Speeches

Mr President, dear colleagues, Alexei Navalny believed in the dream of beautiful Russia of the future, in the future of a normal, democratic Russia. Because of that, he was killed. Do we believe in the future of democratic Russia, in the possibility of democracy in Russia? If not, then let’s be at least honest. Let’s not speak how much we support Russian civil society and Navalny’s cause because, in such case, those are only empty words. Navalny was a brave leader who was mobilising millions of people with his personal example and words ‘don’t be afraid’, because only in such a way, Russia’s transformation into the beautiful Russia of the future can be created. We shall not help such transformation only with inflation of our traditional boring statements of solidarity and condemnation. Like our statements of solidarity are not helping Ukraine to win the war. Ukraine needs ammunition and we can deliver it. In the same way, only the victory of Ukraine can bring the collapse of Putin’s regime and open the doors for Russian people to transform Russia. Let’s not be afraid of the defeat of Russia. We can make it happen, we can be brave and help Russian people. That is how Navalny’s dream will be realised.

Madam President, colleagues, planning the future of our defence and security, we need to get rid of the illusion that our security can be built only on our fears. Now, with Russian war against Ukraine, we are lost in the crossroads of our fears. We rightly fear what will happen with our security if Russia will win in Ukraine. But at the same time, we fear that chaos will happen in Russia, if Russia will be defeated. We fear a long-term war in Ukraine; that we shall become tired of such a war. And we fear to give Ukraine enough weapons for the victory in the near future, because we are afraid that Putin will escalate. President Roosevelt once prudently said, ‘The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’ Let us stop our fears and let us declare: Putin needs to be defeated and he will be defeated. And we shall invest into Putin’s defeat. That will open the doors for positive transformations in Russia.

Mr President, dear colleagues, we can see that under the leadership of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Armenia is showing a clear political will to diminish its security dependency on the Russian Federation. Also, we remember that on 17 October last year, in his address to this House, Mr Pashinyan underlined that the Republic of Armenia is ready to be closer to the European Union as much the European Union considers it possible. We need to congratulate the bravery of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statements and steps, which are bringing Armenia closer to the European Union. The European Parliament should respond politically and propose an ambitious agenda for the future of EU relations with Armenia. Our political responsibility is to address Armenia’s European aspirations, shared by the Armenian people, and our wish is to have Armenia as part of the European family, enjoying the full benefits of European integration. The EU needs to develop a new step-by-step roadmap to prepare Armenia for rapprochement with the EU, including its candidate status. It is obvious, from another side, that Russia will angrily react to such a brave behaviour of Armenia, and there will be security and economic challenges to Armenia. That is why Armenia needs strong security guarantees from the EU and Western democracies, and the EU needs to be ready to mitigate the Armenian economic challenges created by Russia. A European perspective for Armenia is the only way that sustainable peace around Armenia can be established. It will be beneficial also for Azerbaijan.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we need to stress that Russia’s interference in the democratic processes of the Member States and EU institutions is exceptional and unique in terms of the threats and dangers it poses to the fundamental principles of democracy in Europe. Russia gate is much more dangerous than Qatargate. Such an exceptional character of Russian foreign interference requires special focus dedicated specifically to the threats of Russian interference. Till now, our institutions were failing to defend us against such threats. Maybe investigative journalism and voters in Latvia and Spain, especially Catalonia, in Italy, France and Germany, and in all other countries can help us. That is why I would like the European Parliament to prepare a special information paper, a sort of ‘shame book of Europe’, with all the data on cases of Russian interference in the democratic processes of the Member States that have been uncovered by investigative journalists in the Member States. And such a report should be published before the European elections. Saving democracy is a business of democracy itself.

– Mr President, Ukrainians for two years and with a lot of sacrifice have been defending not only their country, but also all of us, including Mr Wallace. The victory of Ukraine depends on our political will to deliver what is needed for victory. Ukrainians are not failing with their bravery and sacrifice. We are failing with our assistance. Our assistance during those two years allowed Ukraine not to lose a war, but it was too short for the victory. Let’s remember that last year, Russia managed to spend more than EUR 100 billion on its war, while the Ukrainian side – with all our assistance – had only EUR 80 billion. All EU military assistance in the last year reached less than 0.1 % of EU GDP. We do not look serious with such numbers. The problem is that all our assistance depends on individual voluntary decision of each Member State on how much support to provide. Such an arrangement does not produce enough support. We have an example of our collective approach through the European Union plan for munitions deliveries. Despite its shortcomings, it is a good example of how the EU needs to act. We need to have an EU plan for the victory of Ukraine, which would cover all the military needs of Ukraine, not only artillery shells. Such a plan should start from the obligation of each Member State to deliver military assistance of not less than 0.25% of national GDP. As Sven Mikser said before, it would allow military production to be significantly increased both in Ukraine and in Europe. That is how Ukraine would start to prevail. The victory of Ukraine is needed for us, and let us make it. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, Viktor Orbán is misbehaving domestically with violation of democracy, rule of law, human rights, European values, and is misbehaving externally with blackmailing of all the EU with misuse of veto right. What Orbán is doing domestically, we can discuss for a long time, but now we are concerned with the veto blackmail, which is external action. But still we are speaking only about Article 7, which is devoted to defend EU values against domestic misbehaviour of national governments. I would like to remind that there is also Article 4, Part 3 in the Treaty, which says, ‘The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives’. It is very clear that Orbán’s actions jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives to support Ukraine, and he is not refraining from his permanent blackmail tactic. This is a clear violation of the Treaty. I would like to remind also that according to the Treaty, Article 17, the Commission shall ensure the application of the treaties. Let’s act now and let’s stop blackmail of the Union.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the united West is 25 times stronger than Russia, and has the economic power to support Ukraine to win the war. But still, it is not the case. Last year, Russia spent more than EUR 100 billion for its war in Ukraine. Ukraine, with all the assistance from the West, spent for its defence only EUR 80 billion. Last year, Russia spent 6 % of its GDP for the war, Ukraine 25 %. EU military assistance for Ukraine was only 0.075 % of EU GDP. The US did a little bit better at 0.1 %. Assistance to Ukraine is very different by different countries. Lithuania and Estonia gave 1.4 % of GDP. Germany increased up to 0.5 %, but France’s assistance is only 0.02 %. Numbers are showing that if all the NATO and EU countries would support Ukraine with no less than 0.25 % of their GDP, Ukraine would prevail. This is a victory formula. Let’s do it!

Madam President, dear colleagues, let me first of all say that any kind of blockade of border-crossing roads and of Solidarity Lanes to Ukraine is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable. Such a blockade, what we see now, is heavily detrimental to Ukraine’s economy, to its capabilities to defend itself, to its possibilities to have an efficient delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid. A 60-km-long queue of 2 100 lorries is not what EU or Poland should provide to Ukraine as a symbol of our solidarity. Ukraine is fighting the Russian invasion and is defending the whole of Europe, but at the same time is facing two blockades from two sides: from the Russian side a military blockade of its Black Sea ports; and from some EU Member States a blockade of the border-crossing roads. Such a situation is completely unacceptable. It denigrates and severely damages the reputation not only of Poland, but also of the European Union as a whole, and it serves only the interests of the Kremlin. It is clear that Russia will be forced to pay the damages which Russia has inflicted on Ukraine’s economy, including by the blockade of its seaports. That is why organisers of the recent border road blockades should also know that it will be legitimate that they will have to compensate Ukraine the losses caused by their blockade. At a time of Russia’s war against Ukraine, any additional damage to Ukraine’s economy inflicted from the side of EU Member States is totally unacceptable, and no economic arguments can justify such infamous actions. As Members of the European Parliament, we cannot remain silent bystanders when the most important European value of solidarity, of solidarity with Ukraine, is being damaged by our European business companies, and we shall not remain silent also in the future.

Madam President, tomorrow positive decision on enlargement and on Ukraine will change the future of the whole European continent. But if Viktor Orban will decide to veto the Council decision on enlargement and on beginning of negotiations with Ukraine, that will be a betrayal. Betrayal vulgaris. It will be a betrayal of Ukraine, of the people who are killed while defending their country and the whole Europe who are defending their pro-European choice. It will be a betrayal of Ukrainian Hungarian minority, which is united in asking Viktor Orban to support decision to start negotiations with Ukraine. It will be betrayal of Western Balkans because this is Ukraine, which is playing the role of ice breaker, of the historical stagnation of the enlargement process which the Western Balkans were the first victim of. It will be a betrayal of the whole of Europe. Betrayal is not a nice moment to witness, but at the end it will make us stronger. Mr Orban, you will not win against the whole Europe and you will not win against Ukraine.

Mr President, dear colleagues, today we are celebrating 30th anniversary of the EU decision on Copenhagen criteria, which was also a strategic signal that Central Europe and Baltic states are invited to join the European Union. What is the difference in between of then and now? At that time we in the Central Europe and Baltics were quite chaotic, not very stable, post-totalitarian democracies. EU was prudent and brave enough in Copenhagen to offer us a perspective to join EU, and in that way it stabilised us and modernised us. EU enlargement is the most effective instrument to transform EU neighbourhood into stable and successful democracies. At that time our economies were less than 30% of EU average. Now we are reaching EU level and we are overcoming some economies of the old Europe. At that time, EU was unfortunately not brave enough to offer the same perspective for Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, and that is the reason why those countries were left behind in their development and lost almost all those 30 years. After the first wave of enlargement into Central Europe, EU declared that it ‘lost appetite’ for further enlargement, including into Western Balkans and Ukraine, and that was the biggest geopolitical mistake of EU, because that led to Russia’s war against Ukraine. Now it’s time for EU to come back to the geopolitical prudence and bravery like it was done in Copenhagen. From now on, negotiations with accession countries should continue for three or four years, like it was in our case, and let us be ready in 2030 to celebrate new members of EU – Western Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.

Commissioner, things are moving, but Ukraine is not able to achieve the victory immediately and it depends on our deliveries. That’s very clear. Second, really, you know, of course, this is not only your responsibility. It’s good that, you know, production capacities are increasing, but can we look into possibilities really that, you know, the EU will start to invest, for example, into drones production in Ukraine because General Zaluzhnyi recently has said that, you know, what is missing really is electronics, drones, antidrones, and things like that. And that is what Ukrainians can produce. So I have the sense that you are not, you know, keeping money in your pocket.

Commissioner, really, it is good to see you, but the problems we know very well. The EU is not delivering what it promised, 1 million shells are not here. My question will be very simple. You know, the EU economy is ten times stronger or bigger than the Russian economy – maybe more. So why are we not able to produce enough weapons for Ukraine? What is missing? Do you agree that political will is the biggest problem on the EU side? And do you have the plans how the EU will really start to produce what it promised, either investing into military production on the EU side or in production on Ukraine? For example, even drones can be produced in Ukraine. So what is the plan?

Madam President, well, dear colleagues, everybody today repeats that this is a historical day. But I will add, this is a historical day which will change Europe. At the end of the road, there will be different not only Ukraine and other applicant countries, but also different European Union, and a difference in the whole European continent since Ukraine’s membership in the EU will also change Russia and Belarus. Ukraine, with its fight and its international status as icebreaker broke through EU enlargement stagnation. That is beneficial for all the accession countries, including Western Balkans, Moldova and Georgia. Hopefully, Ukraine also will bring back to the European Union ambition to negotiate like it was done with Central Europe – three years – which means that the whole enlargement process can be finished before 2030. Ukraine’s icebreaker is really needed for Europe.

Madam President, the European Union is hit by two geopolitical crises: Russia’s war against Ukraine and Hamas’ attack against Israel. The reason of the first crisis is our geopolitical mistakes in the past. Ukraine was left in the grey zone of geopolitical security without clear perspective of integration towards the West. If the EU wants really to play an important geopolitical role worldwide, first of all, it needs to effectively realise its most important strategic responsibility to take care of stability, democracy and the spread of prosperity in its own neighbourhood. That can be achieved first of all by enlargement of the EU. This is the most powerful instrument for neighbourhood transformation, but unfortunately, quite often the EU forgets how powerful it can be. From another side, the EU can become geopolitically strong. We shall get rid of our impotence and we shall start to really defend our external borders, and we shall start to decisively fight international terrorism without the difference whom they are attacking Arabs, our citizens or Israeli. Let us make the European Union great again.

Mr President, dear colleagues, it is not enough to say that Israel has the right to defend itself. Our position should be very clear. Hamas needs to be destroyed and eliminated as a terrorist organisation. That should be done not only by Israel but by all the democratic community. There is no other way. Like was done with ISIS and al-Qaeda. Second, in our war against terrorism, the life of civilians should be protected. Humanitarian assistance for civilians should be provided. But there is no way how Hamas can be destroyed in a peaceful way. There is no miracle solution. There will be collateral damage and victims. But that is the price of our war against terrorism. Today, the alternative is very clear: either we shall destroy terrorism or terrorism will destroy us.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the fact is that Russia still is able to continue and to finance its war against Ukraine. Russia recently announced that in 2024 its defence budget will be increased by nearly 70% and will reach EUR 107 billion. From the very beginning of the war, we introduced sanctions on Russian oil and gas exports, as the major source of Russian financial income. First of all, of course we need to see that those sanctions are working: Russia gets two times less income from exports of gas and oil than they were receiving before the war. The most painful sanctions were established last December with the introduction of the oil price cap, since the oil is bringing the biggest amount of income. Despite the fact that the price cap sanctions hit Russian incomes very heavily, still Russia is able to get around EUR 700 million a day from its fossil fuel exports, and the EU is still sending to Russia around EUR 2 billion per month for the import of oil and gas. It is time for us to look at how we can increase the effectiveness of our sanctions policy, especially on gas and oil. I would like just to name the next steps what we need to do. First, to further lower the cap on the crude oil price from the current USD 60 per barrel to USD 30 per barrel. Second, to impose an embargo on Russian LNG imports. Third, to introduce restrictions on fuel imports if fuels are produced by third countries using Russian oil. Fourth, to introduce a price cap on Russian ammonium fertiliser exports. Fifth, to prohibit trans-shipment of Russian oil and LNG through EU territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. Six, to introduce restrictions on European tanker services, on sale of tankers, as well as on European insurance services for tankers, if these are used to export Russian oil. And seventh, to introduce an enforced and centralised EU-level oversight of sanctions implementation. In addition, let’s introduce sanctions on companies which are building the Russian Arctic-2 LNG terminal. Let’s introduce sanctions on exports of Russian aluminium and on Rosatom and exports of nuclear fuel. It depends on us if Russia will continue to be able to finance its war.

Mr President, dear colleagues, today we are discussing one of the most important European Union geopolitical initiatives. I can just congratulate the Commission on the proposal to establish a Ukraine facility and to allocate EUR 50 billion for the period of 2024-2027. But as the Commission put into explanatory notes, there will be a need of EUR 384 billion during the next 10 years. That is why a facility with EUR 50 billion is just the beginning. We need to see from where and when additional financial resources will come, and it is time to make a bold decision on counter measures and to confiscate all the EUR 300 billion of frozen Russian assets. In addition, we need to be very clear with the establishment of needed institutional architecture for the whole, almost EUR 0.5 trillion-reconstruction plan. From my point of view, because of the geopolitical significance of the whole reconstruction, there is a need for a special dedicated EU agency, like it was done with the EU Agency for Reconstruction of the Western Balkans. Also, there is a need of special high-level EU envoy for reconstruction, like the Americans did with the appointment of Secretary Pritzker for such a task. I see also a need of a clearer IPAIII-type framework in the facility, since it is declared that this facility also will replace the IPA instrument. Now, we need to approve the EUR 50 billion-instrument. But looking into the future, we need more: more money and more effective institutional arrangement on the EU side.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Moldova is not only the country which is showing great strength in reforming itself, in building a successful democratic country, but also is a litmus test for us, for the EU itself. It’s obvious that Moldova and Ukraine deserve to be invited at the end of this year to start negotiations for the membership in EU. That would be the major step forward and that is needed not only for Moldova or Ukraine, but for the EU itself. Those countries cannot be left anymore in the ‘grey geopolitical’ zone, because such an EU approach to Moldova and Ukraine during the last decades created temptation for Putin to start a military invasion into Ukraine. That is why it is important not only to start negotiations, it is very important to have an ambitious agenda to conclude negotiations within the next three or four years, like it was done with Central Europe and the Baltic States. For that to happen, first of all we need to bring back the trust among the candidate countries and among ourselves that enlargement really can happen. We allowed such a trust to be lost in the Western Balkans. Moldova can be a good possibility for us to bring back this trust in enlargement, with Moldova becoming an EU member by 2030, without any temptations of gradual integration on our side.

Madam President, I will not repeat what others have said, but I would like to stress that the future of democracy in Armenia is at stake and is deliberately targeted by the Kremlin with assistance of Azerbaijan and partly by Turkey. That is why the EU needs to show its unwavering support to the democratically elected Pashinyan government, which clearly is making steps to distance Armenia from Russia. What is important now? First, by the real perspective of very harsh EU sanctions Azerbaijan needs to be stopped from any attempts to build an extraterritorial transit corridor from Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan. There is a possibility to have a civilized transit arrangement, based on the example of the EU rules established for transit of Russian goods to Kaliningrad through Lithuania. Second, the EU needs to be ready to be open for much stronger security and economic cooperation with Armenia. It is absolutely clear that Russia will go for painful economic sanctions against Armenia. The EU needs to be ready to assist Armenia and to upgrade the CEPA agreement into an Association and Free Trade Agreement. Also, Prime Minister Pashinyan should be invited by the Commission President to visit Brussels and to make a statement at our plenary session.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the free choice of Belarussian people has been stolen by Lukashenko and freedom is denied. But even in such circumstances, Belarusians are making very important choices on their future. In August, the meeting of ‘New Belarus’ opposition community under the leadership of Sviatlana Tikhanovskaya has made a very important declaration on the membership of Belarus in the European Union. I want to quote from the declaration: ‘We, the democratic forces of Belarus, express our desire for the democratic development of our country and its membership in the European Union. Full membership of Belarus in the EU is a clear and unequivocal answer to the current challenges, which will allow future generations of Belarussians to live in a free and democratic Belarus’. It is a remarkable statement, which is changing the future of Belarus. Democratic Belarus belongs to Europe in the same way as Ukraine, Moldova or Lithuania belongs, and we need to guarantee such a future for Belarusian people. Our support for such a choice should start from simple steps: to put representatives of ‘New Belarus’ into those chairs, which till now we are keeping empty after we kicked out dictator Lukashenko. First of all, into delegations for Belarusian relations with the European Parliament. In addition, Sviatlana Tikhanovskaya should be invited to represent ‘New Belarus’ during Eastern Partnership summits. After that, Commission, together with representatives of ‘New Belarus’, should start to prepare the draft of an Association Agreement with Belarus, which will be signed when Belarus will return to democracy. (The speaker used a slogan in a non-EU language) future Member of the European Union.

Madam President, dear colleagues, according to it’s association agreement and the Commission decisions, Ukraine has the legal right to sell its goods in the single market of the European Union. EU Member States have the legal obligation not to create artificial obstacles for Ukrainian goods, including grain, to enter single market. There are also our moral obligations to Ukrainians, who are defending all of us, including our farmers, against Russian aggression. Our moral obligation is to support Ukraine not only militarily, but also by all economic means. Unfortunately, some Central European governments exchange moral and legal obligations to domestic populism. The Commission needs to stop the violation of our legal and backsliding on our moral obligations. We should look at how to help Ukraine to become an EU member and part of EU single market and we should not be afraid of normal economic competition with Ukrainian producers.

High Representative, as you have mentioned, the issue of relations in between Armenia and Azerbaijan is really very complicated. We have seen two wars. One was won by Armenia, then Azerbaijan was complaining that territories are occupied; now it’s won by Azerbaijan. Of course, there is still a lot of pain. So that is why really I would like to use this opportunity to praise Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan for his very clear statement on recognition of Azerbaijan sovereignty on Karabakh territory. That is really what now possibly will open the doors for settlement of a long-term peace agreement. I would like to also praise the EU Council President for his engagement in these negotiations. But as was mentioned, really one issue still is pending. It is very clear that Armenians are worried about the human rights of Armenian people who are living in Karabakh. My question would be very simple. I understand that Armenia do not trust Azeri promises to keep those human rights under protection. Is it possible that EU would play some kind of very specific role trying to be in between and trying to settle down very clear in our agreements how those human rights can be protected?

Mr President, dear colleagues, let me be blunt: the war was started not only because Putin is a criminal aggressor, but also because of our great strategic geopolitical mistakes in the past. The biggest mistake was to leave Ukraine for long decades in the grey zone, without clear membership perspective in NATO or European Union. That created temptation for Putin to imagine that both NATO and the EU are weak and afraid of him and that he can grab territories of Ukraine, but the West will continue its dialogue with Putin. Now it’s time for us to correct our past mistakes, which cost thousands of Ukrainian lives. Ukraine should get an invitation to join NATO during the Vilnius Summit and should become a member after the war, and Ukraine needs to start EU accession negotiations at the end of this year in order to conclude them before the end of this decade. This is the only way sustainable peace, which is needed for all of us, can be created on the European continent – because our policy of removing grey zones on European continent, in the end, will help Russia transformation back to normality and democracy.

Madam President, dear colleagues, let’s talk straight. All the complaints about Ukrainian cereals, it has very little to do with Ukraine itself. Let’s be clear: the European single market was opened for export of Ukrainian cereals one year ago. A year ago, the EU also decided to open transit solidarity lanes for Ukrainian grains when Russia closed traditional transit through the Black Sea. Most of those instruments were well functioning without big problems and complaints till the spring of this year. What has changed at the beginning of this year? Not EU policy or its implementation, but the global prices for cereals changed very radically in the course of last year. From the beginning of this year, they started to go down. If the global price for wheat before the war was USD 200 per tonne, in the middle of last year, it jumped up to USD 450 per tonne. European farmers, including farmers from Central Europe, were very happy with such a price and were forecasting that this price, in the spring of this year, will increase even more. But from the beginning of this year, the prices for grain went down in the same way as prices for oil, gas or fertilisers. Now the price for wheat is only USD 250. Farmers in Central Europe became very unhappy. The predicted profits evaporated. They started to look who can compensate that. The EU did it. But Ukrainian grain has nothing to do with such a global development. As a European, I feel ashamed that some EU Member States are behaving in such a way that it looks like that not-received profits are more important than survival of Ukraine.

Madam President, dear colleagues, there is no need to explain who Vladimir Kara-Murza is and what the Kremlin regime is doing with him when they put him into prison for 25 years because he was criticising the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine. I know Kara—Murza personally. I admired his fight for Global Magnitsky sanctions legislation, for democracy in Russia, for a different, for a normal Russia. With Vladimir we were dreaming about such a different Russia during our webinars of the Forum of the Friends of European Russia. He decided not to leave Russia. In the same way like Navalny, Yashin and others. He was twice poisoned. Now we know that it is normal Kremlin practice to poison its opponents. Navalny suffered the same. Both Navalny and Kara-Murza are facing a rapid deterioration of their health condition. The regime would be very happy if they would simply die while in prison. Boris Nemtsov, whom I knew also personally, earlier was simply killed. The Kremlin has waged two wars at the same time: a war of aggression against Ukraine and a war of oppression against the Russian people, against the opposition. We Europeans, we are living in the XXI century with humans rights, the rule of law, democracy. Putin is bringing Russia back to the years of Stalin, where instead of the rule of law, human rights or democracy there is only brutal persecution. Here the question comes to us: can we stay only as silent watchers, who are able to make only traditional bureaucratic statements of concern and deep concern? Kara-Murza, Navalny, Yashin, sacrifice and suffering, should be the strongest argument for a new type of our strategic fight for the freedom of oppressed people – at least on the European continent in Russia, in Belarus. All the prosecutors, judges and others, responsible for inhuman detentions and tortures should be personally named by the European Parliament and immediately included on the sanctions list. Second – it’s clear that only sanctions are not stopping the regime and its henchmen. What they are perpetrating may amount to crimes against humanity, and such crimes should be investigated by the ICC or a special tribunal. Nothing will be forgotten, nothing will be forgiven.