(Bournemouth East)
(Con): I welcome the statement and the wider steps that the
UK is taking to support Ukraine. My concern is that western
tactical responses are playing into Putin’s strategy. Seeking
meetings with him, for example, plays to his self-importance; any
sanctions actioned will drive Russia ever closer to China, which
is exactly what he wants; and sending NATO reinforcements around
Ukraine, but not in it, is not the way to deter an attack.
I worry that we are missing the bigger picture. Putin is using
the Ukraine crisis to realign Russia militarily, economically and
geopolitically with China, which has massive security
implications for the west. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that
the only way to halt an invasion and check that dangerous
trajectory is to support Ukraine militarily? This is our Cuban
missile crisis. I encourage Britain to lead the call to deploy an
offensive alliance and stand up to Putin’s aggression.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Affairs (): Our approach in
dealing with the issue of Russian aggression is both deterrence
and diplomacy. That is why the UK has been at the forefront in
supplying defensive weapons to Ukraine, training up Ukrainian
forces and working with our allies, many of whom are also
supplying defensive support into Ukraine. But we have to be clear
that there is a difference between a country that is a member of
NATO, which has a security guarantee—Baltic states such as
Estonia, where UK troops are in place—and the situation in
Ukraine.
In my view, the best way of deterring Vladimir Putin from an
invasion of Ukraine is by making it very clear, first, that that
will not be simple or easy and is likely to result in a quagmire,
as we saw in the Soviet-Afghan war or in Chechnya; and, secondly,
that there will be severe economic consequences—and those are, of
course, sanctions that target oligarchs and companies close to
Vladimir Putin. Also, not going ahead with Nord Stream
2 is very important from the Russian point of
view.
It is important that we talk to Russia and communicate these
messages. We will not resile from our position on the protection
of the open-door policy into NATO, but we will communicate
directly with Russia so that it understands those messages.
(Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con): The Foreign Secretary is absolutely correct to
highlight that our partners in central and eastern Europe—Poland
and the Baltic states—recognise the leadership that Britain is
providing with regard to these new tensions, but they also
recognise the increasing divergence between London and Berlin in
how to tackle Russia over this nefarious behaviour. Does she
agree that it is important now to go back to our German partners
and re-emphasise the need for them to stop the Nord Stream
2 pipeline, which gives the Russians an umbilical
cord to the heart of Europe? We import less than 1.5% of our gas
requirements from Russia, whereas the Germans import more than
60% of their energy requirements from Moscow.
: I had a discussion
with my colleague Foreign Minister Baerbock last week about
precisely this issue, and I welcome the statements from her and
Chancellor Scholz about Nord Stream
2 in which they were very clear that it will not
go ahead in the event of a Russian incursion. We do need to
reduce dependence on Russian gas. I welcome the work that the
United States is doing to look at how supplies can be augmented,
and we are working with partners across the middle east. This is
a strategic issue for Europe and we do need to reduce dependence
on Russian gas—there is no doubt about it.
To rewad all the exchanges, CLICK HERE
