Russia: Tactical Nuclear Weapon Deployment
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the risks and consequences of the deployment by Russia of a
tactical nuclear weapon, and of possible responses by the
West.
(Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper—but I wish it were not necessary to ask it.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office ( of Richmond Park) (Con)
Likewise.
My Lords, President Putin’s comments are deeply irresponsible. No
other country in the world is talking about nuclear use.
President Putin should be clear that, for the UK and our allies,
any use at all of nuclear weapons would break a taboo on nuclear
use that goes back to 1945 and has held since then. It would lead
to severe consequences for Russia. President Putin has launched
an illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. His forces
continue to commit senseless atrocities. The people of Ukraine
are seeking only to restore their sovereignty and territorial
integrity, and we will continue to support Ukraine’s right to
defend herself.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The House knows
very well how terribly dangerous the situation now is, as
reflected in the recent comments of the President of the United
States. Would the Minister agree that the urgent priority for the
UK Government, working with other nuclear powers, including China
and India, should be to exert the maximum pressure on Russia not
to use a tactical nuclear weapon? Would he further agree that it
is in the interests of no nuclear power for nuclear weapons to be
used and that, were that event horizon ever to be crossed, the
world would face terrifying instability? Should we not be
concentrating our efforts on trying to de-escalate the war in
Ukraine?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, these discussions are happening all over the world; it
is in no one’s interests whatever that President Putin comes even
close to realising the mindless threats that he has been making.
But it is incumbent on us, our NATO allies and powers beyond NATO
to reiterate the risk that Russia itself and President Putin
would face were he to go down that route. I think we can all
agree that the language that has been used by NATO and by our
friends in America has made that very clear.
(Con)
Does my noble friend think that the situation in Ukraine and
Russia underlines the need for, and the value of having, an
independent continuously at sea nuclear deterrent?
of Richmond Park (Con)
That is very much the view of the British Government. As the
noble Lord knows, we have maintained and will continue to
maintain our deterrent for all eventualities.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords—
(CB)
My Lords, NATO was created to contain the threat of the former
Soviet Union—an entity that no longer exists. It is individual
countries, not NATO, that have been aiding and helping the brave
people of Ukraine. Would the Minister agree that if we were to
say that we will disband NATO it might just give Putin the escape
route he so desperately requires? If that does not work, it will
at least show the Russian people what sort of person Putin
is.
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is precisely the existence of NATO that gives us
some hope that we can check President Putin’s power. NATO has
been very clear, as we as an active member of it have been, that
we will continue to respond to Russia’s threat and hostile
actions in a united and responsible way, including by
significantly strengthening deterrence and defence for all
allies. NATO absolutely does not seek confrontation with Russia,
but it is nevertheless speaking with one very clear voice.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, when I stood to intervene a moment ago, I had planned
to point out that the head of GCHQ had pointed out that any talk
of using nuclear weapons was highly dangerous. I would now add to
that that any talk of disbanding NATO is also highly dangerous
and misguided.
I had planned to ask the Minister what lessons the Prime Minister
had taken away from the meeting of the new European Political
Community in Prague last week. She spoke very highly of the fact
that there was collective resolve to stand up to Russian
aggression. I wonder how that will be demonstrated.
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, in the grimness of the situation in Ukraine and the
aggression that has been brought on by Vladimir Putin, one silver
lining that has perhaps resulted is that Europe really has come
together and really does speak with one voice on this issue. That
is reflected in so many other discussions we are having across
the board with our friends and allies across the European
Union.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the light of the appalling bombardment of Kyiv
yesterday, what plans do the Government have to increase military
support for Ukraine? Will the Government agree with and endorse
the warning issued by General Petraeus last week, who said that
any use of nuclear weapons by the Russians would result in the US
taking out every Russian force they could see and identify on the
battlefield in Ukraine and in Crimea, and every ship in the Black
Sea?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK has been a proud contributor to Ukraine’s heroic
efforts. We have given £2.3 billion so far in military support to
Ukraine, and we are committed to meeting or exceeding that amount
next year. We have provided support in other forms as well,
amounting to around £1.6 billion and, as the Prime Minister
reiterated today, our support is absolutely unwavering. However,
I think it is also clear that were Vladimir Putin to engage in
the kind of abomination we are talking about today, the
repercussions for him would be very serious indeed.
(Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as a vice-chair of the
Nuclear Threat Initiative and the chair of the European
Leadership Network. In September, Jake Sullivan told CBS’s “Face
the Nation” that the US was communicating
“directly, privately and at very high levels to the Kremlin that
any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic
consequences for Russia”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, reminded us, this
morning on the “Today” programme, Sir Jeremy Fleming, the
director of GCHQ, cautioned that any talk of nuclear weapons was
very dangerous and that we need to be very careful about how we
talk about that. So is it not best that we take Sir Jeremy’s
implied advice and do not keep talking up the potential use of
nuclear weapons in this context?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, there is no one in the House and, indeed, the country
who would welcome the threats that we have heard from Russia
being realised, but it is important that we reiterate, as NATO
and the UK have, that any employment of nuclear weapons would
fundamentally alter the very nature of this already grim
conflict. It is important that the world is clear that were the
fundamental security of any NATO member to be threatened, NATO
has the capabilities and the resolve to impose costs on an
adversary, whoever that is, that would far outweigh the benefits
that any adversary could hope to achieve. I do not believe that
that is talking up the prospect of nuclear conflict, which is the
very last thing that any of us wants, but it is important
nevertheless that the consequences are understood across the
board.
The Lord
My Lords, what is the Government’s assessment of the impact of
the present threat and the potential use of tactical nuclear
weapons on the wider non-proliferation regime? What measures are
they taking to strengthen the long-term resilience of that
regime, together with the Article 6 commitments of the NPT?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of an assessment that has been made by
government, so I do not want to provide an answer which would, I
am afraid, be off the hoof from my point of view, but I will look
into this and ask the appropriate Minister and department whether
such an assessment exists and, if it does, I will make sure it is
made public.
(CB)
My Lords, expanding on a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord
Stansgate, one of the most effective ways of minimising the risk
of the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict would be for the
Chinese leadership to send an unequivocal message, albeit
privately, to the Russians that such use would be unacceptable to
them. What diplomatic measures are in hand to pursue such an
outcome?
of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord makes an extremely important point.
While I cannot go into the details of diplomatic engagement with
China on this issue or many others, the point he has made has
been absolutely heard and understood and is entirely valid.
(Lab)
My Lords, Putin’s reckless talk should be condemned by all and
the situation is serious, but our focus should remain on what is
happening in Ukraine. Irrespective of the distortions and lies
coming from the Kremlin, now is not the time to weaken or dilute
our firm support for the people of Ukraine. Can the Minister tell
the House whether the Government will take further steps to
strengthen Ukraine’s capacity for air defence?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, we are not in any respect taking our foot off support
for Ukraine. I mentioned earlier the financial and military
support we have provided and hinted at the non-military support
which amounts to around £1.6 billion so far. In addition to that,
we are part of a process of introducing what I think is the
largest and most severe economic sanctions package that Russia
has ever faced. More than 1,200 individuals have been sanctioned
by the UK, as well as 120 entities, including all their
subsidiaries. Some 80% of the Russian banking sector is now
subject to sanctions and more than 60% of the central bank’s
foreign reserves are frozen. We know that one of the many
consequences of that package is that companies in Russia are now
struggling to produce the weapons that they have been asked to
produce by the Russian state.
