Mr. Jenkin discussed the necessity of a long-term strategic response to Putin's strategy, advocating for stronger land power investment by the UK and Europe, despite economic constraints. He criticised the timidity in military support towards Ukraine and called for faster procurement processes to enable timely delivery of equipment.

Mr. Shelbrooke questioned whether European allies have recognised the onset of a new cold war, echoing his stance from last year's debate.

Mr. Foord agreed with Mr. Jenkin that Western nations were not firm enough in setting red lines before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, citing a lack of decisive action from the US President.

Mr. Francois supported Mr. Jenkin's argument for immediate military intervention, specifically urging Germany to lift its legal restrictions on exporting Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

Mr. Duncan Smith linked the timidity in response to a lack of capability among Western nations, suggesting that without robust defence budgets, assertive posturing is ineffective.

Mr. Howell highlighted an example of UK's cautious approach in military aid to Ukraine, citing an internal email advising silence on the limited support provided by the country.

Mr. Bryant agrees with the need to support Ukraine but criticises the fragmented approach in providing military aid. He emphasises the necessity of a coordinated effort among allies to ramp up production of compatible equipment for Ukraine, such as tanks. He also discusses the reconstruction costs of Ukraine post-war, estimating around $349 billion based on earlier estimates and possibly more than $1 trillion if counting Crimea and other regions. He advocates for using frozen Russian state assets for reparations and aid to Ukraine, arguing that these assets are already owed under international law due to Russia's aggression. Additionally, he suggests passing legislation to repurpose the frozen state assets in the UK.

Ellwood argues that the UK is ill-prepared militarily for the current security threats and criticises recent defence cuts. He highlights issues with outdated tank, armoured fighting vehicle, and recce vehicle procurement, stressing the need to address these in the new integrated review.

Ms Cummins congratulates the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex on securing the debate, highlighting Russia's second invasion of Ukraine as a critical moment in history that dispelled any myth about Russia being misunderstood or acting in its own territorial integrity. She emphasises the real-world human consequences of Putin’s war, noting it has been 330 days since the Russian invasion began and over a year since Crimea was annexed by Russia. She commends David Fox-Pitt from Siobhan's Trust for providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine with his pizza ovens, volunteers, and kilt-clad soft power diplomacy. Ms Cummins underscores the brutality of Putin’s regime in Kharkiv but also highlights the immense resolve of the Ukrainian people. She points out that Russia is targeting civilian infrastructure, causing mounting evidence of war crimes. The speaker calls for more weapons, training, and support to help Ukraine maintain sovereignty over its territory, underlining the critical humanitarian situation as temperatures drop during winter.

Mr Howell discusses his efforts in introducing a new convention or treaty that will hold Russia accountable for environmental aggression. He also highlights the need for a current affairs debate on Serbia and Kosovo, where Putin is attempting to create a second front by expanding Russian influence. He points out increased military co-operation between Russia and Serbia, noting that Serbia provides the most permissive environment for Russian influence in the Balkans. Mr Howell emphasises the short-term reasons behind Russia's actions but also warns of its broader implications for countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina. He mentions a genocide in Srebrenica and expresses regret over the creeping effect of Russia on attitudes towards places such as Kosovo, advocating for support against Serbia.

Mr Foord congratulates the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex on securing the debate, criticising Russia's leadership as opportunist and not having a grand strategy but rather taking advantage of western weaknesses. He references Lord Palmerston's 1858 quote about Russian expansionism only being stopped by firm resistance from other Governments. Mr Foord also emphasises the importance of NATO collaboration in responding to Russian aggression, stating that Putin models himself on historical figures like Catherine the Great who sought territorial expansion for security reasons. He mentions Russia's wounded pride after imperial collapse and its lack of attractiveness compared to western democratic structures. Mr Foord criticises the Budapest memorandum as ineffective due to differing interpretations of 'guarantee', advocating a NATO strategy rather than UK alone, highlighting public support in Russia for the war despite west’s focus on Putin.

Mr Bryant interjects to suggest that a key failing was signing the Budapest accord which, though it looked like guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for nuclear disarmament, proved ineffective due to nebulous language leading to inability of enforcement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is congratulated on bringing this important debate to the House, and all members in attendance are acknowledged, many of whom were present a year ago. Shelbrooke expresses concern over hubris among western nations, suggesting they may be underestimating Russia's ability to regroup and restrategise. He highlights the importance of supply lines for Ukraine and the need for European countries to take responsibility for approving Leopard tanks' transfer, rather than relying on Germany or the US. The speaker also discusses NATO’s future and the significance of PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), suggesting it could be a problem if Russia perceives weaknesses in the alliance's procurement policies. Shelbrooke is worried about Germany hiding behind a delaying tactic while Putin regroups, emphasising the need for increased military capability spending to improve taxpayers' cost of living over the long term. He stresses that industry needs longer-term contracts to commit to armament manufacturing and urges all parts of the House to support Ukraine and recognise European defence policy.

Reflects on the irony that wanting to leave the EU was partly due to its desire for an independent defence policy, only now Germany is saying it cannot send tanks without US approval.

Agrees with Shelbrooke's argument that reaching a negotiating settlement risks giving Putin time to regroup and come back stronger.

Asks whether debates about arming Ukraine took place in 2017-18, questioning why such discussions were not more prominent at the time.

Recalls that Foreign Office officials warned about Crimea but their advice was dismissed by the then-Foreign Secretary who later became Prime Minister.

Thanks Shelbrooke for his contribution and agrees with Chris Bryant’s warning, stressing that today's debate should send a clear message to Russia: NATO and the US will not tolerate further aggression against Ukraine.

Emphasised the importance of humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, highlighting the work of Siobhan’s Trust charity. He described the dire conditions faced by Ukrainian refugees and called for immediate assistance such as armoured ambulances, paramedics training, and mental health support for soldiers. Duncan Smith also criticised Western countries' dependence on Russian energy supplies, particularly mentioning the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex congratulated on securing this debate, focusing on the impact of Russia's war in Ukraine on Ukrainian women and children. Emphasised that if Putin wins in Ukraine, other countries like Serbia, Baltic states, and neighbouring nations would be targeted next. Stressed the importance of countering misinformation campaigns by Russia to maintain support for democratic values globally. Highlighted disruptions caused by Russia to global supplies of food, fuel, and fertiliser as weapons of war, leading to instability worldwide. Referred to historical instances of Russian interference in migration patterns during the Syrian conflict to destabilise Europe, noting that such actions contributed significantly to Brexit sentiment. Condemned the Wagner Group's involvement in conflicts across Africa and suggested it be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

Mark Francois congratulates his fellow Essex MP, Sir Bernard Jenkin, on securing the debate and recalls predictions about Russia's likely invasion of Ukraine made during a similar debate in January 2022. He highlights how accurate these predictions were when Russia invaded Ukraine shortly after. Francois discusses the shift in attitudes towards nuclear disarmament following the Russian invasion, noting that many former advocates for unilateral disarmament have become silent. He argues that even if Putin is removed from office, Russia will remain a highly aggressive and militarised state with no tradition of liberal democracy, making it imperative to maintain Britain's own nuclear deterrent. Francois suggests strengthening NATO alliances, increasing equipment supplies to Ukraine, and encouraging Germany to take more responsibility in supporting Ukraine. He emphasises the need for urgency in rethinking strategies for potential conflict with Russia and criticises the UK’s current defence spending priorities as inadequate against a threat like Vladimir Putin.

Congratulates the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex on securing this debate, criticises the demonisation of Russian people, highlights historical events leading to Putin's rise, mentions Alexander Litvinenko murder case and the invasion of Crimea, praises Operation Orbital’s contribution to Ukrainian resistance, discusses media freedom in Russia, calls for prosecution of war crimes against Putin, suggests using Russian assets for Ukraine's reconstruction.

The speaker highlighted the responsibility of the House for allowing Russia under Putin to develop its strategy, particularly in relation to the vote on Syria's chemical weapon use. He emphasised the importance of addressing the narrative created by Putin and suggested that international forums should be used to point out that Russia is not a friend to other nations. Dunne also focused on the need for the UK to adjust its strategic reality due to the war in Europe, emphasising the requirement to refresh the integrated review to reflect current conditions. He called for immediate restoration of manpower in the British Army and prioritization of land capability from an equipment perspective. Additionally, he stressed the necessity for agile procurement methods, increased funding for training areas, and establishing strategic reserves.

Underlined the need to understand Putin's worldview, emphasised the strategic importance of supporting Ukraine through military aid like tanks and heavy armour. Highlighted Russia's violation of international law and the ongoing risk of a prolonged conflict, urging continued support from western allies despite challenges at home.

Asked why the Scottish National Party wants to give up nuclear weapons when they have seen the consequences for Ukraine after giving up theirs. This intervention was made in response to Dave Doogan's speech.

Asked if he could intervene, but no full contribution given as the text only shows an invitation for intervention.

Asked if he could intervene, but no full contribution given as the text only shows an invitation for intervention.

Inquired why Dave Doogan is focusing on Scottish independence when there are bigger issues to address regarding geopolitical challenges and the need not to forget Ukraine.

Asked if he could intervene, but no full contribution given as the text only shows an invitation for intervention.

Apologised for not declaring his interests previously and disclosed that he was deputy chairman of the Defence Growth Partnership until the end of last month and remains a non-executive director of an engineering company with defence interests.

Acknowledged Philip Dunne's declaration of interest and called on the Minister of State to allow Sir Bernard some time at the end to wind up the debate as a courtesy.

Expressed condolences for the Ukrainian Interior Minister; agreed with the need for strong land forces; highlighted four pillars of UK response: recognition of hard power, importance of alliance, resolve, and engagement in other domains such as energy. Acknowledged contributions from multiple MPs on topics including reconstruction effort, military support, humanitarian aid.

Asked questions about the UK's reconstruction efforts, reparations, and technical aspects of supporting Ukraine; questioned the use of an army of lawyers over troops for resolution.

Discussed Putin’s fading support globally, weaponisation of global food supply through Black Sea Grain Initiative, and the malign role of Wagner Group; asked about proscribing the group.

Thanked those who participated in the debate, criticised Scottish nationalists for their stance on nuclear weapons. Emphasised that it is complacent to think Putin’s strategy is failing while our own is succeeding. Cited military literature mentioning Stalingrad and Finland as key words due to Russia's aggressive war doctrine and expectation of territorial compromise by western nations. Noted the economic militarisation in Russia, indicating UK Government's inadequate support for Ukraine despite leadership among European nations. Highlighted the lack of a coherent western strategy against Russian grand strategy.