, its international loans, its international financial guarantees? Is there, for example, a workable basis for the operation of commercial insurance indemnity across a range of commercial activity? I look forward to the noble Lady of the Minister's response on these specific issues.
Turning to what political reforms may be required within Ukraine, sadly, corruption in that country is unarguable and everything that allies and friends of Ukraine are prepared to do to help carries a reciprocal obligation by Ukraine to fix what is bad now. Without that explicit recognition from Ukraine, there can be no confidence by the international community that it is worthwhile providing help. And this is serious. It gets to the heart of what we want a post-conflict Ukraine to look like.
So my Lords, I suggest that Ukraine has to tackle judicial corruption. There are ongoing issues with judicial appointments and a lack of trust in the courts. There is war related corruption. The ongoing conflict has apparently created new avenues, such as we understand, officials demanding bribes for leave or diverting foreign aid meant for the front lines. There appears to be top level and systemic corruption, and that includes issues with state contracts and the influence of oligarchs, whom we understand remain a problem that hinders foreign investment and economic growth.
Now, it would appear that addressing this and that making any progress is a glacial situation, particularly where large interests and big players are involved, such as natural resource extraction and large infrastructure projects, so can the noble Lady the Minister confirm what the United Kingdom is doing, either alone or with partners, to provide advice and support to Ukraine to try and help to tackle these serious problems? Is it possible to provide any in-country support and advice? If there is any update she can provide to the House about progress on these essential reforms? I think that would be very welcome.
My Lords, I conclude as I started with appreciation that this debate is taking place. I have endeavoured to encourage thinking across a time period as to what is required as this conflict progresses. I have tried to be constructive and I hope, conciliatory, in suggesting positive proposals, but not shying away from what? Under no circumstances this government should shy away from the paramount obligation for the safety of all of us all to secure stable and predictable funding for defence. I look forward to hearing contributions from members.
I very much look forward to listening to the noble Lady, the Ministers contribution when she makes her response. I conclude perhaps with the most important observation His Majesty's Opposition will support the government's continuing support
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for Ukraine. My Lords, I too would like to thank the government for initiating thank the government for initiating this debate today, and I very much look forward to hearing Lord Barrow's maiden speech. It is Barrow's maiden speech. It is nearly four years since the full scale and unprovoked invasion in scale and unprovoked invasion in February 2022. Ukraine faces a fourth harsh winter with constant drone attacks, concerns about energy supplies, power cuts and for many women and men, continued many women and men, continued gruelling life on the front line in the trenches.
The huge psychological impact and disruption to family life, most particularly my Lords for children, is very hard my Lords for children, is very hard for us to imagine. It is hugely important as through this debate important as through this debate today, that the Ukrainian people know that there is no wavering in the UK's support for Ukraine. There
10:31
10:32
10:32
Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)
notable exception of some in reform, UK, Ukraine and Ukrainians can feel secure that they continue to have the support of all mainstream the support of all mainstream political parties in the UK. It was very welcome that both the Prime Minister and the King continued to give very public demonstrations of support during President Zelensky's support during President Zelensky's visit to London last week. Such things are symbolic my Lords, but things are symbolic my Lords, but nonetheless remain, I believe, incredibly important, and for that reason I profoundly disagree with reason I profoundly disagree with the leader of Kent County Council from reform UK.
When she said in May this year that flying the May this year that flying the Ukrainian flag was a distraction, I quote, and removed it from County quote, and removed it from County Hall, flying Ukrainian flags on public buildings is a very powerful symbol and one that I know all my Ukrainian friends hugely appreciate when they come to London and see when they come to London and see their flag flying all over Whitehall. Ahead of this debate today, I was in contact with former today, I was in contact with former colleagues and friends and Kyiv.
Their messages to me this week have Their messages to me this week have been characteristically determined, but they have also made for sober reading. They fear that once again we will do too little, too late, and will not take the brave decisions that need to be taken now. One of their greatest fears is the rise of the populist right in Europe. Disinformation, political interference and manipulation are now very real threats across Europe and beyond. As President Zelensky has said and the noble Lord repeated, the Minister repeated on many occasions.
President Zelensky has said that the war in Ukraine is our war too. Ukraine is fighting for our values, freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But for this to be more than just words, my Lords, I believe we have to find ways to continue to take the people with us in this country. Last month, I had the privilege of attending the Sarajevo Security Conference, and I refer to my register of interests. I was really struck by the conversations I had with military representatives from some of the Nordic and Baltic states.
Now, clearly, those countries which have borders with Russia feel and fear the consequences of the war in Ukraine very much more directly. It is not surprising that they are very rapidly changing their approaches to defence spending. Military service and civil defence. The head of the Norwegian Civil Defence said to me, talk to me about their whole society approach to defence and security in Norway, an approach which is also very much embraced in Finland and in other Baltic states. It is an approach that puts trust, building resilience and public engagement at its centre, as people face an increasing number of hybrid threats, from power outages to disinformation campaigns and electoral interference.
It is incredibly important that people understand that this is now the reality of hybrid war in the 21st century. It is directly connected to the war in Ukraine, and combating it is all part of our wider defence and security policy. Developing such an all society approach to defence is contained in the government's recent Strategic Defence Review by Lord Robertson, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could say a little more about the plans to implement this in practice. In her closing remarks, as well as to their wider approach to implementing article three of NATO.
Although I believe people in the UK remain firmly supportive of Ukraine, as all recent opinion polls show. I think nonetheless that for many people it is regarded as something regarded as something that is happening far away and is not directly relevant to their lives. I also genuinely worry that if the conflict were to escalate, we have not yet built up the resilience or the capacity in this country to deal with such a situation as we substantially increase our defence spending, we have to take people with us.
We need to do this through public engagement as well as through education. My Lords, we have much to learn about resilience as well as much to learn about technologies and the realities of hybrid war from Ukraine. And in that, I very much agree with what the noble Lord the Minister said. As the fourth winter of this war approaches, the backdrop remains bleak. President Trump continues to constantly change his mind about his relations with President Putin. The sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil are welcome.
If late in the day, we must hope that the reality will finally dawn one day on President Trump, that he has been humiliatingly played by the Kremlin, with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia. It is welcome that the European allies remain united. The principle that only Ukraine should be able to decide Ukraine's future remains the dominant view in Europe. It is welcome, too, that a move to increase European defence spending is agreed in principle. This will inevitably mean strengthening Europe's military industrial capacity and streamlining procurement.
But progress is slow and the process is cumbersome. We face an incredibly difficult period ahead in relations with both Russia and China. New Russian weaponry, including hypersonic missiles, are not just a threat to Ukraine. My Lords they are a threat to us all. When we now look back at the West's response to Russia's invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014, I would argue that the absence of a powerful and united response was a strategic error. It allowed President Putin to believe that he could carry out the full scale invasion of 2022.
He gambled on Ukraine being weak and divided, as well as the West's inability to unite. If he utterly misjudged the response of the Ukrainian people, he also largely misjudged the West's response. This has, however, been made significantly more complex since President Trump returned to the white House in January this year. It is hard to know my Lords that the current US led discussions will lead to a ceasefire and an eventual peace. But, my Lords, I very much hope, however, that the UK will continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring that any such discussions adhere to two key principles, namely, that boundaries must never be redrawn by force and that only Ukraine should be allowed to decide upon its own future.
I believe that history will harshly judge any solution that does not adhere to those principles.
When she said in May this year that flying the May this year that flying the Ukrainian flag was a distraction, I quote, and removed it from County quote, and removed it from County Hall, flying Ukrainian flags on public buildings is a very powerful symbol and one that I know all my Ukrainian friends hugely appreciate when they come to London and see when they come to London and see their flag flying all over Whitehall. Ahead of this debate today, I was in contact with former today, I was in contact with former colleagues and friends and Kyiv.
Their messages to me this week have Their messages to me this week have been characteristically determined, but they have also made for sober reading. They fear that once again we will do too little, too late, and will not take the brave decisions that need to be taken now. One of their greatest fears is the rise of the populist right in Europe. Disinformation, political interference and manipulation are now very real threats across Europe and beyond. As President Zelensky has said and the noble Lord repeated, the Minister repeated on many occasions.
President Zelensky has said that the war in Ukraine is our war too. Ukraine is fighting for our values, freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But for this to be more than just words, my Lords, I believe we have to find ways to continue to take the people with us in this country. Last month, I had the privilege of attending the Sarajevo Security Conference, and I refer to my register of interests. I was really struck by the conversations I had with military representatives from some of the Nordic and Baltic states.
Now, clearly, those countries which have borders with Russia feel and fear the consequences of the war in Ukraine very much more directly. It is not surprising that they are very rapidly changing their approaches to defence spending. Military service and civil defence. The head of the Norwegian Civil Defence said to me, talk to me about their whole society approach to defence and security in Norway, an approach which is also very much embraced in Finland and in other Baltic states. It is an approach that puts trust, building resilience and public engagement at its centre, as people face an increasing number of hybrid threats, from power outages to disinformation campaigns and electoral interference.
It is incredibly important that people understand that this is now the reality of hybrid war in the 21st century. It is directly connected to the war in Ukraine, and combating it is all part of our wider defence and security policy. Developing such an all society approach to defence is contained in the government's recent Strategic Defence Review by Lord Robertson, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could say a little more about the plans to implement this in practice. In her closing remarks, as well as to their wider approach to implementing article three of NATO.
Although I believe people in the UK remain firmly supportive of Ukraine, as all recent opinion polls show. I think nonetheless that for many people it is regarded as something regarded as something that is happening far away and is not directly relevant to their lives. I also genuinely worry that if the conflict were to escalate, we have not yet built up the resilience or the capacity in this country to deal with such a situation as we substantially increase our defence spending, we have to take people with us.
We need to do this through public engagement as well as through education. My Lords, we have much to learn about resilience as well as much to learn about technologies and the realities of hybrid war from Ukraine. And in that, I very much agree with what the noble Lord the Minister said. As the fourth winter of this war approaches, the backdrop remains bleak. President Trump continues to constantly change his mind about his relations with President Putin. The sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil are welcome.
If late in the day, we must hope that the reality will finally dawn one day on President Trump, that he has been humiliatingly played by the Kremlin, with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia. It is welcome that the European allies remain united. The principle that only Ukraine should be able to decide Ukraine's future remains the dominant view in Europe. It is welcome, too, that a move to increase European defence spending is agreed in principle. This will inevitably mean strengthening Europe's military industrial capacity and streamlining procurement.
But progress is slow and the process is cumbersome. We face an incredibly difficult period ahead in relations with both Russia and China. New Russian weaponry, including hypersonic missiles, are not just a threat to Ukraine. My Lords they are a threat to us all. When we now look back at the West's response to Russia's invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014, I would argue that the absence of a powerful and united response was a strategic error. It allowed President Putin to believe that he could carry out the full scale invasion of 2022.
He gambled on Ukraine being weak and divided, as well as the West's inability to unite. If he utterly misjudged the response of the Ukrainian people, he also largely misjudged the West's response. This has, however, been made significantly more complex since President Trump returned to the white House in January this year. It is hard to know my Lords that the current US led discussions will lead to a ceasefire and an eventual peace. But, my Lords, I very much hope, however, that the UK will continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring that any such discussions adhere to two key principles, namely, that boundaries must never be redrawn by force and that only Ukraine should be allowed to decide upon its own future.
I believe that history will harshly judge any solution that does not adhere to those principles.
10:38
Lord Houghton of Richmond (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Houghton of Richmond (Crossbench)
Yea yea yea yea yea.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate on Ukraine and the opportunity it presents. Mine will be an uncomfortable but honest contribution. I would start by observing that it is very difficult to draw any comfort from an analysis of the tactical situation on the ground, and it's even more difficult to derive any moral difficult to derive any moral satisfaction for what we are continuing to ask Ukraine to do. I say this primarily because the say this primarily because the Russia Ukraine conflict continues to be a limited war, limited by to be a limited war, limited by both the means and the geography.
These limitations are ones imposed These limitations are ones imposed by the United States and by NATO more widely. They almost exclusively constrain Ukrainian exclusively constrain Ukrainian activity to Ukrainian soil, and deny Ukraine the capabilities required to carry the fight to required to carry the fight to Russia. They do so, arguably understandably, in order to avoid provoking Russian escalation. Hence a preference for financial sanctions as opposed to Tomahawk sanctions as opposed to Tomahawk missiles. But such choices do limit Ukraine's ability to hurt Russia in ways that might bring the war to a ways that might bring the war to a conclusion on acceptable terms.
In short, therefore, we continue to accept that Ukraine is fighting a accept that Ukraine is fighting a proxy war on behalf of NATO, but we are denying it the means to win. Reflecting on this, I worry that we forget that war is not ultimately a battle of physical exchange. It's a battle of human will. Will. Sadly, the trajectory of this war increasingly looks like one that is hurting Ukraine more than Russia. More specifically, it is hurting Ukrainian society more than Vladimir Putin.
And Putin appears content to incrementally grind this war towards a cease fire that will be humiliating to Ukraine and embarrassing to Western governments to set alongside and to help balance this gloomy prediction is the potential reality that even with a ceasefire that rewards Russia, Russia will finish this war in strategic deficit. Finland and Sweden will have joined NATO. The Baltic will have become a NATO lake. NATO's European members will be en route to spending 5% of GDP on defence and Russia's war economy.
Economy may be starting to exhaust it domestically. But those that draw comfort from this should again remind themselves of the human nature of warfare. So long as Putin remains in power, danger lingers. He recognises the reticence of America to intervene decisively. He will observe the relative sluggishness of NATO rearmament. Potentially, Putin will boil at Britain's boasts regarding their part in inflicting such huge casualties on Russia. He will see Britain as America's proxy. He will have a fully mobilised set of armed forces, an untouched suite of strategic capabilities, a fully mobilised war economy and a window of opportunity to act.
Whilst NATO, certainly the UK at the moment, still prioritises welfare benefits over national security, even if such a scenario is misjudged, it presents real dilemmas for the Ministry of Defence and particularly those now engaged on the Defence Investment Plan. This is the exercise that determines how the Mod will spend its money for the remainder of this Parliament. Noble Lords may recall that the government pledged 10 billion of new investment money to prime the capability priorities of the Strategic Defence Review.
But 6 billion of that has to come from defence efficiencies, and the Mod has now discovered an in-year black hole, which the service chiefs are now scrambling to fill within their savings. The reality of the financial situation is dire, and I suspect uncomfortable announcements lie ahead. I can imagine that the main decisions to be taken on defence investment will be the hard choices regarding three separate policy objectives. The first is the combination of spending on Ukraine and re-establishing deterrence through a return to warfighting readiness.
The second is in making the nation more resilient to hybrid threats, not just critical national infrastructure, but also society itself. And the third is the investment in the technology needed to give substance to the concept of the integrated force, a force capable of achieving decisive advantage from the position of significantly enhanced lethality. All three of these policy objectives need huge investment. Without such investment, we will potentially fail both Ukraine and NATO. We expose society to hybrid threats, and we completely undermine the only real hope of credibility that the Defence Review offers our armed forces.
Hard investment choices have forever been the challenge of peacetime planners. But we should not be engaged in peacetime planning. We face an outcome to the current conflict that leaves behind a humiliated Ukraine, a residually dangerous Russia and an impoverished Britain devoid of threat awareness with an unfunded SDR. I've worried for the last 15 years that when it comes to national security, the government of the day has consistently put their perceived duty to reassure society above their duty to respond to geopolitical realities.
I hope that the Minister can reassure the House otherwise, but I'm lost as to what hard facts he can call upon to what hard facts he can call upon to do so. We need to do more. So it's good that we're having this debate, and I hope that we have similar debates quite regularly, and we all look forward to the maiden speech by Lord Morrow, who brings special expertise and knowledge to our considerations today. But anybody who actually still holds doubts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
about the kind of threat that. The West faces need only look at the pictures from just a few weeks the pictures from just a few weeks ago of the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Beijing. Cooperation Organisation in Beijing. The sight of President XI, President Putin and President Kim
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate on Ukraine and the opportunity it presents. Mine will be an uncomfortable but honest contribution. I would start by observing that it is very difficult to draw any comfort from an analysis of the tactical situation on the ground, and it's even more difficult to derive any moral difficult to derive any moral satisfaction for what we are continuing to ask Ukraine to do. I say this primarily because the say this primarily because the Russia Ukraine conflict continues to be a limited war, limited by to be a limited war, limited by both the means and the geography.
These limitations are ones imposed These limitations are ones imposed by the United States and by NATO more widely. They almost exclusively constrain Ukrainian exclusively constrain Ukrainian activity to Ukrainian soil, and deny Ukraine the capabilities required to carry the fight to required to carry the fight to Russia. They do so, arguably understandably, in order to avoid provoking Russian escalation. Hence a preference for financial sanctions as opposed to Tomahawk sanctions as opposed to Tomahawk missiles. But such choices do limit Ukraine's ability to hurt Russia in ways that might bring the war to a ways that might bring the war to a conclusion on acceptable terms.
In short, therefore, we continue to accept that Ukraine is fighting a accept that Ukraine is fighting a proxy war on behalf of NATO, but we are denying it the means to win. Reflecting on this, I worry that we forget that war is not ultimately a battle of physical exchange. It's a battle of human will. Will. Sadly, the trajectory of this war increasingly looks like one that is hurting Ukraine more than Russia. More specifically, it is hurting Ukrainian society more than Vladimir Putin.
And Putin appears content to incrementally grind this war towards a cease fire that will be humiliating to Ukraine and embarrassing to Western governments to set alongside and to help balance this gloomy prediction is the potential reality that even with a ceasefire that rewards Russia, Russia will finish this war in strategic deficit. Finland and Sweden will have joined NATO. The Baltic will have become a NATO lake. NATO's European members will be en route to spending 5% of GDP on defence and Russia's war economy.
Economy may be starting to exhaust it domestically. But those that draw comfort from this should again remind themselves of the human nature of warfare. So long as Putin remains in power, danger lingers. He recognises the reticence of America to intervene decisively. He will observe the relative sluggishness of NATO rearmament. Potentially, Putin will boil at Britain's boasts regarding their part in inflicting such huge casualties on Russia. He will see Britain as America's proxy. He will have a fully mobilised set of armed forces, an untouched suite of strategic capabilities, a fully mobilised war economy and a window of opportunity to act.
Whilst NATO, certainly the UK at the moment, still prioritises welfare benefits over national security, even if such a scenario is misjudged, it presents real dilemmas for the Ministry of Defence and particularly those now engaged on the Defence Investment Plan. This is the exercise that determines how the Mod will spend its money for the remainder of this Parliament. Noble Lords may recall that the government pledged 10 billion of new investment money to prime the capability priorities of the Strategic Defence Review.
But 6 billion of that has to come from defence efficiencies, and the Mod has now discovered an in-year black hole, which the service chiefs are now scrambling to fill within their savings. The reality of the financial situation is dire, and I suspect uncomfortable announcements lie ahead. I can imagine that the main decisions to be taken on defence investment will be the hard choices regarding three separate policy objectives. The first is the combination of spending on Ukraine and re-establishing deterrence through a return to warfighting readiness.
The second is in making the nation more resilient to hybrid threats, not just critical national infrastructure, but also society itself. And the third is the investment in the technology needed to give substance to the concept of the integrated force, a force capable of achieving decisive advantage from the position of significantly enhanced lethality. All three of these policy objectives need huge investment. Without such investment, we will potentially fail both Ukraine and NATO. We expose society to hybrid threats, and we completely undermine the only real hope of credibility that the Defence Review offers our armed forces.
Hard investment choices have forever been the challenge of peacetime planners. But we should not be engaged in peacetime planning. We face an outcome to the current conflict that leaves behind a humiliated Ukraine, a residually dangerous Russia and an impoverished Britain devoid of threat awareness with an unfunded SDR. I've worried for the last 15 years that when it comes to national security, the government of the day has consistently put their perceived duty to reassure society above their duty to respond to geopolitical realities.
I hope that the Minister can reassure the House otherwise, but I'm lost as to what hard facts he can call upon to what hard facts he can call upon to do so. We need to do more. So it's good that we're having this debate, and I hope that we have similar debates quite regularly, and we all look forward to the maiden speech by Lord Morrow, who brings special expertise and knowledge to our considerations today. But anybody who actually still holds doubts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
about the kind of threat that. The West faces need only look at the pictures from just a few weeks the pictures from just a few weeks ago of the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Beijing. Cooperation Organisation in Beijing. The sight of President XI, President Putin and President Kim
10:44
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Labour)
-
-
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Labour)
President Putin and President Kim Jong UN watching the robotic military parade in Tiananmen Square should have sent a shiver down the back of all Western leaders. Those leaders that day were not on holiday or on some weekend break in China's capital. They were there with Prime Minister Mori the previous day and remotely with the mullahs in Tehran. They were there mobilising for a world order, which reduces the power and the values of the West. The Shanghai group were assembled at that time to show support for Putins assault on Ukraine, and as a signal that traditional foes were now demonstrably united and conspiring against us.
The stakes in in eastern Ukraine, as has already been said, are high, and they go well beyond the geography of the Donbas. If the invasion of a sovereign state like Ukraine is successful, then make no mistake about the consequences for us and for our way of life. The Ukrainians are fighting tenaciously and resolutely for their lives and for their land, but they're also fighting and dying for us, too, because the inviolability of existing borders is part of the post-Second World War settlement.
And if it unravels, then we will pay a huge price in the cascade of disruption that will follow. Today in the grey zone, Putin deploys cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns and election interference. Sabotage has been contracted out to organised criminals and across Europe, attacks of systematic and our critical national infrastructure is on a knife's edge. The Kremlin strategists intimately know all of our vulnerabilities. Undersea cables carry 98% of all the data that we use, 77% of all the gas supplies to this country come in one pipeline from Norway.
So homeland defence was one of the key aspects of the government's Strategic Defence review. And UK national resilience has to be a serious priority as it is in Scandinavia. A few weeks ago, Mr. Martin Jaeger, the president of Germany's Federal Intelligence Agency, addressed the Bundestag. US and his words should chill us. He talked about the looming hot front confrontation with Russia and he said this our enemy never rests and we are already under attack. Moscow's goal, he said, was to undermine NATO, destabilise European democracies and divide Western societies in order to drive them into self-destructive paralysis.
These are wise and sobering words. But as the Strategic Defence Review soberly says, I quote, defence is wider way of working remains suited to peacetime era. But we no longer live in a peacetime era. And in contrast, our adversaries are in attack mode. So Sir Basil Liddell-hart, the great master of strategy, wisely said this the outcome of the battle will be more determined in the mind of the commanders, rather than in the bodies of their men.
So the lesson that we need from that is that we need to impress on the architect of this terrible invasion that he simply cannot win, and that we will continue to provide Ukraine with the means to get into the Putin mind that pursuing this war cannot and will not achieve the deluded dreams of his total subjugation of Ukraine. Russia, a land of basically good and decent people, has under his leadership lost or had maimed a million and a half young Russians.
The seedcorn of that country's future, at least 300,000 have died on Putin's chosen battlefield, and another half million have left the country to escape his authoritarian claws. His economy is overheating, and this year he managed to capture only 0.4% of Ukrainian territory. He's failing and he's failing Russian. We mustn't grasp defeat out of the jaws of victory.
The stakes in in eastern Ukraine, as has already been said, are high, and they go well beyond the geography of the Donbas. If the invasion of a sovereign state like Ukraine is successful, then make no mistake about the consequences for us and for our way of life. The Ukrainians are fighting tenaciously and resolutely for their lives and for their land, but they're also fighting and dying for us, too, because the inviolability of existing borders is part of the post-Second World War settlement.
And if it unravels, then we will pay a huge price in the cascade of disruption that will follow. Today in the grey zone, Putin deploys cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns and election interference. Sabotage has been contracted out to organised criminals and across Europe, attacks of systematic and our critical national infrastructure is on a knife's edge. The Kremlin strategists intimately know all of our vulnerabilities. Undersea cables carry 98% of all the data that we use, 77% of all the gas supplies to this country come in one pipeline from Norway.
So homeland defence was one of the key aspects of the government's Strategic Defence review. And UK national resilience has to be a serious priority as it is in Scandinavia. A few weeks ago, Mr. Martin Jaeger, the president of Germany's Federal Intelligence Agency, addressed the Bundestag. US and his words should chill us. He talked about the looming hot front confrontation with Russia and he said this our enemy never rests and we are already under attack. Moscow's goal, he said, was to undermine NATO, destabilise European democracies and divide Western societies in order to drive them into self-destructive paralysis.
These are wise and sobering words. But as the Strategic Defence Review soberly says, I quote, defence is wider way of working remains suited to peacetime era. But we no longer live in a peacetime era. And in contrast, our adversaries are in attack mode. So Sir Basil Liddell-hart, the great master of strategy, wisely said this the outcome of the battle will be more determined in the mind of the commanders, rather than in the bodies of their men.
So the lesson that we need from that is that we need to impress on the architect of this terrible invasion that he simply cannot win, and that we will continue to provide Ukraine with the means to get into the Putin mind that pursuing this war cannot and will not achieve the deluded dreams of his total subjugation of Ukraine. Russia, a land of basically good and decent people, has under his leadership lost or had maimed a million and a half young Russians.
The seedcorn of that country's future, at least 300,000 have died on Putin's chosen battlefield, and another half million have left the country to escape his authoritarian claws. His economy is overheating, and this year he managed to capture only 0.4% of Ukrainian territory. He's failing and he's failing Russian. We mustn't grasp defeat out of the jaws of victory.
10:49
Lord Tugendhat (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Tugendhat (Conservative)
. Ukraine, it is important, I think, to bear in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Robinson has just done the extent of the Ukrainian achievement so far. We talk about victory and defeat. But when one thinks of what Putin was setting out to do and what he has actually achieved, there is no doubt that so far, so far, Ukraine has achieved a considerable victory. It has withstood the Russian invasion. Russia has only acquired some 20% of the territory.
It has banished the Black Sea Fleet from the Black Sea. It has done. It has made Russian the Russian economy very largely dependent on China, a very humiliating situation for Mr. Putin. So it has done extremely well, and we must pay tribute to that. But to put it mildly, the outlook is not so good, like World War one, after the First Battle of the Marne, the war has settled down into a war of attrition. But unlike the two sides on the Western Front, Russia and Ukraine are very far from being equally matched.
They are much more like the rivals in another great war of attrition, the American Civil War, when the resources of the North were so much greater than those of the South. So if by Lords war, short of some devastating Napoleonic coup, is largely a matter of resources, then the outlook for Ukraine is becoming increasingly difficult and it is important to be realistic about that, as indeed are many Ukrainians. A Gallup poll in July showed 69% in favour of a negotiated peace.
As soon as possible, versus 24% for continuing to fight until victory. The economist recently reported that the independent Ukraine polling organisation, the rating Group, found that 59% of Ukrainians would accept a loss of territory if that brought about peace. More eloquent than these figures is the number of Ukrainians who have fled their country. In September this year. The so, not so long ago, the UNHCR estimated that to be 5.7 million. Now we have heard about about the problems facing Russia and people leaving Russia.
But that is a very, very substantial drain of the Ukrainian population. Many of those people, I realise, went in the early stages, early months, but the drain has continued and it has continued of men of military age as well as other people, and not many have returned. This exodus, my Lords and its implications, must be borne in mind as we admire the guts, the resourcefulness and the stamina of the Ukrainian frontline troops and the heroism of the civilians who put up with bombing and bombardment of every sort.
Against that background, though, it is no wonder that Russia believes that it is in its interest to squeeze Ukraine like a python squeezes its prey. Russia must believe. Against the background, I have just outlined, that it may yet force a military collapse. Failing that, it must believe that the the longer it goes on, the more Ukraine will be left in a devastated situation. When eventually peace comes. That will, of course be bad for Ukraine, but it will be bad for us too, and our European allies, because it will be us who will have to support the recovery of Ukraine and the revival of its civic society, its economy and its armed forces.
So, my Lords, we must continue to support Ukraine militarily and financially. As other speakers have said, and through sanctions on Russia, with the twin aim of bringing Russia to the negotiating table if possible, and certainly of preventing a Ukrainian collapse. But we must also my Lords align ourselves with those elements in the Ukrainian government and society that want to seek ways to end the war by negotiation on terms that Russia can accept, if that is possible.
That way my Lords lies the best hope of rebuilding Ukraine's economy and society after the guns have fallen silent. So we must continue our support of Ukraine at war. But we must bear in mind that in the long run, what we want is a prosperous, free and democratic Ukraine, and we want it to emerge from the war with the ability to create a society of that kind. forward. forward.
It has banished the Black Sea Fleet from the Black Sea. It has done. It has made Russian the Russian economy very largely dependent on China, a very humiliating situation for Mr. Putin. So it has done extremely well, and we must pay tribute to that. But to put it mildly, the outlook is not so good, like World War one, after the First Battle of the Marne, the war has settled down into a war of attrition. But unlike the two sides on the Western Front, Russia and Ukraine are very far from being equally matched.
They are much more like the rivals in another great war of attrition, the American Civil War, when the resources of the North were so much greater than those of the South. So if by Lords war, short of some devastating Napoleonic coup, is largely a matter of resources, then the outlook for Ukraine is becoming increasingly difficult and it is important to be realistic about that, as indeed are many Ukrainians. A Gallup poll in July showed 69% in favour of a negotiated peace.
As soon as possible, versus 24% for continuing to fight until victory. The economist recently reported that the independent Ukraine polling organisation, the rating Group, found that 59% of Ukrainians would accept a loss of territory if that brought about peace. More eloquent than these figures is the number of Ukrainians who have fled their country. In September this year. The so, not so long ago, the UNHCR estimated that to be 5.7 million. Now we have heard about about the problems facing Russia and people leaving Russia.
But that is a very, very substantial drain of the Ukrainian population. Many of those people, I realise, went in the early stages, early months, but the drain has continued and it has continued of men of military age as well as other people, and not many have returned. This exodus, my Lords and its implications, must be borne in mind as we admire the guts, the resourcefulness and the stamina of the Ukrainian frontline troops and the heroism of the civilians who put up with bombing and bombardment of every sort.
Against that background, though, it is no wonder that Russia believes that it is in its interest to squeeze Ukraine like a python squeezes its prey. Russia must believe. Against the background, I have just outlined, that it may yet force a military collapse. Failing that, it must believe that the the longer it goes on, the more Ukraine will be left in a devastated situation. When eventually peace comes. That will, of course be bad for Ukraine, but it will be bad for us too, and our European allies, because it will be us who will have to support the recovery of Ukraine and the revival of its civic society, its economy and its armed forces.
So, my Lords, we must continue to support Ukraine militarily and financially. As other speakers have said, and through sanctions on Russia, with the twin aim of bringing Russia to the negotiating table if possible, and certainly of preventing a Ukrainian collapse. But we must also my Lords align ourselves with those elements in the Ukrainian government and society that want to seek ways to end the war by negotiation on terms that Russia can accept, if that is possible.
That way my Lords lies the best hope of rebuilding Ukraine's economy and society after the guns have fallen silent. So we must continue our support of Ukraine at war. But we must bear in mind that in the long run, what we want is a prosperous, free and democratic Ukraine, and we want it to emerge from the war with the ability to create a society of that kind. forward. forward.
10:54
Lord Ricketts (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Ricketts (Crossbench)
To the maiden speech of my friend and longtime colleague and noble Lord Lord Barrow. The House is about to discover that, unlike the present Speaker Lord Barrow really knows what he's talking about. Having been ambassador in Ukraine and Russia, as well as many other senior posts. I too warmly welcome the fact that this government is showing staunch support for Ukraine in seamless continuity with the approach of the previous government. That bipartisanship in politics is really important in giving Britain the authority to lead the European response to Russia's Ukrainian aggression in Ukraine, now approaching its fourth anniversary, and the coalition of the willing that is taking shape under British leadership is growing my view into the European pillar of NATO, which I think could be of long term strategic significance given the evolution of the US approach to Europe.
It's playing a crucial role in coordinating support for Ukraine, but also planning, as the minister said, for the post-conflict period. And we're seeing in Gaza the risks of getting to a ceasefire without arrangements in place to avoid a security vacuum. Ukraine is of course, different, but it's encouraging that plans are in place for a multinational force, Ukraine. And of course we will want to scrutinise at the right time the tasks and the rules of engagement of the force. In the meantime, we've got to get to a ceasefire.
I think the Prime Minister deserves great credit for his deft handling of President Trump. He and other European leaders have repeatedly shown they can be very effective in countering Putin's efforts to tempt Trump into selling out Ukraine's vital interests. And for all President Trump's efforts to get a ceasefire deal, it's crystal clear that Putin doesn't want one. He thinks he's still winning, as many noble lords have said. He thinks that we in Europe will tire, and that we will find that he's driven a wedge between us and the United States.
So my main point this morning is that the only way to get Putin to accept a ceasefire is to ratchet up pressure on Russia, to the point where he feels his grip on power is in jeopardy. And we have collectively done a lot already on weapons deliveries, on sanctions. But as Lord noble Lord Lord Houghton has said, we've always been too slow in giving Ukraine the weapons it really needs. We have got to be bolder. We've got to give Ukraine the long term weapons that it's calling for, including, excuse me, persuading President Trump to send Tomahawks.
And I wonder if the minister could tell us in reply when the government expects to secure agreement with the EU on the safe arrangement, which would allow British defence industries to cooperate across Europe on sanctions. We should finalise as soon as possible the deal to use frozen Russian assets to underwrite a loan for Ukraine of a size that will give them economic security for several years. And the government has said that the 25 billion or so in the UK will be part of that deal.
I hope the 2.5 billion that Abramovich had to pay for the deal and the for sale of Chelsea football team will be there before long as well. The main block, of course, is in Belgium but this is dragged on too long. We need now to get this settled and the money to Ukraine. Yes, we should intensify our sanctions on Russia. Again, we've done a lot. President Trump has suggested that the extra 25% tariff he has put on India led Modi to say that the Indians will reduce their purchases of Russian oil.
But then we see in the Ft a large scale sanctions evasion operation apparently linked to ArcelorMittal. I hope we are pressing the Indians to reduce sanctions evasion as well. And are we looking for other ways of applying decisive pressure to Russia economically, for example, against Russia's central bank? One final thought, adding to what other noble lords have said, given all the pressures on public spending, I think we need to take every opportunity outside this chamber to emphasise our partnership with Ukraine is not about sending them money and giving them development aid.
It provides huge benefits for this country. The Ukrainians are indeed fighting and dying for our security. They are more skilled than anyone in the world at countering Russian cyber attacks. They are world leaders in drone technology and tactics. This is transforming not just the battlefield in Ukraine, but every future conflict. We have an enormous amount to learn from Ukraine's hard won experience, and it's excellent news. We have the agreement that Ukraine will share data for the benefit of British defence industries, and I hope that that can be widely available across the defence industry, because unless new defence equipment is taking account of how warfare now works in Ukraine, it's going to be obsolete before it comes off the production line.
So in short, my Lords, however, the war in Ukraine finally ends. We will share a continent with a hostile Russia for the foreseeable future, and a strong partnership with the Free Ukraine is in our long term national security interest.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, while noting in my Lords register the interests in Lords register the interests in relation to my advice to both PwC and kidney, I strongly welcome this and kidney, I strongly welcome this debate and the excellent opening speech by my noble friend Lord coca speech by my noble friend Lord coca in bringing the debate to life, as he did 12 months ago, to. It's a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Ricketts and to strongly endorse his final point about the endorse his final point about the need to ensure that the British public understand the importance of public understand the importance of the defence of Ukraine and the skills that they are developing in our own defence and development.
I our own defence and development. I strongly support the government's, and I welcome the government's commitment to the defence of Ukraine and to combating Russian aggression. And can I add to the long list that Lord Coaker provided long list that Lord Coaker provided in his opening speech a particular praise for the training of praise for the training of Ukrainian recruits, which this country has played a significant role in, and I am sure it has saved many lives on the front line and has helped in other ways too.
I strongly support the coalition of strongly support the coalition of the willing and that development, not just for this conflict, but in general terms, as we need to take a global stance against aggression and authoritarianism. And in particular, I think it is important that we remember that that coalition is wider than just our European allies and includes, for example, Japan and other countries that are strongly committed to the defence of Ukraine and combating Russia as we are. And I would like some indication from the government towards the end of this debate that that understanding of the importance of a global coalition of the willing, not just a European coalition of the willing, will be something that we will maintain.
It's playing a crucial role in coordinating support for Ukraine, but also planning, as the minister said, for the post-conflict period. And we're seeing in Gaza the risks of getting to a ceasefire without arrangements in place to avoid a security vacuum. Ukraine is of course, different, but it's encouraging that plans are in place for a multinational force, Ukraine. And of course we will want to scrutinise at the right time the tasks and the rules of engagement of the force. In the meantime, we've got to get to a ceasefire.
I think the Prime Minister deserves great credit for his deft handling of President Trump. He and other European leaders have repeatedly shown they can be very effective in countering Putin's efforts to tempt Trump into selling out Ukraine's vital interests. And for all President Trump's efforts to get a ceasefire deal, it's crystal clear that Putin doesn't want one. He thinks he's still winning, as many noble lords have said. He thinks that we in Europe will tire, and that we will find that he's driven a wedge between us and the United States.
So my main point this morning is that the only way to get Putin to accept a ceasefire is to ratchet up pressure on Russia, to the point where he feels his grip on power is in jeopardy. And we have collectively done a lot already on weapons deliveries, on sanctions. But as Lord noble Lord Lord Houghton has said, we've always been too slow in giving Ukraine the weapons it really needs. We have got to be bolder. We've got to give Ukraine the long term weapons that it's calling for, including, excuse me, persuading President Trump to send Tomahawks.
And I wonder if the minister could tell us in reply when the government expects to secure agreement with the EU on the safe arrangement, which would allow British defence industries to cooperate across Europe on sanctions. We should finalise as soon as possible the deal to use frozen Russian assets to underwrite a loan for Ukraine of a size that will give them economic security for several years. And the government has said that the 25 billion or so in the UK will be part of that deal.
I hope the 2.5 billion that Abramovich had to pay for the deal and the for sale of Chelsea football team will be there before long as well. The main block, of course, is in Belgium but this is dragged on too long. We need now to get this settled and the money to Ukraine. Yes, we should intensify our sanctions on Russia. Again, we've done a lot. President Trump has suggested that the extra 25% tariff he has put on India led Modi to say that the Indians will reduce their purchases of Russian oil.
But then we see in the Ft a large scale sanctions evasion operation apparently linked to ArcelorMittal. I hope we are pressing the Indians to reduce sanctions evasion as well. And are we looking for other ways of applying decisive pressure to Russia economically, for example, against Russia's central bank? One final thought, adding to what other noble lords have said, given all the pressures on public spending, I think we need to take every opportunity outside this chamber to emphasise our partnership with Ukraine is not about sending them money and giving them development aid.
It provides huge benefits for this country. The Ukrainians are indeed fighting and dying for our security. They are more skilled than anyone in the world at countering Russian cyber attacks. They are world leaders in drone technology and tactics. This is transforming not just the battlefield in Ukraine, but every future conflict. We have an enormous amount to learn from Ukraine's hard won experience, and it's excellent news. We have the agreement that Ukraine will share data for the benefit of British defence industries, and I hope that that can be widely available across the defence industry, because unless new defence equipment is taking account of how warfare now works in Ukraine, it's going to be obsolete before it comes off the production line.
So in short, my Lords, however, the war in Ukraine finally ends. We will share a continent with a hostile Russia for the foreseeable future, and a strong partnership with the Free Ukraine is in our long term national security interest.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, while noting in my Lords register the interests in Lords register the interests in relation to my advice to both PwC and kidney, I strongly welcome this and kidney, I strongly welcome this debate and the excellent opening speech by my noble friend Lord coca speech by my noble friend Lord coca in bringing the debate to life, as he did 12 months ago, to. It's a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Ricketts and to strongly endorse his final point about the endorse his final point about the need to ensure that the British public understand the importance of public understand the importance of the defence of Ukraine and the skills that they are developing in our own defence and development.
I our own defence and development. I strongly support the government's, and I welcome the government's commitment to the defence of Ukraine and to combating Russian aggression. And can I add to the long list that Lord Coaker provided long list that Lord Coaker provided in his opening speech a particular praise for the training of praise for the training of Ukrainian recruits, which this country has played a significant role in, and I am sure it has saved many lives on the front line and has helped in other ways too.
I strongly support the coalition of strongly support the coalition of the willing and that development, not just for this conflict, but in general terms, as we need to take a global stance against aggression and authoritarianism. And in particular, I think it is important that we remember that that coalition is wider than just our European allies and includes, for example, Japan and other countries that are strongly committed to the defence of Ukraine and combating Russia as we are. And I would like some indication from the government towards the end of this debate that that understanding of the importance of a global coalition of the willing, not just a European coalition of the willing, will be something that we will maintain.
11:03
-
And as part of that effort, I hope that the government, while building that the government, while building up our hard power, long overdue and definitely essential, recognise the importance of soft power too. At times over the past 12 months, it has perhaps been suggested that we has perhaps been suggested that we would replace our efforts on soft power by more efforts on half power, the hard power they have to go hand the hard power they have to go hand in hand, as we need to ensure that we have global support for this effort.
And we are building a effort. And we are building a strengthening of democracy and the rule of law around the world, and
And we are building a effort. And we are building a strengthening of democracy and the rule of law around the world, and
11:03
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Labour)
-
-
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Labour)
rule of law around the world, and not just in this particular conflict on the eastern border of Europe. I welcome the commitment to Europe. I welcome the commitment to increase action on sanctions generally by the government again generally by the government again over this, this past month. But I would like to highlight the issue of the over £2 billion that was of the over £2 billion that was raised in the sale of Chelsea Football Club. Now, over three Football Club. Now, over three years ago, while the government of the date definitely made some mistakes in the speed at which that was done and the nature of the agreement with Mr.
Abramovich, agreement with Mr. Abramovich, there was definitely some action happening and momentum building to secure the use of these assets for humanitarian purposes. Under noble Lord Lord Cameron as Foreign Secretary and Andrew Mitchell as Minister for development towards the end of the previous government. I would urge the new home, the new Foreign Secretary, and perhaps this is a message that both my noble friends, both ministers, could take to the new Foreign Secretary to put the foot back on the pedal on this issue.
It is criminal that these resources are still waiting to be used when they could make such a difference in Ukraine and have such an impact. Therefore, elsewhere, in order to ensure that the humanitarian purpose, which was agreed back in May 2022, could be fulfilled. And finally, I just want to endorse the comments that have already been made by noble Lords about the stolen children of Ukraine who still lie behind Russian borders. Organisations such as Bring Kids Back and others have highlighted this issue very effectively and continue to campaign and to work for the release of individual children and bring them back across the border to their homeland.
And another place Joanna Baxter MP has been at the forefront of raising this issue, and she recently wrote to Minister Doughty in the Foreign Office, raising specific issues that I think the UK could could usefully support the tracing of these children, the data that is available, the support for rescue missions and for reintegration, and, crucially, for rehabilitation of these children who have been subjected to such trauma. There are thousands, potentially tens of thousands of children still in this position. It is a weapon of war being used by President Putin to strike fear in the heart of every Ukrainian family.
And we need to stand firmly with those children and not, as happens far too often in war around the world. Forget about them. Shortly after the war comes to a conclusion as a ceasefire, and maintain the pressure over the years to bring every child back.
Abramovich, agreement with Mr. Abramovich, there was definitely some action happening and momentum building to secure the use of these assets for humanitarian purposes. Under noble Lord Lord Cameron as Foreign Secretary and Andrew Mitchell as Minister for development towards the end of the previous government. I would urge the new home, the new Foreign Secretary, and perhaps this is a message that both my noble friends, both ministers, could take to the new Foreign Secretary to put the foot back on the pedal on this issue.
It is criminal that these resources are still waiting to be used when they could make such a difference in Ukraine and have such an impact. Therefore, elsewhere, in order to ensure that the humanitarian purpose, which was agreed back in May 2022, could be fulfilled. And finally, I just want to endorse the comments that have already been made by noble Lords about the stolen children of Ukraine who still lie behind Russian borders. Organisations such as Bring Kids Back and others have highlighted this issue very effectively and continue to campaign and to work for the release of individual children and bring them back across the border to their homeland.
And another place Joanna Baxter MP has been at the forefront of raising this issue, and she recently wrote to Minister Doughty in the Foreign Office, raising specific issues that I think the UK could could usefully support the tracing of these children, the data that is available, the support for rescue missions and for reintegration, and, crucially, for rehabilitation of these children who have been subjected to such trauma. There are thousands, potentially tens of thousands of children still in this position. It is a weapon of war being used by President Putin to strike fear in the heart of every Ukrainian family.
And we need to stand firmly with those children and not, as happens far too often in war around the world. Forget about them. Shortly after the war comes to a conclusion as a ceasefire, and maintain the pressure over the years to bring every child back.
11:05
Baroness Neville-Jones (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Neville-Jones (Conservative)
My Lords. First of all, I'd like to thank the Minister for his speech. He laid out, I think, what is at stake for us. Also what this country is doing, the contribution we're making, which is considerable, if I might say so. I would very much like the wider public to be more aware of exactly what the UK is doing. There is, I think, a communications job which could well be done, which I think would strengthen already solid position in this country, but also inform our allies who need to know what each of us is doing.
The the minister said, rightly that Ukraine, Ukraine, security is is ours too. And I just want to comment briefly on some of the wider aspects of the situation in Ukraine. Putin is so tied now to the position that he's taken that he can't back off the war without claiming a success in land taken, which in his mind means that he has to have more than what Russia currently holds. Conversely, President Zelenskyy is not free to give away bits of Ukraine to Russia.
And indeed, I think a political crisis will threaten in Ukraine if he tried to do that. His strength lies in the political support in the country to fight for it. His weakness is lack of reliable finance to continue fighting, lack of long range weapons to penetrate much further into Russia. And ultimately, and this is a point made by Lord Tugendhat, a much smaller population to bear arms, and that in the end, you know, would count. So time frankly, there is some is not on our side.
Now, since the meeting in Alaska, I do think that President Trump has has realised that Putin has been playing him along and his reaction has been quite vigorous. He's cancelled talks. He's increased sanctions on Russia, which is important, and he's moderated his peace ambitions to stopping the fighting along the battle lines, rather than suggesting that Zelenskyy should be prepared to give up land that's not lost in battle. But he's not allowed the Ukrainians to have the weapons that they're asking for.
Nor, I have to say, do I think he will. There is a consistency here, it seems to me, with the policy of the Biden administration, which refused to let Ukraine to have escalation capability in relation to Russia. And this is perhaps where some of the anxieties begin. During his the anxieties begin. During his state visit, president. President. Trump said that Europeans are much closer to the front line than than the US. The implication being that while the Europeans needed to get on and build our defences, about which he's quite right, that somehow the US was had less less at risk and was less implicated, that is actually dangerous territory for the NATO alliance.
It is to suggest that Russia is not so affected by the. Sorry that the US is not so affected by Russia military activity. Well, there's an important task here to close the perception gap. And in particular, we need a government. We need a joint and a forceful response to other things that the Russians are doing, most particularly their increasing incursions into NATO airspace and waters. And failure to respond will encourage the Russians to go further and let us not forget the consequences of having failed, actually to to react to the, the, the Russian activities in Crimea and their invasion of it.
Right. That was a failure of deterrence. And we are risking further failures of deterrence if we don't vigorously show that we are not going to put up with what the Russians are doing. So failure to respond saps the alliance. And it also, in the end, reduces our capacity actually to deal with the Russian threat. So it's it's worry against that background that at a time when we needed to bolster our capabilities, that we can't decide our priorities, and we are not able to decide that using part of the sanction Russian financial assets to pay for increased, increased Ukrainian capability is more justified and more important than preserving them in the Lords inviolate.
So while the the allies dither, the Russians gain political
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ground. We must stop them. Yes, yes, yes. My Lords.
The the minister said, rightly that Ukraine, Ukraine, security is is ours too. And I just want to comment briefly on some of the wider aspects of the situation in Ukraine. Putin is so tied now to the position that he's taken that he can't back off the war without claiming a success in land taken, which in his mind means that he has to have more than what Russia currently holds. Conversely, President Zelenskyy is not free to give away bits of Ukraine to Russia.
And indeed, I think a political crisis will threaten in Ukraine if he tried to do that. His strength lies in the political support in the country to fight for it. His weakness is lack of reliable finance to continue fighting, lack of long range weapons to penetrate much further into Russia. And ultimately, and this is a point made by Lord Tugendhat, a much smaller population to bear arms, and that in the end, you know, would count. So time frankly, there is some is not on our side.
Now, since the meeting in Alaska, I do think that President Trump has has realised that Putin has been playing him along and his reaction has been quite vigorous. He's cancelled talks. He's increased sanctions on Russia, which is important, and he's moderated his peace ambitions to stopping the fighting along the battle lines, rather than suggesting that Zelenskyy should be prepared to give up land that's not lost in battle. But he's not allowed the Ukrainians to have the weapons that they're asking for.
Nor, I have to say, do I think he will. There is a consistency here, it seems to me, with the policy of the Biden administration, which refused to let Ukraine to have escalation capability in relation to Russia. And this is perhaps where some of the anxieties begin. During his the anxieties begin. During his state visit, president. President. Trump said that Europeans are much closer to the front line than than the US. The implication being that while the Europeans needed to get on and build our defences, about which he's quite right, that somehow the US was had less less at risk and was less implicated, that is actually dangerous territory for the NATO alliance.
It is to suggest that Russia is not so affected by the. Sorry that the US is not so affected by Russia military activity. Well, there's an important task here to close the perception gap. And in particular, we need a government. We need a joint and a forceful response to other things that the Russians are doing, most particularly their increasing incursions into NATO airspace and waters. And failure to respond will encourage the Russians to go further and let us not forget the consequences of having failed, actually to to react to the, the, the Russian activities in Crimea and their invasion of it.
Right. That was a failure of deterrence. And we are risking further failures of deterrence if we don't vigorously show that we are not going to put up with what the Russians are doing. So failure to respond saps the alliance. And it also, in the end, reduces our capacity actually to deal with the Russian threat. So it's it's worry against that background that at a time when we needed to bolster our capabilities, that we can't decide our priorities, and we are not able to decide that using part of the sanction Russian financial assets to pay for increased, increased Ukrainian capability is more justified and more important than preserving them in the Lords inviolate.
So while the the allies dither, the Russians gain political
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ground. We must stop them. Yes, yes, yes. My Lords.
11:10
Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. It's extraordinarily difficult for most people in this country to get an accurate feel for what is really happening in Ukraine. Where are we after three and a half years of intense combat? Well, all estimates of territorial gains and casualties must, of course, be treated with caution as there are no completely reliable or definitive sources. But Conservative judgements suggest that the Russian offensive of 2025 netted something like an additional 0.4% of Ukrainian territory average.
Russian daily advances in sectors like Kharkiv have been smaller than those the British Army achieved at the battle of the Somme in 1916, and they've taken no objectives of strategic significance, although Pokrovsk does now seem to be under serious threat. All of this at a cost of just under, or perhaps well over 100,000 Russian dead. Total Russian casualties since March 2022 probably now number around 1 million. The number of dead is likely to be approaching a quarter of a million.
And importantly, over 5000 officers have been killed, a significant proportion of whom were the lieutenants and captains who provide the critical tactical leadership in a Russian army that lacks a strong non-commissioned officer cadre. It's just as hard to estimate Ukrainian losses. But military deaths since March 20th 22nd May come close to 100,000. This is significantly fewer than the number of Russian casualties. But of course, the Ukrainian population is commensurately smaller and I've not so far mentioned civilian deaths.
The damage caused by indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, the kidnapping of Ukrainian children and the vast quantity of Russian military equipment that has so far been destroyed. The sum total of devastation and human misery is appalling, and it's little surprise that people want it to end. But I focussed on the horrific statistics of the war because they carry another, different message. And it's this even if there is a ceasefire at or around then existing battlefield positions, it will not be peace.
Peace occurs when there is a political settlement that gives both sides sufficient stake in maintaining the post-conflict status quo, rather than seeking to overturn it. That will not be the case with such a ceasefire. Ukraine cannot, in the long term accept the loss of a significant part of its territory and citizens as a consequence of the naked aggression that has killed so many of its people and devastated the country. Putin will not, will not accept a situation that so signally fails to achieve his strategic objective at such a horrendous cost.
At the least, the war would for a time move back into the grey zone. We would be faced with the modern equivalent of the inner German border of the Cold War, running across Ukraine with armed camps on either side. The Russians will certainly not be militarised, and the inward investment so necessary to the reconstruction of Ukraine will not be made if there is inadequate capacity there to deter or defend against further Russian aggression. More widely, Russia's attempts to destabilise and undermine NATO will continue, and it will rearm as rapidly as possible in order to threaten Western security and to attempt to isolate Ukraine.
So we will at best have an armed pause, not peace. Meanwhile, the events of the past few years will have driven another nail into the coffin of nuclear non-proliferation. If they've not already sounded its death knell, which state in possession of nuclear weapons would now be mad enough to give them up? Having seen how the international community has treated the deal that Ukraine struck in Budapest in 1994. So we must be clear eyed about the likely future. It will be perilous.
It will require strength and resolution if we are to avoid, or at least contain, the dangers it poses. NATO must continue to rebuild its deterrent posture. Members of the alliance, including the UK, must match their rhetoric on defence with the commensurate investment, and that investment must be made urgently, not at some indeterminate point in the future, which seems to be the current plan of His Majesty's Government. Those who advocate a rapid, negotiated end to the fighting must recognise that it would not be the end of the war.
Those who imagine that it would mean a return to business as usual, must understand that the long term context for European strategy has fundamentally changed because of the events of 2022, facing the consequences squarely will be difficult and expensive. Failing to do so would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
catastrophic. Yes. My Lords. Like other noble Lords,
Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. It's extraordinarily difficult for most people in this country to get an accurate feel for what is really happening in Ukraine. Where are we after three and a half years of intense combat? Well, all estimates of territorial gains and casualties must, of course, be treated with caution as there are no completely reliable or definitive sources. But Conservative judgements suggest that the Russian offensive of 2025 netted something like an additional 0.4% of Ukrainian territory average.
Russian daily advances in sectors like Kharkiv have been smaller than those the British Army achieved at the battle of the Somme in 1916, and they've taken no objectives of strategic significance, although Pokrovsk does now seem to be under serious threat. All of this at a cost of just under, or perhaps well over 100,000 Russian dead. Total Russian casualties since March 2022 probably now number around 1 million. The number of dead is likely to be approaching a quarter of a million.
And importantly, over 5000 officers have been killed, a significant proportion of whom were the lieutenants and captains who provide the critical tactical leadership in a Russian army that lacks a strong non-commissioned officer cadre. It's just as hard to estimate Ukrainian losses. But military deaths since March 20th 22nd May come close to 100,000. This is significantly fewer than the number of Russian casualties. But of course, the Ukrainian population is commensurately smaller and I've not so far mentioned civilian deaths.
The damage caused by indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, the kidnapping of Ukrainian children and the vast quantity of Russian military equipment that has so far been destroyed. The sum total of devastation and human misery is appalling, and it's little surprise that people want it to end. But I focussed on the horrific statistics of the war because they carry another, different message. And it's this even if there is a ceasefire at or around then existing battlefield positions, it will not be peace.
Peace occurs when there is a political settlement that gives both sides sufficient stake in maintaining the post-conflict status quo, rather than seeking to overturn it. That will not be the case with such a ceasefire. Ukraine cannot, in the long term accept the loss of a significant part of its territory and citizens as a consequence of the naked aggression that has killed so many of its people and devastated the country. Putin will not, will not accept a situation that so signally fails to achieve his strategic objective at such a horrendous cost.
At the least, the war would for a time move back into the grey zone. We would be faced with the modern equivalent of the inner German border of the Cold War, running across Ukraine with armed camps on either side. The Russians will certainly not be militarised, and the inward investment so necessary to the reconstruction of Ukraine will not be made if there is inadequate capacity there to deter or defend against further Russian aggression. More widely, Russia's attempts to destabilise and undermine NATO will continue, and it will rearm as rapidly as possible in order to threaten Western security and to attempt to isolate Ukraine.
So we will at best have an armed pause, not peace. Meanwhile, the events of the past few years will have driven another nail into the coffin of nuclear non-proliferation. If they've not already sounded its death knell, which state in possession of nuclear weapons would now be mad enough to give them up? Having seen how the international community has treated the deal that Ukraine struck in Budapest in 1994. So we must be clear eyed about the likely future. It will be perilous.
It will require strength and resolution if we are to avoid, or at least contain, the dangers it poses. NATO must continue to rebuild its deterrent posture. Members of the alliance, including the UK, must match their rhetoric on defence with the commensurate investment, and that investment must be made urgently, not at some indeterminate point in the future, which seems to be the current plan of His Majesty's Government. Those who advocate a rapid, negotiated end to the fighting must recognise that it would not be the end of the war.
Those who imagine that it would mean a return to business as usual, must understand that the long term context for European strategy has fundamentally changed because of the events of 2022, facing the consequences squarely will be difficult and expensive. Failing to do so would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
catastrophic. Yes. My Lords. Like other noble Lords,
11:15
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Like other noble Lords, I'd like to welcome the. Noble Lord Lord Barrow to this House and he brings with him a great degree of brings with him a great degree of expertise, and I'm looking forward to his maiden speech later on. The noble Lord Lord Coaker, in his opening excellent opening remarks, said that the Ukraine security was basically our security and this is a message that was actually repeated constantly when I was on the NATO parliamentary Assembly.
I got thrown off shortly after the election because of the appalling results of the conservatives. But all the time it was recognised at that stage that we could not allow Putin to win in Ukraine. And basically as a noble Lord Lord Lord Stirrup, as referred to. Basically, Putin will claim victory from whatever settlement comes out of this. And the extraordinary thing is that we've always had the capacity in the West to actually defeat Putin in Ukraine. But the trouble is, we've never used the capability that we've got.
We all know well that actually wars are won by the grim determination of the troops on the ground. And the Ukrainians certainly don't lack that, combined with technology and technology is absolutely critical. And where we have a lead over all other countries in the world, in the West is in the air, and particularly with the F-35. And of course, if we deployed the F-35 and you bear in mind that the F-35 is the only fifth generation jet in the world and has a capacity to jam all attacks on it, it flies in at 65,000ft.
It can protect 11 other aircraft with inferior defences. So it's an absolutely lethal weapon and we failed to use it. So why did we fail to use it? There was a man under the Biden administration called Jake Sullivan, and I think he was responsible for the narrative that went well. We don't really want to remove Putin as a dictator in Russia, because we don't know what will replace him. And we suspect that what will happen is the whole of Russia will break up into fiefdoms with nuclear weapons, and they'll be much more difficult to negotiate with.
That, of course, was laced also with the whole concept that Putin was keen to deploy, which was that of course, it could all develop into the Third World War with an exchange of nuclear weapons. My Lords President Putin, ex-KGB man knows about nuclear deterrence, even if other people seem to have forgotten about it. And he probably also knows that his nuclear deterrent is infinitely inferior to anything in the West. And I don't think he wants to be remembered for saying goodbye to Moscow.
So I think that much of this is exaggerated, and the Ukrainians have every right to feel that they've been shedding a lot of blood on our behalf. And we could have done much to change that. Can I just turn to the whole question of sanctions? If President Trump has decided he's not prepared to deliver Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, this reduces the capability of Ukraine to degrade Russian economy by actually taking out their oil refineries and so forth, and making it more difficult for them to export oil in those circumstances.
We lean very much on the sanctions that are being imposed on Rosneft and Lukoil. What I don't quite understand is why we don't sanction all Russian oil, because presumably you could have a situation where some rusting oil tanker is stopped at sea. And the captain, they say, well, what are you doing? He produces a sheaf of papers and he says, I'm not actually carrying oil for Lukoil or Rosneft. I'm carrying it for some other company that's been created yesterday.
And how do we then say, well, on that basis, we're going to stop you delivering this oil. So perhaps when the noble Lady comes to sum up, she can spell out to us how this is all going to work. Other than that, the coalition of the willing has never, Lord Stirrup has pointed out, is going to have a very difficult task to play. And we've got to ensure that air power plays a major role in that. And I would like to see aircraft based in Ukraine doing their training in Ukraine in a NATO base, not a Ukrainian one.
And we should then be determined to actually make sure that that peace is maintained, which I'm sure will come eventually.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Like other noble Lords, I'd like to welcome the. Noble Lord Lord Barrow to this House and he brings with him a great degree of brings with him a great degree of expertise, and I'm looking forward to his maiden speech later on. The noble Lord Lord Coaker, in his opening excellent opening remarks, said that the Ukraine security was basically our security and this is a message that was actually repeated constantly when I was on the NATO parliamentary Assembly.
I got thrown off shortly after the election because of the appalling results of the conservatives. But all the time it was recognised at that stage that we could not allow Putin to win in Ukraine. And basically as a noble Lord Lord Lord Stirrup, as referred to. Basically, Putin will claim victory from whatever settlement comes out of this. And the extraordinary thing is that we've always had the capacity in the West to actually defeat Putin in Ukraine. But the trouble is, we've never used the capability that we've got.
We all know well that actually wars are won by the grim determination of the troops on the ground. And the Ukrainians certainly don't lack that, combined with technology and technology is absolutely critical. And where we have a lead over all other countries in the world, in the West is in the air, and particularly with the F-35. And of course, if we deployed the F-35 and you bear in mind that the F-35 is the only fifth generation jet in the world and has a capacity to jam all attacks on it, it flies in at 65,000ft.
It can protect 11 other aircraft with inferior defences. So it's an absolutely lethal weapon and we failed to use it. So why did we fail to use it? There was a man under the Biden administration called Jake Sullivan, and I think he was responsible for the narrative that went well. We don't really want to remove Putin as a dictator in Russia, because we don't know what will replace him. And we suspect that what will happen is the whole of Russia will break up into fiefdoms with nuclear weapons, and they'll be much more difficult to negotiate with.
That, of course, was laced also with the whole concept that Putin was keen to deploy, which was that of course, it could all develop into the Third World War with an exchange of nuclear weapons. My Lords President Putin, ex-KGB man knows about nuclear deterrence, even if other people seem to have forgotten about it. And he probably also knows that his nuclear deterrent is infinitely inferior to anything in the West. And I don't think he wants to be remembered for saying goodbye to Moscow.
So I think that much of this is exaggerated, and the Ukrainians have every right to feel that they've been shedding a lot of blood on our behalf. And we could have done much to change that. Can I just turn to the whole question of sanctions? If President Trump has decided he's not prepared to deliver Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, this reduces the capability of Ukraine to degrade Russian economy by actually taking out their oil refineries and so forth, and making it more difficult for them to export oil in those circumstances.
We lean very much on the sanctions that are being imposed on Rosneft and Lukoil. What I don't quite understand is why we don't sanction all Russian oil, because presumably you could have a situation where some rusting oil tanker is stopped at sea. And the captain, they say, well, what are you doing? He produces a sheaf of papers and he says, I'm not actually carrying oil for Lukoil or Rosneft. I'm carrying it for some other company that's been created yesterday.
And how do we then say, well, on that basis, we're going to stop you delivering this oil. So perhaps when the noble Lady comes to sum up, she can spell out to us how this is all going to work. Other than that, the coalition of the willing has never, Lord Stirrup has pointed out, is going to have a very difficult task to play. And we've got to ensure that air power plays a major role in that. And I would like to see aircraft based in Ukraine doing their training in Ukraine in a NATO base, not a Ukrainian one.
And we should then be determined to actually make sure that that peace is maintained, which I'm sure will come eventually.
11:20
Lord West of Spithead (Labour)
-
-
Lord West of Spithead (Labour)
My Lords it's inevitable. I think that the many speakers today will be covering the same ground, but I don't think that's important because the full impact of the war in Ukraine should be aired in this chamber. And I'm delighted this has been called as an opportunity to do that. Putin's special operation in Ukraine went wrong from the beginning. Five eyes intelligence identified the fact that it was about to happen in great detail and very unusually, we actually promulgated that fact.
That was quite a blow to Putin and his team. We know that from our own intelligence of what impact that had. And of course, the Ukrainians resisted and the breathtaking incompetence of the Russian military. I have to say, after many years sitting watching the Army intelligence work out how what the real threat the Russian army was, one did have a slight wonder when they did so badly in that invasion. But all of that is history. The invasion of a nation state that Putin had categorically admitted was such that it was a nation state, and that he had recognised as such, showed him, I think, for what had become it was clear from his statements and writings that he believed Russia should have the same borders as the old Soviet Union, controlling vassal states within those borders.
He went as far as to claim that Ukraine posed an existential threat to Russia. The war has now been going on for three and a half years, as many speakers have mentioned. And all of us, I think, are reinforced what my noble friend the minister and others have said. We must all, I think, admire the bravery, steadfastness and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people. It's quite incredible what they've been through, and there's nothing like having people shooting at you and having people around you dying to make you realise how appalling that can be when it's civilians.
It's incredibly impressive. There's no doubt that our front line, as has been mentioned before, is is actually in Ukraine because already there's a grey zone war with Putin. I'll come back to it a little bit. If Putin is successful in forcing Ukraine to defeat and surrender, he will be emboldened and he will invade his next victim, be it Transnistria, South Ossetia, Moldova or maybe even the Kaliningrad corridor. So we've got to really stop him now. My Lords. There's no doubt the Russian military are more competent than they were in the early days.
And and they are doing better on the front line. They were in those days. And they have a drone attacks which are putting Ukrainian forces under immense pressure. And a number of speakers have talked about the huge pressure on Ukraine, which is which is really quite what it is actually extremely worrying. But the Russians are suffering massive casualties and there's no doubt that it's been Western support of weapons and other support that allows Ukraine to continue to fight the the Russian economy is weathering the storm better than we predicted, not least because of the huge Chinese financial and other support they are giving.
And they've also been helped by countries like India. Much to my surprise, we've done a lot to help them. Iran and troops from North Korea. My Lords Putin told Xi Jinping about his special operation before he launched it, saying that it would be over in three weeks. This has fully confirmed the Chinese views of the unpredictable risk of wars, and they were very unimpressed by the fact of how it's gone. But at present, the support of Putin suits ye as he wishes the established world order.
This was mentioned by the noble Lord Robertson to be toppled, but he has no love for Putin. And I have to say, I think Putin needs to look carefully because he's supping with the devil in dealing so closely with him. The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit held in Xinjiang should be a wake up call for the US and ourselves. I found that quite horrifying that that was happening. It basically, they're showing that the world order that we established with the Americans at the end of the Second World War, which actually has given huge security to the globe, has actually increased the wealth of many parts of the world is something they want to dismantle, and they want to change it.
And this meeting really showed that. And the fact this world order is under threat is something that stems through from the Ukraine war and is very, very worrying. It all adds up the importance of thwarting Putin in Ukraine. I think our primary object must be to keep Ukraine in the war until the damage to Putin, financially and militarily makes him recognise he must reach a peace accord. What exactly that comprises how it's implemented and European involvement, I think I think is downstream work to that primary purpose.
What is needed now is commitment to major arms, supplies and long range, in depth weapons. The imposition of secondary sanctions, which will make China and India stop giving their support, and the use of the frozen assets in Belgium to purchase Ukrainian arms, help reconstruction. The important message to Putin, I think, also is delivered through NATO increasing defence spending. Putin has a dangerous maverick. It's it's extraordinary. He's already conducting a war in the grey zone. There have been two WMD attacks in Britain.
His lackeys are constantly attacking our cyber networks. They're conducting online work to destabilise our society. He's facilitated kinetic attacks on our CNI. He's threatening to carry out attacks on our underwater cables. He's regulating regularly penetrating NATO airspace. My Lords, we must succeed in thwarting Putin's illegal and appalling attack on Ukraine, or events could gain a momentum of their own, leading, I believe, to a major world war.
That was quite a blow to Putin and his team. We know that from our own intelligence of what impact that had. And of course, the Ukrainians resisted and the breathtaking incompetence of the Russian military. I have to say, after many years sitting watching the Army intelligence work out how what the real threat the Russian army was, one did have a slight wonder when they did so badly in that invasion. But all of that is history. The invasion of a nation state that Putin had categorically admitted was such that it was a nation state, and that he had recognised as such, showed him, I think, for what had become it was clear from his statements and writings that he believed Russia should have the same borders as the old Soviet Union, controlling vassal states within those borders.
He went as far as to claim that Ukraine posed an existential threat to Russia. The war has now been going on for three and a half years, as many speakers have mentioned. And all of us, I think, are reinforced what my noble friend the minister and others have said. We must all, I think, admire the bravery, steadfastness and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people. It's quite incredible what they've been through, and there's nothing like having people shooting at you and having people around you dying to make you realise how appalling that can be when it's civilians.
It's incredibly impressive. There's no doubt that our front line, as has been mentioned before, is is actually in Ukraine because already there's a grey zone war with Putin. I'll come back to it a little bit. If Putin is successful in forcing Ukraine to defeat and surrender, he will be emboldened and he will invade his next victim, be it Transnistria, South Ossetia, Moldova or maybe even the Kaliningrad corridor. So we've got to really stop him now. My Lords. There's no doubt the Russian military are more competent than they were in the early days.
And and they are doing better on the front line. They were in those days. And they have a drone attacks which are putting Ukrainian forces under immense pressure. And a number of speakers have talked about the huge pressure on Ukraine, which is which is really quite what it is actually extremely worrying. But the Russians are suffering massive casualties and there's no doubt that it's been Western support of weapons and other support that allows Ukraine to continue to fight the the Russian economy is weathering the storm better than we predicted, not least because of the huge Chinese financial and other support they are giving.
And they've also been helped by countries like India. Much to my surprise, we've done a lot to help them. Iran and troops from North Korea. My Lords Putin told Xi Jinping about his special operation before he launched it, saying that it would be over in three weeks. This has fully confirmed the Chinese views of the unpredictable risk of wars, and they were very unimpressed by the fact of how it's gone. But at present, the support of Putin suits ye as he wishes the established world order.
This was mentioned by the noble Lord Robertson to be toppled, but he has no love for Putin. And I have to say, I think Putin needs to look carefully because he's supping with the devil in dealing so closely with him. The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit held in Xinjiang should be a wake up call for the US and ourselves. I found that quite horrifying that that was happening. It basically, they're showing that the world order that we established with the Americans at the end of the Second World War, which actually has given huge security to the globe, has actually increased the wealth of many parts of the world is something they want to dismantle, and they want to change it.
And this meeting really showed that. And the fact this world order is under threat is something that stems through from the Ukraine war and is very, very worrying. It all adds up the importance of thwarting Putin in Ukraine. I think our primary object must be to keep Ukraine in the war until the damage to Putin, financially and militarily makes him recognise he must reach a peace accord. What exactly that comprises how it's implemented and European involvement, I think I think is downstream work to that primary purpose.
What is needed now is commitment to major arms, supplies and long range, in depth weapons. The imposition of secondary sanctions, which will make China and India stop giving their support, and the use of the frozen assets in Belgium to purchase Ukrainian arms, help reconstruction. The important message to Putin, I think, also is delivered through NATO increasing defence spending. Putin has a dangerous maverick. It's it's extraordinary. He's already conducting a war in the grey zone. There have been two WMD attacks in Britain.
His lackeys are constantly attacking our cyber networks. They're conducting online work to destabilise our society. He's facilitated kinetic attacks on our CNI. He's threatening to carry out attacks on our underwater cables. He's regulating regularly penetrating NATO airspace. My Lords, we must succeed in thwarting Putin's illegal and appalling attack on Ukraine, or events could gain a momentum of their own, leading, I believe, to a major world war.
11:26
Lord Risby (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Risby (Conservative)
I much look.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Forward to. The maiden speech of Lord Barrow and thank the Minister for his excellent speech at the excellent speech at the commencement of this debate. Russia continues to inflict terror and continues to inflict terror and destruction upon the people of Ukraine. Speaking to the regional administration in the Chernihiv administration in the Chernihiv Oblast this week, it was reported to me that Russia, in clear to me that Russia, in clear violation of international law, had deliberately targeted their civilian infrastructure, leaving civilian infrastructure, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without power.
Of course, this is the case elsewhere in the country, and winter indeed approaches. The war in Ukraine has exposed the war in Ukraine has exposed the fragility of Western readiness and tested any complacency which for tested any complacency which for too long has characterised much of Europe's defence, so dependent on Europe's defence, so dependent on the United States. Quite simply, defence spending remains key, and defence spending remains key, and our resolve regarding aggression and stability must be matched by our own capacity.
If there is one nation that is truly grasped, the scale of this new reality, it is scale of this new reality, it is Poland. For they have emerged as a model. Indeed, the iron shield of NATO's eastern flank so important for us. And of course, Ukraine. The role that they now play in the security of Europe cannot be downplayed. For Poland today spends some 4.5% of their GDP on defence. And it is worth noting that just a decade ago, the UK was third highest as a percentage of GDP in NATO, it is now 12th.
They have also achieved strategic clarity that places deterrence and preparedness at the centre of their defence policy. I declare an interest as a director of the think tank, the Council on Geostrategy, which has presented a blueprint for a trilateral initiative between the UK, Poland and Ukraine. Building on the trilateral agreement signed in 2022 to increase closer and more structured cooperation between the three countries, rekindling the trilateral format could help give British industry an additional boost over our competitors.
As Poland's defence spending grows through its intense cooperation with its near Baltic neighbours and a country critically and uniquely essential for the security of Ukraine, and sending a very clear message to an ever aggressive Russia for the future, to our national benefit and our security. My Lords the government's announcement that the UK Ukraine 100 year partnership is a landmark. However, significant work must be undertaken to develop this excellent agreement. So, as we rightly continue to arm and assist Ukraine, we must also help them prepare for the peace that ultimately will happen prior to the full scale invasion, Ukraine recognised through their own constitution and reform agenda that their path on a European trajectory was reliant on proper decentralisation and empowered local government.
War has necessitated centralisation in Kyiv, but when martial law is lifted, power has to flow back to the region. Cities and communities that will be tasked with rebuilding Ukraine from the ground up. This is where the UK can well support the future of Ukraine. I note that this model is already being quietly exported through para diplomacy. Several English counties, including my home county of Suffolk, have forged regional partnerships with Ukrainian oblasts. These partnerships have the real potential to be engines of recovery, matching British expertise and experience with Ukrainian innovation and determination.
In the Chernihiv region, the Kent with Ukraine partnership has already delivered tonnes of humanitarian aid, instigated English language programmes and are commencing innovative projects from agriculture through to veterans rehabilitation. And all of this is being incredibly well received by our friends in Ukraine. This war, of course, is well beyond a regional conflict. It is a global inflection point and how we react and continue to react will affect and continue to react will affect and continue to react will affect generations to come.
My Lords it is a great honour, perhaps even a bit overwhelming, to join your Lordships House, although. Lordships House, although.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Forward to. The maiden speech of Lord Barrow and thank the Minister for his excellent speech at the excellent speech at the commencement of this debate. Russia continues to inflict terror and continues to inflict terror and destruction upon the people of Ukraine. Speaking to the regional administration in the Chernihiv administration in the Chernihiv Oblast this week, it was reported to me that Russia, in clear to me that Russia, in clear violation of international law, had deliberately targeted their civilian infrastructure, leaving civilian infrastructure, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without power.
Of course, this is the case elsewhere in the country, and winter indeed approaches. The war in Ukraine has exposed the war in Ukraine has exposed the fragility of Western readiness and tested any complacency which for tested any complacency which for too long has characterised much of Europe's defence, so dependent on Europe's defence, so dependent on the United States. Quite simply, defence spending remains key, and defence spending remains key, and our resolve regarding aggression and stability must be matched by our own capacity.
If there is one nation that is truly grasped, the scale of this new reality, it is scale of this new reality, it is Poland. For they have emerged as a model. Indeed, the iron shield of NATO's eastern flank so important for us. And of course, Ukraine. The role that they now play in the security of Europe cannot be downplayed. For Poland today spends some 4.5% of their GDP on defence. And it is worth noting that just a decade ago, the UK was third highest as a percentage of GDP in NATO, it is now 12th.
They have also achieved strategic clarity that places deterrence and preparedness at the centre of their defence policy. I declare an interest as a director of the think tank, the Council on Geostrategy, which has presented a blueprint for a trilateral initiative between the UK, Poland and Ukraine. Building on the trilateral agreement signed in 2022 to increase closer and more structured cooperation between the three countries, rekindling the trilateral format could help give British industry an additional boost over our competitors.
As Poland's defence spending grows through its intense cooperation with its near Baltic neighbours and a country critically and uniquely essential for the security of Ukraine, and sending a very clear message to an ever aggressive Russia for the future, to our national benefit and our security. My Lords the government's announcement that the UK Ukraine 100 year partnership is a landmark. However, significant work must be undertaken to develop this excellent agreement. So, as we rightly continue to arm and assist Ukraine, we must also help them prepare for the peace that ultimately will happen prior to the full scale invasion, Ukraine recognised through their own constitution and reform agenda that their path on a European trajectory was reliant on proper decentralisation and empowered local government.
War has necessitated centralisation in Kyiv, but when martial law is lifted, power has to flow back to the region. Cities and communities that will be tasked with rebuilding Ukraine from the ground up. This is where the UK can well support the future of Ukraine. I note that this model is already being quietly exported through para diplomacy. Several English counties, including my home county of Suffolk, have forged regional partnerships with Ukrainian oblasts. These partnerships have the real potential to be engines of recovery, matching British expertise and experience with Ukrainian innovation and determination.
In the Chernihiv region, the Kent with Ukraine partnership has already delivered tonnes of humanitarian aid, instigated English language programmes and are commencing innovative projects from agriculture through to veterans rehabilitation. And all of this is being incredibly well received by our friends in Ukraine. This war, of course, is well beyond a regional conflict. It is a global inflection point and how we react and continue to react will affect and continue to react will affect and continue to react will affect generations to come.
My Lords it is a great honour, perhaps even a bit overwhelming, to join your Lordships House, although. Lordships House, although.
11:31
Maiden Speech.
Lord Barrow (Crossbench)
-
Maiden Speech.
Lord Barrow (Crossbench)
It is a. My Lords, I do not think I will live up to the billing so many have kindly given me. But I did want to speak in this debate for my maiden speech, because I have spent over a decade of my career in Ukraine and in Russia. I've been ambassador to Kyiv and to Moscow. And when one serves abroad, one lives abroad as well as works. It's an obvious point, but it is salient to what this war and conflict, illegal and justified in fullest, is means to me.
Three of my children went to school in Kyiv, and so right from the start, I'd like to associate myself to the comments by my noble friend, the minister and others about the plight of the abducted children from Ukraine. But before I go on into this subject, I should first say some thanks for all those who've helped me as I've joined this House. First to the staff. Black Rod office, the clerks, the Doorkeepers who very kindly from the first day welcomed me warmly and then politely averted their eyes when I scuttled back past them, having gone the wrong way.
Also, to my noble supporters, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who, amongst other things, I knew from my last stint in Brussels for the other pillar of my career in diplomacy was in Brussels, where I also spent over a decade working on, in and with the European Union, including in many negotiations. And perhaps for me, that culminated in the negotiation of the Windsor framework. My other supporter I want to thank, of course, Baroness Manningham-Buller. I think it's the truth in life that one is wiser to have the noble lady at one side.
But but for me, it also represented something I tried to do when I was national security adviser, which is to make sure that we gave more weight, more time, more space to the internal and domestic aspects of an issue and a crisis as much as the international and the foreign. Finally, my Lords, I would like to thank you all for the generosity and courtesy of your welcome. But do not worry. I have understood the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
velvet menace in the phrase a self-regulating chamber. OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK. I have understood that maiden speeches should be brief and bland. You'll be glad to know my family, You'll be glad to know my family, ever supportive, have said to me that after nearly 40 years as a diplomat, I'm well versed in one of diplomat, I'm well versed in one of those skills, and hopefully there's a large clock to deal with the a large clock to deal with the other. My Lords, it was to Kyiv I first went before going to Moscow first went before going to Moscow for my substantive posting in 1990, starting in the Soviet Union and starting in the Soviet Union and finishing in Russia for.
I still well remember that Christmas Day in 1991, when I was summoned from the festivities into the embassy. Something was afoot in the Kremlin. Something was afoot in the Kremlin. It turned out to be Gorbachev's resignation broadcast, and it was only many hours later that I only many hours later that I returned home. I discovered I had returned home. I discovered I had left a turkey in the oven. It was unrecognisable and inedible. I would like to say I spent my would like to say I spent my evening reflecting and seeking to digest the momentous events of that day.
I think I was more preoccupied day. I think I was more preoccupied with the fact I could not digest the turkey, but from that time there is an important lesson for me, which was one of the reasons why President Yeltsin would not sign up to Gorbachev's attempts to create a new federal structure was because Ukraine would not sign, and President Yeltsin would not be, and could not be the Russian president who lost Ukraine. And I think it is that same sentiment which resounds all too loudly in today's Kremlin.
This is a war on Ukraine, but is also about Russia. I remember when I was in Kyiv, a Ukrainian friend and minister said to me, if only you in the West would care about Ukraine a little more, and Moscow care about us some less. But it is in that vein that I warmly endorse and welcome my friend the Minister's comments about the continued commitment of this country to Ukraine. It is really mattered that this is crossbench bipartisan from the eve of the war, through those first days and through these dreadful years, it has been a clear commitment from successive governments.
And I can tell you how often Ukrainian friends have noticed that and felt that. And they need to hear it again, as has been said. Unfortunately, while our commitment continues, I see no diminution in Moscow's intent. They have repeatedly said what they mean. You don't need an old friend like me. There's no mystery here. They deny the legitimacy of Ukraine as a nation and they act on their words. If this invasion had only been about some parcels of land, it would be fully focussed in the East.
It was not, as other noble lords have said, it was focussed on Kyiv. They came for Kyiv, they came for the capital, for the government, for the country. They were checked by the heroism of the Ukrainian people and by the courage of President Zelensky, who stayed and stood in that capital. But this, my Lords, is ambition, thwarted but not abandoned. So I salute all those who work towards peace. But I completely associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord Stirrup and others.
It feels a long shot. We should support all those who seek to move this forward, including, of course, President Zelensky himself and his team, who I've had the privilege of working with for many hours on this question. But if we are to get a peace, the only route is through strength. As others have said, keeping Ukraine in the fight and keeping the pressure on Moscow. And if there is a peace we need to take into our policy fully the theory and practice of our 100 year partnership of continued commitment and engagement to make sure that Ukraine is strong, and that we also learn the lessons because it is all too easy, as Lord Stirrup said, that this peace could just be a pause.
And if our attention wavers, Ukraine will face a re-energised, revitalised enemy. My Lords I have three questions, I think, for my Noble friend the Minister in conclusion. I do not believe that the frozen assets are going to prove readily and quickly available. So I ask my my noble friend, what is the government's intention with regard to the prioritised Ukraine requirements list to keep Ukraine in the fight? How does my noble friend see the path to progress on the Hague summit? Defence investment pledge? And of course, this is not just about Ukraine, as so many colleagues and noble friends have said.
What is the government doing to develop and strengthen a new deterrence doctrine in all its aspects political, military, diplomatic and with also partners in such an enterprise? We will need this because whatever happens in the next days and years in Ukraine, this is a challenge for us as well. And that challenge will not go away. Finally, can I just join all those who have said so eloquently and powerfully the message from this chamber today must be a message of strong, continued support for the Ukrainian people as they face
**** Possible New Speaker ****
another desperate winter. My Lord, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord to follow the noble Lord Lord Barrow as he makes his first intervention in your Lordships debates as a noble Lord Lord Ricketts suggested the noble Lord Lord Barrow has absolutely shown Lord Barrow has absolutely shown that we can look forward to rich contributions from a distinguished diplomatic career. I was fortunate diplomatic career. I was fortunate enough to work with the noble Lord in Brussels, in London, and a
Three of my children went to school in Kyiv, and so right from the start, I'd like to associate myself to the comments by my noble friend, the minister and others about the plight of the abducted children from Ukraine. But before I go on into this subject, I should first say some thanks for all those who've helped me as I've joined this House. First to the staff. Black Rod office, the clerks, the Doorkeepers who very kindly from the first day welcomed me warmly and then politely averted their eyes when I scuttled back past them, having gone the wrong way.
Also, to my noble supporters, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who, amongst other things, I knew from my last stint in Brussels for the other pillar of my career in diplomacy was in Brussels, where I also spent over a decade working on, in and with the European Union, including in many negotiations. And perhaps for me, that culminated in the negotiation of the Windsor framework. My other supporter I want to thank, of course, Baroness Manningham-Buller. I think it's the truth in life that one is wiser to have the noble lady at one side.
But but for me, it also represented something I tried to do when I was national security adviser, which is to make sure that we gave more weight, more time, more space to the internal and domestic aspects of an issue and a crisis as much as the international and the foreign. Finally, my Lords, I would like to thank you all for the generosity and courtesy of your welcome. But do not worry. I have understood the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
velvet menace in the phrase a self-regulating chamber. OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK. I have understood that maiden speeches should be brief and bland. You'll be glad to know my family, You'll be glad to know my family, ever supportive, have said to me that after nearly 40 years as a diplomat, I'm well versed in one of diplomat, I'm well versed in one of those skills, and hopefully there's a large clock to deal with the a large clock to deal with the other. My Lords, it was to Kyiv I first went before going to Moscow first went before going to Moscow for my substantive posting in 1990, starting in the Soviet Union and starting in the Soviet Union and finishing in Russia for.
I still well remember that Christmas Day in 1991, when I was summoned from the festivities into the embassy. Something was afoot in the Kremlin. Something was afoot in the Kremlin. It turned out to be Gorbachev's resignation broadcast, and it was only many hours later that I only many hours later that I returned home. I discovered I had returned home. I discovered I had left a turkey in the oven. It was unrecognisable and inedible. I would like to say I spent my would like to say I spent my evening reflecting and seeking to digest the momentous events of that day.
I think I was more preoccupied day. I think I was more preoccupied with the fact I could not digest the turkey, but from that time there is an important lesson for me, which was one of the reasons why President Yeltsin would not sign up to Gorbachev's attempts to create a new federal structure was because Ukraine would not sign, and President Yeltsin would not be, and could not be the Russian president who lost Ukraine. And I think it is that same sentiment which resounds all too loudly in today's Kremlin.
This is a war on Ukraine, but is also about Russia. I remember when I was in Kyiv, a Ukrainian friend and minister said to me, if only you in the West would care about Ukraine a little more, and Moscow care about us some less. But it is in that vein that I warmly endorse and welcome my friend the Minister's comments about the continued commitment of this country to Ukraine. It is really mattered that this is crossbench bipartisan from the eve of the war, through those first days and through these dreadful years, it has been a clear commitment from successive governments.
And I can tell you how often Ukrainian friends have noticed that and felt that. And they need to hear it again, as has been said. Unfortunately, while our commitment continues, I see no diminution in Moscow's intent. They have repeatedly said what they mean. You don't need an old friend like me. There's no mystery here. They deny the legitimacy of Ukraine as a nation and they act on their words. If this invasion had only been about some parcels of land, it would be fully focussed in the East.
It was not, as other noble lords have said, it was focussed on Kyiv. They came for Kyiv, they came for the capital, for the government, for the country. They were checked by the heroism of the Ukrainian people and by the courage of President Zelensky, who stayed and stood in that capital. But this, my Lords, is ambition, thwarted but not abandoned. So I salute all those who work towards peace. But I completely associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord Stirrup and others.
It feels a long shot. We should support all those who seek to move this forward, including, of course, President Zelensky himself and his team, who I've had the privilege of working with for many hours on this question. But if we are to get a peace, the only route is through strength. As others have said, keeping Ukraine in the fight and keeping the pressure on Moscow. And if there is a peace we need to take into our policy fully the theory and practice of our 100 year partnership of continued commitment and engagement to make sure that Ukraine is strong, and that we also learn the lessons because it is all too easy, as Lord Stirrup said, that this peace could just be a pause.
And if our attention wavers, Ukraine will face a re-energised, revitalised enemy. My Lords I have three questions, I think, for my Noble friend the Minister in conclusion. I do not believe that the frozen assets are going to prove readily and quickly available. So I ask my my noble friend, what is the government's intention with regard to the prioritised Ukraine requirements list to keep Ukraine in the fight? How does my noble friend see the path to progress on the Hague summit? Defence investment pledge? And of course, this is not just about Ukraine, as so many colleagues and noble friends have said.
What is the government doing to develop and strengthen a new deterrence doctrine in all its aspects political, military, diplomatic and with also partners in such an enterprise? We will need this because whatever happens in the next days and years in Ukraine, this is a challenge for us as well. And that challenge will not go away. Finally, can I just join all those who have said so eloquently and powerfully the message from this chamber today must be a message of strong, continued support for the Ukrainian people as they face
**** Possible New Speaker ****
another desperate winter. My Lord, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord to follow the noble Lord Lord Barrow as he makes his first intervention in your Lordships debates as a noble Lord Lord Ricketts suggested the noble Lord Lord Barrow has absolutely shown Lord Barrow has absolutely shown that we can look forward to rich contributions from a distinguished diplomatic career. I was fortunate diplomatic career. I was fortunate enough to work with the noble Lord in Brussels, in London, and a
11:40
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour)
in Brussels, in London, and a little bit in Moscow. I well recall bringing the P5 plus one to Moscow as part of our negotiations with Iran and the noble Lord hosting senior representatives from France, Germany, the US and China to dinner in the embassy. Not an everyday occurrence, said the noble Lord Riley at the time. Different times, of course, different circumstances, but a demonstration of the adaptability of the noble Lord in all circumstances, I'm sure all noble lords will join me in wishing him well in his career.
In your Lordships House, and look forward to the opportunity to hear him enriching our debates in the future. Yes, my Lords, I thank my noble friend for instigating this debate. I am reminded that this war is well over a decade old. In the autumn of 2013, President Yanukovych of Ukraine walked across the lobby of a hotel in Vilnius and told me that he could not sign an agreement that had been seven years in the making, had been initialled, and which had brought together most of the European leaders in celebration of its signing.
He told me then he could not sign because of pressure from Moscow standing in Maidan in Kyiv in November 2013, in the deep cold of winter, I watched thousands of people with their European banners demand that the promise made of a stronger and deeper relationship with Europe be fulfilled. Their passion was reflected in similar demonstrations all across the country. I spent many hours with the then president trying to persuade him more hours with politicians and representatives from across Ukraine, trying to help solve problems that we know now were just beginning.
And of course, a great deal of time with the Russian foreign minister and with President Putin. From that time, I was aware that President Putin was driven by that combination of history and legacy. His desire to recreate what he perceives as Russia's glory in empire is combined with the refusal to be the leader who, as the noble Lord Lord Barrow mentioned in the context of President Yeltsin, the leader who in his mind loses Ukraine. Whatever the fallacy of this situation, it's important to understand that as we consider not just support for Ukraine now, but into its future my Lords, we must remain steadfast, as other noble lords have said, visits to Ukraine before this phase of the war broke out and broke cover in 2022 revealed that people in Ukraine often felt forgotten.
People killed by missile strikes in the Donbas while I was there, seemed barely to merit responses in capitals across the world. It felt to me in early 2020, as I left, that this cold conflict could fast become frozen. I remind noble Lords, too, that the conflict in Georgia remains in such a state. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, held by Russia, with barbed wire separating them from the rest of their country, reminds us, too, that in any final resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, we have unfinished business elsewhere.
Ukraine does not take our support for granted. Of course, meeting with colleagues and friends recently in Warsaw, I was conscious of their determination and steadfast nature and of their gratitude to us. I look across this House at a time when politics seems to thrive on division and anger, and see a united House on this issue. Long may that remain. But I also see, as the noble Baroness Baroness Suttie said of her friends and colleagues, the tiredness and anxiety of my friends who need to know that we will stay with them.
And I commend the Prime Minister and the ministerial team, including my noble friends, for their strong leadership. For my Lords, it will one day not only be about the supply of weapons, training of soldiers and coalition of the willing, it will be about how we support Ukraine in resolution of the conflict and stay with this country into the future. Wars end with ragged edges, not with straight lines, with challenges and with dangers. As we help build a future democratic and free.
There is always the risk that conflict will be renewed without the safeguards to prevent it. What will make the difference is how far the how far the support of the willing is prepared to go. I remember well in negotiations with countries like Iran or with Russia itself, that I was conscious that those who sat opposite me in negotiation did not just look at me, but at who stood behind me. We must stand squarely behind Ukraine. Ukraine will determine its own future.
But those who look from the opposite side at it should see in the row directly behind it. No turning away from the steadfast, determined support for as long, my Lords, as it takes, we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
must give Ukraine strength in war and strength in peace. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. My Lords, may I welcome to this House and congratulate the noble Lord Lord Barrow on his outstanding maiden speech. He is a fine
In your Lordships House, and look forward to the opportunity to hear him enriching our debates in the future. Yes, my Lords, I thank my noble friend for instigating this debate. I am reminded that this war is well over a decade old. In the autumn of 2013, President Yanukovych of Ukraine walked across the lobby of a hotel in Vilnius and told me that he could not sign an agreement that had been seven years in the making, had been initialled, and which had brought together most of the European leaders in celebration of its signing.
He told me then he could not sign because of pressure from Moscow standing in Maidan in Kyiv in November 2013, in the deep cold of winter, I watched thousands of people with their European banners demand that the promise made of a stronger and deeper relationship with Europe be fulfilled. Their passion was reflected in similar demonstrations all across the country. I spent many hours with the then president trying to persuade him more hours with politicians and representatives from across Ukraine, trying to help solve problems that we know now were just beginning.
And of course, a great deal of time with the Russian foreign minister and with President Putin. From that time, I was aware that President Putin was driven by that combination of history and legacy. His desire to recreate what he perceives as Russia's glory in empire is combined with the refusal to be the leader who, as the noble Lord Lord Barrow mentioned in the context of President Yeltsin, the leader who in his mind loses Ukraine. Whatever the fallacy of this situation, it's important to understand that as we consider not just support for Ukraine now, but into its future my Lords, we must remain steadfast, as other noble lords have said, visits to Ukraine before this phase of the war broke out and broke cover in 2022 revealed that people in Ukraine often felt forgotten.
People killed by missile strikes in the Donbas while I was there, seemed barely to merit responses in capitals across the world. It felt to me in early 2020, as I left, that this cold conflict could fast become frozen. I remind noble Lords, too, that the conflict in Georgia remains in such a state. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, held by Russia, with barbed wire separating them from the rest of their country, reminds us, too, that in any final resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, we have unfinished business elsewhere.
Ukraine does not take our support for granted. Of course, meeting with colleagues and friends recently in Warsaw, I was conscious of their determination and steadfast nature and of their gratitude to us. I look across this House at a time when politics seems to thrive on division and anger, and see a united House on this issue. Long may that remain. But I also see, as the noble Baroness Baroness Suttie said of her friends and colleagues, the tiredness and anxiety of my friends who need to know that we will stay with them.
And I commend the Prime Minister and the ministerial team, including my noble friends, for their strong leadership. For my Lords, it will one day not only be about the supply of weapons, training of soldiers and coalition of the willing, it will be about how we support Ukraine in resolution of the conflict and stay with this country into the future. Wars end with ragged edges, not with straight lines, with challenges and with dangers. As we help build a future democratic and free.
There is always the risk that conflict will be renewed without the safeguards to prevent it. What will make the difference is how far the how far the support of the willing is prepared to go. I remember well in negotiations with countries like Iran or with Russia itself, that I was conscious that those who sat opposite me in negotiation did not just look at me, but at who stood behind me. We must stand squarely behind Ukraine. Ukraine will determine its own future.
But those who look from the opposite side at it should see in the row directly behind it. No turning away from the steadfast, determined support for as long, my Lords, as it takes, we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
must give Ukraine strength in war and strength in peace. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. My Lords, may I welcome to this House and congratulate the noble Lord Lord Barrow on his outstanding maiden speech. He is a fine
11:46
Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Harlech (Conservative)
maiden speech. He is a fine addition to this House. I also declare my interest as a serving Army Reserve Officer with the first Battalion, London Guards. I wish to start my contribution to this debate with two verified first hand accounts from Ukraine, published in the last week. Firstly from a civilian resident of Kyiv, I was sitting in the corridor waiting out the attack when I heard a powerful explosion. For a moment I thought our building was collapsing, but it turned out to be the one next door.
It was terrifying. We just have to endure it. Secondly, from a soldier describing frontline conditions, they hit all cars. They just see someone driving by and they'll hit absolutely every car. My Lords. These two testimonies encapsulate the human reality of the conflict in Ukraine. Ordinary people enduring unimaginable danger and soldiers facing relentless threats. They remind us that behind strategy and policy are lives, homes and hopes under fire. We must take note of three interlinked dimensions the ongoing war and its human toil, the effectiveness and limits of our sanctions and support response, and the broader strategic implications for the UK, Europe and the rules based order.
The war continues with full intensity. Civilians live under missile, drone and artillery fire. Ukrainian forces struggle with shortages of manpower and material. The frontline described by that soldier reveals the brutal randomness of frontline danger. The war is not stabilising. Rather it is grindingly persistent. Secondly, our sanctions and support regimes are vital but not a panacea. The UK and its allies have introduced strong measures freezes on assets, bans on Russia's major oil companies, targeting the shadow fleet and cutting off key revenue sources.
Yet, as the Royal United Services Institute has warned in recent commentary, Russia's war economy remains capable of sustaining brutal operations because its high sacrifice ratio and strategic diversion of resources. Moreover, as explained in a recent report from the Henry Jackson Society, sanctions are undermined by persistent global demand for Russian energy and goods, largely from countries not aligned with the sanctions regime or through a complex web of global financial markets and derivative products far beyond the comprehension.
Comprehension of a simple infants such as myself. But this universe of loopholes means Moscow retains avenues to continue revenue flows. So I add my voice to the calls from other noble lords that even if there is persistent obstruction to the utilisation of frozen, frozen Russian assets, then my question to the government is could not the interest from those assets be diverted to the Ukrainian cause? Sanctions are crucial. They must be coordinated, multilateral and ruthlessly enforced to have the best chances of success.
Again, as we've heard from other noble Lords, the implications for the UK and Europe are profound. If Russia can afford to consider a second front against NATO or Europe by a grey zone tactics, then our strategic planning must be beyond Ukraine. Russia must not open a second front like Ukraine, but could but could wage lower intensity but highly destabilising actions while Europe falters to counter this threat and bring about a just peace which favours Ukraine, we must ensure sanctions remain tight and enforceable.
Crack down on evasion, coordinate with non-Western partners, ensure that frozen assets are leveraged effectively to support Ukraine and hold Russia to account. We must prepare for hybrid threats and a strong deterrence posture. Grey zone warfare is real. The UK must invest in cyber defences, disinformation, resilience, strategic communications and strengthening NATO's readiness. We must plan for post-war Ukraine and security guarantees. Ukraine's sovereignty must be underpinned by credible guarantees. The UK must be part of that coalition of the willing and take long term responsibility.
My Lords, we must not falter. We must. We must back the resilience of the rules based order with strength and resolve. Let us take note not only
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in words, but in action. I congratulate the noble Lord Lord Coaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Coaker. And the way he introduces debate, which I thought was quite brilliant. And I congratulate the front benches on their unanimity of our
It was terrifying. We just have to endure it. Secondly, from a soldier describing frontline conditions, they hit all cars. They just see someone driving by and they'll hit absolutely every car. My Lords. These two testimonies encapsulate the human reality of the conflict in Ukraine. Ordinary people enduring unimaginable danger and soldiers facing relentless threats. They remind us that behind strategy and policy are lives, homes and hopes under fire. We must take note of three interlinked dimensions the ongoing war and its human toil, the effectiveness and limits of our sanctions and support response, and the broader strategic implications for the UK, Europe and the rules based order.
The war continues with full intensity. Civilians live under missile, drone and artillery fire. Ukrainian forces struggle with shortages of manpower and material. The frontline described by that soldier reveals the brutal randomness of frontline danger. The war is not stabilising. Rather it is grindingly persistent. Secondly, our sanctions and support regimes are vital but not a panacea. The UK and its allies have introduced strong measures freezes on assets, bans on Russia's major oil companies, targeting the shadow fleet and cutting off key revenue sources.
Yet, as the Royal United Services Institute has warned in recent commentary, Russia's war economy remains capable of sustaining brutal operations because its high sacrifice ratio and strategic diversion of resources. Moreover, as explained in a recent report from the Henry Jackson Society, sanctions are undermined by persistent global demand for Russian energy and goods, largely from countries not aligned with the sanctions regime or through a complex web of global financial markets and derivative products far beyond the comprehension.
Comprehension of a simple infants such as myself. But this universe of loopholes means Moscow retains avenues to continue revenue flows. So I add my voice to the calls from other noble lords that even if there is persistent obstruction to the utilisation of frozen, frozen Russian assets, then my question to the government is could not the interest from those assets be diverted to the Ukrainian cause? Sanctions are crucial. They must be coordinated, multilateral and ruthlessly enforced to have the best chances of success.
Again, as we've heard from other noble Lords, the implications for the UK and Europe are profound. If Russia can afford to consider a second front against NATO or Europe by a grey zone tactics, then our strategic planning must be beyond Ukraine. Russia must not open a second front like Ukraine, but could but could wage lower intensity but highly destabilising actions while Europe falters to counter this threat and bring about a just peace which favours Ukraine, we must ensure sanctions remain tight and enforceable.
Crack down on evasion, coordinate with non-Western partners, ensure that frozen assets are leveraged effectively to support Ukraine and hold Russia to account. We must prepare for hybrid threats and a strong deterrence posture. Grey zone warfare is real. The UK must invest in cyber defences, disinformation, resilience, strategic communications and strengthening NATO's readiness. We must plan for post-war Ukraine and security guarantees. Ukraine's sovereignty must be underpinned by credible guarantees. The UK must be part of that coalition of the willing and take long term responsibility.
My Lords, we must not falter. We must. We must back the resilience of the rules based order with strength and resolve. Let us take note not only
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in words, but in action. I congratulate the noble Lord Lord Coaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Coaker. And the way he introduces debate, which I thought was quite brilliant. And I congratulate the front benches on their unanimity of our
11:52
11:53
11:53
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
experience of Moscow is much more recent than mine. I was there when Brezhnev's Moscow invaded Prague Brezhnev's Moscow invaded Prague and put down Dubcek. Possibly not much has changed, actually. I am. I have a very diffident about predicting what is going to happen predicting what is going to happen in this war, because so much has changed since my time in particular. changed since my time in particular. America has changed US policy now seems to me to be extremely seems to me to be extremely difficult to predict.
And so the problem my successors face is much problem my successors face is much bigger than the one I had. We're not sure now about our side. We're not sure now about our side. We're not sure where NATO's core country stands, and we can't be sure that stands, and we can't be sure that that stance won't change overnight. By contrast, predicting what Putin By contrast, predicting what Putin does is all too easy. He's told us he's all along. He's been he's all along.
He's been completely consistent. In his 2021 essay on the historical unity of essay on the historical unity of the Russians and Ukrainians, he explained very clearly, going way back into history, why the Ukraine had absolutely no right to independent existence as a country. I've seen it said that his foreign minister, Lavrov, when asked who advised Putin, said Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Ivan the Terrible. And it seems to me that for once, Lavrov may not have been lying.
Parts of Georgia have been explained most recently by Baroness Ashton. Parts of Georgia are effectively Belarus, Transnistria in Moldova, if Kyiv were to fall, that would not be the end. If there were a ceasefire, it would be fragile, at least for as long as Putin rules Russia because he doesn't accept Ukraine's right to doesn't accept Ukraine's right to exist. Probably 100. Well, 80 to 100,000 Russians have been killed in this Ukraine war in this calendar year.
Attack is much costlier in lives than defence, probably about 5 or 6 to to one is the ratio. Particularly as drones now transform the battlefield. There aren't actually many people in these frontlines. We're not talking the song. But those that are there don't stay long. I saw a Russian blog recently claim that life expectancy on the front line was 12 days, 11 of which were spent in training. Russian humour can be very, very black, but will heavy casualties stop Putin? I don't think so.
Will the huge economic damage he's doing Russia stop him? I don't think so. How long can Kyiv, with its smaller population, sustain a war of tradition to attrition? I don't know, but their courage and determination and their technological innovation is remarkable. And clearly we must ensure that they do not lose because their war is our war, as has been said from all sides. Their defence is our defence. Their survival is our national interest. Of course we should want a ceasefire.
What's going on is horrific, but I think our government is quite right to say that the West will have to be ready to provide security guarantees. And given the fate of the Budapest Memorandum, which the Russians tore up when they invaded Crimea, and in 2014, and we shamefully look the other way, security guarantees would have to be made credible by mid, enforceable by the deployment of forces into Ukraine, and given the position and the unprecedented unpredictability the United States, the bulk of these armed forces would have to be European.
So I support what our government is is trying to do. I accept the concept of the coalition of the willing, as explained by Lord Coaker in his speech today. My one criticism of the government's position would be that the need for our involvement hasn't yet been sufficiently spelt out to the British people. The the Defence White Paper rightly called for rearmament, but sometimes it made it sound a bit like a useful job creation scheme. More about national economic growth than about national defence and survival.
I believe that we're in a 1938 situation. If the Donbas goes, he'll be back for the rest. I think the Baroness Suttie was quite right to point to the fragility of the Baltic states and to point to the conclusions the Baltic states have drawn from their fragility, and to mention the the concept of all society defence. The Finland is a country with the same size of population as Scotland, but in a crisis Finland can put a million men under arms and as a result Finland will not be attacked.
Finland is secure. One day. I hope relations with Russia can be rebuilt. The evil the state machine does isn't the fault of the people. But while Putin or any like minded successor is in power, we must help Kyiv hold him at bay. And we must explain to the British people why that really matters. Looking back on last year's election, it is rather a pity that defence barely featured and the question of Ukraine very rarely featured the unanimity of this House in support of the Ukraine is excellent, but actually we need to be out there not not agreeing with each other in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
here. We need to be out there persuading the country that what we say is true. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I join others in warmly welcoming Lord Barrow at the House welcoming Lord Barrow at the House and thank him so much for his inspirational maiden speech. My
And so the problem my successors face is much problem my successors face is much bigger than the one I had. We're not sure now about our side. We're not sure now about our side. We're not sure where NATO's core country stands, and we can't be sure that stands, and we can't be sure that that stance won't change overnight. By contrast, predicting what Putin By contrast, predicting what Putin does is all too easy. He's told us he's all along. He's been he's all along.
He's been completely consistent. In his 2021 essay on the historical unity of essay on the historical unity of the Russians and Ukrainians, he explained very clearly, going way back into history, why the Ukraine had absolutely no right to independent existence as a country. I've seen it said that his foreign minister, Lavrov, when asked who advised Putin, said Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Ivan the Terrible. And it seems to me that for once, Lavrov may not have been lying.
Parts of Georgia have been explained most recently by Baroness Ashton. Parts of Georgia are effectively Belarus, Transnistria in Moldova, if Kyiv were to fall, that would not be the end. If there were a ceasefire, it would be fragile, at least for as long as Putin rules Russia because he doesn't accept Ukraine's right to doesn't accept Ukraine's right to exist. Probably 100. Well, 80 to 100,000 Russians have been killed in this Ukraine war in this calendar year.
Attack is much costlier in lives than defence, probably about 5 or 6 to to one is the ratio. Particularly as drones now transform the battlefield. There aren't actually many people in these frontlines. We're not talking the song. But those that are there don't stay long. I saw a Russian blog recently claim that life expectancy on the front line was 12 days, 11 of which were spent in training. Russian humour can be very, very black, but will heavy casualties stop Putin? I don't think so.
Will the huge economic damage he's doing Russia stop him? I don't think so. How long can Kyiv, with its smaller population, sustain a war of tradition to attrition? I don't know, but their courage and determination and their technological innovation is remarkable. And clearly we must ensure that they do not lose because their war is our war, as has been said from all sides. Their defence is our defence. Their survival is our national interest. Of course we should want a ceasefire.
What's going on is horrific, but I think our government is quite right to say that the West will have to be ready to provide security guarantees. And given the fate of the Budapest Memorandum, which the Russians tore up when they invaded Crimea, and in 2014, and we shamefully look the other way, security guarantees would have to be made credible by mid, enforceable by the deployment of forces into Ukraine, and given the position and the unprecedented unpredictability the United States, the bulk of these armed forces would have to be European.
So I support what our government is is trying to do. I accept the concept of the coalition of the willing, as explained by Lord Coaker in his speech today. My one criticism of the government's position would be that the need for our involvement hasn't yet been sufficiently spelt out to the British people. The the Defence White Paper rightly called for rearmament, but sometimes it made it sound a bit like a useful job creation scheme. More about national economic growth than about national defence and survival.
I believe that we're in a 1938 situation. If the Donbas goes, he'll be back for the rest. I think the Baroness Suttie was quite right to point to the fragility of the Baltic states and to point to the conclusions the Baltic states have drawn from their fragility, and to mention the the concept of all society defence. The Finland is a country with the same size of population as Scotland, but in a crisis Finland can put a million men under arms and as a result Finland will not be attacked.
Finland is secure. One day. I hope relations with Russia can be rebuilt. The evil the state machine does isn't the fault of the people. But while Putin or any like minded successor is in power, we must help Kyiv hold him at bay. And we must explain to the British people why that really matters. Looking back on last year's election, it is rather a pity that defence barely featured and the question of Ukraine very rarely featured the unanimity of this House in support of the Ukraine is excellent, but actually we need to be out there not not agreeing with each other in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
here. We need to be out there persuading the country that what we say is true. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I join others in warmly welcoming Lord Barrow at the House welcoming Lord Barrow at the House and thank him so much for his inspirational maiden speech. My
11:59
Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
inspirational maiden speech. My Lords, as we all know, it's now more than three years since Russia's invasion of Ukraine that shattered the peace of Europe and the understanding upon which our post war security rested. What began as an attempt to subjugate a foreign neighbour has called into question the positionality of an entire generation. As we in the West continue to falter on our resolve, resilience, and the values we claim to cherish. This time last year, this House spoke of the courage and endurance both of the Ukrainian people and of the Western alliance supporting them.
Since then, the world has changed drastically with the return of President Trump, who has forced us to recognise approaches we thought were axiomatic. Where NATO allies once spoke in unison, there is now always a sense of looking over one's shoulder to see where Washington might have landed on an issue. Yet amid the shifting language of diplomacy, one truth remains constant Ukraine's fight is our fight for the purposes of sovereignty, freedom and the rule of law.
You will remember that in February of this year, our International Relations and Defence Committee reflected soberly on the war has revealed, concluding that Russia's invasion, Russia's invasion marked the return of conventional warfare to Europe and with that, the end of complacency. We've had to face the sombre reality that NATO's defence posture has failed and that the United Kingdom and the allies alike are unprepared for war. Indeed, our defence industrial base, our resources and our endurance endurance were all found lacking.
Granted, the defence review began to address some of these weaknesses, but if we want to be taken seriously on the world stage and protect our security from non-traditional threats, this is only the beginning. Our security cannot depend upon assumptions nor upon the goodwill of others. Instead, it must rest on readiness, risk mitigation and realism. My Lords. While the people of Ukraine continue to fight under relentless bombardment and humble us all with their courage, the least they can ask of the democratic nations of the world is not to falter in our championing, of championing of them, be it through military supply, humanitarian relief, or diplomatic advocacy.
The voice of the United Kingdom still carries. We must ensure that it continues to do so not through rhetoric alone, but through consistent action. Tears in the fabric of the Western alliance only embolden Moscow and signal to others, such as Beijing and Tehran, that the resolve of democracies is fallible. My Lords. It is undeniable that we have learned a great deal from Ukraine in terms of innovation and strategy in the last years, but we must not forget consider the moral arena, too.
Ukraine reminds us that freedom is never free, that deterrence must be actionable, and that the financial burden of defence can never outweigh a national duty. As the world becomes ever more divided and relations that have existed for generations start to change, we see new powers coming to the fore, and the United Kingdom must remain centre stage. We stand by Ukraine not merely because it is right, but because our own peace depends upon its defence against the tyranny of oppression.
My Lords, let us therefore recommit in word, in will, and indeed to ensuring that Ukraine prevails, that aggression fails, and that liberty endures.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and the strong unanimity which has been shown by unanimity which has been shown by our frontbenches, and indeed right across the House. Unlike others, I welcome Lord Barrow, who I have
Since then, the world has changed drastically with the return of President Trump, who has forced us to recognise approaches we thought were axiomatic. Where NATO allies once spoke in unison, there is now always a sense of looking over one's shoulder to see where Washington might have landed on an issue. Yet amid the shifting language of diplomacy, one truth remains constant Ukraine's fight is our fight for the purposes of sovereignty, freedom and the rule of law.
You will remember that in February of this year, our International Relations and Defence Committee reflected soberly on the war has revealed, concluding that Russia's invasion, Russia's invasion marked the return of conventional warfare to Europe and with that, the end of complacency. We've had to face the sombre reality that NATO's defence posture has failed and that the United Kingdom and the allies alike are unprepared for war. Indeed, our defence industrial base, our resources and our endurance endurance were all found lacking.
Granted, the defence review began to address some of these weaknesses, but if we want to be taken seriously on the world stage and protect our security from non-traditional threats, this is only the beginning. Our security cannot depend upon assumptions nor upon the goodwill of others. Instead, it must rest on readiness, risk mitigation and realism. My Lords. While the people of Ukraine continue to fight under relentless bombardment and humble us all with their courage, the least they can ask of the democratic nations of the world is not to falter in our championing, of championing of them, be it through military supply, humanitarian relief, or diplomatic advocacy.
The voice of the United Kingdom still carries. We must ensure that it continues to do so not through rhetoric alone, but through consistent action. Tears in the fabric of the Western alliance only embolden Moscow and signal to others, such as Beijing and Tehran, that the resolve of democracies is fallible. My Lords. It is undeniable that we have learned a great deal from Ukraine in terms of innovation and strategy in the last years, but we must not forget consider the moral arena, too.
Ukraine reminds us that freedom is never free, that deterrence must be actionable, and that the financial burden of defence can never outweigh a national duty. As the world becomes ever more divided and relations that have existed for generations start to change, we see new powers coming to the fore, and the United Kingdom must remain centre stage. We stand by Ukraine not merely because it is right, but because our own peace depends upon its defence against the tyranny of oppression.
My Lords, let us therefore recommit in word, in will, and indeed to ensuring that Ukraine prevails, that aggression fails, and that liberty endures.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and the strong unanimity which has been shown by unanimity which has been shown by our frontbenches, and indeed right across the House. Unlike others, I welcome Lord Barrow, who I have
12:04
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)
encountered in the past and very much appreciate what he had to say and look forward to hearing much more from him. My Lords. I want to take you back actually, to the 5th of December, 1994, when the Budapest Memorandum was signed. From Ukraine's perspective, it was a cast iron guarantee in a security guarantee in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons. The Russian signatory was Boris Yeltsin. He was replaced by Putin at the end of 1999, and shortly after that I became a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where I served until 2005.
In my early meetings there, there were outspoken voices on the Russian delegation warning of the erosion of democracy within Russia and of Putin's malign intent. By the time I left Council of Europe, those voices had disappeared. The Second Chechen War started in 2001. The late Frank Judd, Lord Judd, distinguished and member of this House, was the rapporteur for the Council of Europe. Russia refused him a visa to visit the region, and the Assembly suspended the voting rights of the Russian delegation.
A week later, Tony Blair took Putin to meet the Queen. My point is that the hostile intent of Putin's Russia became apparent to me very early on in his rule, but sadly, the British political establishment establishment refused to recognise it and indeed, at that time, Conservative MPs even left the mainstream group in the Council of Europe to join the European Democratic Group alongside Putin's MPs. The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who I had the privilege of meeting this week, very brave man, and the seizure of the assets of Yukos, Russia's most successful post-Soviet company, raised barely a ripple here.
Media wasn't interested. Magnitsky Magnitsky scandal at the time went pretty well unnoticed. It took the murder and attempted murder and unexplained death of Russian expatriates in the UK to wake people up to the Russian threat. And of course, the most high profile of this was Alexander Litvinenko. Then in 2008, Russia annexed Ukraine. Still, we didn't react. Encouraged by a weakness, Putin invaded in February 2024. Yes, he misjudged it badly. He failed to recognise the resolve of the Ukrainian people.
And of course, if Budapest meant anything, if the threat to frontline states need to be countered, we had to act. And very, very late. And in concert we have. I think it was a little ironic that President Trump was proposing to meet President Putin in Budapest, of all places. Nevertheless, the support has only so far been enough to contain the Russians and the Ukrainians, exhausted and facing increasing build up of Russian strength. The situation, as many people have commented, does look bleak.
It may be that over the next five years, the commitments European states are making will build us a defensive capacity that will fully deter Russia from expansionism. But however, with US vacillation and focus on China, the situation could deteriorate very rapidly. So what steps can the UK and the coalition of the willing take? Firstly, to enable Ukraine to hold back Russian advances and secondly, to make the Kremlin understand that they can't win? We should make it clear that our war is not with the Russian people, many of whom may believe that it's the West that's the aggressor, because that's what they've been told.
We ended the Cold War and naively, as it turns out, celebrated a peace dividend, only to arrive at a place today where we have a hot war getting hotter. We should salute the bravery and the resilience of the people of Ukraine, but should recognise their exhaustion and their suffering. They are at the cutting edge of innovation in fighting this kind of war, and we should value the strength and the realism of the frontline states. As my noble friend and others have said, Baltics, Finland, Sweden remain our frontline of defence.
If Russia moves on much better equipped than we are to defend us, than we are to defend ourselves. Somehow we must get across to the United States that swithering and vacillation only encourage Putin, who could be faced with determination, and he has to be convinced that he cannot win. We shouldn't underestimate the extent to which we here in the UK are effectively already at war with Russia. We know what they're doing to our infrastructure and the threats they're making, and our social media infiltered by Russian algorithms designed to sow anger and division.
No wonder Nigel Farage and Alex Salmond had a platform on Russia today. Right now, Putin thinks he can win and he's playing us along. So unless he believes the price is too high,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
maybe he will. We really have to step up to make sure he doesn't. Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. I also congratulate the noble Lord Lord Barrow on his insightful
In my early meetings there, there were outspoken voices on the Russian delegation warning of the erosion of democracy within Russia and of Putin's malign intent. By the time I left Council of Europe, those voices had disappeared. The Second Chechen War started in 2001. The late Frank Judd, Lord Judd, distinguished and member of this House, was the rapporteur for the Council of Europe. Russia refused him a visa to visit the region, and the Assembly suspended the voting rights of the Russian delegation.
A week later, Tony Blair took Putin to meet the Queen. My point is that the hostile intent of Putin's Russia became apparent to me very early on in his rule, but sadly, the British political establishment establishment refused to recognise it and indeed, at that time, Conservative MPs even left the mainstream group in the Council of Europe to join the European Democratic Group alongside Putin's MPs. The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who I had the privilege of meeting this week, very brave man, and the seizure of the assets of Yukos, Russia's most successful post-Soviet company, raised barely a ripple here.
Media wasn't interested. Magnitsky Magnitsky scandal at the time went pretty well unnoticed. It took the murder and attempted murder and unexplained death of Russian expatriates in the UK to wake people up to the Russian threat. And of course, the most high profile of this was Alexander Litvinenko. Then in 2008, Russia annexed Ukraine. Still, we didn't react. Encouraged by a weakness, Putin invaded in February 2024. Yes, he misjudged it badly. He failed to recognise the resolve of the Ukrainian people.
And of course, if Budapest meant anything, if the threat to frontline states need to be countered, we had to act. And very, very late. And in concert we have. I think it was a little ironic that President Trump was proposing to meet President Putin in Budapest, of all places. Nevertheless, the support has only so far been enough to contain the Russians and the Ukrainians, exhausted and facing increasing build up of Russian strength. The situation, as many people have commented, does look bleak.
It may be that over the next five years, the commitments European states are making will build us a defensive capacity that will fully deter Russia from expansionism. But however, with US vacillation and focus on China, the situation could deteriorate very rapidly. So what steps can the UK and the coalition of the willing take? Firstly, to enable Ukraine to hold back Russian advances and secondly, to make the Kremlin understand that they can't win? We should make it clear that our war is not with the Russian people, many of whom may believe that it's the West that's the aggressor, because that's what they've been told.
We ended the Cold War and naively, as it turns out, celebrated a peace dividend, only to arrive at a place today where we have a hot war getting hotter. We should salute the bravery and the resilience of the people of Ukraine, but should recognise their exhaustion and their suffering. They are at the cutting edge of innovation in fighting this kind of war, and we should value the strength and the realism of the frontline states. As my noble friend and others have said, Baltics, Finland, Sweden remain our frontline of defence.
If Russia moves on much better equipped than we are to defend us, than we are to defend ourselves. Somehow we must get across to the United States that swithering and vacillation only encourage Putin, who could be faced with determination, and he has to be convinced that he cannot win. We shouldn't underestimate the extent to which we here in the UK are effectively already at war with Russia. We know what they're doing to our infrastructure and the threats they're making, and our social media infiltered by Russian algorithms designed to sow anger and division.
No wonder Nigel Farage and Alex Salmond had a platform on Russia today. Right now, Putin thinks he can win and he's playing us along. So unless he believes the price is too high,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
maybe he will. We really have to step up to make sure he doesn't. Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. I also congratulate the noble Lord Lord Barrow on his insightful
12:09
Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
Lord Lord Barrow on his insightful and authoritative maiden speech. My thoughts as missiles slam into a kindergarten and little children are heard asking their rescuers, am I going to die? It is almost impossible to fathom the depths of depravity to which the mass murderer Putin has descended. How could anyone regard the development of weapons designed to send huge radioactive waves smashing into civilian infrastructure as somehow representing progress? Yet that is exactly how Putin described this new development only a few days ago.
Putin is pure evil, rational, sadistic, senseless, evil, and he is on the march painstakingly, incrementally, insidiously, but on the march nonetheless. And if he has his way far beyond Ukraine as the noble Lord Lord Kerr of tin Earl Cathcart and my noble friend Baroness Eaton reminded us, and as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson said, we no longer live in a peacetime era. We know that any rewards for his sadistic aggression in Ukraine will only increase.
Rather than saints, his appetites. But as the noble Baroness Baroness Suttie implicitly asked, are we alive as a society to the scale of the threat? Or are we so desensitised by over three years of horrors unfolding on our TV screens only a few hours away by plane, that we refuse to see what comes next? If Putin is not repulsed. Now my Lords, I can completely understand why anyone should find it difficult to contemplate the possibility that the savagery being visited on a fellow European democracy to be visited on us, it hardly bears thinking about.
And yet we need to, as the noble Baroness Baroness Chapman said in answer to my question of the 25th of February, the idea of this conflict does not directly affect the people of the United Kingdom is wrong. It is important that we remind people in our country that the conflict in Ukraine and the invasion by Russia are a threat to our security here. My Lords is a noble Lord Maude of Horsham of Richmond pointed out. Putin believes where prioritising welfare benefits over war, fighting readiness.
If reports in today's media of the terms of the Pip review are accurate, he is correct. My fear as a primary stakeholder of the welfare state because of my disability is that the welfare state will not survive contact with the enemy. Indeed, we need warfare to protect welfare and so much else that we take for granted. In conclusion, my Lords, I simply say to the noble Baroness, the minister who's wrapping up that I hope next month's budget will reflect today's consensus in the Lordships House that Ukraine must be given the means to finish the job and put Putin back in his box.
The sad truth is that we cannot afford to do otherwise.
Putin is pure evil, rational, sadistic, senseless, evil, and he is on the march painstakingly, incrementally, insidiously, but on the march nonetheless. And if he has his way far beyond Ukraine as the noble Lord Lord Kerr of tin Earl Cathcart and my noble friend Baroness Eaton reminded us, and as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson said, we no longer live in a peacetime era. We know that any rewards for his sadistic aggression in Ukraine will only increase.
Rather than saints, his appetites. But as the noble Baroness Baroness Suttie implicitly asked, are we alive as a society to the scale of the threat? Or are we so desensitised by over three years of horrors unfolding on our TV screens only a few hours away by plane, that we refuse to see what comes next? If Putin is not repulsed. Now my Lords, I can completely understand why anyone should find it difficult to contemplate the possibility that the savagery being visited on a fellow European democracy to be visited on us, it hardly bears thinking about.
And yet we need to, as the noble Baroness Baroness Chapman said in answer to my question of the 25th of February, the idea of this conflict does not directly affect the people of the United Kingdom is wrong. It is important that we remind people in our country that the conflict in Ukraine and the invasion by Russia are a threat to our security here. My Lords is a noble Lord Maude of Horsham of Richmond pointed out. Putin believes where prioritising welfare benefits over war, fighting readiness.
If reports in today's media of the terms of the Pip review are accurate, he is correct. My fear as a primary stakeholder of the welfare state because of my disability is that the welfare state will not survive contact with the enemy. Indeed, we need warfare to protect welfare and so much else that we take for granted. In conclusion, my Lords, I simply say to the noble Baroness, the minister who's wrapping up that I hope next month's budget will reflect today's consensus in the Lordships House that Ukraine must be given the means to finish the job and put Putin back in his box.
The sad truth is that we cannot afford to do otherwise.
12:14
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
. historians will assess Vladimir Putin as one of the most strategically incompetent dictators in Russian history, a man who intended to destroy and denude Ukraine of its sovereign defence industrial base, and in fact, has led to a stronger capability on the part of Ukraine than at any point in its independent history. A man who determined night and day to sow discord across NATO has nevertheless caused the accession of Sweden and Finland. As we've heard, a man who preaches the virtues of Imperial Russia and finds himself a supplicant to Beijing and Pyongyang.
But all of that is cold comfort. It's cold comfort. Given the critical situation now facing Ukraine, as we've heard from the noble and gallant Lords, Horton, Lord Stirrup and West. And as President Zelensky reminded us, the situation right now in Kramatorsk is on a knife edge with potentially much wider ramifications for the fortress belt and for Donbas. Putin clearly has no interest in a ceasefire that would be viable for an independent Ukraine, which is why Lord Barrow, in his excellent and judicious maiden speech, was quite right to warn us and to remind us that the only route to peace is through continuing Ukrainian strength.
Future historians might, however, also look back at our own response, not that of the successive British governments whose leadership on Ukraine has been outstanding, but on the broader sluggard neediness of the response when it comes to funding or material that Ukraine has needed. It is over three years ago that President Zelensky first raised the question of allowing Ukrainians access to the frozen Russian assets. It is over a year ago that the European Union first began debating that. And again we find within the last week, scuppered by Belgian concerns, we need to continue to apply the economic vice much more vigorously at a time when, after initial resilience, the Russian economy is now showing genuine signs of strain.
Real inflation is probably running. In the real world, inflation is probably running at over 20% as against the 8% being reported by the Russian central bank, their critical oil and gas revenues are down by 20% year on year, with a further squeeze about to come. Now is not the time to relent on weapons systems. Again, it is, I think, only fair to conclude that we collectively have been too slow in getting Ukraine the weapon systems it requires. That's true whether it's been HIMARS, ATACMS, Abrams tanks, F-16s.
On each occasion, we've been given pause by the cognitive warfare or the bluster from the Kremlin as to theoretical red lines, which turn out to be non-existent. And we're about to make the same mistake again in respect of the deep strike capabilities that the Ukrainians require through Tomahawks. As the noble Lord Lord Coaker rightly said at the outset, the civilian casualties are rising in Ukraine, and part of the reason for that is because of the capabilities that exist deep behind the Russian border.
It is tomahawks that will be in a position to degrade capabilities such as the Shahed drone factory in Yelabuga or the Engels two strategic bomber air Force base being used for the new precision glide bombs. These are the capabilities that Ukraine needs now. And as Prime Minister Donald Tusk rightly reminded us all this past weekend, and as we've heard with unanimity in the chamber this morning, this is not just a fight for Ukraine. This is our fight. But this is not some fight beyond our borders.
This is a fight happening in Europe right now. We have seen within the last few weeks MiG 31, in Estonian airspace, we have seen drone incursions in Poland and Germany and Denmark and Norway. Electoral interference in Moldova and Romania. This is happening now. Putin thinks that the consequence of this will be to strike fear in our hearts. The far bigger risk is insouciance and and distraction. We need to raise our game. We need to strengthen our critical national infrastructure. We need to send much clearer messages of deterrence and impose costs on the Russians for these actions.
And we need to make sure that our fellow citizens understand precisely what is going on.
But all of that is cold comfort. It's cold comfort. Given the critical situation now facing Ukraine, as we've heard from the noble and gallant Lords, Horton, Lord Stirrup and West. And as President Zelensky reminded us, the situation right now in Kramatorsk is on a knife edge with potentially much wider ramifications for the fortress belt and for Donbas. Putin clearly has no interest in a ceasefire that would be viable for an independent Ukraine, which is why Lord Barrow, in his excellent and judicious maiden speech, was quite right to warn us and to remind us that the only route to peace is through continuing Ukrainian strength.
Future historians might, however, also look back at our own response, not that of the successive British governments whose leadership on Ukraine has been outstanding, but on the broader sluggard neediness of the response when it comes to funding or material that Ukraine has needed. It is over three years ago that President Zelensky first raised the question of allowing Ukrainians access to the frozen Russian assets. It is over a year ago that the European Union first began debating that. And again we find within the last week, scuppered by Belgian concerns, we need to continue to apply the economic vice much more vigorously at a time when, after initial resilience, the Russian economy is now showing genuine signs of strain.
Real inflation is probably running. In the real world, inflation is probably running at over 20% as against the 8% being reported by the Russian central bank, their critical oil and gas revenues are down by 20% year on year, with a further squeeze about to come. Now is not the time to relent on weapons systems. Again, it is, I think, only fair to conclude that we collectively have been too slow in getting Ukraine the weapon systems it requires. That's true whether it's been HIMARS, ATACMS, Abrams tanks, F-16s.
On each occasion, we've been given pause by the cognitive warfare or the bluster from the Kremlin as to theoretical red lines, which turn out to be non-existent. And we're about to make the same mistake again in respect of the deep strike capabilities that the Ukrainians require through Tomahawks. As the noble Lord Lord Coaker rightly said at the outset, the civilian casualties are rising in Ukraine, and part of the reason for that is because of the capabilities that exist deep behind the Russian border.
It is tomahawks that will be in a position to degrade capabilities such as the Shahed drone factory in Yelabuga or the Engels two strategic bomber air Force base being used for the new precision glide bombs. These are the capabilities that Ukraine needs now. And as Prime Minister Donald Tusk rightly reminded us all this past weekend, and as we've heard with unanimity in the chamber this morning, this is not just a fight for Ukraine. This is our fight. But this is not some fight beyond our borders.
This is a fight happening in Europe right now. We have seen within the last few weeks MiG 31, in Estonian airspace, we have seen drone incursions in Poland and Germany and Denmark and Norway. Electoral interference in Moldova and Romania. This is happening now. Putin thinks that the consequence of this will be to strike fear in our hearts. The far bigger risk is insouciance and and distraction. We need to raise our game. We need to strengthen our critical national infrastructure. We need to send much clearer messages of deterrence and impose costs on the Russians for these actions.
And we need to make sure that our fellow citizens understand precisely what is going on.
12:19
Lord Brennan (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Brennan (Non-affiliated)
My Lords, I have to declare a connection with Ukraine. In April 2018, as a barrister, I advised the government in Kyiv about joining the European Union. And when the delegation to Brussels at the end of that month. So it turns out I know people. That's the background know people. That's the background as to why. The real question is emphasised in my submission. Over the next four months, emphasis in relation to military assistance or more intelligent commercial attack more intelligent commercial attack on Russia.
The fact is, in terms of. Continual assistance, the noble Lord the military is to be commended, if I may describe them as the nobility of the commitments is given Ukraine from our country, deep commitments. Why? Because Russia on Wednesday night, according to some evidence I got yesterday morning from the man who runs the drone force for the. Ukrainians, he sent what's called an electronic radar picture, like a photograph which tracks all the bombs, drones, missiles across Ukraine during the night.
The image it produced for Wednesday night was horrific. Everywhere was due to be bombed or hid. In particular, the area to the west of the Dnipro River there called the Heights. I want you to get over 20 or 30km of the heights. You hit flat land and it's a straight run to Kyiv. And the Russians are clearly bent on getting a hold of control of those heights. But in bombing terms and men. So continue to help them as best we can.
When will Russia stop or change mind? Some of you may have read Peter Frankopan's article in the Financial Times this week about Putin's reading list, and he's called the information from the Trump office in other places. And Putin has drowned people he's been negotiating with, with long pieces about Russian medieval history, which Peter Frankopan's terms he put into a 1000 year continuum. And the Ukraine extension is part of that history of Russia.
And it's inevitable process of expansion. Quite remarkable, I find, in the history which Frankopan describes one of the main areas of interest for Putin was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which at that time had a massive land force connection across southern Russia. So what could he do next? The fighting has to go on for years. Next February, after a tough winter, is the same as the whole of the First World War, or two thirds of the second in the middle of Central Europe.
This is happening to my people. Fellow citizens. So keep the support on the military front. What about financial pressure? Sanctions? Reparation fund requirements are so obvious a weapon. But remarkably, it's only the last couple of months that America in particular has started to push hard in terms of oil and gas. And these sanctions are ways of attacking the Russians economically. That's very, very important. The Russian GDP. Figure for the inclusion of oil and gas shows a drop of nearly 10% in the last 12 months, money coming in through GDP, 26%.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In. Month on month public finances
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Month on month public finances receipts. That's enormous amounts of money that they're suffering. of money that they're suffering. And we should stick hard on that front. The Russians have just put up for international sale, Lukoil up for international sale, Lukoil and Rosneft, their two biggest foreign oil companies, because foreign oil companies, because they're not making money from them. Trump seems to have pushed the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries in particular, into pursuing the oil market going pursuing the oil market going across Asia.
So lastly, if I may. The country of Ukraine, after this The country of Ukraine, after this trouble. After Magnitsky Act February, needs a new president. It's due electorally by the laws of It's due electorally by the laws of the country. Zelenskyy has been president since 2019. Next year is president since 2019. Next year is seventh year time enough? Ukraine needs a man, woman. Smart, effective and able to control to take over the country. And you want to get through the next six, 12 months.
And to be here in support in doing that. Above all, am I finished as far as Putin is concerned? I was once in Moscow and a Russian told me. The following. You can get the man out of the KGB, but you can't get the KGB out of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the man executed. My Lords I was president.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I was president. Of the CBI when the Ukraine war started, and Russia illegally invaded Ukraine on the 24th of
The fact is, in terms of. Continual assistance, the noble Lord the military is to be commended, if I may describe them as the nobility of the commitments is given Ukraine from our country, deep commitments. Why? Because Russia on Wednesday night, according to some evidence I got yesterday morning from the man who runs the drone force for the. Ukrainians, he sent what's called an electronic radar picture, like a photograph which tracks all the bombs, drones, missiles across Ukraine during the night.
The image it produced for Wednesday night was horrific. Everywhere was due to be bombed or hid. In particular, the area to the west of the Dnipro River there called the Heights. I want you to get over 20 or 30km of the heights. You hit flat land and it's a straight run to Kyiv. And the Russians are clearly bent on getting a hold of control of those heights. But in bombing terms and men. So continue to help them as best we can.
When will Russia stop or change mind? Some of you may have read Peter Frankopan's article in the Financial Times this week about Putin's reading list, and he's called the information from the Trump office in other places. And Putin has drowned people he's been negotiating with, with long pieces about Russian medieval history, which Peter Frankopan's terms he put into a 1000 year continuum. And the Ukraine extension is part of that history of Russia.
And it's inevitable process of expansion. Quite remarkable, I find, in the history which Frankopan describes one of the main areas of interest for Putin was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which at that time had a massive land force connection across southern Russia. So what could he do next? The fighting has to go on for years. Next February, after a tough winter, is the same as the whole of the First World War, or two thirds of the second in the middle of Central Europe.
This is happening to my people. Fellow citizens. So keep the support on the military front. What about financial pressure? Sanctions? Reparation fund requirements are so obvious a weapon. But remarkably, it's only the last couple of months that America in particular has started to push hard in terms of oil and gas. And these sanctions are ways of attacking the Russians economically. That's very, very important. The Russian GDP. Figure for the inclusion of oil and gas shows a drop of nearly 10% in the last 12 months, money coming in through GDP, 26%.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In. Month on month public finances
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Month on month public finances receipts. That's enormous amounts of money that they're suffering. of money that they're suffering. And we should stick hard on that front. The Russians have just put up for international sale, Lukoil up for international sale, Lukoil and Rosneft, their two biggest foreign oil companies, because foreign oil companies, because they're not making money from them. Trump seems to have pushed the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries in particular, into pursuing the oil market going pursuing the oil market going across Asia.
So lastly, if I may. The country of Ukraine, after this The country of Ukraine, after this trouble. After Magnitsky Act February, needs a new president. It's due electorally by the laws of It's due electorally by the laws of the country. Zelenskyy has been president since 2019. Next year is president since 2019. Next year is seventh year time enough? Ukraine needs a man, woman. Smart, effective and able to control to take over the country. And you want to get through the next six, 12 months.
And to be here in support in doing that. Above all, am I finished as far as Putin is concerned? I was once in Moscow and a Russian told me. The following. You can get the man out of the KGB, but you can't get the KGB out of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the man executed. My Lords I was president.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I was president. Of the CBI when the Ukraine war started, and Russia illegally invaded Ukraine on the 24th of
12:26
Lord Bilimoria (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Bilimoria (Crossbench)
invaded Ukraine on the 24th of February, 2022. On the Monday after the war started, I went to see Ambassador Vadym Prystaiko at the Ukrainian Embassy to offer the help of British industry. And it was then that I heard from the horse's mouth that Ukraine was going to fight. Putin thought that in the same way the Taliban walked into Afghanistan after a withdrawal and the Afghan army capitulated, he would be able to walk into Kyiv and take over the whole of Ukraine and my Lords.
We must remember that the war actually started over a decade ago in Crimea in 2014, and it's a noble Lord, Lord Ricketts said in his excellent speech. Moscow's aim was to undermine NATO. But here's blunder number two by Putin. The week after the invasion, I was scheduled to speak to the EU ambassadors at their regular meeting at the EU Embassy in Smith Square. And during my speech, I looked at the ambassadors of Finland and Sweden, and I said, are you ready now to join NATO? And they said, we are ready within five minutes.
And sure enough, Finland and Sweden have now joined NATO to formidable defence powers. Finland able to muster hundreds of thousands of trained troops within weeks. They have a far longer border with Russia, more than 1400km and Ukraine does. And both countries are also formidable defence manufacturing powers and rifles, artillery, aircraft, you name it. And the noble Lord Lord Coaker and his excellent opening speech said that there's a lack of equipment and I believe my Lords we cannot support Ukraine in a half hearted way.
Every single peer who has spoken in this debate, whether independent or from any party, we are united in defending and supporting Ukraine. But I do believe we've got to do it all the way. Why don't we give them the Tomahawks? President Zelenskyy said give me wings when he came here and addressed us as an honorary group captain and 601 Squadron and the RAF. I'm so proud that it is the RAF that is now training Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s. And my Lords, I'm like a stuck record.
In the 2019 debate on the 70th anniversary of NATO, I said then when we were spending 2% of GDP on defence, we should be spending 3%. Does the Minister agree that that is what we should be doing? And Russia's illegal invasion continues to devastate Ukraine as a country displaced millions undermine European and global security? The fighting is intense, and yet Russia's progress is limited, and Ukraine still holds the fortified fortress belt. And what is happening now is Russia has intensified its missile and drone campaign just in one week.
Earlier this month, they launched more than 3000 drones, 92 missiles and 1400 glide bombs. And while financial support for Ukraine has been absolutely amazing, and on top of that, I'm proud of the way that the UK leads the coalition of the willing with France. I'm proud in the way that the UK leads in the United Nations and in other resolutions that are required and my Lords. Why are we worried about escalation already? The Russians have in have incursions in Estonian airspace in Poland.
We've got to deal with this and face up to it. And what is really important is that Ukraine has now become a testing ground for modern warfare. They've pioneered FP drones, small unit manoeuvres, electronic warfare protection, naval drones, drones for logistics and prisoner capture. This is fantastic. And Ukraine has institutionalised a test in Ukraine program. We need to learn from the Ukrainians and my Lords. No one has mentioned this. £3.5 billion in UK export finance has enabled Ukraine to build and reconstruct six bridges in the Kyiv region, supported delivery of mine countermeasure vessels.
I'm proud of that. And on top of that, there are 2800 sanctions. And yet since November 2022, Russia has gained only 1% of Ukrainian territory. Its losses are horrific. More than 1 million soldiers have been killed or wounded. Has it been mentioned? And Russia is also losing huge amounts of material 4000 tanks, 9000 armoured vehicles, 2000 artillery pieces and it's failing to achieve its goals on the battlefield. And I want to acknowledge the noble Lord Lord Barons excellent maiden speech with all his expertise.
My Lords Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, said that he would be prepared to station Britain's troops in Ukraine in peace. Would the minister confirm that? And the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, and leaders of Nordic countries have said that they're confident that using Russian frozen assets for Ukraine and benefit would be approved by December. Do we support that? My Lords, I conclude with this. Nick Robinson interviewed Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, our former Chief of Defence Staff, recently, and he said this if a snail had left Rostov on Don and Russia on the 24th of February 2022, by now it would have crossed all the way through Ukraine and it would be half way through Poland.
That's how difficult Russia is finding it just to get across those four oblasts. If Russia carries on at that pace, as it currently is, it will take 4.4 years to get the remaining territory of those four oblasts. And having lost a million people killed and wounded, it will lose a further 2 million killed and wounded. So this is about Ukraine's bravery, Ukraine's courage, our support to Ukraine, to keep them in the fight and to keep imposing that cost on Russia. And my Lords, I conclude with this quote from Yuval Noah Harari in the Financial Times.
He said, War is not won by the side that conquers more land, destroyed more cities, or kills more people. War is won by the side that achieves its political aims. And in Ukraine, it is already clear that Putin has failed to achieve his chief war aim the destruction of the Ukrainian nation. The voice from this House, from the House of Lords to the world, to this country, to Ukraine is loud and clear. The United Kingdom stands by Ukraine 100% all the way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. My Lords, I would like to congratulate Lord Barrow and congratulate Lord Barrow and welcome him to this House, but also for the work that he has done for the people of Ukraine and continues
We must remember that the war actually started over a decade ago in Crimea in 2014, and it's a noble Lord, Lord Ricketts said in his excellent speech. Moscow's aim was to undermine NATO. But here's blunder number two by Putin. The week after the invasion, I was scheduled to speak to the EU ambassadors at their regular meeting at the EU Embassy in Smith Square. And during my speech, I looked at the ambassadors of Finland and Sweden, and I said, are you ready now to join NATO? And they said, we are ready within five minutes.
And sure enough, Finland and Sweden have now joined NATO to formidable defence powers. Finland able to muster hundreds of thousands of trained troops within weeks. They have a far longer border with Russia, more than 1400km and Ukraine does. And both countries are also formidable defence manufacturing powers and rifles, artillery, aircraft, you name it. And the noble Lord Lord Coaker and his excellent opening speech said that there's a lack of equipment and I believe my Lords we cannot support Ukraine in a half hearted way.
Every single peer who has spoken in this debate, whether independent or from any party, we are united in defending and supporting Ukraine. But I do believe we've got to do it all the way. Why don't we give them the Tomahawks? President Zelenskyy said give me wings when he came here and addressed us as an honorary group captain and 601 Squadron and the RAF. I'm so proud that it is the RAF that is now training Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s. And my Lords, I'm like a stuck record.
In the 2019 debate on the 70th anniversary of NATO, I said then when we were spending 2% of GDP on defence, we should be spending 3%. Does the Minister agree that that is what we should be doing? And Russia's illegal invasion continues to devastate Ukraine as a country displaced millions undermine European and global security? The fighting is intense, and yet Russia's progress is limited, and Ukraine still holds the fortified fortress belt. And what is happening now is Russia has intensified its missile and drone campaign just in one week.
Earlier this month, they launched more than 3000 drones, 92 missiles and 1400 glide bombs. And while financial support for Ukraine has been absolutely amazing, and on top of that, I'm proud of the way that the UK leads the coalition of the willing with France. I'm proud in the way that the UK leads in the United Nations and in other resolutions that are required and my Lords. Why are we worried about escalation already? The Russians have in have incursions in Estonian airspace in Poland.
We've got to deal with this and face up to it. And what is really important is that Ukraine has now become a testing ground for modern warfare. They've pioneered FP drones, small unit manoeuvres, electronic warfare protection, naval drones, drones for logistics and prisoner capture. This is fantastic. And Ukraine has institutionalised a test in Ukraine program. We need to learn from the Ukrainians and my Lords. No one has mentioned this. £3.5 billion in UK export finance has enabled Ukraine to build and reconstruct six bridges in the Kyiv region, supported delivery of mine countermeasure vessels.
I'm proud of that. And on top of that, there are 2800 sanctions. And yet since November 2022, Russia has gained only 1% of Ukrainian territory. Its losses are horrific. More than 1 million soldiers have been killed or wounded. Has it been mentioned? And Russia is also losing huge amounts of material 4000 tanks, 9000 armoured vehicles, 2000 artillery pieces and it's failing to achieve its goals on the battlefield. And I want to acknowledge the noble Lord Lord Barons excellent maiden speech with all his expertise.
My Lords Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, said that he would be prepared to station Britain's troops in Ukraine in peace. Would the minister confirm that? And the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, and leaders of Nordic countries have said that they're confident that using Russian frozen assets for Ukraine and benefit would be approved by December. Do we support that? My Lords, I conclude with this. Nick Robinson interviewed Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, our former Chief of Defence Staff, recently, and he said this if a snail had left Rostov on Don and Russia on the 24th of February 2022, by now it would have crossed all the way through Ukraine and it would be half way through Poland.
That's how difficult Russia is finding it just to get across those four oblasts. If Russia carries on at that pace, as it currently is, it will take 4.4 years to get the remaining territory of those four oblasts. And having lost a million people killed and wounded, it will lose a further 2 million killed and wounded. So this is about Ukraine's bravery, Ukraine's courage, our support to Ukraine, to keep them in the fight and to keep imposing that cost on Russia. And my Lords, I conclude with this quote from Yuval Noah Harari in the Financial Times.
He said, War is not won by the side that conquers more land, destroyed more cities, or kills more people. War is won by the side that achieves its political aims. And in Ukraine, it is already clear that Putin has failed to achieve his chief war aim the destruction of the Ukrainian nation. The voice from this House, from the House of Lords to the world, to this country, to Ukraine is loud and clear. The United Kingdom stands by Ukraine 100% all the way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. My Lords, I would like to congratulate Lord Barrow and congratulate Lord Barrow and welcome him to this House, but also for the work that he has done for the people of Ukraine and continues
12:32
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
to do for them, which I know you will do long. Thank you so much. I thank Lord Coaker for bringing this important debate to the House. After more than three and a half years of full scale war in Ukraine, the human cost remains staggering. According to the UN, over 10,000 civilians have been killed and more than 20,000 injured since Russias invasion in 222. I'm sorry, in 2022, around 6.5 million Ukrainians remain displaced abroad, 90% of whom are women and children, and 3.6 million internally.
Internationally displaced, 59% of which are women. Inside the country, behind whose numbers there are families, homes, futures interrupted and for many women have marked by have marked by violence and the loss and the loss that cannot be spoken aloud about. As many colleagues know, I have worked for decades on the women, peace and security agenda. I therefore want to focus my remarks today on the gendered impact of this war, the importance of accountability, the practical steps the UK can take to ensure that justice and recovery for survivors.
The Georgetown Institute for women, Peace and Security, where I serve as a global ambassador and advisor, continues to document these realities through the Conflict Tracker for Ukraine. Their data shows that since 2022, there has been a sharp escalation of conflict related sexual violence, particularly in occupied areas. Survivors have described systematic abuse used to terrorise communities, yet prosecutions remain painfully rare. The institute's research also finds that despite this suffering, Ukraine women are not only victims, they are leaders in humanitarian response, local peace building and governance.
Women's organisation, despite their critical forefront role, received less than 1% of international aid, a gap now widened by the US foreign aid cuts. My Lords. There are organising shelter, food, trauma care and documentation of the war crimes. Many also have joined the armed forces, with now over 100,000 recorded within Ukraine's military personnel, including a large number on the front line. These women my Lords are redefining what resilience looks like under fire. But as Georgetown reminds us, inclusion must extend beyond courage.
It must shape peace. Women must have a seat at the table in all reconciliation and reconstruction and accountability process, without their voices recovery my Lords is incomplete. Justice too, cannot wait. And here I wish to raise three practical issues that deserve scrutiny. My Lords. First, the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club, which many of my colleagues have mentioned, and we had a debate here, not not recently on this issue. The interest accrued on those frozen funds, as well as any associated tax revenue, should be directed to the survivors of human rights violations caused by this war.
It is an inappropriate my Lords for those revenues to flow into the Treasury's general budget when they're morally and indeed publicly earmarked for the victims of aggression. My Lords, I hope that the Minister can update the House on whether that interest is being held, where that interest is being held and reinvested, or applies towards reparations. Secondly, I wish to ask about the 800,000 seized from the Russian oligarchs under the Proceeds of Crime Bill 2022. These funds currently sit in a holding account while the department decides their destinations.
My Lords directing them towards repatriation for survivors would send a strong signal that the assets of of of these individuals will not rest comfortably in limbo, but they will be used to repair the harm and and help the cause. My Lords. Third, I would welcome progress on the establishing of the Internal Claims Commission for Ukraine under the Council of Europe. The mechanism could come in an over in a cornerstone of accountability. If a survivor centred, inclusive and adequately resourced.
I ask the government to confirm what steps the United Kingdom is taking to encourage other steps other states to sign and ratify the convention. Whether we plan to contribute technical or financial support, and how we would ensure my Lords that the Commission covers violations dating back to 2014, as survivors and civil society have requested. From my own conversations with Ukraine women leaders, their message is clear justice must no longer begin in 2022. The trauma of the Crimea and the Donbas cannot be erased.
It is. It is my Lords. As we debate sanctions and mechanisms, we must remember. We must. We must remember that missing children. As many of my colleagues have taught us further, we must remember that behind every policy, our survivors, women searching for their missing husbands, children uprooted by occupation, grandmothers holding, holding together entire families. The world Bank now estimates Ukraine's reconstruction costs is over 486 billion, a figure based on a joint assessment of damage up to December 2023.
Yes, my Lords rebuilding infrastructure, above all, will not restore what has been lost. Rebuilding trust and safety for justice is absolutely important. I also wish to acknowledge the remarkable role of Ukraine's civil society, often led by women's organisations such as La Strada Ukraine, which provides support for survivors of sexual violence and trafficking, which is still happening despite the war. They continue to operate under shellfire, often without funding, while ensuring that evidence reaches international investigators. The UK has a proud history of championing the women, peace and security agenda, beginning with our own national plan and poverty and our own national plan and preventing Sexual violence in conflict initiative.
We must now ensure that those commitments are more than words on paper that remains sustained. Funding for survivor centred justice and constant diplomatic pressure for accounting
**** Possible New Speaker ****
accountability. As for accountability. Thank you. Thank you. My Lords.
Internationally displaced, 59% of which are women. Inside the country, behind whose numbers there are families, homes, futures interrupted and for many women have marked by have marked by violence and the loss and the loss that cannot be spoken aloud about. As many colleagues know, I have worked for decades on the women, peace and security agenda. I therefore want to focus my remarks today on the gendered impact of this war, the importance of accountability, the practical steps the UK can take to ensure that justice and recovery for survivors.
The Georgetown Institute for women, Peace and Security, where I serve as a global ambassador and advisor, continues to document these realities through the Conflict Tracker for Ukraine. Their data shows that since 2022, there has been a sharp escalation of conflict related sexual violence, particularly in occupied areas. Survivors have described systematic abuse used to terrorise communities, yet prosecutions remain painfully rare. The institute's research also finds that despite this suffering, Ukraine women are not only victims, they are leaders in humanitarian response, local peace building and governance.
Women's organisation, despite their critical forefront role, received less than 1% of international aid, a gap now widened by the US foreign aid cuts. My Lords. There are organising shelter, food, trauma care and documentation of the war crimes. Many also have joined the armed forces, with now over 100,000 recorded within Ukraine's military personnel, including a large number on the front line. These women my Lords are redefining what resilience looks like under fire. But as Georgetown reminds us, inclusion must extend beyond courage.
It must shape peace. Women must have a seat at the table in all reconciliation and reconstruction and accountability process, without their voices recovery my Lords is incomplete. Justice too, cannot wait. And here I wish to raise three practical issues that deserve scrutiny. My Lords. First, the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club, which many of my colleagues have mentioned, and we had a debate here, not not recently on this issue. The interest accrued on those frozen funds, as well as any associated tax revenue, should be directed to the survivors of human rights violations caused by this war.
It is an inappropriate my Lords for those revenues to flow into the Treasury's general budget when they're morally and indeed publicly earmarked for the victims of aggression. My Lords, I hope that the Minister can update the House on whether that interest is being held, where that interest is being held and reinvested, or applies towards reparations. Secondly, I wish to ask about the 800,000 seized from the Russian oligarchs under the Proceeds of Crime Bill 2022. These funds currently sit in a holding account while the department decides their destinations.
My Lords directing them towards repatriation for survivors would send a strong signal that the assets of of of these individuals will not rest comfortably in limbo, but they will be used to repair the harm and and help the cause. My Lords. Third, I would welcome progress on the establishing of the Internal Claims Commission for Ukraine under the Council of Europe. The mechanism could come in an over in a cornerstone of accountability. If a survivor centred, inclusive and adequately resourced.
I ask the government to confirm what steps the United Kingdom is taking to encourage other steps other states to sign and ratify the convention. Whether we plan to contribute technical or financial support, and how we would ensure my Lords that the Commission covers violations dating back to 2014, as survivors and civil society have requested. From my own conversations with Ukraine women leaders, their message is clear justice must no longer begin in 2022. The trauma of the Crimea and the Donbas cannot be erased.
It is. It is my Lords. As we debate sanctions and mechanisms, we must remember. We must. We must remember that missing children. As many of my colleagues have taught us further, we must remember that behind every policy, our survivors, women searching for their missing husbands, children uprooted by occupation, grandmothers holding, holding together entire families. The world Bank now estimates Ukraine's reconstruction costs is over 486 billion, a figure based on a joint assessment of damage up to December 2023.
Yes, my Lords rebuilding infrastructure, above all, will not restore what has been lost. Rebuilding trust and safety for justice is absolutely important. I also wish to acknowledge the remarkable role of Ukraine's civil society, often led by women's organisations such as La Strada Ukraine, which provides support for survivors of sexual violence and trafficking, which is still happening despite the war. They continue to operate under shellfire, often without funding, while ensuring that evidence reaches international investigators. The UK has a proud history of championing the women, peace and security agenda, beginning with our own national plan and poverty and our own national plan and preventing Sexual violence in conflict initiative.
We must now ensure that those commitments are more than words on paper that remains sustained. Funding for survivor centred justice and constant diplomatic pressure for accounting
**** Possible New Speaker ****
accountability. As for accountability. Thank you. Thank you. My Lords.
12:38
Baroness Pidding (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I start by thanking. Lord Coaker for bringing forward this debate and congratulate Lord Barrow on his excellent maiden speech. Russia's full scale invasion, launched over three years ago, is an act of unwarranted aggression and a complete repudiation of rules based international order, which this House has long defended. Today, I wish to focus on the appalling humanitarian crisis caused by Russia's disgraceful abduction of Ukrainian children, which underlines the UK's moral obligation to explore every possible opportunity to support Ukraine's economy so that its armed forces can continue to push back against Putin's war machine.
Of all the crimes committed by Putin's regime, none is more barbaric than the systematic, state sponsored abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children. The figures my Lords are staggering. Save the children have estimated that over 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly transferred to Russia or Russian occupied territories. This is not some unfortunate accident or a by-product of modern conflict. I believe it is designed to fatally undermine Ukraine by destroying its future. We hear reports that these young lives are being exposed to forced militarisation placed in camps, military bases and foster families, all with the intent of dissolving their Ukrainian roots.
The UK has rightly played an important role in marshalling international pressure on Moscow. Yet this is the bare minimum. We have an absolute moral obligation to do everything we can to ensure Ukraine's survival and eventual triumph. Like Lord Bruce, I remind noble Lords that the UK was one of four signatories to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, by which Ukraine agreed to relinquish its Soviet era nuclear arsenal in return for security assurances. Assurances. The failings of the West to stand by these assurances, combined with Russia's endless and increasing threats, have demonstrated to autocrats across the globe that nuclear weapons give you the right to act with impunity.
We therefore have a moral obligation to ensure that the international pressure on Moscow is not just maintained, but dramatically intensified. Every individual, every facilitator and every institution complicit in this monstrous scheme must face the full force of our sanctions and travel bans. The safe and immediate return of these children is not negotiable. It is a moral duty and a prerequisite for any just peace. But moral clarity alone is not enough. The past century century decisively has demonstrated that peace is secured through strength, and that strength must be economic as well as military.
Ukraine cannot defeat Russia aggression without a resilient and self-sustaining economy. We have been leaders, rightly pledging £21 billion in supports. Its 2022. But our focus must now shift firmly to the long term. Military aid is vital. It buys time, but economic aid buys the future. We must ensure that Ukraine has the fiscal stability to pay its teachers, heat its homes and rebuild its infrastructure, all while fighting a war of national survival. Survival. My Lords, we must recognise that trade is a superior long term strategy to aid.
While we rightly send funds and military equipment, we must also ensure Ukraine can earn its own way to recovery. The UK's free trade agreement with Ukraine has been a critical lifeline, allowing Russian, Ukrainian farmers and manufacturers working under the most impossible conditions to sustain their industries. These exports generate crucial foreign revenue, with the tax receipts directly funding Ukraine's armed forces. There is, however, a looming cut off for Ukrainian poultry and eggs, which was singled out for a two year extension as opposed to five as originally intended.
At this critical stage, we must ensure that Ukraine can earn every last penny it can, and I call on the government to ensure that Ukrainian farmers retain tax free access to the UK market. My Lords, let us reject the defeatism that says this conflict is a stalemate. Let us reject the moral blindness that accepts the abduction of children as an inevitable consequence of war. Let us instead commit to a policy rooted in two unshakeable pillars. First, the tireless pursuit of justice and the return of every single Ukrainian child, and second, the unwavering provision of maximum economic support, ensuring Ukraine does not just survive this brutal
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invasion but emerges victorious and whole. Yeah. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Thank you. My Lord Coaker. Pleasure to follow. The noble Lady.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness fitting. As widely acknowledged. Far from crumbling Ukraine under President Zelensky's Ukraine under President Zelensky's inspiring leadership and with Western help, has held off Russia Western help, has held off Russia what all Russia has unleashed over nearly four years of combat. nearly four years of combat. Putin's 2022 special operation assumed there would be sufficient assumed there would be sufficient support for it. Throughout Ukraine, Russian forces would quickly
Baroness Pidding (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I start by thanking. Lord Coaker for bringing forward this debate and congratulate Lord Barrow on his excellent maiden speech. Russia's full scale invasion, launched over three years ago, is an act of unwarranted aggression and a complete repudiation of rules based international order, which this House has long defended. Today, I wish to focus on the appalling humanitarian crisis caused by Russia's disgraceful abduction of Ukrainian children, which underlines the UK's moral obligation to explore every possible opportunity to support Ukraine's economy so that its armed forces can continue to push back against Putin's war machine.
Of all the crimes committed by Putin's regime, none is more barbaric than the systematic, state sponsored abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children. The figures my Lords are staggering. Save the children have estimated that over 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly transferred to Russia or Russian occupied territories. This is not some unfortunate accident or a by-product of modern conflict. I believe it is designed to fatally undermine Ukraine by destroying its future. We hear reports that these young lives are being exposed to forced militarisation placed in camps, military bases and foster families, all with the intent of dissolving their Ukrainian roots.
The UK has rightly played an important role in marshalling international pressure on Moscow. Yet this is the bare minimum. We have an absolute moral obligation to do everything we can to ensure Ukraine's survival and eventual triumph. Like Lord Bruce, I remind noble Lords that the UK was one of four signatories to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, by which Ukraine agreed to relinquish its Soviet era nuclear arsenal in return for security assurances. Assurances. The failings of the West to stand by these assurances, combined with Russia's endless and increasing threats, have demonstrated to autocrats across the globe that nuclear weapons give you the right to act with impunity.
We therefore have a moral obligation to ensure that the international pressure on Moscow is not just maintained, but dramatically intensified. Every individual, every facilitator and every institution complicit in this monstrous scheme must face the full force of our sanctions and travel bans. The safe and immediate return of these children is not negotiable. It is a moral duty and a prerequisite for any just peace. But moral clarity alone is not enough. The past century century decisively has demonstrated that peace is secured through strength, and that strength must be economic as well as military.
Ukraine cannot defeat Russia aggression without a resilient and self-sustaining economy. We have been leaders, rightly pledging £21 billion in supports. Its 2022. But our focus must now shift firmly to the long term. Military aid is vital. It buys time, but economic aid buys the future. We must ensure that Ukraine has the fiscal stability to pay its teachers, heat its homes and rebuild its infrastructure, all while fighting a war of national survival. Survival. My Lords, we must recognise that trade is a superior long term strategy to aid.
While we rightly send funds and military equipment, we must also ensure Ukraine can earn its own way to recovery. The UK's free trade agreement with Ukraine has been a critical lifeline, allowing Russian, Ukrainian farmers and manufacturers working under the most impossible conditions to sustain their industries. These exports generate crucial foreign revenue, with the tax receipts directly funding Ukraine's armed forces. There is, however, a looming cut off for Ukrainian poultry and eggs, which was singled out for a two year extension as opposed to five as originally intended.
At this critical stage, we must ensure that Ukraine can earn every last penny it can, and I call on the government to ensure that Ukrainian farmers retain tax free access to the UK market. My Lords, let us reject the defeatism that says this conflict is a stalemate. Let us reject the moral blindness that accepts the abduction of children as an inevitable consequence of war. Let us instead commit to a policy rooted in two unshakeable pillars. First, the tireless pursuit of justice and the return of every single Ukrainian child, and second, the unwavering provision of maximum economic support, ensuring Ukraine does not just survive this brutal
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invasion but emerges victorious and whole. Yeah. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Thank you. My Lord Coaker. Pleasure to follow. The noble Lady.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness fitting. As widely acknowledged. Far from crumbling Ukraine under President Zelensky's Ukraine under President Zelensky's inspiring leadership and with Western help, has held off Russia Western help, has held off Russia what all Russia has unleashed over nearly four years of combat. nearly four years of combat. Putin's 2022 special operation assumed there would be sufficient assumed there would be sufficient support for it. Throughout Ukraine, Russian forces would quickly
12:44
Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
Russian forces would quickly achieve a decisive result. Time has shown that this was a complete miscalculation. And so after yet another summer of combat with heavy losses in equipment and manpower, Russia seems little nearer achieving their strategic aims. Why? Quite the numerical advantage in manpower and technology and operational strength. Have they really committed to an all out effort to win, but lack the right operational tactics? Was the whole strategy just that in it? Well, some in the West might agree.
It is naive to think the Russians are such a basket case. Certainly and rightly, the West considers Russia a real threat to NATO. Maybe not with quite the same expansionist fervour of the communist regime of the old Soviet Union, but with a mix of attack capabilities and nuclear too. They would be a formidable foe for NATO. But, my Lord, take a look at NATO through a Kremlin telescope. Far from being a defensive alliance, it claims NATO has advanced further and further east across Europe, advanced now with ever greater capability right up to the very borders of western Russia.
America and Canada threaten eastern Russia across the North Pacific and from the far north in a large scale major pincer movement themselves. Past masters of deception and falsehood. The Russians must presume on this evidence, NATO's defensive claims. Is that false a claim, as any that Russia makes Oleg Gordievsky the highly rated KGB colonel, ran so successfully by MI6, gave us massive high grade intelligence, one piece we should particularly recall, he said, that the Kremlin, then the Kremlin's then abiding fear was that nature would attack them.
Is that perhaps even now, still abiding fear? Have they not committed themselves fully against Ukraine to ensure that their response to any NATO action would be robust? And, if needs be, even nuclear? But rightly, we acknowledge that there are still too many weaknesses in NATO defence deterrent posture for which more money must be found. But, my Lord, rather than descend into some further arms race abyss, surely the time for diplomacy and peaceful resolution of the existing tensions and warfare has never been greater.
But this is achievable with Putin in the Kremlin. The Wagner Group revolt against him in 2023 fizzled out. Leader Prigozhin was eliminated. Since then, some high ranking military commanders have been disgraced, accused of failure or corruption. Are they a pool of resentment, even of revolt? The impact of sanctions, albeit slow, are strengthening. Fuel rationing is being introduced. The large numbers of battlefield casualties which reference has been made will become more widely known. All these are strong downsides for Putin.
What would he accept? A ceasefire or frontier freeze if he doesn't have under Russian control, not only the Ukrainian regions annexed prior to February 2022, but at least all the Donbas and some neighbouring cities as well. And of course, no chance of Ukraine ever joining NATO or the EU. Anything less would look like failure. He would be a goner. So to make real progress, must a less intransigent individual or government first take over my Lords time will tell.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As the noble Lord, the Ministers inspiring speech has emphasised and
It is naive to think the Russians are such a basket case. Certainly and rightly, the West considers Russia a real threat to NATO. Maybe not with quite the same expansionist fervour of the communist regime of the old Soviet Union, but with a mix of attack capabilities and nuclear too. They would be a formidable foe for NATO. But, my Lord, take a look at NATO through a Kremlin telescope. Far from being a defensive alliance, it claims NATO has advanced further and further east across Europe, advanced now with ever greater capability right up to the very borders of western Russia.
America and Canada threaten eastern Russia across the North Pacific and from the far north in a large scale major pincer movement themselves. Past masters of deception and falsehood. The Russians must presume on this evidence, NATO's defensive claims. Is that false a claim, as any that Russia makes Oleg Gordievsky the highly rated KGB colonel, ran so successfully by MI6, gave us massive high grade intelligence, one piece we should particularly recall, he said, that the Kremlin, then the Kremlin's then abiding fear was that nature would attack them.
Is that perhaps even now, still abiding fear? Have they not committed themselves fully against Ukraine to ensure that their response to any NATO action would be robust? And, if needs be, even nuclear? But rightly, we acknowledge that there are still too many weaknesses in NATO defence deterrent posture for which more money must be found. But, my Lord, rather than descend into some further arms race abyss, surely the time for diplomacy and peaceful resolution of the existing tensions and warfare has never been greater.
But this is achievable with Putin in the Kremlin. The Wagner Group revolt against him in 2023 fizzled out. Leader Prigozhin was eliminated. Since then, some high ranking military commanders have been disgraced, accused of failure or corruption. Are they a pool of resentment, even of revolt? The impact of sanctions, albeit slow, are strengthening. Fuel rationing is being introduced. The large numbers of battlefield casualties which reference has been made will become more widely known. All these are strong downsides for Putin.
What would he accept? A ceasefire or frontier freeze if he doesn't have under Russian control, not only the Ukrainian regions annexed prior to February 2022, but at least all the Donbas and some neighbouring cities as well. And of course, no chance of Ukraine ever joining NATO or the EU. Anything less would look like failure. He would be a goner. So to make real progress, must a less intransigent individual or government first take over my Lords time will tell.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As the noble Lord, the Ministers inspiring speech has emphasised and
12:49
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Conservative)
inspiring speech has emphasised and Lord Barrow's excellent maiden speech has reiterated. All the indications are that Russia is preparing for a long war. The Kremlin continues to invest in the militarisation and mobilisation of Russian society and its defence industrial base. Indeed, it is now mobilising reservists on a rolling basis to fight in Ukraine. The Institute for the Study of War assesses that Russia has entered its phase zero stage, investing in the informational and psychological condition setting to prepare for a possible war.
Even beyond Ukrainian borders, the West has made progress in recognising the Russian threat and has started gradually to increase its defence industrial capability in order to support Ukraine and our own defence. But we remain in a reactive posture. We're not yet sorry. We're yet to mobilise our support of Ukraine fully and yet to counter Russia's growing malign activities in Europe meaningfully, meaningfully. As a result, Putin sees little reason to stop and the latest balloon attacks on Lithuanian airports from Belarus are a case in point.
As Edward Lucas pointed out in The Times yesterday, this is brazen psychological warfare against NATO. Yet the West has all the necessary capacity to counter the Russian threat and take us off this trajectory towards a wider war. Russia is not weak, but it is weak relative to its present goals. Three years into the war, Putin has failed to achieve any of the stated aims of his so-called special military operation, military operation. And as we heard from the noble and gallant Lord Lord Stirrup, there's been over 1 million Russian casualties.
The battle for Pokrovsk has now been going on for one year, three months, one week and five days. What has helped Putin mask Russia's many vulnerabilities is Western incrementalism, gradual incohesive pressure on Russia that has granted him military sanctuaries and space to reconstitute. Yet, as Natalia Bhargava of the Institute of the Study of War has pointed out, quote, the combined GDP of NATO countries non NATO, European Union states and the US's Asian allies is over $63 trillion.
Russian GDP is of the order of 1.9 trillion. China is enabling Russia but is not fully mobilised on its behalf. If we lean in and surge, Russia loses, unquote, to prevent the West from achieving this kind of unity and momentum, the Kremlin continues to wage its cognitive war effort aimed at persuading us not to take more vigorous action, in particular by giving or selling long range missiles, which would deny Putin his military sanctuary spaces deep inside Russia. Russia's way of doing this range from a continued nuclear blackmail and mixed diplomatic signals, to blaming the West and Ukraine for Russia's own failure meaningfully to engage in negotiations.
All too often, Russia's useful idiots in the West amplify its disinformation campaigns. To break the cycle. We need to put Putin on the defensive. Ways of doing this have been clear all along, primarily helping Ukraine realise its full defence industrial base potential. Ukraine went from single digit capacity before the invasion to a capacity of $30 billion. Today, Ukraine's Home-grown weapons systems have been a consistent source of her advantage and hopefully in January, Flamingo will be deployed, which is a deceptively named 1800 mile range, 560 mile an hour Jets powered cruise missile with a 1150 kilogram warhead.
My Lords. We need to stop imagining that we can ever achieve a lasting peace in Europe without helping Ukraine inflict decisive battlefield defeat on Russia. Above all, we must get into a proactive and out of our reactive posture and do everything possible to help Ukraine degrade Russia's capacity to continue the war. We are part of the coalition of the willing, but all too many other Western countries are part of the coalition of the waiting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Hello. I'd like to start with. The one. Uncontroversial thing that I'm going.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
going. To say, which is to welcome Lord Barrow. And look forward to his contribution, particularly in view of his past career. I am Speaker of his past career. I am Speaker number 28, with the exception of my good friend Lord Skidelsky. I am
Even beyond Ukrainian borders, the West has made progress in recognising the Russian threat and has started gradually to increase its defence industrial capability in order to support Ukraine and our own defence. But we remain in a reactive posture. We're not yet sorry. We're yet to mobilise our support of Ukraine fully and yet to counter Russia's growing malign activities in Europe meaningfully, meaningfully. As a result, Putin sees little reason to stop and the latest balloon attacks on Lithuanian airports from Belarus are a case in point.
As Edward Lucas pointed out in The Times yesterday, this is brazen psychological warfare against NATO. Yet the West has all the necessary capacity to counter the Russian threat and take us off this trajectory towards a wider war. Russia is not weak, but it is weak relative to its present goals. Three years into the war, Putin has failed to achieve any of the stated aims of his so-called special military operation, military operation. And as we heard from the noble and gallant Lord Lord Stirrup, there's been over 1 million Russian casualties.
The battle for Pokrovsk has now been going on for one year, three months, one week and five days. What has helped Putin mask Russia's many vulnerabilities is Western incrementalism, gradual incohesive pressure on Russia that has granted him military sanctuaries and space to reconstitute. Yet, as Natalia Bhargava of the Institute of the Study of War has pointed out, quote, the combined GDP of NATO countries non NATO, European Union states and the US's Asian allies is over $63 trillion.
Russian GDP is of the order of 1.9 trillion. China is enabling Russia but is not fully mobilised on its behalf. If we lean in and surge, Russia loses, unquote, to prevent the West from achieving this kind of unity and momentum, the Kremlin continues to wage its cognitive war effort aimed at persuading us not to take more vigorous action, in particular by giving or selling long range missiles, which would deny Putin his military sanctuary spaces deep inside Russia. Russia's way of doing this range from a continued nuclear blackmail and mixed diplomatic signals, to blaming the West and Ukraine for Russia's own failure meaningfully to engage in negotiations.
All too often, Russia's useful idiots in the West amplify its disinformation campaigns. To break the cycle. We need to put Putin on the defensive. Ways of doing this have been clear all along, primarily helping Ukraine realise its full defence industrial base potential. Ukraine went from single digit capacity before the invasion to a capacity of $30 billion. Today, Ukraine's Home-grown weapons systems have been a consistent source of her advantage and hopefully in January, Flamingo will be deployed, which is a deceptively named 1800 mile range, 560 mile an hour Jets powered cruise missile with a 1150 kilogram warhead.
My Lords. We need to stop imagining that we can ever achieve a lasting peace in Europe without helping Ukraine inflict decisive battlefield defeat on Russia. Above all, we must get into a proactive and out of our reactive posture and do everything possible to help Ukraine degrade Russia's capacity to continue the war. We are part of the coalition of the willing, but all too many other Western countries are part of the coalition of the waiting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Hello. I'd like to start with. The one. Uncontroversial thing that I'm going.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
going. To say, which is to welcome Lord Barrow. And look forward to his contribution, particularly in view of his past career. I am Speaker of his past career. I am Speaker number 28, with the exception of my good friend Lord Skidelsky. I am
12:54
Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Balfe (Conservative)
good friend Lord Skidelsky. I am not imagining that anyone else apart from me is going to upset the consensus. The fact of the matter is that firstly, the British public is not. United behind what we're trying to do. They don't actually understand what we're trying to do. They don't know what we're trying to do. They don't know how much money we have sent to the Ukraine and subsidised.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In the Ukraine. Now, I visited the Ukraine on 11
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Now, I visited the Ukraine on 11 occasions, so I'm not someone who's just been a holidaymaker or looked from afar. I spent a lot of that time actually in the east, in the time actually in the east, in the Donbas, where it was quite clear to me that the great majority of the Russian speaking population were in no way friends of Kyiv. Most of no way friends of Kyiv. Most of them wished it to go away, and the more laws that were passed in the more laws that were passed in the capital, which did things like restrict the Russian language and place other burdens on Russian speaking families, the further they divorced themselves from the support in the East.
I remember going to one polling station in an election I looked at and we got to election I looked at and we got to the count and they emptied this box and there were about 3000 votes in it, and there were just three that weren't for the party of the regions, which was the local party. And the returning officer said, oh, well, three people who can't read and disallowed the votes, and it allowed the votes for the opposition.
But the fact. Is that we made a complete mess. We supported the American drive, which was basically to break up the Ukraine. Let's make no doubt about it. President Yanukovych, who was elected largely with the votes of the East, was destabilised to a point where when he left the Ukraine, the East basically left the Ukraine as well. They thought, are part of this democracy has gone. And of course, it was very odd democracy. I see Baroness Sumy is on the front bench for the Liberal Democrats.
She will know that her former colleague in the European Parliament, Pat Cox, was the special envoy to the Ukraine. He did a huge amount of work, but he couldn't get the two sides together. They just didn't want to talk. They preferred to drift towards where they are now. Where are we going? To a rubble strewn country that will make Germany look like a garden city. We're looking at a country which is going to be ruined for years, and where when the war is over, we will find that.
The Americans, however, are missing. And just look at Afghanistan, 1 or 2 other places, if you want some of that. It's got to be rebuilt. But also, frankly, I never thought I'd say this, but President Trump is probably the best hope we've got. He's the only person who's willing to concede that there could be a ceasefire without there being reparations or blame on one side or the other. The other point is that China is certainly not going to follow our rules.
If you look back to my interview in 1965, when I joined the Foreign Office, I was asked by some very ageing diplomat because they always put a diplomat on the selection panel. Where do you think we'll be in a hundred years time about? And I said, China will be the worst enemy because we don't understand Confucianism and we still don't. We still brute group the two together. They're very different. China will outwit us long before we've beaten any Russians.
So my final point is, please, let's try and get this war stopped. People will lose. People will not get all they want, but they never will. So our aim as a country should be to join with President Trump in getting the war
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stopped. Now, I told you no one would like it. I draw.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In the Ukraine. Now, I visited the Ukraine on 11
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Now, I visited the Ukraine on 11 occasions, so I'm not someone who's just been a holidaymaker or looked from afar. I spent a lot of that time actually in the east, in the time actually in the east, in the Donbas, where it was quite clear to me that the great majority of the Russian speaking population were in no way friends of Kyiv. Most of no way friends of Kyiv. Most of them wished it to go away, and the more laws that were passed in the more laws that were passed in the capital, which did things like restrict the Russian language and place other burdens on Russian speaking families, the further they divorced themselves from the support in the East.
I remember going to one polling station in an election I looked at and we got to election I looked at and we got to the count and they emptied this box and there were about 3000 votes in it, and there were just three that weren't for the party of the regions, which was the local party. And the returning officer said, oh, well, three people who can't read and disallowed the votes, and it allowed the votes for the opposition.
But the fact. Is that we made a complete mess. We supported the American drive, which was basically to break up the Ukraine. Let's make no doubt about it. President Yanukovych, who was elected largely with the votes of the East, was destabilised to a point where when he left the Ukraine, the East basically left the Ukraine as well. They thought, are part of this democracy has gone. And of course, it was very odd democracy. I see Baroness Sumy is on the front bench for the Liberal Democrats.
She will know that her former colleague in the European Parliament, Pat Cox, was the special envoy to the Ukraine. He did a huge amount of work, but he couldn't get the two sides together. They just didn't want to talk. They preferred to drift towards where they are now. Where are we going? To a rubble strewn country that will make Germany look like a garden city. We're looking at a country which is going to be ruined for years, and where when the war is over, we will find that.
The Americans, however, are missing. And just look at Afghanistan, 1 or 2 other places, if you want some of that. It's got to be rebuilt. But also, frankly, I never thought I'd say this, but President Trump is probably the best hope we've got. He's the only person who's willing to concede that there could be a ceasefire without there being reparations or blame on one side or the other. The other point is that China is certainly not going to follow our rules.
If you look back to my interview in 1965, when I joined the Foreign Office, I was asked by some very ageing diplomat because they always put a diplomat on the selection panel. Where do you think we'll be in a hundred years time about? And I said, China will be the worst enemy because we don't understand Confucianism and we still don't. We still brute group the two together. They're very different. China will outwit us long before we've beaten any Russians.
So my final point is, please, let's try and get this war stopped. People will lose. People will not get all they want, but they never will. So our aim as a country should be to join with President Trump in getting the war
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stopped. Now, I told you no one would like it. I draw.
13:00
Lord Loomba (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I draw. Attention to the continuing plight of Ukrainian women who have plight of Ukrainian women who have lost their husbands in the ongoing conflict. Many of these widows are facing immense emotional, physical and financial hardship while striving to provide stability and hope for their children amid the devastation of war behind every life lost on the battlefield or in bombardment stands a bereaved family, a widow left to rebuild her life and protect her children in circumstances few of us can truly imagine.
When the conflict escalated in 2023, the United Kingdom showed great compassion by opening its doors to families fleeing the violence. I declare interest and would like to acknowledge the valuable role played by the Loomba Foundation in association with the Barnardos, which provided direct financial support to 1000 Ukrainian families during that difficult time. That partnership demonstrated how civil society, when working alongside government, can offer practical and immediate relief to those most in need. However, my Lords, the scale of suffering among Ukrainian widows continues to grow.
While the exact numbers are difficult to verify amid the chaos of war, reports from Ukraine indicate that tens of thousands of women have lost their husbands since the invasion began, many of them young mothers now raising children alone. The burden they carry extends far beyond financial strain. They face deep emotional trauma, loss of identity and the daunting challenge of navigating a shattered economy and disrupted services. Through my work with the Foundation, over many years, I have witnessed how conflict affects women left behind from South Asia to sub-Saharan Africa.
The story is tragically similar. Widows often become invisible victims of war, excluded from social support, denied opportunities for work, and stigmatised by cultural attitude. Without targeted assistance, their children risk falling into cycles of poverty and insecurity that can persist. Generations in Ukraine today, many widows lack access to counselling, information and even basic Income Support. Those displaced within Ukraine are across borders and particularly vulnerable, often unaware of what help is available. It is therefore essential that both international and domestic sponsors recognise the specific needs of these women and their children.
May I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, to inform the House how many Ukrainian families have so far been allowed to come and settle in the United Kingdom under the various visas and sponsorship schemes? Furthermore, what specific support has been provided to them in terms of access to social security, health care and education for their children? Finally, my Lords, I urge the government to continue working closely with the Government of Ukraine. And charitable organisations to ensure that widows and their families, both in Ukraine and here in the UK, receive the long term emotional, financial and practical support they so desperately need my helping by helping them rebuild their lives.
We not only uphold our humanitarian obligations, but also contribute to the future resilience and recovery of a nation that continues to fight
**** Possible New Speaker ****
courageously to for freedom. My Lord. So I begin by declaring the financial support I received the financial support I received for a visit this month to Ukraine with the all-party parliamentary group on Explosive weapons and group on Explosive weapons and their impacts, as recorded in the Register. As I spoke about in committee on October 16th. And in committee on October 16th. And in this space, I feel that I should declare that I am this year a student on the Royal College of Defence Studies Global Strategy Defence Studies Global Strategy programme, with parliamentarians from other major parties.
The work I saw in the context of the APPG
Lord Loomba (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I draw. Attention to the continuing plight of Ukrainian women who have plight of Ukrainian women who have lost their husbands in the ongoing conflict. Many of these widows are facing immense emotional, physical and financial hardship while striving to provide stability and hope for their children amid the devastation of war behind every life lost on the battlefield or in bombardment stands a bereaved family, a widow left to rebuild her life and protect her children in circumstances few of us can truly imagine.
When the conflict escalated in 2023, the United Kingdom showed great compassion by opening its doors to families fleeing the violence. I declare interest and would like to acknowledge the valuable role played by the Loomba Foundation in association with the Barnardos, which provided direct financial support to 1000 Ukrainian families during that difficult time. That partnership demonstrated how civil society, when working alongside government, can offer practical and immediate relief to those most in need. However, my Lords, the scale of suffering among Ukrainian widows continues to grow.
While the exact numbers are difficult to verify amid the chaos of war, reports from Ukraine indicate that tens of thousands of women have lost their husbands since the invasion began, many of them young mothers now raising children alone. The burden they carry extends far beyond financial strain. They face deep emotional trauma, loss of identity and the daunting challenge of navigating a shattered economy and disrupted services. Through my work with the Foundation, over many years, I have witnessed how conflict affects women left behind from South Asia to sub-Saharan Africa.
The story is tragically similar. Widows often become invisible victims of war, excluded from social support, denied opportunities for work, and stigmatised by cultural attitude. Without targeted assistance, their children risk falling into cycles of poverty and insecurity that can persist. Generations in Ukraine today, many widows lack access to counselling, information and even basic Income Support. Those displaced within Ukraine are across borders and particularly vulnerable, often unaware of what help is available. It is therefore essential that both international and domestic sponsors recognise the specific needs of these women and their children.
May I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, to inform the House how many Ukrainian families have so far been allowed to come and settle in the United Kingdom under the various visas and sponsorship schemes? Furthermore, what specific support has been provided to them in terms of access to social security, health care and education for their children? Finally, my Lords, I urge the government to continue working closely with the Government of Ukraine. And charitable organisations to ensure that widows and their families, both in Ukraine and here in the UK, receive the long term emotional, financial and practical support they so desperately need my helping by helping them rebuild their lives.
We not only uphold our humanitarian obligations, but also contribute to the future resilience and recovery of a nation that continues to fight
**** Possible New Speaker ****
courageously to for freedom. My Lord. So I begin by declaring the financial support I received the financial support I received for a visit this month to Ukraine with the all-party parliamentary group on Explosive weapons and group on Explosive weapons and their impacts, as recorded in the Register. As I spoke about in committee on October 16th. And in committee on October 16th. And in this space, I feel that I should declare that I am this year a student on the Royal College of Defence Studies Global Strategy Defence Studies Global Strategy programme, with parliamentarians from other major parties.
The work I saw in the context of the APPG
13:05
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
I saw in the context of the APPG visit is my starting point today. Ukraine is now, as a result of the long term Russian aggression at the leading edge of experience in practice, in clearing mines and other explosive weapons and some of the hideous booby trap weapons we saw at a visit to the Lviv State University of Life Safety. Ukraine also now sadly has world leading experience in treating their victims, particularly those needing prostheses, both civilian and military.
It is also having to deal with the awful threats from antimicrobial resistance, particularly in battlefield wounds. And I heard how frontline medics there are adapting to the issue in ways from which our medics can certainly learn. Now, many other noble lords have spoken about supporting Ukraine, and I and the Green Party very much back that approach. But I want to stress how much the Ukrainians can teach us, can share with us. Last night I joined Sophia Bohdan from the Green Party of Ukraine, speaking from Kyiv and Victoria Ball from the Climate Initiative at an online event run by the Green Ukraine Solidarity Campaign.
Among the major topics of our discussion was how Ukraine is already starting work on delivering a green transition while rebuilding from Russian attacks under extraordinarily difficult conditions, Ukrainians are seeing the need to build back better rather than just replace old, outdated technology approaches. And we can learn from that too. The destruction of the Kakhovka dam drew international attention to the environmental impacts of Russia's invasion. It has widely been referred to as ecocide, and that has spurred even further a drive to highlight such actions and ensure that they are punished.
While I was in Ukraine, I met fellow, a fellow member of the Ecocide Alliance, the MP Yulia Yushchenko. They're working really hard in this area, and Ukrainians have also been at the forefront of facing up to the hybrid war being waged by Russia. That is action being taken by Moscow, as other noble lords have said, not just against the Ukrainians but around the world, including in the UK. I briefly focus here on a particular part of that, the propaganda operations, what has also been called political warfare, the use of social media bots, the fuelling of internal conflicts and risks, black propaganda.
We saw this played out very clearly at Donetsk and Luhansk, as was exposed in 2019, in what have been become known as the Surkov leaks. Now, such tactics are not as new as some have claimed. I note the CIA's attempts to smuggle tons of printing and books behind the Iron Curtain from the 1950s onwards. Understanding of this is important, while also recognising that political warfare is now at a new scale and reach. But as the Ukrainians have found, in seeking to support and strengthen their democracy under the most difficult conditions, physical and technical defences against such efforts can only go so far.
But turning to our own situation for a second, dealing with the weaknesses in our own society is something we have to confront. As the noble Lady Baroness Suttie said at the start, when we hear talk about the Russian political war, about disinformation and other dark arts, we need to acknowledge that we in the UK are made vulnerable by poverty and inequality, by corruption, by the failure to stand up to the rhetoric of those who would fuel division and hatred. I would note the comments of the noble and gallant Lord Houghton, I would say, should be considered in the context of that, particularly when we're thinking about welfare spending and the forces that have driven poverty and inequality, which is neoliberal.
Ideologies and policies have to be acknowledged. One of the questions raised at the green event last night was how, after the war, do we stop the IMF and other international financial institutions doing disastrous damage to Ukraine with policies of austerity as the neoliberal ideology in post USSR? Russia drove the disastrous rise of the oligarchs and President Putin. Part of my answer was to say we have to be part of building a different world to support the Ukrainians. Our international positions should be uncompromisingly in support of the right of self-determination of human rights, the rule of law.
It is important we support those everywhere without favour. And in that context, I have to note what has emerged this week about British arms being used in the execution of war crimes by the RSF in Sudan. Weapons apparently supplied via the UAE. We have to stand for principles, my Lord. That's in our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
own interests and in the Ukrainians. My Lords I start by congratulating Lord Barrow on his congratulating Lord Barrow on his maiden speech and look forward to many, many more to come. I also many, many more to come. I also just want to also congratulate and thank Lord Coaker for such a powerful opening to this debate,
It is also having to deal with the awful threats from antimicrobial resistance, particularly in battlefield wounds. And I heard how frontline medics there are adapting to the issue in ways from which our medics can certainly learn. Now, many other noble lords have spoken about supporting Ukraine, and I and the Green Party very much back that approach. But I want to stress how much the Ukrainians can teach us, can share with us. Last night I joined Sophia Bohdan from the Green Party of Ukraine, speaking from Kyiv and Victoria Ball from the Climate Initiative at an online event run by the Green Ukraine Solidarity Campaign.
Among the major topics of our discussion was how Ukraine is already starting work on delivering a green transition while rebuilding from Russian attacks under extraordinarily difficult conditions, Ukrainians are seeing the need to build back better rather than just replace old, outdated technology approaches. And we can learn from that too. The destruction of the Kakhovka dam drew international attention to the environmental impacts of Russia's invasion. It has widely been referred to as ecocide, and that has spurred even further a drive to highlight such actions and ensure that they are punished.
While I was in Ukraine, I met fellow, a fellow member of the Ecocide Alliance, the MP Yulia Yushchenko. They're working really hard in this area, and Ukrainians have also been at the forefront of facing up to the hybrid war being waged by Russia. That is action being taken by Moscow, as other noble lords have said, not just against the Ukrainians but around the world, including in the UK. I briefly focus here on a particular part of that, the propaganda operations, what has also been called political warfare, the use of social media bots, the fuelling of internal conflicts and risks, black propaganda.
We saw this played out very clearly at Donetsk and Luhansk, as was exposed in 2019, in what have been become known as the Surkov leaks. Now, such tactics are not as new as some have claimed. I note the CIA's attempts to smuggle tons of printing and books behind the Iron Curtain from the 1950s onwards. Understanding of this is important, while also recognising that political warfare is now at a new scale and reach. But as the Ukrainians have found, in seeking to support and strengthen their democracy under the most difficult conditions, physical and technical defences against such efforts can only go so far.
But turning to our own situation for a second, dealing with the weaknesses in our own society is something we have to confront. As the noble Lady Baroness Suttie said at the start, when we hear talk about the Russian political war, about disinformation and other dark arts, we need to acknowledge that we in the UK are made vulnerable by poverty and inequality, by corruption, by the failure to stand up to the rhetoric of those who would fuel division and hatred. I would note the comments of the noble and gallant Lord Houghton, I would say, should be considered in the context of that, particularly when we're thinking about welfare spending and the forces that have driven poverty and inequality, which is neoliberal.
Ideologies and policies have to be acknowledged. One of the questions raised at the green event last night was how, after the war, do we stop the IMF and other international financial institutions doing disastrous damage to Ukraine with policies of austerity as the neoliberal ideology in post USSR? Russia drove the disastrous rise of the oligarchs and President Putin. Part of my answer was to say we have to be part of building a different world to support the Ukrainians. Our international positions should be uncompromisingly in support of the right of self-determination of human rights, the rule of law.
It is important we support those everywhere without favour. And in that context, I have to note what has emerged this week about British arms being used in the execution of war crimes by the RSF in Sudan. Weapons apparently supplied via the UAE. We have to stand for principles, my Lord. That's in our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
own interests and in the Ukrainians. My Lords I start by congratulating Lord Barrow on his congratulating Lord Barrow on his maiden speech and look forward to many, many more to come. I also many, many more to come. I also just want to also congratulate and thank Lord Coaker for such a powerful opening to this debate,
13:10
Lord Mott (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Mott (Conservative)
powerful opening to this debate, particularly in light perhaps, of some of the recent speeches. My Lords, I refer the House to my support for the Ukrainian Action charity, which provides emergency support, humanitarian aid, recovery and reconstruction, and thank all the hundreds of volunteers that every day make a difference. When I visited Kyiv recently, I saw first hand not just the scars of war on that brave country, but the determination of a nation fighting for its future. And we must recognise that what is at stake extends beyond the front line.
As many noble lords have said today, and indeed beyond the borders of Ukraine. The war launched by the Russian Federation against Ukraine is not simply territorial, it is existential. It threatens the principle that a free people can choose their own path. That is why the United Kingdom's ongoing support for Ukraine is not charity. It is principled and necessary. My Lords, the numbers tell a stark story. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported in July that at least 286 civilians were killed and 1388 injured, the highest monthly casualty figure since May 2022.
In the first half of the year, some 6754 civilians were killed or injured, a 54% rise compared with the same period in 2024. And nearly all of that harm recorded occurred in territory under Ukrainian government control, emphasising the brutality of long range missile strikes and the assaults by Russians on civilian lives. At the same time, since Russias illegal invasion, the United Kingdom government has committed up to £21.8 billion in support to Ukraine for military assistance and in humanitarian support.
My Lords, this is significant and it underscores the depth of our involvement, not as spectators but as partners to our friends and allies in Ukraine has powerfully outlined by many noble Lords today. Our continued role must be sustained and strategic. I wish to identify three priority areas where the government's focus is most urgent. Ukraine must not just survive, it must be secured. The UK has pledged military support for as long as it takes, but words alone do not suffice.
We need an architecture of deterrence that requires security guarantees backed by credible capability, by allied resolve and by UK leadership. That means a long term commitment to training, logistics and intelligence sharing. Building on the success of Operation Interflex, which has already been mentioned today, which has already trained more than 60,000 Ukrainian personnel here in the United Kingdom. We must also ensure that any future peace settlement does not leave Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression, but establishes the kind of durable security that allows reconstruction.
My Lords War has destroyed and damaged much of Ukraine, but rebuilding offers renewal in Ukraine. Communities are already turning rubble into resolve, reopening schools, restoring infrastructure, keeping civil society alive under fire. The UK has committed significant sums towards reconstruction efforts. Yet the scale must match what the moment requires. The UK must use its expertise, whether in infrastructure, finance or civil society, to support Ukraine's recovery and ensure the future it rebuilds is resilient and one where Ukrainians can flourish, bear the scars of war, can begin to heal.
My Lords, let us not forget that there are horrific crimes being committed by Russia in Ukraine, families being torn apart and the very identity of Ukraine is under threat. 7.5 million children have been impacted by this war, affecting their health, education and family life. Russia is using children as a weapon. Up to 35,000 children taken from their families and forced to forget their lives. They are being psychologically coerced to stay in Russia and to forget their identity. Others are being conscripted into the Russian Youth Army and could be forced to fight against their own people, their own friends and family.
The trauma that these families are facing is constant. My Lords, it is hard to imagine having your son or daughter taken. Children and babies just months old, taken from a mother's arms and relocated to a country they do not know. The government must ensure our support. Assists with evidence preservation. Assists Ukrainian judicial institutions and helps make sure that Russian war criminals are brought to justice. I would also like to pay tribute to Joanna Baxter from the Other Place for her work in this area.
My Lords, Ukraine's battle is not just for the future of its sons and daughters. They are fighting for the principle of self-determination and democracy. The United Kingdom must stand by our friends in Ukraine, as well as our values, and our support must be enduring. Not because it is easy, but because it is the right thing to do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. My Lords. I'm very glad to take part. In this interesting and very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In this interesting and very worthwhile debate. And can I begin by congratulating my noble friend, the Minister, on his excellent speech? And like him, I must
**** Possible New Speaker ****
speech? And like him, I must proud. Of the fact. That my son in law is a senior
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That my son in law is a senior officer serving in the RAF. Now, can I also add my congratulations to the. Noble Lord Lord Barrow. Who lived up to the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Billing. If I may say so, and to say that he brings with him the qualifications to speak in this debate is a classic British understatement. Anyone who has been ambassador to Ukraine, Ambassador
As many noble lords have said today, and indeed beyond the borders of Ukraine. The war launched by the Russian Federation against Ukraine is not simply territorial, it is existential. It threatens the principle that a free people can choose their own path. That is why the United Kingdom's ongoing support for Ukraine is not charity. It is principled and necessary. My Lords, the numbers tell a stark story. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported in July that at least 286 civilians were killed and 1388 injured, the highest monthly casualty figure since May 2022.
In the first half of the year, some 6754 civilians were killed or injured, a 54% rise compared with the same period in 2024. And nearly all of that harm recorded occurred in territory under Ukrainian government control, emphasising the brutality of long range missile strikes and the assaults by Russians on civilian lives. At the same time, since Russias illegal invasion, the United Kingdom government has committed up to £21.8 billion in support to Ukraine for military assistance and in humanitarian support.
My Lords, this is significant and it underscores the depth of our involvement, not as spectators but as partners to our friends and allies in Ukraine has powerfully outlined by many noble Lords today. Our continued role must be sustained and strategic. I wish to identify three priority areas where the government's focus is most urgent. Ukraine must not just survive, it must be secured. The UK has pledged military support for as long as it takes, but words alone do not suffice.
We need an architecture of deterrence that requires security guarantees backed by credible capability, by allied resolve and by UK leadership. That means a long term commitment to training, logistics and intelligence sharing. Building on the success of Operation Interflex, which has already been mentioned today, which has already trained more than 60,000 Ukrainian personnel here in the United Kingdom. We must also ensure that any future peace settlement does not leave Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression, but establishes the kind of durable security that allows reconstruction.
My Lords War has destroyed and damaged much of Ukraine, but rebuilding offers renewal in Ukraine. Communities are already turning rubble into resolve, reopening schools, restoring infrastructure, keeping civil society alive under fire. The UK has committed significant sums towards reconstruction efforts. Yet the scale must match what the moment requires. The UK must use its expertise, whether in infrastructure, finance or civil society, to support Ukraine's recovery and ensure the future it rebuilds is resilient and one where Ukrainians can flourish, bear the scars of war, can begin to heal.
My Lords, let us not forget that there are horrific crimes being committed by Russia in Ukraine, families being torn apart and the very identity of Ukraine is under threat. 7.5 million children have been impacted by this war, affecting their health, education and family life. Russia is using children as a weapon. Up to 35,000 children taken from their families and forced to forget their lives. They are being psychologically coerced to stay in Russia and to forget their identity. Others are being conscripted into the Russian Youth Army and could be forced to fight against their own people, their own friends and family.
The trauma that these families are facing is constant. My Lords, it is hard to imagine having your son or daughter taken. Children and babies just months old, taken from a mother's arms and relocated to a country they do not know. The government must ensure our support. Assists with evidence preservation. Assists Ukrainian judicial institutions and helps make sure that Russian war criminals are brought to justice. I would also like to pay tribute to Joanna Baxter from the Other Place for her work in this area.
My Lords, Ukraine's battle is not just for the future of its sons and daughters. They are fighting for the principle of self-determination and democracy. The United Kingdom must stand by our friends in Ukraine, as well as our values, and our support must be enduring. Not because it is easy, but because it is the right thing to do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. My Lords. I'm very glad to take part. In this interesting and very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In this interesting and very worthwhile debate. And can I begin by congratulating my noble friend, the Minister, on his excellent speech? And like him, I must
**** Possible New Speaker ****
speech? And like him, I must proud. Of the fact. That my son in law is a senior
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That my son in law is a senior officer serving in the RAF. Now, can I also add my congratulations to the. Noble Lord Lord Barrow. Who lived up to the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Billing. If I may say so, and to say that he brings with him the qualifications to speak in this debate is a classic British understatement. Anyone who has been ambassador to Ukraine, Ambassador
13:17
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
ambassador to Ukraine, Ambassador to Russia, ambassador to the European Union and national security adviser. Deserves the highest respect and he's a very welcome addition to this House. Now, my Lords, this debate is officially listed as being about the situation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in Ukraine. And of course, that situation is not at all good, but it is quite right. That we take the opportunity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That we take the opportunity. To debate. It today. And I thank the government for allowing the time to do so. After all, Ukraine's fight
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do so. After all, Ukraine's fight for their security is ours too. I'm not sure. Anyone could have. Predicted that this war on our.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
European doorstep. Would still be going on over three. And a. Half years since the invasion began, but we can be very proud of began, but we can be very proud of the significant amounts of practical, moral and military assistance and have welcomed and taken in Ukrainian refugees. As
**** Possible New Speaker ****
taken in Ukrainian refugees. As well as scientists. In the short. Time I have available. I want just to. Make a few.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Make a few. of. My noble friend. The minister, who will be replying. My first point relates to replying. My first point relates to the nature of the threat that we face from the Russian Federation. Now, we've heard a lot recently, in the last couple of weeks, about the last couple of weeks, about whether or not China is or is not regarded as an enemy state under the outdated Official Secrets Act. the outdated Official Secrets Act. But perhaps the situation is clearer when it comes to Russia.
Now. The noble Lady Baroness Manningham-Buller referred to in Manningham-Buller referred to in our maiden Speaker, said in conversation with the Lord Speaker recently that, and I quote one, may recently that, and I quote one, may be right in saying we are already at war with Russia. It's a different sort of war. But the hostility, the cyber attacks, the physical attacks, intelligence work
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is extensive. Chancellor Merkel of Germany recently said that Europe is, quote, not. At war.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But no longer at peace with Russia. And when I was a member of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy earlier this year, Security Strategy earlier this year, there was no doubt that we did regard Russia as an obvious threat. So can my noble friend characterise
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for the House precisely what is the government's official description of the threat that Russia poses to the UK? After nearly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After nearly. Four and a half or three and a half years of war in Ukraine? My second question relates to the economics of this war and how it has changed. Can I ask my noble friend about the status of the frozen Russian assets? I believe frozen Russian assets? I believe they amount to about $140 billion. Is there now agreement among the relevant countries that they will now be utilised in the form of a loan to provide Ukraine with much needed financial support? And does needed financial support? And does my noble friend agree that the use of these frozen assets together with US sanctions on the two Russian oil companies, might finally begin to put real pressure on President Putin? My third
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on President Putin? My third question relates to the changing. Nature of modern warfare. Now, like others I remember seeing at the beginning of the war that line of tanks on its way towards Kyiv, they didn't get very far. And how very dated that now seems compared to the bleak but savage reality of the conflict now, with its extended great warlike trenches and killing zones and grey warfare. Now I'm no expert, and I don't pretend to be, but it is obvious to me that this has developed into the first truly drone war in history.
And the fact is that drones are less costly to lose, easier to replace, easier to sustain, and lower costs mean that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
you can buy more of them. But this is a war that's also being fought on the basis of intelligence and data. And future.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And future. Wars will be one less by bullets and more by data. So can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, to say
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble friend, the Minister, to say what lessons the government has learnt from this terrible conflict, and whether she can reassure the House. That the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That the. Government is carefully and comprehensively taking into account these lessons when applied to the Defence Strategic Defence Review, which we have already debated. Next, I want to ask my noble friend what she can say about the coalition of she can say about the coalition of the willing in its recent meeting. We have to deal with the destabilising unpredictability of destabilising unpredictability of the US president, whose approach to this war has zigzagged all over the place. But can my noble friend reassure the House that, despite reassure the House that, despite this, the government's expectation is that the United States will continue to help Ukraine with vital areas like targeting and intelligence information? Now I come to the possibility of a come to the possibility of a ceasefire or an armed pause, as it was put earlier in this debate, we know that Russia has recently know that Russia has recently rejected the idea of a ceasefire, and doubtless because President Putin thinks that he still holds the advantage in the long run, the advantage in the long run, despite the terrible losses.
So can I ask my noble friend, what the government's attitude to a possible ceasefire plan might be? And if President Trump were to finally walk away from the Ukraine war, does my noble friend agree that it is not unimportant that he does not blame Ukraine or the West for that impasse? And my final point is this I belong to the generation born after the war, only too conscious of the sacrifice made by the generation above me that enabled most of the West to live in relative peace for my lifetime.
But given the changing geopolitical landscape of the world in which we now live. Can my noble friend say something about the intention of the government to educate the public about the nature of the threats we face, whether they are hybrid warfare, cyber warfare, attacks on our critical national infrastructure and how we should prepare for them. My noble friend Lord Lord Robertson of Port Ellen has spoken frankly about the need for publication of public education. But there are new generations of UK citizens for whom the serious possibility of conflict of war has never occurred to them.
Now there is a balance to be struck between causing alarm and raising awareness. But perhaps my noble friend can address this issue in her final
**** Possible New Speaker ****
remarks. My time is up, but I hope it will never be up for Ukraine. My Lord, I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in Ukraine. And of course, that situation is not at all good, but it is quite right. That we take the opportunity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That we take the opportunity. To debate. It today. And I thank the government for allowing the time to do so. After all, Ukraine's fight
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do so. After all, Ukraine's fight for their security is ours too. I'm not sure. Anyone could have. Predicted that this war on our.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
European doorstep. Would still be going on over three. And a. Half years since the invasion began, but we can be very proud of began, but we can be very proud of the significant amounts of practical, moral and military assistance and have welcomed and taken in Ukrainian refugees. As
**** Possible New Speaker ****
taken in Ukrainian refugees. As well as scientists. In the short. Time I have available. I want just to. Make a few.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Make a few. of. My noble friend. The minister, who will be replying. My first point relates to replying. My first point relates to the nature of the threat that we face from the Russian Federation. Now, we've heard a lot recently, in the last couple of weeks, about the last couple of weeks, about whether or not China is or is not regarded as an enemy state under the outdated Official Secrets Act. the outdated Official Secrets Act. But perhaps the situation is clearer when it comes to Russia.
Now. The noble Lady Baroness Manningham-Buller referred to in Manningham-Buller referred to in our maiden Speaker, said in conversation with the Lord Speaker recently that, and I quote one, may recently that, and I quote one, may be right in saying we are already at war with Russia. It's a different sort of war. But the hostility, the cyber attacks, the physical attacks, intelligence work
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is extensive. Chancellor Merkel of Germany recently said that Europe is, quote, not. At war.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But no longer at peace with Russia. And when I was a member of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy earlier this year, Security Strategy earlier this year, there was no doubt that we did regard Russia as an obvious threat. So can my noble friend characterise
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for the House precisely what is the government's official description of the threat that Russia poses to the UK? After nearly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After nearly. Four and a half or three and a half years of war in Ukraine? My second question relates to the economics of this war and how it has changed. Can I ask my noble friend about the status of the frozen Russian assets? I believe frozen Russian assets? I believe they amount to about $140 billion. Is there now agreement among the relevant countries that they will now be utilised in the form of a loan to provide Ukraine with much needed financial support? And does needed financial support? And does my noble friend agree that the use of these frozen assets together with US sanctions on the two Russian oil companies, might finally begin to put real pressure on President Putin? My third
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on President Putin? My third question relates to the changing. Nature of modern warfare. Now, like others I remember seeing at the beginning of the war that line of tanks on its way towards Kyiv, they didn't get very far. And how very dated that now seems compared to the bleak but savage reality of the conflict now, with its extended great warlike trenches and killing zones and grey warfare. Now I'm no expert, and I don't pretend to be, but it is obvious to me that this has developed into the first truly drone war in history.
And the fact is that drones are less costly to lose, easier to replace, easier to sustain, and lower costs mean that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
you can buy more of them. But this is a war that's also being fought on the basis of intelligence and data. And future.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And future. Wars will be one less by bullets and more by data. So can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, to say
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble friend, the Minister, to say what lessons the government has learnt from this terrible conflict, and whether she can reassure the House. That the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That the. Government is carefully and comprehensively taking into account these lessons when applied to the Defence Strategic Defence Review, which we have already debated. Next, I want to ask my noble friend what she can say about the coalition of she can say about the coalition of the willing in its recent meeting. We have to deal with the destabilising unpredictability of destabilising unpredictability of the US president, whose approach to this war has zigzagged all over the place. But can my noble friend reassure the House that, despite reassure the House that, despite this, the government's expectation is that the United States will continue to help Ukraine with vital areas like targeting and intelligence information? Now I come to the possibility of a come to the possibility of a ceasefire or an armed pause, as it was put earlier in this debate, we know that Russia has recently know that Russia has recently rejected the idea of a ceasefire, and doubtless because President Putin thinks that he still holds the advantage in the long run, the advantage in the long run, despite the terrible losses.
So can I ask my noble friend, what the government's attitude to a possible ceasefire plan might be? And if President Trump were to finally walk away from the Ukraine war, does my noble friend agree that it is not unimportant that he does not blame Ukraine or the West for that impasse? And my final point is this I belong to the generation born after the war, only too conscious of the sacrifice made by the generation above me that enabled most of the West to live in relative peace for my lifetime.
But given the changing geopolitical landscape of the world in which we now live. Can my noble friend say something about the intention of the government to educate the public about the nature of the threats we face, whether they are hybrid warfare, cyber warfare, attacks on our critical national infrastructure and how we should prepare for them. My noble friend Lord Lord Robertson of Port Ellen has spoken frankly about the need for publication of public education. But there are new generations of UK citizens for whom the serious possibility of conflict of war has never occurred to them.
Now there is a balance to be struck between causing alarm and raising awareness. But perhaps my noble friend can address this issue in her final
**** Possible New Speaker ****
remarks. My time is up, but I hope it will never be up for Ukraine. My Lord, I.
13:22
Lord Skidelsky (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, I. Don't know whether it's a punishment or a privilege. To be put last in the list. Of Backbench speakers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As I. Invariably am. When it comes to. Debate on Ukraine. The Lord Coaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Coaker. Noble Lord Coaker was powerful. And eloquent and opening, and. It's clear that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's clear that. Lord Barrow is going to be a great addition to our collective wisdom.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
wisdom. My Lords, two factors have upended the policy of successive British governments the arrival of British governments the arrival of Donald Trump in the white House, and the unexpected economic and military resilience of Russia. Till the end of last year. The agreed policy was, as stated by then incoming Foreign Secretary David Lammy. The British government, I'm quoting, must leave the Kremlin with no doubt that it will support Kyiv for as long as it takes to achieve victory.
Once Ukraine has prevailed, the United Kingdom should play a leading role in securing Ukraine's place in NATO. Now, I heard this formula endlessly in the last 3 or 4 years. Now, can the noble Lady tell us whether this is still the policy of the British government, and if not, why not? That policy, to my way of thinking, was always dishonest. In fact, to my mind, morally repugnant since we were never going to give Ukraine all it takes for victory, for the very good reason that any such policy carried an unacceptable risk of escalation.
And I'm really worried by the insouciance of those noble Lords speaking today who talk about unleashing long range missile attacks on the most heavily armed nuclear power in the world. Now, after nearly four years of false pledges cashed in the lives of hundreds of thousands, we have reluctantly accepted that there isn't going to be a Ukrainian victory any time soon. In fact, there's a very real prospect of Ukrainian defeat as the noble Lord Lord Tugendhat pointed out. So the real question now is how can the coalition of the willing prevent this outcome? First came the suggestion that we would send in NATO peacekeepers to police a ceasefire.
But our government must have known that this would never be accepted, wouldn't be accepted by Russia, and wouldn't be accepted by the United States, which was supposed to provide a backstop. Can the noble Lady tell us whether this obvious spoiling tactic is still on the table? The latest plan is the so-called European Peace Facility, whose aim is to strengthen Ukraine's war facility. A classic case of Orwellian double speak. The idea is that Europe should ramp up arms deliveries to Ukraine and put more pressure on Russia with new sanctions on oil exports, with loans coming from confiscated Russian assets.
But no one thinking straight can believe that such measures, even if agreed and applied, will affect the course of war in time to avert further territorial losses by Ukraine. In fact, a negotiated peace is the only way now of averting along a Russian victory. That's my core position now. I want to be constructive. So I suggest the three ways our government could help achieve a negotiated settlement. First, it should propose a demilitarised zone under UN peacekeeping force to police a ceasefire, a UN peacekeeping force.
And in this, I'm not nearly as pessimistic about the prospects of a ceasefire as some noble Lords have been. Now, also remind the noble Lord Stirrup that the armed pause of the Cold War lasted 50 years. But in this context, in this context, China must be brought in to such an endeavour. China can invert, can can exert much more leverage on Russia than we can. Trump seems to realise this, but all we seem to be able to do is to talk about Chinese spies and underground tunnels.
China is the missing piece in this whole process. Second, we should start talking to Russian officials. Don't leave all the talking to United States to get a conversation going. We have to ignore the ICC arrest warrants, which in any case could only be enforced by a complete Russian defeat. And third, we should urge UN organised referenda in the four contested oblasts to allow the people who live there to decide on their own future, democratically holding such referenda would offer both sides a credible and democratic pathway to end the conflict by initiatives of this kind.
My Lords, our government could still turn a war mission into a peace mission, and I beg Ministers to discover the courage
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to negotiate for reasons of both realism and humanity. My Lords, I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I. Thank the. Government for bringing this debate for us, and it was enriched debate for us, and it was enriched by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barrow. It wasn't bland,
Lord Skidelsky (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, I. Don't know whether it's a punishment or a privilege. To be put last in the list. Of Backbench speakers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As I. Invariably am. When it comes to. Debate on Ukraine. The Lord Coaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Coaker. Noble Lord Coaker was powerful. And eloquent and opening, and. It's clear that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's clear that. Lord Barrow is going to be a great addition to our collective wisdom.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
wisdom. My Lords, two factors have upended the policy of successive British governments the arrival of British governments the arrival of Donald Trump in the white House, and the unexpected economic and military resilience of Russia. Till the end of last year. The agreed policy was, as stated by then incoming Foreign Secretary David Lammy. The British government, I'm quoting, must leave the Kremlin with no doubt that it will support Kyiv for as long as it takes to achieve victory.
Once Ukraine has prevailed, the United Kingdom should play a leading role in securing Ukraine's place in NATO. Now, I heard this formula endlessly in the last 3 or 4 years. Now, can the noble Lady tell us whether this is still the policy of the British government, and if not, why not? That policy, to my way of thinking, was always dishonest. In fact, to my mind, morally repugnant since we were never going to give Ukraine all it takes for victory, for the very good reason that any such policy carried an unacceptable risk of escalation.
And I'm really worried by the insouciance of those noble Lords speaking today who talk about unleashing long range missile attacks on the most heavily armed nuclear power in the world. Now, after nearly four years of false pledges cashed in the lives of hundreds of thousands, we have reluctantly accepted that there isn't going to be a Ukrainian victory any time soon. In fact, there's a very real prospect of Ukrainian defeat as the noble Lord Lord Tugendhat pointed out. So the real question now is how can the coalition of the willing prevent this outcome? First came the suggestion that we would send in NATO peacekeepers to police a ceasefire.
But our government must have known that this would never be accepted, wouldn't be accepted by Russia, and wouldn't be accepted by the United States, which was supposed to provide a backstop. Can the noble Lady tell us whether this obvious spoiling tactic is still on the table? The latest plan is the so-called European Peace Facility, whose aim is to strengthen Ukraine's war facility. A classic case of Orwellian double speak. The idea is that Europe should ramp up arms deliveries to Ukraine and put more pressure on Russia with new sanctions on oil exports, with loans coming from confiscated Russian assets.
But no one thinking straight can believe that such measures, even if agreed and applied, will affect the course of war in time to avert further territorial losses by Ukraine. In fact, a negotiated peace is the only way now of averting along a Russian victory. That's my core position now. I want to be constructive. So I suggest the three ways our government could help achieve a negotiated settlement. First, it should propose a demilitarised zone under UN peacekeeping force to police a ceasefire, a UN peacekeeping force.
And in this, I'm not nearly as pessimistic about the prospects of a ceasefire as some noble Lords have been. Now, also remind the noble Lord Stirrup that the armed pause of the Cold War lasted 50 years. But in this context, in this context, China must be brought in to such an endeavour. China can invert, can can exert much more leverage on Russia than we can. Trump seems to realise this, but all we seem to be able to do is to talk about Chinese spies and underground tunnels.
China is the missing piece in this whole process. Second, we should start talking to Russian officials. Don't leave all the talking to United States to get a conversation going. We have to ignore the ICC arrest warrants, which in any case could only be enforced by a complete Russian defeat. And third, we should urge UN organised referenda in the four contested oblasts to allow the people who live there to decide on their own future, democratically holding such referenda would offer both sides a credible and democratic pathway to end the conflict by initiatives of this kind.
My Lords, our government could still turn a war mission into a peace mission, and I beg Ministers to discover the courage
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to negotiate for reasons of both realism and humanity. My Lords, I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I. Thank the. Government for bringing this debate for us, and it was enriched debate for us, and it was enriched by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barrow. It wasn't bland,
13:27
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
Lord, Lord Barrow. It wasn't bland, and thankfully it wasn't too brief as we learnt from it, and we will be doing so in the future. And he is a great addition to this House and we welcome him. The fact that we are not marking the 46th month of a puppet regime in Kyiv is testament to the bravery, resilience and resolve of the people of Ukraine. But this has come at an enormous cost to civilians and the young people called to serve, and those who have had to flee to safety.
UK families have provided a shelter in the storm for Ukrainian families and we thank them. But the storm continues. As my noble friend Baroness Suttie so movingly said. The victims include the unacceptable suffering of the youngest Ukrainians and we still see the abducted children separated from their families and prisoners of war, brutalised and tortured the Geneva Convention, so contemptuously disregarded by Putin's regime. When the Right Honourable Ed Davey and I met the speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament recently, the speaker told us of the value of the UK continuing support of Ukraine, both in military terms, diplomatic terms and also in in society terms.
But he also highlighted the fact referenced by the minister and others in this debate, that we can learn from our relationship with Ukraine since the start of this war. The learning includes how to conduct defensive warfare, adaptive changing, cost effective. It also includes the value of intelligence and technology. But where we are in many ways now, we are also learning that the fact that leaders in Ukraine have maintained a democratic institution in a parliamentary system and as a parliamentarian, it's a badge of honour that in between the last debate on Ukraine and this one, I've now been sanctioned, as others have in this House by the Russian regime, for simply.
Speaking out in a parliamentary setting in defence of democracy. It is worth remembering that part of the failed Russian plan in the first 48 hours of the invasion was to attack and immobilise the Parliament of that country, the Verkhovna Rada and I repeat a call. It may may sound minor, but it could well be some symbolic, a call that I've made previously that we should award the George Medal to the Ukrainian Parliament. I would love to see on the flag, as Malta had a clear demonstration of civilians defending democracy and the rule of law.
These benches have supported the actions of the previous administration and Ministers know of our continuing support. Ministers also know that this has not prevented us on occasions from wanting faster and deeper action, and we have sought constructively to press governments, previous and current to go further. It is a reality that in too many respects, the Putin government has been able to adapt and circumvent sanctions which had been piecemeal and often reactive. As our sister party in Ukraine has told us in too many occasions, the situation has been sanctions have been perpetually too little and always late, and that has meant that the Putin regime has been able to adopt and adapt, and the noble and gallant Lord Stirrup sober assessment was not a warning from history, but a realistic prediction that while we may get a cessation of violence, we will not have peace as long as Putin is president.
And we must prepare for this reality for the medium to long term, that preparation is not just in military, but it also is in communicating to our public of the new reality of risk. And indeed another reality one alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, of concern about soft power being diminished whilst we debate hard power. Putin realised quite quickly and then more recently more clearly that while Western countries said they wanted to create a wide coalition against the Russian economy, those same countries have massively cut development partnership funding for many developing nations.
The continuing scale, the continuing sale of Russian fertiliser, fuel, equipment and energy was at the same time when the UK and now, more recently the USA, have made dramatic cuts in partnership programmes. It's worth recognising that in a fascinating event, just on Tuesday in the Moses room with the elders, chaired by my noble friend Baroness Miller on nuclear weapons, it was telling that the former New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, just next door, started her remarks by regretting the UK cutting 40% from development partnerships.
It is not correct, in our view, that development and defence should be seen as competition. Development is complementary to defence. It shouldn't be set against it. Cutting the Balkans Resilience Programme, cutting conflict prevention programmes, cutting the British Council to the bone is not in our national security interests. On in March 2022, I raised a concern that the UK was keen to progress a trade agreement with India, offering market access to the very entities that were expanding energy trade with Russia through a rupee rouble swap and then subsequently we have been offering similar access for Chinese state enterprises trading with Russia.
Moscow has observed very clearly the fact that some Western powers themselves have not chosen to make a sufficient sacrifice to pay for the economic price on the Russian economy, and they fear that and the Ukrainians fear that there has been insufficient pressure on the Russian war economy. I hope recent decisions by the US administration, which I hope will stay and not be changed, could add further real pressure on the economy, because Russia will know that delays in using Russian assets to help Ukraine is also potentially sowing sowing areas where there is division within the Western powers, we cannot afford for those divisions to be in place and nor can Ukraine.
I ask the minister to, when she responds to this debate, to update us on where the government is working with our allies on securing those assets for the people of Ukraine to fight the war that they need. It's my view that it is inconceivable that if there is a ceasefire, we would give the money back to the Russian state enterprises that we have frozen. So why are we not using it for the people of Ukraine to fight the war that they need to fight? If we have to be realistic, as the noble Lord Stirrup said, about what peace may mean, we can, however, consider what victory may mean, and it might not be that clear, but it is a victory in itself.
Ukraine will not be part of Kyiv Kievan Rus, which is the narrative of Putin nations will have a right to self-determination. Borders are decided diplomatically and not by military aggression, spoken of so clearly by the noble Lord Lord Mott in his remarks. As I close, I want to refer back to my noble friend Baroness Suttie superb speech, the sacrifices of the people of Ukraine are also sacrifices for our security and our safety. And the Russian threats on Ukraine are also threats to us, and we must mobilise our population with a sense of urgency and a lack of complacency, and appreciate the risks going forward.
History is indeed watching us. We must not repeat previous Complacencies Ukrainians will be in the bloody filth of the mud this winter to defend their land, but are fighting for the very rights that we hold dear in our country, and we must ensure that they have the tools to persevere and to prevail. And we must ensure that Russia pays for the long reconstruction that, regrettably, will be needed here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I. Also wish to thank the government for bringing forward
UK families have provided a shelter in the storm for Ukrainian families and we thank them. But the storm continues. As my noble friend Baroness Suttie so movingly said. The victims include the unacceptable suffering of the youngest Ukrainians and we still see the abducted children separated from their families and prisoners of war, brutalised and tortured the Geneva Convention, so contemptuously disregarded by Putin's regime. When the Right Honourable Ed Davey and I met the speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament recently, the speaker told us of the value of the UK continuing support of Ukraine, both in military terms, diplomatic terms and also in in society terms.
But he also highlighted the fact referenced by the minister and others in this debate, that we can learn from our relationship with Ukraine since the start of this war. The learning includes how to conduct defensive warfare, adaptive changing, cost effective. It also includes the value of intelligence and technology. But where we are in many ways now, we are also learning that the fact that leaders in Ukraine have maintained a democratic institution in a parliamentary system and as a parliamentarian, it's a badge of honour that in between the last debate on Ukraine and this one, I've now been sanctioned, as others have in this House by the Russian regime, for simply.
Speaking out in a parliamentary setting in defence of democracy. It is worth remembering that part of the failed Russian plan in the first 48 hours of the invasion was to attack and immobilise the Parliament of that country, the Verkhovna Rada and I repeat a call. It may may sound minor, but it could well be some symbolic, a call that I've made previously that we should award the George Medal to the Ukrainian Parliament. I would love to see on the flag, as Malta had a clear demonstration of civilians defending democracy and the rule of law.
These benches have supported the actions of the previous administration and Ministers know of our continuing support. Ministers also know that this has not prevented us on occasions from wanting faster and deeper action, and we have sought constructively to press governments, previous and current to go further. It is a reality that in too many respects, the Putin government has been able to adapt and circumvent sanctions which had been piecemeal and often reactive. As our sister party in Ukraine has told us in too many occasions, the situation has been sanctions have been perpetually too little and always late, and that has meant that the Putin regime has been able to adopt and adapt, and the noble and gallant Lord Stirrup sober assessment was not a warning from history, but a realistic prediction that while we may get a cessation of violence, we will not have peace as long as Putin is president.
And we must prepare for this reality for the medium to long term, that preparation is not just in military, but it also is in communicating to our public of the new reality of risk. And indeed another reality one alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, of concern about soft power being diminished whilst we debate hard power. Putin realised quite quickly and then more recently more clearly that while Western countries said they wanted to create a wide coalition against the Russian economy, those same countries have massively cut development partnership funding for many developing nations.
The continuing scale, the continuing sale of Russian fertiliser, fuel, equipment and energy was at the same time when the UK and now, more recently the USA, have made dramatic cuts in partnership programmes. It's worth recognising that in a fascinating event, just on Tuesday in the Moses room with the elders, chaired by my noble friend Baroness Miller on nuclear weapons, it was telling that the former New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, just next door, started her remarks by regretting the UK cutting 40% from development partnerships.
It is not correct, in our view, that development and defence should be seen as competition. Development is complementary to defence. It shouldn't be set against it. Cutting the Balkans Resilience Programme, cutting conflict prevention programmes, cutting the British Council to the bone is not in our national security interests. On in March 2022, I raised a concern that the UK was keen to progress a trade agreement with India, offering market access to the very entities that were expanding energy trade with Russia through a rupee rouble swap and then subsequently we have been offering similar access for Chinese state enterprises trading with Russia.
Moscow has observed very clearly the fact that some Western powers themselves have not chosen to make a sufficient sacrifice to pay for the economic price on the Russian economy, and they fear that and the Ukrainians fear that there has been insufficient pressure on the Russian war economy. I hope recent decisions by the US administration, which I hope will stay and not be changed, could add further real pressure on the economy, because Russia will know that delays in using Russian assets to help Ukraine is also potentially sowing sowing areas where there is division within the Western powers, we cannot afford for those divisions to be in place and nor can Ukraine.
I ask the minister to, when she responds to this debate, to update us on where the government is working with our allies on securing those assets for the people of Ukraine to fight the war that they need. It's my view that it is inconceivable that if there is a ceasefire, we would give the money back to the Russian state enterprises that we have frozen. So why are we not using it for the people of Ukraine to fight the war that they need to fight? If we have to be realistic, as the noble Lord Stirrup said, about what peace may mean, we can, however, consider what victory may mean, and it might not be that clear, but it is a victory in itself.
Ukraine will not be part of Kyiv Kievan Rus, which is the narrative of Putin nations will have a right to self-determination. Borders are decided diplomatically and not by military aggression, spoken of so clearly by the noble Lord Lord Mott in his remarks. As I close, I want to refer back to my noble friend Baroness Suttie superb speech, the sacrifices of the people of Ukraine are also sacrifices for our security and our safety. And the Russian threats on Ukraine are also threats to us, and we must mobilise our population with a sense of urgency and a lack of complacency, and appreciate the risks going forward.
History is indeed watching us. We must not repeat previous Complacencies Ukrainians will be in the bloody filth of the mud this winter to defend their land, but are fighting for the very rights that we hold dear in our country, and we must ensure that they have the tools to persevere and to prevail. And we must ensure that Russia pays for the long reconstruction that, regrettably, will be needed here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I. Also wish to thank the government for bringing forward
13:36
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
government for bringing forward this important debate and yet again on this topic. We've seen some fantastic contributions. As always, I was encouraged to see virtual unanimity across all parties and none in the House in support of the valiant Ukrainian people and in condemnation of the vile dictator currently, hopefully temporarily, residing in the Kremlin, if I could say so. It was a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord Barrow, who brings so much practical, diplomatic experience of the situation on the ground in Russia and Ukraine.
For part of my time in ministerial office, I served as the UK representative on the EU's General Affairs Council when the noble Lord was UK Permanent representative in Brussels. So I can certainly testify to his commendable hospitality in the Brussels residence where I stayed, and we had some great late night discussions on many subjects, but I particularly remember him fondly telling me about his time and his experiences. Ambassador in Moscow I know that the House will greatly benefit from that experience.
In many debates to come. As Lord Purvis remarked, he can reassure his family that the speech was fairly brief, but it certainly was not bland. It's now well over three years since Putin launched his illegal war on Ukraine, a war that has seen a European nation invaded a horrific war, crimes committed against the people of Ukraine. And that's been testified to by many of the great contributions today. And as I said, across this House, we have almost remained united in our condemnation of that invasion.
That is something that we as a nation can be proud of. And we do credit the government for continuing the steadfast support that we give to Ukraine when we were in office. But, my Lords, there has been said, but Ukraine's war is not yet won. Ukraine still desperately needs our full support, and one area that has been crucial has been the removal of UK tariffs on Ukrainian goods that have ensured a vital source of foreign revenue for the Ukrainian government and wider economy.
But there is a looming deadline. On 31st March 2026, when tariff free access for Ukrainian poultry and egg producers is set to end. Ukraine has increased its poultry exports to the UK in recent years, but this hasn't impacted British farmers who face production constraints and cannot meet that rising demand. Rather, it has displaced exports from other countries, including China, Brazil and Thailand. The imposition of tariffs on poultry and egg will harm UK consumers and deprive the Ukrainian government and wider economy of crucial source of revenue.
Facilitating trade should be a key pillar of the support that we provide to Ukraine, as the revenues raised from exports are a crucial source of funding for the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian people and directly fund the country's armed forces. So I hope the noble Lady, the minister, could possibly speak to some of her colleagues in the debate on this matter and help to ensure Ukrainian resolution, although we all remember those fraught weeks in February and March 2022, when Ukraine's fate hung in the balance, we must not forget that Ukraine's struggle did not start then it began much earlier than 2022.
They've been fighting for their independence now, for their democracy and their freedom from Russian interference since 2014. And some may argue from before then. In 2022, Putin sought to bring an end to Ukraine's long struggle for independence by force of arms. But the indomitable spirit of the Ukrainian people, the selfless sacrifice of so many, brought the invasion to a halt and rolled back Putin's forces. And those of us watching on our TV screens cheered them along every step of the way.
Today, though, sadly, Russian forces remain entrenched in Ukrainian territory and Ukraine is still locked in a desperate struggle for its very survival. Between 2022 and 2024, the previous Conservative government provided major financial support for Ukraine. We shipped huge quantities of military hardware to Kyiv, and we know the crucial role that NLAW anti-tank missiles played in the early part of the war and we have gone on, and I'm pleased to say, to provide tanks, air defence systems, artillery and long range precision strike missiles and every Ukrainian that visits the UK that I get the pleasure of meeting are all eternally grateful for the support that we have provided them.
We've brought in tough sanctions against Russia, including some of those individuals close to Putin who have played their own role in support of that illegal war. And I commend the government for continuing to strengthen those sanctions against Russia. I hope they will continue to do so. And looking at sanctions, perhaps, on members of United Russia, Putin's party, political party in the future, we also took the initiative on protecting those displaced by the war in Ukraine. And many members have referred to the homes for Ukraine scheme.
The Prime Minister, to his great credit, whilst leader of the opposition, supported us when we took that action and has continued to build on our work and we offer him our support. Now. Since the government took office, we've seen further support for Ukraine. We fully support that that help across the previous and current governments. The UK has committed so far up to £21.8 billion in a difficult financial environment to Ukraine, which in my view is money well spent.
The government have also worked to establish the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine's future security, and signed the UK up to a slightly bizarre Ukraine UK Ukraine 100 year partnership. It's better than some of their under 100 year agreements. I have to say, all this builds on the strong relationship we fostered with Ukraine when we were in office, and we welcome the steps forward as we continue to support the people of Ukraine in their hour of need. But my Lords, despite all of our support, Ukraine remains at war despite suffering around a million casualties.
Russia remains committed to that illegal invasion. I wonder, perhaps in her closing remarks, if the noble Baroness could update the House on the latest attempts to use our influence internationally to bring Russia to a position where a just peace can be achieved, is the government's position that peace and, crucially, long term security for Ukraine can only be achieved through primarily diplomatic means? Or do they believe that there is a military solution? What is the government's position on the deployment of those frozen Russian assets to further aid Ukrainian defence and eventually to help pay for, partly for the rebuilding of their country? And finally, could the noble Baroness reassure the House that the UK is working to further develop our intelligence in respect of Russia and her allies? And can she give the House a sense of how well that information is being shared with Ukraine? My Lords Russia's war on Ukraine is an assault not just on the Ukrainian nation, but on the values of independence, sovereignty and the right of a democratic nation to forge its own future.
Ukraine's security is essential to European security. The Ukrainian flag still flies proudly above government buildings, up and down Whitehall and the rest of the country, and should not come down again until Ukraine enjoys peace on its own land. Once again, we must continue our firm support of Ukraine until that happy day comes. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Can I thank both opposition frontbenchers for their
For part of my time in ministerial office, I served as the UK representative on the EU's General Affairs Council when the noble Lord was UK Permanent representative in Brussels. So I can certainly testify to his commendable hospitality in the Brussels residence where I stayed, and we had some great late night discussions on many subjects, but I particularly remember him fondly telling me about his time and his experiences. Ambassador in Moscow I know that the House will greatly benefit from that experience.
In many debates to come. As Lord Purvis remarked, he can reassure his family that the speech was fairly brief, but it certainly was not bland. It's now well over three years since Putin launched his illegal war on Ukraine, a war that has seen a European nation invaded a horrific war, crimes committed against the people of Ukraine. And that's been testified to by many of the great contributions today. And as I said, across this House, we have almost remained united in our condemnation of that invasion.
That is something that we as a nation can be proud of. And we do credit the government for continuing the steadfast support that we give to Ukraine when we were in office. But, my Lords, there has been said, but Ukraine's war is not yet won. Ukraine still desperately needs our full support, and one area that has been crucial has been the removal of UK tariffs on Ukrainian goods that have ensured a vital source of foreign revenue for the Ukrainian government and wider economy.
But there is a looming deadline. On 31st March 2026, when tariff free access for Ukrainian poultry and egg producers is set to end. Ukraine has increased its poultry exports to the UK in recent years, but this hasn't impacted British farmers who face production constraints and cannot meet that rising demand. Rather, it has displaced exports from other countries, including China, Brazil and Thailand. The imposition of tariffs on poultry and egg will harm UK consumers and deprive the Ukrainian government and wider economy of crucial source of revenue.
Facilitating trade should be a key pillar of the support that we provide to Ukraine, as the revenues raised from exports are a crucial source of funding for the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian people and directly fund the country's armed forces. So I hope the noble Lady, the minister, could possibly speak to some of her colleagues in the debate on this matter and help to ensure Ukrainian resolution, although we all remember those fraught weeks in February and March 2022, when Ukraine's fate hung in the balance, we must not forget that Ukraine's struggle did not start then it began much earlier than 2022.
They've been fighting for their independence now, for their democracy and their freedom from Russian interference since 2014. And some may argue from before then. In 2022, Putin sought to bring an end to Ukraine's long struggle for independence by force of arms. But the indomitable spirit of the Ukrainian people, the selfless sacrifice of so many, brought the invasion to a halt and rolled back Putin's forces. And those of us watching on our TV screens cheered them along every step of the way.
Today, though, sadly, Russian forces remain entrenched in Ukrainian territory and Ukraine is still locked in a desperate struggle for its very survival. Between 2022 and 2024, the previous Conservative government provided major financial support for Ukraine. We shipped huge quantities of military hardware to Kyiv, and we know the crucial role that NLAW anti-tank missiles played in the early part of the war and we have gone on, and I'm pleased to say, to provide tanks, air defence systems, artillery and long range precision strike missiles and every Ukrainian that visits the UK that I get the pleasure of meeting are all eternally grateful for the support that we have provided them.
We've brought in tough sanctions against Russia, including some of those individuals close to Putin who have played their own role in support of that illegal war. And I commend the government for continuing to strengthen those sanctions against Russia. I hope they will continue to do so. And looking at sanctions, perhaps, on members of United Russia, Putin's party, political party in the future, we also took the initiative on protecting those displaced by the war in Ukraine. And many members have referred to the homes for Ukraine scheme.
The Prime Minister, to his great credit, whilst leader of the opposition, supported us when we took that action and has continued to build on our work and we offer him our support. Now. Since the government took office, we've seen further support for Ukraine. We fully support that that help across the previous and current governments. The UK has committed so far up to £21.8 billion in a difficult financial environment to Ukraine, which in my view is money well spent.
The government have also worked to establish the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine's future security, and signed the UK up to a slightly bizarre Ukraine UK Ukraine 100 year partnership. It's better than some of their under 100 year agreements. I have to say, all this builds on the strong relationship we fostered with Ukraine when we were in office, and we welcome the steps forward as we continue to support the people of Ukraine in their hour of need. But my Lords, despite all of our support, Ukraine remains at war despite suffering around a million casualties.
Russia remains committed to that illegal invasion. I wonder, perhaps in her closing remarks, if the noble Baroness could update the House on the latest attempts to use our influence internationally to bring Russia to a position where a just peace can be achieved, is the government's position that peace and, crucially, long term security for Ukraine can only be achieved through primarily diplomatic means? Or do they believe that there is a military solution? What is the government's position on the deployment of those frozen Russian assets to further aid Ukrainian defence and eventually to help pay for, partly for the rebuilding of their country? And finally, could the noble Baroness reassure the House that the UK is working to further develop our intelligence in respect of Russia and her allies? And can she give the House a sense of how well that information is being shared with Ukraine? My Lords Russia's war on Ukraine is an assault not just on the Ukrainian nation, but on the values of independence, sovereignty and the right of a democratic nation to forge its own future.
Ukraine's security is essential to European security. The Ukrainian flag still flies proudly above government buildings, up and down Whitehall and the rest of the country, and should not come down again until Ukraine enjoys peace on its own land. Once again, we must continue our firm support of Ukraine until that happy day comes. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Can I thank both opposition frontbenchers for their
13:44
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
opposition frontbenchers for their continued support on our approach to Ukraine? It is, I think, perhaps uniquely, something that brings us all together and perhaps, as noble Lord suggested earlier, that is one of the reasons it doesn't excite the media and the public in a way that some of those issues on which we don't agree so readily can sometimes do, and I will resist the temptation to respond to Lord Callanan jibe about 100 year partnerships. We can get into that on Tuesday, and I look forward to that.
Obviously, I'll attempt to answer all of the questions that have been put to me this afternoon. I might have to if I miss anything, it's it's an omission and I will write to noble Lords and particularly my very good friend Viscount Stansgate, who I counted, asked me 28 things in his contribution. But I really must pay particular tribute to Lord Barrow and his quite remarkable maiden speech. I was looking forward to it, as were many others in this House, and we very much welcome him, and we look forward to what I'm sure will be many more well informed, thoughtful and immaculately crafted contributions in the years to come.
And I don't mind a bland speech from time to time, as long as it's well informed and there's a point that's being made, rather than a speech that's incredibly entertaining but doesn't actually get anything and doesn't actually say anything. So I'm sure that we'll all enjoy listening to him and his future contributions. As the Foreign Secretary said a few weeks after her visit to Kyiv, she said as Ukraine stands firm against Russia, the United Kingdom stands firm with Ukraine. Ukraine security is Europe's security, and the security and stability of the whole of Europe is vital for our security here in the UK.
And to all those this afternoon who have been urging us to go further, to go faster, suggesting new measures, telling us to stay the course, we thank you and we we encourage every noble Lord to keep making their encouragement and to to stay resolute, to keep making this encouragement loudly and publicly. The points made by Lord Kerr, Baroness Suttie and others on the need to secure public support are well made and they are accepted by the government. Ukrainians have defended their country with courage for over three and a half years.
They've made clear their desire for the war to end and for a just and lasting peace. And while President Zelensky has affirmed his readiness for a ceasefire and meaningful talks, Putin's response has been to launch some of the largest attacks seen in Europe since the height of the Second World War. So our focus remains on ensuring Ukraine gets the support it needs to stay in the fight and protect its cities and infrastructure from Russia's increasingly brutal attacks. And we're ramping up the pressure on Putin to force him to conclude that his military objectives are unachievable and that he should engage in talks that result in a sovereign, secure and independent Ukraine.
Shortly before the Russian delegation walked out of the UN Security Council chamber last month, our Foreign Secretary told Foreign Minister Lavrov directly that this is our aim. Despite throwing everything they can at Ukraine, Russia has achieved none of its objectives. While the costs of the war are piling up, Russia has gained less than 1% of Ukraine's territory since November 2022, sustained over a million casualties in the process, and its economy is stagnating. Economic pressure is biting, and the UK will continue to work with partners and allies to go forward to go further, Lord McConnell and Baroness Pidding asked about the deported children and I sincerely thank them for for making sure that that is part of this debate this afternoon.
Children should never be pawns of war. Russia's forcible deportation, adoption and militarisation of Ukrainian children is a despicable and systematic attempt to erase Ukrainian identity, and with it, Ukraine's future. The UK raises this issue continually with our partners and allies, and we're playing our full part in international efforts to reunite these children with their families where they belong. Last Friday, the Prime Minister welcomed President Zelensky to London and we co-chaired a virtual meeting of the coalition of the willing with more than 20 leaders.
The Prime Minister urged them to act to take Russian oil and gas off the global market, to make progress on using immobilised Russian sovereign assets to unlock billions in funding for Ukraine, and to provide more long range capabilities to ensure Ukraine can defend itself. The Prime Minister underlined the group's support for President Trump's position that the fighting must stop immediately, and that the current line of contact should be the starting point for negotiations. Leaders reiterated their determination to put robust arrangements in place for Ukraine's future security, so it can deter and defend itself against any future attack.
In response to Baroness Goldie and others. That does include the deployment deployment of a multinational force to help secure Ukraine's skies and seas and regenerate Ukraine's armed forces. Once hostilities have ceased. Leaders expressed their intent to address Ukraine's pressing financial needs for 2026 and 2027, and that includes, as many noble lords have argued, working up options to use the full value of immobilised Russian sovereign assets so that Ukraine has the resources it needs to defend its territory and rebuild its armed forces.
The Prime Minister announced that we are accelerating our UK programme to provide Ukraine with more than 5000 lightweight multi-role missiles, aiming to deliver an additional 140 missiles ahead of schedule. And this will help bolster Ukraine's defences through the depths of winter. In the wake of Russian attacks on energy infrastructure. Baroness Suttie asked about NATO and Lord Barrow about the defence investment. We've made a historic commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is a generational increase, underlining the UK's commitment to national security and our leadership in NATO.
In response to Baroness Goldie question as well about non-military support, we work to support Ukraine to implement vital democratic economic and security reforms. Our allies will continue to support progress towards interoperability with NATO. For months now, President Zelensky has said that he is ready for a ceasefire and ready to engage in meaningful talks with President Putin. Yet Putin continues to stall and play for time, rejecting the opportunity for talks to end the war while escalating his attacks against Ukraine.
So we continue to work closely with our international partners to keep Ukraine in the fight, enable Ukraine to defend itself against Russia's attacks and ratchet up the pressure on Putin to end his illegal war. My Lords our most powerful tool to bring Putin to the negotiating table is mounting economic pressure applied through sanctions. Since July 2024, the government has introduced almost 900 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. In our most recent package, announced earlier this month, we sanctioned 90 targets across Russia's energy, financial and military sectors.
That includes Russia's two biggest oil producers, Rosneft and Lukoil, two of the largest in the world. We announced our intention to ban the import of oil products refined in third countries from Russian origin crude oil, further restricting the flow of funds to the Kremlin. We've led international efforts to disrupt Russia's shadow Fleet, sanctioning over 520 shadow Fleet vessels to date. This hits Russia's ability to transport oil to third countries, Lord Ricketts referred to India and we welcome decisions being made and being taken by certain Indian refineries to suspend future purchases of Russian crude.
We welcome the sanctions packages announced by the US and EU last week, with the US matching our sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil, and the EU sanctioning Rosneft, we are coordinating, I give way to the noble Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
She's just produced a very impressive, very impressive statistics of economic sanctions. What effect have they had.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What effect have they had. Having a very real effect on the economy of Russia? And the ability of this is, I think I mean, the way of this is, I think I mean, the way I would perhaps describe this is this is becoming a battle. Yes, on this is becoming a battle. Yes, on the front line, but it's also a battle of industrial, military, military, industrial complex. It's military, industrial complex. It's our ability to supply that is at stake and that we are in competition with Russia.
And I competition with Russia. And I think the more we can do to damage the Russian economy, the stronger we become. But we we can't do that we become. But we we can't do that alone. We need to do that alongside our partners and allies. And that is the work that our Prime Minister is the work that our Prime Minister is engaged in at the moment. But indeed, sanctions have denied indeed, sanctions have denied Russia access to at least $450 billion, equivalent to an estimated billion, equivalent to an estimated two years of funding for this horrendous war.
And of course, my noble Lords know that we do not noble Lords know that we do not speculate on future designations to maximise their impact. But noble maximise their impact. But noble Lords should be in no doubt that this government will continue to ratchet up measures as we pile pressure on the Kremlin to change course. My Lords in recent months, Russia has intensified attacks against Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia has fired thousands of drones at Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, resulting in ever more civilian casualties.
And these strikes are having a devastating impact on communities enduring extreme hardship, compounding displacement, trauma and loss. Drones are being used to target humanitarian responders as well. A clearly marked UN convoy delivering humanitarian assistance to frontline communities was hit earlier this month, and I'm sure my noble Lords will, will noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to the selfless humanitarian aid workers who continue to operate in high risk environments, not just in Ukraine, but in Gaza, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere.
To reach those most in need, often under fire. Several noble lords asked specifically about women. The needs of women and girls have been embedded in our support for Ukraine, including funding for humanitarian aid, civil society and inclusion, sexual and reproductive health services, and assistance to tackle gender based violence. And I specifically thank Lord Mott for talking about children. UK funding delivered via partners is providing mental health and psychosocial support to Ukrainian rehabilitation professionals. The Burns unit in Kyiv, to Ukrainian Red cross staff and volunteers, and to adults and children in frontline oblasts.
The British Army is supporting the morale and resilience of Ukrainian troops through the delivery of combat mental resilience practitioner training, and we will train 180 Ukrainian soldiers this year. And as winter begins to bite, Russia its attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure once again, Russia's aim is to plunge Ukrainians into cold and darkness, carrying out its largest ever attack on Ukraine's gas infrastructure earlier this month. This threatens to deepen the humanitarian crisis for millions of people now facing a bitter winter without heat, electricity or access to basic services.
That is why the Foreign Secretary announced £142 million in aid during her visit to Kyiv last month to support Ukraine through the winter and into next year. That includes £42 million for vital repairs to the electricity transmission network and critical protection for gas and power infrastructure as temperatures plunge, as well as £100 million in vital support for humanitarian assistance. To get emergency relief to communities on the front line. A clear commitment that we stand with our Ukrainian friends in the face of Russia's intensified attacks.
My right hon. Friend, the noble Lord Coaker, who made such an inspiring speech at the beginning of this debate, set out details of our military support as we continue to work with our Ukrainian partners to ensure that they have what they need to stay in the fight. In addition, the UK has been leading by bilateral donors and bilateral donors since the start, their leading bilateral donor since the start of the full scale invasion, with a commitment to up to £1.2 billion to fund humanitarian assistance, energy resilience, stabilisation and reform, recovery and reconstruction.
UK funding continues to provide urgent assistance to frontline communities to protect the most vulnerable. We are supporting efforts to bolster the rule of law, pursue justice and fight corruption. We are bolstering the growth and resilience of Ukraine's economy, and we're helping Ukrainians revitalise community services as they build more efficient and inclusive systems of social protection. My Lords, I conclude this debate by echoing the words of the Deputy Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly in New York just a few weeks ago.
We must all strive for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, one that maintains the integrity of our UN charter and sees Ukraine emerge from Russia's horrendous war as a sovereign, secure and independent nation. As we speak, President Putin rains down ever more drones and missiles on the Ukrainian people. Yet President Zelensky continues to affirm his commitment to peace at every turn, and the Ukrainian people continue to demonstrate their resilience and determination to resist Russia's aggression.
So our message to our Ukrainian friends is clear. We stand with you today, tomorrow, and a hundred years from now, as we sustain the UK's unwavering support for our shared future for decades
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to come. The question is that this motion
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lord. I beg to move that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Obviously, I'll attempt to answer all of the questions that have been put to me this afternoon. I might have to if I miss anything, it's it's an omission and I will write to noble Lords and particularly my very good friend Viscount Stansgate, who I counted, asked me 28 things in his contribution. But I really must pay particular tribute to Lord Barrow and his quite remarkable maiden speech. I was looking forward to it, as were many others in this House, and we very much welcome him, and we look forward to what I'm sure will be many more well informed, thoughtful and immaculately crafted contributions in the years to come.
And I don't mind a bland speech from time to time, as long as it's well informed and there's a point that's being made, rather than a speech that's incredibly entertaining but doesn't actually get anything and doesn't actually say anything. So I'm sure that we'll all enjoy listening to him and his future contributions. As the Foreign Secretary said a few weeks after her visit to Kyiv, she said as Ukraine stands firm against Russia, the United Kingdom stands firm with Ukraine. Ukraine security is Europe's security, and the security and stability of the whole of Europe is vital for our security here in the UK.
And to all those this afternoon who have been urging us to go further, to go faster, suggesting new measures, telling us to stay the course, we thank you and we we encourage every noble Lord to keep making their encouragement and to to stay resolute, to keep making this encouragement loudly and publicly. The points made by Lord Kerr, Baroness Suttie and others on the need to secure public support are well made and they are accepted by the government. Ukrainians have defended their country with courage for over three and a half years.
They've made clear their desire for the war to end and for a just and lasting peace. And while President Zelensky has affirmed his readiness for a ceasefire and meaningful talks, Putin's response has been to launch some of the largest attacks seen in Europe since the height of the Second World War. So our focus remains on ensuring Ukraine gets the support it needs to stay in the fight and protect its cities and infrastructure from Russia's increasingly brutal attacks. And we're ramping up the pressure on Putin to force him to conclude that his military objectives are unachievable and that he should engage in talks that result in a sovereign, secure and independent Ukraine.
Shortly before the Russian delegation walked out of the UN Security Council chamber last month, our Foreign Secretary told Foreign Minister Lavrov directly that this is our aim. Despite throwing everything they can at Ukraine, Russia has achieved none of its objectives. While the costs of the war are piling up, Russia has gained less than 1% of Ukraine's territory since November 2022, sustained over a million casualties in the process, and its economy is stagnating. Economic pressure is biting, and the UK will continue to work with partners and allies to go forward to go further, Lord McConnell and Baroness Pidding asked about the deported children and I sincerely thank them for for making sure that that is part of this debate this afternoon.
Children should never be pawns of war. Russia's forcible deportation, adoption and militarisation of Ukrainian children is a despicable and systematic attempt to erase Ukrainian identity, and with it, Ukraine's future. The UK raises this issue continually with our partners and allies, and we're playing our full part in international efforts to reunite these children with their families where they belong. Last Friday, the Prime Minister welcomed President Zelensky to London and we co-chaired a virtual meeting of the coalition of the willing with more than 20 leaders.
The Prime Minister urged them to act to take Russian oil and gas off the global market, to make progress on using immobilised Russian sovereign assets to unlock billions in funding for Ukraine, and to provide more long range capabilities to ensure Ukraine can defend itself. The Prime Minister underlined the group's support for President Trump's position that the fighting must stop immediately, and that the current line of contact should be the starting point for negotiations. Leaders reiterated their determination to put robust arrangements in place for Ukraine's future security, so it can deter and defend itself against any future attack.
In response to Baroness Goldie and others. That does include the deployment deployment of a multinational force to help secure Ukraine's skies and seas and regenerate Ukraine's armed forces. Once hostilities have ceased. Leaders expressed their intent to address Ukraine's pressing financial needs for 2026 and 2027, and that includes, as many noble lords have argued, working up options to use the full value of immobilised Russian sovereign assets so that Ukraine has the resources it needs to defend its territory and rebuild its armed forces.
The Prime Minister announced that we are accelerating our UK programme to provide Ukraine with more than 5000 lightweight multi-role missiles, aiming to deliver an additional 140 missiles ahead of schedule. And this will help bolster Ukraine's defences through the depths of winter. In the wake of Russian attacks on energy infrastructure. Baroness Suttie asked about NATO and Lord Barrow about the defence investment. We've made a historic commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is a generational increase, underlining the UK's commitment to national security and our leadership in NATO.
In response to Baroness Goldie question as well about non-military support, we work to support Ukraine to implement vital democratic economic and security reforms. Our allies will continue to support progress towards interoperability with NATO. For months now, President Zelensky has said that he is ready for a ceasefire and ready to engage in meaningful talks with President Putin. Yet Putin continues to stall and play for time, rejecting the opportunity for talks to end the war while escalating his attacks against Ukraine.
So we continue to work closely with our international partners to keep Ukraine in the fight, enable Ukraine to defend itself against Russia's attacks and ratchet up the pressure on Putin to end his illegal war. My Lords our most powerful tool to bring Putin to the negotiating table is mounting economic pressure applied through sanctions. Since July 2024, the government has introduced almost 900 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. In our most recent package, announced earlier this month, we sanctioned 90 targets across Russia's energy, financial and military sectors.
That includes Russia's two biggest oil producers, Rosneft and Lukoil, two of the largest in the world. We announced our intention to ban the import of oil products refined in third countries from Russian origin crude oil, further restricting the flow of funds to the Kremlin. We've led international efforts to disrupt Russia's shadow Fleet, sanctioning over 520 shadow Fleet vessels to date. This hits Russia's ability to transport oil to third countries, Lord Ricketts referred to India and we welcome decisions being made and being taken by certain Indian refineries to suspend future purchases of Russian crude.
We welcome the sanctions packages announced by the US and EU last week, with the US matching our sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil, and the EU sanctioning Rosneft, we are coordinating, I give way to the noble Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
She's just produced a very impressive, very impressive statistics of economic sanctions. What effect have they had.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What effect have they had. Having a very real effect on the economy of Russia? And the ability of this is, I think I mean, the way of this is, I think I mean, the way I would perhaps describe this is this is becoming a battle. Yes, on this is becoming a battle. Yes, on the front line, but it's also a battle of industrial, military, military, industrial complex. It's military, industrial complex. It's our ability to supply that is at stake and that we are in competition with Russia.
And I competition with Russia. And I think the more we can do to damage the Russian economy, the stronger we become. But we we can't do that we become. But we we can't do that alone. We need to do that alongside our partners and allies. And that is the work that our Prime Minister is the work that our Prime Minister is engaged in at the moment. But indeed, sanctions have denied indeed, sanctions have denied Russia access to at least $450 billion, equivalent to an estimated billion, equivalent to an estimated two years of funding for this horrendous war.
And of course, my noble Lords know that we do not noble Lords know that we do not speculate on future designations to maximise their impact. But noble maximise their impact. But noble Lords should be in no doubt that this government will continue to ratchet up measures as we pile pressure on the Kremlin to change course. My Lords in recent months, Russia has intensified attacks against Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia has fired thousands of drones at Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, resulting in ever more civilian casualties.
And these strikes are having a devastating impact on communities enduring extreme hardship, compounding displacement, trauma and loss. Drones are being used to target humanitarian responders as well. A clearly marked UN convoy delivering humanitarian assistance to frontline communities was hit earlier this month, and I'm sure my noble Lords will, will noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to the selfless humanitarian aid workers who continue to operate in high risk environments, not just in Ukraine, but in Gaza, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere.
To reach those most in need, often under fire. Several noble lords asked specifically about women. The needs of women and girls have been embedded in our support for Ukraine, including funding for humanitarian aid, civil society and inclusion, sexual and reproductive health services, and assistance to tackle gender based violence. And I specifically thank Lord Mott for talking about children. UK funding delivered via partners is providing mental health and psychosocial support to Ukrainian rehabilitation professionals. The Burns unit in Kyiv, to Ukrainian Red cross staff and volunteers, and to adults and children in frontline oblasts.
The British Army is supporting the morale and resilience of Ukrainian troops through the delivery of combat mental resilience practitioner training, and we will train 180 Ukrainian soldiers this year. And as winter begins to bite, Russia its attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure once again, Russia's aim is to plunge Ukrainians into cold and darkness, carrying out its largest ever attack on Ukraine's gas infrastructure earlier this month. This threatens to deepen the humanitarian crisis for millions of people now facing a bitter winter without heat, electricity or access to basic services.
That is why the Foreign Secretary announced £142 million in aid during her visit to Kyiv last month to support Ukraine through the winter and into next year. That includes £42 million for vital repairs to the electricity transmission network and critical protection for gas and power infrastructure as temperatures plunge, as well as £100 million in vital support for humanitarian assistance. To get emergency relief to communities on the front line. A clear commitment that we stand with our Ukrainian friends in the face of Russia's intensified attacks.
My right hon. Friend, the noble Lord Coaker, who made such an inspiring speech at the beginning of this debate, set out details of our military support as we continue to work with our Ukrainian partners to ensure that they have what they need to stay in the fight. In addition, the UK has been leading by bilateral donors and bilateral donors since the start, their leading bilateral donor since the start of the full scale invasion, with a commitment to up to £1.2 billion to fund humanitarian assistance, energy resilience, stabilisation and reform, recovery and reconstruction.
UK funding continues to provide urgent assistance to frontline communities to protect the most vulnerable. We are supporting efforts to bolster the rule of law, pursue justice and fight corruption. We are bolstering the growth and resilience of Ukraine's economy, and we're helping Ukrainians revitalise community services as they build more efficient and inclusive systems of social protection. My Lords, I conclude this debate by echoing the words of the Deputy Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly in New York just a few weeks ago.
We must all strive for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, one that maintains the integrity of our UN charter and sees Ukraine emerge from Russia's horrendous war as a sovereign, secure and independent nation. As we speak, President Putin rains down ever more drones and missiles on the Ukrainian people. Yet President Zelensky continues to affirm his commitment to peace at every turn, and the Ukrainian people continue to demonstrate their resilience and determination to resist Russia's aggression.
So our message to our Ukrainian friends is clear. We stand with you today, tomorrow, and a hundred years from now, as we sustain the UK's unwavering support for our shared future for decades
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to come. The question is that this motion
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lord. I beg to move that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.