Debate contributions by Sergey LAGODINSKY

This was not about Ukraine at all, but you said quite clearly that the smaller Member States are suffering from the big ones because of our defence policy, and I say that is not true at all. The little ones want protection. They have not received this protection for years, they have been neglected, and now comes the necessary and correct correction. And you're telling me something about Ukraine. That's not what you said. So please correct yourself if you are already the lawyer of the smaller states here!

Not only do you have a different perspective on reality, but sometimes I feel like you have no sense of reality at all. They act here as an advocate for smaller states that are currently suffering from the supremacy of the large states. What about the Baltic States? What about Poland, which is not a very big state? They need help, they need support. And to say now that this is a project of the great is really the diffraction of truth. We need to look at what happened to Nord Stream 2 when we made deals here with Russia at the expense of the smaller states. Now it's the other way around.

Madam President, dear colleagues, something extraordinary is happening. The new US national security strategy states it plainly: certainty is over, alliances are no more given. I am a transatlanticist, but transatlanticism doesn't mean blindness. When rhetoric across the Atlantic turns against the European Union, we must act, invest in our own capacities, and build our new decision-making bodies. The times when Orbán or Mr Deutsch determines how fast we decide is over. The times when Mr Fico decides how much we act is over. The times when Putin determines how fast we act is over. We need new solutions, making decision-making easier. Not sometime, but now. I propose introducing a European Security Council that would decide fast about our existential questions. And now, very briefly, to Ukraine: there is only one security guarantee for Ukraine which is effective, and it's not the blurry Article 5, it's Article 42 of our Treaty. That's why EU membership now!

Mr President, dear colleagues, this report comes at a crucial moment. Algorithmic management and automated decisions are no longer the future of work. They are our present and we have to react. Digitalisation moves fast and laws must keep up. Rights must not follow digitalisation, digitalisation must follow rights. Europe has already acted. The AI Act, the GDPR, the Platform Workers Directive. But we need to do more. There are strong foundations. The Commission is now considering new rules on algorithmic management through the upcoming Quality Jobs Act, and the report that we're discussing here now is meant to guide this process, improving workers condition and protecting workers digital rights. As JURI rapporteur, I want to stress one key point. We need legal clarity. Any new rules must be coherent, targeted and legally sound. Our goal is simple, but the path there is complicated. The digital world of work must be fair and predictable. And this is another contribution to that.

Mr President, dear colleagues, this report comes at a crucial moment. Algorithmic management and automated decisions are no longer the future of work. They are our present and we have to react. Digitalisation moves fast and laws must keep up. Rights must not follow digitalisation, digitalisation must follow rights. Europe has already acted. The AI Act, the GDPR, the Platform Workers Directive. But we need to do more. There are strong foundations. The Commission is now considering new rules on algorithmic management through the upcoming Quality Jobs Act, and the report that we're discussing here now is meant to guide this process, improving workers condition and protecting workers digital rights. As JURI rapporteur, I want to stress one key point. We need legal clarity. Any new rules must be coherent, targeted and legally sound. Our goal is simple, but the path there is complicated. The digital world of work must be fair and predictable. And this is another contribution to that.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I am hugely relieved that both co‑legislators followed our advice and agreed to omit Article 114 as legal basis, not only because it leaves more space for EDIP, but also because it allows us to focus on the essentials. And the essential is: Europe has reached the end of comforting zone and comforting illusions. Russia is escalating. We are seeing provocations like today probably in Berlin, in the Bundestag, where the internet was shut down. Defence today is no more only about tanks and missiles, it is about codes, it is about data, satellites. Security is no longer declared – it is engineered. This is what this defence omnibus is about and what it delivers. We, the Parliament – I am also a shadow – we, the Parliament, shaped this file to change how Europe acts. Not rhetorically, but structurally. The agreement opens Horizon Europe to dual use and critical defence without losing sight of peaceful innovation. It strengthens the European Defence Fund by simplifying procedures. It aligns Digital Europe and the Connecting Europe Facility. And it makes another historic turn: it integrates Ukraine as part of the European Defence Fund. This is something that the Greens proposed and I am very proud of my group, that we did it. With accessing the EUR 9.5 billion in defence, Ukraine truly becomes part of our defence and industrial sector. This is not militarisation. It is responsibility to defend our values with real capabilities together, also together with Ukraine. Thank you very much and good luck with this law.

Madam President, antisemitism may never win, antisemitism may never be justified and the fight against antisemitism should never be instrumentalised for political reasons. (Exclamation in a non‑EU language) Blessed is the judge blessing those who perished. Blessed is the true judge condemning those who killed. Blessed is the true judge remembering those whose only mistake was to come to celebrate life and light, whose only mistake was to be Jewish. Jewish lives must be protected, like all human lives – everywhere, without preconditions and without instrumentalisation. There is no justification for terror and death. We propose a parliamentary statement in condemnation of the terrorist attack against the Hanukkah celebrations in Sydney, and solidarity with the victims and their families. (The speaker concluded in a non‑EU language)

Mr President, colleagues, those who want peace do not impose it on an occupied country. Those who want peace do not blame victims for the assault. Those who want a lasting peace do not normalise criminals. And those who want peace do not coach the aggressor via phone on how best to cheat on European and American people. Today, Europe faces a truly defining moment. And yes, I – and we – welcome the proactive stance of leaders like Merz, Macron, Meloni, Stubb and others. But where is President Costa? Where is the one who represents all of them together? Where is the European Union united? We must unite for peace: this means sanctions cannot be lifted while a single Russian boot stands on Ukrainian soil. We must unite for peace: this means accountability cannot be negotiated away. International law is not a bargaining chip. We must unite for peace: Europe must act now, decisively. Enlargement is the biggest currency we have. We must send a clear message, and the clearest we have is an accelerated path for Ukraine, including Article 42, which would protect Ukraine as a member of the European Union. We must do it for Ukraine. We must do it for ourselves.

Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President, dear colleagues, thank you. I want to speak in a spirit of cooperation. Last Wednesday many of us waited for the digital package with mixed expectations. So did I: I have worked on some of the laws we're talking about and I know how much effort this House invested in them. That is why I am concerned. I am concerned that the package reopens recently adopted legislation without impact assessment, without evidence and without the clarity the companies need. Make no mistake: our group supports European businesses and European innovation. We believe in targeted adjustments that reduce burden, provide certainty and strengthen enforcement. This is why we proposed a digital enforcement agency, a one-stop shop and standard reporting tools. But some elements of your proposal raise questions. On GDPR, the new approach to redefining personal data leaves too much discretion to data holders. That creates uncertainty, not clarity. On the AI act, the 'stop-the-clock' mechanism for high-risk systems is understandable, but ending it at any moment makes planning impossible. That makes uncertainty, not clarity. At the same time, public debate suggests that Europe is following a deregulation agenda made elsewhere. This creates uncertainty and not clarity. So I say to all the groups, including the EPP: let's work together to support our companies without re-opening settled compromises. Let's protect our innovation and our democratic choice, both with democratic majorities. Don't make the mistakes you made with Omnibus 1.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, rapporteur, we all agree we must act decisively against migrant smugglers and human traffickers. On that we agree. I, as a lawyer, also welcome that the final text is based solely on Article 88(2) TFEU on Europol's competences, as I advocated in the JURI Committee. Yet, even so, as a lawyer, I must also say that this outcome does not make me happy. It weakens the essence of our Union. This text doesn't do what the promise of the text is. Instead, it shifts resources away from protection and funnels it into criminalisation of migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and even humanitarian actors. And yes, as a lawyer, as a jurist, I have to say this. The means that are employed there are also problematic. We don't have impact assessments on behalf of the Commission. A massive expansion of Europol's biometric surveillance is foreseen. Increased sharing of biometric data with third countries is foreseen. So no matter how the legal basis is correct, there are concerns, legal concerns, and that's what I wanted to inform you about.

Madam President, five years ago, people in Belarus took to the streets. They carried no weapons, no hate in their hearts, only flowers. I remember the phone calls from Minsk. The talks with activists. Their courage, without violence, without blood. Today, they are in prisons or they're dead, like Maria Zaitseva, Ales Pushkin or Ihar Lednik. Today, Belarus is not a sovereign country; it's a Russian military base from which rockets are flying to Ukraine. But Belarus is also something else. It is a democratic movement with a clear, courageous face: Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. Sviatlana and her team have managed to act professionally, clearly and politically as a voice for Belarus. Our task is clear: not to betray this movement, not to turn our backs on them like the German Government is currently doing by denying visas to those who look for protection. If you refuse to see clearly, then we will. We will make Belarus visible, as people of freedom. We will make its heroes political prisoners visible. And we will give Belarusians what Moscow wants to take away from them: hope for a European home. Zhyve Belarus!

Mr President, colleagues, funny, isn't it? In Europe, even a press conference about Google can be hijacked, but the commissioner showed our democracy will not be. The EUR 3 billion fine is not about the money – it's pocket change for Google – it's about the message: Europe will not bow to digital giants. We write our own rules in this House and we enforce them in yours. Fair competition needs courage, not excuses. Digital sovereignty means we decide, not Silicon Valley. Let me repeat it again and again because it matters: we are not for sale. Our values are not for sale, our democracy is not for sale. The DMA is not for sale, the AI act is not for sale, the DSA is not for sale, nor is the GDPR. This is something that I hope also your colleagues, like Commissioner Virkkunen, will know when they bring the omnibus into this House. So when President Trump calls this an attack against American institutions? No, it's about Europe standing tall. President von der Leyen said our digital rules are not for sale – I hope all the commissioners agree with her.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, just weeks ago, when this incident happened, we must be very clear, this is not an isolated incident. And some of the numbers were already mentioned. In Estonia, 85 % of flights have been affected. Lithuania, in your country, as you mentioned, saw a 22-fold increase in jamming. Latvia recorded 820 disruptions last year, whereas the year before it was just 26. And according to my information, the drones that were in the sky above Poland were manipulated with SIM cards from European countries. Those were the SIM cards from Lithuania and Poland, so that they can use the European system in order to fly. So let's see clearly, Russia is behind much of this ‑ GNSS jamming and spoofing are what they are. It's weapons of hybrid war, and they strike into the heart of our Europe's infrastructure. That's why we must act. And we will act the Space Act with secure, binding security, cybersecurity rules, and also the Quantum Act with 97 % accurate quality detection systems that will allow us to build a digital defence shield. So this is about resilience. This is about responsibility. This is about us acting urgently. And yes, we can also in this Parliament.

Madam President, It must be clear, it must be clear to all of us: There will be no peace without peace guarantees. It is not possible to secure a democracy, an investment location, an independent state in the shadow of military blackmail by the neighbor. The EU needs to take action, the US needs more clarity – clarity that Ukraine will not be extradited to Russian threats and that Europe will not stand alone in the event of an emergency. That means three things. Firstly: European presence is not a war; It is peace, it is part of diplomacy. If we secure a presence after pacification, it is a guarantee of peace and not a war effort. Secondly: Americans must be involved. It cannot be that Brussels is under more pressure than Moscow. It cannot be that we end cooperation in the field of countering disinformation, as it became known today, that Americans end this cooperation. No, the relationship between Russia and China must also become clearer to our American partners. It is the EU's responsibility to keep Ukraine safe, but it is also in the interest of the US to do so. And thirdly: Germany's leadership responsibility is beyond question. Gone are the days when Germany was a guarantee of peace through restraint. Now we must take responsibility, not with Söder's provinciality, but with the European spirit, and this also means the presence of European and German soldiers, even in peacekeeping.

Mr President, Russia slows down information platforms. Türkiye shuts down the internet – we just saw this. The United States empowers populists and enriches oligarchs. Well, with this joint motion for a resolution, we are showing what this Parliament stands for, if it is about internet governance. It's about multilateralism. It's about freedom. It's about accessibility. Let us be clear: we believe in multilateralism. That's why the UN General Assembly is the place to discuss and to renew the mandate. We want global tech to be based on free space, not on oligarchs. Let us be clear: the European Parliament is committed to participation in future IGF meetings, because it is about our values, it is about human rights, and it is not about surveillance and censorship and oligarchy. Let us be clear: extending the IGF mandate means more than renewing an institution. It is about a global public resource. Colleague Bocheński said we looked like a laughing stock during those meetings. I was a part of those meetings, representing this House. We were the ones who stood for values, for freedom and for the governance in the internet. The internet is not an instrument for disinformation. It's not an instrument for alternative realities. It's a place that empowers people. That is what we stand for, and that's why this mandate should be renewed permanently.

Mr President, dear colleagues, let's be honest: this isn't just a trade dispute anymore. It's pressure. It's coercion. It's dealmaking of the worst sort. It's an attempt to put a price on what we are. It's time to say it out loud, and it pains me to say this as someone who's been a committed transatlanticist all his life, the EU is not for sale. We are not for sale. Our values, our rules, our integrity are not for sale – not our digital regulation, not our standards. Trump's approach is a challenge, no doubt, and the Commissioner knows it firsthand. But it's also an opening – an opening for Europe to lead and to be clear, not by escalating, but by standing firm and by considering countermeasures, by implementing countermeasures, by being firm on rules, on trust, on democratic principles. Now it's time to build alliances: new alliances with US states, with cities, with civil societies, with people who walk on the street against Trump and with global partners as an alternative to the US.

Madam President, colleagues, in light of recent catastrophic developments, it is clear what we're lacking: the EU needs a long-term strategic approach towards Georgia. Without vision and effective tools, we remain unprepared in the face of anti-democratic backsliding and other challenges that Georgia and the region are having. We must go beyond crisis management. We must think about the larger picture. Commissioner Kos, the Black Sea strategy offers an opportunity to align our vision of the future Georgia with regional priorities. But this is only possible if civil society is free, if democracy is protected, if the opposition is not oppressed. And yes, we can do both: be geopolitical and stand up to repression; speak for the imprisoned and for all other Georgians who see Europe as their future. We can support Georgia as a victim of Russian aggression and criticise a ruling party that imitates the aggressor itself. It's a balance, but one worth fighting for – for Georgia, for the Eastern Partnership and for the future of Europe.

Madam President, colleagues, I'm not going to be the first one in this round who will repeat the facts, but it is important to repeat them again and again. The release of Siarhei Tsikhanouski was a moment of hope, but the grim reality is the 1 100 more who are still there behind bars. Every reunited family – every father who can embrace his daughter – is a moment of hope. But, how many of them cannot? How many of them are even in unknown locations? Maryia Kalesnikava, Maksim Znak – we don't know where they are, whether they are still alive. And one more thing is important: this was not an act of mercy. These are cold-blooded strategy calculations by Lukashenka. Let us not be deceived by what he is playing here. This is not genuine reform; it's manipulation. Genuine reform would be the unconditional release of every political prisoner in Belarus and, for us in Europe, it would be a policy where every Belarusian refugee would feel at home, that they would not have problems with their documents, that they will not be begging in our own foreign ministries for new passports because Belarus does not issue for them the passports of their own nation. This we owe to them. Zhyve Belarus!

Mr President, colleagues, I understand the fear of our extremist colleagues. But let's be honest: what you truly fear is anything that threatens the privileges of your billionaire friends or empowers democratic institutions. As long as it's not Kremlin murderers, who you support. And Madam Laykova, I would like to tell you what is dystopian: dystopian are your fakes. You were saying that the EU is going to strip citizens of their savings within six months if the savings are not spent. This is fake! And this is what we are against. The digital Europe is not a Silicon Valley fantasy. It's a public alternative to strengthen our monitoring sovereignty. The digital markets are needed, because to compete with US tech giants and Chinese communists, we need more Europe, not less. And on digital identity, yes, we Greens rejected the Council deal. Why? Because we need more safeguards in order to prevent the wallet becoming a Trojan horse. But we've improved it and rights will be preserved. Surrendering digitalisation to American billionaires and Chinese communists cannot be the solution. Nor to your Putin friends!

Mr President, when Victoria Roshchyna, a Ukrainian journalist, returned home in February 2025, she had broken ribs, electrical burns, missing eyes and part of her throat gone. Now we know what happened to her – she was severely tortured and finally strangulated to death. Just one of many. Civilians, prisoners of war, Crimean Tatars accused of being terrorists, journalists who dared to speak Ukrainian – this is a war waged in torture chambers, psychiatric wards and filtration camps. People – we know their names, we know their stories, and we know that silence equals complicity. That is why our resolution during the next session will expose the scale of these atrocities, from the abduction of thousands of children to the use of psychiatry as a weapon against free will. Our Parliament demands action, access and active involvement of the International Red Cross coordinated EU response. I assure you, we will do our best to stand on the side of Ukrainians.

You can do that, Mr. Colleague. That's because we're a confident side, and because we're willing to use the $300 billion, we need to be talked to. And the Americans have to decide: It cannot be that two months ago Trump demanded that we confiscate this money, and now they want to give this money back to Russia – we are not playing along. If Americans and Russians want to negotiate with us, then Ukrainians and we have to sit at the table, and then we will decide the fate of this money. But what matters is: We have to be prepared to confiscate the money.

Mr President, colleagues, let me be blunt. I have not been an outspoken proponent of confiscating frozen Russian assets in the past due to its legal sensitivity. But times have changed. In our new world, where the United States is joining the side of Moscow and stepping back, the EU has no other choice but to take responsibility. We cannot afford to be hesitant. The EU needs to fill the void. The calculation is very simple. What we have is not enough – not for Ukraine, not for our own security – and the responsibility of Moscow will probably never materialise if Washington joins and supports them. The compensation will probably never come. The tribunal will now materialise, but the damages remain. Under those circumstances, the solution is clear. We must prepare now to confiscate USD 300 billion in frozen assets, so we can act in the moment as needed. This means the EU must find a legally secure solution to make the frozen assets of the Russian central bank available to Ukraine and to us.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, Mr President, our challenges are monumental; our instruments are outdated. But the idea that unites us all – our Europe – it is not. I believe in the power of Europe because, frankly, what other choice do we have in the world divided between Trumps and Xis and Putins? Ideas inspire, but actions define our future. We need real European capabilities, not grand promises; real European money, not 800 billion of hot air that was promised by the Commission. We need a strategic decision-making centre and we need an opportunity to leave spoilers like Orbán behind. We need a decision-making centre, not 27 passionate speeches per meeting – a core Europe for defence that should emerge with the big and bold, with the committed and capable. France and Germany, yes, but also Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania. Let's not forget about those. And London and Oslo. And yes, we make Europe act again. And yes, we will.

Thank you very much. As every morning during the past weeks, we are waking up to a new reality. Now, it's the biggest push against Europe's security interests by Trump. But frankly, we had known it all along. In this marriage, we have over-relied on one partner. In strategic communications, it's not even a country: it's one unelected, unaccountable man, driven by personal whims. Today, Musk can decide if, at a time of war, we can continue talking to each other, or not. Our biggest strategic risk on this side of a potential frontline of a future war is communication failure. Low-Earth orbit satellites revolutionise global communication in times of crisis, but their infrastructure is in the hands of a few private non-Europeans: Starlink today, Amazon or OneWeb tomorrow. So this is not the way to go. IRIS² will only be valid and will be functioning in 2030. It is good that the US Space Act is part of a Commission working programme. We have seen this. But we need clear strategic goals: equitable division of use of space; common standards for compatibility of systems; enforced cybersecurity, which closes the gaps of NIS 2; massive investment in efficient launchers, in reusable satellites, in an independent space supply chain. It is not about science fiction; it is about our survival!