Informal Foreign Affairs Council: press conference by High Representative Kaja Kallas

Check against delivery! 

Good afternoon everybody, 

We just met with the EU Foreign Ministers in video format to discuss latest developments in ending Russia’s war. Foreign Minister Sybiha also joined us online to brief us regarding the situation from the Ukrainian side. 

It is important that we continue to support Ukraine and pressure Russia. That is what we are working on. 

Everyone welcomes the United States push for peace. We all want this war to end. But how it ends also matters. We must keep in mind that there is one aggressor and one victim. 

An immediate and unconditional ceasefire must be the first step to ending the war. But right now, we see zero indications that Russia is ready for a ceasefire. Russia is not winding down its military machine but ramping it up. We still need to get from a situation where Russia pretends to negotiate to a situation where they need to negotiate. 

We are getting there. Russia’s summer offensive failed. US and EU sanctions are having a huge impact on the Russian economy. Energy revenues, the economy equally are shrinking. Russia is losing cash and troops. To increase the chance for peace, we need to increase also the pressure on Russia. The notion that Ukraine is losing is also flat out false. If Russia could conquer Ukraine militarily, it would have already done so by now. Putin cannot achieve his goals on the battlefield, so he will try to negotiate his way there.

To secure the best outcome for Ukraine and Europe, we have to stay the course but pick up the pace. This means more sanctions to deprive Russia of the means to fight and more military and financial support to Ukraine. 

In the European Council, we pledged to cover the financial needs for Ukraine for 2026 and 2027. There are, of course, several options on the table, as you know, but the Reparations Loan is the most clear-cut way to do this. It would send the strongest message to Moscow that it cannot wait us out, and we need to make this decision fast. 

We also welcomed the work of the Coalition of the Willing to hammer out the details of military support to Ukraine, and also what Europe as well as the United States can offer. The European Union itself will make a major contribution to security guarantees with funding, training and defence industry support. We are working on these details now, including the extension of our current missions in Ukraine. But security guarantees to Ukraine do not change the fact that the threat really here is Russia.

In the last 100 years, Russia has attacked more than 19 countries, some as many as three or four times. None of these countries has ever attacked Russia. So, in any peace agreement, we have to put the focus on how to get concessions from the Russian side that they stop aggression for good and do not try to change borders by force. 

There are rarely wars in the world where the situation is so clear cut as it is here. We have one aggressor and one victim. The focus should be on what Russia - the aggressor – must do, not what Ukraine – the victim – must sacrifice. Today, we reaffirmed our shared principles: sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defence. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. 

And lastly, the threat posed by Russia extends beyond Ukraine. So, our work on strengthening the European defence remains essential. That is also why decisions concerning the EU and NATO can be made only by the members of the European Union and NATO, and nobody else. 

All this work is ultimately about ensuring that Russia never attacks again. The European Union will always support peace. We are in favour of any peace plan that will bring a just and lasting peace for Ukraine but also ensures security for Europe tomorrow.  

Thank you.

Link to the video: Audiovisual Service - Informal video conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers  

Q&A 

Q. My question is about the publication of Bloomberg about the details of the preparation of the peace plan of United States. There is information that it was a very high-level of engagement on the Russian side on preparation of this document, allegedly. Russian officials did not confirm their engagement. Could this high-level engagement influence the attitude of the EU towards this peace plan? Because before that, all officials said that you are very in favour of this United States Peace Initiative. And the second question: is it usual practice when a mediator during negotiation, use the draft prepared by one side of negotiation. Thank you. 

Of course, it has been also confirmed in the media that this is all the points that favour Russia. So of course, if they favour Russia, then it is clear that it is also coming from that side. I think again, coming to the point where I started in this war, we have one aggressor and one victim. So, in order to have peace and have lasting peace, we need to see obligations on the Russian side. In this draft that we saw, which is, of course, not the final one, we did not see one single concession or obligation from the Russian side. I think in the long term, we need to see what are the things that Russia is obliged to do. We could start with honoring the obligations from the international agreements that they have taken so far, at least, there are at least 20 such international agreements where they have agreed not to attack anybody and we could start from there, but I think it is important to keep the focus on the one who is doing the aggression. 

Q. Is Belgium wrong for blocking the reparations loan? 

Belgium is really representing Belgium's interest and voicing concerns which are very legitimate. These discussions have been very thorough, and they are voicing the worries that they have. And I think everybody around the table really listens in and tries to mitigate those risks. If there are risks, then we need to also see how we can, you know, share those risks. And everybody around the table agreed that, of course, they are there in solidarity with Belgium when Belgium needs this support. 

Q. NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte said today in an interview that the war could end by the end of the year. As I understand, the Kremlin also said that it would welcome that. Do you agree?  

Right now, we see no indications from the Russian side that they actually want peace. Over the last nights, we have seen them constantly bombarding civilians and civilian infrastructure and showing no indication that they want peace. They could start by, agreeing to unconditional ceasefire that Ukraine already agreed to in February. So, if there would be ceasefire, there would be also a possibility to really sit down and negotiate. 

Q. Just to follow up on one of the earlier questions. In the Bloomberg League, the US Representative, US envoy, Witkoff, was basically coaching the Kremlin on how to pitch the Peace Plan to Trump. Do you consider Steve Witkoff an appropriate person to be in such a position of influence deciding questions relating to Europe's future? And do you see him as a Kremlin stooge or as a useful idiot for Putin? 

It is not up to me to say who are the representatives of other countries. Like other countries should not have a say who are representatives of our Member States. 

Q. Do you feel that the European Union is fully involved in the negotiation process to end this war, on the same level as other sides? And do you believe that Ukraine and the European Union are now in a strong position for talks to the end of this war?  

As I said, if we look at how Russia is doing right now, they are not doing that well that they want all us to believe. I mean, their economy is in a very bad position and they are not making those victories on the battleground that they claim. I think this is important to put the pressure on Russia to really achieve this point where they are in the need to really negotiate. Because, so far, we have not seen this from Russian side, and if they are not in this position, then they will also not make any concessions, but actually demand something on top of what they already have. Which is dangerous for everybody. Not only Ukraine, but also everybody else. Like I said, they have been in the practice of constantly attacking other countries, and we need to minimise that risk. Otherwise, it is going to be somebody else. 

Q. I have two questions, first about the reparation loan. Do you feel that, after today's discussion, the idea to use Russian frozen assets for the reparations loan is more preferable for countries, do you feel that there is some progress from months ago? And second question, if we hear a lot of statements from Europe, but if Ukraine finds itself in a situation where they all need to accept unfair peace or lose a key ally, the United States, are European countries ready to step up and provide this support and be this key ally for Ukraine? 

First, on the reparations loan. As you know, there are options paper provided, where there are several options that could be, the solutions for financing Ukraine and [its] military needs. But, of those, I think the reparations loan is the best option forward and I welcome also that the announcement was made today that the work on the reparations loan will continue and the concrete proposals, will come out, because this is also what the Member States have said. I mean, a lot of questions on the details. On the political level, the understanding of the needs is there. But of course, the devil is in the details, so they need to see also the legislative proposal, and the Commission is working on that. The urgency, I think, is seen, especially now when we know that this is something that Russia does not want. We definitely need to move on with that work, as well as the work with the sanctions on shadow fleet. Because in November only, their oil revenues dropped 35% due to sanctions put by Europe, but also US sanctions. 

Q. I want to pick up on what you said at the beginning: the importance to distinguish between aggressor and victim. Because we have been hearing a lot about capping the size of the Ukrainian army as part of a settlement, but we have not heard anything about capping the size of the Russian army, which is the one that launched the invasion and caused the destruction. Do you think this is the right approach, and should Ukraine agree to limit its army while Russia is allowed to freely rearm for a new attack in the future?  

This is a very good question. If we want to prevent this war to continue, then actually we should curb the army of Russia and also their military budget. Because if you are spending 38% of your total budget on military -by the way, only 16% on social affairs in Russia - so if you are spending close to 40% on the military, then you will want to use it again, and that is a threat to us all. And that is why the focus should be on these concessions that Russia will make. Of course, we have always said that it is a sovereign right for every country to decide their size of the military, and that is why we should not walk into that trap that Russia is setting, talking about the capping of Ukrainian army. Because again, I am coming to my historical point. I mean, Ukraine has never attacked Russia, and those 19 countries that they have attacked have also not ever attacked Russia. So, yes, I agree with you, the focus should be on what kind of concessions limitations we see from the Russian side, so that it would not go any further and they would not have the chance to invade again. 

Q. Is it still realistic to talk of the prospect of a just peace? The Americans do not talk in those terms. There is not much sign of it in their original proposal. Secretary Rubio did not use that phrase once in Geneva. And when you look at even, if you like, the minimal expectations, Russia will get to keep territory that it has conquered by force, Russia is likely to be reintegrated into the global economy. So, is it not more realistic to say that it will not be a just peace and to level with people and say at best it will be a bitter peace. 

If we want this to not happen again, if we want this not to continue and go any further, then we need to have a just and lasting peace. And I will fight for this as long as I can, because I really think that this is a matter of a bigger picture of European security as well. If aggression pays off, it will serve as an invitation to use aggression again and use it also elsewhere. And that is the threat for everybody in the world, especially small countries. And in Europe, as you know, Paul-Henri Spaak said, there are only two types of countries: the small countries, and those who have not realised that they are small countries yet. 

Link to the video: Audiovisual Service - Informal video conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers