Informal meeting of EU Defence Ministers: Press remarks by High Representative at the press conference

Check against delivery! 

Today has been shorter than yesterday – not less important but shorter. I am happy to meet you at 16:00 in the afternoon and not at 20:00 in the evening. 

Today, the most important issue was the military support to Ukraine, as you could imagine.   

First, on Ukraine. We had a videoconference with Ukrainian Defence Minister [Rustem] Umerov, who briefed us online on the latest developments on the frontline, on Russia, and the latest news about attacks against cities and energy infrastructure across Ukraine. 

I just received another message saying that new and more flying bombs have been falling in several Ukrainian cities. 

The military platform of Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure should not stay off-limits for elimination. It should not be a sanctuary for the Russians attacking Ukraine.  

I think – I continue thinking – that it is about Ukraine’s legitimate right of self-defence, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. 

You know where I stand on the questions regarding restrictions on the use of the delivered equipment against Russia and our military involvement, supporting Ukraine to facilitate Ukraine to respond to Russia’s aggression inside the Russian territory. 

It is in accordance with international law, and I do not see why someone says “It is going to war against Moscow.” No, we are not going to war against Moscow, we are delivering arms to Ukraine, that’s all. And Ukraine can use these arms in accordance with international law. These warnings are a little bit out of the question. 

But Member States decided that this is something that belongs to bilateral decisions of each Member State providing the equipment to Ukraine. The long-range [equipment], in particular, belongs to decisions of the providers to Ukraine. So, there has been a strategic discussion about [this], but it remains a national policy and Member States want it to be a national decision through bilateral [arrangements] with Ukraine. 

In fact, I am convinced that a discussion about this topic and other topics should be taking place at the European Union level.  And that is why we have this format of informal ministerials. 

The discussion has taken place, everybody explained their position. I explained my position. Member States decided [that] it is a bilateral issue but the fact that the arms provided to Ukraine can be used in order to target inside Russian territory [does] not at all means that we are going to go at war with Russia. This is an exaggeration.  

We discussed with Member States the progress made on our military support to Ukraine.  

Figures are important. Today, our military support exceeds €43 billion (€43.5 [billion]). 

Altogether, civilian and military [support], [it] goes much more than that: it is about €100 billion. But the military alone is €43 [billion], €44 [billion], it changes every day. 

The second big news is that the first fighter jets F-16 are already flying on the Ukrainian skies to protect Ukrainian cities and people; and we continue delivering ammunition. Now we are at 65% of our original goal to deliver 1 million of ammunition shells.  

There has been an acceleration during the summer. The industry is working at full pace. We are at 65%. Still not there, but it is increasing. 

As you know, Belgium announced some days ago that they are going to give more F-16 [fighter jets] to Ukraine. It has been also discussed at the meeting. 

From the point of view of financing, we have mobilised the first tranche of windfall profits from Russian frozen assets. It is €1.4 billion. These €1.4 billion have gone through the European Peace Facility (EPF) to support more military assistance for Ukraine. The big news is that now part of it is going directly to Ukraine in order to boost the Ukrainian defence industry. 

I think it is good news, it is a good initiative. Working closely with Ukraine is good, boosting the Ukrainian defence industry is more effective and faster. The Ukrainians asked for it – Minister Umerov has been asking for it today again. Many agree, so it is going to be a growing part of our future support. 

The next tranche will also be devoted to support the Ukrainian defence industry. 

Part of this will be managed by some Member States to purchase from the European defence industry and the global market ammunitions and air defence. They are the two most important priorities: ammunitions and air defence. 

Many Member [States] stressed the importance to speed up military deliveries. I fully agree with them. We have to do more and quicker.  

By March, we will have the second tranche of the windfall profits and we will continue managing it this way: to the Ukrainian defence industry as much as we can, and as much as they can absorb. 

On our Military Assistance Mission (EUMAM Ukraine). Allow me to say that it has been a success, a great success. It is the most successful training mission that the European Union has ever performed. It has trained [some] 60,000 soldiers. And today, the Ministers agreed on raising the target to 75,000 [soldiers] - adding 15,000 more by the end of the year. This is also good news. 

We will do more, Ukraine is requesting [it]. This war requires a constant adaptation to the modalities of the war. The training has to be [strengthened] and adapted to the Ukrainian needs. 

We want to make this training mission as pragmatic and easy as possible for the Ukrainians to participate in training, making use of Ukrainian trainers and ensuring a stronger coordination with Ukraine and NATO. 

In order to do that, I proposed – and Member States agreed on establishing a small Liaison and Coordination Cell in Kyiv. This would allow us to directly coordinate with other relevant actors. It is not an executive mission inside Ukrainian territory, it is a coordinating cell in Kyiv in order to make our work more effective.  

Ministers were all very positive and supportive of these training efforts. 

It is also urgent to unblock the €6.6 billion of the Ukraine Assistance Fund, the famous amount of money – that has been blocked for months – of the EPF. 

Many ministers repeated today that it is not Ukrainian money, it is their money because they have not been reimbursed for the expenditure that has already happened. Ukraine has already gotten the material, but they have not gotten the reimbursement.  

Many ministers repeated today that an urgent solution is needed. I look for it; one way or another, I will find a solution. One way or another.  

For our second session, we had discussions with representatives of the United Nations, NATO and the European Parliament, with the new Chair of the SEDE subcommittee [Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann]. 

We discussed our efforts to strengthen our defence readiness. How the European Union needs to have more capabilities, more investments and how the European Union’s defence industry has to deliver in sufficient quantities what the defence requires. 

I have asked Member States to speed up the negotiations of the Defence Industry Programme, where the European Parliament will play an important role. 

Several ministers stressed that this also requires mobilising additional funding for defence, and where is this funding supposed to come [from]. I am working closely with the [European] Commission, following the tasking of the European Council, to develop options that I hope will be soon presented to the EU leaders. 

This has an important Ukrainian component, but not only. Ukraine is at the core of our defence development, but not only. We have to integrate the Ukrainian defence [industry] into our industrial base. There is a lot to learn from the capacity of Ukrainians to increase their innovation in the field of defence. 

That is why, we are opening an EU Defence Innovation Office in Kyiv, together with the Commission. It will be opened shortly, maybe in September. In any case, I am planning to visit Ukraine during September and October, before the end of my term as High Representative, to do the last push for cooperation with Ukraine on the military support of its defence. It has been an important part of my task during the last years. 

Cooperation with NATO is also crucial. In September, we will launch an EU-NATO structured dialogue on defence industry. 

Finally, we had a lunch with the EU Satellite Centre Director [Rear Admiral Louis Tillier], the new Director. We discussed the strategic role of the Satellite Centre, which are the eyes of Europe in sky - more than in the sky, in space.  

The demand for the Satellite Centre’s services is continuously growing. It provides an important insight about what is happening on Earth. You can see what is happening on any corner on earth, and it plays an important role in supporting our partners, Ukraine in particular its fight against Russia's war of aggression. 

The Ministers agreed that we need a strong and well-resourced Satellite Centre to support our ambitious security and defence agenda. 

Q&A 

Q. On ammunition, you mentioned 65% - so, 650,000 ammunition if I am right. Does this figure include also the Czech initiative? If I remember well, the target for the end of the year was moved a little – 1.2 million because of the delay and so on. So, will the EU be able to deliver this time on ammunition? 

On restrictions of use of weapons, would you say that countries that keep restrictions are basically protecting Russia? 

On the second question, certainly not. There is no European country that is protecting Russia. We protect Ukraine. We decided that it is a national policy. We can have a strategic discussion among us in order to look for common ground. Defence is a national policy, it is not a secret – nothing new. Foreign policy is a national policy also. Look, the Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs [Péter Szijjártó] is in Moscow today. Yesterday, he was here, today he is in Moscow. Why? Because foreign policy – like it or not – is a national policy. So, they can go to Moscow, to Beijing, wherever they want. They have a duty. They have the duty of cooperating loyally in building a Common Foreign [and Security] Policy. Common. “Common” does not mean unique. “Common” means common. They may have their own policy, but they have to cooperate [with] loyalty in order to build a Common Foreign Policy. In the field of defence, it is the same thing. Defence is a national policy. The Commission has no competences in defence, but the Member States want to build a Common Defence Policy, I am in charge of doing that and pushing for it. That is why I present to the members of the Defence Ministers Council proposals to hold a strategic debate. And we discussed this in an informal meeting. I have my opinion; others have other opinions. Finally, they decided: this is a national competence, each one will do whatever they think is appropriate. Good – it is their decision. But this does not mean that they want to protect Russia. Equally, to think and to believe that it is legitimate in accordance with international law to target inside the territory of the aggressor -  because there is one aggressor - it’s because there is an aggression that it is a war - it does not mean to go to war. We are not at war with Moscow. So, no one is protecting anyone, [and] we should avoid such exaggerations if we want to discuss seriously about these matters. 

And [about] the target. Look, we are accelerating more and more. We are producing quicker. The industry is increasing capacity, they are working at full capacity, and they are increasing it. I hope that by the end of the year we will reach the target, both us and the Czech initiative – that, by the way, is also pushing for the target; it was announced in February in Munich. 

Q. High Representative, you talked about the EU training mission for Ukrainian soldiers and the entries and the target of number of soldiers to be trained. Could you tell us about the discussion around where that training should happen? The Ukrainians have requested that some of them should be done inside Ukraine. Did you hear that request again today from the Ukrainian Minister? Was there any discussion about it and what is your view on that question? 

You know, to wear a uniform does not make you a soldier. You can wear a uniform, have a helmet, it does not make you a soldier. In order to be a soldier, you need to be trained. And this is more and more important because the warfare today is quite sophisticated, and to send a soldier with a helmet and a uniform to the frontline without adequate training is to send them to die, quickly. So, training is lifesaving. Training is so important when people have to go to fight. That is why we are so proud of the fact that we have been training 60,000 soldiers. To be trained in Ukraine, why not? They are closer to the environment where they will have to fight, it could be more appropriate maybe. Some Member States were ready, others were reluctant. Finally, we decided that the training will be as close as possible to Ukraine but not in Ukrainian territory, not on Ukrainian land. But a cell in Kyiv will be opened in order to ensure the best coordination with Ukraine and our partners. By the way, to be closer to the border – you know, there are countries that are very far away from Ukraine, and they are doing an excellent work and training a lot of soldiers, providing them with a high-quality training, so maybe it is not so decisive. 

Q. On the restrictions of the use of weapons for Ukraine, are there legal arguments from Member States that are against to lift the restrictions, or is it just a political position? You have heard the different Ministers, the different Member States, the different positions, but the differences are related to political considerations or are there also legal doubts about the possibility of targeting Russian soil? 

According to international law, the aggresse is legitimate to attack targets inside the territory of the aggressor. There is nothing in international law that prevents Ukraine from responding to the Russian aggression inside the Russian territory, and logically it should not be a sanctuary for the places where the attacks are being launched. I think the reluctance is due to political reasons – very much respectful and serious [reasons]. Member States decided to do it the way they have decided, but I think it is mainly for political reasons. 

Q. On this coordination cell in Kyiv, are there already more details? How big or how small will it be? How many people? What type of personnel will it have, is it military, civilian? How can we figure out this coordination cell? 

I would not pay a lot of importance. It is not something very noticeable. A coordination cell is a coordination cell. It is not very big. I do not know, three, four, five people, maybe six. I do not see that great issue. And military or civilian? Well, I suppose it will be mostly military. If they have to coordinate training of the military, it will be mainly people who knows what they are talking about. I do not see the bureaucrats of Berlaymont going to Kyiv to tell anyone how the military has to be trained. And this is something that requires professional skills. But nothing important. Well, important, yes sure. But I do not see something that could create any kind of controversy