Ukraine

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for tabling this debate for us. It was enriched by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, which was not bland and, thankfully, not too brief. We learned from it and will do so from him in future. He is a great addition to this House and we welcome him.

The fact that we are not marking the 46th month of a puppet regime in Kyiv is testament to the bravery, resilience and resolve of the people of Ukraine, but it has come at an enormous cost to the civilians and young people called to serve and to those who have had to flee to safety. UK families have provided a shelter in the storm for Ukrainian families, and we thank them, but the storm continues. As my noble friend Lady Suttie so movingly said, the victims include the youngest Ukrainians, whose suffering is unacceptable; we still see children being abducted and separated from their families, and prisoners of war brutalised and tortured—the Geneva conventions so contemptuously disregarded by Putin’s regime.

When the right honourable Ed Davey and I met the Speaker of the Ukrainian parliament recently, he told us of the value of the UK’s continued support of Ukraine in military, diplomatic and societal terms. He also highlighted, as referenced by the Minister and others in this debate, that we can learn from our relationship with Ukraine since the start of this war. This learning includes how to conduct defensive warfare—to be adaptive, changing and cost effective—and the value of intelligence and technology.

We are also learning that leaders in Ukraine have maintained a democratic institution in a parliamentary system. As a parliamentarian, it is a badge of honour for me that, between the last debate on Ukraine and this one, I have now been sanctioned, as have others in this House, by the Russian regime simply for speaking out in a parliamentary setting in defence of democracy. It is worth remembering that part of the failed Russian plan in the first 48 hours of the invasion was to attack and immobilise the parliament of that country, the Verkhovna Rada. I repeat the call that I have made previously—it may sound minor, but it could well be symbolic—that we should award the George Medal to the Ukrainian parliament. I would love to see on its flag, as Malta had, a clear demonstration of civilians defending democracy and the rule of law.

These Benches have supported the actions of the previous Administration, and Ministers know of our continuing support. Ministers also know that this has not prevented us, on occasion, wanting faster and deeper action. We have sought constructively to press Governments, previous and current, to go further. It is a reality that, in too many respects, the Putin Government have been able to adapt and circumvent sanctions which have been piecemeal and often reactive. As our sister party in Ukraine has told us, on too many occasions sanctions have been perpetually too little and always late. That has meant that the Putin regime has been able to adopt and adapt.

The sober assessment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was not a warning from history but a realistic prediction that, while we may get a cessation of violence, we will not have peace as long as Putin is president. We must prepare for this reality in the medium to long term. That preparation is not just militarily but in communicating to our public the new reality of risk.

There is another reality, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, of concern about soft power being diminished while we debate hard power. Putin realised quite quickly, and then more recently more clearly, that while western countries said they wanted to create a wide coalition against the Russian economy, those same countries have massively cut development partnership funding for many developing nations. The continuing sale of Russian fertiliser, fuel, equipment and energy was at the same that the UK, and now more recently the USA, made dramatic cuts in partnership programmes.

In a fascinating event on Tuesday in the Moses Room, with the Elders, chaired by my noble friend Lady Miller, on nuclear weapons, it was telling that the former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark started her remarks, just next door, by regretting the UK cutting 40% from development partnerships. It is not correct, in our view, that development and defence should be seen as being in competition. Development is complementary to defence; it should not be set against it. Cutting the Balkans resilience programme, conflict prevention programmes and the British Council to the bone is not in our national security interests.

In March 2022, I raised a concern that the UK was keen to progress a trade agreement with India, offering market access to the very entities that were expanding energy trade with Russia through a rupee-rouble swap. Subsequently, we have been offering similar access for Chinese state enterprises trading with Russia. Moscow has observed very clearly that some western powers have not chosen to make a sufficient sacrifice to pay for the economic price on the Russian economy, and the Ukrainians fear that there has been insufficient pressure on the Russian war economy. I hope recent decisions by the US Administration—which I hope will not be changed—could add further, real pressure on the economy. Russia will know that delays in using Russian assets to help Ukraine are potentially sowing areas of division within the western powers. We cannot afford for those divisions to be in place, and nor can Ukraine.

I ask the Minister when she responds to this debate to update us on where the Government are in working with our allies on securing those assets that the people of Ukraine need to fight the war. In my view, it is inconceivable that, if there is a ceasefire, we would give the money back to the Russian state enterprises that we have frozen, so why are we not using it for the people of Ukraine to fight the war that they need to fight?

If we have to be realistic, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, about what peace may mean, we can nevertheless consider what victory may mean. It might not be that clear, but it is a victory in itself that Ukraine will not be part of Kievan Rus’, which is Putin’s narrative; nations have a right to self-determination, and borders are decided diplomatically and not by military aggression, as the noble Lord, Lord Mott, said so clearly.

I refer to my noble friend Lady Suttie’s superb speech: the sacrifices of the people of Ukraine are also sacrifices for our security and our safety, and the Russian threats to Ukraine are also threats to us. We must mobilise our population, with a sense of urgency and a lack of complacency, and appreciate the risks going forward. History is indeed watching us; we must not repeat previous complacencies. Ukrainians will be in the bloody filth of the mud this winter to defend their land, but they are fighting for the very rights that we hold dear in our country. We must ensure that they have the tools to persevere and to prevail and that Russia pays for the long reconstruction that, regrettably, will be needed.