Category: Attack on Ukraine

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (28/03/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (28/03/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 28 March 2022.

    Strong people of our strong country!

    Today is the day when we see again and again how far we are from the Russian Federation. Imagine, they were frightened there in Moscow because of my interview to Russian journalists. To those of them who can afford to tell the truth. When journalists were preparing to publish our interview – and we spoke with them this afternoon – the Russian censorship agency came out with a threat. That’s what they wrote – they demand not to publish the conversation. It would be ridiculous if it wasn’t so tragic.

    They destroyed freedom of speech in their state, they are trying to destroy the neighboring state. They portray themselves as global players. And they themselves are afraid of a relatively short conversation with several journalists.

    Well, if there is such a reaction, then we are doing everything right, then they are nervous. Apparently, they have seen that their citizens have more and more questions about the state of affairs in their country.

    The maximum contrast is my conversation with our favorite Ukrainian TV media representatives. I held a zoom conference with almost five hundred of our media representatives who are creating a telethon “United News”. I am grateful to them.

    Although we were limited in time, we talked quite thoroughly. I felt that everyone cares about Ukraine, cares about us and you, cares about our future. I wrote down a lot of questions and suggestions – we will work them out.

    Today I supported the global marathon for peace in Ukraine. Not just a television one. In dozens of cities around the world, people gathered in support of our state, in support of freedom. That’s a pleasure!

    An impressive number of people in the squares of Europe, on other continents. And this is extremely important. Because when people are in the square, politicians will no longer pretend not to hear us and you, not to hear Ukraine.

    I will continue to appeal to the parliaments of other countries. The week is planned to be very busy from a diplomatic point of view. Therefore, no one will be able to hide the Ukrainian interest somewhere in political offices or in bureaucratic loopholes.

    We will not let anyone forget about our cities, about Mariupol and other Ukrainian cities that the Russian militaries are destroying. More and more people in the world are on the side of Ukraine, on the side of good in this battle with evil. And if politicians don’t know how to follow people, we will teach them. This is the basis of democracy and our national character.

    Once again I want to thank our people in Kherson, Kakhovka, Slavutych and other cities who do not stop resisting the occupiers. If the occupiers had temporarily entered Ukrainian cities, it only means that they would have to leave.

    And I want to remind those phenomenal fools who are trying to cooperate with Russian troops that they are leaving their own people behind. What will they do to other people’s traitors? I would tell them: think about it. But I know that these people don’t have anything to think with. Otherwise they would not have become traitors.

    Of course, this week we will work for new sanctions against the Russian Federation, against the aggression, sanctions that are needed as long as Russian troops remain on the territory of Ukraine.

    A new round of negotiations is ahead, because we are looking for peace. Really. Without delay. As I was informed, there is an opportunity and a need for a face-to-face meeting already in Turkey. This is not bad. Let’s look at the result.

    Our priorities in the negotiations are known. Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are beyond doubt. Effective security guarantees for our state are mandatory. Our goal is obvious – peace and the restoration of normal life in our native state as soon as possible.

    The Armed Forces of our state are holding back the occupiers, and in some areas they are even taking steps forward. Well done. The courage of our defenders, how wisely they behave on the battlefield… This is so important that no words of gratitude will be enough. But again and again I never tire of thanking. To each of our defenders… To all who fight for our future, for our children, for our people.

    I signed decrees conferring the title of Hero of Ukraine upon 15 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, 3 of them posthumously.

    As well as a decree on state awards to 142 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and 5 servicemen of the Department of State Protection of Ukraine.

    It is a great honor for me to sign such decrees.

    May the memory of all our heroes live forever. May the memory of everyone who gave life for Ukraine, for us, live forever.

    Glory to you all!

    Glory to all our heroes!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Brendan O’Hara – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    Brendan O’Hara – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    The speech made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll and Bute, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2022.

    I shall heed the warning about moderation and good temper, which I am sure my SNP colleagues would say is in my DNA and runs through me like the writing in a stock of rock. Should I stray, I am sure that you would bring me back into line, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    I was fascinated by the start of the Minister’s speech and I tried to intervene, but he would not take my multiple attempts to do so. When he got to his feet, he began by questioning the appropriateness of the Opposition holding such a debate on this topic. Literally minutes before he questioned how appropriate it was, Lord Lebedev said:

    “There’s a war in Europe”—

    hon. Members will recognise the phrase—

    “Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo.”

    That was precisely the Minister’s opening gambit, which prompts the question: did he write the Minister’s speech or did the Minister write his tweet?

    That assertion was absurd, because we have come to learn, often through painful experience in this place, that when this Government and this Prime Minister assure us that there is nothing to see, it is wise to keep looking. That is why we fully support the motion and why, when the House divides, we will vote for the Government to hand over all documents, all minutes of meetings and all electronic communications containing or relating to the advice that they received about the appointment of Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords.

    I reiterate in the strongest possible terms that today’s debate is absolutely not about being Russophobic, as the Minister would shamefully have us believe. He said that to try to throw up a smokescreen cover for his beleaguered Prime Minister, and it does the Prime Minister and this House no service whatever to try to suggest otherwise. As has been said many, many times in this Chamber, our fight is not with the ordinary Russian citizen, but with Putin, his political leadership in the Kremlin and his friends, including the oligarch billionaires who have plundered Russia’s wealth and resources and shipped them overseas, all too often to the UK and the City of London. Once they were in the UK, those billionaire oligarchs found many people in business and politics who, in return for their slice of the cake, were only too willing to facilitate the kleptocracy by hiding the oligarchs’ plunder for them while providing them with what they desired most: a cloak of respectability.

    The UK’s willingness to welcome vast amounts of Russian money with very few questions asked about the source of that wealth means that there are now many Russians with close links to Putin who are very well integrated into the UK and who simply, because of that enormous wealth, have attained significant influence among the UK’s business, social and political elites.

    Since this Prime Minister came into office in 2019, £2.3 million of Russian-linked cash has been funnelled directly into the Conservative party. That has happened to such an extent that even the Intelligence and Security Committee raised serious concerns about undue influence being sought and, indeed, gained by friends of President Putin with the UK governing party.

    That influence of dirty Russian money has not gone unnoticed abroad. Professor Sadiq Isah Radda, the most senior adviser to Nigeria’s President on all matters of anti-corruption, described London as

    “the most notorious safe haven for looted funds in the world today”.

    That is where we currently are in the world standings.

    In January this year, as Putin prepared to invade Ukraine, the Centre for American Progress warned the City of London that

    “uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling Conservative party, the press, and its real estate and financial industry”.

    It was always going to be the case that when Putin finally did unleash his illegal war in Ukraine, the UK would be forced to look at our role and how we have facilitated his gangster regime.

    Stewart Hosie

    My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Minister described the motion as a misuse of powers, implied that it would impede the Prime Minister in his constitutional role and argued that it is about a witch hunt against a single person. Is the truth not that the motion is about allowing us to understand whether or not the process of appointment has been corrupted? As my hon. Friend has mentioned Russian money, can he throw some light on why the Minister has doubled down on those ridiculous arguments?

    Brendan O’Hara

    Perhaps the Minister could reply for himself. I have no idea why he would double down on those ridiculous arguments.

    My right hon. Friend is right that this is not about an individual. It is about a corruption of process, and that was always going to lead us to a re-examination of the Prime Minister’s decision to send Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords for philanthropy and services to the media, as he put it. As we have heard, Mr Lebedev is a Russian businessman who derives his enormous wealth from his father, Alexander Lebedev, a former London-based KGB spy turned oligarch who still has investments in illegally occupied Crimea. At the start of this month, The New York Times said of Evgeny:

    “Nobody is a better example of the cozy ties between Russians and the establishment than Mr. Lebedev.”

    Just how cosy that relationship is can be seen from the fact that the British Prime Minister personally campaigned for a peerage to turn plain old Evgeny into Baron Lebedev, of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and of Siberia in the Russian Federation, for the rest of his life.

    I could go on about the absurdity of the House of Lords—the absurdity of a so-called democratic Parliament having an unelected upper Chamber into which family chieftains, high-ranking clerics of one denomination, failed and retired politicians and those with deep pockets who are prepared to bankroll a political party are thrust—but I will resist.

    Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)

    I make it clear that I have never met Lord Lebedev; I do not think I have ever been in the same room as him—but Dmitry Muratov has. He is editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, an independent newspaper in Russia. The House will remember that he is also a Nobel peace laureate. He has said:

    “The narrative being peddled in parts of the British media about him and his family is not only misjudged but actively dangerous. I urge you to consider who benefits from such untruths being told about a family that is known to be vocally critical of the Kremlin.”

    Is the Scottish National party doing the same thing?

    Brendan O’Hara

    With the greatest respect, we most certainly are not. If this Government are so scared of shining a light that has to be shone, at this of all times, there will be accusations of a cover-up and a belief that there is something to be hidden—something that this Government do not want seen. The debate today is all about allowing transparency. That is what this House should be all about, but unfortunately the Government and Conservative Members seem to be terrified of it.

    Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)

    The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Is not the real concern that the Prime Minister seemingly ignored Security Service advice? That is the issue. We do not make criticism of appointing the person as a peer; the concern is that the Prime Minister ignored security advice and appointed him despite that advice.

    Brendan O’Hara

    The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is about why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the advice of the security services, but there is also a hugely important back story about what got us into the position where he did so, and the implications of that.

    Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)

    My point is a rather similar one: if there was no problem with Lebedev being appointed as a peer and if the guidance from the security services was benign, what is the problem with scrutiny of that advice, which would put to rest all the concerns that people have?

    Brendan O’Hara

    That is right. A theme appears to be emerging on this side of the House. All we want to do is see what was there. All we want is to be reassured that the advice of the security services was not ignored, and that the appointment of Lord Lebedev was above board and beyond reproach. I do not think that, in a democratic system, that is too much for the House to ask.

    As Putin’s army continues to commit its war crimes in Ukraine, we have to get to the bottom of how a man with such close connections to the Kremlin was parachuted into this Parliament. We have to establish exactly what advice was given to the Prime Minister by the security and intelligence services in the summer of 2020, and whether or not he chose to overrule that advice, or sought to alter it in any way, in order to get the outcome that he required.

    We know that this was not a straightforward appointment. It could not possibly have been, particularly since, almost a decade ago, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, made it clear that he did not consider it at all appropriate for Mr Lebedev, then the owner of the Evening Standard and The Independent, to join him at MI6 headquarters for lunch. Advisers to the Prime Minister would have known for years of those security service concerns, and one would have hoped that an aspiring politician—or an aspiring Prime Minister—might be wary of becoming too close to Mr Lebedev, but that was not the case. It would appear that in return for favourable headlines in the Evening Standard, Mr Lebedev gained access to the centre of power in the Conservative party, and, particularly after 2019, the centre of the UK Government itself.

    Surely Mr Lebedev’s very public utterings about the illegal annexation of Crimea should have set alarm bells ringing in the Conservative party. Did no one in the Conservative party hear or take notice of him calling on western Governments to “stop cold war rhetoric” when they condemned Russia for its aggression in Crimea? Did no one notice his justification that because Crimea had been Russian “for many years”, this was not something to get overly upset about? Did his claim in 2014 that Russia would not be making

    “any further incursions into any land”

    fall on deaf ears?

    The clues were all there, if people chose to look for them. On Syria, Mr Lebedev said that Putin had “shown leadership” in the conflict, and urged the west to accept his offer of a coalition. He followed that up by saying, “Let us keep Assad in power”, because it would be the least worst option, and he doubled down on that by saying:

    “On this point I am emphatically with Putin.”

    The list is endless. Where was the condemnation of the events surrounding the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, and how in the name of the wee man did our Prime Minister end up having an off-the-record talk with Lord Lebedev—or Evgeny Lebedev, as he was then—48 hours after the Skripal poisonings?

    Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)

    Will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that it was the Conservative Government who led a very robust international effort to respond to the Skripal poisonings, and that the Labour party was, at that time, led by someone who refused to condemn them?

    Brendan O’Hara

    The Skripal poisonings fit into this debate beautifully, because the fact is that an off-the-record meeting was held between the Prime Minister and Mr Lebedev within 48 hours, at the time of an international crisis, and we do not know why. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I thought that Members wished to intervene, but they are just chuntering.

    Mr Lebedev and the Prime Minister socialised. They are widely known to have socialised in Mr Lebedev’s castles in Italy and elsewhere, and in London regularly. Mr Lebedev was present in 2016 at the private dinner when the now Prime Minister decided he was going to back the Brexit campaign. I have no idea what Mr Lebedev’s view on Brexit is, but I do know that, in the year before, he wrote this in his newspaper:

    “I have no doubt, based on conversations with senior figures in Moscow, that the Kremlin wants to make an ally rather than an enemy of Britain. And I also believe that it is in Britain’s best interest not only to work constructively with Moscow, but to be an active, engaged player on the world stage.”

    I opened this speech by saying that when the Government tell us there is “nothing to see here”, we should keep looking. The danger here, however, is that there is almost too much to see to make sense of. We know that the Prime Minister has been absolutely compromised by his relationship with Lord Lebedev. The public have a right to know if the Prime Minister gave an individual a seat for life in this Parliament against the advice of the security services. Desperately not wanting that to be the case is no reason for Conservative Members to block the release of this material. If there is nothing untoward, the Government should publish the material and put the matter to bed for once and for all. Then we could let Baron Lebedev return to doing hee-haw in the other place, as he has done with aplomb since he arrived there 18 months ago.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    The speech made by Michael Ellis, the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2022.

    Let me first address the situation in Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky has spoken of the Prime Minister and people of the United Kingdom as being among his greatest allies, and the Kremlin has spoken of the United Kingdom as a leading opponent. I am proud of that position, and we will continue to support Ukraine—as I know will the whole House—and the courageous people of that sovereign and independent country.

    The motion before the House calls on the Government to release advice provided by or to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and relevant communications thereto. The Government regret today’s motion for any number of reasons—I will come on to those—but particularly because, for the first time in many decades there is a war in Europe, and there are many pressing domestic concerns and issues. It is somewhat surprising that the Opposition have brought forward for discussion this afternoon an ad hominem attack on a single individual.

    Although Parliament has unlimited power to call for papers, persons and records, historically the House has exercised restraint in the use of that power, and for good reason. That the motion seeks not to show restraint is, in my submission, unfortunate. I accept that Parliament has a vital scrutiny role and should use its power to facilitate it, but that does not extend to making use of the procedures of this place to single out an individual by making unsavoury and ad hominem attacks of the kind we have heard and will be hearing this afternoon.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Michael Ellis

    Before I give way, which I will be happy to do, may I gently point out to the Opposition that—and I say this in all candour—they ought to be careful of intolerant messaging? Not all Russians are our enemy. Many British citizens of Russian extraction came to this country with a view to an opposition to President Putin. People cancelling Tchaikovsky concerts is not appropriate, and Labour seeking to whip up anti-Russian feeling or casting all persons of Russian extraction in a negative light is wrong.

    Furthermore, the disclosure of the information sought here today would undermine the very role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Labour is asking for something that would break the appointments process in the House of Lords. It would chip away at the careful vetting procedures and the exchange of information that necessarily has to be discreet.

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Michael Ellis

    If I may, I will just finish this thought.

    Let us not forget that the commission of which we are speaking is independent, expert, advisory, and cross-party, with Labour, Liberal and Conservative members, and it was set up by Tony Blair and the Labour party in the year 2000—more than 20 years ago.

    Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)

    On the Minister’s point about Labour being Russophobic, I lived and worked in Russia for three years as director of the British Council in St Petersburg, and we worked every day with ordinary Russians—good people—who want that country to be a normal country connected to the rest of the world. The people we are talking about today are not ordinary Russians. We are talking about a former KGB spy and the woman who was married to a former deputy Finance Minister who has given millions of pounds to the Conservative party. I humbly ask the Minister to withdraw the comment about Russophobia. We have no problem with the Russian people; we have a big problem with what he is talking about today.

    Michael Ellis

    No, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, the noble Lord who is the subject of this debate is not a Conservative party donor and never has been, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on all those fronts. The motion before the House today is what I have said it is.

    Shaun Bailey

    Further to the point of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), I wonder whether my right hon. Friend and learned Friend could give me his thoughts on this tweet that has just come through, which contains this from the Leader of the Opposition:

    “Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir”?

    Is what is good for the goose good for the gander? What does the Minister think about that?

    Michael Ellis

    It has been mentioned that Lord Lebedev has been tweeting this afternoon, and I understand that he has tweeted in the past few minutes that the Leader of the Opposition congratulated him on his appointment as a peer. That must be rather embarrassing for the Labour party.

    Matt Western

    I sometimes think that the Minister must be the Derek Underwood of the Front Bench in that he is the nightwatchman defending the indefensible.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) just said, we are clearly talking about someone with huge influence who has worked closely with the Prime Minister and collaborated in delivering certain election victories for him as the Mayor of London.

    Michael Ellis

    Lord Lebedev is a British citizen of Russian extraction who, I understand, had his primary and secondary education in this country. I see no logic in the Labour party’s assessment.

    In order to put this issue in its true context, it is necessary to remind hon. Members of the process for nominations for peerages. The power to confer a peerage, with the entitlement to sit in the House of Lords, is vested in Her Majesty the Queen and is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. It is a long-established feature of our constitutional arrangements. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible to Parliament, as he is in all matters, and to the people of the country for any nominations he makes.

    Two events have served to shape that process. First, the House of Lords Act 1999 ended the right of hereditary peers to pass membership of the other place down through their families. Secondly, the House of Lords Appointments Commission was created in May 2000—under Labour, which now wishes to break it—and it recommends individuals for appointment as non-party political life peers, such as those on the Cross Benches, and has political representation from the three parties within its members. The vetting process is at the heart of its work. The commission seeks to ensure the highest standards of propriety, and I include party political nominees within that.

    It does not apply in the instant case, but it should not be a matter of opprobrium that somebody be a party political supporter. Labour has hundreds of peers in the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats have some 83 peers despite them having barely enough Members of Parliament to fill a minicab. There is nothing wrong with having a political affiliation.

    The House of Lords Appointments Commission seeks advice from a number of sources during its deliberations. Any time we ask any independent advisory body to obtain advice, and it does so discreetly and in confidence, if we seek to break that process, said body will not be able to function. Once all the evidence has been considered, the commission will either advise the Prime Minister that it has no concerns about an appointment or will draw its concerns to the Prime Minister’s attention. It is a long-standing position that it is for the Prime Minister of the day to recommend appointments to the House of Lords. For that reason, the Prime Minister continues to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice before making any recommendations. That arrangement has served successive Prime Ministers of both parties but, as in other areas, they must carefully balance a range of evidence.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to a Liberal Democrat, few as we are. Nevertheless, I draw his attention to another tweet from Lord Lebedev:

    “Openness and transparency are pillars of our democratic system, so I welcome the call for security advice about me…to be released. I have nothing to hide.”

    The Minister is highlighting the fact that the appointment was questioned by that commission, so I do not see his argument, because it sounds like there were concerns. If Lord Lebedev has nothing to hide and the commission made its recommendation, that prompts the question: what do the Government have to hide?

    Michael Ellis

    I thank the hon. Lady for asking that question. This is not about any one individual. The Opposition are seeking it to be about one individual who cannot answer for himself in this House, which is wrong. The Government are seeking to protect the system, so even if Lord Lebedev has said that he does not mind, it is not, with the greatest respect, only about him; this is about protecting the system, because the House of Lords Appointments Commission would not be able to function.

    The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the commission earlier this month and received a reply a week or two ago, which I believe is in the public domain, in which it outlined the process and did not highlight any problems. The reality is that the Government are seeking to protect a system that has worked well for 22 years, so I ask the House to bear that in mind.

    Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)

    The Minister has said that the House of Lords Appointments Commission takes a variety of information from a variety of sources and organisations. That is perfectly reasonable. Is he suggesting, however, that the opinions or information of the intelligence services should somehow be of less importance than information from another body?

    Michael Ellis

    No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. In fact, I have no personal knowledge of those from whom the commission obtains its information. It is for the commission, which has Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat and independent members, to make its own judgments, and we heard from the commission in the letter I mentioned, which I think was from Lord Bew.

    Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)

    Quite rightly, we should be concerned about Russian money coming into our political system, but my right hon. and learned Friend at the Dispatch Box is right in what he says. We really should point out who the Prime Minister was who let the fox into the chicken coup. Who was it, for instance, in 2003 when Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea football club? It was none other than the new Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

    Michael Ellis

    Yes, well, I will leave the House to draw its own conclusions about that.

    I have to say that the individual who is the subject of this debate is a British citizen. He happens to be of Russian extraction. I understand that he has been in this country since primary school age. It is important to emphasise that this is about British people whose ancestry and heritage should not be relevant. As the owner of a regional newspaper, I understand that the London Evening Standard has raised £300,000 for its Ukraine appeal, £3 million for its AIDSfree campaign, and £13 million for its Dispossessed fund for persons in poverty in London and the Grenfell tragedy. I think that is something to be applauded.

    Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)

    Let us just get this right: this Lord Lebedev is educated here at primary school and senior school, he does not donate to political parties, he donates to charities and he is a good citizen. That lot over there on the Opposition Benches do not want to be involved in democracy. Is it the case that they just do not like foreign names? [Interruption.]

    Michael Ellis

    Well, I will invite the House to draw its own conclusion. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I did say at the beginning that we must have good temper in this debate. Shouting at the Minister or anyone else does not help.

    Shaun Bailey

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a bit of chuntering from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), she referred to this as the most xenophobic Conservative party. Can I just say to the hon. Lady that I am certainly not a xenophobe and I take real exception to that? I invite her to withdraw those comments. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Let me make this absolutely clear: nobody in this Chamber is calling anybody xenophobic. If anybody has used phrases like that, stop it now. I am not having it repeated. I am taking it that these things have not been said, because it would be better if they have not. Now, let us keep this at the right level. There is no need for superlative insults to go from one side to the other.

    Michael Ellis

    To return to where I started, there are so many issues that affect people’s lives that we could be debating today, for example: my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s income tax cuts, the first in 16 years; the 5p cut in fuel duty; or my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary’s plans to make sure that any child who falls behind in English or maths gets the support they need to get back on track. I find it surprising, at the very least, that the Opposition have chosen this particular motion, one that, at best, would compromise the ability of an independent body, which is respected for its independence, to fulfil its mandate simply to make a short-term political point. At worst, it would be negligent of the long-term consequences to the key role of the House of Lords in scrutinising the Executive and being a revising Chamber, and the valued expertise and specialist knowledge and experience of its Members.

    Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)

    I think lots of my colleagues would say that we have tabled the motion because it gets to the heart of who we are as a country and a democracy. Given the Prime Minister’s long-term relationship with the Lebedev family, what does the Minister think it looks like not to have published the Intelligence and Security Committee report before the 2019 general election?

    Michael Ellis

    That is not relevant to this debate. I will tell the hon. Lady what this debate looks like: it looks like the Labour party is focusing on an individual because of who he is. It is doing so unfairly and improperly, and it is seeking to break a process. The reality, as we have heard, is that Labour Members have also supported this individual, socialised with him and sent him messages of support. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not criticise Labour Members if they have sent supportive text messages to Lord Lebedev. I do not criticise anyone in this House for doing so. As the owner of newspapers, no doubt he interacts with a large number of individuals, even though he is a Cross Bencher. What I criticise, and what I urge the House to exercise with considerable caution, is how it looks to attack an individual because of his heritage or because of his extraction. That is the key point.

    The other key point to make here is that confidentiality in respect of the process ensures that it operates in the interests of the Labour party and the Conservative party, and that the process of appointing peers of this realm is a fair and dutiful one. The probity and the confidence of the system would be compromised if we broke it. If we said that henceforth we cannot ask people to send in confidence their opinions of individuals whom the Leader of the Opposition or the Conservative party have put forward for a peerage, anyone would know in future that if they wrote to the commission in confidence it could then be out in the public domain. They would not do it and that would damage the process. I would have thought that is rather obvious.

    The Government believe that to ensure the ability of the commission to conduct robust vetting and to provide advice that is not compromised, the process should continue to be conducted confidentially, with disclosure at the discretion of the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for making recommendations to Her Majesty on appointments to the Lords, or of the commission, as a body independent of Government and responsible for the vetting of nominations.

    Before I sit, I would like to address, if I may, the use today of the Humble Address procedure. The House itself has recognised the need for this process to be used responsibly. The Government response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s 15th report said:

    “The Government therefore agrees with PACAC that this device should not be used irresponsibly or over-used.”

    The Procedure Committee observed in its May 2019 report:

    “The House, by its practice, has observed limitations on the power: it does not use the power to call for papers which Ministers do not have the authority to obtain, nor does it use it to obtain papers of a personal nature.”

    That is a fundamental point. Today’s motion is a breach of that process. It demonstrates why the motion is unwise and irresponsible. Motions such as the one before us today crystallise the potential tension between the use of the Humble Address procedure and the responsibility of Ministers not to release information where disclosure would not be in the public interest. We have heard it said that the particular peer himself does not mind whether that information is released, but I submit that that is irrelevant. What we seek to do is protect the process, more than the individual, and that verifies that. The responsibility of Ministers, which I take very seriously, is carefully to balance and weigh up the need for the transparency and openness that we all try to achieve against the equally important, long-standing and competing principle in respect of data protection legislation, which the motion challenges. The Government reiterated, in our response to the Procedure Committee report, the principle of restraint and caution in recognition of the importance of ensuring that the wider public interest is protected.

    Matt Western

    I thank the Minister for giving way a second time; he is being generous. I am sure we all agree how critical transparency is to our democracy. Would that in part of the process there had been any transparency in the origin or source of Lord Lebedev’s wealth, which is particularly pertinent today and has been for the past five weeks since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Minister may refer to a message texted to Lord Lebedev 18 months ago, but that was before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Michael Ellis

    Were the hon. Gentleman to look into the matter, he would find that Lord Lebedev has, through his newspapers, publicly criticised the Putin invasion of Ukraine, as one would expect him to do. He has done so on the record.

    The motion provides a saving in respect of national security considerations, in that it would allow for the redaction of material

    “for the purposes of national security.”

    For that reason, I shall not dwell on the national security considerations in depth. I remind the House that Ministers do not comment on national security issues; nevertheless, I stress that weighty public issues are in play that should not be treated lightly.

    As I say, when we balance a commitment to transparency against the protection of information when disclosure is not in the public interest, national security is one consideration that the Government must weigh up. Rather than engage in insinuation and speculation—I am afraid that is what has been happening—in respect of matters of national security that must be handled with care and caution, I emphasise that it is and always will be Her Majesty’s Government’s absolute priority to protect the United Kingdom against foreign interference.

    It is easy for those in the media or on the Opposition Benches to cast aspersions and invite people to draw assumptions. We cannot answer points about national security in detail, but I emphasise that we in the Government will always give absolute priority to the protection of the United Kingdom from foreign interference. As proof of that, I remind the House that, as announced in the Queen’s Speech, we will introduce new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to disrupt state threats.

    In conclusion, the passing of the motion would have long-term and damaging consequences for the system of appointments to the peerage. It would breach the principles of confidentiality that underpin the process; impugn the reputation of an independent body and damage its ability to undertake its role; and impact on the right of individuals not to have their private lives splashed across the media at the whim of the Opposition Front-Bench team.

    Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)

    If the motion is as potentially damaging as the Minister says it is, why will Government Members not vote against it this afternoon?

    Michael Ellis

    It is quite normal practice to ignore Opposition motions; they are given the careful attention they deserve. That is common practice.

    The Government regret the fact that the official Opposition have sought to use the procedures of the House to call for the release of information which, if released, would have lasting consequences and undermine the established system of appointments to the peerage. That system has served successive Governments and it is vital to preserving the commission’s ability to undertake its role.

    Shaun Bailey

    In her speech, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) articulated quite an interesting point. I tried to prise an answer out of her in my intervention, when I asked about the idea of the commission perhaps having a veto. Whether or not we disagree with that idea, does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it interesting that the Labour party will not state its definitive position on that? What is his opinion of that? Perhaps it is because Labour wants to use the existing system at some future point to benefit itself.

    Michael Ellis

    I have the feeling it will be a very long time before the Labour party is in a position to do that from the Government Benches.

    The broader point is that the privacy rights of individuals need to be protected. The information shared to facilitate the vetting process is and must be handled carefully. It would be unwelcome for this House to set a precedent that such information is released, because, as I have said, to do so could deter individuals from putting themselves forward for such positions. I urge the House to reflect on whether the motion before us accords with the principle of restraint that Parliament has characteristically applied to the use of its powers. The passing of the motion would risk compromising the ability of an independent body to perform its role and, constitutionally, would impede the role of the Prime Minister in advising the sovereign on appointments. The process is necessarily confidential and the Government think it is unwise for the House to call for such information.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Ukraine

    Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Ukraine

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 28 March 2022.

    With permission, I want to update the House, on behalf of my Rt Hon Friend the Prime Minister, on the NATO and G7 Leaders meetings in Brussels last week.

    Together with our allies, we agreed to keep the pressure up on Putin to end his appalling war in Ukraine: through tougher sanctions to debilitate the Russian economy; supplying weapons to Ukraine and boosting NATO’s Eastern Flank; providing humanitarian aid and dealing with the wider consequences of this crisis; and supporting Ukraine in any negotiations they undertake.

    Strength is the only thing Putin understands.

    Our sanctions are pushing back the Russian economy by years.

    We owe it to the brave Ukrainians to keep up our tough approach to get peace. We owe it to ourselves to stand with them for the cause of freedom and democracy in Europe and across the world.

    It is vital we step up this pressure.

    We cannot wait for more appalling atrocities to be committed in Ukraine. We know that the impact of sanctions degrades over time.

    That is why we need to act now.

    Next week, NATO Foreign Ministers will meet to follow up on the statements of Leaders, and I will be pressing allies over the next week for all of us to do more.

    On oil and gas, the UK has already committed to end imports of Russian oil by the end of this year.

    We must agree a clear timetable with our partners across the G7 to end dependence on Russian oil and gas permanently.

    On banks, we’ve already sanctioned 16 major Russian banks. We have hit Gazprombank and we have placed a clearing prohibition on Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank. We want to see others adopt these sanctions and go further.

    On individuals, we’ve cracked down on oligarchs like Roman Abramovich. Last week we sanctioned the despicable Wagner Group of mercenaries.

    On ports, Britain has banned entry to all of our ports by Russian vessels. I will be lobbying partners across the G7 to join us in stopping Russian ships.

    We must maximise the flow of weapons that are being supplied to Ukraine under the UN Charter of self-defence.

    The UK was the first European country to start sending lethal aid to Ukraine.

    We are more than doubling our support with a further 6,000 missiles, including NLAWs and Javelin anti-tank weapons.

    And we are now equipping our Ukrainian friends with anti-aircraft Starstreak missiles.

    We are also strengthening NATO’s Eastern Flank, deploying troops to Bulgaria, and doubling the numbers in Poland and Estonia.

    We are coordinating deliveries with our allies and we want others to join us in getting Ukraine what it needs.

    The UK is providing £220 million in humanitarian support to help the people of Ukraine, from shelters to heaters to medicine.

    Today we announced our partnership with Australia to fly out more relief, including blankets, cooking equipment and power generators.

    And we are getting supplies directly into Ukraine’s encircled cities with £2 million of canned food, water and dried food.

    As refugees come into countries like Poland, we are working with the UNHCR so they are informed about the UK’s Homes for Ukraine scheme.

    This scheme has already got over 150,000 applications, thanks to the generosity of the British public.

    We know Putin is not serious about talks. He is still wantonly bombing innocent citizens across Ukraine. And that is why we need to do more to ensure he loses and we force him to think again.

    We must not just stop Putin in Ukraine, but we must also look to the long-term.

    We need to ensure that any future talks don’t end up selling Ukraine out or repeating the mistakes of the past. We remember the uneasy settlement in 2014, which failed to give Ukraine lasting security. Putin just came back for more.

    That is why we cannot allow him to win from this appalling aggression and why this Government is determined Putin’s regime should be held to account at the International Criminal Court.

    We will work to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

    We have set up a negotiations unit to ensure the strongest possible support is available to the Ukrainians, alongside our international partners.

    We have played a leading role alongside our G7 allies in driving the response to Putin’s war. And I want to ensure that unity continues.

    Sanctions were put on by the G7 in unison and they shouldn’t be removed as long as Putin continues with his war and he still has troops in Ukraine.

    That is not all. We need to ensure that Putin can never act in this aggressive way again.

    Any long-term settlement needs to include a clear sanctions snapback which would be triggered automatically by any Russian aggression.

    In the aftermath of Putin’s war, Ukraine will need our help to build back.

    In these exceptional circumstances, we have a duty to step up with a new reconstruction plan for rebuilding Ukraine. And we will work with the international community to do this.

    At this defining moment, the free world has shown a united response.

    Putin is not making the progress he craves. And he is still not serious about talks.

    President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people know that everybody in the United Kingdom stands firm with them.

    We were the first European country to recognise Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. Thirty years on, we are the first to strengthen their defences against Putin’s invasion, and lead the way in our support.

    Over the next week, I will be working to drive forward progress in unison with our allies.

    Together, we can secure a lasting peace, which restores Ukraine’s sovereignty. Together, we can ensure Putin fails and Ukraine prevails.

    I commend this statement to the House.

     

  • Joe Biden – 2022 Speech in Warsaw on the Russian Military Attack on Ukraine

    Joe Biden – 2022 Speech in Warsaw on the Russian Military Attack on Ukraine

    The speech made by Joe Biden, the President of the United States, in Warsaw on 26 March 2022.

    Thank you very much. It’s a great honor to be here. Mr. President, they tell me you’re over there somewhere. There you are. Thank you, Mr. President.

    “Be not afraid.” They were the first words at the first public address of the first Polish Pope after his election on October of 1978. They were words that would come to define Pope John Paul II. Words that would change the world.

    John Paul brought the message here to Warsaw in his first trip back home as Pope in June of 1979. It was a message about the power — the power of faith, the power of resilience, and the power of the people.

    In the face of a cruel and brutal system of government, it was a message that helped end the Soviet repression in the Central land and Eastern Europe 30 years ago. It was a message that will overcome the cruelty and brutality of this unjust war.

    When Pope John Paul brought that message in 1979, the Soviet Union ruled with an iron fist behind an Iron Curtain.

    Then a year later, the Solidarity movement took hold in Poland. And while I know he couldn’t be here tonight, we’re all grateful in America and around the world for Lech Wałęsa. (Applause.)

    It reminds me of that phrase of philosopher Kierkegaard: “[F]aith sees best in the dark.” And there were dark moments.

    Ten years later, the Soviet Union collapsed, and Poland and Central and Eastern Europe would soon be free. Nothing about that battle for freedom was simple or easy. It was a long, painful slog fought over not days and months, but years and decades.

    But we emerged anew in the great battle for freedom: a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force.

    In this battle, we need to be clear-eyed. This battle will not be won in days or months either. We need to steel ourselves for the long fight ahead.

    Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Mayor, members of the Parliament, distinguished guests, and the people of Poland, and I suspect some people of Ukraine that are here: We’re — (applause) — we are gathered here at the Royal Castle in this city that holds a sacred place in the history of not only of Europe, but humankind’s unending search for freedom.

    For generations, Warsaw has stood where liberty has been challenged and liberty has prevailed.

    In fact, it was here in Warsaw when a young refugee, who fled her home country from Czechoslovakia was under Soviet domination, came back to speak and stand in solidarity with dissidents.

    Her name was Madeleine Korbel Albright. She became — (applause) — one of the most ardent supporters of democracy in the world. She was a friend with whom I served. America’s first woman Secretary of State. She passed away three days ago.

    She fought her whole life for essential democratic principles. And now, in the perennial struggle for democracy and freedom, Ukraine and its people are on the frontlines fighting to save their nation.

    And their brave resistance is part of a larger fight for an essential democratic principles that unite all free people: the rule of law; free and fair elections; the freedom to speak, to write, and to assemble; the freedom to worship as one chooses; freedom of the press.

    These principles are essential in a free society. (Applause.) But they have always — they have always been under siege. They’ve always been embattled. Every generation has had to defeat democracy’s mortal foes. That’s the way of the world — for the world is imperfect, as we know. Where the appetites and ambitions of a few forever seek to dominate the lives and liberties of many.

    My message to the people of Ukraine is the message I delivered today to Ukraine’s Foreign Minister and Defense Minister, who I believe are here tonight: We stand with you. Period. (Applause.)

    Today’s fighting in Kyiv and Mariupol and Kharkiv are the latest battle in a long struggle: Hungary, 1956; Poland, 1956 then again 1981; Czechoslovakia, 1968.

    Soviet tanks crushed democratic uprisings, but the resistance continued until finally, in 1989, the Berlin Wall and all of the walls of Soviet domination — they fell. They fell. And the people prevailed. (Applause.)

    But the battle for democracy could not conclude and did not conclude with the end of the Cold War.

    Over the last 30 years, the forces of autocracy have revived all across the globe. Its hallmarks are familiar ones: contempt for the rule of law, contempt for democratic freedom, contempt for the truth itself.

    Today, Russia has strangled democracy — has sought to do so elsewhere, not only in its homeland. Under false claims of ethnic solidarity, it has invalidated [invaded] neighboring nations.

    Putin has the gall to say he’s “de-Nazifying” Ukraine. It’s a lie. It’s just cynical. He knows that. And it’s also obscene.

    President Zelenskyy was democratically elected. He’s Jewish. His father’s family was wiped out in the Nazi Holocaust. And Putin has the audacity, like all autocrats before him, to believe that might will make right.

    In my own country, a former president named Abraham Lincoln voiced the opposing spirit to save our Union in the midst of a civil war. He said, “Let us have faith that right makes might.” “Right makes might.” (Applause.)

    Today, let us now have that faith again. Let us resolve to put the strength of democracies into action to thwart the denigns [sic] of our — the designs of autocracy. Let us remember that the test of this moment is the test of all time.

    The Kremlin wants to portray NATO enlargement as an imperial project aimed at destabilizing Russia. Nothing is further from the truth. NATO is a defensive alliance. It has never sought the demise of Russia.

    In the lead-up to the current crisis, the United States and NATO worked for months to engage Russia to avert a war. I met with him in person and talked to him many times on the phone.

    Time and again, we offered real diplomacy and concrete proposals to strengthen European security, enhance transparency, and build confidence on all sides.

    But Putin and Russia met each of the proposals with disinterest in any negotiation, with lies and ultimatums. Russia was bent on violence from the start.

    I know not all of you believed me and us when we kept saying, “They are going to cross the border. They are going to attack.”

    Repeatedly, he asserted, “We have no interest in war.” Guaranteed he would not move.

    Repeatedly saying he would not invade Ukraine.

    Repeatedly saying Russian troops along the border were there for “training” — all 180,000 of them.

    There is simply no justification or provocation for Russia’s choice of war. It’s an example of one of the oldest of human impulses: using brute force and disinformation to satisfy a craving for absolute power and control.

    It’s nothing less than a direct challenge to the rule-based international order established since the end of World War Two.

    And it threatens to return to decades of war that ravaged Europe before the international rule-based order was put in place. We cannot go back to that. We cannot.

    The gravity of the threat is why the response of the West has been so swift and so powerful and so unified, unprecedented, and overwhelming.

    Swift and punishing costs are the only things that are going to get Russia to change its course.

    Within days of its invasion, the West had moved jointly with sanctions to damage Russia’s economy.

    Russia’s Central Bank is now blocked from the global financial systems, denying Kremlin’s access to the war fund it stashed around the globe.

    We’ve aimed at the heart of Russia’s economy by stopping the imports of Russian energy to the United States.

    To date, the United States has sanctioned 140 Russian oligarchs and their family members, seizing their ill-begotten gains: their yachts, their luxury apartments, their mansions.

    We’ve sanctioned more than 400 Russian government officials, including key architects of this war.

    These officials and oligarchs have reaped enormous benefit from the corruption connected to the Kremlin, and now they have to share in the pain.

    The private sector is acting as well. Over 400 private multinational companies have pulled out of doing business in Russia — left Russia completely — from oil companies to McDonald’s.

    As a result of these unprecedented sanctions, the ruble almost is immediately reduced to rubble. The Russian economy — (applause) — that’s true, by the way. It takes about 200 rubles to equal one dollar.

    The economy is on track to be cut in half in the coming years. It was ranked — Russia’s economy was ranked the 11th biggest economy in the world before this evasion [sic] — invasion. It will soon not even rank among the top 20 in the world. (Applause.)

    Taken together, these economic sanctions are a new kind of economic statecraft with the power to inflict damage that rivals military might.

    These international sanctions are sapping Russian strength, its ability to replenish its military, and its ability — its ability to project power. And it is Putin — it is Vladimir Putin who is to blame, period.

    At the same time, alongside these economic sanctions, the Western world has come together to provide for the people of Ukraine with incredible levels of military, economic, and humanitarian assistance.

    In the years before the invasion, we, America, had sent over $650 million, before they crossed the border, in weapons to Ukraine, including anti-air and anti-armor equipment.

    Since the invasion, America has committed another $1.35 billion in weapons and ammunition.

    And thanks to the courage and bravery of the Ukrainian people — (applause) — the equipment we’ve sent and our colleagues have sent have been used to devastating effect to defend Ukrainian land and airspace. Our Allies and partners have stepped up as well.

    But as I’ve made clear: American forces are in Europe — not in Europe to engage in conflict with Russian forces. American forces are here to defend NATO Allies.

    Yesterday, I met with the troops that are serving alongside our Polish allies to bolster NATO’s frontline defenses. The reason we wanted to make clear is their movement on Ukraine: Don’t even think about moving on one single inch of NATO territory.

    We have a sacred obligation — (applause) — we have a sacred obligation under Article 5 to defend each and every inch of NATO territory with the full force of our collective power.

    And earlier today, I visited your National Stadium, where thousands of Ukrainian refugees are now trying to answer the toughest questions a human can ask: “My God, what’s going to happen to me? What’s going to happen to my family?”

    I saw tears in many of the mothers’ eyes as I embraced them; their young children — their young children not sure whether to smile or cry. One little girl said, “Mr. President” — she spoke a little English — “is my brother and my daddy — are they going to be okay? Will I see them again?” Without their husbands, their fathers, in many cases, their brothers or sisters who stayed back to fight for their country.

    I didn’t have to speak the language or understand the language to feel the emotion in their eyes, the way they gripped my hand, and little kids hung on to my leg, praying with a desperate hope that all this is temporary; apprehension that they may be perhaps forever away from their homes, almost with debilitating sadness that this is happening all over again.

    But I was also struck by the generosity of the people of Warsaw — for that matter, all the Polish people — for the depths of their compassion, their willingness to reach out — (applause) — opening their hearts.

    I was saying to the Mayor they’re preparing to open their hearts and their homes simply to help. I also want to thank my friend, the great American chef, José Andrés, and his team who helped feeling [sic] those — (applause) — feeding those who are yearning to be free.

    But helping these refugees is not something Poland or any other nation should carry alone. All the world democracies have a responsibility to help. All of them. And the people of Ukraine can count on the United States to meet its responsibility.

    I’ve announced, two days ago, we will welcome 100,000 Ukrainian refugees. We already have 8,000 a week coming to the United States of other nat- — nationalities.

    We’ll provide nearly $300 million of humanitarian assistance, providing tens of thousands of tons of food, water, medicine, and other basic supplies.

    In Brussels, I announced the United States is prepared to provide more than $1 billion, in addition, in humanitarian aid.

    The World Food Programme told us that despite significant obstacles, at least some relief is getting to major cities in Ukraine, but not Metropol [sic] — no, excuse me, Mar- — not Mariupol, because Russian forces are blocking relief supplies.

    But we’ll not cease our efforts to get humanitarian relief wherever it is needed in Ukraine and for the people who’ve made it out of Ukraine.

    Notwithstanding the brutality of Vladimir Putin, let there be no doubt that this war has already been a strategic failure for Russia already. (Applause.) Having lost children myself — I know that’s no solace to the people who’ve lost family.

    But he, Putin, thought Ukrainians would roll over and not fight. Not much of a student of history. Instead, Russian forces have met their match with brave and stiff Ukrainian resistance.

    Rather than breaking Ukrainian resolve, Russia’s brutal tactics have strengthened the resolve. (Applause.)

    Rather than driving NATO apart, the West is now stronger and more united than it has ever been. (Applause.)

    Russia wanted less of a NATO presence on its border, but now he has [we have] a stronger presence, a larger presence, with over a hundred thousand American troops here, along with all the other members of NATO.

    In fact — (applause) — Russia has managed to cause something I’m sure he never intended: The democracies of the world are revitalized with purpose and unity found in months that we’d once taken years to accomplish.

    It’s not only Russia’s actions in Ukraine that are reminding us of democracy’s blessing. It’s our own country — his own country, the Kremlin, is jailing protestors. Two hundred thousand people have allegedly already left. There’s a brain drain — leaving Russia. Shutting down independent news. State media is all propaganda, blocking the image of civilian targets, mass graves, starvation tactics of the Russian forces in Ukraine.

    Is it any wonder, as I said, that 200,000 Russians have all left their country in one month? A remarkable brain drain in such a short period of time, which brings me to my message to the Russian people:

    I’ve worked with Russian leaders for decades. I sat across the negotiating table going all the way back to Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin to talk arms control at the height of the Cold War.

    I’ve always spoken directly and honestly to you, the Russian people.

    Let me say this, if you’re able to listen: You, the Russian people, are not our enemy.

    I refuse to believe that you welcome the killing of innocent children and grandparents or that you accept hospitals, schools, maternity wards that, for God’s sake, are being pummeled with Russian missiles and bombs; or cities being surrounded so that civilians cannot flee; supplies cut off and attempting to starve Ukrainians into submission.

    Millions of families are being driven from their homes, including half of all Ukraine’s children. These are not the actions of a great nation.

    Of all people, you, the Russian people, as well as all people across Europe, still have the memory of being in a similar situation in the late thirties and forties — the situation of World War Two — still fresh in the minds of many grandparents in the region.

    What — whatever your generation experienced — whether it experienced the Siege of Leningrad or heard about it from your parents and grandparents — train stations overflowing with terrified families fleeing their homes; nights sheltering in basements and cellars; mornings sitting through the rubble in your homes — these are not memories of the past. Not anymore. Because it’s exactly what the Russian army is doing in Ukraine right now.

    March 26, 2022. Just days before — we’re at the twenty-fir- — you were a 21st century nation with hopes and dreams that people all over the world have for themselves and their family.

    Now, Vladimir Putin’s aggression have cut you, the Russian people, off from the rest of the world, and it’s taking Russia back to the 19th century.

    This is not who you are. This is not the future reserve — you deserve for your families and your children. I’m telling you the truth: This war is not worthy of you, the Russian people.

    Putin can and must end this war. The American people stand with you and the brave citizens of Ukraine who want peace.

    And my message to the rest of Europe: This new battle for freedom has already made a few things crystal clear.

    First, Europe must end its dependence on Russian fossil fuels. And we, the United States, will help. (Applause.) That’s why just yesterday, in Brussels, I announced a plan with the President of the European Commission to get Europe through the immediate energy crisis.

    Over the long term, as a matter of economic security and national security and for the survivability of the planet, we all need to move as quickly as possible to clean, renewable energy. And we’ll work together to help get that done so that the days of any nation being subject to the whims of a tyrant for its energy needs are over. They must end. They must end.

    And second, we have to fight the corruption coming from the Kremlin to give the Russian people a fair chance.

    And finally, and most urgently, we maintain absolute unity — we must — among the world’s democracies.

    It’s not enough to speak with rhetorical flourish, of ennobling words of democracy, of freedom, equality, and liberty. All of us, including here in Poland, must do the hard work of democracy each and every day. My country as well.

    That’s why — (applause) — that’s why I came to Europe again this week with a clear and determined message for NATO, for the G7, for the European Union, for all freedom-loving nations: We must commit now to be in this fight for the long haul. We must remain unified today and tomorrow and the day after and for the years and decades to come. (Applause.)

    It will not be easy. There will be costs. But it’s a price we have to pay. Because the darkness that drives autocracy is ultimately no match for the flame of liberty that lights the souls of free people everywhere.

    Time and again, history shows that it’s from the darkest moments that the greatest progress follows. And history shows this is the task of our time, the task of this generation.

    Let’s remember: The hammer blow that brought down the Berlin Wall, the might that lifted the Iron Curtain were not the words of a single leader; it was the people of Europe who, for decades, fought to free themselves.

    Their sheer bravery opened the border between Austria and Hungary for the Pan-European Picnic. They joined hands for the Baltic Way. They stood for Solidarity here in Poland. And together, it was an unmistakable and undeniable force of the people that the Soviet Union could not withstand.

    And we’re seeing it once again today with the brave Ukrainian people, showing that their power of many is greater than the will of any one dictator. (Applause.)

    So, in this hour, let the words of Pope John Paul burn as brightly today: “Never, ever give up hope, never doubt, never tire, never become discouraged. Be not afraid.” (Applause.)

    A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never erase a people’s love for liberty. Brutality will never grind down their will to be free. Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia — for free people refuse to live in a world of hopelessness and darkness.

    We will have a different future — a brighter future rooted in democracy and principle, hope and light, of decency and dignity, of freedom and possibilities.

    For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.

    God bless you all. And may God defend our freedom. (Applause.) And may God protect our troops. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you.

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (26/03/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (26/03/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 26 March 2022.

    Free people of a free country!

    Free Slavutych who will not be conquered by the invaders!

    Today we were all with you – on your streets, in your protest. And all together we tell the occupiers one thing: go home while you can still walk.

    The Russian invaders entered Slavutych and faced the same reaction there as in the south of our state, as in the east of our country.

    Ukraine is united in its desire to live freely, to live independently and for the sake of its own dreams, not other people’s sick fantasies. Every day of our struggle for Ukraine, every manifestation of our resistance in all areas the occupiers have entered so far proves that Ukraine is a state full of life, which has historical roots and moral foundations throughout its territory.

    Nothing they do will help the occupiers in the Ukrainian territory they temporarily entered. Disconnection of our television and activation of passionate nonsense speeches by Moscow TV presenters, leaflets with propaganda, distribution of rubles. Rubles, which in Russia will soon be weighed instead of assessing them at face value.

    Bribing outcasts whom the occupiers are looking for in all the dumps to portray the allegedly pro-Russian government will not help as well.

    The answer to Russian troops will be one – hatred and contempt. And our Armed Forces of Ukraine will inevitably come.

    That is why ordinary Ukrainian peasants take captive the pilots of downed Russian planes that fall to our land. That is why our “tractor troops” – Ukrainian farmers take Russian equipment in the fields and give it to our Armed Forces of Ukraine. In particular, the latest models that Russia has tried to keep secret. And now the occupiers leave them on our land and just run away…

    Actually, they do the right thing. Because it is better for them to escape than to die. And there are not and will not be other alternatives.

    Everyone in Ukraine has united and has been devoting all their energy to the defense of our state for more than a month already. Together with the Armed Forces, together with all our defenders, together with our National Guard.

    I would like to once again congratulate the National Guard of Ukraine on its day with great respect. I am sincerely grateful for everything you do to protect the state, to protect Ukrainians! Thank you for all the steps to victory that will come and that were made possible thanks to you.

    Today I presented awards to soldiers of the National Guard who distinguished themselves in battles with the Russian occupiers. I also awarded the rank of brigadier general to five colonels of the National Guard of Ukraine.

    In total, during the full-scale war since February 24, 476 soldiers of the National Guard have been awarded state awards already.

    I also spoke today with Polish President Andrzej Duda. Twice. About our people who found protection in Poland. And the need to strengthen our common security. Security of our states. Security for all Europeans actually.

    What is the price of this security? This is very specific. These are planes for Ukraine. These are tanks for our state. This is anti-missile defense. This is anti-ship weaponry. This is what our partners have. This is what is covered with dust at their storage facilities. After all, this is all for freedom not only in Ukraine – this is for freedom in Europe.

    Because it cannot be acceptable for everyone on the continent if the Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia and the whole of Eastern Europe are at risk of a clash with the Russian invaders.

    At risk only because they left only one percent of all NATO aircraft and one percent of all NATO tanks somewhere in their hangars. One percent! We did not ask for more. And we do not ask for more. And we have already been waiting for 31 days!

    So who runs the Euro-Atlantic community? Is it still Moscow because of intimidation?

    Partners need to step up assistance to Ukraine. These are the words: partners need! Because this is the security of Europe. And this is exactly what we agreed on in Kyiv when the three prime ministers of Eastern European countries, as well as Mr. Kaczynski, arrived in our capital. It was in mid-March. Today, immediately after the conversation with the President of Poland, I contacted the defenders of Mariupol. I am in constant contact with them. Their determination, their heroism and resilience are impressive. I am grateful to each of them! I wish at least a percentage of their courage to those who have been thinking for 31 days how to transfer a dozen or two of planes or tanks…

    And, by the way, we talked today with our military in Mariupol, with our heroes who defend this city, in Russian.

    Because there is no language problem in Ukraine and there never was.

    But now you, the Russian occupiers, are creating this problem. You are doing everything to make our people stop speaking Russian themselves. Because the Russian language will be associated with you. Only with you. With these explosions and killings. With your crimes. You are deporting our people. You are bullying our teachers, forcing them to repeat everything after your propagandists. You are taking our mayors and Ukrainian activists hostage. You are placing billboards in the occupied territories with appeals (they appeared today) not to be afraid to speak Russian. Just think about what it means. Where Russian has always been a part of everyday life, like Ukrainian, in the east of our state, and where you are turning peaceful cities into ruins today. Russia itself is doing everything to ensure that de-russification takes place on the territory of our state. You are doing it. In one generation. And forever. This is another manifestation of your suicide policy.

    Our representatives – the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defense of Ukraine – met today in Poland with colleagues from the United States. They were joined by US President Joseph Biden. As I was informed, the negotiations concerned, in particular, these vital interests, which I mentioned above. Concerned what we really need while this ping-pong continues – who should give us planes and other protection tools and how. Ukraine cannot shoot down Russian missiles using shotguns, machine guns, which are too much in supplies.

    And it is impossible to unblock Mariupol without a sufficient number of tanks, other armored vehicles and, of course, aircraft. All defenders of Ukraine know that. All defenders of Mariupol know that. Thousands of people know that – citizens, civilians who are dying there in the blockade.

    The United States knows that. All European politicians know. We told everyone. And this should be known as soon as possible by as many people on earth as possible. So that everyone understands who and why was simply afraid to prevent this tragedy. Afraid to simply make a decision. Vital decision.

    Of course, we have already seized a number of Russian tanks, which the military command of this country keeps sending to be burned here.

    However, the nations of the world will not understand for sure if the battlefield in Ukraine will be a larger supplier of tanks to protect freedom in Europe than our partners.

    Ukraine’s position must be heard. I want to emphasize: this is not only our position.

    This is the position of the vast majority of Europe’s population, the majority of Europeans.

    If someone does not believe me, look at current public opinion polls in the world.

    And if you do not want to hear the opinion of the people, then hear the strikes of Russian missiles hitting right next to the Polish border. Are you waiting for the roar of Russian tanks?

    I also spoke with Prime Minister of Bulgaria Kiril Petkov. In particular, about the humanitarian catastrophe due to the actions of Russian troops and how to save our people.

    I spoke today at the Doha Forum in the capital of Qatar. This is a respectable meeting that is important not only for the Islamic world, but also for many other countries in Latin America and Africa. These are the regions where Russian propaganda still has great influence. But we are working against lies all over the world. Let Russia know that the truth will not remain silent. And let every nation in the world feel the depth of Russia’s injustice against Ukraine. Against everything that keeps the world within morality and humanity.

    The occupiers committed another crime against history. Against historical justice.

    Near Kharkiv, Russian troops in their branded inhuman style “denazified” the Holocaust Memorial in Drobytsky Yar.

    During World War II, the Nazis executed about 20,000 people there. 80 years later they are killed a second time. And Russia is doing it.

    The menorah in Drobytsky Yar destroyed by Russian projectiles today is another question to the entire Jewish community of the world: how many more crimes against our common memory of the Holocaust will be allowed to be committed by Russia on our Ukrainian land?

    Russian troops are deliberately killing civilians, destroying residential neighborhoods, targeting shelters and hospitals, schools and universities. Even churches, even Holocaust memorials!

    Russian troops receive just such orders: to destroy everything that makes our nation nation, our people – people, our culture – culture. This is exactly how the Nazis tried to capture Europe 80 years ago. This is exactly how the occupiers act in Ukraine. No one will forgive them. There will be responsibility. Just like 77 years ago. Most likely not in Nuremberg. But the meaning will be similar. You will see.

    Everyone will see. Everyone. We guarantee.

    Glory to all our heroes!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement at NATO Press Conference

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement at NATO Press Conference

    The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, in Brussels on 24 March 2022.

    It is scarcely believable as we stand here today that just a month ago, the Ukrainian people were living ordinary, peaceful lives. Now, they are locked in an extraordinary battle for survival against an unprovoked onslaught from their neighbours.

    Ukrainians have taken up the fight and taught the world the meaning of bravery. Against the odds, they have snarled up Russia’s invading army, inflicting defeat after defeat. The heroism of Ukraine has changed the geopolitics of Europe.

    Vladimir Putin has badly miscalculated in Ukraine, and I believe he knows it. But now that Putin’s Plan A has foundered, he is already escalating by intensifying his attacks on civilians.

    Maternity wards, schools and homes and have been bombed without any regard for civilian life. Families are being starved out in freezing basement shelters, and targeted as they flee.

    The United Kingdom – and our allies in NATO and the G7 here today – are clear: we will not stand by while Putin vents his fury on Ukraine.

    I have rarely seen our nations more united in recent years than we are now. Putin’s failure in Ukraine is vital for the peace and prosperity of all of us, and his barbaric invasion has galvanised the international community into collective action.

    We will work with likeminded allies to ramp up lethal aid to Ukraine at scale, providing kit to President Zelenskyy in the quantity and with the quality and quantity that he needs to defend his country from its bullying neighbour.

    Today, I have announced we in the UK will send an additional 6,000 missiles and provide £25 million in unrestricted funding for Ukraine’s armed forces, more than doubling the lethal aid we have provided to date.

    We are bolstering our support for the NATO countries on the frontline, sending a new deployment of UK troops to Bulgaria on top of the doubling our troops both in Poland and in Estonia.

    This is just the beginning. We must support a free and democratic Ukraine in the long term. This is a fellow European democracy fighting a war of national defence.

    NATO and G7 leaders were also united today in our determination to continue turning the screws on the Kremlin’s war machine, including by weaning ourselves off Russian oil and gas and reshaping global energy security.

    The UK has already hit over 1,000 Russian individuals and entities in our toughest-ever sanctions, and the Foreign Secretary has announced 65 new sanctions against Russian banks, weapons manufacturers and oligarchs just this morning.

    I also discussed the humanitarian response with our allies and partners today, as we continue to see huge numbers of Ukrainians flee their homes.

    And the message that President Putin can take from today’s extraordinary meeting of NATO and the G7 is this: Ukraine is not alone.

    We stand with the people of Kyiv, of Mairupol, of Lviv and Donetsk. And as President Zelenskyy has said himself – the people of Ukraine will prevail and Putin must fail and he will fail.

  • George Freeman – 2022 Statement on Support for Ukrainian Researchers

    George Freeman – 2022 Statement on Support for Ukrainian Researchers

    The statement made by George Freeman, the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, on 27 March 2022.

    Science is an overwhelming force for peaceful cooperation. Through free and open academic discourse we can deliver benefits for humanity and the globe as we seek to address the most pressing challenges of our time.

    The appalling invasion demands that we all take a stand and show our solidarity and support for Ukraine. The government has taken the decision to suspend publicly funded research and innovation collaborations with Russian Universities and companies of strategic benefit to the Russian state. Our aim is to introduce measures that will negatively impact the Russian state, and individuals and organisations with strong links to the Kremlin, but not to sanction individual Russian scientists or innovators with benign research interests.

    We are therefore today taking action:

    1. All payments for projects delivered through UK public research funds with a Russian dimension have been paused. I have commissioned an assessment, on top of the existing and strong due diligence processes of UK public research funders, to isolate and freeze activities which benefit the Russian regime.

    2. We will not fund any new collaborative projects with Russia through our research and innovation organisations.

    3. We have suspended existing government to government dialogue through our science and innovation network team in Russia including their collaborative science projects.

    4. Where the UK is a member of multilateral organisations, we are working at pace with partners to respond appropriately – holding Russia to account for its actions while diminishing and isolating its influence.

    5. We are standing up a £3 million package of support for Ukrainian researchers at risk. We stand with Ukraine, its democratically elected government and its brave people at this awful time.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Londoners Support for Ukraine

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Londoners Support for Ukraine

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 26 March 2022.

    I’m proud that today Londoners are uniting in their thousands today to send a message of support to the people of Ukraine. These innocent people have been through unimaginable pain and suffering over the last month, and by joining together today we are showing that we stand with them.

    I’m also pleased to announce that London will be giving more than £1.1m to support migrants, refugees and people seeking asylum in the capital, including those coming from Ukraine. We have a proud history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing conflict, and this funding will ensure that support is there to help in their time of need.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Comments on Food Donations to Ukraine

    Liz Truss – 2022 Comments on Food Donations to Ukraine

    The comments made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 26 March 2022.

    This vital donation of food and supplies will help support the Ukrainian people in the face of Russia’s barbaric invasion.

    Our teams are working day and night with our Polish and Slovakian friends and the government of Ukraine to ensure those at most risk get the essential supplies they so badly need.