UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2022

  • Alicia Kearns – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Alicia Kearns – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Alicia Kearns, the Conservative MP for Rutland and Melton, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

    The world has just witnessed Ukraine pull off a stunning counter-offensive around Kharkiv. It liberated thousands of miles of territory in what was an incredible feat of military planning. Months of distraction around Kherson were put in place, with radio silence around what people were doing around Kharkiv. It was something that brought the world with them, and showed that, yes, Ukraine will be victorious if we stand by it. That victory was not just thousands of miles of territory, but it hit Russian logistics. It liberated major administrative and rail hubs that the Russians had been using, and it will castrate Russian ability to get what it needs and to rely on those rail logistics throughout. As a result we have seen a panicked response from the Kremlin, with sham referendums and a partial mobilisation of 300,000 men.

    Much has been made of that mobilisation, but a country cannot magically muster kit, strategy or skilled soldiers. We must be careful and challenge the arguments when we hear big announcements from Putin that are not tantamount to changing the situation on the ground. The performative referendums should be called “hostage referendums”, because that is what they are. It is vital that the world rejects them, and I am confident that we will. Years ago when we did not reject them, we saw Putin emboldened to do what he is doing today.

    Ukrainian gains are showing the scale of the atrocities being committed by Russian troops, and it is vital to consider how we can support those affected. I will therefore focus on recommendations for what the Government should be doing. First, our international justice infrastructure is not sufficient. The International Criminal Court cannot prosecute in this situation, and as one of the foremost powers when it comes to security and justice, we must convene a plan for how we will hold people who have committed atrocities at all levels to account. Secondly, I made the point earlier about creating a specific court or tribunal for sexual violence and rape that is established at the start of conflicts, rather than at the end when it is too late to collect evidence.

    We must also learn how we share intelligence. In September last year—this time last year—Britain and America went round and told our allies that Putin was going to invade. We had the intelligence, we were sure of it, but our allies did not believe us. The French said it just would not happen and that Macron had too good a relationship with Putin; the Germans said that that was not what their intelligence showed. When I asked European ambassadors why they did not believe us, they said it was because of Iraq. It is greatly concerning that they are making intelligence decisions based on what happened many decades ago when I was only a child. It also shows that we have manifestly failed to make the most important intelligence analysis and argument that we needed to make over the past decade.

    Putin is no master strategist—he is a gambler. He gambled in 2014 that we would turn a blind eye to the invasion of Crimea. He gambled in Syria, where we turned our backs, and he gambled in February that we would be too divided. He was wrong about that, but Putin bases his decisions on the critical assumption that we have not adapted to 21st-century hybrid warfare. We have spent the past two decades focusing on terrorists who behave like states, but between now and 2050 we must adapt to states that behave like terrorists. To do that we need whole state resilience. That is not easy, it is not sexy, and it will take decades to put in place, but that is how we protect ourselves and our allies in the long term. That covers everything from investment and supply chains, to defending our multilaterals and the rule of law, upholding human rights, the independence of our educational institutions, and our culture and digital security. We must recalibrate.

    Technology and the democratisation of information have fundamentally changed geopolitics. We are at war at all times, and the best enemies are the ones we do not know are there. We do not know we are at war with them. The point was made earlier that conversations could be taking place with people radicalised and recruited without a single word being spoken aloud. We are not ready, whether that involves energy and food sources, business, culture, finance or the military. Hostile states are infiltrating us at all levels, and we must tackle that. We as Britain can convene our allies—our ability to convene partners is one of our greatest strengths—and work together towards a more resilient society. If we do not double down, defend and stop neglecting our international institutions, we will further embolden Russia. This is our responsibility if we want fair play and respect for the rules-based order.

    Alyn Smith

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that, on cyber-resilience especially, there is a lot of good work to build on, but that it needs more resource?

    Alicia Kearns

    Without question; the hon. Member is absolutely right. We are building those capabilities within the military, but they need to be cross-force and also need to bring in civilians, whether based in the Foreign Office or elsewhere. Back in 2016, I was in Ukraine training the Ukrainians how to conduct counter-disinformation operations and integrate that with cyber, and we have seen that work pay off—Members can look at what they did over the last few weeks.

    The lessons are clear. The decisions, defences and resilience that we implement now are what will defend us over the next 20 years. We need to make ourselves and our international alliances more resilient, because only in that way will we protect ourselves, return to moral leadership on the world stage, stop atrocities and be able to take a stand and protect ourselves from hostile states that will spend the next 20 years using their whole-state effort to undermine us and to hurt us.

  • Alyn Smith – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Alyn Smith – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Alyn Smith, the SNP MP for Stirling, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

    It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I have been struck by the thoughtfulness and decency of several contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am proud of the SNP’s role in these discussions. I am proud that, despite our domestic priorities and political differences, we have been able to work with the Government. I commend the Minister for the Armed Forces and Veterans on his opening speech, and the Defence Ministers on their openness and the way that they have worked with both sides of the House. That is genuine on our part.

    Hon. Members can be damn sure that the SNP is part of the international coalition in defence of Ukraine: we believe in freedom, democracy and human rights and we believe that we should be good neighbours who should not live in fear of bigger powers. Of course, therefore, we are part of that and where we agree with the UK Government, we have agreed, as my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) said. On military support and sanctions, we have been vocal in our support of the UK Government’s position. We have often urged greater efforts than we have seen, but we have supported them.

    The only big difference between our position and that of the UK Government is on refugees. We would like to have seen the UK emulate the EU’s approach of waiving visas for three years. We think that would have been proportionate and fair. Instead, we saw a Home Office system that the Scottish Government have made work in Scotland. I pay tribute to the many big-hearted people across Stirling, Scotland and the UK who have opened not just their hearts, but their homes to the people of Ukraine who really needed support at that time. I was in Killin a few weeks back, and I was really struck by the care and affection that locals have had for the people who are guests in the community, and I do commend them on their effort.

    It is right today that we take due stock of events in Ukraine. As we have heard, the conflict is at a pivotal moment. Ukraine is winning and the Kremlin is losing. We take no pleasure in that fact, but there is a justice to it, in that aggression is not successful and there have not been the results the Kremlin was hoping for. President Putin’s statement overnight came from a position of weakness, as we have heard. His nuclear blackmail and his activation of the reservists, breaking a promise that he made, come from a position of weakness, not strength. We must be vigilant to the true risks that are presented by the Kremlin’s aggression not just against Ukraine, but against the liberal international order.

    We must also be steadfast in support of the Ukrainians themselves. We need to redouble our efforts. They are winning, but they have not won yet, and I fear there is an awful lot of heartache ahead for the Ukrainians before we see a resolution. So I was glad to hear from the Minister that military training and the supply of matériel and intelligence support will continue, and it does so with wholehearted SNP support. We may have points of difference and we will seek greater information on some points, but we do support that very strongly. I was also glad to hear that the eventual negotiated outcome—because there will be an eventual negotiated outcome; there always is to every conflict—is going to be on Ukrainian terms. A prerequisite for any talks, which as we have heard must be set from Kyiv, not from anywhere else, must be the withdrawal of all Russian occupying forces from all sovereign Ukrainian territory, including of course Crimea.

    I say that the conflict is far from over, but I would suggest to the Government a few points that we need to continue and take forward, because we cannot take our foot off the pedal. We have heard mentioned already the Ukraine fatigue among the general population and among the media, and we must make sure that we are not succumbing to it as well. Ukraine continues to need our support.

    We need to keep sanctions under review. I will be taking part for the SNP in the next debate, when we will revisit sanctions. We do need to keep them under review, to make sure that loopholes are closed because loopholes are being exploited, and we do need to make sure that any opportunity to raise pressure on the kleptocrats is taken. That is an evolving situation.

    We also need to be honest about and to guard against the influence of dirty money at home now. The UK is vulnerable to this, and we have seen a belated start on this from the UK Government, with our support, but we need to see much more. Our financial and property systems are nowhere near as transparent as they need to be, and they are vulnerable to dirty money. The overseas territories are playing a role that needs greater scrutiny than they have had, and we need to continue those efforts. We have seen a belated start to that, but we need to see more.

    On looking after refugees here, I have mentioned that people have opened not just their hearts, but their homes, and they need more support. We have seen a paper chase of a system that I do not believe is fit for purpose, but people have now largely negotiated through it. However, where we have seen too much paper chase, we are now seeing too little money. We strongly support—and we would really urge the Government to take this forward—doubling the monthly payment to £700 a month, because energy costs and the increased costs of having guests are hurting people, and that needs to be taken care of.

    Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)

    To pick up the comments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), there is a cost to this for people in the UK. He was right that we have to be honest about that, and I think the hon. Member is also making that point. However, we also need to reinforce the point that there is a bigger cost to our constituents if we do nothing. Does he agree with me on that point, and that we really need to ensure that people see we are doing this for a much greater reason? All the points he is making about refugees are absolutely right, but we are trying to prevent something much wider and much more destructive.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. That was quite a long intervention and there is a time limit, so such interventions do prevent other people from having their allocation. If interventions are taken, it would be good if Members could still stick to their five minutes.

    Alyn Smith

    I thought it was an excellent intervention personally. I agree with it strongly, so I am very grateful for it. We do need to make the case on an ongoing basis for the support we are giving those in Ukraine, because it is not just their freedom, but ours. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

    We do need to see more accountability. I pay tribute to the UK for the support that it has given to the International Criminal Court and the Canadian co-ordination of these efforts, but we need to make war criminals and potential war criminals aware that there will be no amnesty and no hiding place. The UK can do more about that—the UK has a developed legal system and a number of practitioners who are very active in this field—so we need to put more resources into it. The SNP is part of this coalition. I am proud that we have been able to work together on this point, because this transcends boundaries and transcends politics, and that support will continue.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative MP for Chingford and Woodford Green, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

    I recognise that others want to speak, and I will try to be as brief as possible. In a way, this debate is simple, because it is ultimately about the sovereignty, independence and self-determination of the Ukrainian people. All else is but a support to that simple position, and everything we do must be about securing that.

    Back in the 19th century, Gladstone made a very simple statement, which should underwrite all that we do on the matter. When he spoke about the attack of the then Turkish empire on Moldavia and Wallachia, he said that there was no greater bulwark for freedom than the breasts of free men and women. That is the truth of where we are today, and that is what we see happening in Ukraine—free men and women fighting in their homeland for the defence of their families and of that freedom that we take for granted.

    That freedom is not free; it comes at a huge price, and not only in the violence and the desperate depredations of the war brought about by the despot Putin. We need to readjust our thinking about defence spending to ensure we have the right equipment to support those who face something similar in future. This comes at a big price for us as we go into the winter months. As has been said, President Putin faces disaster, and yet his actions show that he still believes he has one card up his sleeve: the ability to split the alliance as we get towards winter.

    It is interesting that, even though India is moving away from Putin, China is indifferent, in a way, to where he is, and there was condemnation at the UN General Assembly the other day, he still thinks that if he puts the pressure on, the west will begin to break. There is some indication of politicians in the west feeding that. The other day, senior politicians in Italy were talking about why we should reduce the sanctions, because they were hurting us more than they were hurting him. As has been mentioned, there has also been talk in some other eastern European countries. He thinks it is working and he wants to double down.

    I will make one small criticism. In her remarks, the US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, still talked about getting to a point where there can be negotiation and a negotiated settlement. I think that is quite wrong, because any talk about negotiation feeds Putin’s view that he will split the alliance. I would like to hear from the Government that we categorically believe that the only person who should ever be capable of talking about negotiation is Volodymyr Zelensky—not anyone in any country in the alliance, because all we do is help Putin. That is key to all that we do at the moment.

    To get through and make sure that we are stronger, all of us in the west, united, should surely talk to our public about the difficulties that they will face as a result of the war in Ukraine and of our need to support it despite those difficulties—the cost of living that we are trying to intervene on at the moment; the problems with energy costs and spikes; and the difficulties that they may see with higher food prices. We need to be honest with them.

    I say to the Minister that we need a second bit of honesty too. I intervened earlier about recognising that Russia sees tactical nuclear weapons as war-fighting weapons, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) also mentioned. That has always been part of Russia’s principal view. Instead of dancing around that sometimes and saying, “Well, we’re not going to be scared by rhetoric,” we should recognise that it is not rhetoric; they believe that to be the case. The question is whether they will decide to do it and whether the military will do it.

    Our answer to that must be to say, united, that if Putin ever does that, we will continue to bear down on him regardless and to give Ukraine the equipment and tools it deserves. If we are clear about that and about the possibilities, the public will be with us. It is when we surprise them by trying to say that there is no threat, when there is a major threat, that it is critical. We should be honest about that.

    Finally, China is watching. China invaded the South China sea and not a single thing was done about it. It has militarised it and very little was done about it. It is brutal to its own people at home and we have done very little about it. I simply say that the rules and lessons that we learn from Ukraine should have been learned in the 1930s. If we appease dictators who are hellbent on invasion and destruction, we lose the freedoms that we fought for. That is what this is all about.

  • Mick Whitley – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Mick Whitley – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Mick Whitley, the Labour MP for Birkenhead, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

    I join previous speakers in applauding the heroism and sacrifice of Ukrainian forces, who, in just a few short weeks, have liberated vast swathes of territory previously occupied by Russia. We cannot yet comprehend the scale of the suffering that is taking place in Russian-occupied Ukraine, but the widespread reports of war crimes and crimes against humanity that are emerging from the liberated territories serve as a potent reminder of why Putin must not be allowed to succeed in this criminal endeavour.

    I also pay tribute to the immense bravery of the thousands of Russian citizens who took to the streets yesterday in protest of the partial mobilisation of the army reserves. They did so in the full knowledge that they were defying the decrees of a regime that tolerates no dissent, and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with those who have been taken into custody.

    As a new and far more dangerous phase of the war begins, the UK must remain steadfast in its support for the struggle of the Ukrainian people, but as Putin once again forces the world to reckon with the spectre of nuclear war, we must also remain ever vigilant to the dangers of an escalation of the conflict. As President Biden told the UN General Assembly yesterday:

    “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

    While I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to providing military aid to Ukraine, I must tell Ministers that their responsibilities to the Ukrainian people extend far beyond the battlefield. In the early months and weeks of the war, the Government refused to follow the lead of our European friends and neighbours and waive visa requirements for refugees fleeing the onslaught. Now, Ukrainians who were promised safety and security in Britain face an uncertain future. Across the country as many as 50,000 Ukrainians could be homeless in the new year as a result of Ministers’ woeful failure to provide additional support or even the most basic clarity ahead of the ending of the initial six-month sponsorships.

    I have had the great privilege of meeting Ukrainian refugees who now live in my constituency, and meeting the families who have opened their homes and hearts to them. With the cost of living crisis hitting hard, I am afraid that many of those sponsorships will simply not be sustainable without additional support. Indeed, in some local authorities, fewer than a quarter of hosts are in a position to extend their guests’ stay beyond the first six months. Councils across the country are warning that the situation is reaching breaking point.

    This was an entirely foreseeable crisis, and it is, frankly, unforgiveable that Ministers have yet to come forward with a credible plan for what happens when a refugee’s initial six-month stay comes to an end. But it is not too late to act, so I urge the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that in situations where the relationship between hosts and guests remains viable, those sponsorships can continue. That must mean greatly increasing financial support for hosts, as Lord Harrington, the former refugees Minister, recommended last month. The Government must also acknowledge that community sponsorship was only ever intended as a short-term solution to an immediate crisis. To give Ukrainian refugees the longer-term support they need, we need to ensure that financial and logistical support is in place for the entirety of the three years for which they have received permission to stay.

    We also need to do more to support Ukrainian refugees in finding homes of their own. Far too many Ukrainian refugees have been left to fend for themselves in the cruel and uncaring world of the private rented sector. Too many landlords have been allowed to refuse Ukrainians tenancies simply because of where they have come from. Like millions of UK residents before them, refugees who have found work are finding that they simply cannot afford rip-off rents in the areas that they hope to call home. It is time for the Government to equip local authorities with the financial resources and powers that they need to act as guarantors for refugees who are searching for accommodation.

    Government Members speak regularly of the pride that they take in the support that the UK has offered Ukraine, as they have done today, but I warn them that their moral obligations will never be truly fulfilled until they can guarantee that not a single refugee is left without a home this winter.

  • Liam Fox – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Liam Fox – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

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

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

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

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

    “is not an era for war”.

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

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

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

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

    Mr Djanogly

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

    Dr Fox

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

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

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

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

  • Richard Foord – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Richard Foord – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Richard Foord, the Liberal Democrat MP for Tiverton and Honiton, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2022.

    The Ukrainian, Leon Trotsky, said:

    “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

    Leon Trotsky was previously a resident of Mykolaiv and Odessa. This phrase, uttered by Trotsky the communist revolutionary, has proven quite accurate for many people living in those parts of Ukraine in 2022.

    The Liberal Democrats must add to the chorus of condemnation in relation to Putin’s nuclear threats. President Joe Biden said, on the eve of the February invasion:

    “We have no intention of fighting Russia.”

    As Ukrainian courage and willingness to resist Russia’s occupation have grown, so has NATO’s willingness to supply materiel to Ukraine and so have Ukrainian ambitions grown in terms of how much of their country can be de-occupied.

    Putin claimed yesterday that, at the Istanbul talks in March this year, Ukraine’s representatives gave positive responses to Russia’s proposals. Putin claimed that a

    “peaceful settlement obviously did not suit the West, which is why, after certain compromises were coordinated, Kyiv was ordered to wreck all these agreements.”

    We in the UK should state plainly that Kyiv’s war aims are for Kyiv to formulate, independent of its friends and allies in the west.

    Some have said that, without NATO, Ukraine would not prosper militarily in the way that Ukraine appears to be doing, and that we in the west need to determine our own end state, our own strategy, and then influence the Ukrainians. I would counter that we must make it plain to Putin and the wider world that it is the Ukrainian Government who are making all the decisions.

    We need to be straightforward about the fallacy of Putin’s narrative that Kyiv is “receiving orders” from western advisers, as he puts it.

    Putin said yesterday:

    “Some irresponsible Western politicians are doing more than just speak about their plans to organize the delivery of long-range offensive weapons to Ukraine…Washington, London and Brussels are openly encouraging Kiev to move the hostilities to our territory.”

    I suggest that it would be simple for the Minister to correct that misinformation and to state that London has offered our allies in Kyiv no encouragement to strike Russia within its own borders. Rather, we should expose Putin’s rhetoric by stating categorically that the UK’s multiple-launch rocket system is supplied on condition that it is not used to strike anything within Russia’s internationally recognised borders.

    It was mentioned earlier that some of us on the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine were hosted last week in Kyiv by Yalta European Strategy. I joined that APPG visit and, like the hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), I was interviewed on Ukrainian television. I offered viewers of Priamyi TV reassurance that the change in the UK of both the Head of State and the Prime Minister within just a few days would not disrupt the support the UK gives to Ukraine.

    Political parties across this House have united in opposition to Putin’s brutal and illegal war of conquest. The Liberal Democrats will back the steps necessary to ensure that the light of freedom and democracy continues to burn in Kyiv. It was striking last week to look into the eyes of counterpart MPs from the Ukrainian Parliament, the Rada. Like others on the Ukraine APPG, I was struck by how fiercely independent those parliamentarians we met are—they would be unwilling to take orders from anyone, be it Russia, Europe or anywhere else.

    Some Members of this House may not be interested in war. Given that war risks being, as Trotsky said, interested in us, I urge those colleagues who do have some bearing on the situation to stand firm in the face of aggression and threats. Then we should hope that Ukraine shows magnanimity in its dealings with Russia, so that it may bring this sorry episode to a close.

  • Julian Lewis – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Julian Lewis – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP for New Forest East, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

    I begin by congratulating the three Front-Bench spokesmen on the eloquence and unanimity that has been displayed. In studying the depravity of dictators, one quickly understands that cynicism has no limits and hypocrisy no boundaries. Putin likes to draw parallels with the second world war, and there are indeed parallels to be drawn. For example, the false flag operations go back to the very outbreak of that war. On 31 August 1939, Hitler would have had it that the war began because Poles attacked a radio station at Gleiwitz, on the east German border. They were in fact Nazis dressed up in Polish uniforms, and they even left the dead bodies of concentration camp victims as props in that scheme. It is a sign that Putin’s comparisons are insufficiently accurate or insufficiently free of hypocrisy that he does not recognise that what started that war was Stalin’s pact with the Nazis to divide up Poland between them.

    This is necessarily a short debate, which is just as well, because I side with those who do not think it is a very good idea for us to discuss military strategy in an ongoing campaign on the Floor of this House. What we can observe is that one complicating factor in a dictatorship such as Putin’s Russia is that there are no mechanisms whereby a leader who is unethical, irresponsible, incompetent and indeed murderous can constitutionally be removed. That has to be a factor in our considerations.

    If it were not too flippant, I would be tempted to remark that it is truly a sign of desperation and indeed substandard propaganda that a cheerleader for Putin yesterday threatened a nuclear strike on London if we continue to help Ukraine defend territory that is being illegally annexed. Given the extent of the property portfolios of so many of Putin’s oligarchs in the centre of this great city, they would, I think, have a word or two of objection to a Russian strategy of that sort.

    The beginning of the invasion left quite a few people thinking that resistance was unlikely to be successful. Indeed, it probably would not have been successful but for the supply of complex weapons systems that had taken place since the earlier invasion of Crimea. As a result, we have seen the Russians’ air arm neutralised, the Russian fleet’s major surface unit in the area sunk, tanks and other vehicles destroyed, and ground troops decimated. The only tactic that has been left to the Russian dictator has been the physical destruction—usually by long-range artillery—of territory that the Russians cannot take and hold.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

    I totally agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend. I am sure this is happening, but combat supplies and spare parts need to be reinforced, because complex weapon systems go wrong and need to be repaired. While we are at it, as we come into winter, it would be good to provide the Ukrainian armed forces with simple little things such as face masks so they can go through the winter, because they probably do not have them.

    Dr Lewis

    Not for the first time, my right hon. and gallant Friend anticipates my next but one point. I will make the next point first, which is that, because the only tactic left is destruction, the area of doubt is how far Putin will go. Will he simply think that by escalating destruction, the Ukrainians will suddenly say, “We can’t take any more of this and we’re going to surrender”? Surely the events of the past months have shown that any such approach would be completely counterproductive. The more he behaves atrociously, the stronger the resistance will be and rightly so.

    My right hon. and gallant Friend referred to the supplies that we give. Of course it is greatly to the credit of the previous Government and, indeed, the previous Prime Minister, who spoke earlier in this debate, that we have given such substantial supplies, but in giving those supplies, we have seriously depleted our own stocks. What I need to hear from the Minister is that a full-scale effort is being made and will be increased to ensure that the more we give, the higher our rate of replacement will be, because an effort cannot be sustained if the people who are resisting run out of supplies.

    Finally, it would be remiss of me to conclude any debate about defence without making a reference to the need to reach 3% of GDP. We have made progress: we now have a pledge to reach 3% of GDP by 2030, but the situation in 2030 is a long way away—it is longer than the second world war, with which I began. We need to reach it sooner than that.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Stephen Kinnock – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP for Aberavon, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

  • Tobias Ellwood – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Tobias Ellwood – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Tobias Ellwood, the Independent MP for Bournemouth East, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

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

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

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

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

    Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)

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

    Mr Ellwood

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

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

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

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

  • Stewart McDonald – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Stewart McDonald – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Stewart McDonald, the SNP MP for Glasgow South, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

    I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    I nodded along in agreement with much of what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) said. I think it fair to say that when the February invasion took place, he and his Government, particularly the Defence Ministers on the Front Bench today, got the calls on Ukraine right. It is important to acknowledge that. Based on his remarks, I think he will do well in his new role as my warm-up act here in the Chamber.

    I pay tribute to the new Under-Secretary of State for Defence—the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who is not in her place right now—and congratulate those colleagues who have managed to stay in position amid the many changes. I also wish the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) well as the new Minister for Security. He was formerly the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a member; I think we will be in for various auditions for his replacement as this afternoon’s debate goes on.

    Before I come to the crux of my remarks, I should also draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    It was a pleasure, just two weeks ago, to be back in Ukraine and back in Kyiv—with some colleagues who I hope we shall hear from this afternoon—a country and a city that I have come to know and love over a few years now. On this occasion I was there to attend the annual YES—Yalta European Strategy—conference, which brings together civil society, political leaders, military leaders, academics, and others from around Europe to discuss Ukrainian and European security. There were many facets to the fascinating set of discussions that we had during the two days that our delegation spent there. It was also a real pleasure to meet members of Ukraine’s armed forces—who have so heroically not just fought for their country, but fought for what we all stand for and have cherished since 1945—and of course, the man himself, President Volodymyr Zelensky, who, as the former Prime Minister said, embodies everything that is noble in Europe right now.

    Here we are, seven months on from this wave of a war that started in 2014, in which we have witnessed a level of barbarism and butchery that few of us could have imagined. Hospitals, schools and people’s homes have been the targets. We have seen, in Bucha and also more recently, evidence of some of the most heinous war crimes imaginable.

    Wera Hobhouse

    I did not have the opportunity to ask the former Prime Minister about his commitment to treating sexual crimes as war crimes. Can we all, on both sides of the House—including the hon. Gentleman—come together in viewing sexual violence as a war crime like any other?

    Stewart Malcolm McDonald

    Yes, I think we can come together and agree on that. I am sure that other colleagues will want to discuss it in great detail.

    So here we are, seven months on from this invasion, and—as was mentioned by the former Prime Minister—much in the world has changed. Sweden and Finland have joined NATO, unity among western countries is something like never before, and, indeed, unity in this House is something like never before. In fact, we may have been only partly joking with our Ukrainian counterparts, during a recent visit, in saying that supporting Ukraine might well be the only issue that unites this House. Given the noises coming from the new Government, I suspect that that will be even more the case, but it is important for that unity to be maintained and developed in support of Ukraine.

    Back in February the German Federal Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, told us that not just his country but all of Europe was at a turning point: a Zeitenwende, as they say in Germany. Seven months on, however, it seems to me less like a turning point and more like Gramsci’s interregnum, in which the old is dying but the new cannot yet be born. At the moment, we are in a messy flux. While I think that the unity of purpose that we have is serving us well to get through the tumult that we are going through and Ukraine is going through, I also think that there is much in our own record—the record of all of us in the House and across the west—that we need to assess, going back, yes, to 2014, but also to 2008. I have to say to the former Prime Minister that we should consider the issue of how Russian money has been treated in this country.

    I think it takes a lot to admit it when one has got things wrong, and I think it only fair that we, as staunch partisans at times, give our opponents the space to make that admission. It is easier said than done, but if the new world that is incubating in the messy time in which we are currently living is to be born, that is the way in which I think we have to approach it.

    There is another important point to be made. As the winter bites and energy prices go through the roof, and as what in some quarters has been called “Ukraine fatigue” may start to settle in, there is a particular group of people in society of whom I think we should be mindful: those whom the Germans call the Putinversteher, the “Putin whisperers”, who would seek to apologise for, or contextualise, or somehow make excuses for Russian “legitimate” interests in Ukraine. They should be thoroughly ignored. Since the February invasion, they have, temporarily and rather embarrassingly, been silent, but they are undoubtedly starting to rear their heads again.

    Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)

    Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of those people are being fed by Putin’s cyber-warfare and that this country and our allies really need to invest in counter-offensive material?

    Stewart Malcolm McDonald

    Yes, I agree. The hon. Lady is absolutely spot on. One of the most insidious arguments from that particular group—and they can be found on the extreme left or the extreme right, in every country and in Parliaments, National Assemblies, the media, think-tanks and elsewhere—is that we should stop arming Ukraine. I am sure that I speak for everyone that I was in Ukraine with recently when I say that we could see and hear up close what a difference arming Ukraine is making.

    That support has to continue for three main reasons, which I will outline as briefly as possible. First, I do not believe that it is possible to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. We should look at his record not just in Ukraine right now but in Georgia and Syria. This is a Government who practise the famous double-tap strike, whereby the Russian armed forces hit an area, wait for the first responders to arrive and then hit it again. I do not think that it is possible to negotiate with a regime that carries itself in that way.

    The former Prime Minister is absolutely right to say—this is another important point—that anything we do going forward has to be on President Zelensky’s terms. Ukrainians do not want to negotiate with the regime in the Kremlin. We only have to look at the sheer joy on their faces when Ukrainian armed forces turn up in their towns and villages to liberate them and save them what has been experienced in Bucha, Mariupol and Kherson. The emotional scenes that we have seen and, I am sure, will continue to see tell us that we have got our support for Ukraine right. They should also put paid to the ideas of extremists—that is the only way to describe them—who would seek to divvy up Ukraine on a map. I would love to hear them tell me which towns they would like to see handed over to the Kremlin.

    When we were in Ukraine, we met a young 15-year-old guy and his father. I am sure that Members will have read about Andriy Pokrasa and his father. When Russians were surrounding his village, he had the bravery and ingenuity to launch his own drone into the air to take photographs of Russian positions and send them to the Ukrainian armed forces. Members can imagine what happened to those Russian positions soon afterwards. He is now back at school studying. It was an honour to meet him. I would love to see one of these armchair extremists tell him that he should instead have gone out and negotiated with the Russians at the end of his street. Imagine what would have happened had he been caught. They knew the danger, but still they did everything they could to defend not just their own hometown but their country as well.

    Lastly, the war is not just a war on territory. It is a war on values, liberalism, democracy, sovereignty and everything that we have cherished since 1945. I do not think that that is the kind of thing that can be negotiated away lightly. The Putin whisperers must be ignored. They must feel the complete contempt of those of us who want to see Ukraine win. The war could stop tomorrow if Russia stopped fighting, but if Ukraine stops fighting, the country will cease to exist. A Russian victory would be a disaster for everyone in Europe, and it is something that we should not even consider. Russian soldiers and now this latest group of conscripts will be fighting solely for their wages, while Ukrainian soldiers fight for their future and for ours. We all remain united in this House. Ukraine must win. We must continue to support them. And it is in that vein that I offer that support to the Government this afternoon.