The Sylvan Russian aggression debate considered the following motion:
The UK should do everything realistically in its power to counter Russian aggression.
The debate took place on Monday, 7th March. Peter Hulme-Cross proposed the motion and Ross Hunter opposed it.
The proposition supporting doing everything realistically in the UK’s power to support Ukraine
The proposer opened with a review of Ukraine’s history. They declared independence in 1917 but became a Soviet republic in 1921, and a sovereign state in 1991. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US and German foreign ministers reportedly told Gorbachev that Nato would not expand eastward. However, no written record of this exists and Putin used Nato expansionism to justify annexing Crimea.
In 2014 the Ukrainians revolted against the pro-Russian Yanukovich government on the Maidan, triggering a war in the Donbass. The Minsk agreement, which attempted to redress, this failed, and Putin intends to keep the territories. In the 1930s Stalin perpetrated the Holodomor, a starvation of up to 4 million Ukrainians. This came with the collectivisation of agriculture, and led to repopulation by Russian settlers. This had the effect of increasing the Russian-speaking minority.
Ukraine does not want to be part of Russia. Yet the Russian military have employed tactics similar to Syria, unconcerned by civilian casualties. The West has responded by imposing sanctions and cutting Russia off from the world economy. Short of (unrealistic) military action, we should do all we can. Sanctions are the best response we have. Europe depends heavily on Russian gas, and it takes time to switch energy suppliers. Putin will carry on without a united front against him, and could take Estonia and Latvia as well. He wants a land corridor to Kaliningrad. We must make clear that Russian aggression will not be tolerated.
The opposition against the motion
The opposer, while clearly placing responsibility for the war and loss of life at the hands of Putin, argued that the West must look carefully at its actions and chart a clearer course to engage Russia going forward, to try to avoid such conflicts. Britain has already gone much further than sanctions, having provided arms to Ukraine and directly trained its military. Putin alone chose this horrific war, and the blood is on his hands already in what could be a very long conflict.
We must remember that we are on somewhat of an emotional roller coaster. Two weeks ago few of us would have believed there would be a major war in Europe. But we need to look at the likely outcomes and try to take every action we can to drive towards favourable ones for us. This depends on whether we believe Russia will succeed militarily, which he argued is likely. Direct military involvement is unrealistic.
We need to be aware that Ukraine has been a country for a very short time, and is not a Western country. For a thousand years Ukraine was controlled by its neighbours, Russia and Poland. Only since 1991 has it been independent. Oligarchs – pro and anti Russian – have dominated politics, and Russia has had a major influence the entire time. Corruption is rife. However, Ukraine deserves to be independent, given it voted for that and has its own ethnic group and language.
Yet we need to understand that Putin believes Ukraine was never independent and remains part of Russia. Nato, pushed by Clinton and George W Bush, encouraged Ukraine to join, unrealistically. Putin has the power to control Ukraine, and very simply, he will, given the threat he sees to Russian interests. The West needs to look at the options to resolve this situation going forward, understanding Russia’s viewpoint and power within the region. Only a clear-eyed view of this will lead to the best outcome for us. Throwing everything we have at Putin now will not lead to the best outcome. We could have a long-term cold war, including with China if they go into Taiwan.
Floor speeches from the audience of the Russian aggression debate
Floor speakers pointed out a range of things Britain could do to counter Russia, and noted the influence of Russian money in London. Nato presence in Ukraine would mean a lack of a buffer state between Russia and the West. The fact that it is not in the West’s interest to get involved is unfortunate for the Ukrainian people. Ukraine could become Putin’s Vietnam.
Some speakers disagreed with the opposer that Russia has the upper hand militarily and that Nato expansionism helped create the conditions for the war. We need to stand up to a bully straightaway, though this could bring risks if we do not know the bully’s intentions. Several compared the situation to the Cuban missile crisis, where a negotiated settlement succeeded. Russia fears a drop in energy prices, and Putin will go eventually.
A large number of speakers strongly supported doing everything we can to help the people who are dying and suffering. A few questioned whether we can sustain full pressure short of military involvement, particularly due to resulting increases in the cost of food and energy. We need to get the message through to the Russian people about Putin’s unwarranted aggression. A Ukrainian speaker pointed out that the two countries are like family, but that young people in Ukraine see it as separate. She urged every action to stop Putin’s ‘crime against humanity’, though noted that the price could be high.
The opposer’s rebuttal in the Russian aggression debate
In rebuttal, the opposer reprised a number of the points from the floor speakers. He reiterated his view that we need to understand Russia’s perspective in order to engage it to achieve the best outcome for the UK. This does not mean throwing literally everything we have at Putin, short of direct military involvement. We have sent significant weaponry, and many brave Ukrainian fighters and civilians have lost their lives. If Ukraine does not succeed militarily, those weapons could have provoked Russia and ultimately driven a poor outcome. This potential outcome shows that we need to calibrate our response to Russia very carefully. Maximising our response without a clear understanding of Russia’s likely counter actions could lead to disaster.
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer reminded the house that young Ukrainians do not feel Russian. Putin has demonstrated no qualms about committing crimes against humanity. Our sanctions need to be sustainable for the long term, because they can hurt our own living standards. However, 1.5 million Ukrainians have become refugees – living standards here should not be the primary concern. China could act as a mediator, though they are in a tricky position. During the Cuban missile crisis, the US removed its missiles from Turkey as a result, a little-known fact. Ukraine’s military have done well, including stopping an entire convoy of Russian tanks. Nato expansion has not threatened Russia, who have benefitted from Western economic integration. Putin is winding the clock back to the time of Peter the Great – completely mad. We must to all in our power that we possibly can.
Result: in the final vote, the Russian aggression debate motion carried
The Sylvans concluded through the Russian aggression debate that the UK should do everything realistically in its power to counter Russian aggression.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.