Ukraine and Russia
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Campbell-Savours(1Â week, 6Â days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, why do not we put aside our immediate reservations about Trump, with all his idiosyncrasies—certainly following his disastrous miscalculations on intervention in the Middle East—join his people in any talks that might take place seeking a settlement in the Ukraine conflict, and then, if we want to be more adventurous, as a compromise, promote the idea of protectorate status in eastern Ukraine to include Donetsk and Luhansk, underpinned by guarantees from the major powers, to include the United States, Europe and Russia? There are precedents. We need to think out of the box and stem the escalation referred to by my noble friend in his Statement.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. Of course, we have to prevent escalation and be careful in the language we use, which I think by and large this House is, because it is aware that a word misplaced can have very serious consequences. I say to my noble friend, however, that we all want a ceasefire in Ukraine. As far as the Government are concerned, the obstacle to that is Russia. Russia is the problem. Let me also say that the fundamental principle for all of us is that any ceasefire should come with the acceptance and support of Ukraine itself. That is an important and fundamental principle. In terms of what comes after, that is why the UK, with France, has been leading the coalition of the willing—the possibility of a multinational force—so that any agreement that is reached has the support of that multinational force, so we can make sure that it is not just written on paper but is secure in any arrangements that it comes to.
Undersea Internet Cables
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Campbell-Savours(1Â year, 8Â months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will participate remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with undersea internet cable interference presenting only the latest challenge to security, along with threats to energy supply, banking, telecommunications, shipping and other potential use of viruses, should traditional defence chief responses, based on naval and military interventions, remain the main strategies in response? Should we not be reprofiling our expenditure towards nuclear deployments, defence satellite communications, selective sanctions enforcement, political exchange through dialogue and old-fashioned negotiations in conflict zones? The military option, costing billions in Ukraine, has hardly been a success.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
To deal with the last part of the question first, I am pleased to see the Prime Minister in Kyiv pursuing what has been a cross-government—and across all parties in majority—defence of freedom and democracy in Ukraine and what that means for the rest of Europe and beyond. With respect to the other points that my noble friend made, he is right to draw attention to the increasing threats to critical underwater infrastructure. The military option is one option that we need to use. I say that because, as I have said at this Dispatch Box before in answer to, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and others, we must deter people from doing things in the first place. The use of maritime assets and underwater drones, the actions of the Joint Expeditionary Force and those of NATO are key to protecting these vital cable links on which much of our livelihoods, data, telecommunications, energy and so on depend. Military resource is one way in which we have to deal with that.