Prime Minister, thank you. Your speech, I thought, was very clear.
Basically, Ukraine has to win the war and Russia loses.
But you said something I want to pick up on an elaborate.
You talk about need to assurances for Ukraine.
What does that mean specifically and when do you do them?
Do you do them while the war is still ongoing?
Don't you fear that Russia will say, ultimately, we're right.
We don't fight Ukraine. We fight need to?
Well, I see you. I think first of all, it's it's clear
that the security guarantees, the architecture that was in place before
this war has failed Ukraine. And that's just a statement of fact.
Ukraine had received assurances when it gave weapons up.
Russia has continually violated whether its human rights treaties or indeed,
arms control treaties. So what happened before has not worked.
So we should be clear about that. And now our job is to look forward and
say, what's the right thing going forward?
Now, as I mentioned, Jens Stoltenberg said NATO Ukraine will be a member of
NATO. But between now and then, what I think
we need to work on are providing Ukraine with the means to win the war right now.
And that means very specifically artillery, long range weapons, armored
vehicles, air defense. That's the most critical thing.
What we can also do is make sure that we're training Ukraine on NATO standard
equipment. That's what we're doing when it comes to
aircraft with their pilots. But I think what we do need to do is
think about the future of how we protect Ukraine's security.
And we need to have that conversation with our allies and talk about the
longer term provision of supporting Ukraine.
And that's the conversation that I think we should start having as the Vilnius
summit is a good place to conclude them. So this year.
So the assurances would come. This year, I wonder if there has been a
lot of debate. You talked about the fighter jets.
There has been a lot of debate here about the ammunition, the risk that they
may not have enough ammunition, but also the long range missiles.
There's concern that perhaps one of the targets would be Crimea.
Under your watch as UK prime minister, would you approve of long range missiles
that could hit Crimea? I think I think the most important thing
here to recognize is actually starts with NATO.
What is NATO is a defensive alliance. That's the first thing to recall.
What is Ukraine doing? Ukraine is trying to defend itself.
It is suffering unprovoked aggression, its territorial integrity.
Its sovereignty has been violated. Its people are being killed and it has
every right to defend itself. And that's what we should be doing.
And that's the support that we collectively in this room are providing.
And critically, there are things that Ukraine needs to gain that decisive
advantage on the battlefield. That's why the provision of heavy tanks
was so important to our air defense is absolutely critical.
You're right to mention artillery and longer range weapons also help.
Now, those are all the things that will allow Ukraine to defend itself and repel
Russian aggression. And indeed, yes, to have a counter
offensive that moves Russia outside of its own country.
I think that's entirely reasonable. And we should be fully behind Ukraine in
that ambition and want the ambition to succeed.
And for them, the entire country means Crimea's.
You know very well in your speech.
There was a lot of bravado in the sense of Ukraine has to win the war and Russia
has to be proven wrong. Vladimir Putin has to lose this war, as
some would say. You make it clear you still believe the
UK is a big geopolitical agent. Szymanski obviously went to London.
He sees value in the U.K. But some here would believe to really be
the strong geopolitical agent, you need to solve the pending issues that you
have with the EU. I know you probably know this question
is coming. There's a frenzy of reports that you do
have a deal over the Northern Irish protocol that could come Monday
potentially. Do you have a deal?
Does it come Monday? And I wonder, beyond that, it doesn't
reflect your wish that you want to have a normal working relationship with your
European allies. So lots of things in there to unpack.
I think the first thing to say when it comes to the issue of the Northern
Ireland protocol, there are real issues that need resolving the way that the
protocol has been implemented. It's causing very real challenges for
families, for people, for businesses on the ground, very practical difficulties,
and they need to be resolved. But also, there's an issue of the
democratic deficit that sits at the heart of the protocol as it's currently
constructed. Now, those are the things that we need
to resolve. And I'm working very hard together with
my ministerial colleagues, foreign secretaries in the audience, secretary
state for Northern Ireland. You know, we are working very closely
together. We're engaging in those conversations
with the European Union next week, a potential all the time.
And we have been for a while. But what I'd say is there is still work
to do. I think there is still work to do.
There are still challenges to work through.
We have not resolved all these issues. No, there isn't.
There isn't a deal that has been done. There is an understanding of what needs
to be done. It's the issues that I outlined.
And James was in Brussels yesterday. I've been in Northern Ireland talking to
parties there about the things that we need to fix.
We're working through those. We're working through them hard.
And we will work through them intensely with the EU.
But we are by no means done. There is no deal that has done that.
There's. Work to do, and that's what we will set
about doing. So I guess you basically say on Monday
that that's not a deadline in any way, in your view.
But I wonder on a bigger picture, is there a wish to now have a normal
working relationship with your European allies?
This is a war that's happening in continental Europe.
Yeah, look, of course, there is you know, the UK may have left the European
Union. It didn't leave Europe.
We aren't we are a European nation. I talked in my speech about our
commitment to European security. And of course, we want to have a
positive, constructive relationship with our European partners, neighbors,
allies, individually, but also with the EU.
And I think you can see that you can see it.
Most importantly, in the response to Ukraine, but very specifically actually
on sanctions, where there has been an exceptionally good close working in
coordination between the UK and the EU on designing and implementing sanctions
packages which only work effectively when they're done well in a coordinated
fashion. I think we've demonstrated that we can
do that together. But if I look at a couple of other areas
where we're having good conversations as a result of positive read, the positive
dialogue, one is illegal migration. Actually, the CAC group of countries
that is working together to tackle illegal migration met at the end of last
year. That's a group of countries that
involves the UK very productive set of discussions that were had to sign of
good dialogue, good cooperation. And then lastly, on energy security, I
think all of us in Europe over the last year have re-examined where we're
getting our energy from. And ultimately that is a that is a
shared goal and one in which we work together.
We have an interconnected electricity market.
How can we not work together on that? And those are some of the very real
practical things that we are currently engaged on.
And that's I think that's the line of progress and is a welcome and positive
development. And perhaps any intoning you did come
with a very big delegation, which has not been the case at times.
I am I am told that James will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm told that this
is the biggest delegation that we've had and that reflects a new change in tone.
Absolutely. And I think there is this idea that was
put to me earlier by someone that somehow just because we left the EU that
was should be interpreted as the EU or the UK turning it on itself.
Nothing could be further from the truth. All right.
The UK has always been an outward looking country and we are committed to
continuing and doubling down on that. And I think, funnily enough, I think
last it was relatively recently one of our brand new aircraft carriers, which
we're very proud of when around around the world and participated in joint
missions with almost every Navy along the way from Europe, the Middle East to
Asia. And it was incredible sign, I think, of
the UK's desire to be an outward looking nation.
How could anyone say with something like that going on that we were somehow
retreating? No, of course not.
That's our aircraft carrier out in the Indo-Pacific in partnership with other
countries in the region, talking about regional security with them.
You know, we're currently in the process of negotiating UK accession to the TPP.
So I think these are all quite tangible demonstrations of our desire to be
engaged. Of course.
And in Europe, but also around the world, whether it comes to trade,
security, energy policy, you name it. And let's see what the audience thinks,
because now it's time to take a question from the.
Well, first of all, I would like to commend the United Kingdom.
And you obviously for the leadership in providing the arms, I'm as officer of
Ukrainian army and benefited from UK weapons provided first day of the
war. It saved my life and a safe life of many
of my friends in the Army. Now is a question
we hear more and more, including at this conference, that the depletion of stocks
became a reason or excuse not to provide more weapons to Ukraine.
Interesting phenomenon that the countries which are bordering are closer
to Russia and facing the risk more than others.
They actually first want to provide weapons to Ukraine.
It's not that they have more higher stocks.
No. They just feel the risk.
You understand that they reduce this risk by supplying weapons to Ukraine.
I would like to understand. Can you spell out the logic why UK is
demonstrating in the ship? What is logic behind your pragmatic
logic in how to make sure that others which are fully behind also adhere to
the same speed that is demonstrated by the United Kingdom?
Well, first of all, sir, can I just say thank you to you and your colleagues for
the bravery that you've shown in defending your country.
It's been an inspiration to us all.
And and thank you for your kind words about about the UK.
Now, my pitch to everyone would be simple.
I think we're at an inflection point in the conflict whereby if we collectively,
as the UK has tried to lead in doing step up our support to Ukraine at this
moment with armored vehicles, with longer range weapons, with air defense,
with artillery, Ukraine will have the ability to gain a decisive advantage on
the battlefield. Right.
It can't just be about defending. We've got to be able to provide Ukraine
with the means to fight back. And that's why I think now is critical.
And I talked about in my speech where we're providing more arms in the next
three months than we've done in an entire year, because time is of the
essence. And there is a moment in this conflict
where we can make a difference and help Ukraine win.
And that would be my pitch to everyone. And every one that I speak to is do what
we are doing, join the countries that are providing that support, intensifying
it and accelerating it now, because that is how we can try and bring this
conflict to an end on terms that are favorable for Ukraine to ensure that
Ukraine wins. That was my very simple pitch and I
think the alternative is far worse. So that's what we clearly should do.
We all are united in wanting Ukraine to win.
And if there's an opportunity to do that sooner and take advantage of the moment
we had, why would we not seize it? What are we waiting for would be my
pitch. So now's the moment to act now with
regard to stockpiles. I think that, again, the pitch I would
make to people is remember, what do we have those stockpiles for?
If you're a European nation and you have this equipment, you have to ask
yourself, what was it there to defend against?
What was there to do? And if one of those stockpiles is now
helping to degrade a Russian tank, well, isn't that precisely what it would have
been used for? You had it in your stockpile for.
So I don't think you should necessarily see every bit of depletion of stockpiles
as somehow a negative. That is a problem.
It's actually working on that. That's what the purpose of these things
were. And so our security, even as the
stockpiles might be depleted, if they're degrading Russian armed forces, they are
increasing our security at the same way. So that's one way to think a little bit
about the stockpiles. But it's right that we do need to
replenish them in the UK. We've provided extra funding for our
armed forces to ensure that they do have the certainty that those stockpiles will
be replenished because our own security in that sense is important.
And one of my colleagues in front of you will hold my feet to the fire on that
particular question. And that's what we are doing.
And I think actually, again, working together with European partners and more
broadly around the world, ensuring that the supply chains can ramp up to the
degree that we need them to is an important thing for us to do together.
And I think as we've been doing that, one thing we've discovered is the
interoperability of all our pieces of kit is probably not as strong as it
should be and could be. And that is a lesson for us to take away
and improve going forward. Prime Minister, you have multiple
questions. Nice to be back.
Quick answers. Let's.
Thank you very much, shards of glass for Ukrainian Parliament MP European
Solidarity Defection forced a fall from all Ukrainian people.
I want to say thank you for your country's support for support in Ukraine
and for your leadership. But now the key issue is time and speed
of decision making process. And UK showed the brilliant examples in
dispute of decision making. And the question is simply one point of
view, but may be complicated from the other.
Which steps, from your point of view, can be done?
It is telling us drastically increase the speed of decision making of all NATO
members. While support in Ukraine and the Wales
sanctioning Russia. Well, I don't think another question or
joint one final one. And that would put them together.
Yes. Let's just put them together so we can
maybe and then pass the microphone behind so we can take them, I think.
Thank you. Prime Minister, thank you for impeccable
leadership and and your attitude, constant attitude on the leadership by
the Liberal personal from Romanian Parliament.
I want to ask you specifically on the Black Sea region, the US Congress passed
personal legislation which will focus on that region.
How important do you think is to have a Black Sea security strategy in the
following months in order to isolate that area in countries like Moldova?
Considering the fact that we defend the longest border, NATO border with
Ukraine. Prime Minister there suggest a very
final question. I would also take and then we combine
them. Alix Steel Shery Ahn, member, UKRAINIAN
PILOT, PARLIAMENT First of all, that's my question.
You know, it's F 16 and my question is when the training of our pilots will
start, they said hello to you. They have a special gift for you.
I will give you after. But we just say when they will start,
because that is of the breed of Ukrainians today.
Thank you. Per fighter jets.
Right. Well, in terms of the the Baltic, I
think one of the most pressing, obviously, the situation Moldova is
we're all aware of. I think actually one of the other things
that has come to light about the Baltic and the sea is the truth about Black
Sea. So it was about was about the provision
of food supplies. And I think that was something that was
very acute. Earlier this well, later last year and
part of the awful tragedy of this conflict and what Russia is doing is the
food inflation that is causing and the impact that's having on some of the
poorest people in the world. And I think part of it collectively.
One thing we I think in hindsight, we needed to do a better job of explaining
that to the countries affected, that the reason food prices are going up, that
grain isn't available is not because of Western sanctions.
It's because Russia is bombarding greenfields grain stores and not letting
things pass. So I think it's been a great sign of
international cooperation led by the U.N.
Turkey's played an important role in ensuring that the Black Sea Green
Initiative has been successful. Again, we have another date in March
where that needs to be renewed. We should collectively focus our efforts
on renewing it to ensure that the provision of grain to countries that
need it continues to flow. And it's something that the Alinsky is
very committed to. He actually, in spite of the fact that
he's busy defending his country, he also wants to make sure that Ukraine is
continuing to provide food to some of the poorest people in the world.
And it's enormously to his credit. And we need to help him do that.
And on on timing, I got to just reiterate the point I made before.
I think we're at an inflection point. We have a moment.
And for everyone who says we want Ukraine to win and Russia must fail, if
you believe that, then you must act now, because now is the moment to accelerate
and increase the supplies of, as I said, those four key things, longer range
missile weapons, artillery, armored vehicles, air defense.
Those are the critical needs and we need them now.
And that's how we're going to turn this thing around and ensure Ukraine does.
When I look on on fighter jets and provision, as that's what we've
announced announced doing, we are starting to train Ukrainian pilots on on
both NATO standard aircraft, but also in tactics.
I think that's important and that we'll talk about the long term way to increase
Ukraine security. That's what we've started doing.
And I think others will will follow in time with jets.
Everyone knows that there are complications in the provision of
particular types of aircraft because everything that comes alongside that.
But what we've said very clearly is where other countries are able to
provide aircraft immediately, the United Kingdom will happily support them in
doing that. And that's something that I'm very clear
about. And I'll end on on this note, you talk
about Britain's landscape get and again. There was a picture, I think, of the
president and I when he visited the UK where we were being flown somewhere in
one of our RAAF, in one of our RAAF aircraft with our helmets and whatnot.
And someone had posted it with the caption that said, the next Top Gun
movie looks a bit crap, but his message was well-made and we'll be there to
support you. Prime Minister, your team says you have
to. You have to go.
But I cannot let you go without asking you this question.
Just an hour ago, one of the top Chinese diplomat was here and he says or said
China has a plan and will present a plan to bring peace potentially to Ukraine.
Do you believe China can be a mediator in this war?
Well, look, I sense that your mediator, Chuck China, has to play a responsible
role when it comes to situations like this.
And that's what I would urge and ask them to do and see.
Chancellor Schultz. Oh, laugh.
I had a conversation with them about nuclear rhetoric last year, which was
important that we de-escalate. That
was unacceptable use of nuclear rhetoric from Russia that thankfully has now
dampened down. But when it comes to China more broadly,
I've been very clear. Represents a systemic challenge to our
values and our interests. We in the UK are very alive to that and
we'll take the steps needed to protect ourselves against that.
Whether it's with the power to block hostile investment, recently we did
that, whether it's standing up for abuses in Hong Kong or Shin Jiang.
We will do what's necessary to protect ourselves and engage with China on
trying to resolve some of these pressing problems where we can.
And I guess your message is do not help Russia in this war.
And anyway, those contacts, there will be sanctions and that's it.
Whether it's on Belarus and elsewhere, we've been very clear that Russia should
be completely isolated in the global community.
Well, Prime Minister, thank you so much for your time here at the Munich
Security Conference. Thanks very much.