LONDON – Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Ukrainian president Zelensky suggested that the war could end by 2025. From your point of view, what might the resolution to this conflict look like? And do you believe Ukraine should consider a territorial compromise, as some voices in the new Trump government have implied in the US?
“We in the United Kingdom have been determined to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position as they head into this very tough winter and through 2025. We have pledged 3 billion pounds a year in military aid, for every year for as long as it lasts, we have a big economic package for them and humanitarian aid going forward. What we’ve been keen to do from day one in coming to office is to ensure that we don’t just see pledges, but we actually see the military equipment get its way out of the door into Ukraine, so it’s quicker and faster. And that we ensure that they have money in the bank. Of course, we’ve encouraged all G7 partners and colleagues across Europe to continue to do that. I am confident that Ukraine will find itself in a position where it can sustain this fight through 2025 as long as we’re able to ensure that all of the G7 ERA [Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration] loan and seizure of assets money is into their coffers over this next period. I’ll be raising those issues again with colleagues, bilaterally and also at the G7. I see absolutely no appetite from Putin to negotiate, and indeed, those negotiations could begin if we withdrew his troops today. But in fact, what we see is escalation. We saw it a few months ago with the sourcing of Iranian ballistic missiles and their use, of course, in this theatre of conflict. Very worryingly, we’ve seen this development too with troops from the DPRK to Russia. None of this suggests a man who is willing to negotiate or step back from this aggression that we’re seeing. It’s hugely important that alongside allies, we help Ukraine in meeting this fight at this time.”
But do you think there should be a conversation with Russia about territorial compromises?
“That, of course, is a matter for Ukraine. But as I said, our assessment in the UK is, in order to negotiate, you would need a partner with will to negotiate. We see absolutely no appetite from Putin to negotiate at this time. So let us focus on the challenge ahead. The truth of that focus is that we’ve got probably a bitter, tough winter approaching us in Europe. That is a tough winter for Ukrainian troops. Let us ensure that today, that now, we put Ukraine in the strongest possible position as we head into 2025 where I suspect the fighting will continue”.
After the use of Storm Shadow missiles on Russian territory, the Russian ambassador claimed Britain now is “directly involved” in the conflict. Do you think this risks putting British and European citizens in danger?
Regarding this risk of retaliation by Russia, how much are you concerned about sabotage acts in our countries, both in Britain and in Europe, by Russian agents? Pat McFadden himself made this point yesterday at the NATO Cyber Summit. The alert is high.
“We have seen worrying signs of recklessness emerging in some of Russia’s approach. Of course, we’ve seen this in the past with British nationals poisoned in Salisbury, for example. And, of course, we will meet these challenges very, very seriously if and when they emerge”.
A cargo plane crashed in Lithuania yesterday. Was it a Russian sabotage?
“I have seen the latest reports from Vilnius. I think it’s too early to say what sits behind that incident at this moment in time. But of course, I expect to be updated in due course.”
A report in Le Monde yesterday implied that Macron and Starmer are assessing the possibility of sending troops into Ukraine, maybe even contractors. Do you see this as a possibility?
“We are very clear that we stand ready and continue to support the Ukrainians with training particularly. But there has been a long-standing position that we are not committing UK troops to the theatre of action that is certainly the UK position and remains the UK position at this time”.
So not even contractors or another kind of combat fighters?
“We are not committing UK troops on the ground to Ukraine. But we continue to support Ukraine with training and military assistance, and we have been absolutely clear that we will continue to do that for as long as is required and needed.”
But, after a ceasefire in Ukraine, do you envisage the possibility of British and European troops in Ukraine for peacekeeping?
“I thought it was very important that, back in July, NATO was very clear that there would be a pathway to NATO for Ukraine. I think we all understand that this war will be over, not entirely as a result of military endeavors on the ground, but as a result of a political settlement. As part of that political settlement, it’s hugely important that Ukraine has the security guarantees that are needed, and that Russian aggression is repelled. We here in Europe are really clear that we cannot tolerate a situation in which the war ends and Russia comes back again in a matter of time. When we think about this conflict, it’s always important to be aware that this did not begin in February 2022. This, in fact, began way back in 2014, and so that pathway to NATO and those security guarantees will be fundamental if we are to keep the peace in Europe that all European colleagues want to see.”
So you don’t rule them out.
“At the moment, we are supporting Ukraine in the midst of a bitter, nasty war begun by Putin. As I’ve said, I see, sadly, no attempts by Putin to review his position and begin negotiation. So my full attention is on supporting Ukraine at this time. I do recognize that, when this comes to an end, Ukraine will need all the security guarantees that you would expect. And as you know, the UK has been very supportive of Ukraine about that”.
So, do you think that Ukraine should still join NATO? Because the new US administration seems to have a different view.
“We were in agreement back in July that there should be an irreversible pathway to NATO membership, all NATO Allies were able to agree that. That’s the stated position in the UK. We’re very pleased to be one of the most active NATO members supporting that desire on behalf of Ukraine.”
There is a lot of fear in NATO about the return of Donald Trump to the White House. Do you think that he represents danger or opportunity for Europe?
“I was very pleased to have dinner with Donald Trump back in September, I found him to be a very gracious host. I have to say, I found him, in discussion with our prime minister Starmer, to be very aware of the threat that Russia poses to European security, and the consequences of that for growing expenditure on behalf of US taxpayers, were Russia to succeed. When Donald Trump warns Europe and encourages Europe to spend more on defence spending, it follows a long line. It’s a line that began with Eisenhower. It continued with Kennedy. Obama raised these issues as well. When Donald Trump came to office, I think it was just 4% of European partners spending more than 2% on GDP. When he left office, that figure had risen to above 10%. It’s now sitting at 23%. Donald Trump is right. He’s right. We do have to take Defence spending and European security seriously, and we can see in the UK that clearly, with a challenging environment in the Indo-Pacific, and again, challenges from China and in the China Strait particularly. We have to be very serious about European security here amongst European allies.”
Other European capitals are looking at Britain and hoping that the British government, which is one of the strongest in Europe today, with a solid majority and a five-year mandate, to play a bigger role in European diplomacy and security. Are you Brits ready to play a bigger role in Europe, and what kind of reset do you want with the EU, given that there is a sense of urgency in Brussels and Berlin regarding your intents?
“We came to office four and a half months ago. Our number one priority in foreign policy terms was a European reset. It’s why I have been in Germany, in Poland, I was very pleased to be with my French colleague in London for the first bilateral meeting we’ve had for six years. Here in Italy, I come in the midst of Prime Minister Starmer, who had a very good meeting with Meloni, of course. So we are determined to reset our relationships with our broader friends right across Europe. European security demands it, but so do the challenges of the time. I think of climate particularly, and we’ve been absolutely clear that we want a reset in our relations with the European Union. The prime minister had a very good meeting with Ursula von der Leyen too. We are intent on a refreshed training relationship with our European partners. We have been very clear we will not be returning to the Single Market or the Custom Union, but there is much that we can do today. And of course, we totally recognize that the United Kingdom’s biggest trading relationship is with the European Union, and we look forward to working closely together over the coming months and years”.
But should we expect a proposal on Defence and Security in the coming months?
“Absolutely, you’re quite right. We have set a new EU Defence Security pact as the centre-pits of our new foreign policy relationship. I was very pleased to be the first UK Foreign Secretary addressing the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union a few months ago in Luxembourg. I look forward to returning and continuing that dialogue, and a Defence pact between us is hugely important, recognising, of course, that at this time, the United Kingdom and France represent 50% of European Defence. It’s hugely important that we’re all working very, very closely together.”
After the ICC warrant, are you ready to support the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu if he were to put his foot on British soil?
“We are very proud to be signatories of the Rome Statute. We have come to office being very clear about the importance of the rules-based order and our commitments under international law and international humanitarian law. Were this to come to pass, it would be a matter for UK courts to determine, and they would determine it in accordance with our international obligations”.
**Considering the UK’s current economic challenges, how can the government effectively balance its strong commitment to supporting Ukraine with addressing domestic priorities?**
## Thematic Breakdown and Discussion Questions for UK Foreign Policy Interview
This interview covers several key topics within UK foreign policy. Here’s a thematic breakdown with engaging, open-ended discussion questions:
**1. UK Support for Ukraine and Future Negotiations:**
* The interview highlights the UK’s strong commitment to supporting Ukraine.
* **How sustainable is this level of military and financial support for Ukraine in the long run? What factors might influence the UK’s future commitment?**
* **The Foreign Secretary mentions the need for a “partner” with a will to negotiate with Russia. How likely do you think it is that such a partner will emerge in the near future? What are the potential implications if negotiations remain stalled?**
**2. Potential Risks: Sabotage and Escalation:**
* The interview raises concerns about potential Russian retaliation, including sabotage, following the use of Storm Shadow missiles.
* **What concrete steps can the UK and its European allies take to effectively mitigate the risk of Russian sabotage? How can they balance security measures with maintaining open societies?**
* **The Foreign Secretary acknowledges past instances of Russian aggression, like the Salisbury poisoning. How should this history inform the UK’s current approach to Russia, and what are the lessons learned?**
**3. UK’s Role in European Security:**
* The interview emphasizes the UK’s desire to ”play a bigger role” in European security.
* **What specific contributions can the UK realistically make to enhance European security? How can it leverage its strengths (e.g., military capabilities, intelligence sharing) to effectively address common threats?**
* ** Given the UK’s recent departure from the EU, what are the potential challenges and opportunities for rebuilding trust and cooperation with European partners in the realm of defence and security?**
**4. NATO’s Future and Ukrainian Membership:**
* The interview touches on Ukraine’s desire to join NATO and the potential implications for European security.
* **Given the current geopolitical climate, what are the argument for and against Ukraine’s accelerated NATO membership? What are the risks and benefits involved?**
* **The UK’s emphasis on NATO represents a clear commitment to collective defence. How do you think NATO should evolve in the face of new threats, such as cyber warfare and hybrid warfare?**
**5. UK-EU Relationship Post Brexit:**
* The interview reflects the UK’s desire to “reset” its relationship with the EU.
* **Can the UK effectively balance its desire for sovereignty with the need for close cooperation with the EU in areas like security, trade, and climate change?**
* **The Foreign Secretary mentions a “new EU Defence Security pact”. How realistic is such a pact given the UK’s departure from the EU and the potential for differing priorities? What might be the key elements of a successful pact?**
*
**6. International Law and Accountability:**
* The interview addresses the ICC warrant for Vladimir Putin.
* **How should the UK balance its international legal obligations with its strategic interests when dealing with a case like the ICC warrant for Putin? What are the potential complexities and dilemmas involved?**
* **How can international institutions like the ICC effectively address war crimes and hold those responsible accountable, particularly in situations (like the war in Ukraine) where powerful states are involved?**
By exploring these questions and utilizing different perspectives, one can achieve a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the complexities addressed in this interview.