The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Affairs Before I start, I welcome the right hon. Member for
Tottenham (Mr Lammy) to his new role, and I welcome my hon. Friend
the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) to his new position
as Minister for Europe. I want to update the House on what we are
doing to tackle Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine. In December I
set out how, together with our allies, we will build a network of
liberty to...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Affairs
Before I start, I welcome the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr
Lammy) to his new role, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Member
for Daventry () to his new position as
Minister for Europe.
I want to update the House on what we are doing to tackle
Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine. In December I set out how,
together with our allies, we will build a network of liberty to
ensure that democracy does not just survive but thrives. Of
course, as a free, democratic country in Europe, Ukraine is a
crucial priority. Thirty years ago, Britain was one of the first
countries to recognise Ukraine’s independence, and today our
commitment to Ukraine is unwavering. We stand with our friend
against hostile actors. We will defend democracy at the frontier
of freedom in Eastern Europe and around the world. Britain and
its allies made this clear at NATO in November and at the G7,
which I hosted in Liverpool last month. Any Russian military
incursion into Ukraine would be a massive strategic mistake and
would come at a severe cost.
We will not accept the campaign Russia is waging to subvert its
democratic neighbours. It is accompanied by baseless rhetoric and
disinformation. The Russians have falsely cast Ukraine as a
threat to justify their aggressive stance, and they falsely
accuse NATO of provocation. This could not be further from the
truth. Ukraine’s restraint has been commendable, and NATO has
always been a defensive alliance. Russia is the aggressor here.
It has amassed a huge number of troops along the Ukrainian border
and in illegally annexed Crimea.
There is no justification whatsoever for Russia’s bellicose
stance towards Ukraine. It is unprovoked, and it is part of a
wider pattern of behaviour by the Kremlin, reliant on
disinformation and mistrust to seek to gain the upper hand.
Moscow has long run a campaign to subvert freedom and democracy
in Ukraine, from the invasion of 2014 to cyberattacks,
disinformation and the weaponisation of energy supplies. At the
same time, Moscow is backing the repressive actions of the
Lukashenko regime in Belarus, sowing the seeds of discord in the
western Balkans and threatening our friends in the Baltics.
I urge Russia to end its malign activity and stick to what has
been agreed. That means the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, in which
Russia signed up to dispute resolution by dialogue rather than
force. It means the 1994 Budapest memorandum on security
assurances, in which Russia agreed to uphold Ukraine’s
territorial integrity. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in
exchange for this security guarantee. And it means the 2014 Minsk
protocol, in which all parties agreed to a ceasefire in the
Donbass region. These agreements, based on the principles of
freedom, democracy and the rule of law, must be upheld.
The free world must rise to meet this moment. Britain is stepping
up and leading by example. I have spoken out against Russian
aggression at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in
Europe and NATO, and bilaterally with Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov. Last month I chaired a meeting of the G7 Foreign
Ministers in Liverpool. We called on Russia to de-escalate,
pursue diplomatic channels and abide by its commitments on the
transparency of military activities. We made it clear that any
further military incursion into Ukraine would bring massive
consequences, including co-ordinated sanctions to impose a severe
cost on Russia’s interests and economy. The UK is working with
our partners on these sanctions, including high-impact measures
targeting the Russian financial sector and individuals.
We are also providing crucial economic and security support to
Ukraine. I am working closely with Foreign Minister Kuleba. I
spoke to him on Tuesday, and last month I welcomed him to London
for high-level talks. We are helping Ukraine to strengthen its
defences with joint exercises and maritime support and by
training over 20,000 members of its army, with more to come. We
are ramping up support for trade in priority areas such as
technology and clean energy to £3.5 billion. This includes £1.7
billion to boost Ukraine’s naval capability. I look forward to
visiting Kiev later this month. We are also supporting stability
in the western Balkans, where the Prime Minister has appointed
Sir Stuart Peach as special envoy. In Belarus, we were the first
European country to put sanctions on the Lukashenko regime, and
we were also the first to send in engineers to assist Poland.
This next week will be absolutely critical for peace and security
in Europe. Tomorrow I will join an extraordinary meeting of NATO
Foreign Ministers. The US-Russia dialogue begins on Sunday,
followed by the NATO-Russia Council on Wednesday and the OSCE
Permanent Council on Thursday. We will be in talks on the basis
of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. It is vital that NATO
is united in pushing back against Russia’s threatening behaviour.
Together we must hold Russia to its longstanding obligations.
There can be no rewards for aggression.
Finally, Europe must reduce its dependence on Russian gas.
Britain remains opposed to Nord Stream 2, and I am working with
allies and partners to highlight the strategic risks of this
project. We are reaching a crucial moment. The only way forward
is for Russia to de-escalate and pursue a path of diplomacy. We
will continue to stand together with our allies, steadfast in
support of Ukraine and its future as a free and sovereign
democracy. I commend this statement to the House.
11.56am
I thank the Secretary of State for her warm words as I take up
this post. I am also grateful for advance sight of her statement
and for the briefing that she has given me on Privy Council
terms.
Let me begin by saying that on this side of the House there is
absolutely no doubt about the threat posed by the current Russian
regime to our own national security and to that of our allies and
other countries in the region. It is Russia’s actions that are
driving this dangerous escalation of tensions. We face a moment
of acute danger, with more than 100,000 troops massed on the
border and alarming rhetoric and unreasonable demands emerging
from the Kremlin. We know that Putin is not afraid to act to
undermine Ukraine’s integrity, overtly or covertly.
The situation remains fraught with risk. It is right that this
whole House should send a clear and unified message today that we
fully support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,
and that Russian action to further undermine this will be met
with severe consequences. We must be crystal clear in our
commitment to NATO and to the security of our allies. That
commitment must be unshakeable. It is also right that we support
dialogue to achieve de-escalation consistent with the security of
our NATO allies and the integrity of Ukraine. We welcome the
crucial ongoing diplomatic efforts from President Biden,
Secretary General Stoltenberg and others. It is important that
Ukraine is fully engaged in the diplomatic processes, and I
understand that the Foreign Secretary has spoken to her
counterpart. Has the Prime Minister spoken to President Zelensky?
Does the right hon. Lady agree that Russia’s proposed treaties
make unreasonable demands and are completely incompatible with
the sovereignty of NATO allies and the independence of
Ukraine?
These developments remind us of the importance of security in our
own backyard in Europe. What consultations has the Foreign
Secretary had with European partners and with the European Union,
which will be crucial to the strength of any sanctions regime and
to ending dependence on Russian gas?
The Foreign Secretary spoke about severe economic consequences
for Russia should it act against Ukraine, but we all know that
the ongoing role that the UK plays in international money
laundering and illicit finance is important in that regard. For
too long, our country has been a soft touch for corrupt elites
that help to sustain the Putin regime. Will she commit to a
renewed effort to tackle that threat and finally implement the
Russia report?
Finally, may I ask for the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of
developments in Kazakhstan, not least because we have seen
reports of deaths in the past two hours? For too long,
Kazakhstan’s Government have been unaccountable to its people.
Does she agree that the people of Kazakhstan have the right to
choose their own Government without interference or intimidation
from their Government or from outside forces, and that it would
be deeply troubling to see another example of Russian-backed
forces overtly or covertly seeking to quell democratic movements
in other independent countries, with scant regard for human
rights?
I welcome the support of the right hon. Gentleman and of the
Opposition for Ukraine and for the importance of maintaining its
sovereignty, territorial integrity and democracy. I look forward
to working with him and his colleagues to show the strong support
of the United Kingdom House of Commons at this important time.
That support is very welcome.
I can confirm that the Prime Minister has spoken to President
Zelensky. I am in regular touch with Minister Kuleba, the Foreign
Minister of Ukraine; in fact, I met him at the NATO summit last
year, as well as when he visited in December. I will shortly be
travelling to Ukraine as well.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of Moscow’s
completely unreasonable demands. I am absolutely clear that in
the face of this aggression we should not see any concessions
made. The important thing is that we make sure that Moscow is
following the commitments that it has made in agreements. In the
1994 Budapest agreement, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its
nuclear weapons, it was agreed that Russia would stand behind
Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. That must be
upheld and Moscow must be held to account.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about working with the EU and
other partners. I had a call with Josep Borrell over the
Christmas period; he was at the G7, and the UK co-ordinated a G7
statement making it very clear that all the G7 back the stance
that is being taken. I have also had a number of calls with other
European counterparts, including Ann Linde, who was then chairing
the OSCE; the role has now passed to Minister Rau, and I will
shortly be visiting Poland. The UK is very engaged, and all our
allies stand together in repudiating the disinformation that we
are seeing coming from Moscow. We stand together in backing
Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Kazakhstan. We are concerned
by the violent clashes in Kazakhstan, and we are following
developments very closely. Our thoughts are with those who have
lost their lives in what has happened, and we condemn the acts of
violence and destruction of property in Almaty. We will
co-ordinate further with our allies on what further steps we
should take.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement—her clear
statement that this country and this Government stand against the
Russian aggression that we see not just in Ukraine but in
Georgia; against some of the Baltic nations; and, via Belarus,
against countries such as Poland, Latvia and Lithuania through
the use of migration as a weapon against free people.
Among the conversations that my right hon. Friend has had—I
welcome those she listed—has she spoken to our German and French
colleagues about training teams in Ukraine? Has she spoken to
those who are part of the Normandy process about involving a
British representative in that process? Has she spoken to
Secretary-General Stoltenberg about the fact, which we all
recognise but needs to be stated more clearly, that NATO is a
free association of free people to defend freedom? It is not an
aggressive alliance; it is a defensive alliance. There was no
agreement by any party or any nation to prevent any free people
from joining the NATO defensive pact in 1991 or, indeed, at any
time. Let me be clear: President Putin is lying when he says that
there was. It is not true.
Will my right hon. Friend please work with NATO partners to make
sure that free countries and free peoples who wish to guarantee
that freedom through a defensive alliance can do so as part of
NATO, whether they are threatened by Russia today or, like Sweden
and Finland, have been threatened in the past?
I thank my hon. Friend for his points. I have been working
closely with my French and German counterparts to tackle this
issue. Tomorrow, we have a virtual meeting of the NATO Foreign
Ministers at which, again, we will be co-ordinating ahead of the
meetings next week—namely, the meetings between Russia and the
United States, but also the Russia-NATO meeting.
We are all very clear that NATO is a defensive alliance. Joining
NATO is a sovereign decision for NATO and relevant applicant
states; it is not a decision for Russia, which has no auspices
over it whatsoever. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point
out the disinformation that has been coming from the Kremlin on
this subject. Jens Stoltenberg, with whom I have also been
co-ordinating, will make a very strong statement about NATO and
its purpose and reaffirm the fact that it is a defensive alliance
to support the countries within it.
Happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to colleagues
throughout the House.
I am grateful for advance sight of the Foreign Secretary’s
statement, which I welcome, as far as it goes. I have to say, in
a constructive spirit, that I do not find much new in the
statement, but I do welcome the fact that we are having this
discussion, because the Russian Government’s actions are
concerning. There is a pattern of behaviour in the Baltic states,
the Balkans, central Asia and Belarus; the manipulation of energy
markets; and disinformation. On Ukraine especially, the SNP will
be part of the coalition to defend Ukraine and international
law—the Foreign Secretary has our support on that.
I urge the Foreign Secretary to go a bit further. She mentioned
financial consequences to the continued incursion into Ukraine;
will she confirm today that the suspension of Russia from the
SWIFT payment system is on the table and will be a consequence?
That would be a top-level sanction that would take effect and
have an influence.
In a constructive spirit—I have already said that the SNP
supports the Foreign Secretary’s efforts—I urge her to heed
seriously what the Labour spokesperson, the right hon. Member for
Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said about the implementation of the Russia
report. Her own credibility in the eyes of Moscow is surely
weakened by the fact that so many members of her own party are in
hock to dirty Russian money. There are Members of the House of
Lords who simply should not be there, having bought their places
in the legislature of these islands. The Intelligence and
Security Committee raised serious concerns about the extent to
which dirty money is influencing UK politics. Integrity starts at
home and there are a lot of things that we should be doing to
strengthen the Foreign Secretary’s credibility. She will have the
SNP’s support in that respect as well.
I have been clear that Russian military aggression will be met
with strength, including massive economic consequences through
co-ordinated economic sanctions by allies and partners that
target Russian financial transactions and individuals, but I
cannot speculate on future sanctions.
In July 2020, the UK used its global human rights sanction regime
to impose sanctions on 25 Russian nationals who were responsible
for appalling human rights violations. We have shown that we are
absolutely ready to use those types of sanctions where it is
appropriate. On the ISC report, we published our response
immediately on its publication. Since then, we have introduced a
new autonomous cyber-sanctions regime, set out a national
cyber-security strategy, and announced new legislation to provide
security services and law enforcement with additional tools to
tackle evolving state threats.
I certainly welcome the statement, but on the bigger picture I do
not believe the west has a coherent strategy to deal with
Russia’s increasing aggression. Sanctions will not deter Russia
and Ukraine remains hugely exposed. With the west looking ever
timid, ever divided and ever risk-averse, and with the United
States looking ever distracted because of domestic issues and
NATO bruised after its retreat from Afghanistan, has there ever
been a better time for Russia to invade Ukraine than the
forthcoming new year of the Orthodox calendar?
We have been united with our partners not just in the west, but
in the free world. The G7 put out a very strong statement after
Liverpool, being clear that there would be severe costs and
massive consequences in the event of military aggression against
Ukraine. That was followed by an announcement at the December
European Council meeting which also made the same points, so we
have seen a united front from allies around the free world.
Freedom, democracy and security within Europe is vital, but my
right hon. Friend makes the right point that this situation will
be watched by aggressors around the world. This is about not just
Europe, important though that is, but the signal we send to the
rest of the world about what we do in the face of aggression.
That is why partners such as Japan have also signed up to that
statement, and why we are working more broadly with partners
across the world to challenge this aggression and to ensure there
are no rewards for this type of aggressive behaviour.
I wholeheartedly agree that we have to stand foursquare with
Ukraine. We also have to see off every kind of aggression—there
are many different kinds—that comes from the Putin regime in
Russia. What I do not understand is why the Government have spent
so long trying to bring in the cleaning-up of the banking system
in this country through a fully public register of beneficial
ownership—one exists, but it is still not public—not just of
companies but of property and trusts; why we still have not made
all the overseas territories, where lots of Russian money is
presently hidden, have public registers of beneficial ownership
of all three categories; and why Ministers still allow exemptions
for some Russian oligarchs in the register of beneficial
ownership of companies. It seems entirely hypocritical.
As I said, we do have a very tough anti-corruption regime and we
have used our global human rights sanctions regime to sanction
people within Russia, including 25 Russian nationals. We, of
course, continue to review that legislation.
On the question of the recommendations made by the ISC, may I
welcome the steps taken by the House of Lords to clean up its act
in relation to the registration of work undertaken for foreign
Governments? On the NATO guarantee, does the Foreign Secretary
agree that it is a solemn commitment by each member of NATO to,
if necessary, go to war if any other member of NATO is attacked?
Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Does she agree that it is
important that we do not elide from the situation in Ukraine to
the next step, which will be the Baltic states that are members
of NATO. We have to be very clear about what our commitments
really are.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the NATO guarantee
and its importance for NATO members, including the Baltic states.
In December, I visited British troops forming part of NATO’s
enhanced forward presence at Tapa in Estonia, where allies are
helping to protect the border with Russia. We are working with
our NATO partners to ensure that that protection remains in place
and is enhanced so that we can fulfil our commitments.
With Ukraine, we are ensuring that it has the capability to
defend itself. That involves training, and the UK has trained
more than 20,000 troops in Ukraine. We are also supplying extra
capability for naval defences as well as support in areas such as
cyber-security and other services.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. She comes to the
Dispatch Box and talks tough, which I agree with, but it is now
two years since the ISC report. The Putin regime did not come to
power by accident; it did so through the use of corruption and,
as the ISC report spells out, enablers in this country and the
west. The only recommendation that has been implemented is the
one for the House of Lords of a register of interests of Lords
with Russian companies. Like my hon. Friend the Member for
Rhondda (), I ask the Foreign Secretary:
when will the Government get tough and real and implement the
Russia report recommendations? I also urge her, before she has
lunch again with a Russian donor to the Conservative party, to
think and ask where that money came from originally.
As I have said, we have a very tough anti-corruption regime, and
we have used it. As a result of the work that we are doing with
our allies, we have been clear that Russia would face massive
consequences if there were to be an incursion into Ukraine.
As my right hon. Friend knows, I lead the UK delegation to the
Council of Europe, of which Russia is a member, and where we have
to deal with Russia on an almost daily basis. Will she join me in
getting the Council of Europe, which is responsible for democracy
and the rule of law across Europe, to take a firm stand against
Russia?
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the
Council of Europe takes a strong stand on this issue.
While Russia’s actions undoubtedly represent a threat to its
neighbours, as the Foreign Secretary said, President Putin
attempts to justify his unacceptable demands by claiming that his
country is somehow threatened by NATO’s defensive presence in
countries including the Baltic states and Poland. In standing in
solidary with Ukraine—the whole House does that—does the Foreign
Secretary think that any steps can be taken in the forthcoming
talks to try to show Russia that it faces no offensive strategic
threat from NATO?
It is very important that we do not buy into the false narrative
that Putin has been peddling that somehow there is a security
threat. NATO has always been clear that it is a defensive
alliance, responsible for defending the sovereignty and interests
of its states, and Vladimir Putin is well aware of that. It is
important that we do not buy into that false narrative. I do want
to see progress made in talks, but that must be on the basis of
freedom and democracy and of what Russia has committed to in the
past. It simply has not fulfilled its commitments, whether those
made in the Budapest agreement or the Minsk agreements. I see
next week, when there will be a series of crucial meetings, as
making sure that Russia is holding firm to the commitments that
it has made.
It is great to hear a Foreign Secretary speaking with such
clarity, so I thank my right hon. Friend. When it comes to our
two allies, France and Germany, may I ask the following: is she
worried that Germany’s appalling dependence on Russian energy
undermines a clear and united western approach? When it comes to
the Minsk and Normandy processes, is she worried that if we give
in to Russia’s demand for a highly federalised Ukrainian state,
that will allow Russia to carve up and collapse the Ukrainian
state over time, and it will simply have been allowed to achieve
its end slowly, rather than quickly?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Europe needs to reduce
its strategic dependence on Russian gas. It is a broader issue
about the dependence of freedom-loving democracies on economic
support from autocracies, which then makes it very difficult to
make the political progress that we need to make to challenge
Russian aggression. I have been very clear about our position on
Nord Stream 2. More broadly, we need to reduce dependence on
Russian gas. On the discussions taking place in various formats,
we cannot have a situation in which Russian aggression is
rewarded in any way. It has no auspices over Ukrainian
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we are very clear on
that. What we are working on, and what tomorrow’s meeting of
Foreign Ministers is about, is making sure that we are
co-ordinating our positions across NATO, and we are very clear on
those red lines.
The Foreign Secretary referred in her statement to her opposition
to Nord Stream 2, but we know that as Putin turns off the gas
taps in Moscow, there is an impact here in the UK, where families
are facing a potentially crippling 50% increase in their energy
bills. Gazprom is owned by the Russian state and has its
international trading arm based in London. It is cashing in—it
announced a £179 million dividend earlier this week. Today, the
Liberal Democrats have proposed a Robin Hood tax on the
super-profits of those oil and gas barons, with the money raised
being used to support the poorest households. Having talked about
not rewarding Russia for aggression, does the Foreign Secretary
agree that the tax will not only help British families, but send
a powerful message to Moscow that we can and will counteract
Russian interference in our energy market?
It is clear that we need to reduce Europe’s dependency on Russian
gas. In fact, I think that 3% of our gas is from Russia, but I
agree with the hon. Lady that it is desirable to reduce that. The
way that we need to reduce that dependency is with more
investment in areas such as nuclear energy, which we are doing
with small modular nuclear reactors, as well as more investment
in areas such as renewables and ensuring that we are using
alternative gas sources to supply our domestic energy needs.
Some of us are sadly old enough to be able to remember Hungary in
1953, the subsequent removal of Alexander Dubček in
Czechoslovakia, more recently the annexation of parts of Georgia,
and then the invasion and annexation of Crimea. All were with
impunity, so far as the Soviet Union and the neo-Soviet Union are
concerned; the free world simply failed to act. Further to the
point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (), Russia and Ukraine are
members of the Council of Europe. Will my right hon. Friend use
the platforms available to her within the Committee of Ministers
and in person within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe to make it plain that the United Kingdom will no longer
stand by and simply talk, but that we will act?
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about using all
platforms available, and also about the fact that the free world
needs to stand up against aggressors. The UK has played a leading
role in bringing together the G7 to make a very strong statement,
as well as working with our NATO allies to make clear the basis
of the talks taking place next week. We are very ready and
willing to use our position to make the case for severe
consequences, should Russia seek to stage an incursion into
Ukraine.
The pressure on Ukraine is immediate, but it is part of a pattern
of behaviour towards former Soviet satellites and Warsaw pact
countries, many of which are now members of NATO or the EU—most
of them are members of both. Many of these countries have
post-war experience of Soviet tanks rolling in to crush protests,
as we are seeing again in Kazakhstan. It is slightly concerning
that, although the shadow Defence Secretary was here for this
statement, I cannot see anyone from the Ministry of Defence,
unless I am wrong. Will the UK not only argue for tough talk in
next week’s discussions, but be prepared to provide material
support to Ukraine in order to prevent an invasion or
subversion?
We are working very closely with the Ministry of Defence. In
fact, the Defence Secretary recently visited Ukraine. We have
been providing support, including training troops, providing
intelligence and security assistance, and helping Ukraine to
build its naval capability.
My right hon. Friend has talked about massive consequences,
including co-ordinated sanctions, should there be further Russian
military incursions into Ukraine. Will she listen to the call of
the Ukrainian ambassador that the behaviour of Russia, which she
outlined in her statement, merits taking further measures now?
Will she consider that during her meetings next week?
My right hon. Friend makes a fair point about the appalling
behaviour of Russia, including with respect to Ukraine. Russia is
also stirring up problems in the Balkans, as well as helping the
Belarusian regime to use migration as an offensive weapon. As I
said earlier, we need to make sure that we reduce economic
dependence on Russia. We are also strengthening our security ties
with like-minded allies, including the Baltic states, so that we
are able to repel these types of aggressive activities over the
longer term. We are working on that as well as making sure that
Russia understands the severe consequences of any action it might
take.
I will not ask the Foreign Secretary to go into the detail of our
co-ordinated sanctions plans, because quite rightly she would not
reveal them, but does she agree that there is very little point
in using economic sanctions to apply pain and suffering to the
broader economy of states such as Russia, because I think we can
agree that a direct link between broader society and the ruling
elite does not really exist? That being the case, will she
confirm that it would be much more apt to apply sanctions to the
Russian elites around the world—in Manhattan, London and
Paris—that have a direct link to the Kremlin? Their pain will
cause problems for the Russian ruling elite.
I was clear in my statement that the co-ordinated economic
sanctions by our allies and partners are looking at Russian
financial transactions and at individuals.
I have visited Bosnia twice in the past eight months, and I have
a deep and long-standing personal interest in what happens there.
I am very concerned about reports of Russian involvement with
Republika Srpska to encourage the break-up of Bosnia. In
particular, there are some reports of the Russians providing
weapons to Republika Srpska. Will my right hon. Friend comment on
that possibility?
It is vitally important that the hard-won peace and security that
my right hon. Friend did so much to help to achieve in the
western Balkans is not lost. That is why I met High
Representative Christian Schmidt and we are giving him our full
support. We have also appointed Sir Stuart Peach as our special
envoy to the western Balkans. Recently I hosted the western
Balkan Foreign Ministers at Lancaster House to discuss peace and
stability in the region. I completely agree with my right hon.
Friend about malign Russian involvement in the western Balkans.
We need to do more to bring the western Balkans into our circle,
including by expanding trade and security relationships so that
those countries have alternatives to dealing with Russia.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned in her statement that the next
week will be absolutely crucial for peace and security in Europe.
As I am sure she will hear from Members across this House, strong
statements and signals will not work with Russia if we are to
ensure that the conflict does not escalate. Does she agree that
Russia’s actions against Ukraine show a pattern of recent hostile
activity, and that she needs to work to bring forward a
co-ordinated response with our European partners on a deal to
ensure that Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Bosnia come to an
end—co-ordinated action that this House should have sight of once
agreed?
That is absolutely the work the UK is doing. That is why we had a
very extensive discussion on this subject at the G7. We announced
that there would be severe consequences, and we are absolutely
working on co-ordination. That is vital. It is very important
that the United States is involved. It is very important that the
EU is involved. It is very important that the wider world is
involved, because this is not just a threat to peace and
stability in Europe; it is a global issue about whether we are
clear that aggressors will not benefit from aggressive
behaviour.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, which will
inform the debate that we are having later about Russia’s grand
strategy. We keep saying that Russia’s aggression must not be
rewarded, but the past decade and a half has seen Russia’s
aggression effectively rewarded and go unpunished again and
again. To that extent, how can she ensure that the meetings
taking place on 9 and 10 January in Geneva will actually mark a
significant departure in past practice from the west so that from
now on we will act much more decisively and be completely united?
We cannot succumb to the divisive way in which Russia is
attempting to separate the United States from its NATO
allies.
I agree with my hon. Friend: we do need to step up our efforts as
the free world. In fact, in a speech I made before Christmas I
said that there had not been enough action, and that peace and
security in Europe and beyond had been taken for granted not just
by the western alliance but more broadly by the free world. That
is why we are stepping up in the work we are doing to challenge
Russia and encourage our allies. We are encouraging the United
States and the EU and working with them to develop the very clear
consequences of any Russian action.
The Foreign Secretary claims that we have the toughest regime,
but if we follow the money, it seems that the Russian oligarchs
see the UK and its dependencies as the preferred safe deposit box
for their investments. Will she outline what military involvement
she and the Defence Secretary have considered might be put into
play from the UK? Will she update the House on her Department’s
advice to UK nationals who either live in Ukraine or are
considering travelling to Ukraine?
As I have said, the Defence Secretary visited Ukraine in the
autumn. We are providing all the support we can to Ukraine in
terms of both economic resilience and security—namely, helping
with training troops, providing intelligence services, and
providing support for its naval vessels. We continue to work to
do that and I am co-ordinating very closely with the Defence
Secretary.
I welcome the robust tone of the Foreign Secretary’s statement,
and the evident absolute unanimity on both sides of the House, in
support of the Ukrainian Government and their people. If
something were to go horribly wrong in Ukraine, however, the next
domino in the chain would be the Baltic states, with which we
have an article 5 guarantee. When she meets other NATO Foreign
Ministers tomorrow, can she absolutely assure those from the
Baltic states that they have our complete support and that
Estonia will never become a far-away country of which we know
nothing?
I welcomed the Baltic states to the UK last autumn and I was very
clear about the UK’s complete support for them and our complete
commitment to our article 5 obligations. That is why we have the
enhanced border presence, which I visited in Tapa in Estonia.
Alongside the discussions that are taking place about Ukraine
through the NATO Foreign Ministers, we are of course also talking
about how we strengthen our defensive capability to support our
members, including the Baltic states, which really are on the
frontier of freedom.
I thank the Secretary of State for her fulsome statement. I am
mindful of the early morning reports of Russia sending armed
troops to Kazakhstan, which has led to death and destruction. As
we watch Russian imperial aggression towards Ukraine, the voice
of the west needs to be heard—it must be heard. What discussions
has she had with the United States of America and key NATO allies
to respond to what could be a powder keg, the fuse of which is in
Russian hands?
I have had regular conversations with my counterparts, such as
Tony Blinken in the United States. I have talked to many of our
NATO allies directly and to all of them at the NATO Foreign
Ministers meeting. We are all very much aligned in being clear
that there will be severe consequences for Russia should it stage
an incursion into Ukraine. It is important to maintain that
unanimity as we face further Russian rhetoric and aggression.
Unlike in Soviet times, Russia is no longer a viable candidate
for world domination. Indeed, recently declassified documents
from the United States make it clear that in February 1990,
Secretary of State James Baker gave President Gorbachev a
categoric assurance that NATO would not, and had no plans to,
move east. Given that the reality of the situation, despite
everything that has been said today, is that we are not prepared
for a single British soldier to die in a war to defend Ukraine,
will the Secretary of State confirm that there are no plans to
admit Ukraine to NATO? Indeed, to do that would be a needless and
dangerous provocation.
I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. The UK remains
supportive of Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations, in line with
the 2008 Bucharest summit declaration. As I have already pointed
out, NATO is a defensive alliance, as the Russians know perfectly
well. We should not buy into the narrative that somehow NATO is
the problem. The problem is the troops that are being amassed on
the Ukrainian border. We have to be absolutely clear that those
troops are being amassed by Russia, not by NATO.
I very much welcome the statement, but I encourage my right hon.
Friend to be far more robust in defence of pro-democracy forces
in Kazakhstan and to condemn unequivocally the collective
security treaty organisation intervention there in support of a
highly questionable regime. What discussions has she had with
players in the wider region about the instability that may be
caused by Russia’s intervention in mid-Asia, in particular
Azerbaijan, in which we have significant interests? What are the
implications of what is going on in the region for the recently
concluded ceasefire in relation to Nagorno-Karabakh?
On the subject of the violent clashes in Kazakhstan, as I have
said, we condemn those acts of violence, but I think it important
to remember that Kazakhstan has a sovereign choice when it comes
to whom it chooses as its allies. Any forces deployed must have a
clear mission and must act proportionately in any use of force to
defend the legitimate security interests in Kazakhstan. It is
important that, while regretting these acts and ensuring that our
thoughts are with those who have lost their lives, we respect the
fact that Kazakhstan has that sovereign choice.
I thank my right hon. Friend for a strong and clear statement. I
agree with her that we should not accept the suggestion that NATO
is, in any sense, anything other than a defensive alliance.
Neither, indeed, should we accept the suggestion—and I do not
expect her to say this today—that there is any imminent prospect
of Ukraine’s becoming a NATO member. The Kremlin does not believe
these things; they are merely pretexts to undermine a democratic
and free society.
The immediate concern is altering the cost-benefit analysis
currently being undertaken by the Kremlin, and that is why the
conversations that my right hon. Friend will have in the coming
days are so important with respect to sanctions and other
actions. Will she confirm that she has had a direct conversation
with the new German Government about Nord Stream 2 and that she
will ask them to halt its operationalisation, given that that is
the single most important bargaining chip in the hands of Europe
and NATO today?
My right hon. Friend is completely right about the pretext. That
is exactly what is happening. Disinformation is being used and
pretexts are being claimed that simply do not exist, because NATO
is indeed a defensive alliance. I did meet my German counterpart,
Annalena Baerbock, on the margins of G7, and both the Prime
Minister and I have made it very clear that we do not believe
that Nord Stream 2 should go ahead.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her robust and very clear
statement on Russian aggression. It is fairly clear that Putin is
peddling a particular narrative to the Russian people, trying to
explain that the west is anti-Russia. The Kremlin’s publication
of its extraordinary demands regarding Ukraine last month was a
clear move to attempt to split the west. We must not bow to such
pressure. We cannot show the Kremlin an ounce of weakness. Does
my right hon. Friend agree that we must stand firmly with our
allies such as Ukraine and Bosnia, and with any other ally that
is under the threat of Russian aggression?
My hon. Friend is right. We have to defend the hard-won freedoms
in the Balkans, in Ukraine and in the Baltic states. She is also
right to point out that the issue here is not the Russian people.
I am a great admirer of Russia and the Russian people. The issue
is the Putin regime, and what is happening and what he is saying,
and the false pretexts that he is trying to create. We must be
resolute to defend democracy and freedom in Europe, and that is
why we are taking this strong stance on Ukraine and working with
our allies around the world to challenge Russian aggression.
Let me first warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s world
leadership on this issue, and congratulate her on putting the UK
firmly at the heart of it. She mentioned the 1994 Budapest
memorandum, to which we were also a signatory. In the light of
that, may I urge her to ensure that when we enter the
negotiations no false lines are drawn in respect of how far we
are willing to go, and that we do not explicitly say that we are
not willing to go beyond a certain point? Some worrying
statements that have been emerging from the Ministry of Defence
might cause my right hon. Friend’s hands to be clamped in the
negotiations.
The 1994 Budapest memorandum is very clear. It was done on the
basis of Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons and ensuring that
it maintained its territorial integrity and sovereignty. That is
a very important principle that will absolutely be upheld in the
negotiations and discussions taking place next week.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and strong approach.
What seems like a lifetime ago, I saw at first hand a breakdown
in the Balkans when I served in Bosnia and Kosovo. Even though it
seems like a lifetime ago, I never want anyone to witness that
again. However unlikely it may seem, can we ensure that the best
statecraft and diplomacy are used to allow Russia, if it should
so choose, to de-escalate and follow a route out of where this
could be heading?
I thank my hon. Friend for his service in the Balkans. He is so
right that that peace and security was very hard earned, and we
are determined not to allow it to slide away from us. That is why
we have appointed Sir Stuart Peach, and it is why we are working
on closer economic and security ties with the Balkan states so
that they have an alternative to working with Russia.
I believe that the best way to challenge Russia is from a
position of strength. We have to be clear that there would be
severe consequences if there were to be an incursion into
Ukraine, and we have to reduce European strategic dependency on
Russia. That is how we will succeed. There cannot be any sense in
which Russian aggression is rewarded, because that would, of
course, have further consequences in terms of Russia’s behaviour,
but it would also encourage other aggressors around the world and
damage peace and democracy globally.
The Crime and Security Research Institute has found evidence that
32 media outlets across 16 different countries have been targeted
by Russia, via their reader comments section, peppering stories
with anti-western and anti-NATO statements. Can my right hon.
Friend the Foreign Secretary assure me that we are doing
everything we can to tackle the Kremlin’s reliance on
misinformation and online manipulation?
We have very strong cyber-security forces here in the UK, and we
are doing all we can to tackle Russian disinformation, including
working with allies and partners. We have recently signed a
number of cyber agreements, and we are working on these issues
precisely with the Baltic states, which face a lot of Russian
disinformation. At the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting, we
specifically talked about how we will make sure that NATO as a
whole focuses more on cyber, and on areas such as hybrid attacks
and the use of migration as an offensive weapon. That is to
ensure that NATO operates not just in traditional spheres, but in
many of the areas where modern combat is carried out.
I very much welcome the firm stance that the Foreign Secretary
has outlined on the UK’s response to Russian intimidation of
Ukraine. She has also set out clearly her own vision for global
Britain and her aim to build a network of liberty. Does she agree
that in order to ensure that freedom and democracy thrive around
the world, our global partners will need to step up and join us
in providing Ukraine with the support it needs; and that that
involves not just words, but actions that might sometimes be
difficult?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to reduce economic
dependency on Russia, and we need to make sure that our words are
followed up by the actions we have outlined. We also need to make
sure that all our like-minded allies—whether it is the United
States, the EU or, indeed, allies around the world, such as
India, Australia and Japan—are part of building those closer
economic and security ties so that we can deal with authoritarian
regimes and make sure there are no rewards for aggression.
In 2015, I visited Ukraine and Kiev with the then Defence
Secretary, when I was a special adviser, to see Operation Orbital
begin. We have now trained 20,000 soldiers in Ukraine through
that operation. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is now
time for our partners to step up and to start to provide some of
the resources that we are providing, because only by acting
together in that international arena will we stop Russia’s
aggression, not just in Ukraine, but across the western Balkans
and in parts of central Asia?
My hon. Friend is right. We are co-ordinating closely with the
United States on providing support to Ukraine, including on
security and economic resilience, and making sure that Ukraine
has the energy supplies it needs. I have also had a conversation
with Josep Borrell of the EU about making sure that the EU is
doing what it can to support Ukraine, whether by reducing
economic dependency on Russian gas or by more direct support to
Ukraine in areas such as trade, as well as security.
|
