Check against delivery!

The new, new geo-political agenda. If 50 months ago, when I took office, someone had asked me: ‘What is [in] your new geo-political agenda?’ for sure I wouldn't have said: I am going to have a pandemic. I am going to have a war in Ukraine. I am going to have a war in Gaza’. Nothing of that was foreseen. So, what it is going to be - the new [geopolitical agenda]? I don't know.

But let's talk about what we already have to face. The agenda has being shaped by events. And the most important events today are related to three geographical issues, which are: Ukraine, Gaza, and the Global South. And a functional issue - a structural issue - which is defence.

Of the three geographical challenges, the first one [is] Ukraine. We have to face three challenges:

First, we have to continue supporting Ukraine militarily and economically, more and quicker. We have to be aware that there is a long and high-intensity war, where casualties are rising on both sides, and where technology is shaping, at an incredible speed, the outcome of the war.

I was in Ukraine, in Kyiv, some days ago. I could visit the drone factories and, sure, the future of this war would be shaped by drones and particularly by the massive introduction of artificial intelligence in the battlefield.

It is going to be a new kind of war, where we [not audible] see the war trenches of the First World War, together with the artificial intelligence of Star Wars. And I will draw the attention of our European ministers to that crucial issue. We talk about the ammunitions and it's clear that the classic guns’ ammunition is something that is very much an important issue. President Zelensky talked about it and we have to do more and quicker on that - and it is not because we lack capacity, what we lack is funding - but we have to look ahead at the new parameters of war.

Second, we have to increase and provide Ukraine with security commitments. Member States are doing it, we are trying to do it too. But the most important security commitment for Ukraine is [the EU] membership. This is a commitment that we took with respect to Ukraine. It will be a different Europe with Ukraine inside. This has put the whole adhesion process in movement and we have to remain engaged in that commitment.

The third one is to prepare ourselves for a long period of tensions with Russia. Russia may be tempted to increase its political and military provocations against NATO countries. So, the message is clear: we have a Russian problem ahead of us and for us [it] is a huge challenge. And for that, our military effort has to be sustained, in cooperation with key partner, like the US. But we have to consider different scenarios about how much the US will be engaged on the European security.

On the Middle East, we need to promote a political solution, a comprehensive one which includes not only Gaza but also the West Bank.

We have been talking a lot, but not so much about the situation in the Middle East. And I am surprised, because everybody talks about ending the war in Gaza. Yes, we have to end the war in Gaza, but nobody has talked a lot about the West Bank. And the West Bank is the real obstacle for the two-state solution.

The West Bank is boiling. The level of violence against the Palestinians has been increasing since the 7th of October. It was already very high before that. And if now UNRWA has to stop supporting the Palestinian people in the West Bank, we could be on the eve of a greater explosion.

The question is: Is there a political space for Europe to support a two-state solution? I think there is. But for that, we need to be more united. If we want to play a geopolitical role on this issue, we have to be more united as we have been in the case of Ukraine, where - with maybe the exception of a single country - our unity has been remarkable. But here I see that there is a dispersion of approaches and many Member States want to play their own game.

We have to have the US more than on board, but we have to support the Arab initiative. We have been discussing a lot with the Arabs and we wait for the proposal from the other side that we Europeans could support in order to make this two-state solution something implementable. We have been talking about it for 30 years, but not doing – I wouldn’t say nothing but almost - nothing to make it a reality. And without it, there will not be peace in the Middle East. Without a clear prospect for the Palestinian people, there will not be peace in the Middle East and the security of Israel will not be ensured just by military means.

And the Global South - the third one. They have their own dynamic, but no doubt that the war in Ukraine and in Gaza has increased tremendously the political space of the Global South vis-a-vis us. And that we have to avoid ‘The rest against the West’.

For Russia, this new geopolitical scenario has increased dramatically its stand since the beginning of the war in Gaza. And they are really taking good advantage of our mistakes.

They blame double standards: this is something that we need to address and not only with nice words.

It is clear that the wind is blowing against the West, it is blowing against us. And we have to win the battle of narratives, on the Middle East and on Ukraine. Those wars are different, with different reasons, and different causes by they are wars for the territory. We were told that the geography doesn't matter anymore. Yes, it matters. These wars are classical wars of people fighting for their land.

Many topics will emerge, but above these three challenges we will discuss, a single word about security and defence. Two years ago, we launched the Strategic Compass and I said: Europe is in danger. Nobody paid a lot of attention. Now, everybody is talking about it. Everybody is talking about security and defence, a defence commissioner, defence structures, defence procurements, defence industry… And rightly so. It is not too soon. We have been in a long period of silent disarmament in Europe, silent. Little by little, we have been losing military capacity. Our industry has been decreasing its capacity.

Now it's increasing. In one year, 40% more. Not enough, but at least we are at a better pace. We are not going to be able to play a geopolitical role, if we are not able to defend ourselves. And this starts by industry and ‘industry of defence’ is something important, but it is different from defence. Defence is an exclusive competence of Member States.

It is the Member State that have an army. It is Member States that have the defence capacity. And we have to make them work together better, in order to have more interoperability and more coordination, and the capacity to launch missions all together. Not to have ‘a European army’, but to be able to mobilize our – in plural - armies in order to face the challenges, when we can do it better together.

During my mandate, I launched seven - seven - civilian and military missions of the Common Security and Defense Policy. My predecessor launched only one. Next Monday we will launch another one to the Red Sea, in order to give security to navigation in these areas. So, if we want to be a geopolitical player, we have to have the means. And the means start by having a strong defence capacity. At least they start by having a strong defence industrial capacity.

Thank you very much.

Q&A

Do you believe the EU will have the capabilities, the finds, the political will to be able to be credible?

The important thing is not what I believe. It is not a matter of beliefs. It is a matter of having the will. And my job is, has been and will continue to be - for at least still ten more months -  to make the Member States understand that they have to act together, quicker and better. The three keywords: Together, quicker and better.

If they do not act together, they will be weaker. But to work together, it takes too long. In order to make them work together, there are procedures to follow, unanimity, to be reached…and all that takes time. So we have, at the same time, to be able to put the funding, to put the will, to change the procedures and to understand that we are - and I don't think we understand it - in a war situation.

I don't think people at the highest political level, at the intermediate level and the public opinion understand that we are in a situation that requires a completely different mode and approach that it is not just: ‘Yes, we will do it, but let's see next Foreign Affairs Council, next month’. No, in three months things will be decided in the battlefield.

We cannot wait for ‘let's see what's happening in the European elections; let’s see, we are still not there; we want to know more details…’. This is for another dimension of politics. In the current situation, people have to be much more agile, much more committed, much more to the point. We have a lot of strategies, but we don't have a lot of action.

In your presentation you said: If you cannot defend yourself, you are not credible. There is a lot of talk for example about a Defence Commissioner. Do you believe a Defence Commissioner would be a good thing?

As I said before, defence is an exclusive competence of Member States. Would you understand to have a Commissioner for Foreign Policy of the European Union? No. Why? Because Foreign Policy is a competence of Member States. But what I think is good to have, is more action on the side of defence industry and there is a competence of the Commission, because industry is a sector of the economic activity, it is a sector of the industry which has been marginalised. Until [a while ago] our banks were saying: ‘No we cannot fund a defence a defence project’. Are you crazy?? So yes, we need to pay more attention from the Commission to the issue of defence industry. But don’t simplify the words: one thing is defence industry, another thing is defence. Defence industry? For sure. ‘Defence’ alone would be against the Treaties.

[reacting to previous speaker]

…The EU Defence Agency, which already exists, we do not have to wait one year to create a new structure, has already created [over] 60 framework [contracts] for the Member States to go to the industry and to put orders to buy the ammunition. So do not invent the wheel every day. There are [over] 60 frameworks. If you want to buy more ammunition for Ukraine, you can use one of them.

If the Member States who are really willing to buy more ammunition for Ukraine, they have a way of doing that in a cooperative manner, in a joint procurement manner, everybody talks about it, it already exists, [over] 60 framework [contracts] for joint procurement to the industry and the industrial sites say “I have the capacity, what I like is the orders.”

The President of Israel was here and said ‘Hamas is an existential question for us and the goad has not changed: we have to destroy Hamas’. There is a talk of a military operation in Rafah. How do you go about this?

A: Allow me to say first that maybe we should put into value what we have done for Ukraine. We can be self-critical. But please, please don't dismiss what we have done for Ukraine. The unity has been remarkable. We mobilized the European Peace Facility for the first time in our history to provide arms to a country at war. We have to spend from our pockets - bilaterally and Member States - 28 billion of military support to Ukraine [so far] and civilian plus military it reaches 90 billion, more than the US. So, I am ready to be self-critical and I don't want to say one country does more than the other, but my job is to try to make them work together and to put into value what we do.

And yes, we have to agree that we have been hesitating maybe too much, too many times. Two years ago, here, we were ready to give helmets. Now we are giving F-16s. But two years later. And every time we discussed about giving a new type of arms, someone was hesitating: ‘No, no, no. Come on. We are not going to give them Leopards. It will be an escalation in the war’. In the end, we give Leopard. ‘No, no, no. We are not going to give them Patriots. It will be an escalation of the war’. In the end we give them Patriots. ‘No, no, no. We are not going to give them fighters [jets]’. And we are going to give fighters [jets].

Had we taken this decision quicker, maybe the war would have been different. But in spite of all, we have done a lot to support Ukraine. My only call is to do more and quicker, but not to dismiss what we have already done.

About Gaza. Look, Hamas is an idea, and you don't kill an idea. The only way you can kill an idea is to propose a better one. It is a bad idea, but it is an idea.

Many years ago, they said that they were going to destroy Hezbollah. Hezbollah is still there. So, I don't think that you can kill an idea. You have to provide an alternative which is better. And certainly, the alternative, the only alternative, is not to destroy Israel as Hamas wants to do, but to make Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace and common security.

And this will not be reached only by military means. I have been repeating it once and again: it will not be reached only by military means. And that's why I start my talks saying that we need an overall political solution to the conflict.

And how much do you worry about potentially this operation that will happen in Rafah, that, it seems, is next?

I issued a statement a couple of days ago. Unhappily were not able to reach unanimity because one country was missing. But I issued a statement saying that we strongly call on Israel to avoid military actions against a highly densely populated area that is Rafah, where 1.7 million, almost 2 million people are being pushed against a wall. So I don't think I don't think this has to happen. But look, everybody is asking for it. Everybody.

Miscellaneous questions on disinformation and on the European Union divided, internally and externally, especially on Foreign Policy and human rights…

I want to stress and will continue to say that Europe has to increase its defence capacity in the broader sense of the word defence. Defence is not only military. It is mainly military, but it is not only that. There is a fight for the land and there is a fight for the spirit, for the mind of the people.

And yes, there is a fight on who tells what and who believes to who. And we are fighting this war also. We have created a structure in order to debunk the lies spread by the Russian propaganda. We know that there is something called ‘foreign interference and manipulation’. We fight against it and have teams devoted to it. We have allocated resources and people on Africa, on the Balkans - where the Russian aggression against the mind of the people is very much stronger. So thank you for remembering. We are doing it.

We are perfectly aware that Russia is fighting a war against us which is not only bombing with shells. It is a war of narratives. I used this sentence - we are fighting a war of narratives - in the second month of my mandate. And the one who will win the war of narratives, will be much [more] ready to win the other war.

And we have an electoral process in Europe in some months and then, public opinion will have to know and to decide how much support they want to give to Ukraine.

Human Rights: yes, certainly. We are one of the biggest supporters and defenders of human rights around the world. Nobody is doing more than us. Maybe you don’t believe me, but tell me who is doing more to defend human rights in the world. We can be criticised for many things, we are not perfect. We certainly miss many occasions to be more vocal when human rights are being violated. But I think that the European Union is doing a lot to support democracy and human rights around the world.

Watch the video here: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-252957