PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Ukraine - 24 February 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Ukraine.

In January 2022, I visited the Wall of Remembrance of the Fallen in Kyiv with my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. Seeing the faces of all those who had lost their lives since 2014 brought home the human cost of Kremlin imperialism—and of the Ukrainian determination to stand up to it. Indeed, some weeks later, just as British and American intelligence services had warned, we awoke to news of Putin’s full-scale invasion, launched to shatter the sovereign state of Ukraine.

Today, we mark three years of Ukrainian courage in resisting that brutal, illegal and unprovoked invasion. I have witnessed their fortitude at first hand in three visits to Kyiv over the past year—their defiant blitz spirit as Russian missiles and drones rain down night after night after night. On this grim anniversary, amid all the talk about talks, we must not forget that Russia’s barbaric war goes on, that the Ukrainian people are suffering, and that, beyond Europe, the conflict is piling pressure on the world’s poorest, too.

This debate takes place against the backdrop of intense diplomatic efforts, responding of course to President Trump’s call to bring this war to a swift end. At the G20 in South Africa last week, I listened to Sergey Lavrov. Once again, he shamelessly played the victim, rehashing the same old lies. I will say to the House what I said in response: if Russia is serious about a lasting peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty, Ukraine’s independence and the United Nations charter; guarantees Ukraine’s security against future aggression; and rejects imperialism, then Britain will listen. No one wants that more than Ukraine.

At the Munich security conference, I underlined that Ukraine must be at the heart of any talks about Ukraine’s future, and I said that the west must learn from our history. Vladimir Putin and his war are no historical aberration. He draws on a tsarist tradition—the imperialism and authoritarianism of Peter the Great or Nicholas I—and a Soviet tradition: he is, after all, a KGB agent who operates by deception. It was an American diplomat, George Kennan, whose “long telegram” in 1946 warned of a deep continuity in Kremlin thinking. He argued that the Kremlin would respond only to strength. That was the basis for the policy of containment, as part of which Britain contributed tens of thousands of troops to the British Army of the Rhine. It was that strength, not paper promises, that deterred Moscow from further advances west.

Today, let us look at the Kremlin’s recent record. The Helsinki Final Act of 1975—betrayed. The Budapest memorandum of 1994—betrayed. The NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997—betrayed. The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015—betrayed. This is foreign policy by lies. We must respond by being true to ourselves and provide the support Ukraine needs to stay strong, because that is what is needed to secure a lasting peace and shape our collective security so that Putin never invades again.

The UK has a unique role in helping to make that happen. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister was in Paris last week talking to our European allies about how we step up support for Ukraine, accelerate work on security guarantees and take more responsibility for the security of our continent. In Munich, I spoke to Vice-President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio. In Brussels, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary chaired the Ukraine defence contact group, where US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that, like us, the US wants to see a sovereign, prosperous Ukraine.

Europe must shoulder its share of the burden. With the United States and its unique capabilities, we can deter Putin from attacking Ukraine again and from escalating hybrid Russian attacks in Europe into some form of direct confrontation, so this week the Prime Minister and I will be travelling to Washington DC to meet President Trump. Ukraine needs friends and allies on both sides of the Atlantic working together to achieve “peace through strength”. Both President Trump and President Zelensky have spoken of their desire to achieve that, and the Prime Minister will reaffirm to Zelensky in a call today that it is Britain’s goal as well.

That must include European countries investing more in our own defence and capabilities. Already, the UK has stepped up and sped up military assistance. We have committed £3 billion in military aid a year—every year, for as long it takes. Over the next two years, we will provide an additional £2.26 billion earmarked for military spending, via our share of the $50 billion G7 loan backed by frozen Russian assets.

In addition, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we know our Kremlin history, and that is why we are ready to contribute to future security guarantees for Ukraine in the context of a US backstop, including by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary. That would not be an easy decision—anyone in this House who has taken responsibility for the lives of British servicemen and women can attest to that—but I know the whole House recognises that Ukraine’s security is our security.

The UK also continues to set the pace on ratcheting up the economic pressure on the Kremlin. Together with our international partners, we have already denied Russia access to $400 billion. Its war economy is increasingly unsustainable. Inflation is 9.9% and rising, and that is just the official figure. Interest rates are running at 21%. This year, Russia will spend almost 41% of its budget on defence and security.

Today, we are announcing our biggest package of sanctions since the early days of the war: over 100 targets, including 40 oil tankers—our largest set of ship specifications in a single sanctions package yet—as well as third-country enablers that are pouring money into Putin’s war chest. New legislation imposes additional trade sanctions on Russia, too. That will deny Russia access to the world-leading expertise needed to maintain its war.

Today, the UK is also solidifying our historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which was signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in Kyiv in January. In February, I saw for myself how much that partnership means to Ukraine, and how much potential there is for our collective growth and security. Together, we lay that agreement in Parliament for scrutiny, and I look forward to it entering into force when the process is complete—a clear sign of our confidence in Ukraine’s future.

Mr Speaker, this is a critical moment. I want to acknowledge how colleagues have stood united over these past three years, including hon. Members from all parties as well as noble Lords in the other place, the shadow Foreign Secretary, and several predecessors as Foreign Secretary. I am proud of that unity, which is a tribute to our country, proud of this country’s unwavering support for our Ukrainian friends, and proud that the United Kingdom is rightly taking on the responsibility of bringing our allies together. That is how we confront a foreign policy based on lies, and how we secure Ukraine’s future, secure Europe’s future, and face down a Kremlin dictator once again. Slava Ukraini. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. The House stands united with Ukraine on this grim milestone. Three years on from Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict: the civilians mercilessly killed in towns such as Bucha and Irpin and in the east, the young Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia, the families of brave troops who have not returned alive from the frontline, all those with life-changing injuries, and those who have lost their homes and possessions.

When the war started, the UK led global efforts to back Ukraine and, rightly, to punish Putin. From training tens of thousands of Ukrainian recruits on British soil and donating Challenger 2 battle tanks and Storm Shadow missiles, to being part of an unprecedented international sanctions response that has deprived Putin’s regime of $400 billion and one of the first countries to provide Ukraine with that multibillion-pound, multi-year funding pledge in military aid, the UK has led the way for Ukraine. Our support has made a material difference to Ukraine’s ability to hold the line.

We must never forget that the cost of this war to Putin has been catastrophic. Russia’s Black sea fleet has been pummelled, and it is likely that by summer Russia will have incurred 1 million casualties, with Putin desperately turning to North Korea for troops and to Iran for weapons. Meanwhile, as we have heard, Russia’s economy is in dire straits. There have been uprisings against Putin’s regime, and the central pitch of his leadership—that he was the great restorer of Russia’s stability—lies in ruins.

The British public continue rightly to stand resolutely with Ukraine, and they expect us as politicians across the House to do so. I thank again the many thousands who have so generously opened up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing the war, including through the Homes for Ukraine scheme. They have genuinely showed the best of our country, the best of Britain.

Although there has been much debate about the course of the conflict in recent days, the war continues to rage. I urge the Government to continue giving Ukraine everything it needs—all the hardware it needs and the diplomatic support to strengthen its hand. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary, with the Prime Minister, will do that in Washington this week. There must be no let-up whatsoever.

We welcome today’s announcement on new sanctions. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that there are no plans to lift sanctions in the future? If he discusses the use of sanctions when he goes to Washington this week, and the role of the United States in that policy, will he assure us that he will update Members on whether we should expect to see any new resources and support, in either military aid or humanitarian support, in the coming weeks?

As the Foreign Secretary has said, now is the time for Britain to lead, as we did from day one, and ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position to decide its own future. We should be very clear that it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself, to decide its own future, and that is peace through strength.

We want this terrible war to be brought to an end and, like President Zelensky, we want a lasting, reliable and just peace. However, the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be intensely robust in the face of Putin’s aggression, because the lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. We must ensure that an illegal invasion like this can never happen again. We need a stronger deterrent. We recognise that the Prime Minister has commented on the options and the security guarantees in recent days, and I can assure the House that His Majesty’s Opposition stand ready to engage with the Government at every single level.

We must lead our NATO allies in Europe. In the long-term, collective defence and planning must be co-ordinated to back Ukraine in its fight for freedom. As the Government know, there is already a fully-funded plan to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030, as set out by the previous Government. I strongly urge the Government to at least look at a minimum plan to match that commitment. We will work with them on how that is delivered, to set a new benchmark for other NATO countries to follow and to fire up everything we can on defence production.

The US knows that the UK has an influential role in NATO, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary will be discussing that this week. The target to spend 2.5% of GDP is not a goal in itself, but an important step on the journey to increase the strength of our defence spending. Given the threats that our nation faces, I urge the Government and the Foreign Secretary—because the issue is within his purview and Department—to review and repurpose some of the 0.5% currently spent on official development assistance to further our national defence, safety and security.

Finally, the moral and economic case for mobilising sovereign assets of Russia to support Ukraine is very clear. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about that already, but I urge the Government to do more. Mr Speaker, we stand united as one House. Slava Ukraini.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for the unity she demonstrates once again in the Chamber on the subject. I confirm for her that, of course, all hardware and military support, all diplomatic support and all humanitarian support continue. We continue to discuss those issues with our European partners, particularly at meetings at the Munich security conference and subsequentially, and we will continue to do that, to ensure that we put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.

The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the British casualties during the last few years. Some 17 British nationals who served as members of the armed forces of Ukraine have been killed in action, and we remember them on this day.

The right hon. Lady also rightly mentioned our continued solidarity with Ukraine. We continue to discuss sanctions with our European partners. Just as we have announced a sanctions package today, the EU, following its meeting with the Foreign Affairs Council, has announced a sanctions package too, which will all bear down on Putin’s war machine. I can confirm that we continue to support Ukraine with a medical aid package for its men and women on the frontline. I am grateful to the Defence Secretary for making further funds available in relation to that.

The right hon. Lady rightly comments on defence spending. We are grateful for the unity that the official Opposition are demonstrating on the issue. As we have said, it is very clear to all that Europe must pay a bigger part of the burden. In capitals across the continent, leaders are considering these issues. We have said that we will come forward with our plans shortly, and we will. In that context, as we have seen from the Secretary-General, NATO has been very clear about the burden-sharing and burden-shifting environment that we are now in.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

In my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I get the opportunity to meet many ambassadors, Defence Ministers, attachés and other stakeholders, both here in London and at events and gatherings such as the Munich security conference. There is considerable consternation and anxiety among them about whether long-established and hard-earned alliances, rather than a short-term transactional approach, can still be relied on.

Given the reduced American presence, and as we mark the third anniversary of Putin’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, people are looking for leadership. I feel that this is our time as a nation to take that lead on defence and security matters in our continent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it can be our Prime Minister who takes that lead in our continent while pulling together our transatlantic, NATO and other allies in the process?

The UK has been ironclad in its support for Ukraine. We have been forward-leaning as Ukraine’s primary friend in Europe and across the world, under successive Governments. It is also the case that we have a special relationship with the United States, underpinned by a lot of military and defence capability and support over many, many years and, of course, a very close intelligence relationship. We bring all of that to bear in ensuring that we get a resolution to this terrible conflict, but a resolution that means we have an enduring peace in which Ukraine is at the centre of discussions. My hon. Friend should be absolutely sure that the UK intends to play its part, which is why we will meet with Donald Trump this week. The Prime Minister has also been at the centre of much shuttle diplomacy over this last period.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Today marks three years since Putin launched his barbaric full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Many people, including Putin, expected Russian tanks to capture Kyiv in days, yet Putin failed to consider the resolve of the Ukrainian people. Three years on, Ukrainians bravely continue the fight against Putin’s imperialism in defence of their sovereignty.

The UK and this House have stood together with Ukraine throughout these darkest hours. Across the country, people opened their homes to Ukrainian guests and demonstrated their opposition to Putin’s war. We must continue to support Ukrainians living in the UK, including by providing urgent clarity on what permanent options to remain the Government will introduce for them.

However, the past week has exposed the fragility of the west’s support for Ukraine. In parroting the Kremlin’s false claims that Ukraine started this war and that President Zelensky is a dictator, President Trump has shown that the US cannot be trusted to support Ukraine’s defence. That is why the UK, working with our continental allies, must step up to lead in Europe. That must include the UK committing to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible, and all parties working together to build a consensus on reaching 3%.

The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s suggestion that British troops could join a reassurance mission in Ukraine if a just settlement is reached. That would depend on parliamentary approval for such military deployment. We also support the Government’s announcement today of new sanctions targeting Russian kleptocrats. I urge the Foreign Secretary to add to that list the pro-Russian founder of Georgian Dream, Bidzina Ivanishvili.

The Government should also now move to seize the frozen Russian assets totalling £40 billion across the UK and Europe and channel those funds into Ukraine’s defence. As a start, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what is delaying the release of the £2.5 billion promised to Ukraine from the sale of Chelsea football club?

This week in Washington, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary must make clear that the UK will continue to stand side by side with Ukraine for as long as it takes to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty. Slava Ukraini.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On his comments, we share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. We know that Russia could do that by withdrawing its troops tomorrow, and President Trump agrees with us that it is important that Ukraine is at the table. When I spoke to Secretary Rubio, he was absolutely clear that there can be no peace without Ukraine. He was also clear that because of the burden of UK and EU sanctions, there cannot easily be a resolution to this conflict without Europe at the table as well.

The hon. Gentleman asked about sanctions and designations. Combined across both parties, we have now introduced more sanctions for this crime and this terrible conflict than for any other in our parliamentary history. I cannot comment on future designations, but the hon. Gentleman will know—and will have heard in my comments—that our desire is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. We know that Putin has turned his economy into a war economy, and there are evasions that we will continue to bear down on.

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned Abramovich and the money that has been set aside. We are redoubling our efforts to unlock that money, which could be used on the frontline to support Ukraine over the course of the next few months.

I am sure that our Ukrainian allies will listen to the steadfast support in this House and feel heartened, and that they will also notice whose voices are absent from the House at this time. There are press reports that a deal is apparently imminent on Ukrainian mineral deposits for America as the price of continued support, so is there anything more that we and our European partners can do to stop the eventual products—those crucial metals—ending up in the hands of enemy and competitor states? Has that issue been discussed?

My hon. Friend asks a good question. I discussed that issue with President Zelensky when I was in Ukraine a few days ago, in the context of the 100-year partnership that we have just signed with Ukraine. That partnership is a unique document, not only in our history and Ukraine’s history, but in the history of the world, and I believe it sets a pretty good guide for how to strike a relationship across many fronts. Of course, that relationship will bring big wins for British businesses over the years ahead, but it will also bring big wins for Ukrainian businesses—we will learn from their innovation. I look forward to the discussions that Ukraine is having with the United States. It is for Ukraine to make its own judgments, but I think that 100-year partnership could be a good guide.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the robust and bipartisan approach he is taking to this crisis. In that spirit, may I say to him that if the Government came forward with plans to reduce the number of adult welfare recipients just to 2019 levels, that would save £40 billion a year? It would mean that on Thursday he and the Prime Minister could say to President Trump that we are increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP, or even to 3.4% of GDP, which is what the United States itself spends. That would secure not only the future of Ukraine, but the future of NATO, which is one of the most important challenges facing the Government.

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has tremendous experience in these matters. He has put his views on the record, and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be looking very closely at them as part of the detailed conversations that go on across Government.

It is clear that the rules-based order established after the second world war is under extreme threat from oppressors and bullies who think that they can just take what they want—and I am not just talking about Putin. A raft of sanctions were introduced in 2022; why does my right hon. Friend think that previous sanctions failed to curb Russia, and what more do we need to do to organisations that use different measures to circumvent sanctions?

My hon. Friend refers to the rules-based order. That order was set up not just for its own sake, but because of the tremendous bloodshed and loss of life, including the many men and women from our own country and from the United States and other allies who lost their lives across Europe. The order has served us well, and we have to ensure that we continue to protect it. She rightly refers to the evasion that we have seen with the Russian shadow fleet, and that is part of the discussions I have to have with certain states who facilitate it. It is why she will also see in the announcement that I have made more efforts to target the dual-use technology that is finding its way out of countries such as China and being used against Ukrainian men and women.

We need to recognise that the environment in which we operate has changed fundamentally, and therefore our response must change fundamentally. I very much echo the calls of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) to increase defence spending now, because we have to send a message to our friends and foes alike that we take defence seriously. I urge the Foreign Secretary to remember the commitments we made to the Ukrainian people when this full-scale invasion took place. Our support to them was not contingent on the support of others; it was absolute, and we should make good on that commitment, because we said things that encouraged the Ukrainians to put their sons and daughters in harm’s way. They have stood up their end of the bargain, and we should stand up ours.

The right hon. Gentleman is right: we have been Ukraine’s foremost friend, and we will continue to do that. We have a key role to play, because of our special relationship with the United States. We understand here in Europe that, yes, we want this war to end, but we want an enduring peace. We have got a long memory in relation to the Soviet Union and tsarist history, and that guides us on how we secure that peace.

This weekend, I joined Rochdale’s proud, long-standing Ukrainian community to mark the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal war and to remember all those who have lost their lives to Russian aggression. Our own Father Ben Lysykanych is today joining the Prime Minister in Downing Street. Does my right hon. Friend agree that President Zelensky is a democrat, not a dictator, and that the Ukrainian people can never again have their fate decided by other countries carving up their land, as has happened far too often in the past?

I have met President Zelensky six or seven times over this last period, and he has always struck me as the most courageous and brave of individuals, leading his people to self-determination. That is something that we recognise right across the United Kingdom, and so we stand with him.

I was at the Munich security conference and it became clear while talking with our European allies that they no longer fully trust the article 5 security guarantee. Put simply, they do not trust the Americans. Conversations naturally turned to what collective defence looks like in Europe without the Americans. Last night, Chancellor-elect Merz said that conversations are happening at the highest levels on precisely that. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on whether the UK is included in those conversations and on their content?

NATO has stood the test of time as the greatest modern-day alliance that we have ever seen, and has been strengthened further following the joining of Sweden and Finland. Of course there is a debate in Europe—there is a debate about burden sharing, there is a debate about burden shifting, and there are some who think that there is a debate about burden dumping—but NATO is a great alliance, and we work across that alliance. Successive United States Presidents, from Roosevelt to Obama and, of course, President Trump, have rightly said that Europe must do more, and that is what we now have to do.

The question of defence spending and GDP has been raised. I think it is clear from recent events that we cannot wait until 2030 to spend 2.5%, and, in fact, we should be exceeding that percentage.

In the lead-up to any negotiations, it is essential for us to ensure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position, including militarily. It is also essential for us to speed up our help and support as quickly as possible. I understand that the Ukrainian defence industrial base has the capacity to increase the production of weapons and equipment. Can we do more to get funding to it to ensure that that happens? Our current problem is that our own industrial base cannot gear up quickly enough.

My hon. Friend has asked an excellent question about Ukraine’s industrial base. Drone technology, for instance, is improving apace around the world, and the country leading that technology is Ukraine. We have much to learn. We have signed the 100-year partnership, and capacity and capability are part of that partnership, which will please my hon. Friend, but he is right to say that we cannot wait; we have to act now. That is what was being discussed when the Defence Secretary was in Ukraine a short time ago, and it is what I was discussing with Ukraine a few weeks ago. So yes, we will accelerate the way in which our industries work together, and will allocate the funds that are necessary.

The whole House will want to wish the right hon. Gentleman, and the Prime Minister, a strong and successful visit later this week. He will be able to agree with the President about the importance of all European members of NATO stepping up and playing their part in the significant increase in defence expenditure that we all now need to see, while of course never forgetting what General Mattis has said about the important part of the mix that development constitutes in national defence. However, I hope there will be no compromise in Washington on the facts of the matter, namely that a P5 member of the United Nations invaded its neighbour in an act that we thought had gone out with the last century, has bombed and destroyed its infrastructure, and has butchered and murdered its citizens.

The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House of the seriousness, and the responsibilities, that we have as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. That seriousness is underpinned by the UN Charter, which Russia breached, and in doing so it has made a serious hole in the way the Security Council works. Let us get beyond that; but if we are to do so, Russia should withdraw and should come to the table with the central issue of peace and making amends at its heart.

Keeping ourselves safe here means showing Putin that we have the resolve and the resources to defeat him, as indeed we have. In European NATO our combined GDP is about $24.5 trillion, and the GDP of the United States is $27 trillion, while Russia’s is just $2 trillion. We have more resources, and converting them into more fighting forces, tanks, guns and drones is key, but we can go further. Russian central bank assets held by ourselves and our allies amount to more than £200 billion, including £170 billion in Belgium and £26 billion here, and Putin could use those reserves in the future to rebuild his armed forces. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that he is doing everything he can to convince our allies of the need to seize those assets to keep us safe and to fund Ukraine?

My hon. Friend asks a good question. If we are serious about the responsibility of burden sharing across Europe and, indeed, across G7 nations at this time, one of the issues on the table is moving from freezing assets to seizing those assets. It is a live discussion. There are other ways to find the funds, and that was a topic of discussion in Munich and at the G7, but we must now move from discussion to action.

I will resist the temptation to ask the Foreign Secretary if he shares my feeling of disgust at the spectacle of the leader of the free world showering praise and admiration on the killer in the Kremlin. When he speaks to his counterparts, will he try to impress on them that the reason why George Kennan’s containment policy, to which he rightly referred, was so successful in preventing the cold war from turning into the third world war was that contentious territory was not demilitarised and left undefended? It worked in the case of West Germany, and it will have to be the only way that western Ukraine can equally be secured for the future.

The containment strategy to which the right hon. Gentleman refers ran right through the Reagan years and beyond. In a sense, it is the conventional way to understand peace through strength, and we would do well to keep it at the front of our minds in the days and weeks ahead.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the international community must not allow the sovereign nation of Ukraine to be traded like a chess piece by powerful nations, particularly after its brave defence of freedom and the international rules-based system for itself and the wider world? If we fail, we risk another “peace in our time” moment that would sooner or later endanger other countries and even our own.

My hon. Friend is right, and we know that Ukrainians felt let down by the Budapest memorandum. They felt brutally let down by the Minsk agreement, and they cannot be let down again. We also know that because of the unbelievable Ukrainian spirit, they would fight on, with guerrilla warfare if need be. These are the most admirable of people fighting for their self-determination, and the United Kingdom will continue to stand with them.

The Scottish National party has stood alongside the people of Ukraine in solidarity—not just for the last three years but for the last 10 years, following Putin’s invasion of Crimea. I will not invite the Foreign Secretary to agree with me on this in the Chamber, but I am sure he thinks that President Trump’s remarks about Zelensky being a dictator were beyond repulsive. Surely we all know that no deal can be made with Vladimir Putin that he will not break. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?

The right hon. Gentleman has a point. Russia and Putin have been clear about the terms that they want for peace, which have often included the removal of 14 of NATO’s 32 members. That is unacceptable. We have seen Finland and Sweden join recently. The precondition for talks has been that Ukraine should effectively give up the territory now occupied by Russia. It seems to me that such demands show utter contempt for Ukrainian territorial integrity. The Russians will not be serious about discussions until they reconsider the criteria that we heard once again from Lavrov last week.

A constituent of mine and her son moved to this country under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. She has a very stable job here and her son is doing A-levels at the best maths school in London, but she is worried that her 18-month visa extension will expire in the middle of her son’s exams. What conversations is the Foreign Secretary’s Department having with the Home Office to ensure that young Ukrainians who moved here through no fault of their own do not have their education disrupted, but can build a life for themselves?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for putting on the record the tremendous support the British people have given to Ukrainian refugees. It allows me to say that there is still a war, and there is still a need for those people to seek sanctuary in our country. It is my assessment that Putin is not showing a serious willingness to negotiate, and it may be that negotiations go on for some time. So I want to reassure her constituent that we are of course in close dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Some of us are old enough to remember Hungary in 1956 and some of us are old enough to remember Czechoslovakia in 1968. None of us wants to see Ukraine sacrificed on the same altar of expediency. When the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister go to Washington, they will know that they will carry with them the good wishes of—almost—all of this House. Ukraine is not for sale, and it can never be for sale; this is not a transaction. The United Kingdom will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the history. He will know that, in the 20th century, to the east it was only the Russo-Japanese war that stopped Russia’s imperial ambitions, to the south it was the war in Crimea, and of course to the west it was the containment strategy to which I have referred and NATO. This history is our best adviser as we approach the matter of peace.

I start by commending the people of Ukraine for resisting the murderous dictator Vladimir Putin for as long as they have. They are heroes. Almost every Member of this House knows that, if we fold in our support of Ukraine now and give Russia what it wants, Vladimir Putin will only come back for more. Our national security is at stake. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is in everyone’s interests—Britain’s, Europe’s and America’s—to ensure that any potential peace deal includes Ukraine at the table?

“Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” was heard loudly of course from President Zelensky, but all Europeans recognised it. I am pleased that Secretary of State Rubio, in my conversations with him, and indeed General Kellogg have both underlined the importance of Ukraine being at the table.

I very warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Although he perhaps cannot use the language I am about to use, I hope that when the Prime Minister and he meet Putin’s appeaser in the White House later this week, he will remind him that if we have a special relationship—and the Foreign Secretary keeps referring to a special relationship—it has to be based on truth, respect for democracy, respect for justice and respect for international law.

In the end, the United States is leader of the free world. President Trump had an election in which 77 million people voted for him and he holds both Houses on the Hill, and as we would expect, he is of course buoyed up—as, indeed, was my party—by such a democratic mandate. We will have conversations with him over the coming days on a range of issues. Friends agree and can sometimes disagree, but I think it is definitely the case that we support his desire for bringing this horrendous war to an end. We will now play our part in Europe to ensure that we raise defence spending and that Europe steps up to the necessary burden sharing. President Trump’s analysis of the huge problems in the Indo-Pacific are correct, and we must recognise that successive US Presidents have been clear about their responsibilities in relation to the Indo-Pacific.

Despite the astonishing 10 days we have had, and we should be under no illusion that they have been astonishing, there has been reassurance to be found in the Government’s steadfast commitment to Ukraine and the leadership they have been showing. The Foreign Secretary alluded earlier to Vladimir Putin’s penchant for lying: he lied about the invasion; he lied about Ukraine’s territorial integrity; he lied about the rules of war; and he abducted thousands of Ukrainian children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only should Ukraine be at the centre of the negotiations, but that we should be clear-eyed about the character of the man we are dealing with?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the children who have been abducted. On the past two occasions I have been in Ukraine, I have met children who were viciously taken from their homes. There was an attempt to effectively brainwash them from their histories. We are supporting organisations that seek to get those children back and reunite them with their families. I also launched a children in care initiative. I was very pleased to be with Madam Zelensky, when I was last in Ukraine, supporting vulnerable children with their foster families.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the 2.5% of GDP ship has now sailed, and that we and our allies have to find the resources to spend 3% within a recognisable timeframe? When he is in Washington this week, will he discuss with his interlocuters how the billions of pounds he proposes to give Mauritius for taking on the Chagos Islands could be better served by being devoted to building and re-equipping our armed forces?

Ten years ago, there were just four countries meeting the 2% commitment. Today, that has risen to 23. Right across the alliance, countries are understanding that they have to do more. We will set out how we will do more very, very shortly. As the matter today is Ukraine, the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me but I will not discuss issues to do with the British Indian Ocean Territory. I am sure he will have an occasion to do so at oral questions tomorrow.

Just over three years ago, I flew the penultimate UK mission into Kyiv to deliver materiel essential to the defence of Ukraine ahead of the illegal full-scale Russian invasion. Since then, Ukraine has been defending European security, the UN charter and liberal democracy against Putin’s assault on those shared interests, and, in the words of the declaration of independence, the “unalienable rights” of

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that to free Ukraine from Putin’s tyranny and imperialist ambition, and to ensure the words of the declaration of independence are realised for all, UK leadership in the co-ordination of European and transatlantic allies is essential?

Yes, yes, yes, I say to my hon. Friend. I think all of us pay tribute to our armed forces and to his work in our armed forces. It is because of that work over so many years—that sacrifice—that I think the spirit of this country guides us to stand solidly with Ukraine on a cross-party basis. He is right to pray in aid those words that underpin our values, and indeed global values as underpinned in the UN charter. That is what we are fighting for and we will not give up.

Does the Secretary of State regret recanting the views he originally expressed in assessing Trump? When the time is right—it is certainly not any time now—can I urge him to consider following the example of Archbishop Cranmer by plunging the offending hand first into the flame?

Er—[Laughter.] This is a serious debate and a serious discussion. As I have said, that is, in a sense, old news; there is so much news before us, and so much history to be forged, which requires diplomacy and friendship and us understanding who the real threats are. Those real threats are the autocracies of the world, which could do tremendous damage over the coming years. I have always recognised that.

As has been replicated across the country, people in Coatbridge and Bellshill have opened their doors to those forced from their homes by Putin’s illegal attack. Public authorities have also stepped up: North Lanarkshire council has provided homes and supported integration for more than 200 Ukrainian families at the High Coats tower in my constituency, and has been recognised nationally for helping to deliver stability and belonging. As we continue to push for a just peace, and following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the Home Secretary, devolved Governments and other key stakeholders to ensure safe harbour for the families so cruelly and viciously targeted by Putin’s barbarism?

I assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. I continue to work closely with the Home Secretary. There has been a tremendous outpouring of support across this country, which I recognise, and have seen at work in Scotland, too.

I welcome the robust statement from the Secretary of State today and the way he has stood by Ukraine and committed the UK to standing by Ukraine. I hope he will convey the same message to President Trump: that by giving into Putin, we jeopardise peace not only in Ukraine but across the whole of Europe.

First, what practical steps can he take, apart from the assurances he has given the House today, to ensure that Ukraine’s interests are reflected in any negotiations? Secondly, given the stretched state of our own armed forces, what long-term security commitments can we give to Ukraine?

We have committed £3 billion in support to Ukraine for as long as it lasts. The Ukrainians asked for more munitions, and we supported them; they asked for particular missile capability, and we supported them. We will continue to support them because this war is being waged on the frontline; it is a war of attrition. Notwithstanding any discussions or talks, we need to be there with the Ukrainians, and I guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue to do that.

I was present at the Munich security conference where it felt like the world changed around us, and the consequences could not be more serious. I welcome our Government’s announcement today of fresh sanctions on Russia. Given the absence of some on the Opposition Benches, I am sure the whole House will agree that it is President Putin, and not President Zelensky, who is the dictator. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is indeed a once-in-a-generation moment, and that the future of our security in the UK is bound up in Ukraine’s security and in the need to do what it takes to face down the aggression of Putin’s Russia?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: because of the history of Russia and the former Soviet Union, we understand deeply that our own futures are bound up in Putin’s ambitions. We also understand, by the way, that there are many valiant people resisting Putin in Russia; I met Mrs Navalny at the Munich security conference. Our fight is not with the Russian people—it is to support the Russian people. Our fight is with Vladimir Putin.

When Putin invaded, he thought it would be a matter of weeks. Three years on, Ukraine is still standing. I am proud of how we as a House and as a nation stood up for Ukraine. That includes many of my constituents, for which I commend them. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary asked about sanctions, but I did not hear an answer from the Foreign Secretary, so he perhaps he can shed some light. When the Prime Minister meets President Trump, will he raise the issue of new sanctions, which I would welcome? Will we urge the US to follow suit?

We continue to discuss sanctions with all our partners. I discussed that with G7 partners, including Secretary of State Rubio. We have imposed sanctions on more than 2,100 individuals and entities—the most wide-ranging sanctions imposed on any major economy. We believe that maximum pressure is required at this time. The United States has indicated that it would be willing to impose further sanctions on Russia. That issue remains under discussion.

I welcome the important statement from the Foreign Secretary and the comments from the shadow Foreign Secretary. This entire House should be united in our support for Ukraine. As others have said, it is rather a shame that one party has not shown up.

Ukrainians who have come to the UK since the war have made such an important contribution to our country. I met Olha, a Ukrainian Teessider, over the weekend. She shared with me that many Ukrainians face great uncertainty, partly because they are unable to access work and study because of the lack of a Ukrainian GCSE. Will the Foreign Secretary discuss this issue with the Department for Education to ensure that Ukrainians are able to access study and work? Will he recognise at the Dispatch Box the importance of the contribution that Ukrainians have made to our country?

There has been a history between us and Ukrainians, as they were making a contribution across Europe and in our country long before this war began. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the Ukrainian language. I have admired many Ukrainians for the way that they have quickly learned the English language. I will take his recommendation to the Education Secretary.

I join others in commending the Ukrainian people for their bravery in the face of Russian aggression, and the Government’s steadfast support for the nation’s sovereignty. The Foreign Secretary referred in his statement to the need for European nations to contribute more to future security guarantees for the Ukrainian people. Does he envisage more bilateral and multilateral agreements between European allies playing a part in that endeavour, much in the vein of the Lancaster House treaties or, latterly, the Trinity House agreement?

The hon. Gentleman is right that the UK has sought to forge strong relationships with key partners across Europe. Once the new Government are formed in Germany, we look forward to signing an updated Lancaster House treaty with our German friends. He is right that, bilaterally, that is important. I believe that NATO is the central underpinning of European security, but we need to work together across Europe to increase our industrial defence capability, and we need to find more funds to increase our defence spending right across the European family. He will hear more about that in the coming weeks and months.

The Foreign Secretary was right that if Russia is serious about a lasting peace, it must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, but given that it has shown absolutely no sign of doing that, will he reiterate that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine no matter what? Will he further reiterate, even for the Members who have not chosen to be here for this statement, that this country does not appease fascists but opposes them?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, since February 2022, the United Kingdom’s total military, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine has amounted to £12.8 billion. That is our commitment to Ukraine so far, and that commitment will continue.

I am proud that more than 600 Ukrainians have been hosted in my constituency through the Homes for Ukraine programme. Three years on, my constituents stand with Ukraine. They know that Ukraine has protected Europe’s frontline for three years. They know that Ukraine’s fight is one that affects us all, and that if Ukraine loses, Europe loses, and they know that Ukrainians are fighting for the values of our forebears: the British values of democracy and freedom. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to stand by Ukraine steadfast, even when others do not? In his meetings in Washington tomorrow, will he ensure that he points out the folly and the danger of the US Administration’s new approach to Russia?

The UK, of course, supports the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deters Russia from future aggression and ensures that Ukraine is at the table as we negotiate that peace. That is the issue that we will be discussing with President Trump, just as President Macron is discussing that issue today. I am quite sure that our assessment that Putin is not ready, really, to negotiate on proper terms stands, but I admire the efforts to bring that about. Of course, the US plays a central role in achieving that.

Today, we pay tribute to the people of Ukraine fighting not only for their own freedom but for the freedom of all Europe. The Foreign Secretary said that we must learn from history. Over 80 years ago in Munich, this country and others talked away the future of Czechoslovakia without it being there and stripped it of its vital resources; we all know the tragic consequences. Today, there can be no peace without Ukraine, and there can be no enduring peace without the security that this country and other NATO allies can give to it.

My hon. Friend puts his remarks well. I agree with him.

I can barely believe that I have got to say this to the Foreign Secretary, but he will be unaware that in past moments the United States has just voted against the UN resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine.

I understand fully the position that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in and the approach that they have got to take in Washington this week, but we know that President Trump listens to the people who last spoke to him. Can I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary to outline two important points? First, European military assets—not NATO assets—are often used to support American operations in the Indo-Pacific, and the American military really appreciates how we put our shoulder to the wheel. It is not the Americans only ever supporting Europe; we also help the Americans.

Secondly, last week, I and several hon. Members and noble Members were at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Brussels, where it was made clear that what will be presented at the Hague summit is what is actually needed for European defence rather than just GDP targets. May I also ask the Foreign Secretary to advise the Prime Minister that it will be important that he takes a position with the President of the United States that if those demands add up to more than 2.53% of GDP, our country will set itself on a path, within the time targets, to achieve those?

Order. Can I remind Members that if we are to get everybody in, shorter questions—and shortish answers, please—would be helpful?

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the Indo-Pacific, and it is important that we remember AUKUS and our critical partnership with Australia and the United States in relation to that. He quite rightly mentioned defence spending, on which much has been said in this Chamber—and much, I am sure, will be said when we go to the United States.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for a strong statement. He said that Ukraine’s security is our security. Does he agree that this is a fight for democracy where we need to tackle misinformation both at home and abroad, and where we need to maintain our steadfast commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because there is hybrid warfare taking place as we speak. Countries such as Moldova are at the forefront of it, with sabotage and constant attacks on its infrastructure and its internet services. This is hybrid warfare, and of course it is taking place against our own country, so he is absolutely right: this is not just a hard war and a hot war; it is a hybrid war, and we have to be vigilant.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. It is indeed important that we have cross-party support across this House, standing in solidarity with Ukraine and being clear that Ukraine must be front and centre of the peace talks that must take place, but it is deeply disturbing to hear some of the comments from President Trump, including the absurd claim that Zelensky is a dictator and the ridiculous suggestion that Ukraine started the war. Therefore, when the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister go to Washington later this week, will they make it clear to President Trump that Ukraine must be at the centre of these peace talks and that the Ukrainian people have an absolute right to self-determination?

Yes. There must be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine. As I have said, we have seen very little sign that Putin is abandoning his goal of subjugating Ukraine. Russia has continued to escalate this war, including through deploying Democratic People’s Republic of Korea troops and through daily barbaric attacks on innocent Ukrainian civilians and their infrastructure and energy supplies.

On Saturday, I joined Ukrainian families and residents in Bishop’s Stortford to remember those who had lost their lives and suffered throughout this conflict, ahead of the third anniversary. This was a reminder that in my constituency and across the country, we stand firmly with the Ukrainian people. As we mark the third anniversary, will the Foreign Secretary reiterate to the Ukrainian families who have found safety in my constituency, and indeed to all Ukrainian people, that this Government will continue to advocate for Ukraine’s sovereignty and for it to be given a seat at the table right at the heart of any future negotiation?

I know my hon. Friend’s constituency well, and I am very pleased to give his constituents that affirmation.

No Member of this House should be in any doubt as to who the aggressor is in this situation, who the dictator is, or who started this war. No one should give cover to the dictator who started this war. The Prime Minister has said that, if there is peace, he anticipates a post-peace situation where there will be British troops on the ground in Ukraine, with what he termed “a US backstop”. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the prospect of a US backstop would be greatly enhanced if the European nations began more thoroughly to shoulder the financial burden that has been shirked in recent years?

Yes, I do. There was complacency in the post-cold war period across the European families, and at this Dispatch Box we have lamented the fact that the United Kingdom has fallen to 2.3% of GDP, so the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This is the time to step up and to demonstrate peace with strength, and the Baltic nations are very clear about the responsibility at this time.

Like the Foreign Secretary, I am incredibly proud of the role that the UK has played in supporting Ukraine, and especially proud of the role that my constituents have played in welcoming Ukrainians into their homes and into our community, but if we are to stop Putin, Britain must get real on defence. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must now urgently rearm, well beyond the existing 2.5% target, so that, with our European allies, we can protect our precious democracies?

As I said, we will set out further defence spending shortly.

NATO countries bordering Russia are understandably stepping up their defences without waiting for others to take action. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the discussions he has had with those countries?

I met the Polish Foreign Minister at the Munich security conference and Baltic colleagues to discuss those issues. The hon. Member is absolutely right that those countries have been aware of the threat for some time. Her question allows me to say that when we talk about security guarantees for Ukraine, it is important to recognise NATO’s eastern flank. When it comes to the effort to get US security guarantees, many countries on that flank would have to know that they were supported. That is why the US backstop is so important.

Last week, along with other Members of this House, I met Ukrainian parliamentarians at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Vienna. The opposition MPs from Ukraine made it clear that they do not support Donald Trump’s call for an election in Ukraine while they are defending against Russian aggression. In his conversations with the US Administration this week, will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that there is only one dictator in this conflict, and his name is Vladimir Putin?

Yes, of course.

On the third anniversary of Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I welcome the United Nations having just passed a resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine. However, in the last 15 minutes—this will shock the House —it was opposed by Russia and the United States. It was said in the press that

“This isn’t appeasement by Trump. It’s a direct stab in the back.”

Will the Foreign Secretary condemn what has just happened in the United Nations, where the United States has joined Russia in not signing up to the resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine?

We are proud to have co-sponsored the General Assembly resolution, proposed by Ukraine, in support of a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It is in line with the UN charter. The UN voted for it, and we will stand forever with Ukraine.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I was in Kyiv, I saw that close to President Zelensky’s office is an apartment block that was blown up a few weeks ago. A couple asleep in their bed were killed. That is the awfulness of this war. Of course, my hon. Friend will recall that when the Prime Minister visited, Putin sought to fire missiles into Ukraine. It is grim and unbelievable brutality, and of course we must continue to stand up to it.

In response to the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the Foreign Secretary said that Russia does not respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. On his comments on the Ukraine defence contact group, the US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says that the US wants to see

“a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine”,

but given the news that we have just heard about the UN resolution, how confident is the Foreign Secretary that the US will respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine?

I am very pleased that the US has attempted to bring this horrendous war to an end. That does require conversations with Russia. Those are hard conversations, and I am not sure that the Russians are ready to properly negotiate, but I admire the attempt to try. It is important that Ukraine is at the table; it is important that Europe steps up with burden-sharing and increases its defence. Those are issues that we will discuss with President Trump in the coming days.

Online propaganda from the Kremlin has become a disturbing reality. Social media, especially platforms such as Facebook and X, have been flooded with the claim that Ukraine is solely responsible for the war—it is extraordinary. What measures are being taken to combat the propaganda being spread by Governments to blame the Ukrainian people for the conflict?

Those are important issues that I know preoccupy my hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. They are looking further at those issues and at what more we can do.

The Prime Minister said this morning that Russia does not hold all the cards. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of further sanctions. Will he work at national and international level to ensure that President Putin does not get a new hand that allows him to proceed with bluff, bluster and bullying that could bring the Ukrainian people to their knees—something that we have not seen to date? Will he assure the House that the Government stand resolutely with the people of Ukraine?

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I met G7 Foreign Ministers, and we issued a joint statement on Ukraine 10 days ago. It is why I discussed this issue at the G20 in South Africa last week. I am proud of the work of our diplomats in the UN General Assembly today, where many countries have come together in support of Ukraine, with a resolution that had to be passed.

Today of all days, we must remember that over 1 million people have been killed or wounded in Ukraine since the illegal invasion. I have just come from talking to a group of individuals who support Ukrainian veterans. Although they welcome the medical expertise that the UK has provided in Ukrainian military hospitals, there are also thousands of civilian casualties, so they ask that the UK provide medical expertise in civilian hospitals as well. Will the Foreign Secretary look into whether the UK can provide that support too?

I am very pleased about the decisions that I and the Defence Secretary have made to support Ukrainian armed forces at this time with medical support. I am happy to look at the issues facing civilians, which of course we discuss in a pan-European context. The hon. Lady is right to raise those issues.

Surely it cannot be right to leave those with no real care or concern for Europe’s wellbeing the sole voice in negotiating the future of Ukraine—and by extension the future of Europe. Will the Foreign Secretary convey, in his discussions with President Trump, the point that Ukraine must be present at the table when negotiations take place, and will he convey the disgust of this House at the fact that the US voted alongside North Korea and Russia against the Ukrainian resolution at the UN today?

We have been clear: nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. The Ukrainians must have a seat at the table; it is their destiny that is in the mix in any discussions that take place.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s strong words, commitment, strength and fortitude. I will always welcome the end to war, but I am unable to forget the mass murder of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war by Russian armed forces during the fight for and occupation of the city of Bucha three days after the invasion started. To remind the House, girls as young as eight and women as old as 80 were raped; three Baptist church pastors were murdered; and nine children under the age of 18 were murdered. They were all put into a basement, had petrol poured over them and were burned alive. I and the people I represent want any deal to include the accountability of those who committed those dreadful, dreadful war crimes, and so many others that are still unknown.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the massacre at Bucha. I had the privilege of visiting Bucha and spending time with the community there—with families, victims and loved ones. The massacre was an horrendous act. It was criminal, barbaric and inhumane. He is right that we in this country have led on the issue of justice and accountability, and we will not let that go.