Ukraine

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his comments, and for sharing what the Speaker of the Rada has said. I too have met him. He is a remarkable individual, as indeed are all the Ukrainian MPs we have all met. They stood up to defend their Parliament at the most difficult of times: at the time of the invasion. He raises important points. These are all matters that the Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister for the Armed Forces and others are looking at.

We are very much looking at all the immediate needs, and of course, we stand ready to support Ukraine wherever we can. Indeed, that is why we have led the 50-nation Ukraine defence contact group, alongside Germany. We secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year, and we are going further. In Project Octopus, we have developed an advanced air defence interceptor drone, which is to be mass-produced in the UK. We are developing a new long-range ballistic missile to boost Ukraine’s firepower and defend against Putin’s war machine.

We continue to lead, not only on supporting Ukraine, but on galvanising partners to maintain support. I met my good colleague from Portugal this morning, and discussed the contribution that Portugal has made. Indeed, many countries across Europe, large and small, have stepped up, and it is important to acknowledge that European partners increased aid by more than 50% in 2025, compared to the year before. In December, as colleagues will know, the European Council agreed a €90 billion loan to help meet Ukraine’s needs, and of course we are also providing up to £4.1 billion in support through a World Bank loan guarantee that runs until 2027.

Of course, as well as the military support that we need to provide to Ukraine, now and into the future, so that it can defend against and deter future threats in the event of a settlement, we must rachet up the pressure on Putin to de-escalate the war, engage in meaningful negotiations and come to the table. I am proud that this Government have sanctioned over 900 individuals, entities and ships under the UK’s Russia sanctions regime, including Russia’s largest oil companies and 520 oil tankers. Last week, as colleagues will know, the UK supported the United States in intercepting the sanctioned vessel Bella 1 in the north Atlantic as it made its way to Russia.

We are working with international partners on further measures to tackle the shadow fleet. Those include additional sanctions, steps to discourage third countries from engaging with the fleet, increased information sharing, and readiness to use regulatory and interdiction powers. By choking off Russia’s oil revenues and squeezing its war economy, we are showing Putin that he cannot outlast us.

Our sanctions are biting hard. There is clear evidence of their impact: Russia’s oil export revenues are at a four-year low. We are preparing to implement further significant sanctions this year, which have been announced, including bans on importing refined oil of Russian origin, and a maritime service ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which a number of Members have rightly called for over past months.

As a result of our actions and those of our partners, Russia’s economy is now in its worst position since the full-scale invasion began. We are also taking the crucial steps to stop the third-country circumvention of sanctions. Whether it is intercepting crypto networks that are flooding resource into Russia, the components and other things on critical lists that it might be using in drones, or the energy revenues that it is generating, we will not cease till we find every way in which Putin is attempting to circumvent our regimes. I am proud to work closely with colleagues in Departments across Government on this, but also, crucially, with European, United States and other partners. That is having a tangible impact, and is as crucial as the direct support that we provide.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I agree that the foreign exchange earnings of the Russian economy have been badly damaged by the sanctions, but we are also coming to the conclusion, are we not, that it is legal for Western powers to intervene on the fake flag fleet—the shadow fleet—as we saw last week? What plans do the Government and our allies have to make the whole business of exporting Russian oil and gas far more risky, by undertaking a large-scale interception of the shadow fleet?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member will note that I chose my words about future actions carefully. I will obviously not go into specifics, but let me just say that we know what Putin is doing. We know where he is taking things and what is happening, and we will not hesitate to act where we can, lawfully, to choke off those revenues that go towards fuelling the war against Ukraine. Let us remember that that is exactly what they do. Let this be a warning: we will not hesitate to use the powers we have—lawfully, of course—wherever we can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I shall be as brief as I possibly can be. I very much welcome the debate, although it did come as a bit of a surprise. I think one of the reasons why not many Members are in the Chamber is that they were not really prepared for it, the Prime Minister is not here and there is no proper motion. Out of 400 Labour MPs, fewer than 20 are in the Chamber, which I think projects an unfortunate message for a Government debate on Ukraine. I welcome it nevertheless, but I look forward to a proper debate on a proper motion to which everyone will have to turn up—there might even be whipping—to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, particularly about the deployment, which I will come to.

I will not repeat the speech I had the privilege of delivering in the debate granted to me by the Backbench Business Committee on 4 December. However, I will reiterate that Russia cannot win this war militarily; it will only win because of western weakness—our weakness and lack of resolve. If we support Ukraine, Russia cannot win. That is why its diplomatic efforts are so vigorous.

There is far more that we could do. In particular, we could rearm our own armed forces much more quickly. I get smiles from Government Front Benchers when I say that, because they agree with me, but the Government are not delivering the scale of defence spending increases that we need.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Briefly, because I want to be as swift as possible.

[Ian Roome]

Just today it has been reported that 18 tankers from the Russian shadow fleet have passed through the channel since the Defence Secretary’s statement to the House on 7 January on curtailing Russian oil exports. Does the hon. Member agree that we must show the Russians that we mean what we say?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I completely agree. There should be a NATO operation to intercept every ship that comes into NATO’s operational area in the north Atlantic and the North sea around the north of Scotland. We could choke off a significant amount of this, but we are not doing so; we are letting it carry on. Getting all of Europe’s NATO powers in line with that is a problem, but let us do it. Together, the NATO nations in Europe could show Trump that we are prepared to deliver for European security, but we are not doing that at the moment.

It is essential for us to discuss the so-called coalition of the willing. We all know that there are already some armed forces personnel in Ukraine providing advice, logistics, training and intelligence, and supporting planning and headquarters—that sort of thing. There is probably more that we can learn from the Ukrainians about fighting the Russians than we can teach them. But is 7,500 troops in formed units—a brigade—supporting a combat battalion or two what we are talking about? I have grave doubts about that, including on the rules of engagement and how we would provide core security. Would we not just be presenting a lovely target for the Russians to attack? They might not attack it directly—it might be “accidental”—but it would blur areas and create all sorts of problems if we were so overt. I have my doubts, unless we have a force in there that can actually fight and defend itself against the Russians. How we would respond in such a situation, were Russia to escalate, is a very open question.

I have no desire to be an armchair critic of the Government’s policy, and this brings me to the main point that I want to make. It has become fashionable to believe that Parliament has a right to tell the Government when and when not to deploy troops, but there is no constitutional basis for this whatsoever. In fact, the Prime Minister assumes his office, takes the seals of office and takes the responsibility upon himself about when to direct the armed forces into harm’s way. There is no constitutional impediment to him doing that.

What we saw in the Syria debate—I commend the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) for his excellent speech—was a humiliating abdication of the Government’s responsibility. They knew that it was right to deploy armed force in Syria, but they then volunteered not to do so because of a finely balanced debate and vote in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister stood there and said, “I get it.” This was really O-level politics and O-level statecraft. It was ridiculous, and the hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that it projected weakness when we knew that the Russians were supporting the Syrian Government in deploying chemical weapons and murdering their own people. It was also weak of Obama to say this was a red line and then fail to do anything about it. We projected weakness and we invited Putin to try again, and I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about the consequences.

The point is that the Government have the responsibility to make this judgment. They cannot pass this judgment on to 650 armchair generals jaw-jawing in the House of Commons when we do not have the intelligence or the assessments. We can express our views and we can hold the Government to account for the outcome of what they decide, but I put it to the Minister that in that debate on Syria we learned that a Prime Minister does not resign when he loses such a crucial vote. Part of that was to do with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. If he had made it a vote of confidence, would he have won it? If not, would there have been a general election? No, there would not have been. He might have had to resign, but there would not have been a general election. We were at a very artificial point.

I put it to the Minister that if the Prime Minister were to bring a vote to the House of Commons this time and lose it, he would either have to resign and hand over to somebody else or call a general election, because we no longer have a fixed-term Parliament. We are back to real accountability, and the accountability that counts is at the ballot box, in the final analysis. The one power the Prime Minister has is to call a general election and ask the King to dissolve Parliament. If he had lost such a vote, that would be the only honourable thing for him to do. He cannot come here and engage in the kind of abject, humiliating abdication of responsibility that we saw before.

On the other experience, the Government of the day won the Iraq vote, and I happen still to think that was right. We have a democracy of sorts in Iraq, and Iraq is no longer a Russian puppet, but who in this House still believes that was the right decision? The polls went in favour of the Iraq war at the last minute, and maybe that helped Tony Blair get the vote over the line. Was that a good basis for making a decision? No, it was not. Either the Government make such a decision for themselves and hold themselves accountable to this House, or the Prime Minister should not accept the seals of office and become Prime Minister, because that is the job.