The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Thursday 24 April.
“I thank the right honourable Lady for her question and for the Opposition’s continued support for the united position that we take in our iron-clad support for Ukraine. We remain fully committed to working with Ukraine and our international partners to secure a just and lasting peace.
Our support for Ukraine is iron-clad. Representatives of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States convened in London yesterday, with Ukraine, for another round of intensive talks, following up on the meeting in Paris last week. All parties reiterated their strong support for President Trump’s commitment to stopping the killing and achieving a just and lasting peace. The talks were productive and successful, and significant progress was made on reaching a common position on next steps. All agreed to continue their close co-ordination and look forward to further talks soon. There was an E3 statement on this just last night. The Foreign Secretary had bilateral discussions with Foreign Minister Sybiha, and he remains in close contact with his ministerial counterparts. To give further details of the discussions would only benefit Putin, as I hope the right honourable Lady understands.
We condemn Russia’s brutal missile and drone attacks on civilians, including overnight. Our thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones at this tragic time. They were absolutely horrific scenes, and they came on the back of shocking scenes not only in Kyiv but in Kryvyi Rih, Sumy, Marhanets and many other locations across Ukraine in recent days. I remind the House that, while Ukraine has been in peace talks, Russia has continued these severe attacks, including last night. That is a stark reminder of the continued bloodshed and aggression perpetrated by Putin. I witnessed myself the terrible situation in Kyiv when I visited just weeks ago; there were attacks on Bucha of all places just hours before I arrived. Indeed, this is about not just the killings but the continued shocking abductions of children and attempts to wipe out Ukrainian culture. Putin’s demands remain undiminished. We are very clear about that.
President Zelensky has shown his commitment to peace. President Putin must now agree to a full and immediate ceasefire without conditions, as Ukraine has done. We will not stop in our efforts to work with all parties to that end”.
My Lords, I have said it before, but I will say it again: these Benches are supportive of the Government’s action, continuing the work that we started in government, in full support of and solidarity with the people of Ukraine. This morning has seen an announcement from Putin of another temporary ceasefire. Time will tell as to whether this is just another cynical Russian delaying tactic, but I will be interested in the Government’s views on this development. Also, will the noble Baroness update the House on the progress of the so-called coalition of the willing? It seems to have gone quiet recently. Is this initiative still progressing and what role does she see it playing in any eventual peace settlement?
I thank the noble Lord for again stating his support for and solidarity with the Government on the issue of Ukraine. What do we think about Putin’s claims for a ceasefire? There is an option open to the Russian leadership which would lead to a ceasefire immediately. They do not have to promise one on a particular day or in a few days’ time; they could do it now. We could find no evidence of the ceasefire they said they were going to have at Easter, so we are sceptical. On the coalition of the willing, it is the right approach, and it continues. We do not do a running commentary on every piece of negotiation or diplomacy, and the noble Lord will understand why that is, but this Government—and, all credit to them, the Opposition—remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine.
The Easter truce seemed to be an opportunity for Vladimir Putin and his Government to trawl Hansard and work out which Members of the other place and your Lordships’ House needed to be sanctioned, so I start by declaring my interest as one of the people sanctioned by the Russian Government last week. I believe I have simply been doing my job as the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson in your Lordships’ House, standing shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainians, the official Opposition and the Government in saying that we must support Ukraine for as long as this war takes.
I certainly do not intend to change the rhetoric I have been using, but let me outline one of my concerns. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, initially there was international concern, but nobody now talks about the fact that Russia still occupies 20% of the territory. If some negotiated solution were to occur on the basis of the current Russian occupation of Ukraine, that, again, would involve about 20% of the territory. What signal does that send to Poland, the Baltic states and other Russian neighbours? Does it not say that we really need to keep standing up and supporting Ukraine, and stop Russia?
Our position on the territorial integrity of Ukraine is unchanged. On the issue of negotiated outcomes, we remain of the view that that is for Ukraine to decide and not for others to determine. As far as the sanctions against parliamentarians goes, I would wear that as a badge of honour if I were the noble Baroness. She does a very good job for her party and for the country when she stands up in this place and elsewhere in support of Ukraine, and although she does not need me to, I urge her to continue to do so.
My Lords, it is clear what advice President Trump is giving to President Zelensky in relation to the proposed plan. Does our advice to President Zelensky differ in any way from that of President Trump?
My noble friend is a wily operator in this House. We agree with the President of the United States in that we want to see peace and we want to see this conflict resolved. I would not characterise the nature of the conversations that Prime Minister Starmer has with President Zelensky as advice, and nor would I wish to comment on the similarities and differences—or anything else, really—in the nature of those private conversations.
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the objective of President Putin in these matters is to bar Ukraine from ever being a member of NATO—in eternity—because were it to be encapsulated in an agreement under international law, Russia would have a veto on it? If that is the case, how does she consider that consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, which says that a member of the United Nations has the right to determine its own allies when it wishes?
As we have said in this Chamber many times, the intention of Russia is clearly to prevent Ukraine behaving as an independent sovereign state: it wants to choose Ukraine’s future for it, and that really is what this war is all about. We are firm in the view that Ukraine and the Ukrainians get to decide the future of their country, not Russia.
My Lords, we know that there is not the slightest chance of negotiation while Russia continues its systematic murder of Ukrainians. That is obvious, but does the Minister agree that, even if it came to some kind of initial negotiation, it will be bound to lay down only temporary arrangements of any kind because nobody can be trusted—and if it comes to the ceding of land, very temporary? These things will be under constant dispute for years ahead. But does she recall that two or three years ago, Moscow announced that it approved the idea of Luhansk and Donetsk as separate “independent” republics. Did that come into the negotiation, the discussion, at any point in recent days? It was not mentioned in the other place, yet I feel it is a piece of the jigsaw that may lead to possibilities.
I do not know, is the honest answer to that question. I do not think it would be helpful for us to pick over the details of what is said in these conversations, but we have a very clear position on the territorial integrity of Ukraine being sacrosanct and it being for the Ukrainians to determine the future geography of their country. That is a clear position and one we need to stick to and continue to restate.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, that position is very honourable, but the Minister said a moment ago that Russia should not determine the future of Ukraine. Should the United States?
It is for the people of Ukraine to determine their own future. That has been the bedrock of the position of this Government from the very beginning, and I do not see that changing.
My Lords, while it is understandable that the Minister cannot say too much about the coalition of the willing, one thing is very clear: we will need feet on the ground in due course for peace in Ukraine. Might we start giving some thought to how we can raise the additional resources that will be needed there, and how we approach this? Maybe we should be talking about a peace corps and peace groups, rather than talking in old war terms; that might attract more people into the forces.