Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Over the past decade or so, we have seen increasing evidence of Russian ambition. In 2007, Russia planted a flag on the seabed at the north pole. In 2008, it invaded Georgia. In 2014, it invaded Crimea. In the same year, we saw Malaysia Airlines flight 17 shot down. In 2018, the events in Salisbury happened. Between 2009 and 2018, there was a 440% increase in cyber-attacks across the world, of which 75% were allegedly from Russia. We have had instability in the Balkans, interference in elections, destabilisation in Bosnia with active intentions to undermine the Dayton agreement—the list goes on.

This is known as sub-threshold activity, and we have got used to it. We have never really been quite sure, but it has been happening. However, there is nothing sub-threshold about the wilful and destructive invasion of a sovereign neighbour. What has happened over the last week is nothing other than abhorrent. For the Ukrainians, this is about hearts; it is about their homes and their lives. It is about survival; it is about repelling an invasion.

We have seen the indiscriminate use of weapons, including cluster bombs and thermobaric weapons—death and destruction. No one knows what Putin’s wider intent is. Perhaps it is to restore the Soviet Union; perhaps it is to expand his country; perhaps it is imperialism. We do not quite know, but the response to this incomprehensible action has been comprehensive and clear. Our reaction in the west is not just disbelief; it is beyond that—this is beyond belief.

The Prime Minister should be praised for his actions to lead the coalition of willing nations. The sanctions have been excellent, and I support 100% the support for refugees. More broadly, I am very comfortable with what NATO is doing, particularly on the supply of aid and equipment. Yes, we have left the European Union, but Members should be under no illusion: we are still supporting Europe. Our engagement with Europe is as strong as ever. I also commend the Opposition Front Benchers, who have been outstanding during the whole crisis. Parliament is at its best when we work together, and there has been an awful lot of sense spoken on both sides of the House over the last week.

Before I finish, I want to make some points to those on the Front Benches. I have three main observations. First, as politicians, we need to be careful and precise with our language. We must not inflame and we must not be careless, because people are watching—both our allies and those in Russia. This is about global leadership. We need, therefore, to be firm but not inflammatory with our language. By the same token, we need to work with the media, and the media must report this conflict accurately and fairly. Operational security is critical, and we must not get ourselves into a situation where carelessness in the media puts people’s lives at risk.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions the media. What is his view on whether Russia Today should be allowed to continue to stream in our country?

[James Sunderland]

My humble answer is that it should not. RT is currently spreading Russian propaganda, which nobody wants to see and nobody believes.

My second point is very important: we must make sure that we are not inadvertently sucked into direct conflict with Russia. The principles of article 5 are sacrosanct. NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO works. We must therefore adhere to our treaty obligations by not intervening directly, until the point that we must. We must resist that, so I say to Ministers: please be wary of come-ons and proxies; please be wary of any attempt by Putin to suck us into a conflict with him and his forces. To be worthy of its pre-eminence, NATO must fulfil the obligations placed upon it as the most successful military alliance ever.

My third point is very serious: whatever happens in Ukraine—our hearts go out to everyone involved in this ghastly conflict—we need to be ready. If Russia attacks or invades a NATO country, in line with our article 5 obligations, we must be ready for what comes next; we will be at war. As much as nobody wants an escalating conflict, Putin must be clear that if he crosses that line, we will have a big problem. NATO is a defensive alliance, but it is also poised and ready to do what it must.

This is about planning and positioning. It is about ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. It is about our understanding what the Russians are doing. And in the unthinkable event that we do go to war, we cannot afford to watch evil unfold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

It is a week since our world changed, and for eight nights children have worried in their beds and their bunkers about whether they will wake in the morning or lose their parents. Putin has placed the fate of his legacy on this invasion and that makes him dangerous, so we must focus on limiting the bloodshed however we can.

On the humanitarian situation, there is much worse to come. We must record and document war crimes and ensure that we finally have an atrocity prevention strategy in place across every war zone and conflict zone. We must plan for the use of chemical, incendiary and thermobaric weapons and have meaningful repercussions in place should they be used. There is a lot of discussion at the moment of a humanitarian corridor, but I am afraid I do not support these because they only work when all sides agree and we cannot trust the Russians. Small corridors are insufficient in a nation this size to get the aid that is needed through, and ultimately these corridors become political footballs with much political energy wasted on them. One example of that is the Aleppo enclave.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is somewhat of an expert on foreign affairs. Is she finding that there is an outpouring in Rutland and Melton of constituents wanting to support the humanitarian effort and lend their help to refugees trying to flee Ukraine?

[Alicia Kearns]

My constituents are definitely determined to help people and they can do that best through financial donations. The Ukrainians have been clear with me that they fear that clothes, food and medicine could be laced with all sorts of appalling weapons; we have to make sure we offer what they ask for, which is financial donations.

Humanitarian corridors become political footballs. There are no examples of where they have worked in the world, and the UN Security Council more often than not has to approve every single aid delivery. We have to make sure aid gets to where it is needed. However, there is a problem when our sanctions regime is stopping the effective delivery of humanitarian aid. We need a humanitarian exemption like that agreed through UN resolution 2615 (2021) in December, which the US has also passed domestically, because currently humanitarian aid organisations are unable to negotiate with sanctioned entities. We may not like it, but they have to engage with all parties to ensure aid can reach those who need it, so I urge the Government to pass a similar motion to that which the US and the UN passed on the Afghanistan debacle to make sure we get what we need so that aid can get to everyone in Ukraine.

We also need to make sure the UK holds a donor conference, as we did on Syria in 2016, to bring in the funds needed from around the world. I also urge the Government to make sure we have balloons ready and waiting to go up to keep the internet on in Ukraine, because there is no question but that the Russians will at some point decide that they have truly lost the information war and they will switch off the internet; we have the capabilities to keep it switched on.

On sanctions, I welcome what the Government have done particularly on the Russian central bank, which was a true economic strike. I also know that it is due to the British Government that Russian access to SWIFT has been banned across the world, and it was the Prime Minister who made sure in G7 calls that that happened when others were reluctant.

But now we need to go further. Secondary sanctions are required on those cynically filling the gaps made by the sanctions we put in place. We also need to sanction Shoigu and the military generals and chief of staff Gerasimov, and to use our family of overseas territories, which can help us because they hold information on these shell companies and are willing to play their part. We also need to impose restrictions on rouble clearing, and the No. 10 business group should work to make sure it is not just the oil companies that stop working there; we need retail and consumer companies also to pull out of Russia now.

On the military effort, I welcome the fact that since November we have been planning and arming our friends. We now need more air defence systems. We also need to launch deniable cyber-attacks against the Russian Government if we do not see them pull back and we see chemical weapons used in any form. We should also look at defection offers and rewards, which of course should be deniable as well.

I turn briefly to the nuclear threat that Putin has made. It is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of the importance of Ukraine to him, the impact of the measures that we have put in place and the unity of our alliances. However, unfortunately, we must take the threat seriously.

On information operations, we have done an incredible job. The UK has led on this internationally, exposing the reality of what is happening on the ground and the false flags. I pay tribute to Bellingcat and the Centre for Information Resilience, which have done incredible work. We must deny Russia plausible deniability and ensure that future prosecutions can take place. We must also amplify unease and protest within Russia and amplify the costs of its actions.

On diplomatic measures, yes, Putin has united us, but we must ensure that that does not push him closer to China. We must also expel Russian spies. The peace talks are a charade. There has been no ceasefire. When I worked on Syria, we saw exactly the same ridiculous measures, and they made no meaningful contribution.

This is one man’s invasion, and one man is responsible. The bravery of the people of Ukraine is something of which songs will be sung for many years to come. In the Ukrainian national anthem, it says:

“The glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet died”,

and it must not. Slava Ukraini! Heroiam slava!

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. Hon. Members have talked about their constituents who are desperate to be able to support Ukrainians, and this appeal is the way to do so. I urge people to look at the DEC’s website to see how they can offer support by donating to the appeal.

The UK and our international partners stand united in condemning the Russian Government. Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack on a sovereign democratic state.

[Alicia Kearns]

I know my right hon. Friend is trying to make progress, but before she moves on from humanitarian aid I want to press her on the point I made in my speech. Our sanctions regime is so important, but at the moment it is preventing humanitarian organisations from doing the deals they need to do, even with sanctioned entities, to get the aid to those who need it. Will she kindly commit to taking that issue away and look at whether we need to introduce the same legislation as the Americans have and that the UK backed at the UN Security Council in December for Afghanistan, to overcome this exact problem?