Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the build-up of Russian military forces on the border with
Ukraine and the implications for gas supplies to Western
Europe.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office () (Con)
My Lords, we have significant concerns about Russia’s pattern of
military build-ups on the border with Ukraine and in illegally
annexed Crimea. Russia’s threatening, destabilising behaviour is
unacceptable. The United Kingdom and international allies are
unwavering in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and, indeed,
territorial integrity. Russia’s destabilising behaviour could
affect western European gas supplies, especially as storage
levels are low. However, UK gas imports are diverse and in 2020
Russian imports represented less than 3% of our total
supplies.
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, but it is much
broader than this. I believe that NATO nations are standing into
danger. We have seen this pressure on gas supplies. We have seen
the build-up of military forces. We have seen Alexander
Lukashenko—who is, let us face it, a puppet of Putin—now putting
pressure on the borders of Poland and Lithuania. There are very
real risks that things might escalate. This is highly dangerous
behaviour. If that happens, would an Article 4 be called? I am
not sure—it might be. That is extremely dangerous and
worrying.
There are two issues. First, the NATO Council should meet to
discuss whether using the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
is in the interests of Europe. It is a real danger to rely so
much on Russia. Secondly, bearing in mind that the actions on the
borders might well lead to an Article 4-type question, there
needs to be a meeting of NATO Ministers. This is becoming a very
dangerous time—this is typical grey-zone warfare that Putin has
embarked on and is now expanding.
(Con)
My Lords, on both those fronts I totally agree with the noble
Lord. I agree with his assessment that the issue of Nord Stream 2 is having
a destabilising effect across Europe—we have repeatedly been
consistent in expressing our concerns in that regard—and about
the importance of NATO and of NATO Ministers meeting. A NATO
meeting is scheduled, and I am sure that these issues,
particularly with the unravelling of the situation on the Polish
border, will be primary in the concerns and discussions that the
NATO Ministers have.
(Lab)
My Lords, it seems almost certain that reports of build-up along
the border are directly related to a year-long increase in the
number of violations on both sides of the line of contact of the
June 2020 ceasefire agreement. If that is the case, that needs to
be engaged with. What diplomatic contribution are our Government
making to help to strengthen the ceasefire, either within the
OSCE or otherwise multilaterally or bilaterally?
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with a lot of insight and
experience. I assure him that, for example, my right honourable
friend the Prime Minister engaged directly with President Putin
on 25 October, where Ukraine was primary in their discussions. I
too, through the workings of the OSCE, an area that I will now be
looking after, will ensure that the Minsk accords and agreements,
and the principle that was agreed, will be upheld. So on all
diplomatic fronts, we are engaging, both bilaterally and through
multilateral organisations.
(LD)
My Lords, last week there were reports that Gazprom was putting
pressure on Moldova to sign an agreement if it distanced itself
from the European Union. The Ukrainian energy Minister has called
for the European Commission to formally review the Nord Stream 2 approach.
The Minister here said that the UK has concerns about the scheme.
Can he be specific? Is he supporting a halt to the process, and
does he therefore disagree with the European Commission’s
position that due process should be carried out regarding
the Nord Stream
2 project?
(Con)
My Lords, on the specific point about Nord Stream
2 our position is consistent: we believe that it
destabilises the continent of Europe due to its reliance on it.
Recent events have also indicated its heavy reliance on a single
source of supply and the insecurity that that can bring. We are
working with key partners on this issue, but we are very clear on
what our position is.
(Con)
My Lords, I should declare a sort of interest, in that that nice
man Mr Putin has banned me from going to Russia. I think the
Government accept how serious the situation is, but the Minister
should know that Putin will judge us by our actions, not our
words. So does he think it is sensible for the United Kingdom at
the moment to be reducing its Army by 11% and reducing the number
of its surface warships and aircraft, or does he think that
President Putin will look at us and say that that shows
weakness?
(Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s first point, I will be sure to
relay that to the Prime Minister and raise directly the concerns
about him not being able to visit Russia. On the serious point
about our military presence, as my noble friend will be aware, we
have exercised our full support to Ukraine, including the
deployment of vessels to the region in order to ensure security
for international waters, and we strongly support the Ukrainian
position on territorial sovereignty and integrity.
(CB)
My Lords, malicious activity by Russia in the context of
destabilising Ukraine was prominent in the recent integrated
review’s assessment of the global security context. Given its
evident predictability, can the Minister reassure the House that
the relevant government machinery—namely, the National Security
Committee—has met recently to review scenarios and likely
contingent responses, both national and integrated with close
allies?
(Con)
My Lords, without going into the detail, the noble Lord is of
course correct that the integrated review had a specific focus on
the threat posed by Russia, not just through aggression from
military sources but through other sources—cyber remains a key
concern. The National Security Council repeatedly meets on issues
of priority, of which the concerns across Europe are also well
documented.
(Lab)
My Lords, as Russian forces continue to build up on the Ukrainian
border, Associated Press reported that Russia and Belarus are
further deepening their integration, stopping short of a full
merger. Obviously Lukashenko now relies on Russia for support far
more than he did before because of the international community’s
opposition to his crackdown on the opposition within the country;
10 days ago we discussed the sanctions. I welcome what the
Minister has said about discussions with NATO but, as the noble
and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, we really need a
co-ordinated approach here. Can the Minister tell us why the
Government are still delaying the full implementation of the
Russia report?
(Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s last point—the Russia report—we
have already taken key steps and actions. I have previously
documented the steps that we have taken. There is a
cross-government approach to the response to that, and a reply
was issued immediately after the report came out. In the
interests of time, I will write to the noble Lord about the
specific actions that we have undertaken.
(Con)
My Lords, South Ossetia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine and even
Salisbury—for the past 10 years and more, Russia has been
pursuing a policy based on distracting the West, of bullying,
balderdash and sometimes outright banditry. To follow up on
previous questions, is it not time for a renewed, revitalised and
fully integrated strategy, not just military or economic but also
diplomatic, particularly based on the Black Sea, which is an area
of great vulnerability for Russia? The first part of any such
strategy must surely be for us in western Europe to stop buying
more and more Russian gas every time we catch a cold.
(Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and I assure him that we
are doing exactly that. The integrated review is a good example
of how we are working across government, and indeed with our
allies. On his last point, as I said in my original Answer, less
than 3% of our gas supply now comes from Russia. Currently, 45%
of our overall energy mix is gas, of which 48% is domestically
sourced, so increasingly we are moving away; certainly our
reliance on Russian gas is less than that of others across
Europe.
The Lord Speaker ()
I call the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. He is not present, so I
call the noble Lord, .
(LD)
My Lords, what notice did Her Majesty’s Government have of
President Biden’s withdrawal of the objection to Nord Stream 2 What
representations did our Government make to the Government of the
United States?
(Con)
My Lords, what I can speak to is that we have had a range of
discussions, and our views on Nord Stream 2 are
very well documented. On the point that the noble Lord raises, we
have made our position very clear to the US, and indeed to all
our other allies, about Nord Stream 2 having a
destabilising effect across the continent of Europe.
(Con)
My Lords, does the Minister not remember that part of the problem
with the Nord Stream gas pipeline was interference by the
Ukrainian authorities with the Russian pipeline that was running
through Ukraine? Would it not be best to start by getting an
agreement with the German Government on the best approach and way
forward?
(Con)
My Lords, obviously the German Government will present their own
position. We note the US and German collaboration to mitigate the
negative energy impacts of the pipeline, but it is equally
important that we stand firm in support of Ukraine, which
continues to be challenged, and not just by insecurity when it
comes to energy; let us not forget the situation in the Donbass
and the continuing pursuance of the annexation of Crimea, which
is right on our continent. It is Russian aggression that needs to
recede.
