Ukraine and Russia

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I thoroughly endorse everything that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, has just said. We often say that, on matters of defence, the Official Opposition and these Benches are at one with His Majesty’s Government, but a range of issues need to be dealt with, scrutinised and reassessed.

As the noble Earl pointed out, it is excellent that the new Secretary of State for Defence has pledged his commitment and the country’s ongoing commitment to Ukraine, and that he and the new Prime Minister have been to Ukraine. That is a fundamental sign of the commitment of this United Kingdom to Ukraine and is very much to be welcomed. However, following the Statement made in the other place, there are still a range of questions that need to be reviewed and looked at in more detail.

Before I go any further, I wish to associate myself with the words of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and pass on our condolences to the family of the serviceperson lost last week in a road traffic accident in Ukraine. That loss—indeed, the loss of any personnel—is a sign of what every member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces puts on the line in service of our country day in, day out. We all acknowledge that.

We on the Front Benches are clear that, as the Secretary of State for Defence said in his Statement last week:

“If the first duty of Government is to keep our country safe, that is now a greater and more urgent responsibility than it has been for generations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/9/26; col. 1234.]


That is clearly true, yet we do not seem to have a sense of urgency from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his current incarnation, or the Prime Minister. Suggesting that national security cannot come at the expense of social security raises some serious questions, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out. What are His Majesty’s Government, including the Chancellor, doing to ensure that, by the time we get to the spending review next spring—we understand that we are not going to get the clarity we might want at the Autumn Budget—we will be on track for the 3.5% to which the Secretary of State for Defence has recommitted? We do not have clarity on that at the moment.

Last week, in the wee small hours of the night, as we got to the end of the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Bill, I wrapped up group 13 as expeditiously as possible, which meant that we did not discuss in great detail my amendment on the implications of the delays to the defence investment plan for small and medium-sized enterprises. We need to think about this issue, because we need to be absolutely clear that the Government are investing and ensuring that we have drones, interceptors and everything else on which we are making pledges to Ukraine for our own security and defence, too. Ukraine might be at the front line of our security, but His Majesty’s Government owe it to our country, as well as to Ukraine and our NATO allies, to make sure that we are investing here and now.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their overall constructive remarks and rightful challenge to the Government.

As both noble Lords started by saying, the House will be aware that a member of the UK Armed Forces died in a road traffic incident in Ukraine on Saturday 12 September. I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending our deepest condolences to the individual’s family, loved ones and colleagues in the Armed Forces at this difficult and tragic time. Further details are expected to be released in due course. However, I must reiterate that this incident was not the result of hostile action.

Over the weekend and into this week, noble Lords will have seen reports of continued Russian long-range attacks, including on gas and rail infrastructure near the Ukraine-Poland border, as mentioned by the noble Earl. We saw yet another Russian drone incursion overnight into Lithuania, which prompted a swift response from allies, particularly the Italians. These reckless and dangerous strikes against civilian infrastructure underline the wider security threat that Russia poses to Europe.

The UK continues to stand firmly with Ukraine. I am proud that support for Ukraine continues to unite this House. I genuinely thank the noble Earl and the noble Baroness for their comments on that and the noble Earl for his points about the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. In that spirit, we remember that the last Government also stood steadfast in their commitment to Ukraine and to defending it against the illegal invasion by Russia. That political unity is of such immense importance to the way that Russia sees our response. That is true of the last Government, this Government and support right across this House. It is something that we should never tire of saying, because it is repeated time and time again with our adversaries.

That is why at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group earlier this month we announced that we will contribute a further £100 million towards PURL to support the delivery of Patriot missiles and other air defence equipment. We reaffirmed our commitment to provide more than 120,000 drones to Ukraine over the year. In total, the United Kingdom has committed £25 billion to Ukraine. That includes nearly 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition, more than 1 million artillery shells, more than 100,000 drones and thousands of air defence missiles and armoured vehicles. We must remind ourselves that, if Putin has achieved anything through this war, it has been to strengthen NATO, strengthen the West and weaken Russia.

I have started with a few introductory remarks before answering specific questions because it is important to lay some of that on the table and to repeat it in your Lordships’ House. I will deal with defence spending towards the end. On small and medium-sized enterprises, they form a major part of the Government’s attempts to ensure that we have the defence industrial base that we need now and for the future. Both noble Lords and many others will know that small and medium-sized businesses provide the agility that sometimes the larger companies cannot. There is an issue around regulations, which they have no doubt continually raised. We will see what we can do to ensure that those small and medium-sized enterprises can develop as quickly as possible. The noble Earl asked about munitions factories. Feasibility studies for future energetics facilities are due to report later this month, while construction of new UK energetics facilities is planned to commence later this year. I hope that answers the specific point on munitions factories.

On the Falkland Islands, there was a very well-attended, thoughtful and united discussion and debate in your Lordships’ House last week. The Government, all noble Lords and the other place reiterated our strong commitment to the protection of the Falkland Islands and a reminder to everyone that their sovereignty is a matter for the Falkland Islands themselves. We will support them in that. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Minto, has had the opportunity of going there—I am sure some Members of the House have—to see the defence base, with its Typhoon jets, air defence system, troops and other defence equipment that are there to protect the Falkland Islands. I just highlight that that is purely from a defensive posture. That remains the Government’s position, as it has been our country’s position for decades.

On the Russian threat, to try to make the point for the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and to make the issue real for us all, I will highlight some of the statistics. NATO has scrambled aircraft over 700 times in the past two years to intercept Russian aircraft that were approaching allies’ airspace. The current rate of Russian long-range aviation in the High North is the highest in six years. I think it is helpful to give some of these statistics. Russian aircraft and drones have violated airspaces across multiple NATO countries and UK aircraft have experienced GPS jamming. There has been a 30% increase in Russian vessels threatening UK waters in the past two years. The Navy escorted Russian vessels for 21 days in July and activations to monitor Russian activity are up 25% in the first eight months of 2026 compared with 2025. Just to give your Lordships’ House a flavour of the threat from Russia, there have been over 90,000 attempted cyber attacks in a year on UK defence networks, with a large proportion coming from Russian-speaking actors.

I hope that is helpful to the House, because we are not hiding that there is a very real threat. This takes us to the whole discussion about defence spending. I do not think we should dismiss the fact that the Government have increased defence spending; there is an argument about the pace and the amount, but they have significantly increased it. The £15 billion being announced in-year was a significant thing for a Government to do. As some noble Lords who have had more experience of government than I have will know, to change a budget in the middle of the budgetary year is quite difficult. Finding £15 billion from other government departments to increase the Ministry of Defence budget was quite a significant change. I have made that point to your Lordships before.

The final piece of that jigsaw is the £4.7 billion that will be provided in the Autumn Budget that is coming up. I do not know whether anybody in this House has had this, but a number of people in the other House have had experience of changes being made to budgets in local areas to fund defence causing some controversy. That shows that we need to win that debate about increased defence spending. As the noble Earl knows, the Government will lay out the trajectory to 3.5% by 2035 at the spending review next spring. At some point, clearly, 3% will be passed, but when that actually is will be laid out by the Chancellor in the Budget next year.

On national security and social security, of course we want to see a reduced social security bill because it means that more people will be back to work, be active and all those sorts of things. With the Government’s “back to work” campaign and the various measures there, hopefully we will see a reduction in that budget. National security remains the prime duty of government, but as well as winning the debate in here, we have to win the debate with people out there and show that any changes to the social security budget, and any reductions that may or may not be made, will not be done at the expense of the people who depend on those funds, but that we also have that money available to spend on defence in the way that we would want and in a way which is supported by the population of this country. I suggest that that debate still has to be won with some sectors of our population and we should not take that for granted.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Antrobus) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now have 20 minutes for questions from the Back Bench. I remind noble Lords to keep their remarks brief and to ask a question, so that we can get in as many contributions as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister is completely correct to reject the appeasement put forward in the previous question. We have to do everything we can to ensure that Ukraine defeats Russia. That is the only way this conflict is going to be resolved. With that in mind, can the Minister tell me what more we can do to disrupt the flow of Russian oil, which is underpinning Putin’s economy? Russia experts tell me that this will be the best way to put pressure on Putin. What thought have the Government given to taking sanctions and measures against the refineries in places such as India and Turkey, which are refining the oil for Putin?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Lord for his comments about standing up against Russia. The UK Government have made significant efforts to disrupt the Russian economy through sanctions and through various measures that we have taken. I think it is really important to recognise the impact on Russia. Billions of pounds have been sanctioned and many ships have been disrupted, et cetera, et cetera.

This is not often done, but let me just share with the noble Lord the economic impact on Russia so far. The idea is that nothing has worked. Russia’s GDP growth has slowed from over 4% in 2023-24 to around 1% in 2025, with Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development forecasting only 0.4% growth in 2026. That is a significant achievement, I would say, and we need to say more about its impact. Inflation expectations rose in July to 14.7%, their highest level in years. The deteriorating economic picture is directly hitting average Russians, with growth in Russians’ real incomes projected to slow to 1.6% in 2026, down from 7.7% last year. We have also seen the queues that there have been for fuel.

All I am saying is that there is a lot more to be done —I absolutely accept that—but let us also give credit to the impact on Russia of what we are doing as well. At the same time, let us remind ourselves that our dispute with Russia is with the leadership, not with the Russian people.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Minto said and I want to come back to home. As the Minister said, the threats are real. But one has the impression that the Government are not doing enough to protect British citizens. It reminds me a little bit of my father, who is French, who said that, just before World War II, the French were so much in disbelief that Germany could invade them, as they had suffered so much during World War I, and had their heads in the sand. I have the feeling that we are not taking the threats to this country seriously enough.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is difficult to argue that completely. If that were the case, why would we be doing what we are doing in Ukraine, under the last Government and this Government? If we did not believe that the freedom of Ukraine was ultimately and intrinsically linked with our own freedom and the freedom of all of Europe, why would we be supporting NATO in all the ways we have, with respect to infringements of airspace and what we do with Poland? Why do we have troops in Estonia? Why are we talking about the possibility of tactical nuclear weapons on F35As? Ultimately, why is it that we spend a quarter of the defence budget on the nuclear deterrent, which is the ultimate guarantor of our freedom, the freedom of Europe and the freedom of the world? Let us remind ourselves that, although the Prime Minister retains the ultimate decision on its use or not, that nuclear guarantee, our nuclear umbrella, is explicitly given to the defence of Europe. There are challenges, but I do not think it is fair to say that this Government are weak when it comes to Russia.

[Lord Peach (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has been clear, and other Statements have made clear, that the risk from Russia is rising. “Hybrid” is now in common usage, and we see it associated with sabotage attacks across Europe. We need to take that threat seriously. In the spirit of this debate and discussion, we need a stronger narrative on defence and we need to embrace all elements of our society in that narrative. We need to build on the points around readiness in defence, both for regulars and, importantly, for our Reserve Forces. I declare my interest as the president of Reserves for the UK. Our Reserve Forces have never been more important. Through that, we can build stronger resilience. It is resilience that will see us through and has seen us through before. In building resilience, does the Minister agree that it is time to have a bigger conversation and strengthen the whole narrative around defence and security?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do absolutely agree with that. Certainly, the Government are looking at accelerating the progress—or not—that they are making on a national conversation. The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right when he talks about resilience and the need to have a whole-of-society approach. I could not agree more, and the Government are certainly working to deliver that. The important thing is that we need to get through to people, which is why I mentioned the 90,000 cyber attacks, is that we may not have Russian paratroopers landing in the middle of Nottingham, but cyber attacks are happening now. We have seen activity on our own soil, in Salisbury and elsewhere. We have seen the way in which global conflict impacts on domestic fuel prices. We need to explain these things much more fully.

On the reserves, I could not agree more. Their importance is essential, which is why I was so proud and pleased on Saturday morning to go to the Prince William Barracks in Grantham, which the noble and gallant Lord will know very well, to celebrate the passing out of approximately 800 reserves. They are important, and the pride that they and their families had was immense. We need to build on that.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the situation we face in Ukraine is nothing new. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, when the party opposite was slashing the defence budget by 16%. Likewise, the problem we have now with our nuclear deterrent is down to the Liberal Democrats, who could not make their mind up about whether to replace it. Having visited Lithuania earlier this year, I know that it is under constant attack, not just from sabotage, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, just mentioned, but by drone incursions. Is it not time that NATO took the fight to Russia on Ukrainian territory to take down these drones?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We need to be careful about talking about taking Russian drones down in Ukrainian airspace. However, my noble friend is right when he talks about the need for a robust response to the incursions that we have seen. He talked about Lithuania. He will know that the NATO response was strong and powerful and a drone was shot down there following detection shortly after midnight. That is an important indicator. I am not sure whether everybody is aware but, additionally, this morning, at approximately 11 am, an unidentified object was spotted on radar close to Vilnius Airport, leading to its closure. Fighter jets from NATO Baltic Air Policing were scrambled to respond to that. My noble friend is right that Russia needs to know that incursions into NATO airspace will be dealt with robustly and strongly in the way that they have been.

[Baroness Kingsmill (Lab)]

We need to acknowledge the immense efforts that the Ukrainians have made in their defence and that they have been innovative, collaborative and successful in their fight against the Russian invasion, and we also have to acknowledge the significant support that NATO has given them. However, we need to think about what comes next. We need to help the Ukrainians build their industry and their defence industries to grow beyond the innovative stage so that they do not risk them being taken over by the United States or the big western companies and they can build their defence industry for themselves, because the threat from Russia is not going to go away readily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The bravery and courage of the Ukrainian people cannot be overstated. They are simply immense. This is a point that I have made before, but I am going to make it again: Russia did not attack Ukraine when it did in the belief that years later it would still be fighting. It believed, as I am sure a former ambassador would say, that three or so days after the attack it was going to be in Kyiv and would install a pro-Russian Government there. It did not attack in the belief that it would be where it is now, with 1.5 million casualties. God knows how much money it has cost. It is to the immense credit of the Ukrainian people that that has remained possible, not only in the face of the initial invasion but in the way in which they have continued to stand firm, as they have done. I agree with my noble friend that we need not only to support them in their war effort but to continue to discuss and work with them on what will happen in the future. However, the immediate priority is to secure the sovereignty of their country.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

I would like us just for a moment to concentrate on the incredible loss of human life in this conflict. The Minister mentioned the economic cost to Russia and, indeed, the human cost just now. It is worth remembering that Russia has suffered 1.5 million casualties, compared with about 125,000 to 150,000 on the Ukrainian side. Of course, all are to be lamented. It is worth noting that the cost to Russia has been astonishing. One has to think a little bit, on whichever side these people are, about the awful cost for families and people and the tragedy of all these lives that have been lost.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We all deplore the loss of life. We are all human. We reflect on the casualties, the killed and the wounded, and the impact psychologically on many people. We do not always talk about the numbers of casualties in Ukraine but the level of suffering is clear, and all of that is important for us to remember. There is only one person responsible for the invasion of Ukraine and, as far as I can see, that person is responsible for the consequences. We all hope that, as soon as possible, we will get a ceasefire that is acceptable to Ukraine and the slaughter and killing will stop.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, last week 18 maritime nations responsible for about a fifth of global shipping tonnage warned that global shipping rules are collapsing. We are an island nation and we depend on ship-borne trade, but the dark fleet threatens a structural risk to trade under IMO rules—of course, the IMO is based here in London. How are our Armed Forces ensuring that ships can maintain free passage in pursuance of the free trade that generates wealth and supports our economy?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In my response to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, I think I said that, for 21 days in July, ships were escorted by the Royal Navy. We see our ships deployed not only in the channel but elsewhere. We had the carrier in the north Atlantic to ensure that shipping was protected. We have relationships, alliances and agreements with countries across the whole of Europe and beyond. In that way, we ensure that we protect, as much as we can, the merchant shipping upon which we all depend and that we do something about sanctioning the Russian fleet. If the noble Lord’s question is about building more ships, we are.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I welcome the Statement, which says:

“Russia is constantly probing us and testing us”.


In terms of the narrative of what is happening, is it perhaps time to use less of the euphemistic language of “malign actors”, especially with regard to the very large number of cyber attacks to which my noble friend has already referred? Let us take the recent case of an abortive drone attack on a German airfield, which, thank heavens, did not work. The German Government, as I understand it, have reached the view that they now have the evidence to openly blame the state of Russia for that attack. Is that an approach that we should take as and when the Government have evidence to that effect?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If you have evidence that something has happened, it is quite right to talk about, for example, drone attacks such as the one in Leipzig to which my noble friend refers. Sometimes, when I am asked questions, I want to go further than I do; I want to use language that is stronger and more powerful. However, I also recognise that, when you are a Government Minister, particularly at a sensitive time, particularly in a difficult situation such as this—this is true in the other place, and it would be true under whatever Government—you have to be extraordinarily careful about the language you use, in case you generate unintended consequences. I feel a real responsibility for that because I am not the person flying the jet, I am not the person on the ship, I am not the person undertaking various activities. My noble friend is absolutely right that, where we have the evidence, we have to say what has happened and explain the threat to the British people, while at the same time being extraordinarily careful with the language that we use in case, as I said, we generate unintended consequences.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)]

The Minister has referred to cyber attacks, drone probing and issues raised by other Members of the House, but these are just part of the picture. There are also threats to factories doing things for Ukrainians, sabotage of them, murder in the London streets. There have been firebombs on DHL aircraft. What the shadow fleet is doing at sea is equally worrying, and, of course, we have had the threat to our undersea cables; if we lose those, it would be a disaster for us. I am very grateful for what the Minister has said so far, but the scale and range of what the Russians are doing to us is broader than has been so far said in this House, and that is beyond conventional espionage and all the other things they do. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. She is absolutely right. It is a sin of omission not to mention underwater cables and some of the other points that she made. Being able to explain that to the British people is important. Part of the problem, as she will know better than me from the responsibility that she had, is that some of the work the services do, along with others, to protect the country is unreported in many respects but it deals with many of these issues. I am proud of the work the services do and of the bravery and courage they show. We often talk about our Armed Forces, and quite rightly, but day in and day out MI5, MI6 and other intelligence services protect us and the public from harm, both at home and abroad, and we should celebrate what they do as well.