Ukraine

Lord Barrow Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barrow (CB) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a great honour and perhaps even a bit overwhelming to join your Lordships’ House, although it is a great comfort to see some familiar faces among the Benches. I do not think I will live up to the billing that so many have kindly given me, but I did want to give my maiden speech in this debate, because I have spent over a decade of my career in Ukraine and Russia: I have been ambassador to Kyiv and to Moscow. When one serves abroad, one lives as well as works abroad. It is an obvious point, but it is salient to what this war and conflict—illegal, unjustified and cruel as it is—means to me. Three of my children went to school in Kyiv. So, right from the start, I associate myself with the comments of my friend the Minister and others about the plight of the abducted children from Ukraine.

Before I go on to this subject, I should first say some thanks to all those who have helped me as I have joined this House. First, I thank the staff: Black Rod’s office, the clerks and the doorkeepers, who very kindly welcomed me warmly from the first day and then politely averted their eyes when I scuttled back past them, having gone the wrong way. I also thank my supporters. I thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who, among other things, I knew from my last stint in Brussels. The other pillar of my career in diplomacy was in Brussels, where I also spent over a decade working on, in and with the European Union, including in many negotiations, culminating perhaps for me in the negotiation of the Windsor Framework. I thank my other supporter, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. It is a truth in life that one is wiser to have the noble Baroness at one’s side. For me, it also represents something I tried to do when National Security Adviser: to make sure that we gave more weight, time and space to the internal and domestic aspects of an issue or crisis, as much as to the international and foreign ones.

Finally, I thank all noble Lords for the generosity and courtesy of their welcome. Do not worry—I have understood the velvet menace in the phrase “self-regulating Chamber”. I have understood that maiden speeches should be brief and bland. The House will be glad to know that my family, ever supportive, have said to me that, after nearly 40 years as a diplomat, I am well versed in one of those skills—and, helpfully, there is the large clock to deal with the other.

It was to Kyiv that I first went before going to Moscow for my substantive posting in 1990, starting in the Soviet Union and finishing in Russia. I still well remember that Christmas Day in 1991 when I was summoned from the festivities to the embassy. Something was afoot in the Kremlin. It turned out to be Gorbachev’s resignation broadcast and it was only many hours later that I returned home. I discovered that I had left the turkey in the oven: it was unrecognisable and inedible. I would like to say that I spent my evening reflecting and seeking to digest the momentous events of that day, but I think I was more preoccupied with the fact that I could not digest the turkey.

There was an important lesson for me from that time. One of the reasons why President Yeltsin would not sign up to Gorbachev’s attempts to create a new federal structure was that Ukraine would not sign, and he would and could not be the Russian President who lost Ukraine. I think that same sentiment resounds all too loudly in today’s Kremlin. This is a war on Ukraine, but it is also about Russia. I remember, when I was in Kyiv, a Ukrainian friend and Minister saying to me, “If only you in the West would care about Ukraine a little more and Moscow care about us less”.

It is in that vein that I warmly endorse and welcome the Minister’s comments about the continued commitment of this country to Ukraine. It has really mattered that this is across Benches and bipartisan. From the eve of the war through those first days and these dreadful years, it has been a clear commitment from successive Governments, and I can tell noble Lords how often Ukrainian friends have noticed and felt that. They need to hear it again, as has been said.

Unfortunately, while our commitment continues, I see no diminution in Moscow’s intent. They have repeatedly said what they mean. You do not need an old Kremlinologist like me; there is no mystery here. They deny the legitimacy of Ukraine as a nation, and they act on their words. If this invasion had been about only some parcels of land, it would have been fully focused on the east. It was not, as other noble Lords have said. It was focused on Kyiv. They came for the capital, the Government and the country. They were checked by the heroism of the Ukrainian people and the courage of President Zelensky, who stayed and stood in that capital. However, this is an ambition thwarted but not abandoned.

So I salute all those who work towards peace, but completely associate myself with the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and others. It feels like a long shot. We should support all those seeking to move this forward—including, of course, President Zelensky and his team, with whom I have had the privilege of working for many hours on this question—but, if we are to get a peace, the only route is through strength, as others have said, by keeping Ukraine in the fight and keeping the pressure on Moscow. If there is a peace, we need to take fully into our policy the theory and practice of our 100-year partnership of continued commitment and engagement, to make sure that Ukraine is strong and that we also learn the lessons. It would be all too easy, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, for this peace to be just a pause and, if our attention wavers, for Ukraine to face a re-energised and revitalised enemy.

I have three questions for the Minister in conclusion. I do not believe that the frozen assets will prove readily and quickly available, so what is the Government’s intention with regard to the prioritised Ukraine requirements list to keep Ukraine in the fight? How does the Minister see the path to progress on the Hague summit defence investment pledge? This is not just about Ukraine, as so many noble Lords have said, so what are the Government doing to develop and strengthen a new deterrence doctrine in all its aspects—political, military and diplomatic—and who will be our partners in such an enterprise? We will need this because, whatever happens in the next days and years in Ukraine, this is a challenge for us as well, and that challenge will not go away.

Finally, I join all those who have said so eloquently and powerfully that the message from this Chamber today must be one of strong, continued support for the Ukrainian people as they face another desperate winter.