PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Ukraine - 13 February 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Ukraine.

Yesterday, at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary, we saw almost 50 nations and partners standing together. Ukraine is backed by the members of the group, and by billions of dollars-worth of arms and ammunition that have been committed to keep its warfighters equipped. That will increase pressure on Putin, help force him to the table, and bring a sustainable peace closer.

We were pleased that Secretary Hegseth confirmed the US’s continued commitment to the group, to Ukraine’s pursuit of what he called “a durable peace”, and to the importance of security guarantees. We heard his call for European nations to step up; we are, and we will. NATO allies pledged €40 billion in 2024, and went on to provide €50 billion. The majority of that came from European nations, while non-US NATO allies boosted wider defence spending by 20% in just the last year, so Europe is stepping up.

Finally, we saw a clear commitment to ratcheting up the pressure on Putin, using both military and economic tools. We all agree that 2025 will be the critical year for Ukraine. At this crucial moment, we will not step back, but step up our support for Ukraine. President Trump and President Zelensky have both spoken of their desire to achieve “peace through strength”. The commitments made yesterday provide the collective strength that we need to achieve peace. For our part, the UK will spend £4.5 billion on military support for Ukraine this year, which is more than ever before.

We have now provided more than 500,000 artillery shells, worth over £1.5 billion. Yesterday, the Defence Secretary announced that we will provide an additional £150 million of new firepower, including drones, tanks and air-to-air missiles. Ukraine’s security matters to global security. That is why the vital Ukraine Defence Contact Group coalition of 50 nations and partners stretches from the Indo-Pacific to South America. This war was never about the fate of just one nation. When the border of one country is redrawn by force, it undermines the security of all nations.

The US is serious about stability in the Indo-Pacific, as are we. That is why the Prime Minister announced that the carrier strike group will go there next year. If aggression goes unchecked on one continent, it emboldens regimes on another, so on stepping up for Ukraine, we are, and we will. On stepping up for European security, we are, and we will.

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; we are in recess next week, and the day that we return will be the third anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine. In the past three years, Russia has inflicted unimaginable suffering on Ukraine. There has been military and civilian loss of life on a vast scale, at the hands of a dictator oblivious to consequences and only too willing to sacrifice his own soldiers to the meat grinder.

In the face of so many casualties and so much pain, of course we all want peace. We all want the senseless slaughter to stop, and for Ukraine to once again thrive and enjoy the trappings of peace and prosperity, which we all take for granted. It is clear that an end to this suffering is a goal that President Trump wishes to achieve rapidly; he set that out to the American people before securing their support for his election to the White House, and for a second mandate.

We remain 100% steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and in our backing for the Government in delivering that; they gave us the same backing when in opposition. We agree in principle with them and believe, as we stressed repeatedly in government, that it is for the Ukrainians to decide the timing and the terms of any negotiations on ending the war. Does the Minister agree that negotiations without the direct involvement of Ukraine would be unthinkable? What more can the Minister say about how the Government will work with allies to ensure that any negotiations are driven by the primacy of Ukraine’s needs, not least given its status as the democratic nation invaded, without provocation, by a dictator?

We welcome the news from the Minister about the commitments given by other European NATO nations this week, but is not President Trump right to consistently highlight the point that some NATO nations spend far below what is expected and required on defence? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government, using every lever at their disposal, will remind all NATO members that a win for Putin in any settlement may bring a temporary end to the conflict, but will not make the world a safer place? Far from it. It would be an illusion of peace, and would be likely to send a very dangerous signal to other potential adversaries.

Of course, the position expressed by both the US President and his Defence Secretary yesterday has huge implications for our defence policy. They have made it abundantly clear that the US will play no role in any future peacekeeping effort in Ukraine, should that be necessary. Although the Government will of course be cautious about contemplating publicly the implications of that, is not the key point straightforward: if higher defence spending was urgent before, it is now critical?

I welcome the fact that, in the main, there is still consensus across this House on supporting Ukraine. That has been a tremendously important part of the support that we have given over the last three years, and before, to the Ukrainians.

The hon. Gentleman said that there should be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine; my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made that clear in his remarks yesterday. NATO’s job is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for any talks, but there can be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine’s involvement. We want to see a durable peace and no return to conflict and aggression. That is the only way in which this war can end, with the kind of security that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have referred to.

We are all conscious of the three-year anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, and our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine at this time. However, there can be no peace without justice. It is therefore welcome that countries are collaborating to try to bring about a de-escalation of the war. What are the Government doing to focus on the justice system, to ensure that war criminals are tried, and justice is brought to the Ukrainian people?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have always said that this has to be a just peace, and that those who have committed war crimes during the invasion of Ukraine need to be pursued for them.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Yesterday, the leader of my party warned the Prime Minister that we might be facing the worst betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945. The hours since have confirmed our fears. This is a moment of great peril for us all. Does the Minister agree that the US’s actions are a betrayal of our Ukrainian friends, who have fought so hard for their freedom, of the UK, and of all our European allies? Will the Government step up and show British leadership, starting by passing urgent legislation to seize frozen Russian assets, so that we can support Ukraine whatever the US does? Clearly, in the light of the events of the past 24 hours, the Government need to look again at defence spending. Does she agree that the decision of the previous Government to continue with a cut to the Army of 10,000 troops at a time when war is raging on our continent now looks utterly unforgivable?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about being betrayed by our allies. The US Defence Secretary has made it clear that he that he wants a durable peace. That is what he and the President are proceeding to try to obtain, so I do not accept that point. In terms of our own forces, we are seeking to ensure that recruitment, which has failed to meet targets over the last number of years, is improved, so that the numbers in our armed forces are up to full strength.

I thank the Minister for her statement and the additional support that the Government have announced. It is essential that the UK supports Ukraine, and that the annual £3 billion pledge continues. Does she agree that working alongside our allies is even more essential in these turbulent times to bring about an end to the war?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that any such negotiations must involve Ukraine, and that the Ukrainians must be happy with the peace that is negotiated. Our role at present, while fierce fighting is still going on, is to put them in the strongest position that we can, in order to enable them properly to negotiate.

I welcome what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. Does she agree that in this new world, and in the event of any peace deal, the United Kingdom and its European allies must lead in providing Ukraine with military support and, potentially, military presence across land, air and sea, to give Ukraine confidence that any peace will endure? I assure the Government that they will have my support, if that is what they decide to do.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Of course, when he played a part in these matters he was in office, so he is very knowledgeable about them. I can confirm that we aim to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to enable it to negotiate. That involves continuing to supply the Ukrainians with the arms and weapons that they need in order to fight, because the fighting is still fierce. We need to step up and ensure that we do that. Certainly over the last period, the EU and European nations that are involved in the coalition to support Ukraine have given the majority of military aid and support. As the Secretary-General of NATO confirmed yesterday, 58% of the support that Ukraine received last year was from European nations, so European nations are stepping up. We must continue to do so.

My hon. Friend is correct. As I said in my initial response to the urgent question, it is important that we deter that kind of behaviour wherever it is seen around the world.

It is quite clear from events of the past few hours that the Atlantic and the high north are of increasingly critical concern. Indeed, I was a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee that considered that in the previous Parliament. I know that the Government have had conversations with Denmark, but what conversations are they having with our other Joint Expeditionary Force partners to ensure that those forces are given the support and the resources that they need?

The Government have ongoing discussions with our partners in Europe and the high north.

Does the Minister agree that this announcement should not affect the support of this House and the UK for Ukraine, and will she work with our armed forces and our defence industries to do everything possible to support Ukrainian forces on the frontline?

My hon. Friend is correct. We are doing that, but we must continue to step up our capacity to support Ukraine with weapons and the force that it needs to deter ongoing aggression, and to ensure that it is in the strongest possible position in any negotiations that it decides to enter.

Will the Government impress on President Trump at every possible opportunity that the reason why appeasement led to world war two was that it left a vacuum in Europe, whereas the reason why the occupation of eastern Europe at the end of that war did not lead to world war three was that the United States filled any possible vacuum and contained further aggression? If he is going for a settlement against the wishes of the Ukrainian people, the least he can do is guarantee directly the security of that part of Ukraine which remains unoccupied.

No matter which side of the Chamber he is sitting on, the right hon. Gentleman has a long history of supporting deterrence—whether nuclear or short of that threshold—and he makes the same point again. The US Secretary of Defence made it clear in his remarks to the contact group that deterrence is important around the world, so I think there is agreement there.

I welcome the announcement of the new £150 million package of military firepower for Ukraine., including drones, tanks and air defence systems. How will that boost Ukrainian resilience and the UK defence sector?

It does both. There is only one way in which we can provide the Ukrainians with increasing amounts of munitions and drones, which are developing and changing rapidly, and that is by boosting the strength of our defence industries. That has the additional importance of enabling us to boost our capacity to deter any potential aggression, so in that sense we can do both, and we are doing so.

Viewed from Washington, the idea of carving up the map in Europe might look like a pragmatic deal, even if history tells us that that always ends badly. Surely we in Europe understand that no matter what we give Vladimir Putin, he will always want more. Is that the context in which the strategic defence review is being carried out, and does the Minister accept that this moment requires a fundamental reset of our relations with our European partners—not just in defence—and that we need to get real about the financial and economic implications?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the strategic defence review is about identifying threats that we face now, rather than threats we perhaps faced before the Ukraine war began, so I can tell him that the review is being conducted with that in mind. On the deterrence that we need to be able to provide and the money we need to spend to provide it, the commitment is as it has been: as the Prime Minister has said, he will set out a path to 2.5% once the strategic defence review has been published, and we expect that to be in the spring.

As the Minister will know from her many welcome visits, my constituency is home to many defence companies that are playing a vital role in this conflict. Does she agree that it is crucial that we continue to support companies here in the UK to get military kit into the hands of those in Ukraine who need it most?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I have had the pleasure of visiting her constituency on several occasions, and when it was her predecessor’s constituency as well, so I am well aware of the strength of its defence industrial base. We need to strengthen that base across our nations and regions, and we are doing that. That has the additional importance of providing deterrence for our nation as well as supporting Ukraine.

Will the Minister agree that this clarifies what the benchmark of success for the defence review must be? As some of the defence chiefs have been expressing, we must be ready, if necessary, to fight a war with Russia if we are to deter it and if we are to be in any position to guarantee the security of an independent and sovereign Ukraine after whatever is agreed between President Trump and President Putin.

I agree—we all agree—with the hon. Gentleman that defence spending needs to increase. That must be done in the context of us setting out in the SDR precisely where we see the threats. It is important to spend money correctly and in the best possible way, and I do not think that there is any real disagreement across the Chamber about that. We will see in due course whether those challenges are met when the strategic defence review is published and we set out the path to 2.5%—

When?

In the spring.

I welcome the statement that any negotiations about Ukraine must involve Ukraine. In that spirit, has the Minister or any of her colleagues had conversations with their counterparts in Ukraine following the recent developments to find out how they are feeling? If not, do they plan to soon?

I have not, but I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been having discussions and, indeed, our discussions are ongoing and frequent. I have had contact with my counterpart in Ukraine, just not since yesterday.

Yesterday, no matter that we in this House wish it was not the case, the people of Ukraine were betrayed and the crimes of aggression and annexation were rewarded in a telephone call between Washington and Moscow. Right now, we have to be building closer partnerships with our European allies for whom democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law still actually mean something. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but how will the Government do that in the face of two men who believe that, because of their military superiority, they can do whatever they want to whomever they want?

The US Secretary of Defence made it clear yesterday that any peace negotiations that the Americans are involved in need to lead to a durable peace that does not see a resumption of the aggression that has led to this war, and we support that. We have also made it quite clear that these negotiations must involve Ukraine—of course they must. That is the way in which this war will finally end.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the commitment that any negotiations about Ukraine must involve Ukraine, because if reports of the call between President Trump and Moscow are to be believed, this is less the art of the deal and more a charter for appeasement. Will we be working with NATO allies to establish a clear road map with defined timeframes for Ukraine’s NATO membership, ensuring long-term deterrence against inevitable further Russian aggression?

We have always said that Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO, and our position is that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership. However, we have also always been clear that the process will take time. I have already said quite clearly that the fate of Ukraine in these negotiations cannot be determined without Ukraine being fully involved, and that is our priority. At the moment, warfighting is still happening to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to negotiate from strength.

In 1994, Russia —along with the UK and the US—signed the Budapest memorandum, pledging to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Given Russia’s flagrant breach of that undertaking, why should Ukraine believe a word that Putin says without concrete security guarantees?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that there must be security guarantees, and the US Defence Secretary said as much. These are all matters for any negotiations that take place. Of course, we will be supporting Ukraine, and we have made it quite clear that there cannot be a peace that does not involve Ukraine or that it does not support.

Can the Minister assure the House that it is UK Government policy that not only must Ukraine be involved in a peace and in securing its territorial integrity, but it is only the Ukrainian people—not President Trump, nor President Putin—who can determine the destiny of Ukraine?

We have said that Ukraine must be involved in those negotiations, and that peace negotiations need two sides to come an agreement. It therefore clearly follows that the Ukrainians must be content with whatever the process comes up with. There must be security guarantees, and the peace must be durable—everybody agrees with that.

Is the Minister concerned that President Trump is repeating false Kremlin propaganda and perpetuating a gross misrepresentation of the war in Ukraine by suggesting that, for Ukraine, this

“was not a good war to go into”?

Will the UK Government be making it clear to the US President in no uncertain terms that Ukraine has just defended itself from invasion, bombing, rape, murder and occupation, and that it is an outrage for President Trump to suggest that Ukraine should give up its sovereign territory to Russia?

We have made quite clear with our 100-year partnership with Ukraine that we back it in the long term. We have provided Ukraine with support from many parties across this Chamber over a number of years to ensure that it can continue its fight, and we will continue to support Ukraine during any negotiations that take place so that it can get the peace that it wishes to have.

The Minister’s commitment to continued defence support for Ukraine is essential, and I am sure the House’s thoughts are with Ukrainians who are fighting for their freedoms and all the Ukrainians in our own communities who have found sanctuary in this country. Does she agree that any settlement cannot be a repeat of the Budapest memorandum or the Minsk agreements, which failed to deter future Russian imperial aggression?

I think everybody agrees that any peace that is negotiated must be durable. That will require security guarantees, given the past experience that the Ukrainians have of Russia and Russian aggression.

As the Minister will be aware, much of the Russian war effort is being sustained by other nations, including several of the BRIC nations, which are supporting Russia through direct military aid or dual-use products. What is the Minister doing to try to deter the flow of arms that is continuing to sustain Russia?

The right hon. Gentleman will know very well that there are sanctions, which we do our best to police, and they have had some impact. I think they have to continue both while the war is still ongoing and while the peace is being considered and negotiated.

All wars end, but I know it is the feeling of Members across the House that we very much owe it to the men and women fighting for Ukraine that, when this war ends, it does so with Ukraine in a position of strength at the table and in the driving seat on the terms and timescales.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to continue to support Ukraine to put it in the strongest possible position both while it is fighting the war and during any negotiations that take place.

Could we take a moment to reflect on the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost in this war—Ukrainian civilians, Ukrainian soldiers, Russian soldiers—and all the families who are mourning today?

Efforts were made earlier on by Latin American and African leaders and the Pope to try to negotiate an end to this war, and we may now have an opportunity to demonstrate that one country should never occupy another. Does the Minister believe that there is any possibility in the near future of a ceasefire, ahead of negotiations, that would be acceptable to the people of Ukraine as well as the rest of Europe, because we need to see an end to this ghastly conflict?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that conflicts such as this need to come to an end as soon as possible, so I acknowledge the point he makes about the death on all sides and how bad that is. However, I think it is important for any peace that may be negotiated to be durable and lasting, so we need to focus our minds at present on supporting Ukraine as much as we can so that it goes into any such negotiations in the strongest possible position.

Given Putin’s illegal invasion and declared intent, do the Government agree that any negotiations must result in a sovereign Ukraine, and that the UK will play its part in providing security guarantees that are meaningful, unlike those of the past, because that is crucial to securing a lasting peace?

The hon. Member is right that security guarantees are likely to be an important part of any peace agreement given the past history. We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, and we are committed to ensuring that it can defend its sovereign capability to continue to exist. While it is too early to talk about any details of what those security guarantees may be, we are committed to making sure that Ukraine can continue as an independent state.

On Monday, there will be a concert in Bath abbey in support of Ukraine. My constituents have been unstinting in their support for Ukrainians living among us, but also for Ukrainian communities such as in Oleksandriia. Now is not the point at which to weaken our support. How will the Government ensure that Ukraine’s voice is heard loud and clear in any peace talks, and that no European countries may potentially, or will ultimately, be bullied by US President Trump?

I agree very much with the hon. Lady when she says that our Ukrainian friends here in this nation have received a lot of support—not only in her constituency, but across the UK—from their friends and neighbours, and that that will continue. We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. We have supported the Ukrainians through the toughest times of this war with arms and other necessary support, and we will continue to do so.

I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, as I do, the huge effort of the Ukrainian diaspora in the UK, of which a large proportion is in Scotland, particularly in and around my constituency. Given the huge efforts they have made, does she agree that we must not convey the idea in the coming weeks that we have in any way let them or their countrymen down?

I do agree with that, and we have no intention—I think in any part of this House—of doing so.

I call Jim Shannon

Thank you, Mr Speaker —I am surprised to be called so early.

Do you want to wait a minute?

No, no—I will grab the chance.

I thank the Minister for her answers. It is obvious to me and other Members of this House that she has a heart that wants to help those in Ukraine, and we appreciate that, especially since it comes from Government. I welcome the potential peace that might come, but of course it has to be a peace of justice; it has to be fair to the Ukrainians, and we hope a way can be found. Does she agree that any signs of negotiation are to be welcomed, but that there can be no doubt that Ukraine retains the support of this House? She has said that, and everyone has said it. What role will the UK have in ensuring that the people of Ukraine have security from further Russian aggression when Putin recalibrates his forces a year or two from now?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these concerns. It is clear that any peace that is negotiated, which must have the consent of the Ukrainians themselves, has to be durable, and to the extent that that requires security guarantees, those have to be present for it to work.

It is a truism from ancient Roman times that if we want peace, we must prepare for war, and I am glad the strategic defence review is preparing us for war—sadly—although in slow motion, unfortunately. Will the SDR consider the unlocked back door that is Ireland, which sits outwith NATO? It is clear that alarm bells are ringing in NATO, but Ireland, cash rich, sits outside NATO and has a critical role in defending undersea cables. We learn from the Irish press that its navy is setting sail without sufficient officers to man its main guns—it is sending out gunboats without guns. What can we do to encourage Ireland to play a full role in what will, I think, be a confrontation with Russia?

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to prepare. The strategic defence review will set out the threats that we face and we will then turn our attention to making sure we obtain the capabilities to deal with them. Obviously we will look at any weaknesses there might be and try to shore them up.

Every time President Trump makes a statement about Ukraine I hear from constituents that they are terrified for the future of Ukraine, and never more so than in the last 24 hours. Will the Minister confirm whether the British Government were consulted on or told about President Trump’s call with Vladimir Putin beforehand?

I am afraid it is above my pay grade to know the answer to that question, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to ask those whose pay grade it is not above at another questions session. As far as I am aware we have had friendly conversations at the Ukraine defence contact group with members of the US Administration.

What practical help are the Government providing to Ukraine’s legal system and judges to ensure the prosecution of war crimes?

We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which has been signed. That will be supporting it in any way it feels it needs support that we might be able to offer. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question today about what help we have given, but I am absolutely certain that if Ukraine asks us for help and it is considered that our legal profession is able to supply it, we will think about doing so.

Does the Minister not agree that the lesson to draw from this is the importance of military strength, working with all our NATO and European allies, but critically being able to stand on our own two feet militarily? We need to see defence spending as investment, and in that light does she wish we were not giving however many billions of pounds it is to Mauritius and that we could invest that money in our defences instead?

We have a commitment to getting our defence spending back to 2.5% of GDP, and the last time it was at that level was at the time of the last Labour Government.