The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace) With
permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the situation in
Ukraine. As of today, tens of thousands of Russian troops are
positioned close to the Ukrainian border. Their deployment is not
routine; they are equipped with tanks, armoured fighting vehicles,
rocket artillery and short-range ballistic missiles. We and our
allies have legitimate and real cause for concern that the
configuration and scale of the...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Defence ( )
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the
situation in Ukraine.
As of today, tens of thousands of Russian troops are positioned
close to the Ukrainian border. Their deployment is not routine;
they are equipped with tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, rocket
artillery and short-range ballistic missiles. We and our allies
have legitimate and real cause for concern that the configuration
and scale of the force being assembled, supported by Russian air
and maritime long-range strike capabilities stationed in the
region, could be used for the purpose of conducting a multi-axis
invasion of Ukraine, but whatever final decision the Russian
Government take on the use of such forces, their presence and
levels of readiness are contributing to a destabilising and
coercive atmosphere that risks miscalculation at best, and at
worst, conflict.
Furthermore, in recent weeks, we have observed hardening Russian
rhetoric, heightened cyber-activity and widespread disinformation
that could serve to provide a false pretext for a Russian
military intervention. False narratives are very much part of the
Kremlin’s playbook; they were used in 2008 before Russia’s
invasion of Georgia, and in Ukraine in 2014. False narratives are
being peddled again today: Russia has suggested that its military
build-up on the border of Ukraine is in response to NATO
aggression and an agenda by the west to use Ukraine to divide and
rule the Russian nation. It has put forward this outlandish
notion that NATO is attempting to encircle Russia.
Let me be clear. No one is trying to rule the Russian nation.
Only one sixteenth of Russia shares a border with a NATO ally,
and NATO is and always has been a defensive alliance. NATO, at
its core, holds a belief that any country in the alliance, no
matter how big or small, is by right of membership owed a pledge
of mutual defence: if you attack one of us, you attack us
all.
From 12 founding countries in 1949, the NATO alliance has grown
to a total of 30 today. Those countries have joined the alliance
not because NATO is making them do so, but because of the freely
expressed will of the Government and people of those countries.
Countries choose NATO; NATO does not choose them. If Russia has
concerns about the enlargement, it should perhaps ask itself why,
when people were free to choose, they chose NATO.
NATO is an alliance of like-minded nations that, as well as
sharing a commitment to mutual defence, share a set of common
values. The sovereignty of other nations is respected by all.
Each nation has a sovereign right to choose its own security
arrangements. That is a fundamental principle of European
security—one, indeed, to which Russia has subscribed in the
past—yet Russia now seeks a veto over who joins NATO.
The United Kingdom will stand up for the right of countries to
choose their alliances. More important than the choice they make
is the right to have that choice. On my recent visit to Sweden
and Finland, two non-NATO countries, it was clear that Kremlin
attempts to dictate what sovereign states can or cannot choose
had been rejected across the political spectrum.
I must stress that no one wants conflict. The Ukrainians are not
seeking confrontation, despite the illegal annexation of their
lands in Crimea and the occupation of Donbass, and I am sure that
ordinary Russian people who remember the first Chechnya conflict
and other, older conflicts do not want yet another quagmire
either. Last week, there were intensive discussions on the
international front to achieve a diplomatic solution to the
current situation, including at NATO and the Organisation for
Security and Co-operation in Europe. Engagement at the
NATO-Russia Council made it clear that NATO is open to dialogue
with Russia on a range of issues to protect Euro-Atlantic
security, including risk reduction, transparency, arms control
and lines of communication, but we will not reward
aggression.
We are open to dialogue on a bilateral basis. On 23 December, the
Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Tony Radakin, spoke with his
Russian counterpart, General Gerasimov. In their call, they
agreed the vital importance of maintaining communications to
understand each other’s intentions and to avoid
miscalculation.
When the Prime Minister spoke to President Putin on 13 December,
he expressed the United Kingdom’s deep concern over the build-up
of Russian forces on Ukraine’s border, and also reiterated the
importance of working through diplomatic channels to de-escalate
tensions and identify durable solutions. The Foreign Secretary
continues to engage with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei
Lavrov, including recently in person at the margins of the OSCE
Ministerial Council in Stockholm on 2 December.
Russia has the largest conventional force of any single nation in
Europe. It has a proud history. We have fought together. We
celebrated the courage of the Arctic convoys at the 80th
anniversary last year. Russia is a nuclear power. It does not
have anything to fear from NATO or Ukraine or the other countries
that strive peacefully on the continent of Europe. Today, I am
extending an invitation to my Russian counterpart, Sergei Shoigu,
to visit London in the next few weeks. We are ready to discuss
issues related to mutual security concerns and engage
constructively in good faith.
The UK’s position on Ukraine is also clear. We unequivocally
support its sovereignty and territorial integrity within its
internationally recognised borders, including Crimea. Ukraine is
an independent, sovereign country of proud, independent Ukrainian
people. The UK Ministry of Defence already has a long-standing
relationship with our Ukrainian counterparts, and we continue to
provide support in many areas, including security assistance and
defence reform. Since 2015, the UK has helped to build the
resilience and capabilities of the Ukrainian armed forces through
Operation Orbital, which has trained more than 22,000 Ukrainian
troops. We maintain the right to deliver bilateral support to a
sovereign nation when requested in areas that will better help
them defend themselves.
It is important that Ukraine has the capability to defend itself.
After Ukraine lost large parts of its navy to Russia’s illegal
occupation of Crimea, it became important to help Ukraine build
up and sustain a naval capability. We should not forget the
thousands of Ukrainians who have lost their lives defending their
country and who, every day, are murdered by snipers from across
the divide. That is why, in 2019, I expanded Operation Orbital to
include naval co-operation, and that is why, last year, we agreed
a range of measures, including supplying Ukraine with two mine
counter-measures vessels as well as agreeing the joint production
of eight new ships equipped with modern weapons systems—defensive
weapon systems.
As I said in the House last week, the framework agreement
presented to Parliament in November 2021 affirmed the principles
that the UK will provide both training and defensive capabilities
to Ukraine to help it best defend itself. Within that same
principle, I can today confirm to the House that, in light of the
increasingly threatening behaviour from Russia and in addition to
our current support, the UK is providing a new security
assistance package to increase Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
We have taken the decision to supply Ukraine with light,
anti-armour defensive weapons systems. A small number of UK
personnel will provide early-stage training for a short period of
time within the framework of Operation Orbital before returning
to the United Kingdom.
This security assistance package complements the training and
capabilities that Ukraine already has and those that are also
being provided by the UK and other allies in Europe and the
United States. Ukraine has every right to defend its borders, and
this new package of aid further enhances its ability to do so.
Let me be clear, this support is for short-range and clearly
defensive weapon capabilities. They are not strategic weapons and
pose no threat to Russia. They are to use in self-defence. The UK
personnel provided in the early-stage training, as I have said,
will return to the United Kingdom after completing it.
The Prime Minister has been clear that any destabilising action
by Russia in Ukraine would be a strategic mistake that would have
significant consequences. That is why there is a package of
international sanctions ready to go that will make sure that
Russia and its Government are punished if they cross the line.
But the cost of an invasion will not just be felt by the west. I
have visited Ukraine five times since 2016, and I know that the
Ukrainians are a proud people who will stand and fight for their
country, for democracy and for freedom. Any invasion will not be
viewed as a “liberation”, but as an occupation and I fear that it
could lead to huge loss of life on all sides.
The current difficult relationship with the Kremlin is not the
one we wish to have in the United Kingdom. It does not have to be
this way. The UK respects the people, culture and history of
Russia. We have more in common than we may think—culturally,
historically and technologically. We wish to be friends with the
Russian people, as we have been for hundreds of years. There is a
world in which we can establish a mutually beneficial
relationship with Russia, working together on shared areas of
interest and addressing mutual security concerns. The current gap
is wide but it is not unbridgeable. I still remain hopeful that
diplomacy will prevail. It is President Putin’s choice: whether
to choose diplomacy and dialogue or conflict and consequences.
But Russia’s current behaviour is not only threatening the
sovereignty of a proud nation state; it is also destabilising the
rules-based international order and challenging the values that
underpin it. That is why it is all the more important that we
stand in solidarity with those who share our values, including
our NATO allies and partners like Sweden, Finland and
Ukraine.
5.55pm
(Wentworth and Dearne)
(Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his
statement. I welcome its contents and make clear Labour’s full
backing for the steps the Government have been taking on
international diplomatic efforts to de-escalate threats, on
defensive support for the Ukraine military, on necessary
institutional reforms within the country, and on tough economic
and financial sanctions in response to any fresh Russian invasion
into Ukraine.
There is unified UK political support for Ukraine’s sovereignty
and territorial integrity, including Crimea, in the face of
escalating Russian aggression. This bilateral UK backing is
hugely appreciated in Ukraine, as I and the shadow Foreign
Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr
Lammy), confirmed when we visited Kiev last week. Four things
were clear to us from our wide-ranging discussions. First, this
crisis is made in the Kremlin. Ukraine’s independence and borders
were guaranteed by Russia, alongside the US and the UK, in the
1994 Budapest agreement under which Ukraine also decommissioned
its nuclear weapons, then making the whole of Europe much safer.
What special role and responsibility does the Defence Secretary
believe the UK still has as a guarantor of this agreement?
Ukrainians warmly received recent visits from Defence Ministers,
as well as the Defence Secretary himself, just before Christmas.
When will the Foreign Secretary also visit Ukraine to underline
the UK’s strong continuing support?
Secondly, talking is better than fighting. The international
unity last week, especially at the NATO-Russia Council, is very
important to Ukraine. NATO, as the Defence Secretary said, has
acknowledged Russian security concerns. What are the areas it has
offered as open to dialogue, and is any further international
diplomacy scheduled with Russia?
Thirdly, Ukraine has faced active Russian aggression for many
years. Russia’s big military build-up on its borders now is part
of the continuous attacks Ukraine has faced, as the highly
destructive malware detected by Microsoft at the weekend in many
Government networks shows us and reminds us very strongly. What
role will the UK play in delivering the new cyber co-operation
agreement that NATO and Ukraine have signed today but the Defence
Secretary did not mention in his statement?
Fourthly, Ukraine is a different country now than it was in 2014
when Russia annexed Crimea and Russian proxies seized parts of
eastern Ukraine. Some 13,000 Ukrainian lives have been lost in
fighting since then. Its military, its sense of identity, its
resolve to resist Russia, and its determination to become a good
European country—as Prime Minister Yatsenyuk put it to us—have
all become much stronger. It is critical that the Kremlin
appreciate that any new military attack on Ukraine will be bloody
on both sides. What is the Defence Secretary doing to get across
to President Putin that important message on miscalculation? When
did he last meet his Russian counterpart?
Finally, I turn to military support to Ukraine as a sovereign
nation seeking to defend itself. The shadow Foreign Secretary and
I were told many times last week how highly Ukraine values UK
military training, and how frontline troops bring out their
British Operation Orbital certificate when asked about the best
help they have had. We welcome the recent expansion of bilateral
British support to naval co-operation, and we back the new
delivery of defensive weaponry that the Defence Secretary has
announced this afternoon, but let us be clear that that will be
framed by Russian propagandists as provocation. Will the Defence
Secretary spell out clearly that those are defensive anti-tank
weapons with a much shorter range than the US Javelin missiles
that Ukraine has had for some time, and that they will not be
used unless Russia invades?
These are dangerous days for security in Europe—especially for
the Ukrainian people. Even at this 11th hour, we across this
House hope deeply that diplomacy, sound judgment and respect for
international law will prevail with President Putin.
Mr Wallace
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Front Bench for
their support and for the detailed engagement that they have
undertaken with the Ukrainians. I know that it has meant a huge
amount to them to see cross-party support for their rights. I
thank him personally for the effort that he and the shadow
Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr
Lammy), have gone to.
These are difficult and dangerous times, as the right hon.
Gentleman said. It is important to navigate the very thin path
between provocation and defence of people who are clearly under
threat and intimidation, so that whatever we do cannot be
exploited by the Kremlin for its own narratives. I have continued
to brief the Opposition and other Members of this House to make
sure that they are fully informed.
I will try to answer some of the right hon. Gentleman’s
questions. First, the Budapest memorandum is indeed one of the
three main treaties that Russia is in breach of or is not
upholding. It was a fair deal done between the Ukrainians and
Russia, and it is important that we remind Russia—through
diplomatic channels first of all—of those obligations. The
situation is a stark reminder that we cannot pick and choose from
treaties that have been signed up to.
We believe that the subsequent Minsk protocol is something that
we would wish to support and for Russia to engage in. It respects
some of the concerns around the Donbass, and I hope that that is
one of the best paths towards securing a peaceful resolution. It
does not seem at the moment that Russia is engaging enough on
that. I think that is definitely the treaty to look at. Of
course, it is underwritten by France, Germany and the United
States through the Normandy format, and we would support the use
of that. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to
visit Ukraine soon, which is also important. I have spoken to her
about it, and I think her office is just working out dates for
her visit.
On cyber, I will write in detail to the right hon. Gentleman
about the NATO initiative. We have supported Ukraine for a number
of years with cyber-defence to ensure that its resilience is
improved, taking the lessons that we have here and sharing and
working with them. That is why it is so useful that the National
Cyber Security Centre is not only domestically but
internationally recognised. When its experts come to give advice,
it certainly helps with resilience.
On what more we can do, one concern that we have to address is
Russia’s sense of encirclement, as I said at the beginning, and a
fear that is untrue and based either on a misconception or,
indeed, a falsehood. One way to address that is through better
transparency. We have had schemes such as the Open Skies scheme,
and we have had a number of treaties, some of which have been
broken by Russia, which is unfortunate, but I certainly think
that more transparency is needed. We often have Vienna
inspections in this country; we had some only the other month by
Russian military personnel who visited an RAF base. That is one
of the best ways to demonstrate the realities on the ground, and
that NATO is not an aggressor and we are not planning some
offensive.
More work can definitely be done to deal with that situation, and
to give Russia its voice. I was delighted that we had the
Russia-NATO Council, the first in two years, only last week,
because it is incredibly important that we get to hear and meet
Russia face to face. I have not met my counterpart, and obviously
since the Salisbury poisonings relationships have been at a low
ebb. For many years, the Russian Defence Secretary and the
British Defence Secretary have not had periodic or routine
meetings, and I think it is important we offer that. Whether
Russia will accept it is a different issue, but it is important
that we reach out, at the very least, and have a discussion, and
give each other the respect that I think sovereign nations
deserve.
On weapons systems, I concur with the right hon. Gentleman.
Absolutely—these weapons are short-range. They are not strategic;
they are tactical. They are the sort of systems you use if
someone is attacking you. This is an infantry-level type weapons
system, but nevertheless it would make people pause and think
about what they are doing. If tanks were to roll into Ukraine and
invade, it would be part of the defensive mechanism.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
I thank the Defence Secretary for not only keeping the House
informed, but for working tirelessly behind the scenes to push
NATO to do as much as it can, given the limits of that alliance.
Talks in Brussels, and indeed Geneva, have reached their
conclusion, or inconclusion. Cyber-attacks have now commenced,
and we now see that Putin clearly intends to invade as part of
his wider strategy to expand Moscow’s sphere of influence, and
indeed help to label and retain NATO as the adversary that Russia
must stand up to.
Russia has now amassed the land forces, weapon systems, and even
the field hospitals to allow an invasion to take place. Will the
Secretary of State say when the anti-armour weapon systems that
he is providing will be operational in Ukraine? If Putin gives
the green light to invade, what additional military support does
the Secretary of State believe NATO could provide or offer to
Ukraine to help to thwart Russian aggression east of the Dnipro
river?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. There is
still a way to go. We still have NATO, we still have our
alliances, and we still have the international community and its
efforts to try to find a diplomatic solution. We will carry on
doing that until the very last moment. I think that President
Putin has still not made a final decision, but I hope that that
is enough to ward the Kremlin off. A united front on sanctions,
which is what we are developing, is prepared and ready if
something were to happen, and the strong resilience in Ukraine
should, at the very least, give people pause for thought. On the
wider issues about the systems, the first systems were delivered
today in country, and the training will take place. As I have
said, these are not major strategic weapons systems, so therefore
they are fairly simple and the training package will not be drawn
out. As I have said, the trainers will then return.
If Russia attacks militarily, the first and foremost response
will be, as we have said, in the areas of sanctions and
diplomacy, and in the consequences that President Putin would
face as a world leader in what could potentially be a very bloody
war, triggered by an invasion that is neither within
international law nor what anyone wants in this world. First,
reputationally, economically, and militarily we would of course
explore whatever we could in those areas, but as I have
previously made clear, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and
British troops will not be deploying to fight Russians.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. To help everybody, I am expecting the statement to end
round about 6.30 pm, so Members should help each other with
quick, short questions and answers. First we come to the Scottish
National party spokesperson, .
(Angus) (SNP)
Many thanks, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for
advance sight of his statement. We remain clear that Russia’s
actions in recent weeks and months, with the massing of 100,000
combat-ready troops, tanks and heavy military equipment near
Ukraine’s eastern border, is unacceptable. In that we are in
accord with the Government.
The behaviour of Russia in causing the crisis is wholly
inconsistent with the norms of state behaviour on matters of
sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is therefore incumbent
on us all to stand firm in the face of such threats to the
international rules-based order and to stand behind our friends
in Ukraine in the face of that aggression.
We can see from the tone and content of Russia’s preconditions
for de-escalation that there remains a major diplomatic challenge
in resolving the crisis through dialogue, yet that must remain
the Government’s principal objective. Russia’s demand that NATO
withdraws troops and military equipment from countries
neighbouring Russia, which of course include not only Ukraine but
our NATO allies in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, is clearly
designed not to be acceded to. Nevertheless, it would be
heartening for the Baltic states to hear the Secretary of State
underline what an absurd proposition the demand is on NATO, that
it will never happen and that the bedrock of NATO as a defensive
alliance remains the solidarity between its member states.
Will the Secretary of State confirm what role the Russian
military studies centre at the Defence Academy in Shrivenham has
in informing the Government’s thinking in this crisis? Can he
reassure the House that the work to deliver a peaceful and
diplomatic outcome remains this Government’s main priority?
Within that dynamic, what is the role of negotiations on Nord
Stream 2?
Mr Wallace
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for supporting our
progress so far. His responsible response is very welcome, and I
will continue to brief the party spokespersons as information
comes to us. First, on solidarity with the Baltic states, I am
off to Latvia tomorrow. The Baltic states are among the smallest
in NATO, but they are right on the frontline. It is important to
get the message across that we are there to defend the countries
in NATO, big or small, as they share our values. It is also
important to remind neighbouring states such as Finland that the
right to choose is more important even than what they choose. I
would defend Sweden and Finland’s right to choose. If they choose
not to join NATO, that is their choice. But we should never take
away the choice, which is what is so unreasonable about the
Kremlin’s demand that, somehow, countries between the United
States and Russia do not get to have a say on their own
sovereignty. That is incredibly wrong.
We are all working for a peaceful outcome, and no one wants
conflict to happen. We think the conflict would be long and
bloody. It is also important that we recognise there is other
thinking in the Kremlin. We can engage on the NATO debate, but I
point hon. and right hon. Members to the article written by
President Putin in July. In those 17 pages, NATO appears in one
paragraph. This is really about ethnonationalism, a sense of
reuniting a mother Russia that did not quite exist and picking
dates to fit the narrative. The article written by the President
of Russia should concern us all, and I have previously read such
articles in other areas, and they usually lead to the most awful
bloodshed.
(North Somerset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as helping Ukraine
militarily, we constantly need to make it clear to President
Putin that his very concept of a Russian near abroad—a veto on
the security and foreign policies of his geographic neighbours—is
at odds with international law and completely at odds with the
concept of self-determination? Does my right hon. Friend agree
that what we are witnessing now is a classic example of the KGB
doctrine of reflexive control, which is all too often a precursor
to Russian military action?
Mr Wallace
What we are seeing, as the United States said, is the playbook
narratives, cyber-attacks, disruption of minorities and division
all used to prey on that country. There is also something else.
What are the consequences for the rest of Europe of a successful
military invasion of Ukraine? I visited Sweden and Finland last
week. When such countries—strong European countries that are not
members of NATO—are genuinely concerned and worried about their
neighbours, all of us in Europe should sit up and listen. If
there were a successful invasion of Ukraine, what would it mean
for President Putin’s other ambitions?
(North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commend him
for his article in The Times this morning, which laid out clearly
the false narrative that President Putin is using to justify his
actions against Ukraine. What more can be done in the information
war? Will he specifically back an initiative by Congressman Gerry
Connolly, the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, who
is calling for a centre for democracy within NATO to argue the
case for why the freedoms of thought and action are so
important?
Mr Wallace
On the latter question, I would definitely support NATO and NATO
members going out and about and supporting not only the values we
stand for, but my point about the right to choose, even if the
choice is not NATO. I think we have forgotten about what we have
often argued for. We have taken for granted our values and the
cost of freedom around the world. We must never stop arguing for
that and making the case. Too often over the decades, it has been
too easy to stop making that case, or indeed to trade it off
against an economic issue. That is why Nord Stream 2 is
important. It is important that we recognise that, if it is a
success, it will not be a success for Europe, but it will
increase friction and division. We should press our German
friends to do more, should Russia invade Ukraine.
(Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the
support across the House for the Ukrainian people. It is quite
true that a free people choose freedom, and the Ukrainian people
are trying to do just that. Would my right hon. Friend care to
mention other failures of the Putin strategy, such as turning
former friends and allies of Russia against it? Is this not an
extraordinarily sad day for the Russian people, who have been so
abused by this tyrannical dictatorship under Putin? Even
countries that have had such strong relations with them,
including the Ukrainian people, are now seeking assistance from
us to ensure that their homes are not violated by Russian
troops?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If the aim of President
Putin is to de-escalate, or push back NATO from his borders, he
should reflect on why so many people have wanted to join NATO. It
is predominantly a consequence of his actions, whether that is in
Georgia or Crimea, or the sub-threshold actions that are putting
real fear into countries such as Sweden and Finland. It is no
coincidence that, in the Finnish and Swedish Parliaments, a sense
of being closer to NATO than they have been in the past is
growing. That is not because of NATO—there is no secret plot—but
because of the actions of the President of Russia.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
The Defence Secretary is absolutely right. When Putin talks of
trying to bring together ethnic Russians into the motherland, it
does remind one of the 1930s, when Hitler referred to trying to
bring all Germans, including Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia,
back into mother Germany. Of course we are right to be very
cautious. When the Defence Secretary says he has offered this
invitation to his Russian counterpart, I hope that does not mean
that we are announcing that we are normalising our political
relations with Russia. The all-party parliamentary group on
Russia has been keen to ensure, as have the House and the
Inter-Parliamentary Union, that we are not normalising our
political relationships until such time as Russia is able to hand
over the evidence that is clearly needed in relation to
Salisbury.
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on his last point. I was
the Security Minister when Salisbury happened. This is not about
normalising relations, but about opening a line of dialogue so
that we can hopefully address a range of issues. The GRU belongs
to the Russian Ministry of Defence, and I will not be forgetting
that in any way, but I do not fear anything by engaging with my
counterpart. On his point about ethnic nationalism, it is
something that in the UK is against our DNA, because of the
lessons we have seen over hundreds of years. People would be wise
not to believe that that article that the President wrote is the
right course of action; the course of action is through dialogue
and addressing the here and now, not harking back to snippets of
history.
(New Forest East) (Con)
Mr Putin knows that NATO will not start world war three to defend
Ukraine, but has he been made aware of precisely what
non-military sanctions will follow? For example, are Finland or
Sweden likely to proceed with an application to join NATO, as has
been suggested?
Mr Wallace
First, there is a basket of sanctions that are prepared both by
the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, the EU is
addressing and formulating a package and, obviously, Sweden and
Finland would be part of that. I cannot speak for Sweden and
Finland about whether they would join NATO. One of the
fundamentals of NATO is the open door policy. We have been clear
on that, but, as I have said, I am even more clear that defending
a country to choose is actually more important often than what it
chooses. We enhance and work our relationship with Finland and
Sweden through the joint expeditionary force, which is 11
nations—Scandinavian and Nordic, and Britain—working together and
exercising together in the defence world. That is brilliant: it
binds together the EU, NATO and other members to make sure that
we can deter by being as professional as possible with our armed
forces.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
In the recent negotiations, NATO rightly rejected the wholly
unreasonable demands of Russia for the reasons that the Secretary
of State has so clearly set out to the House, but it did indicate
that it would be willing to talk about other matters. Does the
Government support, for example, putting arms control and limits
to military exercises on the table in any further
discussions?
Mr Wallace
Certainly when it comes to arms control, we have always felt that
arms controls are good things. I am old enough to remember the
1980s and the work people went into to get those, and it has been
sad that Russia has breached a number of those treaties and the
United States pulled out of the open skies treaty not so long
ago. I think we should try to work towards getting back to a
place where we can have more confidence in each other, first and
foremost.
On exercising, first, NATO should exercise in order to keep
itself at the best it can be for defence. I also think it is the
right of a sovereign country to choose to exercise in its land.
If Lithuania or Estonia wish to exercise militarily, either
bilaterally or multilaterally, that is a choice for that country,
and we are always happy to work together. I am not sure I want to
give Russia a veto over where we exercise, but I am very
supportive of making sure that we are as open as possible, so
that people do not miscalculate when we do exercise and they
recognise that it is an exercise rather than an operation.
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
Like the Defence Secretary, I read President Putin’s essay “On
the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” this summer. In
it he clearly does not recognise Ukraine in its current borders,
but he also lays out what he thinks are justifiably Russian
lands: the oblasts—the counties—that run along the north side of
the Black sea linking Rostov with Transdniestria and Odessa. Did
he get the same thinking from reading the article?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right. The article even goes further and talks
about Carpathian Ruthenia, which is part of the Czech Republic.
The other bit that I think was deeply sad was that anyone who
disagreed was effectively described as Russia-phobic. I cannot
tell you how wrong that is. It is perfectly possible to disagree
with the Kremlin and the actions of President Putin without
disagreeing with the people of Russia or, indeed, supporting
Russia. I am a proud Scot, and the Scots and the Russians spent
most of their time in each other’s courts—there were admirals,
there were generals and there were physicians, and 150 years of
Scottish-Russian links helped to build the Russian medical system
that we know today. I think the worst part of his article is the
part that says that to criticise is to be anti-Russian, which is
quite wrong.
(Caithness, Sutherland and
Easter Ross) (LD)
The Norwegian Prime Minister has recently spoken about Russia
increasing hybrid operations, including cyber-attacks and signal
jamming. I compliment the Secretary of State for his visits last
week, but clearly one of our great allies is Norway. Can the
Secretary of State outline to me what specific steps have been
taken during the Ukraine crisis to ensure that in no way is
Norway’s security compromised?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman will know that Britain and Norway are really
old allies—indeed, we can almost see Norway from his
constituency—and I was there as well, after Finland and Sweden,
last week. First, we exercise regularly at all levels in all
areas. Both our intelligence relationship and our military
relationship are strong. The Royal Marines have been present in
the high north for decades, and we were planning even more
exercising to do together.
Norway also plays a really key role in bringing alongside a NATO
country Finland and Sweden, so we exercise in the Arctic and the
high north, which is of course a growing domain and, indeed, an
area where Russia can use sub-threshold activity—everything from
migrant flows. There was a period in its history when it put
migrants on bicycles—it gave them free bicycles—to drive them
across the border not so long ago. I think it is really important
that we work together to have the shared understanding, and to
say to Russia that the messaging in that part of the world is,
“We are all one people”. Our links go across for centuries, but
understanding what it is up to is as important.
(The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement today. He will know
that, in 2014, Russian aggression severely degraded the Ukrainian
navy. Will he update the House on the Ukrainian capabilities
enhancement project? What progress has been made since that was
signed in June?
Mr Wallace
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Ukrainian navy was snatched,
effectively, with the invasion of Crimea, which was one of the
main navy bases, and it has been operating predominantly on gifts
of patrol boats from the United States. That is why last year we
entered into an agreement to help Ukraine to build boats to
enable it to protect its coastline, and to put infrastructure
investment into ports so it could start to rebuild its navy. It
is important that Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe, has the
ability to export and free navigation. Russia has already
threatened that, and we saw the aggressive action toward HMS
Defender earlier in the year, so it is important that we help the
Ukrainians to help themselves.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
Although it is important that we take Russian security concerns
seriously, we must resist at all costs any attempts by Russia to
re-imperialise eastern Europe. May I press the Secretary of State
on two dimensions of his twin-track strategy? First, how ready is
NATO to accede to requests to join not only from Finland but from
countries in the western Balkans and Georgia, so that any
tactical advance into Ukraine is a strategic defeat? Secondly,
will the Secretary of State say a word about the
intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty, because it is hard to
envisage an arms control framework for Europe without some
measure of control over ground-launched cruise missiles—even if
they are non-nuclear—on the continent of Europe?
Mr Wallace
On the latter question, may I write to the right hon. Gentleman
about where we are with that? Overall, as I said about strategic
treaties, better transparency is really important. The last thing
any of us wants is a growing arms race, but we want to have
confidence that as the technology grows it does not become more
dangerous, and the treaties can adapt with technological
growth.
What is the narrative that the Kremlin does not want to hear, but
is true? The No. 1 point is that it has been shown that a
consequence of this aggression is the expansion of NATO, not a
contraction, and plenty of other countries are watching. If there
is one message I want to get to President Putin it is that others
are watching, and the track record shows that they will do the
opposite of what he wants when he behaves in this way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I must urge brevity. I call .
(Rutland and Melton)
(Con)
What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of our Ukrainian
allies’ resolve to not just repel but resist a further invasion,
and what further capabilities are required to enhance this? Will
he also keep an eye on Bosnia, given that we know Putin is
seeking to cause similar issues for our friends there?
Mr Wallace
The other part of the article said that, somehow, the Ukrainian
people were just waiting to be liberated. The other message I
want to give President Putin is that these people will fight;
they are strongly of the view that Ukraine is a sovereign country
and they will stand and defend their freedoms. It is not the case
that they will welcome with open arms a great liberator and/or
rush back into the fold. That is another important lesson.
(Belfast East) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State for his announcement this
afternoon. His realism in December has been repeated today. The
factual position of Ukraine not being a NATO member and the
restrictions that places on us also add to our vulnerability.
Does he envisage circumstances in which the position of no
deployment of UK or allied troops might be revised?
Mr Wallace
The United Kingdom will always work with its allies to do what it
can for its own and its allies’ security. We will always keep all
options open, but I have to be honest: Russia has the biggest
armed forces in Europe and Ukraine is not a member of NATO. In
that environment, it would be holding out false hope to say that
British armed forces would unilaterally go to join forces
alongside the Ukrainians. That is why we are putting all the
effort into helping the Ukrainians to help themselves, the
sanctions package and diplomatic efforts.
(Beckenham) (Con)
How can we reach out to the Russian people and tell them that
NATO is a defensive alliance, so they do not have to swallow
wholesale the Putin narrative that we are aggressive and trying
to take over Russia?
Mr Wallace
First, as the international community we have to be consistent in
that messaging. The other message, as my hon. Friend will know,
is that Russian mothers and fathers do not want to see their sons
and daughters come back as they did in the first Chechnya war. We
should remind them that this will not be cost-free on either
side, and it is not the way forward. However, we do that
multilaterally together, both as NATO and as the international
community, and we keep that messaging going all the way through.
We do not detract or let them distract with false narratives.
(West
Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is mere coincidence that I am wearing the tartan tie of the
Republic of Estonia today, Madam Deputy Speaker. Reflecting on
that nation’s history, will the Secretary of State advise the
House? When the Estonian Republic was illegally occupied by the
former Soviet Union, the continuity of its Government was assured
here in the UK. Will he make that assurance—that continuity of a
democratically elected Government, if required, for the
Government elected by the people of Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
Not for the first time, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his
suggestion. I will happily look at it and discuss it with my
colleagues in the Cabinet.
On his point about Estonia, I am going next door to its neighbour
Latvia, which of course has a Scottish embassy from the old days;
Scotland and England did not trade together, so we went to
Riga.
(South Ribble)
(Con)
In the early 1980s, a Soviet refugee from Ukraine called Mr
Bailey had the unfortunate task of trying to teach me the cello.
He was much more successful at teaching me about the proud
history of Ukraine. What does this announcement do to our
longstanding friendship with Ukraine more broadly in this
context?
Mr Wallace
I hope that it does what it does for all nations in Europe.
Britain will always be interested in the security of Europe,
whether we are in the EU or not. The security of Europe is
important for our security as much as it is for that of others.
Britain will mean what it says. Britain will not just say,
“Please don’t do this” on behalf of those people; we will help
people defend themselves. That is why this announcement today is
just one of those steps. That is sometimes the difference between
us and others.
(Islington North) (Ind)
When the Minister meets his Russian counterpart in a few weeks’
time, will he use that opportunity to widen the debate into
nuclear disarmament and security measures in general, to build up
a dialogue with Russia so that we can deal with all the issues
and also de-escalate the dangerous tensions, which are rising?
Will he assure the House that no British troops are going to be
sent to or stationed in Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
First of all, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman will
accept my invitation; I have made it, and I hope he does. Of
course we will start the process of establishing a dialogue on a
whole range of issues, which hopefully will involve security,
confidence in each other and transparency, to make sure that
there is no miscalculation going forward.
British troops who are orbital have been based in Ukraine for
years. They are not NATO bases, as President Putin alleges: no
one is setting up NATO bases in Ukraine and no one is positioning
strategic weapons in Ukraine. This is unarmed orbital: we train
people in all sorts of methods. As I said, the trainers that come
over on these systems will leave once the training is done. All I
can say is that this is not new—we have had people there for
years. But of course we are there at the invitation of the
sovereign nation of Ukraine.
(Harwich and North Essex)
(Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is hard to
fathom the seriousness of the situation as it is developing. Can
he shed any light on unconfirmed reports that Russia is now
moving armed forces into Belarus—on to the road to Kiev in
Belarus, and now threatening from the north of the country? If
those reports are confirmed, will the Secretary of State
undertake to return to the House to make a further statement?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes the point about this very worrying
build-up that we have seen and is growing; the latest is that
there has been very sizeable movement of aircraft and aviation
capabilities in the last few days. Significant numbers have been
moving to key areas.
I will go back and look at the details around Belarus as well. I
absolutely commit to Members that I will come to the House and
keep them updated periodically—not only about the build-up, if
that does continue, but about every next step.
(Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the Defence Secretary for his statement. It is clear
that President Putin is trying to destabilise a number of
countries in eastern Europe: we are seeing things happening not
only in Ukraine, but in Bosnia. We are also seeing, to some
extent, Belarus and Poland being destabilised by his actions.
In his statement, the Defence Secretary said:
“Each nation has a sovereign right to choose its own security
arrangements.”
If Russia does invade Ukraine, as I think likely, it would seem
that Ukraine will not have that choice. International sanctions
will obviously play a role after that, but are the Defence
Secretary and our allies thinking that in the longer term this
may mean more than just economic sanctions and military
assistance?
Mr Wallace
I think that in the long term, if President Putin does invade
Ukraine, there are two worries. The wider worry is what happens
in other parts of Europe, but Europe, the United Kingdom and the
international community should not let President Putin forget the
consequences. I think that one of his calculations is that a
number of countries will just forget about it in a few months or
years and that he will be able to carry on as normal. If it
happens, I think the international community has a duty to remind
President Putin that what he has done is unacceptable, that only
the return of the sovereign territory to Ukraine is acceptable,
and that he faces the consequences of his actions. Until he does
so, he may well end up very isolated.
(Wrexham) (Con)
We know that Russia is the master of misinformation to advance
its military ambition. Does my right hon. Friend think that the
provision of this defensive security system package will be spun
by the Russian media as an act of provocation?
Mr Wallace
I expect all sorts of allegations, but that is why I have come to
the House: to be transparent about it, not strategic. Secondly,
the United States and other countries have already provided
support over months and years to Ukraine. You cannot cry wolf
more than once or twice. Indeed, the Russian media themselves
approached me at the conference of the parties about our sales of
missiles for patrol boats. If it was not provocation a year ago
with another nation, I think it would be unreasonable to allow
them to peddle that message.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I am afraid that we cannot take any further contributions.
It has become normal for every question on a statement to be
taken, but that is not actually normal practice. The House must
be aware of the next business, which will require some time, so
we will have to conclude questions on the statement.
|
