Debate contributions by Michael GAHLER

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.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The unprecedented challenges in the global environment and the unstable situation in terms of peace and geopolitics require very good coordination between the Commission and the External Action Service. We are therefore concerned about the lack of operational budgets of the External Action Service and also about the proposal to radically restructure the EU’s presence in third countries by drastically reducing the staffing of EU delegations in the light of the budgetary constraints mentioned above. We note that if adopted, the plan will have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument. The European Union is strongly interconnected internationally. We are a sought-after partner for many other countries. Today we need more than less international representation of our interests and exchange with our partners. Only the dismantling of USAID with the countries that are abandoned there by the USA has led to the fact that the request to us has become significantly larger. Therefore, the EEAS needs to be better and adequately equipped. Moreover, there was an agreement between the EEAS and the Commission that the Commission would pay something for the fact that there were also Commission officials in the field offices. I was told that this amount, although the costs have risen so much, has been fixed for many years. I therefore call on the Commission to step up its efforts so that the EEAS can also act better on the ground.

Madam President, colleagues, on behalf of the EPP, we are in principle in favour of the debate. However, we have had a look at the packed agenda that we have this week and we suggest, also in order to have some more detailed information about this very recent decision, to have it in two weeks time, to have it in Brussels in the next plenary in two weeks. That is our suggestion.

Madam President, Commissioners-in-Office, ladies and gentlemen! It is good that we have a connected debate on foreign, security and defence policy, because we are in a world situation that we have not experienced since the end of the Second World War – especially as Europeans. And that is why it is so important that we not only stand together here in the European Parliament, with a large majority of the major mainstream groups, support the policy that our Commission, which the Council is pursuing vis-à-vis Ukraine, is pursuing, but also on the other issues. That is why it is important that we continue to support the long-term measures here – one is in the direction of security and defence, which we are debating there, and the other is in fact with regard to Ukraine. And that's why we should also address what works on bonfires here or try to instrumentalize and update in the way you block here. And we must also mention the name: There is, unfortunately, Hungary, which is both the Peace Facility blocked in the payout, but also the beginning of the first clusters Negotiations with Ukraine. And here I say very clearly: The Hungarian prime minister does not serve the Hungarian minority in Ukraine if the result were that these people would come back under Russian control. It's a shame how this government behaves. And I am also convinced that the majority of Hungarians do not support this irresponsible course. We will find ways to ensure that this policy does not create a permanent blockade.

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, when it is for the Foreign Affairs Committee, of course, as the lead committee on external issues, when it is about war and peace in Europe, and it's about defending our European way of life, this has to be reflected in the budget of the European Union as well. And we address, of course, the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine. We address the situation in the Middle East. And as the Commissioner rightly said, we already reformed the Multiannual Financial Framework, we are grateful for that, for the EUR 50 billion Ukraine facility primarily last year – well, we ought to reform it already now and not wait till we are in the next financial framework. But, the measure is taken by the Commission, when it comes to ReArm Europe, and you are aware of the position of the Parliament, that we are not happy about the legal basis that has been chosen, because that excludes us, and insofar, we support the need to address the challenges that are on the agenda, but the legal base is not to our advantage.

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, in Milorad Dodik's wet dreams, he sees Bosnia and Herzegovina disintegrate and he leads the Republika Srpska into a Greater Serbia. That is why he acts the way he acts. The law on the protection of the constitutional order would, if adopted and implemented, actually result in the opposite of what it claims in its title. Today they initiated the adoption of a new constitution. A special session will be held tomorrow to adopt the draft constitution and the law. The RS is clearly not abiding by the BiH Constitutional Court interim measures to annul earlier decisions of the RS Assembly of 27 February. But fortunately, Dodik is quite alone. Not even the relevant opposition parties in the RS support him. His best supporter, whom he visited at least three times last year, is Vladimir Putin, who is always willing to promote any activities that can cause us trouble. It is good to see that we are upgrading our EUFOR military presence in the country as a preventive measure. A contingent from the Czech Republic, Romania and Italians are arriving. From the European Commission and other executive bodies, I expect that they will be very explicit. You did it with regard to our demands towards all stakeholders, including Dodik. You have to accept that the framework for policymaking is the Dayton Agreement, the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that includes the respect of the verdicts of the Constitutional Court. What was started today is clearly anti-constitutional. If the constitutional authorities of BiH can eventually not prevent this process being finalised, it would be up to Christian Schmidt to act. I hope it is not necessary, but we have also possibilities from Brussels to have appropriate pressure to apply. Can we afford to send funds to an anti-constitutional structure? Can you prevent that? I think only together can we make Bosnia and Herzegovina advance towards the EU. And that is what the people ...

Mr President, thank you very much, colleagues, Commissioner, in our resolution today, we demanded the substance of the frozen assets and not only the windfall profits. States have an obligation under international law to make reparation for internationally wrongful acts. The Permanent Court of International Justice held that it is a principle of international law, and even a general conception of law, that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation. The articles on state responsibility for international wrongful acts of the United Nations International Law Commission provide that the responsible state is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act. Such reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation, which would in all probability have existed if that act had not been committed, and includes reparation for both material and moral damage. The obligation to provide reparation can be invoked by any state under international law. The General Assembly of the United Nations has already recognised that Russia must bear the legal consequences of all of its internationally wrongful acts, including making reparation for the injury, including any damage caused by such acts. I am aware we are not at war with Russia, so we cannot directly do it. But the point is that Russia has caused not only to Ukraine, but also to us so much damage in costs of that aggressive act that we, I would say, are in a position to claim it also from Russia. So, let's get hold of the substance.

Mr President, colleagues, we heard the good news yesterday of a Ukrainian and American agreement to offer a ceasefire, which may help end fighting and prepare for negotiations of a peace agreement. This should be reflected in our resolution, and that is why I propose to add, after this paragraph 13, the following text: 'Welcomes the joint statement by Ukraine and the Unites States following their meeting in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on 11 March 2025, including the resumption of US military assistance and intelligence sharing as well as a proposal for a 30 day ceasefire agreement; reminds that a ceasefire can be an effective tool of suspension of hostilities, only if the aggressor fully adheres to it; expects therefore Russia to agree to it and follow it by ceasing all attacks on Ukraine, its military positions, civilian population, infrastructure and territory;'

Mr President, colleagues, dear Commissioner, when the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, we began checking the potential of the treaty in the area of defence, starting with the costs of non-Europe in this policy area. Simply adding all national defence budgets showed how inefficient the expenditure was – almost no common planning, no common procurement. And since 2011, instead of making use of the single market on defence products, the abuse of Article 346, which made Member States step out of European spending. Times have changed: there is war in Europe, Putin threatens all of us, and this US administration leaves doubt whether they will live up to their NATO commitments. That is why I thank the Commissioner for presenting this white paper on the future of European defence, together with the earlier announcement on the programme to ReArm Europe. Let us make the best out of it – let us defend our European way of life together and let us start on the front line, supporting Ukraine with whatever it takes as they defend their and our freedom. Slava Ukraini!

We will support anything that leads to a just peace – and the sooner, the better. And that also means that when we have ended a state of war, we will do our part not to invade Ukraine again, and that means that this deterrence must be credible. Ukraine needs security guarantees that deserve the name, and the British Prime Minister has said:boots on the ground and planes in the air’. I believe that this would be a common response to the Russian threat after the end of the state of war.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The aggressor in the Kremlin does not know what is happening to him: The previous leading power of the West changed sides in the matter of Ukraine. It must be enough for us as a wake-up call that there are doubts as to whether the US will comply with its assistance obligations to its allies in the event of an emergency. We have to get from worst case to go out and activate as soon as possible all the instruments to defend us and to make us defence-ready at national and European level – in principle, as proposed by the Commission. As an EP, we have problems with the legal basis, and I would also have liked to see the national escape clause apply only to the extent that the additional expenditure is invested in joint defence projects in order to achieve economies of scale in order to increase interoperability. We also need European projects to protect us together. One European Sky Shield would be such an example; Other projects have been mentioned. In the meantime, we see the Russian armaments machine running at full speed and already producing more than it uses in Ukraine. What is it for? Let's finally get clear: The Russian threat is against all of us, and Ukraine is our first line of defense that we need to strengthen as we ramp up our own potential. Ukrainians are the first to want peace. They didn't want the war either. But they also know what a Russian peace looks like, a Stalinist peace in the Russian Gulag. This also threatens us if Ukraine falls and we are not able to defend ourselves. Let's not let it get this far! Slava Ukrajini!

Mr President, Commissioner, Presidency, colleagues, dear Ukrainian friends, it is with sorrow, but also outrage and undiminished resolve, that we commemorate the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale, illegal and unprovoked war of aggression against the Ukrainian nation. Our thoughts are with those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of their country, and their families and loved ones. The character of Putin's Russia is that of a terrorist state that respects no international law, disregards basic human rights and basic principles that the civilised world has agreed upon, even in times of war. Both Ukrainian and Russian lives are irrelevant in the imperialist agenda of the dictator and the Kremlin. It is this Parliament that has and will always defend Ukraine's legitimate resistance, as Ukrainians defend our values and are attacked exactly for this reason. Ukrainians are the first to seek an end to this dreadful war. We insist that on upcoming occasions, like the Munich Security Conference, nothing is discussed about Ukraine without Ukraine, and nothing is decided without involving us Europeans. We will be prepared to assume greater responsibility when it comes to guaranteeing Ukraine proper security, and prepare their membership in the EU and NATO. Those arguing for a grey zone of any form only invite the Russian aggressor to progress whenever convenient. We will achieve our goals in unity and with a united Ukraine. I therefore call on the Ukrainian presidential administration and those in their line of command to refrain from partisan games. Stop curtailing the rights of the opposition in Parliament. Stop depriving the former president of his rights as a member of Parliament. Your enemy – our enemy – sits in the Kremlin, not in the Verkhovna Rada. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, Presidency, Lukashenka again holds fake elections. And while there is large public focus on Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, or the manipulated elections in Georgia, or Russia's unsuccessful attempts to turn the majorities around in Moldova, we need to keep the Belarus dictatorship on the agenda and support the legitimate representatives like Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. In our resolution, we have enumerated some of the more than a thousand inmates, and I have been the political godfather for many years of Pavel Seviarynets, who is innocent and who is in prison– one of those who are active in democratic parties. I call on the Council and the Commission, please check on the on the agenda of sanctions where Belarus serves as an escape route for sanctions against Russia. There are issues where we have not imposed sanctions on Belarus, so goods are sent to Belarus and further transported to Russia. I think civilian trucks is one of these examples, so please have a look where we can close this gap where it exists.

Mr President, colleagues, Council Presidency, Commissioner, among the multifold wake-up calls that we are getting to assess the Russian threat to our countries – the Presidency alluded to some others – the demolition of critical infrastructure such as sea cables is just one further example. I think Putin would be disappointed if we discussed whether that was accidental or who was responsible. He wants us to know that he is able to exploit and test our vulnerabilities. In these circumstances, it is good to see that we are increasingly prepared, and I am happy to learn that 52 additional vessels were added to a list of those who have no access to our ports, and I am grateful to the Commissioner that you listed all the measures that we are working on or already implementing in this regard. I think that is yet another example where we see only together we are strong and only together can we represent and defend our interests.

Mr President, once upon a time there was an Autonomous Republic of Crimea in Ukraine. In 1991, during the independence referendum, also a majority of inhabitants of Crimea voted in favour of Ukrainian independence. Crimean Tatars could feel at home as much as Ukrainian and Russian speakers. Russian was an official language in Crimea. The Crimean Tatars had their majlis, their legal representation. This changed all dramatically with the illegal occupation and subsequent annexation by Russia of the Crimean Peninsula. Ever since, the rule of law, basic human rights, international conventions, and also the legitimate representation of the Crimean Tatars has been disregarded. For the Tatars, the situation seems more and more, and resembles more and more, the situation that they had after, first, German occupation of Crimea and, then, retaking by Stalin and the deportation that happened thereafter from Crimea. This situation is unbearable, but what is more important is to shed a light also on the fate of individuals who are persecuted because they demand their legitimate rights. We have picked three persons in the title of this urgency, namely Iryna Danylovych, Tofik Abdulhaziiev and Amet Suleymanov, and we have added another 13 persons who, because of their political activities, because they belong to this minority, they are persecuted. It is important that their names are on record, so that the aggressor and the oppressor knows that we know about them, and we demand the immediate and unconditional release, and condemn the Russian action that is ongoing within the big war against Ukraine, starting in 2014, in Crimea.

Madam President, colleagues, normally, one cannot change history because what happened just happened. And still it is typical for all kinds of dictatorships and autocratic rule – not only Russia – to instrumentalise a selective or distorted presentation of the past to justify today's aggressions. I stand here as a German and I feel free to accuse today's Russia of what it is: an utterly Stalinist and, yes, fascist dictatorship. But that is possible only because we have told the truth about the darkest part of our national history, partly being committed on today's territory of Ukraine. Nothing to relativise, never again to be repeated by Germany, and never again to be accepted by anyone, against anyone. Putin's July 2021 essay about the historic unity of Russians and Ukrainians deprives Ukrainians of their identity, pretending it was about one people, one empire, one language, one church. It was the attempt to thereby justify the 'Heim ins Reich', the 'back to the Empire' policy. As democracies, we must have the strength to counter that. As democrats, we must call a spade a spade. We must expose those who are in the service of the dictator because they suffer from a 'Führer‑withdrawal syndrome', from a 'Führer‑Entzugserscheinung', and have learned nothing from history.

Mr President, dear Vice-President and High Representative! First of all from my side, also on behalf of the EPP, all the best for the new function! They will also have our support on the big issues, where we have a broad consensus here. I think we have a situation here where we can really be relieved, together with the Syrians, that the end of one of the most brutal regimes the world has seen has been achieved. It is also a strategic defeat for Russia and Iran: This specific terrorist axis in Syria, where we have seen that the Russian air force has bombed the cities there in recent years, as a prelude and test for what followed later in Ukraine. I agree with what you have presented as tasks now. It is also good that today, for example, the President of the Commission is in Ankara to meet with one of the Major players agree in the region – with Turkey – on how to move forward in cooperation now. I expect Turkey not to respond to this new development with bombs. I believe that the Syrian Kurds do not intend to work as a retreat for the PKK, but they have organised themselves very well there, and we should acknowledge this and also enable the Syrian Kurds to make their contribution to stabilisation there. Now the time is over, there is much more to say.