Ukraine

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the debate in the other place on 11 September. Sometimes I detect a certain air of superiority here against the House of Commons, but it was a debate of high quality informed by a number of parliamentarians who had recently visited Ukraine, been on the front line and spoken to Ukrainian soldiers who, perhaps surprisingly, had a certain respect for the readiness of the Russian military to stay in their positions. It is well worth looking at that debate.

Yesterday, today and tomorrow—the war in Ukraine has lasted only 574 days. I am glad that the Minister counted them for us. Yet already there has been a profound change, obviously in Ukraine itself, in Europe and, in my judgment, in geopolitics.

I was present in Ukraine in November 2021 before the war broke out. I was the only UK parliamentarian at a conference in Odesa. I was impressed by a vibrant city; young people; a café culture; architecture of high quality and a city that could easily slide into western Europe unnoticed. A little later—just before the invasion —I was at NATO in Brussels where I spoke to senior officials and our own representatives, and was told that if there were a Russian invasion, which there was just a few days later, they expected Ukraine to fold and Kyiv to be reached within a few days. It did not happen because of what I think the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, called the will to fight of the people of Ukraine. Perhaps we underestimate too often the role of morale— I think the noble Lord, Lord Owen, spoke about Vietnam and Afghanistan—in warfare and concentrate just on weaponry.

Traditionally, we thought of Ukraine almost as two countries: the east versus the west; Catholic and Orthodox; Russophone against the Ukrainian speakers. One result of the illegal invasion is that a new unity has been forged in what is, to adapt Yaroslavsky, the “grand patriotic war of the people of Ukraine”. Putin has forged that new national unity—another of the miscalculations which he has made.

As mentioned in earlier speeches, we see in Ukraine today a remarkable resilience, as well as the production of drones and the adaptation of civilian instruments. Serious shortcomings have been revealed in the Russian military, and internal strains were shown by the abortive revolt. Russia is also desperately seeking manpower assistance from Cuba and weaponry armaments from North Korea and Iran. The delays in the western supply have been important: think of the debate over the supply of main battle tanks and the current debate over the supply of sophisticated fighter aircraft. The Netherlands and Denmark are now at last supplying F16s, but these delays have clearly impeded the counter-offensive. The pause has allowed the Russians to build what appear to be pretty effective defences.

One of the distressing features of the conflict— I think the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, dwelt on this—has been the response of the global south, as seen in the United Nations General Assembly resolutions and the BRICS meeting. There has been a wish by some to have a certain neutrality between the aggressor and those aggressed. India is close to neutrality; the response of Commonwealth countries has been very distressing. The Commonwealth has, in effect, been irrelevant as a force for good in the world politically. What is our FCDO doing to tell those countries that are reluctant for a number of reasons—anti-colonialism, investment in them by China and Russia—the facts about the aggressor, and has there been any success with that? I note the weak paragraphs in the G20 communiqué, which is very sad. Equally, it seems unlikely that the nature of the current offensive will achieve its aim of closing the land bridge between Russia and Crimea.

What of the lasting changes? Now during the course of the conflict, we see only through a glass darkly, but some trends can be discerned quite clearly. There is a deepening polarisation in the world between those in the western democratic orbit and in the Russian-Chinese authoritarian orbit, unwilling to accept the rules-based international order. Part of the challenge for the West is to get closer to those in the middle who have not yet declared themselves definitively and to talk about global implications of the invasion. At its meeting on 24 August, BRICS would not have issued the invitations, as it did, to six countries to join by the beginning of next year, were it not for the invasion.

I turn to Europe itself, which has been profoundly changed by the conflict. For NATO, it has emerged much stronger and is not brain-dead. It would be useful to have the government perspective on the current position of Sweden, for example. The Turkish President has said that he will submit a proposition to their Assembly by the beginning of next month. Now, a new obstacle has possibly emerged in Hungary, a spoiler both in the European Union and in NATO— I speak as someone who has lived in Hungary as a diplomat and been decorated by the Government of Hungary for my contribution to bilateral relations. How do the Government read the position of Hungary? What concessions do they expect? How far will they go in their attempt to gain concessions? It is true that the Hungarians buy all their aircraft from Sweden, yet they have this position currently. Will they yield immediately when Turkey concedes?

Another factor is that NATO will be strong enough next spring to hold a major military exercise, its grandest since the end of the Cold War, and bring in a number of peripheral nations in doing so. The best way for us in Europe to allay the fears of US critics is through burden sharing. At the moment, only eight of the 31 NATO countries spend 2% of their wealth on defence; even Sweden will rise to 2% by next year. The conflict underlines the fact that our US allies are by far the most important NATO country, now spending $110 billion on Ukraine. We in Europe need to counter the propaganda in the US, knowing that Putin is playing for time in the hope of a Trump victory.

The European Union is also likely to be profoundly affected by the conflict, both in deepening and widening. We see the increasing integration in areas such as energy and defence and an accelerating of the process for Ukraine, which applied for membership in February 2022, was granted candidate status shortly after that and, we hope, will begin negotiations next year, along with the western Balkans, with the first accession assumed by 2030. That poses the question for us: where do we now focus, as we look ahead?

I have one final reflection. I understand the reluctance of the Government to discuss the endgame, with all the current uncertainties, but all conflicts ultimately end in deals. There is some evidence that President Zelensky is moving from a maximalist position, step by step, preparing his public opinion for compromise. Perhaps the Government could comment on that.

Of course, we must stick with our Ukrainian allies, who are defending our interests so bravely, even if we do not grant them an absolute veto over acceptance. But we should be open to discussion, and to various options on the future of Ukraine, including how to hold Russia to account for its war crimes, for the killing of civilians and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said, for the abduction of those children.