Ukraine

Commons Urgent Question

“The UK’s support for Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression is ironclad. In July this year, the Government committed to provide Ukraine with £3 billion of military aid every year for as long as needed. In October, we announced that the UK Government would provide a further £2.26 billion as the UK’s contribution to the $50 billion G7 loan, earmarked as budgetary support for Ukraine’s military spending. This will be provided in addition to our bilateral military aid. We are also stepping up and speeding up delivery of our military support.

The UK is also leading the way in terms of pressure on Russia and Putin’s war machine. To date, we have sanctioned over 2,100 individuals and entities under the Russia sanctions regime. Sanctions have deprived Russia of over $400 billion since February 2022, equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. Putin’s problems are growing, with 700,000 casualties to date, voluntary recruitment down 40% and an unsustainable war economy. Russia has been forced to rely on Iran for missiles and on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for foot soldiers.

Our support to Ukraine is a core UK national interest. A Russian victory would diminish the West’s global standing, create a zone of instability on our eastern flank, and embolden Putin and other autocrats. This could require cold war levels of defence spending. On 19 November, we passed a grim milestone—1,000 days since Putin launched his full-scale invasion. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes or forced into exile, and as we know from our constituencies, we have homes full of Ukrainian families.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that we need to double down on our support for Ukraine. As the Foreign Secretary told the United Nations Security Council last month, we stand with the people of Ukraine during this terrible period of its history. It is wonderful to have cross-party support for that, and for the support that the UK will deliver for as long as it takes until Ukraine prevails, to ensure that this can never happen again.”

12:02:00

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that she will have an easier time on this Question because we remain fully supportive of the Government’s position on supporting our Ukrainian allies in the face of Russian aggression. I have two questions for her. It was reported yesterday that a Russian ship shot at a German military helicopter over the Baltic Sea using signal munitions, according to the German Foreign Minister. Is she aware of this news and has she had any conversations with Germany and our other NATO allies about this concerning development? Secondly, can she update the House on the progress of the discussions with the US and others on the release of the seized and sanctioned Russian assets that are to be given to Ukraine to aid the rebuilding of that country?

My Lords, my colleague, Minister Stephen Doughty, will be taking forward any conversations that may be necessary as a consequence of recent events. On the assets, we are looking at every means possible to ensure that the funds are there for Ukraine when it needs them.

My Lords, we noted earlier that Prime Minister Modi took the opportunity to be with President Putin rather than with Ukraine’s allies in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting recently. The Russian Government are still trading far too freely in energy, especially in oil and petroleum. The Vadinar refinery in India is 49%-owned by Rosneft. The Jamnagar refinery is also trading with Russia, as well as Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum. Our Prime Minister has announced that our trade discussions with India will recommence at the beginning of 2025. Can the Minister reassure me that we will not be offering any trade preferences for the Indian energy sector, which is currently profiting from the terrible infliction of the war on Ukraine?

I can reassure the noble Lord that every engagement we have with every nation on any topic includes a conversation on Ukraine. Our concerns about countries that are in some ways supporting what is happening in Russia and sanctions evasion are discussed in detail and at length. As for where Heads of State decide that they want to spend their time or which conferences they wish to attend, clearly that is a matter for them. If someone wants to attend BRICS rather than CHOGM, that is their choice. However, the noble Lord can be assured that we take every opportunity that we can to make clear that Ukraine is our top foreign policy.

Do the Government accept that the principal determinant of the outcome of the war in Ukraine will now be the decisions and actions of the incoming US Administration? Are the Government’s efforts focused on influencing those decisions? If so, do they think that a relatively slow-moving strategic defence review, publicly cost-capped at 2.5% of GDP, represents appropriate national leverage?

I am very pleased with our strategic defence review, its wide remit and the engagement that it has from not just the MoD but across Whitehall and more widely into academia and elsewhere. It will be a good piece of work. It reports in the spring, and I look forward to it. As for the noble and gallant Lord’s comment about the incoming US Administration being the principal determinant of the outcome of the war, I respectfully disagree. The people who will determine the outcome of this war and where this goes next should be and are the people of Ukraine.

My Lords, there is an increasing assumption that peace negotiations may begin in the new year and lines will be drawn at the then-existing front lines of the conflict. Is it not therefore important that we provide sufficient arms and help to the Ukrainians to ensure that no further territory is lost over the coming months?

I have heard much commentary about the basis on which negotiations may or may not begin. At this stage, this is all speculative and hypothetical. It is probably better that from these Benches we do not try to construct some kind of framework for negotiation without including the people of Ukraine.

My Lords, what further focus has there been, and what further determination has been made, on the Ukrainian children who have been taken by Russia? A recent report by Yale talked of re-education camps and coercion. Close to 20,000 Ukrainian children were taken. The Qataris played an important role in the return of some of them and I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on the latest efforts in this regard.

I am very happy to do that. I want to do that justice as it is such an important issue, so I would like to come back to the House and speak on that properly at more length. What has happened to those children is one of the most tragic and upsetting abominations of this conflict. I cannot imagine the hell that their parents are going through not knowing what has happened to those children.

My Lords, I do not believe that what happens next in Ukraine rests with America. It rests in large part with Ukraine, as the Minister indicated. However, it also rests with Europe, the United Kingdom and other countries that want to see that the first attempted military invasion of a country in Europe since World War II is not rewarded in any way or encouraged to go further. It is clear in its announcements that Russia intends to go further and into other countries that it has referenced—by hybrid warfare as well as direct military intervention. Will the Minister and her colleagues remind the Americans of the seriousness of this situation in Europe, the torture of prisoners, who are not all military—many are journalists, one of whom recently died, and civic leaders from Ukraine in Russian detention—and the mass exodus of people from the occupied territories, who live in other parts of Ukraine and across Europe? These issues must be tackled in any negotiations that take place. It is not just a matter of lines on a map.

I agree completely with the noble Lord. The only thing I would add to that is to imagine the cost of not acting, not just in human and diplomatic terms but in the price of the expenditure on another cold war for who knows how long. What we are spending now is a substantial amount, but it pales into insignificance when you consider what we would need to invest in Europe and elsewhere to maintain peace should we enter another cold war period.

My Lords, I have made two visits to Ukraine, one earlier this year, and many of my colleagues have visited as well. Having seen the very sharp deterioration in civilian morale, we know that external support from the NATO powers, particularly the United Kingdom, makes a significant difference. We are seeing the northern NATO countries not only giving verbal support but actively preparing for the risk of conflict in order to deter it. The situation on the ground will not wait for the SDR. What steps are the Government taking to indicate, by their actions as well as by their words, ahead of the SDR, that we are deeply committed financially to the support of Ukraine, not only by giving weapons but by renewing our Armed Forces?

The most reverend Primate is correct. We do not want Ukraine to wait for the SDR, which is why we have already committed substantial sums: £3 billion per year for as long as Ukraine needs it, plus £5 billion in non-military support. As he says, this conflict is felt most keenly in Ukraine, but the uncertainty, anxiety and decisions now being made in other states as a consequence of what has happened in Ukraine need to be considered very carefully too.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

I ask a short question: while I in no way undermine the commendable support of the Government for Ukraine, will the Minister’s department look into the information I have supplied about UK components being used in Russian fighter jets?

Yes. I thank the noble Lord for raising this with me and writing to me about this. He is quite right to do so. Following his most recent correspondence, I have asked officials, and we are actively investigating the issues that he raises, including in relation to our overseas territories.