Debate contributions by Michael GAHLER

Madam President, colleagues, Russia's brutal war of aggression takes place in Ukraine, but the ultimate target is our way of life. Deterring Russia from further aggression beyond Ukraine and protecting our citizens requires us to take a more common, a more European approach to defence. And the current US Administration, unfortunately, gives more and more the impression that they are – mentally at least – departing from the NATO framework, so the need is even more urgent. The EU's first comprehensive defence industry programme, upon which we will vote today, marks an important first step in that direction. It will provide powerful tools for strengthening our defence industry, establish a framework for deeper cooperation of EU Member States for developing and maintaining joint capabilities, and improve our security of supply and strategic autonomy. It will also reinforce our cooperation with Ukraine, further supporting the country, but also allowing us to benefit from the hard lessons Ukraine had to learn in its brave, relentless fight for freedom. However, EDIP's success will ultimately depend on Member States making full use of its potential, as well as on closing the gap between EDIP's high ambition and its very limited budget of EUR 1.5 billion. Achieving defence readiness by 2030 requires joint and bold steps now – not in 2028. Instead of national approaches driven by industrial policy considerations, we need a coordinated, strategic and sufficiently funded European approach, enabling our armed forces to act effectively together and making the most of European taxpayers' money. Now is not the time to think 'Well, on the national level, now there is so much money available, let's look inward.' No – the opposite is necessary. Let us make use of the potential that we have here. Let's join forces. Let's make use of economies of scale and more interoperability to get the things right that we need to do now.

Madam President, you have said it all. I think it is obvious that we need to position ourselves given this American proposal, or the original one and the amended one. We have had, as Parliament, a broad majority in a consistent policy of supporting Ukraine. That has to go on and I think that is why we need to have not only the debate, but a resolution in this regard.

Mr President, what has been said thus far by the Council and the Commission, I fully subscribe to. The large majority of this Parliament fully subscribes to it. It is indeed about a just and durable peace for Ukraine, as the title says, and nothing will be decided about Ukraine without Ukraine. But while Putin has always had the same maximalist positions, which are all unacceptable and infamous, even when it comes to the alleged need for 'denazification' that he always talks about, I think the Nazis here in the House support him. It cannot be about the denazification of Ukraine, with a Jewish President at the top. The other unfortunate thing is that on the American side we see an almost daily shift of positioning. That requires, finally, that we really also get our acts together when it comes to the peace project – not only the ongoing programmes, but there is talk about an alleged 12-point plan that is being worked on with Ukraine that is right and good – so we find a way forward to strengthen Ukraine's position for the time when it comes. Well, the American positioning changed so quickly that even our title with a reference to Budapest is outdated. On the substance, it's right that there is no such thing. It was, as such, already an unfriendly act, be it initiated from the Russians or the Americans, to hold it in Budapest. They should have done it in in Türkiye, in Istanbul, where we have had previous rounds of such talks. But the real point is, in my mind, that we need to make it very clear that if the ceasefire is the first point where apparently the United States President is now back to this position, ceasefire first and then negotiations, it must be something that Ukraine can live with. And that means that we will never accept any legal transfer of Ukrainian territory to Russia. De facto, something can temporarily be accepted, but never in a position that we would legally agree to it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! I hope that we will use this EU-AU Summit – that we will use it to take stock, to take stock, and that we will once again make our extensive offers to the African friends and partners in our neighbourhood. You mentioned, Commissioner, where we are leaders in contacts with Africa compared to other continents. We need to build on that and make it better where it is needed. Of course, we know where the problems are. Sudan has been mentioned. We have countries like Tanzania, where the opposition leader is in prison, or in Côte d'Ivoire he is not allowed to vote. These are things that we cannot like either, but we as Europeans should make a reasonable, comprehensive offer, because we are not alone. We need to offer our way of helping Africa develop, how we want to help Africa play a stronger economic and political role on the world stage. We are not alone – Russia is there, China is there. But I'm confident. If we do it right, the vast majority of Africans will also recognize that we are the better partners in the long run. Let's make the best of it, too.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the Presidency of the Council! From the point of view of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, we must point out that the international situation is becoming increasingly complex and is characterised by geopolitical tensions, strategic competition and global challenges. The EU is increasingly called for in the immediate European neighbourhood. However, the cuts in global external aid from the United States and other countries provide an opportunity to play a stronger role globally as the EU. In particular, we need to improve the financing of the policy for the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood, given the proximity and geostrategic importance of these regions for the security of the EU itself. Our efforts to support the Republic of Moldova should receive a specific budget line. They should increase the transparency of the budget and improve parliamentary scrutiny. Overall, we need 110 million euro more for Heading 6 of the budget – Neighbourhood and the World – than the Council has set for these challenges.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, As we haven't seen in the last few days, Russia's activities extend beyond Ukraine. The idea that Vladimir Putin could direct his aggression towards countries of the European Union if he won his war is not a far-fetched theoretical possibility. This is an existential risk for Europe. Fortunately, there is another unique way to help Ukraine, in addition to the many support measures that have been implemented so far. And that is to use Moscow's assets against Russia itself by using them for a reparation loan to Kyiv. My call to the Member States is clear: Even if you're not sitting here now, you're doing the right thing. Do it fast. Ukraine needs further support, and the reparation loan provides a safe and solid way to finance it. This loan is practically an advance on the Kremlin's obligation under international law to make reparations payments. If Russia refuses to do so, it will not get the money back. And if they were actually willing, then the money would be offset against the reparations to be paid. There is therefore no risk of liability for us.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Commissioner, for the overview of all that we as the EU can and will do. It all fits into the 20-point plan. Of these 20 points, the release of the hostages has actually taken place so far, which we are pleased about with those affected, their families and all of Israel. As agreed, Palestinian prisoners have also been released, and Israel has withdrawn to the agreed line. Now what? In addition to our own possibilities, we must make it clear to the US that it is not done with large appearances in the Knesset and Sharm el-Sheikh. Are there any ideas on how Hamas can actually be disarmed? Is a Security Council resolution being prepared to deploy the necessary international stabilization forces? Is unhindered access ensured for all humanitarian organisations, the United Nations and the Red Cross? I expect our executive to stay in touch with the U.S. on all these issues and ensure that there are answers to these questions.

Mr President, colleagues, on the second anniversary of Hamas's terrorist attack on Israel, we strongly support the ongoing efforts to put an end to this war, to liberate the remaining hostages, to finally end the grip of Hamas on Gaza for all future time to come and to stop the suffering of the innocent civilian population in the Gaza Strip. We need immediate access for all available humanitarian assistance by all those organisations that have proven that they can deliver on the ground. Disarming Hamas, dismantling its structures will secure that humanitarian aid will reach those in need. But our EU role must go beyond providing humanitarian assistance. We must, on the one hand, be prepared to agree to participate in an international administration that organises security and reconstruction in Gaza. I cannot suggest to Israel to continue its military presence inside Gaza, but suggesting that also requires a robust international presence and mandate, including us. In parallel, we need to push for an inclusive peace process that ultimately leads to a two‑state solution, a secure state of Israel and a viable Palestinian state. On the way, Israel must stop its settlement policy in the West Bank, and I hope that also in this regard Donald Trump and the European Council will find proper arguments to convince the Israeli Government that this is also in the long‑term interests of Israel. I also wish the Palestinian population to get the chance to elect a legitimate leadership, after the last elections dating from 2005 and 2006. Together, they can find a solution, hopefully.

Madam President, I rise on the basis of Rule 194 of the Rules of Procedure. During yesterday's vote, a widespread human error and irritation in the voting procedure caused a mistake which leads to the international irritation and questions for clarification addressed to our House by other parliaments and diplomatic missions. An amendment originally tabled by The Left Group was adopted, accusing the European Union of pursuing a militaristic policy towards Ukraine. This is now paragraph 2 of the adopted Ukraine text. I speak on behalf of the 70 % majority having adopted the Ukraine report yesterday, coming mainly from the political groups of EPP, S&D, ECR, Renew and the Greens, and I declare the language of paragraph 2 does not represent the position of the European Parliament as expressed in all other paragraphs of the Ukraine report. We have not changed our position on Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine and we will continue to do so. The incoming corrections of the votes from the Members of our political groups will clearly show there is no majority support of paragraph 2 in this House. The Ukraine report should, in future, be considered as having been adopted without paragraph 2.

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, I was the head of the EP election observation delegation last year for the presidential election and the referendum, and what we saw of malign influence from Russia and the proxies was already incredible. The President here today illustrated what had happened last time, and we need to be aware of what will happen next time on the 28th, when we have the next election. That is why it is so important to support all ways, means and measures that the Moldovans can take to get their own voters in a position where they can make an informed vote, and not one where we find that they are informed through the social media in a way that they are irritated and confused about what the European Union is actually all about. That is our task, and I think we will be able to fulfil it.

Madam President, A preliminary remark: I think it is a disgrace if, after two failed German dictatorships, there are still people in the house who want a third dictatorship. Shame on you! We could note the usual coalition of the willing of five political groups and additional individual members that send a clear message: Ukraine's future is in the EU. On the way, we are supportive of the reform process and as Putin does not want peace, not even a ceasefire, we agree to demand from our governments to strengthen Ukraine's ability to defend itself. Everyone must deliver what they can provide. For the German part, to fulfil their task, we should start training Ukrainians on the Taurus missile and deliver it as soon as possible to make a difference, hitting production sites of weapons, launch sites of missiles and important logistical infrastructure that transport the lethal weapons and soldiers to the frontline. Contrary to certain claims, no German soldiers are needed to install it all. And there is one aspect that has not been addressed, and I think that is one of the motivations why the Ukrainians continue to fight and we should support them: It is about the Ukrainians, millions of them, who live in the Russian occupation zone. Their daily fate is incredible: Torture, arrests, no rule of law at all. I think that is the population that is at risk especially, and that is why this motivation is so strong to regain these occupied territories. It's about the people and not about the territory that is in the focus, and I think we have all reason to support Ukraine in these efforts as well. And in so far, I thank you once again, dear greetings from these five groups and additional members, for this solidarity that we have offered over the years. I am confident that we will succeed with our efforts. Thank you very much. Once again, Slava Ukraini!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear High Representative, Commissioner for Enlargement! We have a related debate today, and I would first of all like to thank the High Representative for her clear statements regarding the recent Russian terrorist attacks. Putin wants nothing less than to force Russia's final victory over Ukraine. The illegitimate, unjustified and unprovoked war of aggression has not only brought death and destruction to a sovereign country, it is also an attack on the fundamental values of peace, freedom and democracy in Europe. This war must be ended, but peace does not come from words alone. Russia has shown in recent months with dubious proposals and dishonest negotiations that it wants to continue its war. Therefore, we emphasize: An unconditional ceasefire is a prerequisite for any serious peace negotiations! As long as this is not the case, we must step up our military, material and financial support to Ukraine so that the country can uphold its right to self-defense. Ukrainians defend not only their territory, but also their European path. Never before has it been so clear to all citizens and political actors why they are under attack – namely because they want to successfully complete this European path to the rule of law and democracy. The alternative is obvious: Either you become part of free Europe or you are forced back into the Soviet gulag. We support Ukraine in its reform process, which is detailed in the annex to the Ukraine Facility on a quarterly basis. We also have a lever here, because the payments are tied to the fulfilment of these quarterly homework, and if they are not fulfilled, the payments are also reduced. On this path of reform, there can also be regressions or missteps. But it should also be emphasized that the maturity of society is now so advanced that such missteps can also be corrected by the pressure of society. I was impressed by the reaction of civil society to the attempt to put the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, NABU, and the Special Prosecutor's Office SAPO for Anti-Corruption under the control of the Prosecutor General. Many took to the streets despite the war, and we also saw it as an attempt to get independent investigators under the control of the government. The original state has been restored – that is good. We also see considerable progress, often with the help and perseverance of the international community. Ukraine must continue to use its reform momentum: strengthening its democratic institutions, aligning with the EU's common foreign and security policy, fighting corruption and maladministration in the judiciary. These steps are not only crucial for EU accession, they are also a foundation for the confidence of one's own people in the state and the legal system. That is why we also call for political diversity, independent judiciary and transparent procedures to be protected and strengthened. We call for an end to untimely and politically motivated judicial proceedings and sanctions against representatives of the opposition, for the preservation of parliamentary pluralism and for the promotion of constructive dialogue between political groups in the Verkhovna Rada; also remove all restrictions on mandate-related and political travel abroad for members of the Verkhovna Rada. The European Council took the historic decision to open accession negotiations in December 2023. The first Intergovernmental Conference took place in June 2024. Now it is time to move forward decisively – without blockages or pretexts. We call on all Member States to act constructively and pave Ukraine's path towards EU membership. It is important to start cluster negotiations in a timely manner so that as much rapid progress as possible can be made with regard to the country's accession to the EU. Let's send a clear signal together! Ukraine is part of the European family and we will do everything we can to ensure that it takes its place in the European Union as soon as possible. With good reforms, Ukraine can achieve this goal faster. Slava Ukrajini!

Madam President, colleagues, Commissioner, dear Andreas Schieder, thank you for your report where you highlighted a broad range of issues that are of relevance for the accession of Albania to the EU. You also highlighted some positive developments, like SPAK, this body that is combating corruption. Indeed there is a need for that. The Commission has also said that efforts to combat corruption at the highest level must be maintained. Now, I was in Albania on occasion of the latest election. Technically, that went well, but indeed we as observers and the OSCE concluded that there was not a level playing field, that there was an abuse of incumbency, meaning that, for instance, they afforded to pay an extra EUR 100 to pensioners just short of the election and traffic fines were abandoned two days before the election. So these are issues that should not happen and that will have to be addressed, including also with the recommendations that had not yet been implemented. Indeed, I have to say, the stories that you hear apart from the election observation, about the structures that relate to money laundering: that is a fact. There are 30 000 apartments standing there empty because there have been built with laundered money and people looking for flats they cannot afford. There are also drug trafficking schemes. We have to see – and I'm confident we will manage this – that these structures will not profit from entry into the European Union. They must be crushed before this country enters.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. What has been said about Iran, I underline, I do not need to repeat. I am concentrating on Gaza, and I have the impression that there is already quite a broad consensus in the House on what has to happen there. First, there is an urgent need for a ceasefire. The people of Gaza and the hostages still alive have suffered long enough from the fighting between the Israeli army and the terrorist Hamas, the hostages in addition by the captivity under terrible conditions. Second, the remaining hostages must be released. They must not be further abused as a pawn by Hamas and must also be a priority of the efforts of the Israeli government. Thirdly, all aid organisations waiting at the border with their supplies must have unhindered access. The UN and Red Cross organizations can do that, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation can't. It has neither the capacity nor the mandate to unload about 600 truck loads per day there. Fourth, it must be clear that there can be no future of any kind for Hamas in Gaza. The organization was also a repressive organization to the people of Gaza before October 7 and continues to target the destruction of Israel. Fifth, it must be clear: The people of Gaza have a future there. I found the lunch or dinner talk between Trump and Netanyahu, which was broadcast publicly yesterday, almost ghostly – how two million people were chatting about the future between salad and filet steak. Against the will of the people there and against the will of Arab neighbours and Europeans, there will be no resettlement, expulsion or deportation. A just peace in a future without fear and violence for both peoples can only exist in a two-state solution negotiated by both sides.

Madam President, colleagues, while the world's attention primarily focuses on the Israeli-Iran war, on the situation in Gaza and Russia's continued aggression against Ukraine, South Sudan, the youngest nation in the world, is at the brink of yet another civil war. Political and ethnic tensions have flared up in recent months, leading to direct military confrontations between the South Sudanese army, under President Salva Kiir, and the White Army, linked to First Vice‑President Riek Machar and his opposition force. The Commission has said 9.3 million South Sudanese are in need of humanitarian assistance, while around 2 million are already internally displaced. And yet, while war is already raging in the countries neighbouring South Sudan, a full-scale war could still be prevented in South Sudan. Measures taken or not taken now by the South Sudanese leaders, by regional international actors and the EU will decide whether South Sudan goes down the path of its neighbours or embarks on a road towards peace and stability. In order to stabilise the country, first, South Sudanese leaders must return to the 2018 peace agreement, which is at serious risk of collapse. Arbitrarily detained opposition figures – above all, Vice‑President Machar – must be released, military operations by the South Sudanese army and opposition forces must be stopped, as a prerequisite for both warring parties to engage in dialogue. Second, foreign actors must stop fuelling the conflict and fully retreat from South Sudanese territory. At the request of President Kiir, Ugandan forces have fought alongside the South Sudanese army, providing heavy military equipment for aerial bombardments, as well as 2 000 soldiers for ground offensives. While thanks to the pressure of the international community, particularly the African countries and the EU, Ugandan forces have become less visible in the country, they must fully retreat. At the same time, the recent rapprochement of President Kiir with the Sudanese paramilitary and its regional sponsor, United Arab Emirates, presents a risk of regionalisation of the Sudanese civil war. Let us not let it happen, but do the utmost diplomatically for a peaceful way forward.

Madam President, colleagues, the wake-up calls are behind us. We have woken up and we are taking necessary steps. Among others, thanks to Commissioner Kubilius for the White Paper and also the first Omnibus on defence. To show such resolve credibly, we need a common threat assessment and I think we have it. I'm very grateful to you, Kaja Kallas, that you were so clear about the description of what Russia actually does. And the German, Hungarian and Slovak-speaking Putinists will not prevail, I'm quite sure about that. This summit will be crucial for our future security. We need the reassurance that all partners, including the US, abide by their treaty obligations. We are a value-based alliance, but that means also that we need to share the responsibility, and that also means the cost. We Europeans need to contribute more and we will. I prefer to deliver better through more common planning, common procurement, making full use of the existing legal framework. We have had a single market on defence since 2011. Let's finally make it a reality. We need to profit from economies of scale through such common procurement and have more effects of interoperability. If we make use of the legal framework that we have, we can also prove to our transatlantic partner, the US, that we are helpful and supportive partners and are not only helpless as we have seen in the past.

Madam President, colleagues, on Iran, I think that the regime has been almost at the point enabling it to produce a nuclear bomb. That is the last thing the rest of the world wants to see. Part of the truth is, however, that Iran has come that far because the US stepped out of the nuclear deal in 2018, a deal that provided comprehensive control and transparency on Iran's nuclear programme. Thereafter, the regime did not feel bound to this treaty any longer. Moreover, I think that the Israeli Government was unhappy that the US unilaterally negotiated a deal with Iran, which, on substance, would even not have provided the detailed provisions of the previous agreement. Since 1979, the Mullah regime has proclaimed the destruction of the State of Israel as one of their political objectives. In this regard, I believe them. As a consequence, I am not limiting myself to a purely legal assessment, whether this action can be qualified as an act of pre‑emptive self‑defence. Politically, I can accept this strike. Toda raba. On Gaza, the right of self‑defence as a consequence of the Hamas terror attack has to be applied in accordance with international humanitarian law. The population in a war zone has to be protected. Military action concentrated on combatants and to block food supplies for almost three months for more than two million people to push Hamas to release the remaining hostages is not justifiable. Moreover, to announce the creation of an additional 22 settlements in the occupied West Bank is as such illegal and also not a contribution to a two‑state solution that this Parliament, all Member States and the international community demand.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. In the context of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, much is discussed: the fighting, the supply of arms, the destruction of infrastructure, the millions of refugees from Ukraine in Europe, the internally displaced persons and, rightly, our extensive support. Far less frequently do we address the fate of Ukrainians under Russian control. First, there are the prisoners of war. When one looks at the physical condition of most released Ukrainians on the occasion of prisoner exchanges and then hears their stories, one must conclude that Russia is in no way fulfilling its obligation to humanely treat these prisoners. We must therefore demand that Russia at all times grant international representatives of the Red Cross access to the prison camps and punish those guards who have been guilty of grave human rights violations against prisoners of war. Even less attention is paid to the arbitrarily arrested civilians in the Russian-occupied zone of Ukraine. This is best illustrated by an example, and I mention here the fate of Kostjantyn Zinokovkin from Melitopol, who was arrested on 12 May 2023 under the pretext of violating the curfew. On 14 June 2023, the family was told that he had confessed to blowing up a man. On 29 October 2023, he was screened on Russian television. Several court hearings were held in Rostov this spring. He must be freed because he is innocent, like thousands of others. Release these people, Mr. Putin!

Madam President, as you rightly pointed out, there is a common proposal of the EPP and S&D, supported by Renew, and as the VP/HR can be present only in Parliament tomorrow from 18:30 onwards, we propose to reschedule this joint debate on the situation in the Middle East to after the debate on passenger rights. I am aware that not everybody will feel comfortable with the joint debate; however, with our proposal, we aim at broadest possible support and show of unity for dealing with these sensitive topics at this important point in time. You already read out the proposed title, so I do not need to repeat that. I ask for your support.

Madam President, Colleagues! If friends of Israel are deeply concerned about the policies of Netanyahu's government, they remain friends of Israel out of deepest conviction. Legitimate self-defense, counter-terrorism and hostage-liberation must take place within the framework of international law. International humanitarian law must be respected. It is Israel's obligation, in addition to fighting the terrorist organization Hamas, to uphold the principle of humanity, to keep the civilian population out of the fighting in the best possible way and to ensure their supply of food and medicine. This is why the leaders of the EPP, S&D and Renew political groups agreed on a joint statement on Gaza on 10 May. That is why 24 foreign ministers, from Australia to Canada, from Germany to Japan, are calling for the immediate resumption of aid deliveries. That is why France, Great Britain and Canada are going even further and are considering the recognition of Palestine, Great Britain is suspending negotiations on a trade agreement and the EU is reviewing Article 2 of the Association Agreement. Calling on democratic Israel to respect international humanitarian law does not make anyone an anti-Semite. We support the other Israel, which does not attract millions of people from Gaza and the world.

Mr President, colleagues and, spontaneously, President von der Leyen, full support for your speech that you just held. Tomorrow, we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe, but after the liberation of the entire continent from Hitler's Nazism, we must also not forget the start of Stalinist communism in the eastern half of our continent. Today, there is a full-scale war in Europe again. But contrary to the democratic successor of the first aggressor – Hitler's Germany, which started a full-scale war against Poland on 1 September 1939 – the legal successor of Stalin's Soviet Union that followed suit on the 17 September is again conducting a full-scale war, this time against Ukraine. While Germany and the Western democracies have learned the lessons of history, never again allowing an attack on a peaceful neighbour, Russia has not. That is why we stand with the victim of the aggression. That is why freedom and democracy must prevail again over the other empire of evil. Ukraine is hit the second time in 80 years and that is why this time Germany stands on the right side of history, together with our European allies that are united in support. This support is multifold. We support Ukraine in their wish for a ceasefire and a just and sustainable peace. We support Ukraine in their wish to join the EU. In between this short-term goal and the long-term goals, we support Ukraine with civil and military equipment and expertise, while they work relentlessly to upgrade their own weapons production. We have implemented 16 packages of sanctions against the aggressor. At the same time, we ramp up our own military capabilities to become able to defend ourselves and pass legislation to encourage joint procurement and expand our production capacities, and include Ukraine in our planning. This is a historic challenge. We are stronger than the aggressor because our resolve is based and built on the rock-solid foundation of freedom and democracy. That is why Russia will be made to realise that they cannot win this systemic conflict, 80 years after the defeat of the other dictatorship. Slava Ukraini!

Fru formand! Jeg er fra Tyskland. I'm glad to see such a broad consensus on this issue. It is up to the Greenlanders to decide their future. Denmark guarantees that as long as Greenland itself is not independent, and we stand behind both in this regard. I follow with interest reflections on how one could, in the period ahead of us, strengthen the Greenlanders' possibility and make it more secure while they discuss their future status. And from the EU we should be supportive of all their options – be it Greenland continuing to be an autonomous part of Denmark, be it becoming independent inside the EU, be it to become independent outside the EU. For Trump's option, I don't see a majority inside Greenland. They, I think, will not accept to be either bribed or bought. And I have one question, actually: could it be strengthening the Greenlanders' position if it were at least temporarily reintegrated into the EU via Denmark, and from this stronger position, then make their choice for their future? I wonder. I have no answer. They have to give that.