To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Ukraine about proposals for the United Kingdom to provide a security guarantee to that country.
My Lords, a strong sovereign Ukraine is essential for Euro-Atlantic security and the UK’s national security. The UK is steadfast in our support for Ukraine. When the war ends, Ukraine will need to be secure against Russian aggression. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister signed the 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which builds on our bilateral security agreement signed last year, strengthening our security co-operation and forging closer links between our defence industries.
While recognising the sheer bravado of those who executed Operation Spider Web, we have to accept that action has undermined Trump’s wider initiative, jeopardised his offer on the provision of security guarantees and hardened Russia’s attitude to conflict resolution. How can we ever secure a settlement and avoid substantial defence costs being imposed on European taxpayers if Zelensky is allowed to run amok with unilateral actions, thereby scuppering any prospect of an early settlement? With our long experience in diplomacy, why can we not think outside the box and engage with Trump’s people in discussions with Russia over measures to end this war? We cannot rely on Zelensky—he is out of control.
My Lords, not for the first time do I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord. We have a long-standing commitment, which will remain for as long as it takes, to stand alongside Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is our security. We have a responsibility and a duty to the people of Ukraine, many of whom are living here with us still, and we are very pleased to welcome them.
I completely reject the noble Lord’s analysis of the events he referred to, as do my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. We speak all the time to our friends and allies in the United States about this. President Trump wants to see peace, we want to see peace, and President Zelensky has agreed to a ceasefire. The person who could achieve that ceasefire, who could bring peace to Ukraine and who could see the children returned to their homes is President Putin.
My Lords, from these Benches, I completely agree with the Minister’s sentiments. I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is absolutely wrong, and all of us who are strong supporters of Ukraine were greatly encouraged by the recent audacious attack on the Russian airfields—in which nobody was killed, by the way; it was just equipment that was damaged.
To secure Ukrainian sovereignty in the longer term, it is vital that Ukraine possesses armed forces which have a strong, strategic and tactical advantage in the region. So, I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the steps that the Government are taking to support the Ukrainian military to ensure that it has troops that are well trained and well equipped in the longer term, to a high standard, to help deter further Russian aggression.
We will continue to provide the £3 billion a year to Ukraine for as long as it is needed. Future defence and security co-operation is included in the 100-year partnership, and we have the coalition of the willing initiative as well, which is specifically designed to provide security assurance to Ukraine as we move forward, hopefully soon after the establishment of a ceasefire.
My Lords, has the Minister noticed any reticence or reluctance on the part of President Putin to killing Ukrainian civilians while so-called peace talks continue? Has she identified any actions at all on the part of the American Administration to try to compel President Putin down that path of reticence?
I have not noticed any reticence on behalf of the Russian leader in that regard. I repeat that we talk frequently and in great detail about how we work together with our friends and allies, including the United States, to bring about peace.
My Lords, on these Benches we associate ourselves highly with the Minister’s initial response. One of the reasons why Ukraine will require long-term reassurance with security is the way they see their prisoners of war being brutalised, abused and mistreated in Russia. My noble friend Lady Suttie and I met with the leadership of the Ukrainian prisoner of war authority just before the Recess, and we were briefed on the horrendous treatment that is being applied to them, including the denial of human rights and Red Cross access. Will the Minister agree with me that the time is right now to send a very strong signal, by sanctioning those authorities in Russia that are denying the prisoners of war their very basic human rights?
First of all, I thank the noble Lord for the commitment that he and his party have shown to Ukraine. It is pleasing that he is taking part in the meetings that he has described. One of the things that encourages us all is the united way in which we in this House and across politics in this country and elsewhere are able to stand together on these issues.
On the issue of sanctions, he is always keen to encourage us to go further. He knows that I will not be commenting on the specific request that he has made, but I thank him for always continuing to push the Government to do more and go further and faster on sanctions, and I hope he can see that we respond whenever we can to that encouragement.
My Lords, how effective can security guarantees be without some form of US participation? It is surely not a strong argument to say that some US personnel will be involved in mining their minerals, so what is the current position of the US Administration?
My noble friend is right that US involvement in the security guarantees is going to be essential. We continue to talk about this with our friends and allies in the US.
My Lords, it may be unpopular, but the Russians do actually believe they have a case. If we are going to get peace, we have to get a neutral arbiter in there to try to start negotiations. The word that is missing is “Europe”. What are the Government doing to call together our European allies in the European Union to try to move forward towards a constructive dialogue that could lead to some peace?
I have not known the noble Lord for all that long, but I do not think that being popular is something that he troubles himself about too much when he makes his positions known, and I respect that. The territorial integrity of Ukraine and the extent to which that forms part of any negotiated outcome needs to be the result of a negotiation that has Ukraine at the centre of it, and it is not actually for us to tell Ukraine what it needs to accept by way of outcome, or to make points about Russia’s right, or otherwise. Russia has invaded Ukraine; it was wrong that it did that. It could bring about peace and begin negotiations now; it is choosing not to do that. So, as the noble Lord says, we will work with our friends in the European Union to support any efforts that we can to bring that about.
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I am strongly committed to Europe—we set up Cambridge for Europe together. However, I wonder what the Minister thinks the message would be to our friends and partners in eastern Europe, particularly the Baltic states and Poland, if we were somehow to turn away from Ukraine or send a message from this place that we are somehow not united—because we need to be united.