Hansard

We contribute to this debate as an act of solidarity with the people of Ukraine. That includes those living on the war front and the millions displaced abroad, thousands of whom have found refuge in Scotland. This time last year, on the eve of what would become Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we could not have predicted the atrocious actions of the Russian army against the people of Ukraine.

Once war broke out, it quickly became clear that Putin had underestimated the strength and resolve of the Ukrainian people to fight for and maintain their sovereignty and freedom. Putin found that his forces could not force Ukraine to surrender. So, as we mark the one-year anniversary of the invasion, the war continues.

As world leaders marked the anniversary this week, we witnessed renewed commitment to Ukraine in various military and humanitarian forms, with notable support from other former Soviet countries and Russian satellite states, including the Bucharest nine. They hold special solidarity with Ukraine in maintaining their sovereignty as independent states.

Appallingly, Putin commemorated the one-year anniversary by delivering an address that displaced responsibility for his invasion of Ukraine on to the west, claiming that Russia is protecting Ukraine. While he was giving that speech, the Russian military bombed civilian areas of the city of Kherson, including a pharmacy and a nursery. Alongside that, Putin increased his rhetoric of nuclear escalation by announcing Russia’s decision to suspend participation in the new strategic arms reduction treaty. That treaty restricts the number of nuclear weapons that can be deployed on long-range missiles based on land or sea that can reach Russia or the US within 30 minutes. It also requires the mutual reporting of the number of nuclear-ready missiles.

As co-president of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, or PNND, I presented a statement to the United Nations 10th review conference. In that conference, PNND called on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT, states parties, including Russia and the US, to adopt a no-first-use nuclear weapons policy. I remain committed to that recommendation, and I reassert its increasing importance as we reach the one-year anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine.

In the relatively short history of the existence of nuclear weapons, there have been a number of occasions when the world has come too close to nuclear war. The most notable of those instances was, of course, the Cuban missile crisis. At such moments, on the brink of nuclear escalation, nuclear powers have often peered over the cliff edge of nuclear confrontation and foreseen the outcome that nobody wants. Since the outbreak of war, both nuclear powers—the US and Russia, which, together, hold 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons—have articulated the position that nuclear war is an outcome that nobody wants. However, President Putin has not acted in that direction. I expect that the suspension of the new strategic arms reduction treaty is nuclear posturing. Nonetheless, it is a worrisome and significant development in Putin’s escalation of nuclear rhetoric. That said, there remains the opportunity to de-escalate inflammatory nuclear rhetoric and move back to a realistic negotiating table at which nuclear weapons and the merits of a no-first-use policy can be discussed. That is in the best interests of countries around the world, so we must keep UN channels open for those talks to commence.

I note that the 10th NPT review conference failed to reach agreement by all parties, as Russia’s withdrawal from Ukrainian nuclear power stations was unacceptable to Russian diplomats. I have suggested to the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs at the UN the idea of blue helmets being positioned in Ukraine to create a safety zone around nuclear power stations.

Unfortunately, there are indications of the possible strategic escalation of conventional war. Putin’s address on Tuesday doubled down on attempts to legitimise expansionist action. This week, it was announced that the Kremlin revoked a 2012 decree that committed Russia to seek to resolve the separatist issues of Transnistria on the basis of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the republic of Moldova. That sounds incredibly similar to the Kremlin’s attitude to Crimea before the 2014 coup and the annexation of that area. The Kremlin went on to explain that revocation of its commitment to Moldova’s sovereignty is

“to ensure the national interests of”

Russia

“in connection with profound changes taking place in international relations.”

On top of that, Russia is holding joint naval exercises with China and South Africa in the south Indian Ocean. China has stated its intent to help Russia to bring the war to an end through diplomatic routes. The timing of those joint naval exercises with the one-year anniversary makes the assertion difficult to believe. It is in that context that our continued affirmation and support for Ukraine must be as rock solid as it can be.

On Tuesday evening, the cross-party group on human trafficking and UN House Scotland hosted a round-table discussion in which how we can best protect Ukrainians from exploitation was considered, given the vulnerability of displaced Ukrainian refugees. There was a powerful statement by a displaced social work lecturer, Kate Bucho, who insightfully told us about how freedom is fundamental to the Ukrainian people. She referred to the slogan of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution of dignity: “Freedom is our religion.”

We cannot give up on Ukraine now; rather, we must strengthen our resolve to help it in all ways possible and protect the fundamental right to a people’s sovereignty, freedom and dignity.