(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Sir Bernard Jenkin, who will speak for around 15 minutes.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House again condemns President Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine, which is nowin its fourth year of tragedy and destruction; condemns the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine, in particular the abduction of Ukrainian children; supports efforts to negotiate a durable and lasting peace agreement; asserts that this must reaffirm all Ukrainian sovereign territory as recognised in international law, including any occupied territories; believes that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be guaranteed by all parties including by all NATO nations and by the EU, to mirror Article V of the NATO Treaty; further believes that Ukraine must be free to sustain capability to deter a future Russian attack; also supports increased economic sanctions further to reduce Russian revenues from the export of oil and gas; and urges the Government and the UK’s allies to accelerate military support for Ukraine, and to release frozen Russian assets for the financing of increased military spending in Ukraine as soon as possible.
The motion stands in my name and those of many right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for this debate—the first full debate on Ukraine since February. The motion can be summarised very simply: Ukraine must and can win.
The Russia-Ukraine war was never some regional territorial dispute, as some would like to believe. It has now moved far beyond conventional geopolitics; it is not about territory and cannot be solved by Ukraine ceding territory to Russia. That is because it is an existential clash between competing visions of how global security should be organised, and indeed of the nature of our society. It is the result of a long-standing intellectual current within Russia: a mix of imperial nostalgia, nationalist theology, and a deliberate rejection of democracy and the Western rules-based order. Furthermore, that ideological framework is not fading but growing, adapting and continually finding new ways to justify the unjustifiable, both at home and abroad. Russia’s view of a desirable world order is one based on spheres of influence and the right of big countries to impose their will on smaller neighbours.
Putin and his henchmen are not politicians as we understand the word. They are intelligence officers and soldiers who have turned the tradecraft of the KGB into the statecraft of the Russian state, in the pursuit of building their world order and destroying ours. For that gang of autocrats, an independent Ukraine is not just inconvenient; they cannot tolerate Ukraine’s independence because it threatens the very foundations of their own idea of Russian identity. Their war in Ukraine is only part of a much larger war in their minds—a war that involves the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, whether we like it or not. Yes, this war has come to us. I am reminded of the words of Leon Trotsky—and I use the word “you” advisedly as I quote him, Madam Deputy Speaker:
“You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
Putin and his henchmen have been saying for a long time that they are at war with us. In the past few weeks alone, expert commentators such as Fiona Hill, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, and Lord Robertson, the ex-Secretary-General of NATO, have all affirmed that Russia is at war with us—and yes, I mean Russia, not just Putin. This is because Putin’s gang of ideologues are skilled at exploiting the resentments of the Russian people in a highly controlled information environment, so that the people accept their lies and support what they have been told: that Russia is in some fight for its survival against the hostile west.
Some western policymakers find this reality unpalatable. They prefer the illusion that Putin might accept some compromise—some deal whereby Ukraine might trade land for peace. But let there be no mistake: that is not just wishful thinking; it is dangerous, because it both ignores the motive for Russia to wage this war and denies that Russia has already unleashed war against Europe and the United Kingdom.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
David Burton-Sampson
The hon. Gentleman is giving a great speech, and I agree with his points. With spy ships through the channel and submarines off the coast of Scotland, does he agree that it is vital for not only Ukraine but the rest of Europe that we work closely with the coalition of the willing throughout this conflict?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Of course I agree with that, and I will come back to how we work with our allies later.
The first thing we must understand is how the character of war has changed. In today’s war, everything is a weapon: disinformation, terrorism, sabotage, assassination, psychological manipulation, malign influence, cyber-attacks, economic warfare, menacing undersea cables—even energy, food and fertiliser are used as weapons. Let us also not forget that Russia has weaponised the abduction of Ukrainian children, which is just one of the atrocities that it inflicts on the occupied territories. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) cannot be here, but I hope that her cause will be taken up by someone else in the debate.
Make no mistake: we are today already under a sustained assault through a co-ordinated campaign that merges all these weapons and others, and these attacks are steadily increasing in audacity and seriousness. They are sometimes reported in the press but often downplayed by wishful Governments who are unwilling to acknowledge these attacks for what they are. They can appear to be isolated acts of espionage, sabotage or diversion, but they are not. They are elements of a systematic, strategic offensive designed to undermine public trust in our Governments and our democratic systems, to fragment our societies, to establish groups that destabilise our countries from within, and above all, to probe our defences and to find weaknesses to exploit further. This is a test of the resilience of our entire society.
This is hybrid warfare, or grey-zone warfare, but the term “total war” might be more accurate as a description. “The New Total War” is the apposite title of a recent book authored by the former Member for the Isle of Wight, Bob Seely. The Baltic and Nordic countries and Poland are currently the main targets, but so is the UK. Indeed, the UK is singled out by Russia as public enemy No. 1 because Russia sees the UK, quite rightly, as a bulwark against threats and coercion that intimidate some other countries.
But grey-zone warfare is by no means the only threat the UK faces. Our critical national infrastructure is exposed, particularly offshore. NATO and the UK lack comprehensive air defence. Just this week, Putin said Russia is “ready” for war with NATO. We have to be honest when we answer this question: how ready are we?
There is also a dangerous narrative taking hold that Ukraine is losing the war with Russia in Ukraine and that we must just accept this. That is wholly wrong. There are in fact detailed assessments, publicly available, which demonstrate that Russia cannot win militarily, so long as NATO countries continue to give military and financial support to Ukraine and economic sanctions against Russia are maintained and strengthened.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I give way to the hon. Lady and thank her for her support.
Helen Maguire
Is the hon. Member aware that the Russian state is so deprived of military equipment currently that it is taking tanks out of museums to try to get them on to the battlefield?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
That is certainly true, but the Russians are also depending more and more on what they produce in their factories rather than their legacy stock, which is making the war more and more expensive for them. They are not in an ideal position.
The initial Russian dash for Kyiv was disastrous for the Russian army. The Russians failed from day one to establish air superiority over Ukraine, which is effectively a no-fly zone for Russian military aircraft. Ukraine has succeeded in developing technology and tactics that make Russian attempts to advance extraordinarily costly. Ukraine’s ability to strike at Russian military and economic assets deep in Russia is increasing. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about a Russian victory over Ukraine. If we continue to sustain Ukraine and to undermine the Russian economy with sanctions, Russia will be forced to change its calculus for carrying on.
Nevertheless, Putin is projecting confidence that he is winning, but let us be clear: this is not because of the military situation but because of a lack of political will in so many NATO countries. If Putin wins, it is only because we let Putin win, as we let him win in Georgia, the Crimea and the Russian oblasts of eastern Ukraine before he embarked on the attempt to take Kyiv. He proved that we are soft, and his confidence is based on his continued belief that nothing has changed.
It has often been pointed out that the combined GDP of all NATO is vastly greater than Russia’s, so we should have nothing to fear, but that advantage only matters if we have the will to use this economic superiority to defeat Russia’s expansionist agenda. War is about nothing if it is not about willpower. Sadly, with a few notable exceptions such as the Baltic states and Poland, we have yet to demonstrate that willpower to win.
That is particularly due to the United States. First, the vacillation of President Biden and his fear of fuelling escalation gave Russia time to build up its war machine and exploit wider alliances. Now, the despicable and disastrous attitude of President Trump seems to offer Putin the opportunity to achieve everything he wants: the subjugation of Ukraine, the humiliation of NATO and the enlargement of the Russian sphere of influence at the expense of European security. Ironically, the effect of the Trump Administration’s 28-point peace plan has been to encourage Putin to keep the war going. That is because Trump appears ready to give President Putin everything he wants—Ukraine as a Russian vassal state. There is no incentive for Putin to stop this war under these circumstances, while the US is seeking to force Ukraine and Europe to accept peace at any price. It sometimes looks as if European resolve might also crumble. Trump thinks he is the master of the universe, but he is in fact being psychologically manipulated by Putin with flattery and—I make no bones about it—with bribes.
But something positive in Europe may finally be happening. Despite the tendency of European leaders to focus on the differences between them, Merz, Macron, our own Prime Minister and the leaders of NATO and the EU have shown remarkable unity. There is a realisation that a so-called peace agreed on Trump’s terms would not be peace at all. Putin would continue his campaign by other means. There would be little or no deterrence to discourage Putin from resuming military action on some bogus pretext at some future date. As Kaja Kallas, the European Union foreign policy chief, has explained:
“Russia has never truly had to come to terms with its brutal past or bear the consequences of its actions”.
She has argued that the nature of the Russian regime means that
“rewarding aggression will bring more war, not less”.
She is right: Putin will come back for more.
The democratic world cannot forget the lessons of history. The attitude of some is an eerie parallel of what Chamberlain said about Hitler’s annexation of the Czech Sudetenland, which he described as
“a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”
Let this House never forget that Russia signed the 2004 Budapest memorandum, which probits the use of military force in Ukraine. President Putin disregarded that undertaking when he annexed Crimea and then attacked eastern Ukraine. How many times do we need to learn this lesson? In Putin’s world, Russia recognises no international law, only its own absolute sovereignty, so a Russian signature on any treaty is not to be trusted, unless it can be externally guaranteed by people who have the necessary force.
Putin is already taunting the UK and NATO with hybrid war attacks. A Russian ship firing lasers at UK military aircraft in neutral airspace would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. This cannot just be ignored. Russia is testing NATO responses and mocking our slow pace of re-arming. The consequences of remaining passive would be dire for the credibility of NATO as a deterrent force. Letting Russia have its agenda would also increase Russia’s credibility with neutral countries, at the expense of NATO and our allies. They will see the EU and NATO as representing waning powers, unable to contain Russia as we did during the cold war.
The agreement on much tougher proposals at Geneva last week, while still engaging with Secretary of State Rubio, is a real achievement. The latest news that Putin has again refused to stop the war exposes him as the true aggressor. This is a war that he could instantly stop oh so easily. So long as Europe and NATO continue to support Ukraine, and Ukraine refuses to settle on Russian terms, then Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, until he realises that there is no diplomatic shortcut open to him.
The biggest risk we face is that Trump loses interest in his peace effort and withdraws support for Ukraine. However, there is already evidence that Trump’s power over the Congress is waning. Abandoning Ukraine would split US politics. We must hope that the US will also continue with intelligence support, but we should be ready for that to stop. If necessary, Europe should offer to pay for that intelligence, if that enables that intelligence support to be continued.
Settling for a fake peace on unsustainable Trump-Witkoff terms would be far worse. We in Europe have to accept that President Trump’s actions have demonstrated that he does not care about Ukraine, and his commitment to European security is, at best, ambiguous. The right plan is for European NATO to be ready to continue to support Ukrainian resistance to Russia’s demands whatever happens, to continue to support Ukraine’s military, and to help to finance Ukraine’s increasingly effective defence industries. That is why today’s motion refers to the release of the €140 billion Russian frozen assets in Europe, which is vital. Russia will then continue to suffer the astronomical attrition, on men and matériel, at vast financial cost. More intensive sanctions must also bite on their economy.
In truth, we can kid ourselves about the Russian economy, but it remains pretty resilient. However, sanctions have reduced foreign exchange earnings by some 20%—they come only from the export of oil and gas—and Russia’s domestic banks are now the only buyers of Russian Government bonds. This is not a long-term sustainable position for Russia. Secondary sanctions applied to the Russian shadow fleet, and to countries that enable that shadow fleet to exist, have made and can continue to make the export of oil and gas less and less profitable, or even loss-making for Russia.
Above all, we see the Russian army advancing so slowly in Ukraine, taking tiny areas of land at incredible human cost. We are seeing a land war that Russia cannot win. It has taken all of this year for Russia to take the small town of Pokrovsk, and at the cost of some 100,000 casualties.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
They have not really taken it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My right hon. Friend is right: the Russians have not already taken the town, although they say they have. The US ambassador to NATO pointed out recently that a snail crawling from the Russia border westwards would now be in the middle of Poland, had it left at the same time as the beginning of the invasion—that is how badly the Russians are doing militarily.
There is no breakthrough that would give Russia strategic military success, so Putin escalates by ramping up hybrid warfare on NATO states. He wants to move the focus of the war on to fresh battlefields. He attacks Ukrainian energy infrastructure. He could launch a miliary attack on a NATO member country using a form of warfare for which that country, unlike Ukraine, is not prepared. Such an attack on an ally would necessitate a response by the UK, if deterrence is to remain credible. It might even involve UK troops in Estonia, for example. Our troops are not prepared for the kind of drone warfare that we are seeing in Ukraine. If Russia did that, what would we do? I leave that question hanging in the air.
An attack could involve a missile attack on targets within the UK, for which we are equally unprepared, or on our offshore assets. Our allies in Germany, Poland and Finland take very seriously the real risk that Europe may be drawn into a more military confrontation with Russia, and a lot sooner than is comfortable to acknowledge.
What must we do in the face of this now obvious threat to our security? We must acknowledge and explain to our population that we are indeed at war now, and we must explain the nature of the hybrid threat. We must call out Russian hybrid attacks for what they are and we must devise robust responses, as well as increasing our own defences. Are these interceptions, and no more, a sufficient response?
We must constantly adapt the use of sanctions, realising that, like any weapon, Russia will devise countermeasures to evade them. We must, as a real priority, increase our military and economic support to Ukraine, however difficult that might be. We need to make it clear, by both our words and our actions, that Russia cannot win this war. I say to the Minister for the Armed Forces, who will respond to the debate, that it is not enough for us to repeat the mantra “for as long as it takes.” What does that mean? It has already taken far too long. We must commit to supporting Ukraine until Ukraine achieves victory, and soon, and that is possible.
What does that victory look like? Ukraine must be able to sustain itself as a secure and independent sovereign state, as part of the family of free and democratic nations. Victory is no threat to Russian territory or sovereignty—there is no plan or objective to topple President Putin—but this victory is the only way to prevent Russia from discrediting NATO and corroding the confidence that we democracies can and must use to prevent despots from degrading the global international order.
To help to achieve peace, we in the UK must accelerate our own war readiness, as the Defence Committee set out in its recent report. The noble Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who oversaw the Government’s strategic defence review, recently remarked:
“We are under-prepared…we’re under attack and we’re not safe”.
Changing that does not simply mean strengthening our armed forces, although that is essential; it also means adapting a lot of things in our country so that we can survive and fight a war. That will be difficult, even painful, so the sooner we start, the better, because it is weakness that encourages Putin—the stronger we are, the less likely we are to be attacked.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing the debate and for making such an eloquent speech—he made all the points that I was going to make in my speech, but I will make it nevertheless.
Today is 1,379 days since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but let us not forget that Ukraine had already been at war with Russia for eight years. We all remember the rhetoric from the Kremlin: that Kyiv would fall in three days. Last week we heard from former Russian ground forces commander, Vladimir Chirkin, who made a rare criticism of the Kremlin from inside Russia. He said that Russia had not been prepared for its invasion of Ukraine. It is instructive to the House to quote him:
“we had the traditional underestimation of the opponent and overestimation of our own military”
as Russia had been buoyed by confidence from its five-day war in Georgia in 2008. He continued:
“During the first few weeks, we were taught a serious harsh lesson, and the former Defence Minister tried to find a face-saving exit from the situation, calling what was happening a ‘gesture of goodwill.’”
Chirkin also criticised the entire Russian intelligence community for telling the leadership that 70% of the Ukrainian population supported the invasion, which turned out to be entirely false. We know that well over 90% of Ukrainians—even in the east, in the south and in Crimea—support the continued sovereignty of Ukraine. That was one of the first times that a top Russian official has made such public criticism of Russia’s war effort—something that can lead to criminal charges in Russia.
Let us be under no illusion: in this country we are in our own war with Russia. Every day, the Russians undertake hybrid attacks against us, but here, unlike in Ukraine, where children are under direct threat of death and abduction from Russia, our children are under threat of online manipulation. Although our buildings are not under immediate threat of destruction by Russian drones, our borders are being tested by reconnaissance and dummy drones to assess our readiness for a full-scale war.
I have been to Ukraine seven times since the start of the full-scale invasion, and not just to Kyiv or Lviv; I have travelled that great country in its time of greatest need, visiting Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Odesa, Chernihiv, Mykolaiv, Kherson oblast, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and my sister city of Kharkiv, which has had a relationship with Leeds since not long after the full-scale invasion began. I have seen at first hand the strength, courage and determination of Ukraine and the commitment to Ukrainian culture, language and identity.
I know that the Ukrainian people will never allow their identity to be subsumed by Russia. That is why the Russian practice of stealing Ukrainian children, Russifying them and then, when of age, sending them back to Ukraine to fight for Russia is so abhorrent. It is the worst, most dystopian war crime one can imagine. We need to ensure that Russia is prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her amazing work in leading the APPG on that matter.
There is so much that we can say about the needs of Ukraine. I do not think we should use the debate to provide a running commentary on the war, or on the stalled peace talks, which Russia has disingenuously used to try to pursue its original war goals. I do want to talk about what could turn the dial.
As we all know, only maximum pressure on Russia and placing Ukraine in the strongest possible position will create a scenario where a ceasefire can be agreed. The twin approach of seizing Russian state assets for military aid and squeezing the Russian economy through the strongest possible sanctions regime may create those conditions, and it would certainly put Ukraine in a much stronger position than it is now.
We all know what assets are held in Euroclear, and we need those assets to be seized and repurposed for the self-defence of Ukraine. Euroclear has been holding about €200 billion belonging to Russia’s central bank, which is the majority of an estimated €260 billion in sovereign Russian assets held in the west. The full seizure of Russian assets is clearly proportional to the crimes committed by the Russian state against Ukraine, and any post-war settlement will incur huge reparations, so the seizure of assets is paying forward a long tradition of post-war reparations.
I welcome the news yesterday that the European Commission plans to move forward quickly with the reparations loan to Ukraine using frozen Russian assets, or an EU loan based on common borrowing, with a figure of €90 billion being reported, which is significant. That second option is due to some reservations from the Belgian Government, who host Euroclear in Brussels. I welcome Ursula von der Leyen’s statement that Ukraine must have “the means to defend” itself
“and take forward peace negotiations for a position of strength.”
I am sure the entire House agrees with that.
Publicly available information indicates that the United Kingdom has frozen private, corporate and Russian assets belonging to sanctioned individuals amounting to £28 billion. Will the Minister indicate the total value of sovereign Russian state assets currently frozen in the United Kingdom and whether the Government are prepared immediately to allocate those funds not subject to the approval of international partners, such as Euroclear assets, to support Ukraine during this difficult time?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is interesting that although we have all mounted pressure on the UK Government, and the Foreign Office in particular, to seize these assets and use their capital value—most of the assets are in cash now anyway—the answer has been a refusal. I understand the nervousness about resulting market instability, but the Government have said that the interest from the capital can be used, even though you cannot own the interest if you do not own the capital. We are dancing on the head of a pin. Would it not be better if the Government were clear, seized the capital once and for all, and regularised the use of that money, one way or another?
Alex Sobel
I agree. It is not just that the profits or interest from assets held here should be repurposed; we should look at how those assets are being managed, and maximise them, for use for Ukraine’s purposes. I will conclude my question to the Minister: will the United Kingdom be part of the reparations loan to Ukraine scheme, alongside the EU, if or when that comes about?
I will be brief on sanctions, as I have spoken about them many times before. More action is needed on two issues: we need to complete the sanction regime against the shadow fleet, and to sanction third-country imports to Russia. We also need to strengthen our enforcement in those areas. The shadow fleet is not just a way of Russia moving its fossil fuel exports and financing its illegal war; the unseaworthiness of the vessels is a danger to both people and the environment. In recent days, two Russian shadow fleet tankers went up in flames in the Turkish Black sea—again, that is a danger to people and to the ecosystem of the Black sea.
The shadow fleet is estimated to number about 630 vessels, and nearly all of them are old and in a poor state of repair. The recent large sanction packages from the US, EU and UK are welcome, but obviously the fleet evolves over time, and as many as 200 vessels are not yet sanctioned. We also need to use much more diplomatic muscle to ensure sanctions enforcement, in order to prevent the shadow fleet from not only docking, but using nearshore waters for repairs, refuelling and supply, which sometimes happens even in countries that have sanctioned the shadow fleet. Crippling the shadow fleet is crippling Russia.
The Government have moved on third-party sanctions. For instance, Kazakhstan has had a huge surge in imports of British luxury cars. UK automotive exports to Kazakhstan between January and April 2023 were 3,900% higher than in the same period in 2022. I was unsure whether there really was such a surge in interest in our vehicles in Kazakhstan, so I looked up the guidance on exporting to Kazakhstan from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and it states—I will be slightly long on this—that
“Russia is going to great lengths to circumvent sanctions, and continues to procure Western military, dual-use, and other critical goods through third countries, including beyond battlefield technologies. Russia relies on deceptive tactics, such as indirect shipping routes, falsification of the end-uses of goods and professional evasion networks.”
Kazakhstan might receive an order from a Russian importer for goods that are subject to UK sanctions, and so cannot be obtained directly in Russia from the UK. The Kazakh firm orders the goods from a UK supplier without informing it—or others involved, such as bankers, insurers and shippers—that the end user of the goods is Russia. The UK supplier exports the goods to the Kazakh firm, which exports them to Russia. That practice, and others like it, constitute the circumvention of sanctions. The risk of that happening may affect all parties in a supply chain.
That FCDO guidance is clearly helpful and instructive to anybody trading with Kazakhstan, or pretty much any other country neighbouring Russia that is not a member of NATO or the EU—or Ukraine, obviously. I know that the Minister is not from the Department for Business and Trade or the FCDO, but how many UK firms have had export licences revoked because they have traded with countries neighbouring Russia for the purposes of sanction evasion? My concern is that we have the guidance and know what is happening—we see a rise in exports of certain goods—but we are not taking action against individual companies. The answer would be instructive. Taking action would put us in a much stronger position when it comes to supporting Ukraine and trying to stymie the Russian economy.
To conclude, what we do in the next few months will decide the fate of Europe for the next 50 years. Will we scale up our support for Ukraine and ensure that the Ukrainian people have a democratic future in the European family, or will we slow-walk and slide slowly into our own military conflict with Russia? This is the time for us all to stand with Ukraine and ensure not just its future, but all our futures. Slava Ukraini!
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If Members keep their contributions to under 10 minutes, we can get everybody in. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Western societies are visibly divided over how to respond to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and those divisions play directly into Vladimir Putin’s strategic aims. Putin’s method has always been to widen fractures within democracies, and to exploit hesitation among allies.
At one pole of the debate are those who believe that any compromise with Moscow would amount to a betrayal of Ukraine and a surrender on moral principle; at the opposite pole are soft apologists for Putin, who dismiss support for Ukraine as naive, or attribute it to sinister global conspiracies. Those extremes distort sensible discussion, and we must fight against both ends to strengthen the thoughtful, strategic centre ground of this debate. Giving in to either extreme just makes it more difficult to develop and deploy a coherent western policy. The responsible course is to steer between absolutism and appeasement, while protecting both Ukrainian sovereignty and our own national interest.
The Ukrainian armed forces have performed very well, and have proved that they can defend their homeland. Ukraine continues to hold the line across hundreds of miles. There are those who claim that the Russians are winning, or that their victory is inevitable, but the history books are replete with examples of outcomes deemed inevitable that never happened. Experience on the ground shows that this war will not be a slam dunk for either side.
Predictions of imminent Russian victory ignore the reality that Ukrainian defences remain resilient and adaptive. War is the mother of invention, and the Ukrainians have been extremely innovative in adapting their offensive means, as well as defending against Russian countermeasures. As long as Ukraine retains control of the territory it holds, claims that Russia is “winning” do not stand realistic scrutiny. Morale, ingenuity and international support have enabled Ukraine to deny Putin the strategic breakthrough he seeks.
We in the United Kingdom have been one of Ukraine’s most consistent and substantial supporters, and we should be proud of that. We should be open to further support where prudent, while maintaining our clear position that the UK will not become an active combatant.
Critics who deride President Trump’s peace efforts overlook the value of initiatives that at least attempt to move the conflict towards negotiation. Putin’s rejection of recent proposals underscores that the obstacle to peace lies in Moscow, not with Ukraine or among Ukraine’s friends. I hope people will forgive me for not being entirely rude about our closest ally, but let us be honest: many people are attacking Trump’s proposals just because they are Trump’s. If the proposals had come from Mr Biden or a prospective President Harris, critics may have been cautious, but they would not have attempted to stand in their way. We should not let political prejudice undermine our careful examination of substantial proposals for ending the active conflict.
President Trump is putting forward constructive proposals, and we should understand them and be supportive, if necessary, while questioning them. It is easy to demand endless resistance from the comfort of our own homes, but it is our Ukrainian friends who are paying the price in blood, lives and the future of their country. There is no virtue in insisting on absolute maximalist goals while others must bear the human cost of achieving them.
Ukraine and Russia once enjoyed deep cultural, social and economic ties, and Putin has singlehandedly killed all that. He alone is responsible for turning two neighbouring peoples against each other. It will take multiple generations before Ukraine and Russia can be friends again, but we can try to help them to at least stop making war, and at least try to end the killing. Of course, the ideal solution is for Russian forces to withdraw; if they did that today, everyone would rejoice. However, we must deal with the reality: they are not going to do that.
Cessation of hostilities is therefore the necessary first step. Responsible policymakers must prepare for outcomes that fall short of our ideals, while still ending the bloodshed. President Trump’s efforts to encourage negotiation represent an attempt to find practical steps towards a ceasefire. I agree that no agreement can be legitimate without the free and sovereign consent of Ukraine, which cannot be dictated to by Washington or Moscow. We should be absolutely clear that we cannot advocate for any agreement—this is the important thing—that forces Ukraine to give up territory it currently holds. To pressure Ukraine into ceding land would be akin to surrendering the Sudetenland. We left Czechoslovakia absolutely defenceless in 1938—that must never happen again.
There is more that we can do on our side in the west, not just when it comes to sending money and matériel to Ukraine, but by changing our behaviour. We need to increase economic pressure on Russia. Sanctions and financial constraints remain one of the few non-military tools that can meaningfully weaken the Kremlin’s capacity to wage a war. Germany, I am afraid, and some of our European allies continue to buy Russian energy in various forms, undermining our collective leverage. We must ask our partners whether they are actually making constructive attempts to secure alternative sources of energy; we hope they are. The slow pace at which some European countries have diversified their energy supply undercuts the effect of sanctions. Europe’s over-reliance on Russian hydrocarbons is yet another compelling reason for the United Kingdom to pursue nuclear energy with renewed determination.
We must also learn the lessons of history. Russia’s economy, measured in nominal GDP, is roughly comparable to Italy’s, and it is therefore far from the superpower that people often talk about. I mean no insult to our wonderful Italian friends. The disparity between Russia’s global posture and the actual size of its economy highlights how vulnerable Moscow is to sustained economic isolation, and that is how we are going to win in the long term.
Although the military dimension of the conflict is vital, it alone will not produce a decisive victory or a durable settlement for Ukraine. Economic pressure, diplomatic alignment and long-term energy resilience across Europe are equally important; they are vital to a successful strategy. The goal of diplomacy must be to find a workable, if imperfect, path to ending unnecessary killing. Ours should be a humane policy—to be strong, and to get a fair peace that stops the killing. The longer the war continues, the greater the damage to Ukraine’s economy, infrastructure and demographic future. The continuation of the conflict also damages Russia, although its citizens have little say in the matter.
The United Kingdom has offered sanctuary to many thousands of Ukrainians, supporting their education, welfare and community integration. Public good will remains high, but history teaches us that political and social patience cannot be taken for granted indefinitely. I will end on this point. My fear is that there will come a day—it may still be years away—when the British Government and the British public feel that we have done enough, and that is that. The American Government may say the same. If a peace arrangement is not reached before fatigue sets in among Ukraine’s allies, Kyiv may find itself dangerously exposed. Allowing that to happen would serve no interest except Vladimir Putin’s and would hand him an undeserved strategic victory. The prudent course is to sustain and, if sensible, expand our support for Ukraine, while actively exploring diplomatic routes towards peace. Working constructively with our American allies gives us a chance, however modest, to help end the killing.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing today’s very important debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for his leadership of the important all-party group to which he devotes so much of his time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bravery of the Ukrainian people in the face of an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack by Russia against a sovereign democratic state. Putin’s invasion—which will be four years ago come February—has resulted in millions fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and relentless attacks on hospitals, homes and schools.
Like many Members who will speak today, I am particularly concerned for Ukraine’s children, many of whom have been subjected to state-sanctioned abductions to the Russian Federation. I welcome the Government’s new sanctions that target those supporting Vladimir Putin’s cruel attempts to forcibly deport and indoctrinate Ukraine’s children and erase their Ukrainian cultural heritage. However, this issue was not mentioned in President Trump’s 28-point plan for peace between Russia and Ukraine. I am therefore proud to add my name to an open letter to the Minister calling for the rights of children to be upheld in any peace agreement. That letter was released today, and was organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter); she really wanted to be able to contribute to today’s debate, but as has been mentioned, she has unfortunately been called away on other business. I also pay tribute to the decision of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly to join the international coalition for the return of Ukrainian children, and to the appointment of Swedish MP Carina Ödebrink as special envoy on Russian abductions and deportations of Ukrainian children. I look forward to supporting her in her new role.
In my role as leader of the UK OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation, and as the recently appointed chair of its parliamentary support team for Ukraine, I have listened to evidence from brave Ukrainians who have defied all the odds. At our Crimea platform summit in Stockholm just last week, the OSCE PA reiterated our unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. President Pere Joan Pons reminded us of the wider implications of Ukraine’s struggles, saying:
“When we stand with Ukraine, we defend something bigger than any one nation—we defend the idea of Europe itself: its liberty, its dignity, and the right of every nation to choose its future”.
President Pons and I appointed fellow PSTU member Boris Dittrich as a special rapporteur with a dedicated mandate to push for the release of the three OSCE officials who are unlawfully being held in Russian detention: Dmytro Shabanov, Maksym Petrov and Vadym Golda. At the OSCE’s autumn session in Istanbul, President Pons and I met with Marharyta Shabanova, wife of Dmytro, to discuss our efforts. I hope the UK Government will also look into how they can support those officials’ release.
I am proud that this Labour Government have stepped up for Ukraine. The UK must uphold its promise to deliver £3 billion of military aid to Ukraine every year for as long as needed. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex that “as long as needed” should not be forever, but as soon as possible. The UK’s military, financial, diplomatic and political support for Ukraine must remain iron-clad. I am pleased that in recent weeks, alongside our allies, we have reasserted our steadfast commitment to Ukraine and a European security architecture based on the principles of the UN charter and the OSCE, despite blatant abuses by Russia.
Looking around the Chamber today, I am also heartened by the cross-party support for Ukraine. The UK has provided £457 million in humanitarian assistance since the start of the full-scale invasion, including £100 million of humanitarian support; £20 million to double this year’s support to Ukrainian energy infrastructure; and £40 million for stabilisation and early recovery, which the Foreign Secretary announced in Kyiv in September. That funding is vital, and I know it has been warmly welcomed. We must continue to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression, and hold Putin to account for his war crimes. While other countries may choose to look away, our country’s response must be one of strength, resilience and unity for as long as it takes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on his opening remarks, which were specific and precise; I will try not to repeat many of them, but to get into some of the other issues.
My personal connection with Ukraine goes right back to a matter of months after the original invasion. I was involved with a Scottish charity called Siobhan’s Trust, which went out there to help those who were fleeing at the Polish border. When that had settled a little, the charity decided to cross the border and carry on feeding people who had been dispossessed behind the frontline. I see the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) in his place; I call him an hon. Friend in this, because he came out there with me to see the same remarkable charity. It is a wonderfully bonkers British charity. The team wear kilts, put the pipes in their mouths, and dance and entertain the Ukrainians only a few miles behind enemy lines, risking themselves at the same time. They show the remarkable bond that we in this country have forged with the Ukrainians in their hour of need. The charity is peculiarly British, and that is what we are about.
We know what this is all about. We do not need this House to lead this debate. In truth, if we were to ask ordinary people on the high streets of this great country, they would immediately react, “We stand with Ukraine.” Why? Because they know what it is all about. History tells us what happens when countries fall: they do not rise again unless somebody else can rescue them. There is nobody to rescue countries like Ukraine if it is not us, after all our experiences of the second world war and our determination to ensure such a brutal war never takes place again. It is happening now.
I have to remind the US that, even if it is not a guarantor, it certainly has an obligation to Ukraine under the Budapest memorandum. It cannot sweep that aside. The obligation came about mostly because Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. I wonder whether Putin would have invaded if it had kept its nuclear weapons. Ukraine was misled by the west. We said that we would stand by the Ukrainians, and away went their nuclear weapons Then, of course, Putin eventually decides to invade—at first piecemeal, invading part of the territory, and then fully later on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is quite right that the Russians have been both singularly appalling in the way that they have behaved and incredibly poor in terms of their military activity. That notwithstanding, they would never have done this if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, which would have been its major line of defence.
I have travelled many times to Ukraine to visit charities and others and have spoken to many Ministers in Kyiv about the difficulties and problems, including in Kharkiv, not long after Ukraine had driven the Russians back. Another Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), was with me in Kharkiv, and we saw the devastation. How quickly the Ukrainians repair it is another marvel: I saw many buildings that had been shot at and blown apart—people had died—and by the next time I went to see them, which was a year later, they were back up and standing. That is a phenomenal testimony to the capability of the Ukrainians to recognise that, despite this terrible war, they have to keep on making efforts to live as natural and normal a life as they can.
President Zelensky has rightly become the signal and the character of the defence. I know there has been a difficult relationship with the White House over his desire to wear fatigues—that strikes me as a rather petty point but, no matter how big they are, some people can be incredibly petty. His whole character, responsibility and defiance in staying in Kyiv, when Russia attacked and was determined to find and kill him, shows the courage of the Ukrainians embodied in one man. We need to support him in difficult times.
We know that Ukraine is not perfect. Which country can put its hand on its heart and say it has never had corruption? Which countries have come out of the Soviet Union and not struggled with corruption? The only way people could exist in a Soviet country was through corruption, because that was how to get things done, because things were so bureaucratic and hopeless and people were not properly paid. The Ukranians are trying to get on top of that. They want to be a democracy, and they want to have freedom and human rights. Even if nothing else had happened, surely it should have been our responsibility to stand by Ukraine in its attempt to get that done. We only have to go back 150 years in this country, and we were riddled with corruption. We changed how we ran things, we changed the civil service code and we changed payments, and we got on top of it for the most part. When we talk about our lack of corruption, it came after a number of years of hardship many years ago in our history. Those who complain about corruption and point the finger should point the finger at themselves, because it is a misunderstanding of history and our obligation to a people who wish to be free. They will one day be utterly free, if we stand with them.
Russia has engaged in appalling war crimes. If people go to the battlefield, they will see what the Russians have been doing. They deliberately target civilians, so that the military will come to try and help them, and then they get a bigger target. The whole nature of warfare has been turned on its head in Ukraine. A soldier who had had his leg blown off told me the other day, “There is no safe space behind the frontline, as there always was before. You have to go miles back before you can even begin to think of putting up some kind of hospital or first aid centre, because those drones fly all day and all night. What they do is hit one soldier and lay them out, dead or alive. Then, as the others run to him, they rain down on them with their explosives.” That is why more than 50,000 people in Ukraine today who have been serving on the frontline need prosthetics.
Ukraine has the most advanced prosthetics laboratories that I have ever seen. They could teach us a thing or two. There is a whole problem with the tourniquet, because it cannot be released. Soldiers cannot get to the wounded soldier lying on the ground, because they know what will happen if they go to them, so the wounded soldier lies, often for an hour or more, with a tourniquet destroying their arm, even though it may be saving their life. They end up with terrible prosthetics requirements into their shoulder blades. Do they moan and complain about that? No, they do not. They sit down technically and work out how to solve it. We have a lot to learn from them, including on the battlefield and how they counter the drones. The Ukranians are way ahead of us, and I hope that the MOD realises that it is not us who can teach them a lesson, but they who can teach us. I spend time trying to bring companies over from Ukraine to give us that technology on drones and all these other areas where we should learn from them.
The other point I want people to learn is that we seem to talk about Ukrainians as though they were capable of little themselves. They had no defence manufacturing capability worth talking about, but today they manufacture more than 50% of their own defence needs. They do it unbelievably efficiently and they do it under regular fire from Russia. I have visited companies in Ukraine where half of the place gets blown up and in about four days they are back manufacturing and fixing things. Those are things that we used to do when we were in the second world war being bombarded. The Ukranians show the same resilience, the same application and the same flexibility.
We must stand with Ukraine. We stand with Ukranians because of what they want to be and because it is our responsibility to defend those who seek freedom and democracy as their cause. It is as simple as that. The UK has been the most united over this, and I applaud colleagues from all parts of the House, because we have all stood together. It is noticeable that when we talk to Ukrainians, they always raise that point. The UK is united, and that is the most important point.
I will finish on sanctions. The problem for us is that we have failed to settle our sanctions responsibility to the degree that we should have. There are huge problems over the shadow fleet, as has been mentioned, and over individual sanctions, which we should have been using on a number of occasions. It is remarkable that with the one thing we had complete control over—the sale of Chelsea football club—£2.5 billion has sat there for three years, because we defined the ability to use it so poorly that there is now a dispute as to whether Abramovich’s own companies have a right to use the money, or whether we can seize it. We have to deal with this. If we cannot deal with that one issue, it shows how bad it will be for us in seeking reparations across the board.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Do we think for a moment that Russia would pause seizing any assets it could to fund the conflict? Is it not ironic that the Russians use the rule of law against us, despite the fact that they have no respect for it themselves?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is, of course, a fact that we stand by the rule of law and teach others to do so, but the reality is that this whole problem could be resolved if there was greater resolve—by the way, this is a criticism not just of the present Government but the previous one—in the Foreign Office and the Treasury to leave no stone unturned and resolve this matter by seizing the money.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The will is non-existent.
I will conclude by simply saying that Ukraine should not be written off. The issue is not whether Ukraine has to make a deal now because it cannot win. Winning, for the Ukrainians, is getting back their land, their rights and their country. It is written into the constitution of Ukraine that the land that Russia occupies is theirs. People talk glibly about handing over territory as a way of resolving the conflict, but this would only lead, as has been said previously, to Russia moving again within a matter of months or years and seizing the rest of Ukraine. Putin does not care about territory; he cares about Ukraine. He believes Ukraine should be part of Russia, and he will never stop. If we show weakness by agreeing to some stupid 28-point plan, which would sell the Ukrainians down the river, Putin would come back. We would walk away and say, “Well, we did our best.” That is not good enough.
I urge the Minister to make it absolutely clear that we do not agree with any of the 28-point plan, which would sell territory for peace. But it would not be peace; it would be a short-term abdication of responsibility that would lead to the death of many millions.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on a fantastic speech, and on taking the initiative to get the Backbench Business Committee to agree to this debate. It is good to see the strong cross-party support continuing.
I appreciate the support that the UK Government have given and continue to give to Ukraine, but we are now at an absolutely critical time for the country. It is vital that we continue and intensify our support for Ukraine, because Putin cannot be allowed to get away with his illegal invasions of Ukraine and his evil programme of seeking to eliminate Ukrainian identity altogether.
A strong show of western solidarity and support for Ukraine is essential, not just to restore peace to Ukraine but to deter Putin from further aggression that would ultimately affect the security of the whole of western Europe, as hon. Members have said. It is not just the countries closest to Russia that are affected; we have already witnessed numerous Russian-provoked incidents across Europe, involving a range of hybrid warfare techniques.
I applaud my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his efforts in setting up the coalition of the willing and encouraging support for Ukraine, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed some specific issues. First and foremost is the issue of finance, with external funding for Ukraine secured only from 1 March 2025. There is real concern about the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the EU’s ability to issue guarantees that are backed by frozen Russian assets—most of which are located in Belgium—making Ukraine’s military and political planning extremely difficult.
Will the Minister enlighten us on the contingency measures being developed to mitigate a potential funding gap? How might the United Kingdom contribute more actively, particularly given the £25 billion in frozen Russian assets, as reported in the annual review by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation? If the guarantees are not approved in time and the financial situation is not resolved, how does the Minister anticipate Ukraine’s strategy would need to evolve?
In the meantime, while Ukraine is facing uncertainty about future funding, Russia, as many Members have referenced, continues to find ways around sanctions. As just one example, Ukraine’s military intelligence—the HUR—recently published a detailed breakdown of the industrial network behind Russia’s Iskander-M ballistic missiles, and noted that 13 of the 49 companies involved in the Iskander supply chain are not currently sanctioned, even though they are directly contributing to the production of weapons used against civilian targets in Ukraine.
Once the components reach Russia, where do they go next? Ukraine’s intelligence service has highlighted that Moscow has already helped North Korea upgrade its KN-23 and KN-24 missile systems. I appreciate that the UK has already done a lot to strengthen sanctions, but in the light of such an example, as well as the use of the shadow fleet and third parties, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), will the Minister look at what more we can do to stop sanctions being flouted and to work with allies to make sanctions as effective as possible? Strengthening sanctions is a key way of helping Ukraine, especially as financial pressure remains a core pillar of Ukraine’s resilience strategy.
Continuing on the issue of resources, it is very worrying that Italy has announced a temporary suspension of its participation in NATO’s PURL—prioritised Ukraine requirements list—programme for procuring US weapons for Ukraine. According to the Italian Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, this pause is linked to ongoing peace discussions and the premise that, in the event of a ceasefire, security guarantees, not weapons, will become the central requirement. However, this announcement creates yet more uncertainty for Ukraine, and obviously has serious implications for allied burden sharing within PURL. What assurances can the Minister give about UK support for the PURL programme to support Ukraine, and what contingency plans are there to make up any shortfall caused if the Italian withdrawal from the programme becomes permanent?
On security guarantees, General Zaluzhnyi, the former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, wrote recently in The Telegraph:
“We Ukrainians strive for a complete victory, but cannot reject the option of a long-term end to the war… But all this is impossible without effective security guarantees.”
He went on:
“Such security guarantees could include: Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory or the deployment of a large allied military contingent”.
Again, what is the current UK thinking about the scale of the security guarantees necessary to give Ukraine the security it would need in any form of peace?
As we know, there are many aspects to the Ukrainians’ resilience, and we witnessed them on a recent visit to Ukraine. We have all heard about the appalling suffering on the frontline and the terrible plight of those living under Russian occupation, but the impact on the rest of the country is of course enormous. The Ukrainians are tackling so many challenges, such as the damage done by drone attacks night after night to both buildings and morale, and dealing with the internal displacement of people. We visited the town of Vinnytsia, a city the size of Swansea, which is welcoming 17,000 internally displaced Ukrainians. Vinnytsia is also welcoming the businesses and factories re-establishing themselves there and a university that has moved en bloc from the occupied area.
There is also the challenge of getting online Ukrainian education through to children in the occupied areas. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, there are the challenges faced by seriously injured soldiers. They are picking up their lives again and showing huge resilience, as so many Ukrainians have done. There is the challenge of getting back the stolen children. There is the challenge of finding the ingenuity to develop drones, automated vehicles and anti-drone technology. There are the challenges of rehousing projects, attracting foreign investment and getting appropriate insurance. Again, what further help can the UK Government give? I would like the Minister to respond on these specific challenges. I think we all agree that we really must support Ukraine now, before it is far too late.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for bringing this very important debate to the House.
It is very disappointing that the Chamber is not full and that we do not have the Prime Minister sitting there. I cannot think of a more important subject for us to be debating in the United Kingdom—the almost certain outbreak of war, as far as I am concerned. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not here to tell us his view on Russia. I think we would all be very interested in what he had to say.
Ukraine is defending the western world against Russia. There is no doubt about that. The Baltic states, Finland, Moldova, Poland and Estonia are all building up their military forces. They expect that Putin has territorial ambitions on their land, too. In the meantime, all over Europe Russia is conducting sabotage: rogue drone flights, towing anchors over our power lines and data links, cyber-attacks, exploding packages in courier flights and even assassinations in the UK.
In the previous Government, even Boris Johnson was much more supportive in his response than our current Government. France and Germany are very much leading the way now, with Britain timidly following on. The Chancellor raised £28 billion in the recent Budget and £40 billion this time last year, yet we have a target to increase defence spending from a very modest 2.4% of GDP to only 2.5% by 2026. Whether our Prime Minister or Chancellor will admit it, we are at war with Russia already. Surely the Budget would have been the perfect time to have announced a substantial new contribution to Ukraine to help it fund the defence of western Europe?
Why is our Prime Minister being so timid in his support for Ukraine? Is he still hoping that President Trump will stop his flip-flopping and actually firmly support Ukraine? Is he not upset that the United States no longer donates arms to help Ukraine, but sells the arms to Europe? Just yesterday, Trump boasted that Ukraine is forced to pay “top dollar” for weapons to give to Ukraine. This is war profiteering. Does our Prime Minister read the Wall Street Journal, where he will have read a detailed report on Steve Witkoff and Trump’s own son-in-law, Jared Kushner, meeting the Russians to carve out multibillion dollar deals for the benefit of themselves and major American companies? Donald Tusk declared:
“We know this is not about peace. It’s about business.”
Did the PM see Steve Bannon stating that Russia was America’s true ally in world war two and that they should be allies again? Did he read the press yesterday where a German general, Christian Freuding, said that he no longer has peer group contact with US generals and that channels had been
“cut off, really cut off”.
My mother is American, from a long line of Republican supporters. She is appalled that the party of Reagan and George Bush has decided to ally itself with Russia, rather than its traditional allies of Britain, Germany, Canada, Japan and its many other old friends. I appeal to our Prime Minister to grow a bit of backbone with Trump, side firmly with European nations and once more ensure Britain is the leader of the world’s civilised countries in supporting Ukraine.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I add my commendation to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this important debate. Hearing the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) speak reminded me of our trip to Ukraine earlier in the year. Thinking of surreal moments, it cannot be more surreal than being on a road outside Kharkiv watching him try to fix a car that was not working properly.
In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that many of us underestimated the sophistication and intent behind the Trump Administration’s manoeuvres regarding Ukraine, Europe and Russia. What at first seemed like a genuine pivot towards supporting Ukraine now appears, in retrospect, to have been a carefully orchestrated performance designed to protect Russian assets, pave the way for future business dealings and shape a narrative in which Ukraine’s defeat was treated as inevitable.
At the heart of that strategy lies the $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets that hon. Members have mentioned repeatedly this afternoon. For many years, including in this place, we have debated whether those assets should be used to help Ukraine defend itself and rebuild. But we now know from reports that US officials have been placing intense pressure on European Governments to leave those assets untouched, and indeed insisting it is their view that they be returned to Russia after any peace deal, while feigning, for months, a willingness to ramp up support for Ukraine.
That illusion was crucial, because the more Europeans believed that Washington might still back Ukraine, the less likely European Governments were to take unilateral steps, including seizing or repurposing those Russian assets. It was a calculated sleight of hand, and it succeeded. Even now, European leaders remain hesitant, while Washington has now made its position unmistakably clear that Ukraine is expected to accept a settlement that has been shaped by Russian interests—because, I believe, it is Trump’s assessment that Russia will ultimately prevail.
We have to face the facts: the September-October pivot, when Trump and Vance claimed that Russia was losing and Ukraine could win, was most likely theatre. Trump has always accepted the Russian narrative of inevitable Ukrainian defeat, and once the pretence ended, US officials made their message clear to the Ukrainians: “Accept a deal now or face a worse one later. Russia can fight indefinitely; Ukraine cannot.” In my view, this is not diplomacy; it is coercive pressure on Ukraine, and it carries an unmistakable message that the United States Administration are now structuring their policy around the assumption of a Russian victory in the long term. Many of us will be incredibly worried that Trump will pressure Ukraine into giving up territory and ultimately fail to give any meaningful security guarantees. It is for Ukrainians who have paid a price in blood to decide for themselves what price they are prepared to pay for peace.
What does this mean for Europe and for Britain? First, it means that we must accept the truth that if Ukraine is to resist Russian maximalist aims, we must step up now, not in six months or in two years. Secondly, it means that the fate of Russian sovereign assets is not a technical financial matter but a strategic one, and every delay, hesitation and concession on this issue weakens Ukraine and emboldens the Kremlin. Thirdly, it means we must recognise that 2026 will likely be the decisive year in this war. Yes, Russia faces mounting economic difficulties, fuel shortages and internal discontent, and the Kremlin still insists on its war aims, but its capacity to sustain the war is not limitless, and a sense of futility in Moscow is a necessary condition for peace. Ukraine’s ability to hold the line, supported through European unity, is central to bringing that moment closer.
I do not think that we have touched this afternoon on the fact that Ukrainian resilience is not endless either. There are hundreds of thousands of cases of desertion—a stark measure of exhaustion and eroding morale among frontline soldiers. Many units are under-strength and increasingly reliant on poorly trained conscripts rather than experienced volunteers. Some brigades operate without adequate rest, rotation or munitions. Commanders describe troops who are physically depleted, mentally exhausted and losing confidence in the strategic direction of the war. The result is a brittle front, with units stretched to breaking point, lacking resilience and vulnerable to sudden local collapses. Without substantial support, I really worry that the Ukrainian military could face a cascading breakdown as Russia continues to pile on the pressure.
The strain on Ukraine’s civilian population is equally acute. After three years of missile and drone attacks, millions of Ukrainians endure repeated power outages, damaged infrastructure, deep psychological trauma and limited access to heating, electricity and clean water. Mental health support has deteriorated sharply, especially as winter approaches. Displaced families have exhausted their savings, livelihoods have vanished, and the cumulative stress of air raids, mourning for the dead and uncertainty has driven a marked rise in depression, anxiety and long-term trauma. Communities live in a cycle of destruction and partial recovery, eroding resilience with each passing month.
We should be clear-eyed about our own position. We had warning after warning, but we never did enough—the invasion of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the full-scale invasion several years ago, yet still we did not ramp up defence spending. The British armed forces have experienced years of hollowing out, cuts to troop numbers and chronic under-investment. Only now are we finally beginning to reverse some of that decline, but can we honestly say that the pace is adequate to the threat we face?
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I am struck by what my hon. Friend has just said. About eight years ago, during Trump’s first term, I was in the United States with a group of Latvian MEPs. I remember being almost bemused by how often the Latvians wanted to turn whatever discussion we were having to defence. To some extent, it was kind of annoying me by the end, but now I realise that I was completely and utterly wrong; they knew what they were doing in that instance and I did not. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to sell this concept of a peace dividend? I was really sold on it, but it did not exist at that moment, because investment is required first in order to get peace in the long term. What we are really looking for is peace in Europe in the long term, so once again we genuinely do need a peace dividend.
Tim Roca
I completely agree. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) raised earlier, it is the Baltic countries—Poland, Finland, those that have had direct experience of Russian aggression—that are most clear-eyed about the Russian threat. We do not want a wishy-washy peace that does not deliver genuine security. There has to be genuine security as the basis of any peace.
We in this House must not dodge. We are building a coalition of the willing, and in any peace agreement we may potentially be asked to agree to put British troops on the ground and contribute to maintaining ceasefire lines or to deter Russian aggression. We have to be honest about where the British public are at, and I am not convinced that the British public are yet psychologically in the place they need to be in for that commitment. We all have a duty to contribute to the understanding of the threat that Russia faces to our security here at home. We must speak honestly with the country about the risks that we face, the commitments we may be asked to make, and the moral and strategic imperative of ensuring that Russian aggression does not succeed. If Ukraine falls or is coerced into a settlement that gives the Kremlin what it could not win on the battlefield, Europe will not be safer.
An essential truth that has been revealed in recent months is that Ukrainian resilience is not infinite. Its morale depends on it knowing that the world has not forgotten it. Every air defence system, shell, economic sanction on Russia and measure to support Ukraine and its statehood matters—not just materially but psychologically. Every equivocation, delay and wavering signal emboldens Putin and his gang of thugs. We are clear that Ukraine is fighting not only for its freedom but for the principle that aggression should not be rewarded. I believe that Members of this House agree with those principles. Therefore, we must act with urgency, clarity and resolve.
I think there have been two references by hon. Members this afternoon to Munich. We are 87 years on from what was described as a “total and unmitigated defeat”. Today, I do worry that the Trump Administration’s push for peace, shaped by Putin’s interest, risks making the same mistake in pressuring Ukraine to accept a settlement that serves the aggressor rather than justice or security. Let us be clear in this place that we stand with Ukraine to uphold its sovereignty and security, because we do not want to repeat the errors of the past.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this debate and setting out so many key points in his opening speech.
It has been 1,379 days since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in Ukraine—1,379 days of Ukrainians fleeing for their lives, 1,379 days of Ukrainians forced from their homes, and 1,379 days of Ukrainians fighting for their country and for Europe. As we stand in this House and debate today, the devastating war continues. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has reported that the total civilian casualties from January 2025 to October 2025 are 27% higher than during the same period last year. The number of casualties for the first 10 months of 2025 has already exceeded the total for all of 2024. Since the full-scale invasion began in 2022, there have been over 53,000 civilian casualties and 14,500 deaths. Alongside civilians, the number of military casualties stands at around 400,000 for Ukraine and over 1 million for Russia. It has been a complete loss of human life.
I begin with those horrific statistics not to overwhelm Members with numbers but to confront us with the brutal reality that they represent. Each figure we cite serves a purpose. They help us to understand the scale of the suffering in Ukraine and the enormity of what is at stake. We must never let statistics blind us to the truth behind them, which is that these are people just like us—parents trying to protect their children, the elderly refusing to abandon the homes that they built, and young people who only ever asked for the chance to live in people. Lives full of hope and routine have been interrupted and devastated by a barbaric war that they did not choose, yet they fight. As we consider these numbers, let us remember the Ukrainians whose stories we cannot fully capture and let that guide the seriousness of our debate.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not only an assault on a sovereign nation, but an assault on democracy itself and a flagrant violation of international law. Yet despite this brutal aggression, I know that Ukraine remains unyielding in its fight for freedom. When I visited Ukraine in October, I witnessed the resilience of a nation at war. I was told that, just hours after bombs tear through towns and cities, shattered buildings are boarded up, not simply to hide the destruction, but so that children, families and ordinary citizens can wake the next morning and try as best they can to live their lives, striving for normality in the shadow of war.
Every day, the world is witness to military vehicles rolling through towns and cities, missiles striking innocent civilians and drones patrolling the skies with the intent to kill both military and civilian personnel. This is a war without morality, driven not by principle but by a hunger for territory and the attempted annihilation of Ukrainian identity. Amid the rubble, the grief and the dust lies another, silent and enduring threat. When I was in Ukraine, I saw at first hand the immense challenge of explosive ordnance contamination. Ukraine is now the most heavily contaminated country on earth, with 139,000 sq km polluted by unexploded ordnance.
This is a nation that once fed much of Europe. Before 2022, 71% of Ukraine’s land was agricultural, more than half of it arable, the highest proportion of any European country, but today farmers cannot work their land. Their fields, once the breadbasket of Europe, have become battlefields. In one extreme case, I learned of a farmer going out to farm his land in the tractor while his son was on the lookout at the side, shooting down drones to protect him. Farmers are so desperate to reclaim their livelihoods that they try to clear the land themselves, with horrific consequences. Children, tragically unaware, pick up pieces of unexploded ordnance, believing them to be toys. Save the Children’s recent blast injury report cites the figure of more than 3,000 children having been killed or injured by explosive weapons in Ukraine since 2022, while the number of children maimed surged by 70% in just one year, from 339 in 2023 to 577 in 2024. There can be no greater tragedy and no greater moral failing than a war in which the innocent and the vulnerable, our children, become its casualties.
The cost of explosive ordnance is not only human. A joint report by Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change estimates that landmine contamination is costing Ukraine an estimated $11.2 billion annually, the equivalent of 5.6% of its pre-war GDP. What further exacerbates the issue is Russia’s errant use of anti-personnel mines. Human Rights Watch has reported that Russian forces have used more than a dozen types of anti-personnel mines since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. In Ukraine, I was shown the POM-3. This device is barbaric. Once delivered and deployed, the mine operates on the seismic principle, which means that once it detects a human footstep, it will detonate. These mines cannot tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian, and Russia does not intend them to. Innocent civilians are at risk from mines that they cannot even see.
The Ottawa treaty, which Russia is not party to, prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of these weapons, and requires action to be taken to prevent and address their long-term effects. In recent months, five European states have formally withdrawn from the convention entirely, and in July Ukraine communicated its intention to introduce a suspension. Countries including Austria, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland have formally objected to the suspension, while others are still considering such steps. It risks seriously undermining the convention’s object and purpose, as well as broader international humanitarian law instruments, by suggesting that states can opt out of humanitarian obligations during war.
I stand unequivocally with Ukraine, and I recognise that there are no easy decisions when states confront the terrible reality of war, but I remain deeply concerned that any step away from international conventions risks further harm to civilians. As the Mines Advisory Group has warned:
“International Humanitarian Law…including the Ottawa Convention, is designed precisely for times like these.”
International law is not a luxury for peace; it is the foundation of humanity amid conflict. The UK must lead in its commitment to international law and uphold the standards that the world will depend on in future conflicts.
Alongside sustaining the international pressure, we must look to our own responsibilities. With global mine action programme funding due to end in 2026, the Government should commit to allocating a proportion of the UK’s de-mining assistance through the Ministry of Defence budget and should recognise eligible mine action activity as contributing towards relevant defence spending targets. Given the ever-dwindling humanitarian funds in the FCDO, utilising the MOD budget would safeguard continuity beyond 2026 and maintain the operational tempo necessary to confront the largest explosive ordnance contamination that Europe has faced since the second world war. I hope the Minister will address that later.
Surrey Stands with Ukraine is an amazing charity in my constituency. It provides medical aid and supports physical and mental rehabilitation for Ukrainians. It has told me of the urgent need for a register of trusted UK-Ukrainian humanitarian aid organisations, so that people can see instantly that they are credible. The charity has received medical kit from Government organisations and private companies, but if it was on a trusted list, that would empower more businesses to come forward and support its work. So far, it has shipped an incredible 168 vans of aid, £4 million of medical aid, a long-reach-ladder fire engine called Dinah, and 250 generators to communities in Ukraine. Anything that this Government can do to empower businesses to offer support, and encourage individuals to donate, would make a difference to the lives of the thousands of people affected by this war.
While we wait with bated breath for a peace plan that delivers for Ukraine, this Government must continue to support Ukrainians. The proposed Ukraine-UK health collaboration would help those providing vital services, such as the Superhumans clinic, which offers free prosthetics and reconstruction to children, civilians and military personnel affected by the conflict. When I was in Ukraine, I met Zakhar Biryukov, a former member of the Ukrainian special forces. Zakhar had been warning civilians to stay away from mined areas when his helicopter came under fire. He lost both his legs and an arm, and suffered severe facial injuries. Zakhar now dedicates his time to supporting new amputees arriving at the clinic, telling them that everything will be okay. His hope, courage and optimism, his refusal to be broken, and his will to never give in to the Russians is something that I will never forget. He left a deep impression on all of us who met him. A health partnership would also deliver experience, knowledge and relationships. It would greatly support UK conflict preparedness and NHS resilience to related shocks and mass casualty incidents.
Russia is becoming increasingly aggressive across Europe and even more bold in its quest for knowledge. The former leader of Reform Wales was recently jailed for accepting bribes to help pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
That former leader in Wales of Reform UK was a constituent of mine. We have been calling on the Prime Minister for an independent review and an investigation into Russian interference in our democracy. Does the hon. Member support that?
Helen Maguire
I do, wholeheartedly, and thank the hon. Member for intervening on that important point.
In 2020, a delayed report into Russian interference in the UK led the then Foreign Secretary to tell the House that it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked Government documents. This trend of Russian interference is only increasing. Yesterday, I read a report from GLOBSEC on how Russia is using criminality as a tool of hybrid warfare in Europe. If Members have not already read it, I urge them to do so. The brazen and dangerous act of the Yantar ship endangered the lives of RAF pilots and showed the lengths to which Putin will go to ascertain his military power and undermine Britain’s defence. Tomorrow is too late; this Government must act further today. They must stand up to Putin’s belligerence, seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets across the UK, and funnel those into Ukraine’s defence.
I have the highest hopes for a peace deal, but am concerned about Trump’s deal. The President treats this deal as if it is a business transaction; he is throwing out the international diplomacy rule book and ignoring history. Trump’s plan would displace thousands, rip territory from Ukraine and weaken Ukraine’s military capability. With Putin rejecting the latest peace proposal, the stakes are higher than ever before. There can be no deal that impinges on Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia is the aggressor here. Russia lined up its troops at the border and launched an illegal invasion. There was no provocation by Ukraine. The UK must lead on the robust defence of Ukraine in considering any peace plan that now comes forward. A peace plan for Ukraine cannot weaken its defence capabilities, cede territory to Russia or refuse Ukraine NATO membership.
Putin has already said that he is ready for war with Europe, and as we speak, Russia is provoking our maritime ships, attacking our cyber-security and destroying undersea cables. Ukraine has already experienced what happens when it is weakened and is forced to give up its nuclear weapons. Let us ensure that that does not happen again. It may be 1,379 days since Russia invaded Ukraine, but that is also 1,379 days of solidarity. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One of the advantages of being called at a late stage of the debate is that I can put my hand on my heart and truthfully say that every single speech in this debate so far has been outstandingly good. I have agreed with virtually every word of every one of them, and looking at the calibre of the remaining people, including all three Front-Bench representatives, I have every confidence that the standard will be maintained till the end.
A former occupant of your chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, used to give courses in good public speaking technique. He always said, “If you wish your speech to have any useful impact after the event, it should not contain more than one, or at most two—and that is stretching it—key points.” So here is my one key point, which, I am delighted to say, has been touched on very effectively by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), among others: any settlement that does not have a military presence on the ground of unoccupied Ukraine from the country or countries offering a security guarantee will be a disaster. I ask the House to consider Europe at the end of the second world war, when the tripartite alliance had largely broken down, and Stalin was in occupation of eastern Europe and, of course, the eastern half of Germany, which his troops had conquered. The west was in occupation of the remainder of the European continent—literally, in the case of West Germany.
What would have happened—knowing what we know now about the nature of Soviet communism—if, instead of the victorious western allies maintaining a very large military presence in occupied western Germany, they had said, “Right, we’ll demilitarise this and clear out, but we’re going to give the West German politicians who follow a security guarantee that if any trouble happens, we will stand by them”? The only thing that stopped a conflict breaking out between the Soviet occupying forces and the western world was the fact that, right up against the dividing line between Soviet-dominated East Germany and the rest of Germany, there were western allied troops, and it would have been impossible for the Soviet forces to move against West Germany without immediately triggering a major military counter-action.
I have often said—and I make no apology for saying it again—that it is worth looking at the two halves of the 20th century. In the first half, we had two global conflicts—two world wars. In the second half, despite the intense ideological and military rivalry between the communist world and the democratic western world, we had no global conflicts—no third world war. I put that down to two factors. One was unprecedented: the nuclear balance of terror. But it was not enough to stop all forms of conflict, because it is possible for conventional conflicts to go ahead under the threshold of the nuclear balance without necessarily triggering Armageddon. That is why we have to have strong conventional deterrent forces, too.
So, what was the other factor preventing the cold war from becoming the third world war? It is quite clear that it was the most successful alliance in history: the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It grieves me to say that because of some of the occupants of high office in the capital of our ally the United States, the future of the NATO alliance—and therefore the future of world peace, frankly—is hanging by a thread.
It was the chief staff officer and representative on the war time chiefs of staff committee of Winston Churchill, General Sir Hastings Ismay, who became the first Secretary-General of NATO. He is credited with having made the rather pithy but nevertheless very accurate observation that the purpose of the alliance at the time it was founded was threefold: to keep the Americans in, to keep the Russians out, and to keep the Germans down. That third element fortunately became redundant as West Germany developed into a democracy—so quickly, in fact, that in May 1955, 10 years virtually to the day from the surrender on Lüneburg heath of the Nazis to General Montgomery, Germany itself was admitted to the NATO alliance.
I ask people to take another counterfactual look at history. If the Kaiser had known in 1914 that if he invaded neutral Belgium, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? I think the answer is no. If Hitler had known in 1939 that if he invaded Poland, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? I think the answer very probably is no to that as well. Therefore, the secret to keeping the peace in the world is to keep America engaged with the security of Europe.
America is going through a phase at the moment—which seems to hinge on a number of personalities who hold power in that great democracy, apparently with the approval of a majority of the electorate—in which its commitment to European and thus world security is in doubt. This is the chance for Europeans, whether inside the EU or, like us, outside it, to show that we can do our bit. We have to keep the show on the road until America once again stands up for the policy of the second half of the 20th century, which stopped the third world war, rather than it reverting to its policy of isolationism from the first half of the 20th century, and standing by, which caused two global conflicts that could have been prevented.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on setting the scene incredibly well. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, all the speeches have been incredible, and the ones that follow will be equally good. We are here for a purpose, and it has been good to hear Members’ comments.
We are almost four years into the war in Ukraine, and we continue to hear of the devastation impacting people there. I want to focus today on one issue: the atrocities and war crimes carried out by Russian soldiers, and accountability for them. I told the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex yesterday that that would be the subject matter of my speech. I want this to be a reminder of the vicious attacks that the people of Ukraine have been subjected to. This Government, in conjunction with the US, must do more to seek peace and support those most in need. I do not doubt whatsoever the commitment of our Government, our Prime Minister and the Labour party—that is never in doubt. This House is united in support of Ukraine.
Thinking back to the early months of the war in 2022, I remember the efforts of all our constituents, who filled bags and bags of clothes, blankets, hats, scarves, wash items and so on to be sent to Ukraine. I remember well the collective efforts of all the churches, who organised lorries-worth of donations to support the people of Ukraine after the attacks inflicted by Russia—those who lost their homes, workplaces and livelihoods, and the hundreds of thousands of people who fled to Poland for some sort of safety. I had an opportunity to meet some of them, and the desperation, loneliness and desolation of those who were displaced was something I have remembered many, many times. The pictures and videos that were released of the attacks were heartbreaking. I for one will not forget those; I do not think anyone will.
I remember hearing about one of the attacks early on in the conflict. The Russian army column going towards Kyiv was held up on the road by Ukrainians using shoulder-held next-generation light anti-tank weapons—NLAWs—that are made by Thales in Northern Ireland. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), knows Thales well, because he has been there many times. So that early in the war, this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had already committed to helping Ukraine. The extra money given by the Government to the defence sector has created 200 more jobs in Northern Ireland, including at Thales.
To return to the subject of crimes that have taken place during the conflict, I remember the story that when the Russians advanced, they came upon a forest house. They shot the husband, who was trying to ensure that nothing would happen to his wife, and then they violated her, while the wee boy sat and watched it all.
Alex Sobel
The hon. Member is giving a typically impassioned speech about the horrific nature of the aggression against Ukrainian children by Russia. We have heard about that happening in many different ways. Last week, MPs attended a screening of “We Are Home”, about Ukrainian children who have been displaced within Ukraine and who have had to leave their homes because of the Russians. We all know about the Russians abducting Ukrainian children. Does he agree that we need to see the strongest possible action on returning those children from Russia and on the prosecution of the perpetrators in the international courts?
Jim Shannon
Yes, I agree with that. I wish that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) had been able to be here today because she has spoken valiantly in this House about bringing back the 30,000 children who have been kidnapped and undergone Russification. The Russians are trying to make them Russian and make them fight for Russia against Ukraine—it is obscene and it really bothers me greatly.
I have no idea about the name of the family I mentioned, but the reason that I remember that case is because I think about that wee boy, whose mother was being violated, and her screams—
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The hon. Member mentioned the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Recently, she was good enough to organise an extraordinary showing of a film called “Children in the Fire” in one of the Committee rooms. It explained in detail, through some very personal stories, the devastation that children have faced during the conflict, and we had the privilege of meeting some of the children, some of whom had been previously abducted and had escaped Russia. It was an extraordinary moment that was deeply revealing and emotional. I am grateful to the hon. Member for paying such close attention to the plight of children in this conflict: it is a horror that none of us should accept.
Jim Shannon
We all appreciate and understand that horror that children have had to endure.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and I were among the first in the House to wear the Ukraine ribbon. I have worn it every day since then and I will wear it until the war is over—I may even wear it after the war is over, in solidarity with the Ukrainians. I will always plead their case in this House, as other hon. Members do, and no sanction from Putin will ever stop me from doing that.
The monitoring by the United Nation’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that some 50,000 civilians have been killed or injured in Ukraine since February 2022, with thousands of verified civilian deaths. Many have also reported that the death toll could be significantly higher. I am prepared to be proved wrong, but due to the lack of reporting, I suspect that it probably is higher. Roughly 5 million to 6 million people are registered as refugees abroad, with a further 3.5 million internally displaced within Ukraine.
The human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine stated that since 24 February 2022 there have been hundreds of cases of conflict-related sexual violence. Girls from as young as eight to women as old as 80 have been violated by Russian monsters who think that they can do whatever they want. I want to see justice for those families. When the war ends, accountability for the actions of those who have murdered and killed across Ukraine has to be a part of the peace that comes. The Ukrainian ombudsman referred to 292 cases of sexual violence—how many have gone unrecorded?
I remember—we all do—the case of Bakhmut. Whenever the Russians retreated, left or were forced out, a mass grave was found of over 200 men, women and children who just happened to be Ukrainians. The Russians thought they could murder them. Accountability? I tell you what: I want to see accountability for that.
Sir Julian Lewis
Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that point 26 of the 28-point Witkoff plan is a general amnesty for everyone? That would mean that whoever committed the most atrocious war crimes would never be held accountable at all.
Jim Shannon
I did notice that. I want to be clear to the right hon. Gentleman and everyone in the House that we will never sign up to that. These people think they can get away with it. Of course, being a Christian, I know that they will suffer in the next world—it will be damnation for them—but I want to see them getting it in this world. They can get it in the next world as well.
Abuse has included torture, sexual torture, humiliation and sexual violence. Videos are going about where Russian soldiers have filmed themselves torturing—cutting off limbs and, in some cases, private parts of the anatomy —and then they have shown it around all their friends as if that is something to be proud of. Amnesty? I don’t think so. It is time to make them accountable for it all.
Churches across eastern Ukraine in Donetsk and Luhansk have been destroyed. Pastors of the Baptist church—I happen to be a member of a Baptist church—went missing in the early years of the war, and there has not been any account of where they are; they have disappeared. It is about accountability—what has happened to them? I suggest that the Russians have been involved in that as well. There is no accountability.
Members have referred to the nightly attacks on civilian targets—apartment blocks, civilians, children and women—not military targets. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex referred to that in his introduction and the thinking behind it. There has to be accountability for all the things that are happening. It is horrifying to think about the reality of the situation.
According to the Institute for Religious Freedom, by early 2023 at least 494 religious buildings had been destroyed, damaged or looted because of war; by late 2023, the total number of religious sites affected had grown to 630. There is a systematic campaign by Russian soldiers and by Putin himself to go against the evangelical and Ukrainian Orthodox churches right across Ukraine. The all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, has undertaken incredible work on this matter so that all religions and communities can be represented. Damage has affected Orthodox churches, Protestant churches, prayer houses, Jehovah’s witness kingdom halls, Catholic churches, mosques, synagogues and others in a systematic campaign by Russia against religious churches and freedom of belief, which we all believe in. [Interruption.]
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of the time, so I will conclude. I look towards the United States of America for greater intervention. President Trump has done great when it comes to Israel—nobody can deny that he was probably the motivator for that—but he does not seem to be doing the same thing with Russia; his bias is clear. After five hours of talks yesterday between Putin and Trump’s senior negotiator, we are still no further forward as there was no breakthrough on securing a peace deal. It is time for President Trump to join the EU, European countries and NATO to ensure that Putin is forced to the table of negotiation and the table of peace.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for bringing this very important debate to us today. It is an opportunity for the House to condemn the evil actions of Putin in his illegal invasion of Ukraine and to assert our strong support for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. Our support is even more important now, as it is clear that President Trump’s support is constantly wavering. It is so sad that President Trump is ready to once again sell out Ukraine and its people and to agree a carve-up of land with President Putin. This is a Putin who openly says that he is ready for war with NATO.
Residents in Wokingham regularly write to me expressing their disgust at Putin and Trump, and they call on the Government to do more to support Ukraine. It is painfully obvious that we cannot rely on Trump to defend European freedoms. For that reason, the Government must continue to focus on defending British territory and playing a leading role with our European neighbours to defend Europe from the Russians. We must build trust with Europe; it is in our national interest. It is also in Europe’s interest that it should work with us—a fact that I am sure is not lost on many Europeans.
Our Government must continue to offer support to President Zelensky, along with France, Germany and NATO. They must join him in future negotiations with President Trump, so that Europe can show a strong and united front against the Russian aggressor and against any bullying tactics from President Trump. Trump so often looks more like an appeaser from the 1930s than an important leader in the most successful alliance, which has defended our freedoms in the west, including the USA, for much of the last 30 years.
I hope the Minister will reject the joint plan of Putin and Trump and will continue to stand up for Ukraine.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I was in Ukraine in September with colleagues from the Labour Benches—I was the lone Liberal in a Government delegation. Against what seemed to be mountainous odds, the Ukrainians have defied a superpower that has unleashed a torrent of wanton death and destruction. In war, truth is often the first casualty. Propaganda, misinformation and disinformation swirl, but Ukraine and Ukrainians have truth on their side. Their weapon is truth, and their cause is their very survival.
Some wish to muddy the waters on this matter. As if it was not clear enough who the good guys and the bad guys are, the Russians have been engaged in a campaign of the systematic abduction of Ukraine’s future—its children—who have been swallowed up into re-education camps, where they face psychological torment and indoctrination. It is a process of de-Ukrainianisation, and some estimates say that up to 40,000 children have suffered that fate. This is rancid and wicked; it is an attempt to go beyond the dismantling of a state and to delete the identity of a people.
Britain has a proud history of standing up to tyranny and leading the fight—a glance at any 20th century history book tells us that—but we in the west could have gone harder and faster. Western Governments spent the first weeks and months of the war establishing what weapons systems could be sent; all the while, Ukrainians were being slaughtered in Russian shelling. Weapons systems that were deemed too provocative and escalation-inducing in the spring were flowing to Ukraine by the winter, while thousands perished in bitter fighting. The frontline is a horrifying meat grinder—a graveyard on the very edge of our continent.
It was Churchill who said:
“You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.”
Today, Ukraine is on the frontline not by choice, but by the accident of geography. I do not believe Putin will stop at Ukraine; it is Ukraine today, and it will be somewhere else tomorrow. He has had his sights on Georgia for almost two decades. In 2008, we watched on our television screens the Russian tanks roll through Georgia. Ask the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; ask the Finns and the Swedes, for that matter, both of whom departed from their long-standing doctrine of neutrality and secured accession into the NATO club. Ask the Poles, who have ramped up their defence spending because they see that their history with Russia is rhyming, and are not prepared to take any chances. This has all come in response to the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine and its perpetual neighbourhood sabre-rattling; anyone comfortable enough to suggest otherwise is either naive or mendacious. Have we not learned the lessons of the last century? Be deeply suspicious of those who characterise Ukraine’s independence as a provocation—some act of NATO encroachment, or poking the Russian bear. There is a very simple reason for ex-eastern bloc countries tilting west: it is because we are free. We are not societies in which those who criticise the regime go missing—where dissent ends in disappearance.
While many hailed Trump’s return to the White House as a potential turning point in this war, believing he held the key to bringing Putin to the negotiating table, any hints of Russian overtures have thus far been vanishingly hollow. During the furore in the Oval Office back in February, which made for very uncomfortable viewing indeed, the noises coming out of the White House were particularly troubling; it truly felt as though the President of the United States was playing to a Kremlin gallery. Branding Ukraine’s elected wartime leader a “dictator” was just one peevish outburst in a maelstrom of absurdity, and as Washington’s stance spins capriciously on a dime, Putin becomes even more emboldened by this weird game of cat and mouse. It was Theodore Roosevelt who said:
“Speak softly and carry a big stick”.
The problem is that although Trump may be speaking softly with Putin, his stick—or other such euphemistic accoutrement—seems to be very much holstered. In 1994, Britain signed the Budapest memorandum, and I remind the Administration in the White House that the United States was also a signatory to that agreement. Among other things, it represented a commitment to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. To rewrite history, or to conveniently forget it, would be to bend to despotism.
Let us not overlook the broader picture, either. Other potential foes are watching and manoeuvring to see if we and our allies across the free world have the resolve, resilience and ability to respond decisively and in a co-ordinated manner. This is a litmus test of sorts—a barometer for future engagements to see whether we will stand by our partners. Do we seriously think that China’s assertiveness around Taiwan or the way it has behaved with Hong Kong has no correlation whatsoever with the war in Ukraine? I, for one, have very serious objections to the proposed Chinese super-embassy, very close to home indeed—a foreign fortress in the heart of our capital that could serve as a base for nefarious activities on British soil, including espionage, sabotage and coercion, not to mention Russian rapprochement with the North Koreans.
The stakes could not be higher. Irredentism is on the march, and the international order established after 1945 hangs in the balance.
Rachel Gilmour
I am going to finish—sorry. We risk returning to a brutish bygone era in which tyrannical thugs take what they want. Who wants to live in such a world? We all want peace, but appeasement of the Kremlin is not the chess move of a pacifist or an anti-imperialist. It is not anti-war; it is the acceptance of revanchist thuggery over the will of a people to live free from an occupying power. Peace cannot be on the aggressor’s terms, and Ukrainian submission cannot be on the table. After all, peace is not just the absence of war; without justice, there is no peace. Slava Ukraini.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this very important debate. There have been plaudits and praise enough for all the speeches made by Members across this House—they have been an extraordinary collection of speeches and thoughtful interventions that show intellectual clarity and deep emotional connection. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken.
It is absolutely clear that Vladimir Putin poses an existential threat to Ukraine and a once-in-a-generation threat to European security. For far too long, he has been allowed to wield grotesquely disproportionate influence over global diplomacy and security, and the consequences have been catastrophic. While the global geopolitical scene may have been shaken and upended by his imperial ambitions, the true cost of this war—the fullest cost—has been borne by the people of Ukraine, in the form of the atrocities committed and the suffering of the Ukrainian families who are the direct victims of his malicious and destructive impulses.
Today in Ukraine, there is active hand-to-hand combat, the military lines are active and volatile, and Ukrainian cities face relentless bombardment. Critical infrastructure is targeted, civilian lives are under constant threat and the human toll grows. Since February 2022, Ukraine has reported more than 14,000 civilians killed and more than 38,000 injured. More than 1 million Russian personnel have been killed or injured, and the Ukrainian military toll is more than 46,000 killed and 380,000 wounded. How many more lives need to be lost?
This war did not begin in 2022, with Russia’s full-scale invasion. As we know, it began in 2014, with the illegal seizure of Crimea. That annexation set the stage for the violence, brutality and inhumanity we see today. Russia’s aggression now threatens European security as a whole. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes, entire communities destroyed and the social fabric torn apart, leaving trauma that will span generations.
As we have heard several times today, the most harrowing horror of all is the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children. At least 19,000 children have been taken, stolen, cynically and evilly—abduction and exploitation as a most appalling weapon of war. A moral red line has been crossed, and crossed again. This vile human injustice is yet another cost that Ukraine has had to bear. Against that backdrop of human suffering and strategic fragility, we must give Ukraine the leverage it needs in any negotiations and support its efforts to push Russian forces back.
Let me be absolutely clear: Trump’s original 28-point proposal was not a peace deal; it was a horrific geopolitical compromise—a foul capitulation that would serve only to embolden the aggressor. It would force Ukraine into neutrality; limit Ukraine’s ability to defend itself; ban NATO deployments; lock Ukraine out of NATO; recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk; lift sanctions on Russia; invite Russia back into the G8; and even force Ukraine into elections within 100 days. That is not peace—not even close. It rewards and legitimates Russia’s decade-long aggression, and signals to every authoritarian regime around the world that conquest works.
Yes, peace talks have taken place, and the Liberal Democrat position is clearer than ever. First, emergency legislation is vital to seize frozen Russian assets and repurpose them to fund Ukraine’s defence, reconstruction and humanitarian rehabilitation. Secondly, the return of every abducted Ukrainian child is a non-negotiable red line. Thirdly, there must be no reward for Putin: no G7, no G20 and no rehabilitation into the international community. Finally, no settlement can force Ukraine to concede territory. If lands are ceded, one question will echo loudly: what about the children stolen from those territories? Russia already claims them as Russian, and ceding territory may be taken as tacit confirmation of that appalling logic.
That is precisely why peace cannot be built on appeasement directed from Mar-a-Lago. It must be justice as seen from Kyiv. It must be built on a foundation that allows Ukraine not only to survive the war, but to rebuild afterwards: rebuild its infrastructure, its communities, and its way of life as a coherent, bordered, bounded and fully sovereign state. Ukraine’s right to freedom and self-determination is immutable. Any settlement must respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereign choice to make alliances and coalitions, free from the long arm of Russia and Putin.
This moment is about more than rebuilding Ukraine; it is about rebuilding European security. Russian aggression has made one truth clear: Europe must take greater responsibility for defending Europe. We face the greatest challenge to European security in several generations. The United States has, regrettably, shown itself to be unpredictable and capricious. At any moment, President Trump could shift his attention, whether by choice or necessity, towards the genuine threat of China or the somewhat more local distractions that he sees in Venezuela, Mexico, Greenland or, dare I say it, even Canada, leaving Europe exposed. That is a strategic reality that we cannot ignore. Multipolarity brings both opportunities and new responsibilities. Europe can and needs to act collectively. Europe can and needs to co-ordinate defence procurement, intelligence sharing and economic solidarity. Europe can and needs to step up to the moment, and the United Kingdom can and needs to take a leading role.
We are living through an unusual moment in geopolitics. We can see the future with rare clarity and certainty. Our Prime Minister and Chancellor have hinted repeatedly, particularly in the lead-up to the recent Budget, about the need to rebuild bridges with Europe for the sake of our productivity and our economy. To that, I would add Europe’s collective security, defence, resilience, military-industrial procurement and innovation. Yes, it is a challenge and it requires political courage, but the UK should keep pursuing the deepest possible participation in Security Action for Europe, deepen co-operation, strengthen shared defence planning and align ourselves once again with the partners who share our values and our security.
Those in Europe who are dragging their heels need to lift their heads to the horizon and see the bigger picture. We face a generational challenge. We are stronger together. If we fail to act now, we will be judged by history as the generation who allowed these atrocities to take place, who allowed invasion and occupation by violence to redraw Europe and reshape the future, and who failed to put national self-interest aside to secure the cause of freedom, liberty, democracy and the international rules-based order.
To conclude, we cannot afford to be bystanders in this fight. Justice is what we owe Ukraine and what we now must deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate, together with his co-signatories, the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale)? All four are long-standing stalwarts and champions of the great cause of defending Ukraine. I congratulate them not only on securing this debate, but on their timing, enabling us to scrutinise the evolving situation amid a flurry of reports about the peace talks, frozen assets and continued wild rhetoric from Vladimir Putin.
When it comes to those talks, we all surely want peace in Ukraine. We all want an end to the fighting and the bloody slaughter of civilians and military personnel at a scale not seen in Europe since world war two. No one wants or deserves that more than the people of Ukraine. When we say that it must be a lasting peace, it is because the long-term security of Ukraine cannot be sacrificed for an illusory short-term cessation of hostilities on unacceptable terms, and certainly not for some kind of transactional economic gain for other nations, least of all Russia. We have constantly stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government, not just in supporting Ukraine as they did in opposition, but in being clear that the only tolerable peace is one secured on terms acceptable to the Government in Kyiv. We stand by that position, in total solidarity with Ukraine, for moral and practical reasons.
Morally, this war has a clear and flagrant aggressor—Putin’s Russia—which invaded a free and sovereign democracy. That is contrary to those who have echoed Putin’s own propaganda and blamed NATO for provoking this invasion. We are also clear that this invasion was wholly unprovoked and motivated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex described in his excellent speech as the inherent nature of the Russian regime—its rejection of our democratic values and its desire to restore former glories by abolishing Ukraine’s independence.
On the practical side of the argument, supporting Ukraine is self-evidently an act that strengthens our defence, checking Russian expansionism. Indeed, I remain deeply proud of the last Government’s decision to rapidly arm Ukraine from the weeks prior to Russia’s invasion in February 2022, which helped Ukraine’s brave armed forces to avoid an early capitulation that would have left the Russian forces rampant, directly threatening ourselves and the rest of Europe.
The devil’s advocate might argue that if, morally, peace is the right way forward, and if we are also applying practical common sense, that speaks to seeking a compromise that may be painful for Ukraine but unavoidable if we are to see an end to the fighting, because surely Russia needs to be satisfied with the terms if there is to be a mutually agreed end to the war. To that, I would make the argument, as I have from the outset, that the most important moral and practical reason that as a nation we should all be cautious in welcoming any kind of uneasy peace deal, is that Russia gaining from its flagrant aggression would send a message that emboldens all our potential strategic adversaries, ultimately making the world less safe for us and all our allies.
With Putin unsurprisingly rejecting any compromise and showing the reality of his position by launching another massive drone attack on Ukraine, what exactly can be done? First, despite Putin’s cynicism, it is clearly important that all possible diplomatic efforts are made to support Ukraine, and we would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest developments. Secondly, we welcome the sanctioning of the GRU, which we heard about from the Security Minister, and support using all possible economic tools to pressure the Russian regime.
On the issue of economic tools, it has been reported that the European Commission is proposing the use of Russian assets to provide €90 billion to Ukraine in the form of a reparations loan. Further to the question from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who made an excellent speech, can the Minister confirm whether the UK will pursue a similar or different approach? What legal solutions are the Government currently pursuing so that we can move beyond using just the profits from sovereign assets, and will we prioritise mobilising those assets for the immediate war effort?
Thirdly, echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and others—we are at war, as he said—and the reminder from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) about Putin’s comments this week about his being ready for war with Europe, we must ask about our own readiness. On the crucial matter of defence spending in the UK, and given the concerns expressed yesterday by no less than Lord Robertson, the author of the strategic defence review, who questioned how seriously the Chancellor takes the need to increase defence spending, I have a specific question for the Minister: in what financial year will UK defence spending start to rise beyond the NATO-declared figure of 2.6% of GDP in 2027? That is a crucial question.
I turn to the other points in the many excellent speeches made in our debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about the atrocities in the war. Of course, he reminded us that one of the reasons we stand by Ukraine so strongly is because of the sheer brutality of the war, which was forced, unprovoked, on the people of Ukraine.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made an excellent point when he said that surely it is in the economic domain that, in the long term, we can exert the greatest pressure on Russia, not least given the economic mismatch at play against the west.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made a brilliant speech. She and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) both compensated for the absence of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who has led an amazing campaign, by reminding us about the terrible Russian war crime of child abduction. I join the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South in welcoming any sanctions that target those involved, which is a very good point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) asked an interesting question, which is entirely hypothetical, as to whether the invasion would have occurred had Ukraine still possessed nuclear weapons, which of course it gave up, in good trust, through the Budapest memorandum. I wonder whether he is aware that in July 2016, during an historic debate on the renewal of the nuclear deterrent, the first intervention on the then new Prime Minister, Theresa May, was from our former colleague Andrew Selous, who asked exactly the same question. He asked it after the annexation of Crimea, and it is a question that we must still ask. It was answered brilliantly today by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who has cared about these matters for a long time, when he reminded us that there was no third world war. There were conflicts elsewhere, but we did not have a repeat because of the deterrents that the two sides had. The conclusion we draw is that we must learn from that ourselves and always continue to invest to our own deterrent, despite the fact that it is extremely expensive.
Along those lines, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) asked a very important question about security guarantees. I hope the Minister will respond to that and set out his thinking on the sorts of security guarantees that would be involved if there were to be a lasting peace.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said that he feels that 2026 may be the decisive year of the war, and I am sure he is correct. It is going to be decisive, one way or the other. As such, it is quite clear that we must continue to provide all possible military support and so on.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who was always a very good contributor on these matters from the Liberal Democrats Front Bench, made the very good point that unexploded ordnance poses a threat not just to civilians, but to farming and food production. Many Members made excellent speeches, and it is a real privilege to join them in speaking today.
To conclude, I know that, like me, the Minister believes passionately that the UK could be a leader in uncrewed warfare, and one way we can do that is by partnering with Ukrainian companies. As such, it was a real privilege recently to visit the new factory being set up in Suffolk by Ukrspecsystems, a cutting-edge Ukrainian drone company. It is committed to producing such equipment here in the UK and creating jobs in my county of Suffolk. It is a reminder that our two nations’ deepening co-operation covers everything from military capability to acting in concert with allies on the diplomatic front and looking to the future with the 100-year partnership first proposed under our Government.
However, the most important aspect of our partnership is our values. We are both democracies facing a shared threat from Putin’s despotism, and it is a shared threat. The Novichok inquiry has today described Putin as “morally responsible” for the death of a British citizen on our home soil as a result of a nerve agent. We also see Putin as unambiguously morally responsible for all the suffering he has inflicted, without provocation, on the people of Ukraine. As I say, it is a shared threat. We support the Government in seeking a lasting peace acceptable to the Ukrainians, and I hope that the shared message of cross-party support for Ukraine sent from this Chamber today will provide some comfort to its people amid the horrors of war.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
First, I express great thanks to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for pulling together this debate. I have listened to the truly outstanding speeches and contributions from all Members on both sides of the House, but I would like to begin by paying tribute not to us, but to the brave men and women of the Ukrainian armed forces who, day in and day out, are fighting for national survival. They are fighting for freedom, for justice and for the right to self-determination, and I believe there is no more honourable thing to be doing.
Today in this House we have sent a clear and resounding message to Vladimir Putin that no matter how he tries to justify his illegal war in Ukraine, no matter how he blames other countries for conflict that he alone is responsible for, and no matter how he thinks he can intimidate Europe—with drone incursions, spy ships and reckless activity—we see him and we know exactly what he is up to.
My hon. Friend the Security Minister updated the House earlier on the consequences of Putin’s reckless and despicable activity here on the British mainland. Dawn Sturgess’s needless death was an unspeakable tragedy that will forever be a reminder of Russia’s reckless aggression. That is why he today announced in the House sweeping measures to include sanctions on the entire GRU—the Russian military intelligence agency—and 11 actors behind Russian state-sponsored activity.
The UK will always stand up to Putin’s brutal regime and call out his murderous machine for what it is, which is why we are united in our determination to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to achieve the just and lasting peace that the people of Ukraine fully deserve, to keep tightening international economic sanctions on his economy and to keep working with our partners to protect Europe from the threats he poses.
I thank Members on all sides for their speeches, and I would like to reflect on some of the comments and themes. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) mentioned many valuable points. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned a really useful saying about NATO, and we may want to think in a similar way about these negotiations—keeping the US in, keeping the Ukraine at the very centre and keeping Europe focused. It is on the diplomatic points that were mentioned that I personally believe the Government have driven—we had a leading role in ensuring that the 28-point peace plan is relevant, has Ukraine at its very centre and has Europe all pushing together in a unified manner. Our Government and our Prime Minister have done a fantastic job in that regard.
When we talk about assets—I will talk about them in a bit more detail later—I am quite confident that by the end of the year we will, hopefully, collectively with Europe, have unlocked a huge amount of assets to apply more pressure on Russia and to fund Ukraine’s defence. For clarity, on our own readiness, by 2027 we will be spending 2.6% on defence.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex mentioned that the war in Ukraine has spread, and the argument has been made across the House that we are at war. I would argue that the war in Ukraine is geographically constrained, but the conflict is not. We see that moving across and around all the conventional themes of war, specifically in the cyber domain, the influence domain right here in the United Kingdom, and, of course, in the political domain, with the funding of political parties to cause division and strife across the political divide.
The hon. Member also talked about whether Ukraine was losing. I am a firm believer, at the strategic level, that Ukraine and NATO are absolutely on the front foot. Sweden and Finland have become part of the greatest defence alliance the world has ever seen. Russia has taken 1 million casualties. It is just worth thinking about that: 1 million casualties. It is almost the population of some eastern Baltic states. It is more casualties than America took in the entire second world war. In a lot of cases, we have isolated Russia from the west. Its economy is under significant pressure and just this year it has taken 380,000 casualties on the frontline.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his response to the debate. I know his personal commitment to these issues is very strong indeed, but may I just take him back to the point he makes? He pulls back from the idea that we in the NATO countries are already in a kind of war with Russia. I have to tell him that there is a tendency to try to sanitise the severity of the threats we face. How effective does he think is the Government’s “conversation” with the British population about the threats we face? How successful does he think that is? A lot of us feel that we are not seeing it at all. The Government are not leading this conversation. Indeed, it is almost being shut down because of the pressures of domestic politics, and the lack of support from the public for having such a conversation makes it very difficult. Will he comment on that, because it was in the strategic defence review?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. It absolutely was front and centre of the strategic defence review. There will be a couple of announcements coming in the next couple of weeks about how we hope to change the narrative and better explain, in a relatable manner, the threats or crises that take place away from our shores and how they impact us here in the UK. A small example, although attribution and where it came from is still to be understood, is the £1.5 billion bail-out for Jaguar Land Rover. That is half the two-child benefit cap for a year. That relatable statistic suddenly hammers it home to individuals in all our constituencies. They may not be focused on international policy, but they understand the ramifications for the way we live here.
Energy prices and the cost of food—one of the biggest impacts on the cost of living—are caused by the war in Ukraine. More people were plunged into poverty across the globe because of the war in Ukraine. We need to make more of a conscious effort, collectively, to describe these threats, and how they resonate here and globally, in a more forceful manner, so that people understand why taking an active stance on some of these conflicts is equally as important not only for the countries involved but for the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex also mentioned, in his fantastic opening speech, NATO and whether we are ready. Another description is required when we talk about the UK and our readiness to defend. We are a part of NATO. Statistically, when we look at the scale of NATO forces available, we see that we outnumber Russia by a significant amount, whether in the air force, maritime or land domain. I agree with his comments about the remarkable unity that Europe and the UK have shown when engaging with the 28-point peace plan—in some cases rejecting it and changing it to ensure that Ukraine is at its very centre. European and UK leadership has been second to none in that space.
One subject that has resonated across the House today is the issue of the abducted children. My hon. Friend the Members for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who could not make it here today, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have all mentioned the impact on families and children in particular. This is not new. It is part of Russian doctrine. It was used in Afghanistan. In every conflict, they round up the children, move them to Russia for re-education and indoctrination, then bring them back. We are seeing an appalling abduction of Ukrainian citizens by Russia on a scale that is described by the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab as the largest wartime child abduction since world war two. It is absolutely shocking and despicable.
The UK has raised this issue at the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South in highlighting the OSCE officials in Russian custody: Dmytro Shabanov, Maxim Petrov and Vadym Golda. We have committed £2.8 million to help Ukrainian children come back, and have been an active member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children throughout. Since the beginning of September, the pilot tracing mechanism has already identified over 600 additional children who were deported to the Russian Federation or relocated within the temporarily occupied territories.
I agree with the view that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) holds of Zelensky. His leadership, courage, determination and conviction are an example to not only the Ukrainians but the world of how a state that in some ways is dwarfed by Russia has stood up against one of the biggest militaries in the world. I also agree, being relatively self-critical of the west, about there being some institutional arrogance when it comes to defence technology. That links to the point made about Ukrspecsystems. There are false lessons from Ukraine, but there are many more real ones that we need to adhere to, learn and integrate into our armed forces—in particular, about the integration of uncrewed systems data and electronic warfare. This point will be made throughout the defence investment plan. To be clear, we did not agree with the 28-point peace plan, and have worked very hard to change it, to put Ukraine at the very centre of it, and to look at what is acceptable. I hope to discuss some of the implications of that later.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) brought up a really good point about unexploded ordnance and the use of landmines in the conflict. There are millions of landmines, now rendering large swathes of Ukraine inaccessible to the farmers or families who once owned the land. It will be a generational problem to solve, and one that Members from all parties will need to deal with collectively.
From my perspective, our support for Ukraine is unshakeable. I say to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) that, from my perspective, we are doing the most we can to support Ukraine. We are spending £4.5 billion on military support to Ukraine. We are leading the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has already delivered and harnessed £50 billion-worth of support for Ukraine. To make that more tangible, that is 5 million rounds of ammunition, ranging from 60,000 rounds of artillery all the way through to 100,000 drones this year alone and 140 lightweight missiles. There is much more to do. The defence industry is powering up across Europe. If we look at our defence industrial base, and our societal resilience in dealing with this conflict, I think we can see that we are waking the sleeping tiger in Europe.
I also think that the constant threats and hyperbole from Vladimir Putin are a direct consequence of significant pressure, and of him having to live with the moral indignation of being responsible for over 1 million casualties and the devastation of large swathes of Ukraine. Like the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, I personally do not think that there is division in the UK; we are unified across the parties. I do not think that there is division in Europe, particularly among the large players in this space. I believe that we have unity when it comes to the 28-point peace plan and putting Ukraine at the very centre of that negotiation. Ukraine must keep fighting, and the UK will be with it throughout.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Llanelli, and many others mentioned frozen assets. We support the continued pressure on the Russian assets that are fuelling this illegal and barbaric war across Ukraine, and the pressure on Russia’s economic tentacles, but we must put increased pressure on Russia. It is worth noting that we have clamped down on Russia’s war machine and economic support mechanism. We have already sanctioned over 2,900 people and companies, and with our allies, we have already put in place £450 billion-worth of sanctions, which is the equivalent of two years of fighting.
We are moving forward with plans to use the full value of immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine. We welcome the European Commission’s action just this week to bring forward concrete plans to meet Ukraine’s urgent financial needs—plans that will support the defence of the nation. I look forward to hearing more detail on that, hopefully by the end of this year.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I want to raise a point that I have just been told about. There is a debate right now in the Bundestag about the sanctions regime, and the German Chancellor Herr Merz has given up other visits in the last 24 hours to go to Belgium to persuade the Belgians to agree to proposals on sanctions. There is pressure around this. I have just been asked to ask the Minister whether he would say that this is a very worth- while visit, and that the British Government support the intention of getting Belgium to enter into the scheme with the lion’s share of the Euroclear funds. That would make an enormous difference to support for Ukraine.
Al Carns
I was in Germany just last week, and when I left, I muttered, “Germany is back.” I think that representatives from Germany going to Belgium to help unlock a significant amount of resource for Ukraine can be nothing but a good thing.
Many Members mentioned the increase in hybrid conflict. The conventional war that Russia is waging is the most barbaric that we have seen since, I would argue, world war one or world war two. Nevertheless, Europe and the west must accept that this attritional, force-on-force, game-of-chequers approach is accompanied by a sophisticated chess match, the consequences of which are as deadly. I believe that Russia is probing to find weaknesses in our security and critical national infrastructure. It is manoeuvring and flanking to change opinions, both on social media and in political parties, and is seeking to circumnavigate sanctions at every opportunity, and it is doing so with like-minded autocratic regimes. We must work doubly hard to identify, expose and deter those threats, and we should have the capability to defeat them, should they prevail.
I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) about timidity and a lack of leadership. In the foreign policy space, the UK, in conjunction with our European allies, has helped the Americans come to a more workable solution, and the Ukrainians have been put right at the heart of that—and I think that the Prime Minister has demonstrated exceptional leadership in that. We are still seen to be leading this fight. I look to the Conservative Benches. Whether it be Storm Shadow or Challenger, collectively we have led on this, from a UK perspective. I do not think that we are lacking in any way.
Sir Julian Lewis
One way in which we could continue to lead would be by giving a very firm commitment that if the frontlines are indeed frozen, a coalition of the willing would have military assets on the ground, at the invitation of unoccupied Ukraine, so that there could be no question but that a future attack would trigger a response from that coalition. Otherwise, any security guarantee is not worth the paper on which it is printed.
Al Carns
The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. We have led over 30 countries in the coalition of the willing in designing safe seas and skies and secure borders. We have a capability that is well thought-through and well-planned, and it will be ready to go, if required.
The reality is that a secure Europe needs a strong and sovereign Ukraine, and Ukraine must have credible security guarantees if it is to defend itself, as many Members have mentioned. That is why we have led the coalition of the willing; and be in no doubt: we are ready to deploy and deliver our commitment, should the peace be negotiated to allow us to do so. We continue to put in £3 billion a year—£4.5 billion this year—and we will continue to play a leadership role in the Ukraine Defence Contact Group.
Pokrovsk was mentioned early on, and it was rightly pointed out that it has not fallen yet. The Ukrainians are holding a valiant defence of that town. It is worth mentioning, when we talk about tactical success or failure, that Russia has advanced only 15 km over the last year, equivalent to 4 metres a day, and has taken 170,000 casualties to fight its way into Pokrovsk. That is a world war two scale of casualties. Russia has suffered over a million casualties to gain only around 1% of Ukrainian territory; that brings home the impact of the conflict.
Day after day, for almost four years, the Ukrainians have fought with incredible courage, determination and ingenuity. The UK and Europe stand together, more so than ever before, and Putin’s continued aggression binds us closer together. We are collectively spending more on defence than at any time since the cold war, with more joint exercising, more joint planning and more joint capability development, because Ukraine is at the forefront of European security. If Putin opts for a long overdue ceasefire, we will continue to lead the coalition of the willing to establish credible deterrence in Ukraine. If that is not forthcoming, we will continue to work with allies to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position by upping military support and upping the pressure on Putin’s war machine.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) gave a great speech that quoted Churchill, so may I finish on one, also?
“When I look back upon the perils we overcame across the great waves, the gallant ship has sailed, we will not fear the tempest. Let it roar, let it rage.”—[Official Report, 7 May 1941; Vol. 371, c. 946.]
Ukraine will come through.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Within the last few minutes, I read that President Zelensky is on a state visit to Dublin, but his arriving plane was buzzed by four mysterious military-grade drones. That is what we are up against, and there is not sufficient awareness of that. The fact that this Chamber is sparsely populated this afternoon suggests that this whole debate is yet to get into the mainstream of our politics and our national discourse. I emphasise again that the Government have yet to deliver the national conversation that they promised in their strategic defence review. I recognise the efforts that people in the defence community are making, and that includes Ministers, but involving the whole of Government, the whole of the Opposition and the whole of politics is what is required.
I hoped that this debate would demonstrate the unity across the House that has indeed been shown today. I thank every colleague, from every part of the House, for their contribution, and all those who signed the motion who could not be here today. The motion was intended to be a clear statement of our national intent. I imagine that it will go through without a vote, so that the signal will be sent to the world about what this country believes, and what it believes must be done. But I come back to the point that we need to underline our will and signal the force of our intent if we are to achieve what we want to achieve, and to lead our allies from the front. I believe that the United Kingdom is capable of doing that, and is to some extent doing its best to achieve it, but also that other countries are looking to us to take a stronger lead and set the best example, in line with the achievements of our history and our values. I am very grateful that this debate has taken place, and it has been an honour to lead it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You sit in the Chair and are not allowed to speak, so many in the House may not realise your role in all this. You have visited Ukraine with me and others, and you have been a stalwart champion of all that we have been debating today, so I wanted to make sure that the House recognised the incredible attention and support that you have given.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all Members here for speaking in support of Ukraine, and for making such important speeches.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House again condemns President Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine, which is now in its fourth year of tragedy and destruction; condemns the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine, in particular the abduction of Ukrainian children; supports efforts to negotiate a durable and lasting peace agreement; asserts that this must reaffirm all Ukrainian sovereign territory as recognised in international law, including any occupied territories; believes that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be guaranteed by all parties including by all NATO nations and by the EU, to mirror Article V of the NATO Treaty; further believes that Ukraine must be free to sustain capability to deter a future Russian attack; also supports increased economic sanctions further to reduce Russian revenues from the export of oil and gas; and urges the Government and the UK’s allies to accelerate military support for Ukraine, and to release frozen Russian assets for the financing of increased military spending in Ukraine as soon as possible.