Foreign Affairs Council (Defence): Press remarks by High Representative/Vice-President Kaja Kallas

Check against delivery! 

Good afternoon, everybody. 

We had the EU Defence Ministers meeting today to discuss two pressing issues: Russia's war on Ukraine and European defence. We also had Ukrainian Minister Shmyhal with us and NATO Deputy Secretary General Shekerinska that joined part of our discussions.  

This could be a pivotal work week for diplomacy, intense talks on ending Russia's war continue. Everyone welcomes the push for peace, except Russia. Over the weekend, Russia launched again another massive aerial assault on Ukraine.  

In this war, there is one aggressor and one victim. Our job is to do all we can to support the victim and not reward the aggression.  

The goal is to have a just and durable peace, not a deal that lays ground for a next war. Solid funding for Ukraine is key. In October, EU leaders agreed to fund Ukraine for the next two years. Ministers today insisted that we need to agree on the funding options as a matter of urgency. Multiyear funding would be a game changer for Ukraine's defence. A stronger Ukraine means a faster end to Putin's war, because the sooner Putin realises that it cannot outlast us, the sooner this war will end. Our work to build consensus and funding continues. Risks need to be shared - that is very clear - the European Council in December will be crucial in this regard. 

Ministers also discussed increasing our military support to Ukraine. Europe has already provided over €187 billion to Ukraine, more than anybody else. We need to continue to step up. The logic is very simple: the stronger Ukraine is on the battlefield, the stronger they are behind the negotiation table. 

Today, we also discussed what our two missions could do more to strengthen Ukraine. They are part of the European Union’s support to the Security Guarantees. We aim to conclude planning for expanding missions as soon as possible.  

On defence industrial cooperation with Ukraine, we discussed how to mobilise additional private financing, also through the European Investment Bank. Europe and Ukraine must build together, produce together and innovate together. It is a win-win for both sides. Ukraine has the battlefield experience, and we also need this for our defence industry. I am glad that more Member States are doing so. Today, for instance, the Netherlands signed an agreement with Ukraine to set up a production line on its territory. 

I also want to address the corruption probes in Ukraine, especially in wartime, trust matters. Ukraine's fight for freedom and its path towards Europe should not be tainted by this. However, the fact that investigations take place shows that anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine work. Also, the public outcry for this has been very, very strong. 

Ministers also discussed European defence. Everyone agreed that Europe must continue to boost its own defences. We do not have much time to act. Putin is unlikely to honour any agreement for long. And, if we are not strong, it is going to happen sooner. Leaders have given clear direction with the Defence Readiness Roadmap. Capability coalitions are being set up now. Some have already met on air defence and drones, for example. Others will follow soon. Concrete projects are expected in the first half of next year.  

Today, we also address the flagship initiatives to help coordinate investment in areas where no Member State can do it alone. Here, I would like to commend Finland for taking steps to advance the Eastern Flank Watch initiative.  

And finally, Ministers also discussed the Military Mobility Package, which we presented with the Commission in the previous month. The ability to move troops where we need them, when we need them, is paramount for deterrence. Military mobility is a crucial insurance policy for European security, and we need to speed up. 

Thank you. 

Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/media/video/I-281398  

Q&A 

Q. I need to ask you, of course, about the letter that the Belgian Prime Minister has sent to the European Commission. We all read it, it has many concerns, many reservations about the Reparations Loan. But, at the very end, the Prime Minister says: ‘Hastily moving forward on the proposed reparations loan scheme would have as a collateral damage that we as the European Union are effectively preventing reaching an eventual peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.’ Do you agree with this assessment? Do you think the reparations loan is an obstacle in the negotiation? Or do you think it would strengthen the European leverage vis-à-vis Moscow? 

It will definitely strengthen the European position vis-à-vis Moscow, that is very clear. We need to move on with this. This is clear that Russia owes reparations for the damages that they have caused to Ukraine, and the Reparations Loan based on the frozen sovereign assets of Russia, is actually the right basis for it. I do not, in any way, diminish the risks or the worries that Belgian government has. When we had the discussions in the European Council, everybody was saying that we are ready to share all the risks and the burden. Therefore, we need to work on this, on the legislative proposal to address all the risks, or mitigate all the risks, and to shoulder the burden regarding those risks. But we definitely need to move on. Because, if I would be Russia, I would also try to outlast us to see whether we get the funding for Ukrainian defense or not. If not in the short term, then, I would come to the negotiation table and ask even more. I think again, let us come back to the first point, which is that Ukraine has not attacked anybody. It is Russia that has attacked, and we need to make sure that this stops and it does not happen again. 

Q. Two questions, if I may. The first one on your ammunition initiative: what is the state of play, and are you satisfied with the answer? We are at the end of the year, so basically, of the answer of Member States. The second question is, what is your message to the Member States that are lagging behind in terms of military or financial aid for military support to Ukraine? Some Member States are taking much of the burden, others are not participating. For example, in the PURL initiative or in other initiatives. So, what is your message to those Member States? 

On the ammunition initiative, I regret to say that we are not there yet, although today, one Member State told me that in the coming weeks, they will have another decision that will also contribute to the ammunition initiative. Today, we were also listening to the Defence Minister Shmyhal regarding the needs that they have, and also his call for Member States to do more. Of course, they also need drones and other capabilities, but they still need ammunition, so the work is still ongoing in this regard. When it comes to the overall support to Ukraine, then, of course, like you rightly say, the burden is not equally shared. So, those Member States who are doing more were also calling on those Member States who are not doing that much. Helping Ukraine now is much cheaper than [if] this war will continue. If we all make a collective effort to help Ukraine, to pressure Russia, the sooner this war will end and sooner the costs will stop as well.  

Q. On the reparations loan again. After reading the letter of Prime Minister Bart De Wever, one could come to the conclusion that this option is actually quite dead, or the chances are slim, at least, to have an agreement this year. Basically he is coming up with new arguments why he is against it. And he did not wait for the legal texts that, as I understand, are ready. So, he could have waited for this and then written his letter, but he did not do it. He sent a letter before it looks like he wants to kill this option, I would say. But maybe you have another view on this. But would it not be time to discuss other options to be prepared? I mean, we know that Ukraine needs funds in the next spring, so would it not be time to discuss this idea of a bridge loan, for example?  

We must understand that Belgium is under a lot of pressure. This is very clear. There has been options paper provided, but if you look at those options, the reparations loan is the most viable option, because bilateral contributions are not covering this, like in the previous question, it was also seen that not all Member States are carrying the burden. Eurobonds or raising capital together is also out of question for some Member States to do it all together and the reparations that Russia owes to Ukraine - actually, it is really Ukrainian money - if you think about the damages that Russia has caused, this is the best solution. Again, I want to stress that I do not, in any way, diminish the worries that Belgium has, but we can address those. We can shoulder those risks together, and we need to work on a viable solution to go on with the reparations loan. It sends a three-way message – a very strong message - to Ukraine that we are there to help them to defend themselves. The second message to Moscow, that they cannot outlast us, and a third message also to Washington, that we are taking very strong and very credible steps. 

Q. I want to ask you a broader question, because I think that we can all agree that last week was extraordinary, and if what we read is correct, and the Americans are indeed negotiating with Russia for access to their market, to the Russian market, to the exclusion of Europe, we would be facing the sum of all fears, in a way: because possibly a bad deal on one side, and something very worrying on the other. So would it not be, at this point, perhaps useful to open direct negotiations with Moscow and send there a kind of a European Witkoff? 

Everybody has been very clear, especially the Russians, that they have no interest in peace right now. Again, we need to put them in the position where they need to negotiate. Right now, they are not in that position because they think that they can outlast us, and they also hope that there is a very good offer made, because they see that there is a lot of pressure to put on the victim, but no sacrifices asked from them, at least we do not know that any of the sacrifices have been asked to of them. So clearly, they want to negotiate with those who are just offering them something on top of what they already have. This is clearly their interest, but it should not be ours. 

Q. I have a question regarding SAFE. Mr Kubilius, said that 15 countries want to have some programmes with Ukraine. Others without. Are there some kind of priorities for those who are doing their projects with Ukraine? That is my first question. And second one goes to specifically Hungary, which probably is one of the four countries, I assume, which is not doing anything with Ukraine. For Hungary, the pre-allocated funds of €16 billion is a huge amount. And while the European Commission, in other cases, froze EU funds around €18 billion for Hungary because of the rule of law and other concerns, this time, there is so much money going there with kind of no strings attached. So, do you see some kind of concerns, maybe that Hungary, if Hungary gets this money, or a part of this money, of this allocation, it is going to be maybe going to the wrong hands and for wrong pockets, and how do you want to avoid this?  

Right now, 19 countries have applied for the SAFE loans. What happens now is that the Commission will evaluate all the plans and then Council adopts the financing plan. Basically, it is the same way, like it was with the Next Generation EU. In the Next Generation EU, you needed to show the reforms, the things that you do, so that you get also the funding. And that is why the plans are there, and the funding goes to the defence plans. And that is also the answer that there are safeguards for guarding that this money goes for defence plans and defence plans only.  

Q. I would like to ask about hybrid attacks. We heard the chair of NATO's Military Committee saying that they are considering being more aggressive, more proactive in response to Russian hybrid attacks. I just spoke to the Polish Minister who was here today. You will not be surprised to hear very supportive of a more aggressive, more proactive approach from European powers when it comes to hybrid attacks. Would you support a more aggressive European Union approach to these attacks, not just reactive, but perhaps a pre-emptive strike, as it was described?  

Today, also the Lithuanian Minister raised this issue when it comes to the Belarus hybrid attacks and meteorological balloons that come from the Belarus side. We are having discussions right now. What more can we do in this regard? Because it is true that they are getting more aggressive in different parts and we have the hybrid sanctions toolbox for Russia, but we have not had it for Belarus, for example. But all these actions, what the Member States take, we need to coordinate. Of course, it is up to the Member States then to really use those tools, in order to counter those hybrid attacks. But it is clearly becoming a bigger problem, that is for sure. 

Q. Discussions about the peace plan are ongoing, but the question is whether the issue of Russian troops on Transnistrian territory is being considered, and whether this is a threat to Ukraine or not. Is this the right moment, maybe, to solve this problem? And the second question on SAFE, if you know if Moldovan authorities applied to be part of this programme? Because before the European Union and our authority said that Moldova can be a part of SAFE as well.  

Yes, this is one of the examples of the 19 countries that Russia has attacked previously, or where there are  somehow still Russian troops present. This is a very good question. If the negotiators want the war to stop and not continue in any other territories - how can we make sure that Russia will never invade again and withdraws its troops from different parts of Europe where they still are? Then that would be one point to negotiate again, putting the point on Russia. What are they conceding? What they are contributing to have long lasting peace, not only in Ukraine, but also in other countries. So, this could be part of it. When it comes to SAFE, then we have an agreement with Moldova regarding a Security and Defence partnership. So, we are trying to also have Moldova take part where they can take part. But the deadline for SAFE was the end of November, and today we are the first of December. 

Q. We know that Europe wants to be in a good relationship with the United States and wants to be respected by the United States and also wants to help Ukraine. So, in your opinion, how will Europe look to United States and to Ukraine if, after months of talks about a reparations loan, about using frozen Russian assets, we will have no solution, or that the solution will be that Europe is afraid to use these assets. 

Well, Russia will definitely look at it. They do not want this reparations loan to happen. So, our response should do the exactly opposite, because this is something that we need to move on with, and to send a strong signal to Moscow that they cannot outlast us and Ukraine can defend itself.  

Q. Just coming back to the negotiations that are going on between the US, Russia and Ukraine. When the first peace plan came out, Europe scrambled and managed to somehow get back involved in the negotiation process, but now it seems that Europe is once again being excluded and being purposefully excluded by the US. So, do you get the sense that the US is cutting out Europe from this latest round of negotiations? Do you have any idea what Mr Witkoff is going to negotiate with Putin in Moscow, and are you fearful that he will once again try to force Ukraine to make more concessions? 

I am afraid that all the pressure will be put on the victim, which is that Ukraine has to make concessions and obligations, whereas, in order to have peace, we should not lose focus that it is actually Russia who has started this war, and Russia that is continuing this war, and Russia that is really targeting civilian infrastructure every single day to cause as much damage as possible. Yes, I am afraid that all the pressure will be put on the weaker side, because that is the easier way to stop this war when Ukraine surrenders. But this is not in anybody's interest, not in the interest of Ukraine, not in the interest of European Union, also not in the interest of the global, overall security because it is the United Nations’ Charter that says that you cannot change borders by force. If this pays off, we will see this elsewhere, all around the world. Then we see that whoever has the power gets to take what they want, which is not good for the majority of countries in the world. 

Q. You are saying: “I am afraid the pressure will be put on the victims regarding the week of talks in Moscow”. Just a quick question, do you trust the US in this negotiation? 

It is not a question of trust. It is a question of, again, if we want a long-term peace, then we need to understand the starting point of this war. And the starting point of this war is that Russia just decided to start the full-scale war and aggression on its neighbouring country. If we want this war to stop, so that it does not continue in a few years, if we want this war not to expand, then we should put all the pressure on the one who is doing the aggression, which is Russia. 

Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/media/video/I-281728