Ukraine

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Ind)]

I also pay tribute to our armed forces, and their contribution to the incredible events that we saw play out on television over the past few days. It was no easy feat, and we can salute all our armed forces, but particularly those pallbearers who did such a magnificent job. I believe that a worthy way to immortalise Queen Elizabeth and what she did for our country as our longest-serving monarch would be to rename one of our bank holidays to Elizabeth day. That debate is for another day, but I hope we can return to it.

It is an honour to follow the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). He and I did not see eye to eye on everything, but in the case of Ukraine, I hope he recognises that I have always supported what he has done, and indeed, the nation can be proud of it. As I have seen on all my visits to Ukraine, the work Britain has done in stepping forward, more so than many other NATO nations, is recognised. Thanks are due to my right hon. Friend for leading that charge.

I want to step back from what is happening in Ukraine for a second and look at the bigger picture. We must ask ourselves a fundamental question, one that I pose on a regular basis: is our world likely to become more or less dangerous over the next few years? I think the answer is very clear: it is the former. This is not just about Ukraine, but a worrying growth in authoritarianism versus democracy across the globe, and the emergence of a new alliance—one that is not so obvious yet—between Russia and China. They share a mutual disdain for not only our international rules-based order, but for the west and the United States in particular. They are challenging the status quo that we have enjoyed since the end of the cold war. We have enjoyed that relative peace for three decades, but we have become complacent in nurturing our democratic values, and authoritarian states are becoming bolder and more assertive in promoting their own agenda. Consequently, our world is becoming more siloed and more protectionist, and we have become more risk averse.

Our actions now—what we do and how we handle Ukraine, given that the conflict is now moving into a darker chapter—will determine how the next decade plays out. China is watching our response carefully, given that it has its sights on Taiwan. Seven months on from Putin’s unprovoked invasion, the west is, I think, starting to wake up to the reality that state-on-state aggression is back, but our institutions built to constrain rogue actors are vulnerable, and new technology has given autocrats new forms of leverage. The art of conflict itself is consequently changing, with not just cyber-attacks, as mentioned already, but economic attacks, including the unprecedented use of international sanctions. All those things have global consequences for the way we do business.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Do we therefore need to look again at what constitutes going to war, not least because we can now destroy other societies without a single bullet being fired—through the use of cyber, for instance?

[Mr Ellwood]

This is moving into the area of Clausewitz and what exactly war is—whether it is simply the military on the battlefield, or the politics and the economics. We have not really woken up to that, but Putin is using politics and economics to harm the rest of Europe with oil and gas, as well as grain. There is an irony here: we will have a debate in this place tomorrow, as we absolutely should, about supporting people through the cost of energy crisis we are facing here, but many of our problems are actually in Europe. Sorting those out would be a huge step towards dealing with some of the local problems we are facing.

We need to work more collectively and be less risk averse. We get spooked by some of the rhetoric that comes from Putin, and he has done it again by wanting to go down this avenue of using nuclear weapons. As has been touched on before, Russian doctrine includes the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and we need to understand that doctrine. The Minister refused to answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—others are saying, “Quite right.”



We need clarity on what our doctrine is because it needs to be confirmed with our allies as well. We could cross a threshold here and we would not necessarily know what to do. I am afraid that Putin has taken advantage of our risk-averseness and of the fact that we have put red lines in, such as over chemical weapons in Syria, and then not responded. People can shake their heads as much as they like. This is an awkward conversation that needs to be had as to what Britain, NATO and the United States will do if a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon is used in the Donbas region. I pose that as a question. We can take it behind the scenes and not discuss it, and then it will actually happen and we will look at each other and say, “What do we actually do?”

Russia needs to know that we are willing to stand up to what Putin is doing, otherwise he will continue, as will other adversaries, to take advantage of our collective weakness. We have done well to provide the weapons systems to Ukraine to advance it in what it is doing. We now need to take it further and leverage that ability to push forward, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said, to make sure that we can conclude what goes on in Ukraine. If we do not put out this fire in Ukraine, it will spread elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

A number of colleagues on both sides of the House have talked about the seven months of this conflict. In truth, it is part of a much longer strategic conflict between Putin and Ukraine. From 2007, when Putin set out his worldview at the Munich security conference, we have known roughly where he was likely to go. From his interference in Ukraine in 2004 through the 2008 invasion of Georgia and the illegal annexation of Crimea, it is all part of a continuum of behaviour that I am afraid we have for too long overlooked because it did not suit us to take a realistic view.

This time, however, as the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), rightly said, Putin’s aims have completely, clearly and explicitly failed. Those aims, let us remember, were to remove President Zelensky, install a puppet Government, defeat the Ukrainian armed forces and effectively destroy Ukraine as a functioning state.

As a consequence, Putin faces mounting criticism at home and abroad. Yesterday alone we saw 1,300 arrests in Moscow, and we should give our support to those willing to make that protest for their moral courage in doing so. We have even seen Moskovskij Komsomolets, the normally placid news outlet in Russia, criticising what it called the “underestimation of the enemy”, stating that Russia had suffered a defeat and was minimising losses by withdrawing—not the sort of comments we expect to see from that particular organ of the state.

The criticism from outside has not been confined to the free world. Prime Minister Modi made clear last week to Putin that this

“is not an era for war”.

Even the Russians had to admit that the Chinese had disquiet about what was happening in Ukraine, and little wonder, because it has brought about a much more united west and a new focus on areas such as Taiwan, which the Chinese have certainly not welcomed.

The net result all of that for Putin is that he is cornered, but that is by no means a cause for celebration in the west. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) wrote this week in a very good article in The Spectator—I commend it to all Members—Putin makes threats to frighten us, but to minimise the chance of the use of a tactical or strategic nuclear weapon,

“we need to assume that the threat is real”.

It may be sabre-rattling, but it may not be. We have miscalculated with Putin before; we cannot afford to miscalculate again. He is a tyrant with a tyrant’s behaviour: paranoid, petulant and progressively more extreme. He will throw more and more Russian lives into the fire without hesitation, as so many of his predecessors did.

[Mr Djanogly]

On the question of calling up the reserves, does my right hon. Friend think that Putin may now be over-extending his support with the Russian people?

[Dr Fox]

He may be, but we would be foolish to assume so. Public opinion, even in places such as Russia, under a regime such as Putin’s, can turn. Yes, internal forces can produce a change in the personnel and the nature of a Government, but that can take a long time to happen—if ever—and we should not calculate based on that coming through, as many lives may be lost in the interim.

As many Members have said, we must continue to support Ukraine, its Government and its people with moral and political support, as the Prime Minister set out in New York; to provide weapons to Ukraine, at whatever cost, as long as they are required; and to maintain our united front with other allied nations in the free world, especially in our efforts to stop Russia’s war machine being funded through the sale of fossil fuels.

While we deal with the Ukraine war, we must continue to focus on other threats that are being posed around that region. We do not have the luxury in security and foreign policy to choose to focus on one conflict alone, and I will briefly point to two other conflicts. The first is in the Balkans, where Russia and China have been heavily arming Serbia, and where the very real threat of renewed conflict—with all the horrors of the ethnic wars that we saw there before—is something that we must be alive to. The second example is the involvement of Iran, which has supplied weapons, drones and political support to Russia at a time when few other countries have been willing to do so, and is trying to develop its own nuclear weapon. As we have discussed in the debate, we have seen what nuclear blackmail can look like. Does anyone seriously believe that the world would be a safer place were Iran to become a nuclear weapon state, or that, were Iran able to, it would disrupt fossil fuel supplies any less than Russia?

The common thread running through much of this is that we have collectively allowed wishful thinking to replace critical analysis on far too many occasions. The safety of our world requires us to do much better in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I, too, was very pleased to join the all-party trip to Kyiv a week ago. It will soon be represented in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

If a deal involving peace for land had ever been possible, it is clear now that Ukrainians will not start to negotiate until all their land is free from Russia—and that includes Donbas and Crimea. That was the firm view of every politician, soldier and citizen I had the opportunity to meet in Ukraine. One can see why, as the vile outcome of Russian occupation is revealed in territory retaken by the heroic actions of the Ukrainian military. Sadly, the horrors of Bucha are not an isolated horrific incident. Indeed, it is becoming clear that looting, torture, murder, rape and intimidation is standard practice for the Russian occupiers. Horribly, Russia has deported tens of thousands of Ukrainian children, including 2,300 orphans to Russia. These crimes must never be forgotten or overlooked. I was very pleased to hear how UK prosecutors have been helping local agencies with evidence collection and advice.

This war is about more than just helping a freedom-loving people fight against a bullying aggressor. As others have said, Russian aggression has been used time and time again under Putin, right from the invasion of Georgia in 2008. There is nothing to show that unless stopped Russia would stop at Ukraine. To that extent Ukrainians are also fighting the war on behalf of all of us who refuse to accept a Europe where barbarity and violence call the shots. With that in mind, we should now consider Russia a state sponsor of terrorism and, as such, it would be equitable for frozen Russian state and state-linked assets, including frozen sanctioned individual assets, to be seized for payment to Ukraine for its reconstruction. That would require legislation similar to that passed by Canada in June.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that we have just heard the news that a young woman was killed in Moscow by the Russian police for participating in anti-war demonstrations? Will he condemn that?

[Mr Djanogly]

I certainly will condemn that and the many other deaths in Russia that we are hearing about all the time.

The question recently came up as to whether individual oligarchs should be able to buy their way out of sanctions. I am doubtful that that could work without the international sanctions system being holed under the water line. However, if any deal is considered, it has to be co-ordinated and approved by Ukraine, not just the sanctioning country, and the restitution money involved should go to Ukraine. In that way, any decisions on the release of assets would be properly co-ordinated.

Over recent months, there have been many pictures of Russian tourists swanning around Europe as though nothing was happening in Ukraine. That should stop and we should now ban Russian visas to the UK other than for exceptional circumstances. Certainly, at the very least, we should not allow into the UK any member of Putin’s United Russia party. Sanctions are a slow-burn approach, but they are increasingly effective. However, there are so-called holes in the bucket—Turkey comes to mind and there are others. Will the Minister advise what efforts are being made to isolate such countries?

Battlefield victories are accentuating the size of the challenges yet to be faced. First, militarily speaking, Russia still maintains a powerful and vicious threat. Putin is an unpredictable enemy who is wounded and concerned to protect his Crimea legacy to Russia. He may yet become even less principled over civilian rights. Indeed, only yesterday he upped the ante by calling up Russia’s reserves.

Secondly, retaking occupied territory is one thing but holding it is another. Police, courts, schools and civil society all have to be re-established. War crimes and collaborators have to be prosecuted. Infrastructure has to be rebuilt. The cost and administrative challenges involved are enormous and urgent.

Thirdly, the military requirements are changing. In the early days of the war, basic equipment for soldiers and defensive weapons, such as anti-tank missiles, were the priority. Then, longer-range artillery to break down Russian defences was—and still is—required to enable offensive operations. Following reoccupation, the priorities then changed again and the need for anti-missile defence systems is now coming to the fore, as was highlighted very much during our visit.

If Ukraine is to encourage its more than 10 million internally displaced citizens and millions of foreign-based refugees to return to their homes in Ukraine, security from air attack becomes key to restoring confidence. That point was very much reinforced by Russian retaliation against lost ground, taking the cowardly form of missile attacks against civilian targets. Electricity and water infrastructure has already been bombed and the cold winter is approaching.

The challenges are immense, but one thing is for sure and came across very strongly during my time in Kyiv—namely, Ukrainian recognition of British support and the gratitude that was shown by everyone we met. Ukrainians feel that the UK is in this battle with them for the long term, that we were the first to speak up for them in the international community, and that we then backed that up with money, arms and valuable advice. The Government and virtually all Members of all parties in this House are to be commended for their support. History is on our side.

I was left with the strong impression that out of this war, out of this horror and barbarity, will develop an immensely strong and lasting relationship between our two countries. In the meantime, we must redouble our efforts to ensure a speedy victory for Ukraine as soon as possible and enable its restoration towards the modern democratic country that I know it has the potential to be.

[Several hon. Members rose—]