Level of Threat: Russia
Monday, 19 October 2026
Contributions
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)Labour
4. What assessment he has made of the level of threat from Russia.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)Labour
Terms such as “hybrid threats” and “grey zone” fail to convey adequately the seriousness of Russia’s widespread campaign of what I prefer to call state-sponsored terrorism, which it is inflicting across our continent. We expect it to continue probing and testing Britain and her allies, including through military posturing and reckless military activity. We are not at war with Russia, nor do we seek confrontation, but Russia should be in no doubt that we are ready to defend every inch of NATO territory and that we will not be deterred in our unwavering support for Ukraine.
To deter Russia, we need vigilance at home and the support of our allies abroad. I am sure the whole House will agree that Vladimir Putin’s decision to continue to bomb and target civilian and energy infrastructure in Ukraine is proof that he is not interested in a ceasefire, so does my right hon. Friend agree that, at this moment, our allied response should be to give even greater support to Ukraine and President Zelensky and to look at what further sanctions we could place on Russia?
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon Friend. At the next meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, I will be continuing to mobilise practical support from our allies. When I was in Washington last week, I made our view very clear that Ukraine’s frontline is the frontline for freedom and democracy everywhere, and that we need to stand together to increase the cost of this war to Putin, because only Putin has the means to end this war. If Ukraine were to cease fire tomorrow while Russia continued, it would pay a heavy price in casualties and in the very freedom that the United Kingdom and all our allies seek to defend.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)Conservative
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s last answer, because it is important that the American President and the US Defence Secretary understand that Russia started this war. Did the right hon. Gentleman also point out that the President’s decision to buy diesel from Russia is actually funding Iran, because the Russians are buying it in from Iran, and that it is therefore counterintuitive to what the Americans are trying to achieve with their blockade?
There is no doubt that Russia presents a threat and is an adversary of the United States as well as of the United Kingdom. We see that with the company that Russia chooses to keep and with the risk that Russia poses to US interests and US personnel as well as our own in the way that it conducts itself. The United States has not been alone in buying fuel from Russia. We have had similar challenges here on the European continent in relation to Russian gas. The more that Putin’s war machine is funded, the longer this war goes on and the higher the price for everyone. That price is being paid most of all by the Ukrainians, who did not start this war and who lack the means to end it. Only Putin can do that. He could stop the war tomorrow; he chooses not to do so.
Mr SpeakerSpeaker
I call the shadow Minister.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)Conservative
Part of the growing threat from Russia—and it is growing —includes increased maritime activity, both in the English channel and in the surveillance of critically important undersea cables, including by specialist Russian submarines. Part of our response should surely be to increase our own submarine patrols around our shores. However, for many months, not a single one of our Astute class attack submarines has been on patrol. I know that it is not the Government’s policy to comment on submarine movements, but I am asking about the absence of submarine movements. Why, on Labour’s watch, have our attack submarines been embarrassingly tied up alongside for months at a time, while the Russians are roving in the North sea and the Atlantic?
However the shadow Minister phrases his question, he is not going to tempt me to comment on operational deployments. He understands perfectly well why we choose not to do that. Secondly, I point him to recent exercises we have conducted in the North sea and to our leadership of the joint expeditionary force. To go to the heart of his question about our armed forces and their readiness, perhaps the next time he or his party want to get to their feet to lecture us about the state of our armed forces, they might begin with an apology for underfunding them for more than a decade.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Last week, Ukrainian forces were reportedly left exposed to Russian attacks after the US President acted to restrict access to Starshield, showing that the White House is prepared to pressure American companies to interfere in allied military operations, and the importance of sovereign control over military satellite communications in facing the Russian threat. Now the Government are reportedly considering a low-ball American bid to operate Skynet—a system conceived during the cold war to guarantee British sovereignty over military satellite capability—threatening hundreds of jobs in Portsmouth, a great military city still reeling from losing shipbuilding. The Government talk about buying British and strengthening sovereign capability, and here we have a proven world-leading system operated by a European company, so can the Defence Secretary explain to me and the people of Portsmouth why he is considering handing operation of this critical sovereign capability to the US?
The hon. Gentleman will understand why I will not comment on that during a live procurement. The matter is still under consideration. To be clear, we take sovereign capability and control very seriously. It is also worth pointing out, after what was unquestionably a challenging week for relations between the United States and Ukraine, that the United States has provided and will continue to provide vital support to Ukraine, whether that is through intelligence sharing, the work we do on procurement with and through the United States, or the diplomatic track. It is worth reporting to the House that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, my US counterpart, was keen to thank the United Kingdom for our leadership on Ukraine. That suggests to me that the United States does know which side it is on.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5419471.