Ukraine
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I greatly welcome my noble friend Lord Spellar, with his huge reputation. He and I agree on almost everything—apart from on this war.
I am not a pacifist; I have supported wars in the Falklands, eastern Europe and intervention in Iraq, but not the war in Ukraine. This is my 23rd contribution in opposition. Too many lives have been lost and too much property has been destroyed. The war has destabilised the world economy and redirected aid from the poorest to fund arms and reconstruction in the developed world. It has moved Russia from west to east, and it has hugely reinforced the position of those in Russia whose corrupt practices were being progressively exposed by courageous dissidents. It has provoked a population movement of 8 million at the heart of Europe as people seek sanctuary in neighbouring states, interrupting the education of millions. It has provoked a debate over NATO’s future, while destroying Ukraine’s GDP, with prospective reconstruction bills topping £400 billion.
We are witnessing a failure of foreign policy perhaps unmatched in history. I think back to a period of hope: the fruitful period of early discussions between Putin, Blair and my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen in the early 2000s. It was a period of opportunity, only to be undermined as militaristic opinion in America hijacked the debate in favour of NATO expansion. It is that threat of expansion that stands at the heart of this conflict. With Yeltsin’s death, the die was cast. With the removal of Yanukovych, Putin’s paranoid obsession with NATO expansion, built on Russia’s understandable obsession with Second World War losses, turned ugly and defensive.
Events further deteriorated after the Maidan with Zelensky’s election. His demands at the 2019 Paris conference and the rejection of Putin’s counterproposals opened the door to war. I believe Russia’s obsession with NATO expansion could have been defused if the nuclear-free barrier status of a string of states stretching from Estonia in the north to Georgia in the south had been maintained, pending progressive liberalisation of all things in Russia. Yes, it is a slow process, but this process would have accelerated in a post-Putin era of increased international travel and commercial, cultural and student exchange. It was only a matter of time. Russia was on a trajectory now reversed at huge cost to the international community. The question is: how can we revitalise the whole process? My personal view is that we need a new initiative. A war dependent on the endless demands of Zelensky is not one to be won. Trump could do a deal, but he comes with baggage.
So what can we do? We need a new forum for talks, convened by a non-combatant or munitions-contributory power. I would not rule out a representative of the BRICS—perhaps China. Its relationship with Russia is no more than commercially opportunist. We ignore its potential role in world affairs at our peril. The attendees should include Germany and the UK, the drivers behind the 2020 talks, and of course the United States and Russia.
Russia has repeatedly called for talks, admittedly on an escalating agenda of military and territorial demands, but Russia is equally exhausted by the war. It wants security for its people in hostile territory. A talks agenda should concede on the issue of non-NATO membership for Ukraine and no nuclear deployments in the barrier states, all against a background of a review agreeable to all sides, perhaps within a 20-year negotiable timeframe. Donetsk and Luhansk should be subject to a form of international protectorate status, delivered under the international guarantee, which would include Russia. The protectorate would decide on official languages and all forces would withdraw in conditions of a ceasefire.
We need to defuse the conflict. It cannot be left to Zelensky; he is locked into conflict. We, the West, cannot influence events unless we advocate at least some basis for a realistic negotiating position. We need to promote in Russia at least some basis for a debate on war aims. We learn from history that Russia will fight to the last. Ukraine needs to rebuild influence on the public debates in the UK. It has to move from the military to the political. I believe there is a solution; we just need to start talking.
I leave the House with a thought: Russia lost 20 million —some say 25 million—people in the Second World War. We must never underestimate its fear of what it mistakenly believes to be external threat. It drives Russia’s fear of the West.
King’s Speech
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) (V)
My Lords, I want to raise two issues. The first is the war in Ukraine, which I have opposed since its beginning. I supported the more cautious original approach of France and Germany, which, if followed, would have saved billions in cash and thousands of lives, although later they were forced to compromise. That war has recast relations between East and West, has led to a mass population movement, undermined the international oil markets and provoked recession in Europe. I have supported wars in the Falklands, Iraq and eastern Europe, but not this one. If Ukraine had recognised separate regional status for Donetsk and Luhansk, and had not banned the official use of the Russian language in Donbass, and if NATO, conscious of Russian paranoia over NATO expansion, had insisted on the retention of non-nuclear barrier status for a string of states stretching from Finland to Georgia, then occupation and war would have been avoided. Russia would not have felt threatened. My view did not prevail. We now await the demise of the brutal Putin and a rebellion in America over the cost of the war.
I turn to Gaza, on which I without hesitation support my party’s position. Sixty-four years ago, in 1959, as a 16 year-old schoolboy I won a Daily Express essay competition. The prize: a visit to Jordan and Israel. At that time, Jerusalem was divided, with the east in Jordan and the west in Israel. I recall visiting refugee camps in Jordan and talking to the displaced, and then my excitement on entering a rapidly developing Israel, a country I have grown to love and admire to this day. It is a country I have followed over half a century, with occasional visits.
Recent events have shaken my faith. Netanyahu and the settlement movement have alienated world opinion and undermined worldwide support for the Jewish homeland, and policies of repression in Gaza and the land grab in the West Bank, while assisting the settler movement, have been disastrous. They have shattered the Oslo process, thereby breeding the worst forms of anti-Semitism.
So where do we go from here? I find it hard to condemn Israel, but there has to be urgent change. Post-conflict Gaza and the West Bank need to be internationally re-recognised by all as the new Palestinian state. Palestine should be given full protectorate status under a renewed United Nations mandate, the legal definition of which is defined as a state under protection by another state for defence against aggression and other violations of law.
The new state should be free of all Israeli jurisdiction and occupation. An administrative power should be appointed under a process administered by the permanent members of the United Nation Security Council, perhaps very similar to the arrangements under the 1945 Berlin declaration, with defined geographic areas for individual national responsibility. The boundaries should be as advised under the Geneva accords, with the creation of a limited number of agreed settlements. However, with the murder of 1,300 innocent Israeli citizens and the consequential brutal assault on Gaza, regional tensions are likely to remain high and Israel will need further security guarantees. Gaza will require a protective wall that blocks the import of weaponry. This wall should be provided under the proposed UN mandate.
The answer to this crisis is not to further restrict the Palestinians, which is current Israeli policy. Gaza and the West Bank, united under a single administrative authority, should be physically linked by a security-fenced roadway to allow the free flow of people and goods under strict security control. It could be modelled on the Berlin corridor. Yes, that is controversial, but I am afraid that we need compromise and new thinking all round. As the late William Whitelaw, a neighbouring Member of Parliament in Cumbria, said to me on a long train journey in the late 1980s, if there is another World War it will be started over Israel.
Ukraine: Ministry of Defence Strategy
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask His Majesty’s Government what arrangements they have in place for reviewing the Ministry of Defence’s strategy in relation to Ukraine.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating virtually.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government are dedicated to supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal invasion. A key element of our response is being agile in our support as the conflict changes, and strands of work are constantly assessed to deliver this goal. Working closely with international allies and partners, and via our major contribution to the international donor co-ordination centre, we continue to enable and adapt support from across the world to meet Ukraine’s current and future requirements.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, some colleagues will be aware of my personal reservations about the war, but I now have to accept it: I too have to move on. Is not the simple truth that you cannot keep 140 million Russian citizens in information lockdown founded on a policy of brutality? The resistance to Russia’s approach to this war has to come from within Russia. That should now be the central focus of our strategy. Should we not be concentrating our resources on an information war and not just on a battlefield victory in which we are quasi-participants? A strategy based on war alone is destroying infrastructure, leading to mass population movement and destabilising the world economy.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I commend the noble Lord on his change of position; many people will identify and sympathise with his stance. If I may seek to reassure him, it has been the UK Government’s very clear position in relation to trying to bring this war to an end that only by going into peace negotiations from a position of military, economic and diplomatic strength will Ukraine secure a strong, just and lasting sustainable peace. Sadly, we are not there yet. I seek to reassure him that within the MoD, through various channels, ambitious and very effective attempts have been made to disseminate information within Russia, with evidence that this information is being increasingly received and taken up. He makes the important point that a powerful and cogent persuader in relation to President Putin will come from within Russia, when his country realises that this is a disastrous enterprise that it has embarked upon.
Ukraine: Arms Supplies
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we will now have a virtual contribution form the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, despite all the calls with honourable intent for increased military support and NATO participation, should we not be seriously considering opening up back channels with the potential for an exchange of views, if not negotiation? If that proves impossible, are we considering the route to a settlement? A settlement is required that takes into account the interests of innocent non-combatants who are suffering on the front line. It may also require a compromise on the Crimea.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It is for Ukraine to determine its position in any negotiations, just as it is for Ukraine to determine its democratic future. As friends and international partners of Ukraine, we will always work to protect and defend the country’s sovereignty. I observe that, if there are to be any peace negotiations, it is only by going into them from a position of military, economic and diplomatic strength that Ukraine will secure a strong and lasting peace.
Ukraine
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Soames, to his place. We go back a long way—30 years in the Commons. I recall that when he and I were on those Benches, he always did his homework.
There is feedback on the line at the moment.
I have been a dissenting voice on this issue on a number of occasions. I support NATO, and I have supported wars in central Europe, the Falklands, and even Iraq, which I argued for in Washington—but this is different. If we had troops on the ground, I would be loyal, but we do not. We are fighting a proxy war. To date, 8 million have fled the conflict, with 6 million internally displaced.
I believe that a series of miscalculations and missed opportunities have provoked a worldwide economic crisis that could have been avoided. I confess that I have no practical hands-on experience of foreign policy management, but I have followed in detail developments in foreign affairs over three decades. In my analysis, Russia’s oil blockade response was predictable, as was its impact on the oil price and the explosion in wage inflation. Both have consequences. The people paying the price are the unemployed, the poor, the rent and mortgage payers, the elderly poor and those struggling on marginal incomes. The impact on those with resources has been minimal. Millions in poverty now rely on friends, food banks and social centres while the stock market booms.
In truth, the world is changing. New alliances are being forged; trading patterns are changing; Russia is forging stronger trading links with China, India and parts of Africa. These changes have consequences for our alliances and trading patterns in the longer term. I ask myself: are we getting it wrong? I go back to a time of hope, when my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen met Putin in October 2001, following the final years of Yeltsin’s presidency. It had ended in an atmosphere of suspicion, following years of argument over NATO’s expansion. It is that which stands at the heart of today’s impasse. Russia had been humiliated with a collapsed economy and a loss of strategic influence. Genscher, as early as 1990, had recognised this and assured the Russians at Tutzing that there would be no NATO expansion to the east. Baker, to assure volatile rocking public opinion, gave similar assurances to Gorbachev. Indeed, it was Gorbachev’s willingness under duress to show flexibility in response on NATO that cost him the leadership in favour of Yeltsin.
Yeltsin himself showed huge statesmanship in seeking to square the circle, but he too fell when he could not deliver, giving way to Putin—his protégé. As Yeltsin had made clear in the arguments over Ukraine and NATO, the loss of Ukraine would upset the balance in former Soviet states, between Slav and Islamic nations, creating an Islamic majority, most of which carried an overlay of debt. We should at least try to understand the background.
However, the Russians then sadly made the catastrophic mistake of meddling in Chechnya—again, the Islamic factor. In doing so, they played right into the hands of the later expansionists. On reflection, I believe that we misread the problem. My own two speaking visits to Moscow during that period left me with a clear impression of Russian fears. In the Second World War, we lost 500,000 dead; they lost 25 million—50 times more. Nearly one in four Russians died. Surely that provides us with an explanation for Russia’s obsession with the external threat, which Putin is now ruthlessly using to justify his response to NATO expansion. I ask colleagues: are we really listening to their concerns? No. Do we ever stop to consider the impact on Russian public opinion of prospective NATO status for a ring of states, from Finland in the north to Georgia in the South—hitherto non-nuclear, neutral states—pointing nuclear weapons at Russia? No.
What of the Azov brigades, with their historic connections and their impact on Russian public opinion? Why have we compromised Germany into supplying tanks in the face of German public opinion, ever conscious of Russian memories of World War II? By our actions and inactions on all these counts, we are ignoring the credibility of a brutal Putin-driven Kremlin propaganda machine within Russia, exploiting these matters.
Where do we go from here? I believe we need to set out our bottom-line war aims and feed them into Russia, using every propaganda tool available and challenging disinformation, using the written word, telecommunication from satellite links, the internet, audio communication in all its forms, intel and the underground media. We should be proposing a settlement that avoids humiliation of a proud nation. We cannot blame the Russian people for the sins of a brutal, cruel leadership that keeps them in information lockdown and ignorance of the truth.
We need to bypass the Putin machine, and talk of a settlement based on, first, a ceasefire and withdrawal of all Russian and Ukrainian combat forces, including the Asov battalions, from the Donbass; and, secondly, the recognition by Ukraine of separate regional devolved status under Ukraine sovereignty of the Donetsk and Luhansk, one of which is majority Russian-speaking, the other not. Then we need the reversal of Ukraine’s decision to ban the official use of the Russian language in the Donbass; an agreement on Russian access to arrangements for the Crimea; and the rejection of any NATO application by Ukraine under an agreed review timetable of up to 20 years—or earlier, depending on the negotiations. Finally, we need the retention of non-nuclear barrier status under the agreed review timetable.
In closing, I must express my admiration for the Ukrainians, families and military alike, and their belief that their strategy is right. They have been prepared to lay down their lives in the face of escalating levels of brutality. I argue not with their laudable objectives in pursuit of liberty; I argue only with the detail of the strategy that they have set out to pursue, and warn of the real dangers of escalation, perhaps nuclear, for the whole world.
Ukraine: NATO
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours [V]
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they next intend to meet NATO officials to discuss progress in the conflict in the Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom continues to engage closely and regularly with our NATO allies as a key part of our response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Secretary of State for Defence met his NATO counterparts on 12 October, where allies reiterated unequivocal support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will continue to act alongside our NATO allies to counter Russian aggression.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Ministers repeatedly blame the war for the economic crisis, and I agree. Can we have an assurance that with rampant inflation here at home, volatility in the international money markets and millions worldwide, including in the United Kingdom, facing deprivation, there are no circumstances whatever in which the UK would dispatch in isolation, or with others in NATO, combat military forces of any nature to engage in military action in Ukraine? We need to protect the international economy and seek to restrain Russian’s infrastructural bombing campaign before it is too late.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, since the illegal invasion of Ukraine occurred the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of assisting the country in defending itself. We have been working closely in conjunction with our NATO partners and with our other bilateral partners and friends within the EU. That concerted effort is the best way, I think, to seek to reject President Putin’s illegal incursion; certainly the resolve of all countries to support the rule of law and respect the right of sovereignty is determined and resolute.
Ukraine Update
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It is a matter of international law that chemical weapons are proscribed. That is one of the areas of concern; there was speculation on the part of the White House in the United States that Russia might be thinking of this. It is very difficult to talk of things like red lines. Nuclear deterrents exist, and they exist within international law. While some may disagree with that, they do exist; indeed, we are a country with one of these important deterrents. Our focus at the moment in this complicated and distressing situation, daily unfolding before us in Ukraine, is how we collectively do our best to respond to that by supporting the Ukrainians in defending themselves and in showing our solidarity—this unity of purpose to which reference has been made—with the President of Ukraine and his people.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, with thousands dead, millions displaced and little talk of settlement, why not push the case I have repeatedly suggested since 22 February, before the invasion: no NATO membership for Ukraine for 20 years, pending earlier agreement in the Normandy contact group; protectorate status within Ukraine for Donetsk and Luhansk, under international monitoring arrangements; and Azov-associated battalions, Donbass militia, associated paramilitaries and all Russian forces withdrawing from theatre and, where appropriate, disbanding? The only downside is Putin’s possible survival under that scenario—we should remember, then, that our role is not regime change.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
If I may commence my response to the noble Lord by picking up on that last point, our role is to support a sovereign country which has been the victim of a completely illegal attack in which war is being waged within its boundaries. It is for that sovereign country to come to its own decisions about how it wants to see the future. It knows that it has the unstinting support of the great majority of global powers, and that has been manifest in not just statements of support but activity, for example at the United Nations. I suggest that these matters have to rest with the Ukrainian Government; it is a sovereign state.
Ukraine
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the unthinkable is happening as this tragedy unfolds. It was the danger of such conflict at the heart of Europe that motivated my three, criticised interventions in our Chamber in recent weeks. I need to make it clear that I am not some peacenik. In the Commons, I supported intervention in the Falklands, and in the case of Iraq I visited Washington on three occasions to lobby for varying forms of military intervention.
Moscow has known for weeks that there was no desire in European capitals or Washington for an interventionist military strategy. It was that division within European defence establishments that signalled weakness and lack of resolve. The moment we signalled that division, compromise was inevitable. It was with that in mind that I repeatedly called for an alternative solution that offered a way forward. I suggested that we sought to negotiate an agreed-timescale, non-NATO membership Ukraine, along with buffer-state protectorate status under Ukraine sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk. Mine has been a lone voice. In my view, at that stage that was the only way forward.
I believe there is a complete misunderstanding in Europe of the consequences of heaping humiliation on a proud Russian people and a volatile Putin who fears democracy, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, said. They are a people riddled with insecurity following the loss of 25 million in the Second World War. That loss still breeds insecurity throughout Russia, a factor Russia’s leadership feeds on. It has been inevitable since the fall of the Soviet Union that Russia would seek to secure protection from an illusory NATO threat from behind a barrier of buffer states—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts—stretching from Finland in the north, through Belarus to Crimea in the south, the only countries excluded from this defensive strategy being Estonia and Latvia, which, strategically and militarily, are of little consequence. While all these developments have been taking place in recent years, Russia has constructed a new trading relationship with China while concentrating its western trade on oil supply, knowing the theatre: the greater the dependence, the less likelihood of obstruction of its foreign policy aims. The strategy could be said to have worked. We are now paying the price for our misplaced trust and naivety.
However, that is all in the past. Where do we go from here? We should proceed with caution. Putin is seeking to put in place a puppet regime. We should avoid precipitate action and plan, but not yet implement, much of the programme of penalties proposed in yesterday’s Statement to Parliament, which I support. We need to give Putin’s people time to reflect and consider the potential response of their own people to international condemnation. While Russia is perfectly capable of withstanding unimaginable levels of suffering, common sense may well ultimately prevail among its people, many of whom have a close affinity with people in the West. I do not believe that the Russian people want the indefinite occupation of Ukraine.
I believe that with the threat of onerous sanctions and with the settlement I have previously outlined—to repeat: no NATO membership for Ukraine and an agreement on sensitive treatment of Russian minorities in the eastern provinces under protectorate status within an independent Ukraine—we might be able to end this confrontation. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I am not convinced that an erratic Putin is trying to rebuild the former Soviet Union of satellite states. He wants buffer states. We all need to understand the internal contradictions, strains and anxieties that hold modern Russia together. Conflict would be a heavy price to pay for us all when an alternative way forward may still offer a glimmer of hope.
In light of recent events, our defence position under a strong NATO has my support. In terms of popular support in Russia, I suspect Mr Putin is about to meet his Waterloo.
Defence: Type 45 Destroyers
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
Put simply, the Royal Navy continues to meet its operational commitments.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us if Rolls-Royce is responsible for paying for the cost of these repairs?
Baroness Goldie
All these problems are of long standing, and the noble Lord is correct about that. In fact, there is a mixture of circumstances. First, the period within which the contractor might have had a responsibility has long since elapsed. Secondly, decisions taken in the early stages by the MoD partly account for the difficulties we have experienced, so it is not the responsibility of the original contractor.
Defence Estate
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Fort George is a site of historical importance to the Army; there is no question about that. It is home to the Black Watch, but it has many minus points. It is an isolated site; it is not good for retention for the Army; it is a long way from the training estate; and it costs £1.6 million a year to run. It is therefore on our disposals list, but we are clear that 3 Scots will relocate to an alternative location in Scotland. After all, the origins of 42 Regiment Foot, which is how Black Watch originated, were from the Tay. Although I cannot say that it will move back to the Tay, the fact that it is in Fort George is perhaps a product of history more than anything else. We will engage with the Scottish Government and the local authority to identify the most appropriate combination of development types to maximise the opportunity that Fort George presents. We now have time to engage with local authorities generally about how this is to be managed.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, will Crichel Down issues apply in the case of selling off of much of the land? Also, in the case of sites contaminated by former MoD activity, will proper evaluation be made of the cost of decontamination to ensure that when they are ultimately sold, they are not sold at deflated prices? Are MoD officials—civil servants—well aware that the National Audit Office will pore over the sales at some stage in future?
Earl Howe
As to the last point, yes, we are all too well aware of that. We are anxious at all times to achieve best value for the taxpayer. Crichel Down considerations can and do arise where former owners come forward to claim title. Of course, due process is followed. It is being followed in the case of Southwick Park, for example, which I think was announced as one of our intended disposals in September.
Decontamination is also a live issue on many of the sites. There is no question of disguising contamination where it occurs: environmental assessments always have to be made and are done openly and transparently with potential purchasers.