Russia's grand strategy aims to end US global hegemony, establish Russia as a pre-eminent power in Europe, and drive a wedge between Europe and the USA. It is characterized by aggressive actions like the annexation of Crimea and gas supply manipulation. The west must take firm action against these provocations.

Emphasises Russia's use of gas and energy to manipulate NATO partners, highlighting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as an example of this strategy in play.

Agrees with the assessment that Russian intervention in Kazakhstan is part of a broader strategy and likely to expand into long-term involvement despite official recognition of host country's sovereignty.

Highlights the reckless nature of Russia’s development of weapons like hypersonic missiles and nuclear-powered torpedoes, underlining their disregard for safety concerns.

Suggests that past government decisions such as not continuing with North Sea gas storage facilities have left the UK vulnerable to energy blackmail by Russia.

There is considerable concern about the rapidly deteriorating situation in Ukraine, particularly on its frontier. Russia seeks to rewrite the end of the cold war and recreate the Soviet Union; increase influence over former Soviet Republics and establish hegemony over the former Warsaw pact countries. It also aims to keep Finland neutral and have significant influence in the western Balkans. The threat is not just military but involves cultural, political life, and industrial espionage. Russia's equipment may be inferior compared to its hypersonic advancements. There is a need for strong evaluation of these threats, though Whitehall lacks much of its Russia-watching capability. Putin views the break-up of the Soviet Union as a disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union and calls it the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. The Wagner Group, licensed by and embedded in the Kremlin, operates throughout the middle east, north Africa, and further down into Africa on behalf of Russia. Providing defensive equipment to Ukraine should be considered for its sovereignty and independence as guaranteed by the Budapest agreement. NATO is a defensive alliance that should support Ukraine's right to defend itself.

Mr Tugendhat emphasises the vulnerability of Putin's regime, noting its diminishing support among Russians. He describes a kleptocratic group enriching themselves at the expense of Russia and the UK. Highlighting an estimated $200 billion under Putin’s control, he discusses how this money flows through UK systems and corrupts various sectors. Mr Tugendhat also mentions ongoing work to update reports on Russian money laundering in the UK.

Bryant emphasises the importance of having a single, consistent voice against Russia's aggressive actions. He criticises Putin's propaganda and highlights Russia's destabilisation efforts in various countries, citing secret documents that reveal Russia’s strategic aims to undermine Western democracies. Bryant also raises concerns about UK policies such as the granting of visas to Russian oligarchs and the failure to implement recommendations from the Moscow’s Gold report.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this important debate... We need a reality check. We need to stop kidding ourselves that we garner so much influence as senior members of the United Nations Security Council, NATO, the G7 and the Commonwealth, when those very organisations no longer harbour the clout or the vision to handle our modern and complex world.

Mr. Lewis referred to historical intelligence reports from 1946 about Soviet intentions, noting similarities with the current situation regarding Russia's aggressive stance and security threats. He emphasised the need for bipartisan agreement on analysing the threat but stressed that taking concrete steps is crucial. Highlighted the importance of US involvement in European defence through deterrence and containment strategies, warning against President Biden's approach to negotiations with Putin without a clear strategic understanding.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex on obtaining this timely debate on this extremely important subject. We have no quarrel with the Russian people but under Vladimir Putin, the situation has deteriorated significantly compared to the period of Mikhail Gorbachev. There was a brief period of hope during Medvedev's presidency, but it did not last long as Putin returned and suppressed dissent, including journalists, dissidents, and human rights activists. Russia also occupies territories in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and threatens its neighbours, such as the Suwalki gap that links Belarus and Kaliningrad, potentially isolating the Baltic states from the west. Additionally, Putin's actions towards Ukraine have been aggressive, with the annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in Donbass, leading to the shooting down of MH17. The UK must demonstrate strength through military assistance and clear consequences to deter Russia’s current behaviour.

As the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, I struggle with how to deal effectively with Russia. We constantly hassle Russian members but do not understand their motivations for maintaining membership in multilateral organisations they seem to dislike. A service person suggested using these interactions as opportunities to gather intelligence on Russia's objectives rather than simply hassling them. An atlas produced in Russia reveals a different perspective, highlighting the Arctic’s importance to Russian strategic thinking. Vladimir Kara-Murza, a leading dissident, pointed out that Putin's support for Belarus is driven by fear of being Europe's last dictator and facing criticism if another dictatorship falls. This debate underscores the need for an overall strategy to deal with Russia, considering it a significant but weakened military power due to its desire to participate in multilateral organisations.

Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is testing the west and considers itself already at war with it through non-military means. Bob Stewart expresses concern over Russian support for Republika Srpska’s bid to break up Bosnia and suggests that Putin has authorised Serbia to send weapons there. He shares his experience of being detained in Crimea in 2005, questioning the fairness of the referendum held post-annexation but acknowledging local contentment with Russian rule. Stewart discusses Ukraine's lack of NATO protection despite its Partnership for Peace status, highlighting Europe’s division and US distraction over China. He advocates for UK leadership in coordinating European action against Putin's aggressive foreign policy and supporting tougher sanctions on Russia if it continues to push its luck in Ukraine and Bosnia.

The European skies are darkening due to a perceived weakening of NATO against Russia. The US has an ageing, isolationist President with internal divisions. Germany's armed forces are not as capable or ready as during the cold war, with a new inexperienced coalition that includes pacifists and Nord Stream 2 supporters. France is absorbed in its presidential election, potentially leading to unstable leadership. NATO was defeated in Afghanistan, highlighting its vulnerability despite advanced technology. Russia continues to build military capabilities while NATO members fail to meet defence spending targets of 2% of GDP. The draft security treaty from Russia could be a precursor to exerting pressure on Ukraine and other countries with ethnic Russian populations, potentially breaking NATO. Russians admire strength and despise weakness; the lesson is that appeasement does not work, and freedom must be defended.

Several hon. Members rose to speak but their contributions are not provided in the transcript.

Russia's grand strategy is unclear but it poses a significant threat, particularly in the Arctic region. Mr Anderson emphasises the importance of understanding Russia's ultimate goal to effectively counter any potential threats. He highlights that while Russia's military might has diminished since two decades ago, its naval capability and hypersonic missile technology have advanced significantly. The speaker also mentions the Wagner Group’s presence near Svalbard and Russia’s cyber capabilities as concerning factors. Mr Anderson concludes by stressing the importance of diplomacy to prevent miscalculation leading to war.

Edward Leigh makes no apology for President Putin but acknowledges his corrupt regime. He discusses historical context and argues that many Russians feel humiliated over the loss of territory post-Soviet Union. He emphasises that Crimea, despite issues with its transfer, is overwhelmingly Russian in self-determination and respect must be given to this fact.

Bob Seely interjects to disagree partially with Edward Leigh's stance on eastern Ukraine, arguing that ethnic Russians are not in the majority there and criticises the confusion between Russian speakers and ethnic Russians.

Bernard Jenkin interjects to argue against the historical legitimacy of Crimea's annexation by Russia, comparing it to Nazi Germany's annexation of Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia.

Thomas Tugendhat interjects to question whether free countries should have the autonomy to choose their associations, challenging the idea that Ukraine must belong to Russia rather than having its own say.

Alyn Smith requests to speak but his contribution is not provided in the transcript.

Shelbrooke emphasised that Ukraine should not join NATO, arguing that the UK has a responsibility to protect Ukraine's borders based on the 1994 Budapest agreement. He also pointed out reports of ethnic cleansing in Crimea and highlighted how Russian actions have emboldened due to perceived Western weakness. Shelbrooke argued for increased defence spending to counterbalance Russia’s aggressive policies.

Stewart intervened to remind the House that the 1994 Budapest accord also guaranteed Kazakhstan's sovereign integrity, not just Ukraine's.

Jenkin recalled President Bush’s deployment of the sixth fleet in response to Russia’s invasion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, advocating for a similar firm stance against current Russian aggression.

Moore thanked his hon. Friend for securing the debate, acknowledging the importance of discussing energy security and reducing dependency on Russian gas exports. He expressed concern over Russia's actions in Ukraine, citing past violations of sovereignty as a warning to others. Moore also addressed cyber-space concerns, noting that while Russia has engaged in multiple attacks including those against Estonia and Georgia, these incidents should be dealt with using established tools rather than sensationalism. He emphasised the need for clear international rules and norms to address cyber-espionage and ensure no indiscriminate cyber-weapons are used against hospitals or schools.

Seely outlined Russia's grand strategy as involving the reabsorption of Ukraine, shattering NATO, establishing a sphere of influence, and re-establishing a virulently illiberal Russia. He dismissed the notion that this was inevitable, highlighting the battle between open and closed societies in the 21st century. Seely pointed out that Putin's essay on Russian-Ukrainian unity signaled disrespect for Ukraine’s borders. He discussed the concept of hybrid war as detailed by Russian military doctrine, which combines military and non-military effects to serve state power. Seely concluded with a discussion on Russian strategic culture, highlighting threats from external forces, defence of autocracy, and desire for great power status, all contributing to Russia's focus on Ukraine.

The speaker recalls his experiences in Poland under Soviet rule and discusses the current manipulation by Russia through projects like Nord Stream 2. He criticises US leadership on this issue, highlighting concerns over Russian control of gas prices and their use of energy as a weapon against countries such as Ukraine. The speaker calls for NATO partners to follow examples set by Poland and Croatia in reducing dependence on Russian gas, supporting the expansion of liquefied gas terminals, and encouraging countries like Finland and Sweden to consider joining NATO.

Smith commends the debate and notes that none of the contributions are Russophobic. He emphasises that Russia under its current regime oppresses and impoverishes its own people, treating minorities poorly and silencing dissenters. The speaker highlights Russia's territorial ambitions in Europe and its attempts to interfere with internal affairs through corruption and disinformation. Smith calls for resilience to be discussed alongside defence, arguing that informed and prosperous democracies are less vulnerable to Russian tactics. He criticises the UK government for not taking seriously reports on Russian influence, including those from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Intelligence and Security Committee.

I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for convening this debate, acknowledging the threat posed by Russia to national security and advocating for robust leadership from Britain. Emphasising the historical context since 1989, Lammy stresses Putin's aggressive stance towards sovereign nations in its near abroad, asserting that NATO enlargement was not westward expansion but eastern countries seeking security and peace. He details Russian hostile actions beyond Ukraine, including annexation of Crimea, support for Assad, and fomenting dissent in the Balkans. To address these issues, Lammy calls for dependable allyship with clear commitment to NATO, consistent leadership in European defence, rebuilding ties with European partners, strengthening domestic defences against money laundering, and promoting dialogue rooted in international law.

The UK acknowledges Russia's current direct threat to national security, emphasising the need for a long-term strategic approach. The Government have set up a cross-Government Russia unit and expelled Russian intelligence officers following the Salisbury attack in 2018. They are committed to Ukraine’s territorial integrity through military training, naval capability enhancement, and trade link strengthening. Additionally, they condemn human rights violations such as the closure of Memorial and impose sanctions on individuals involved in cyber-attacks and political repression.

Congratulates Chris Heaton-Harris on his new role but expresses concern that efforts to train and supply Ukraine's army might be too late if Russia intends to invade sooner rather than later.

Welcomes Chris Heaton-Harris to his post and suggests it is now time to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP given the current security challenges and threats.

Expressed appreciation for the Minister's reply, acknowledged the unanimous condemnation of President Putin. Emphasised that while diplomatic measures are commendable, military capacity is essential to deter Russian aggression. Advocated for a step change in Western behaviour towards Russia through NATO reunification, ensuring high penalties for aggressive actions. Mentioned the need for a cold war-style approach until Russia ceases its aggressive stance.