My speech in the House of Lords on Ukraine - 31st of October
Note: I was allowed 5 minutes.
My Lords, I do not know whether it is a punishment or a privilege to be put last in the list of Back-Bench speakers, as I invariably am when it comes to a debate on Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was powerful and eloquent in opening, and it is clear that my noble friend Lord Barrow is going to be a great addition to our collective wisdom.
Two factors have upended the policy of successive British Governments: the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, and the unexpected economic and military resilience of Russia. Until the end of last year, the agreed policy, as stated by then incoming Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, was that
“the British Government must leave the Kremlin with no doubt that it will support Kyiv for as long as it takes to achieve victory. Once Ukraine has prevailed, the United Kingdom should play a leading role in securing Ukraine’s place in NATO”.
I have heard this formula endlessly in the last three or four years. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether this is still the policy of the British Government? If not, why not? That policy, to my way of thinking, was always dishonest and in fact, morally repugnant, since we were never going to give Ukraine all it takes for victory, for the very good reason that any such policy carried an unacceptable risk of escalation. I am really worried by the insouciance of those noble Lords speaking today who talk about unleashing long-range missile attacks on the most heavily armed nuclear power in the world.
Now, after nearly four years of false pledges cashed in the lives of hundreds of thousands, we have reluctantly accepted that there is not going to be a Ukrainian Toggle showing location of victory anytime soon, and in fact, there is a very real prospect of Ukrainian defeat, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, pointed out. The real question now is, how can the coalition of the willing prevent this outcome? First came the suggestion that we would send in NATO peacekeepers to police a ceasefire, but our Government must have known that this would never be accepted. It would not be accepted by Russia and would not be accepted by the United States, which was supposed to provide a backstop. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether this obvious spoiling tactic is still on the table?
The latest plan is the so-called European Peace Facility, whose aim is to strengthen Ukraine’s war facility, a classic case of Orwellian “doublespeak”. The idea is that Europe should ramp up arms deliveries to Ukraine and put more pressure on Russia with new sanctions on oil exports, with loans coming from confiscated Russian assets. But no one thinking straight can believe that such measures, even if agreed and applied, will affect the course of the war in time to avert further territorial losses by Ukraine. In fact, a negotiated peace is the only way now of averting a Russian victory. That is my core position.
I want to be constructive, so I will suggest three ways in which our Government could help achieve a negotiated settlement. First, they should propose a demilitarised zone under a UN peacekeeping force to police a ceasefire. I am not nearly as pessimistic about the prospects of a ceasefire as some noble Lords have been—I remind the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that the armed pause of the Cold War lasted 50 years. China must also be brought into such an endeavour. It can exert much more leverage over Russia than we can. Trump seems to realise this, but all we seem able to do is talk about Chinese spies and underground tunnels. China is the missing piece in this whole process.
Secondly, we should start talking to Russian officials. Do not leave all the talking to the United States. To get a conversation going, we have to ignore the ICC arrest warrants, which in any case could be enforced only by a complete Russian defeat. Thirdly, we should urge UN-organised referenda in the four contested oblasts to allow the people who live there to decide democratically on their own future. Holding such referenda would offer both sides a credible and democratic pathway to end the conflict. Through initiatives of this kind, our Government could still turn a war mission into a peace mission. I beg Ministers to discover the courage to negotiate, for reasons of both realism and humanity.
Once again, I feel huge gratitude. It is pleasing that Alexander Mercouris of "The Duran" praised Lord Skidelski again at the end of his excellent daily analysis on Tuesday, calling him "the still small voice of calm". Thank heaven that we have at least one such voice in Britain, standing out against the ignorant clamour of the West.
Lord Skidelsky's speeches and writings cause me considerable mental anguish. On the one hand, he is far more open-minded and realistic than almost anyone else in the West. Yet I believe that he still reveals powerful bias against Russia, which is unfair morally and counter-productive practically. Perhaps that is inevitable: as politics is the art of the possible, it is sometimes unwise or self-defeating to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in such a forum as Parliament. The result would no doubt be that he would be furiously denounced as a "Putin-versteher" and subsequently sent to Coventry, which would help no one.
But I must set the record straight - as much as is possible for a mere British subject with no wealth or influence. To be blunt, the Special Military Operation is nearly finished. Like bankruptcy in Hemingway's striking phrase, Ukrainian defeat is coming gradually at first, then suddenly. Today we learn that Pokrovsk has fallen, and it will soon be followed by Myrnograd, Kupiansk, Sieversk, and then Slaviansk and Kramatorsk. The Russians, for so long naively trusting, have finally been convinced by repeated betrayals that there is no point talking to or negotiating with anyone in Kiev or the West, as they always lie, cheat, and go back on their word. (Mr Trump has made that laughably obvious, as he contradicts himself almost every day).
China cannot be enlisted against Russia, as they both know very well that they must stand back to back against their many enemies. Western politicians even say publicly that their plan is to use China to destroy Russia, and then to destroy China. While no doubt incredulous at such a blend of treachery and stupidity, the Chinese are very well aware of how things stand. China and Russia, together with Iran and a growing number of other nations, are learning to cooperate toward the goal of excluding malign foreign influences from Asia altogether. All of Asia.
As for "UN-organised referenda in the four contested oblasts", democratic referenda have already been held, and those oblasts (as well as Crimea) are now formally part of Russia. Would anyone stand up in the House of Lords to suggest UN-organised referenda in the UK or the USA, to elicit the will of the citizens of those countries?
In order to get anywhere with these issues, it is necessary to decide whether one is interested in the truth, or whether one is a dyed-in-the-wool chauvinist concerned to aggrandise one's own nation (or rather its plutocrats) at the expense of others, truth, and decency. I recommend the former.