What Dragoş spoke about.

Mr President, we can take pride in these reports and I congratulate the rapporteurs and the shadows for their work on them. They capture the complexities of our posture in foreign affairs as well as in building a stronger architecture for security and defence. If I am to think about all the pressing issues that lie ahead and select only one long-term goal to solve them, I would make a pledge for a true and credible defence union accompanied by a rejuvenated defence industry. We keep speaking about the role of the EU in the world, our partners, our liabilities and dependencies about strategic autonomy and, of course, about the war on our borders. A defence union would give a sense to all that it would strengthen EU’s position in foreign affairs, its capacity to act quickly, decisively, to be taken seriously both by the actors we want to partner with and by those challenging us. A Defence Union is not built in a day, but we must set it as a goal along with the milestones that can render us step by step more resilient.

Madam President, dear Prime Minister, many priorities: Ukraine, energy, migration, economy. Many important debates and decisions to come. I’m confident you will fulfil your objectives and, together with many of my colleagues, you have our support for doing that. But I wish to put on your political radar, just like my colleague did a few minutes ago, the issue of Schengen for Romania and Bulgaria. Because whatever happened at the JHA Council in December erodes the very logic of how the Council works, we had over the years many examples of Member States abusing unanimity, playing their vetoes for political gain. But, at the end of the day, there was always a trade-off that allowed the majority to prevail, that allowed reason to prevail. In December we didn’t have that. We had a Member State that simply said ‘no’, that accepted no evidence, no facts, no arguments, that ignored all efforts by the presidency, by the Commission, by fellow Member States to find solutions. In fact, it wanted no solution. And such a willingness to compromise the precedent erodes the Council’s cohesion and pushes European citizens to lose faith in how Europe serves them. You must now work to reverse this precedent, and the sooner you do this, the better. This Parliament has been a consistent advocate for completing Schengen integration. You can count on our support in the months to come.

Madam President, High Representative, dear colleagues, making choices in politics is never easy. We have indulged for decades in economic past dependencies. We pretended that ideologies do not matter, that half democracies are fine. And look what we have achieved. Russia, our biggest energy trading partner, is bombing civilians every day. At our doorstep in China, our largest trading partner overall, is itself challenging the rule-based order we worked so hard to build. I agree, High Representative, but we cannot afford total economic decoupling, and that there are areas where we must and can work together with China. But, we cannot continue to sell our ports to regimes that do not share our values. We cannot fly Chinese drones to inspect our critical infrastructure and we cannot pretend that Chinese technology is safe as long as it is state-controlled. There is no piece of hardware or software, no matter how small or apparently insignificant, that cannot contain an embedded backdoor spy program. And there is no security audit invented that can guarantee a full check. The same stands true for raw materials, where the risk is not a direct security exposure but a threat to our critical supply chains. So let us wake up High Representative, to this geopolitical reality and do something about it.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I join unreservedly those who support here, in this house, the integration of Romania and Bulgaria into Schengen, and, moreover, this Parliament has always been consistent on this file. I also welcome the European Commission's statements, the Council's statements, but let us not forget that we have had such debates before. There have been such moments, we have had windows of political opportunity, we have heard such statements before, and yet our citizens, our companies, are still in queues that they do not deserve. I want to be very clear, the responsibility for these repeated failures is not just in the Council. It must also be sought in our parliaments and governments, and that is why I appeal here today to my colleagues: Let us, if we are consensual and aligned here, let us be consensual and aligned also at home, let us work together, let us make that extra kilometer, let us leave no alibi to any ... in the Council to break unanimity, let us work together on the package of laws for justice, let us make a pact in the national Parliament for Schengen and then together we can hold to account any European leader who will break or who would try to break European solidarity.

Mr President, dear colleagues, this is what history will remember of this war: a mad dictator invaded his neighbour, caused death and destruction, but failed in the face of bravery and solidarity. Ukraine wins, Putin loses and Europe grows more united. There is but one problem, and it remains horrible: Putin’s lackeys are still here around us. They continue to poison our societal debates. They continue to undermine our democracies. They spread disinformation and turn citizens against each other. We must therefore build tools to stop them from winning elections through lies and manipulation, from feeding on the fears and insecurity of all citizens. We must therefore bring to light, and then forbid, any funding of our politics from Russia. You cannot run for office in Europe on Russian money. Full stop. Second, we need to secure our ability to act as a Union. We need to move away from the blackmail of unanimity and maintain our ability to push back against Putin and others like him. Let us bring down Putin’s cronies wherever they are in our governments, in our parliaments, in our democracies!

Madam President, dear Vice-President, dear Minister, dear colleagues, Russian diplomacy has been for long synonymous with propaganda. What is new now, and by far more effective, is its ability to manipulate our democracies, aided by the digitalisation of all social interaction. The thousands of emails we get every time we have an important vote in this House are mainly generated by Russian bots and troll farms. The political weaponisation of societal debates, from Brexit to vaccines to same-sex marriages, is actively supported and often instigated by Russia. But the worst manifestation of Russian interest in our democracies are those political parties engineered, sponsored or radicalised by the Kremlin who act as their propaganda amplifiers in Europe. As the 2024 elections are coming closer, the question is, what can we do? To start with, we must render our democracies more resilient. We must educate our public to differentiate, to critically filter the disinformation and manipulation they are exposed to. We need to also increase funding transparency for political parties to bring out in the open those politicians that pretend to defend our citizens’ interests while in fact surrendering them to the interests of Putin’s delusions and the Kremlin’s criminal strategies.

Madam Chair, Commissioner, dear colleagues, democracy does not just happen and freedom is not a given. We fought – and are still fighting – wars for the rules—based order. To strengthen it, we created multilateral institutions, and to this day they have kept us interconnected, provided us with an opportunity to solve issues through diplomacy and dialogue, and were meant to keep rogue regimes accountable. So, first and foremost, we have a duty to keep multilateralism functional and effective. We must constantly update and reinvent its institutions so they remain in lockstep with our geopolitical realities. When they fail, particularly in securing accountability for breaking rules, we must find ways to reform them. It is true for the WTO and it is true for the UN. From climate change to war on famine, we need to act our values stronger and we need to work closer with those who think like us. This is the essence of our report, and I praise the rapporteur and my fellow shadows for how we worked to achieve it.

Mr President, dear Vice-President, dear colleagues, true political leadership doesn’t come easy, and certainly doesn’t come often. It requires long—term, steadfast vision as well as the ability to take agile, bold decisions when such decisions are necessary. We are now living one of these moments in history when true political leaders must rise up to the task. We are at a time when the balance between vision and decisiveness is crucial for the future of the Union and its role in the world. Dear Vice-President Šefčovič, as standing rapporteur for the Republic of Moldova of this House, I applaud the leadership that the Commission has shown in last week’s recommendation. Now it is time for the Council, for the heads of state and government, to also see that granting candidate status to Moldova and Ukraine cannot be about the size of the country, but about whatever we must do to put our house in order. It is about shared values and those deep motivations that animated the founding fathers of our Union. Moldova and Ukraine belong here. This Parliament has said it. The Commission has said it. It is now time for the Council to say the same.

Mr President, the world was already split before the war in Ukraine. Democracies respecting a rules-based world order on one side are increasingly at odds with autocracies with no regard to international law, territorial integrity, no consideration for human lives or basic rights and freedoms. But we still operate on the world scene with the naive impression that trade and economic interdependencies are sufficient for maintaining regional stability or global security. So we remain ambivalent. We spoke softly against those disregarding our values, against human rights abuses by countries with which we did good business, or against forced labour as an economic growth model. With this report, we are sending a wake-up call. We must stop being ambivalent in the Indo-Pacific. That means taking sides, pursuing our strategic interests, and being outspoken against breaches of our values. On one hand, we must stand much closer by democratic allies in the Indo-Pacific. And we have many. We must support their drive for democracy, for prosperity and for stability in the region even more. And on the other hand, we must look the reality of our relations with China in the eye. Pretending there is no war in Ukraine or continuing trade with Moscow is something we must disentangle from all broad economic interactions. That is what being geopolitical is all about.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, war is back in Europe in its most dehumanising form – a war which has gone past the battlefield, past tanks and guns, past any logic of combat. People queuing for breads are shot dead. Families waiting for a bus or waiting for a train are being bombed. Children are being raped. Women are being raped. Old men are being raped. All these people are innocent. Their lives shattered. Their livelihoods being stolen. These are barbaric acts, part of a sinister vision of the world that seeks to systematically break down the will and the identity of a free nation. We must fight for justice for these victims of war crimes. We must work with international institutions, with national authorities and with civic platforms to secure evidence and prepare the framework for delivering much—needed accountability. I want to thank you, Commissioner, for the work that you have done with EU agencies, mobilising them, putting forward legislative frameworks to prepare for that accountability. Impunity is not an option. Putin must know that he and his gang will respond for the atrocities they’ve committed, and they continue to commit.

Mr President, I concluded my first introductory remarks by thanking the colleagues, thanking the shadow rapporteurs, for their work and for the united vision. I can only thank them again for confirming this through the addresses that they’ve made today. I also want to thank the Commission. I didn’t do it in the first round, but I want to thank them really for how they’ve handled the numerous emergencies that Moldova has put on the table in the last couple of months, from energy supply alternatives to urgent budgetary support. I also want to invite you – and I’m sure that you’ve heard this message today from the colleagues – to also take this message back to the Commission, both in terms of the political message that is needed, but also in terms of the very concrete support that they now need, including through export quotas, which is something that is vitally important for compensating the effects of the war. The key political takeaway, the key political conclusion for me from today’s debate is that Moldova’s commitment to Europe is no longer just words. It is felt in the drive to reform the judiciary and to strengthen the rule of law. It is felt in how they hosted half a million refugees in their country, and how they withstand Russian pressure. It is a commitment that comes with risks and costs, and though they’re not doing it with guns in their hands, Moldovan citizens are fighting alongside their Ukrainian neighbours for the European dream, and for the values that bring us together. All that is needed now is our voice saying, without hesitation, that the Republic of Moldova’s rightful place is by our side.

Mr President, I cannot think of a better timing and better sequence to debate and vote on our report on Moldova. We have just heard from the President of the Republic, Maia Sandu. Her powerful words are the words of the majority of Moldovan citizens. Through the hardship of multiple crises, and through the kindness of their solidarity with Ukrainian refugees, the Moldovans have spoken to us today about their aspirations, about their ambitions, about their European projections. That hardship, that solidarity and that commitment to European values is the most significant test of identity, of belonging, that a nation must pass in its path to integration. And I am therefore proud that we here in this House are not ignoring the call of the Moldovans and the powerful plea of President Maia Sandu. I am proud that our report is as clear as it can be: we want that the Republic of Moldova is given candidate status. Of course, the road to actual membership will be long and full of hard work, and the Moldovans understand that. Today, we’ve heard the President being highly realistic about this perspective. But the force of the political message itself is not to be underestimated. And this message is not only to the citizens of Moldova. It also tells the world that the European Union stands by those with whom it shares values, and it does so in a concrete and tangible manner. And it is certainly a message to Putin, and to all dictators of the world, that we remain united in the face of aggression, that autocracy and atrocity will not prevail over democracy and the quest for self—determination. Going beyond words, the European Union and the Republic of Moldova must turn this political momentum into practical steps. There are reforms to be done. Our report mentions a good number of key transformations that the country must go through: justice and anti—corruption, the banking sector, energy security and diversification, and economic convergence, administrative reform. All these are ‘construction sites’ where Moldova must get hard at work. And we also use our report to call for the Commission and the EEAS to find creative and constructive ways to assist the country with gradual forms of sectoral integration. We need a model and methodology of integration that is more dynamic and aligned with geopolitical realities, one that motivates and energises by allowing merit—based incremental access to EU tools and programmes, including participation in institutional work at EU level. To conclude, I want to thank the shadows from all political groups – not only for the very constructive attitude with which we’ve worked together on this report, but also for sharing the vision that this Parliament has for the future of Moldova.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the Republic of Moldova, through its citizens and through what it represents politically, has made its European choice very clear, and the courage to remain loyal to its commitments and values, in a geopolitical situation that directly threatens national security, is admirable and cannot leave us unanswered. The resolution we are voting on today acknowledges this huge effort that the Republic of Moldova and its citizens are making. Yes, managing the highest number of refugees per capita in all the countries bordering Ukraine deserves our recognition and, moreover, deserves our direct and immediate support. And yes, economic losses and loss of access to foreign markets and transport routes are also mentioned in our resolution, because they also deserve a concrete financial response from the Union. And yes, the almost total energy dependence on Russia puts a huge pressure not only on the economy of the Republic of Moldova, but also on the political security and stability of the country, and we cannot leave it outside the energy sustainability solutions that we are thinking about and that we will apply at European level. But the most important political message that I think we should give to the citizens of the Republic of Moldova is that they are citizens of the United Europe and that we here in the European Parliament recognize the prospect of becoming citizens of the European Union. The resolution we are voting on today calls for granting the status of candidate country to the Republic of Moldova and I hope, dear colleagues, that we are all ready to give this unequivocal political message. Those who choose democracy, those who choose the rule of law, have the vocation to join us. We are in a historic moment that will have historical consequences. Let us assume a courageous political vision and bold decisions.

Mr President, Commissioner, criminals do not stand still. In fact, they are often faster, more agile, more innovative in deploying new technologies for criminal purposes. In the real world this translates into innocent people being trapped into fraud, children being exploited for sexual purposes and terrorists achieving their goals. We therefore need law enforcement that is competitive in the digital age, law enforcement able to innovate and leverage cutting—edge technology to fight crime, to enforce law and to keep our societies safe. And that is what we as legislators have well understood and have diligently done with this new mandate that we entrust tomorrow to Europol. We have also strengthened democratic oversight, safeguards, transparency because the rights of our citizens and the values of our Union come first. But as we act responsibly and diligently as legislators, so too Europol must understand that their new mandate is not a blank cheque. They hold vast amounts of data which they now must manage with utmost responsibility and in full alignment with EDPS. They receive new investigative powers for which they are accountable in terms of respecting procedural rights. For that, they’ll have a human rights officer in their ranks who must be given the space and the resources to perform his or her role properly. I therefore call on Europol and on the Commission as the guardian of our rules in the EU to take these new functions very seriously, to internalise the duty of care they have towards our European citizens and the scrutiny they owe towards this Parliament that represents them.

Mr President, first and foremost, my congratulations to you, Axel Voss, and to the shadow rapporteurs for the very important work that you’ve done with this report. It was my privilege to serve as Chair of the AIDA Committee for the duration of this mandate, and I am very proud about the way in which we have achieved our objectives. As Chair, and even before, when negotiating the mandate of the committee, I imagined AIDA as a place where we, as Parliament, think politically about the future of artificial intelligence, a place where we have an honest, introspective and forward—looking assessment of our technological competitiveness on the global stage, and a place where we think beyond the status quo, where we look at the next steps to 2030 and even past that threshold. The AIDA report captures this vision. So here are three main points I will take away from our work in the AIDA Committee and from this report. First, artificial intelligence is no longer a technical subject. AI is a political or rather – as I have said many times – a geopolitical issue. I am happy that in our work in AIDA and in this report, we did not shy away from making this point very clearly. We need closer cooperation with our like—minded democratic partners in setting the rules of the digital future. We need to make strategic choices based on our values, and this may come at odds with how other players on the global stage view the role and future of AI in their societies. Second, artificial intelligence is, no doubt about it, an opportunity. It is not only an opportunity to improve efficiency in every sector of our economy, it is an important opportunity for us to correct historical biases and discrimination in our societies and, quite literally, build a better future. This leads me to the last, but very important, conclusion. At the end of the AIDA mandate and after working on this report, Parliament is better equipped to regulate the use of technology to work on acts such as the Artificial Intelligence Act, the first legislation of its kind worldwide. We have explored, we have learned and we have defined our political vision. Now it’s time to write the laws. Once again, congratulations to you, rapporteur, to the coordinators and to the shadow rapporteurs for the work we’ve done together.

Madam President, there are choices that may seem simple: solidarity or division, prosperity or war, democracy or dictatorship, Europe or Putin. But there are political parties in our democracies for which these options are not at all obvious. The Putin regime has invested in them money or troll farms, and they have assumed in return an agenda built on fear and manipulation. Liberal rhetoric is based on these tools promising security through isolation and nationalism. Such security does not exist, and lies and liberalism only bring dictatorship, corruption, poverty and, in extreme cases, crime and war in the medium and long term. We have the power to combat this infernal machine through positive measures, including, through education, through the strength and essence of the European project. But we also need to learn to be firm in the face of extremists, to tell them that serving Putin's interests while in the heart of the Union, enjoying the peace and prosperity of the European project, is simply a great cowardice.

Mr President, the Republic of Moldova has unequivocally assumed the European path, values and objectives, has assumed the idea of solidarity and unity that underpins our Union. Citizens and state authorities have proved these assumptions not only declaratively. They are doing so, at this moment, in the most concrete way possible, in solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees, helping them with the little they themselves have. It is our turn, the European institutions and the governments of the Member States, to take on as concrete a help as possible for the Republic of Moldova. The assistance package we are now approving is welcome, but it is far from enough. Moldova's needs, as estimated at the conception of the package, are today of a completely different magnitude. That is why I invite the European Commission, which has already shown, in these moments of balance, vision and courage, to assume with this Parliament a new approach to the relationship with the Republic of Moldova, of another political scale and with adequate financial support.

Madam President, war kills people – not a distant figure of speech but a cruel reality which Putin has brought to our doorstep. But there are many ways to kill. Autocrats with a skewed vision of the world have also learned to kill critical judgment, to poison people’s minds and souls for political gain. This kind of war can be as effective in annihilating enemies, in subduing societies and determining the future of nations. I speak, of course, of disinformation, fake news, of deliberately using the amplified effect of new digital technologies to undermine democracy. Let’s call a spade a spade. We’ve allowed for years that regimes such as Putin’s insinuated into our digital societies and created segregation, hatred and conflict. We saw its effects in elections across Europe. We saw it in the US, we saw it in the Brexit campaign. Protecting our democracy and prosperity is therefore not just politics, it is the foundation for peace. We have a duty to fiercely protect our democracy from foreign interference and to decide to live in a healthy society where technology is used according to our values. I welcome this report and the work of the INGE Committee that provides the tools to fight for our democracy. Let’s use them.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I join those who have advocated here solidarity towards Ukraine and its people and maximum determination towards Putin. Putin has always been there. Putin has been testing our responsiveness and political will for years. He tested us in Georgia, he tested us in Crimea, he tested us by supporting other dictators, like Maduro or Bashar Al-Assad. The question is what we are ready and willing to do. I believe that the time has come to assume unequivocally a common foreign policy by assuming the qualified majority in the decision-making process and establishing the European army, complementary and interoperable with NATO. We must prioritise decoupling from strategic dependencies that can be used against us: energy, strategic natural resources, advanced technologies, especially when these dependencies are on non-democratic states. And, returning to Putin and Ukraine, we must assume with concrete resources and commitments our increased presence in the Black Sea region, a region of strategic importance from the point of view of security and energy.

Mr President, I was also in Washington last week as Chair of the Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age (AIDA) and with colleagues from across this aisle – an outreach mission, which we had wanted to do since the inception of the AIDA mandate. Our aim was to set the basis of a dialogue with the US Congress on artificial intelligence in the impact of frontier tech on the world of tomorrow. But the launch of the Trade and Technology Council (TTC) just weeks before opened up a broader perspective of transatlantic leadership on technology, on a shared realisation that the future of our relationship will be more and more dominated by tech cooperation, by what we will accomplish in converging standards, research, data governance and on developing mutually beneficial projects. And I congratulate the Commission for the launch and for how the TTC was organised. There are many commonalities at the heart TTC: common values, same challenges and opportunities, and most importantly, we see the geopolitics of technology in the same way. But there are also differences, which we need to acknowledge and learn to work with. We see the urgency in the form of regulating and digital platforms differently. We also have a different approach to how to prepare standards. We are more top-down while they work more bottom-up, co-creating together with the industry. We must accept these different regulatory cultures and in fact take the best from each other. I think we can and should work more with the business sector like the Americans do, while we can share with them the very good work that you the Commission has done in preparing the legislative landscape on digital issues. And most importantly, and we have made this point very forcefully, we must build a parliamentary dimension of the TTC, one where we can come together as legislators and exercise oversight and political guidance on the evolution of the council.

Mr President, does anyone still remember the outrage we felt when we heard about the hijacking of a Ryanair flight? Can anyone still relate to the terror a young freedom fighter must have felt when he found out that the plane he was on would be landing in Minsk? Our foreign affairs agenda moves on but, unfortunately, for those imprisoned in Belarus the terror is still real. The torture has been going on for months or even years, and justice has not been served. We cannot turn a blind eye. Our lack of action or reaction is what gives dictators of the world, near or far, the audacity to continue attacking the EU and the values it stands for with all the means available at their disposal. The cynical use of migrants as a political weapon is only one example of what such means can be. We should therefore continue to hit the Belarusian regime where it hurts the most and add more sanctions, better targeting the economic interests of those oligarchs propping up Lukashenko. Moreover, we should not forget the puppeteer behind Lukashenko. We should specifically name the Kremlin regime an accomplice in this clear breach of international law. As we talk about strategic autonomy and being geopolitical on the world scene, we have a responsibility to protect those that share, fight and suffer for the very values we promote as Europeans, particularly in our immediate neighbourhood. We must help and support the Belarusian people, we should help journalists and activists, who are being silenced by the regime, and we should do so both financially and politically.

Mr President, this very comprehensive report speaks to Europeans and American friends alike about our privileged relationship and about the benefits of building a world shaped by the values that unite us. As shadow rapporteur, I fully share its optimism and its level of ambition. I am a firm believer that a technological partnership between the EU and the US based on shared democratic values is a very solid foundation on which to consolidate our transatlantic future, and our report welcomes the start of the Trade and Technology Council (TTC), its first meeting in Pittsburgh and the commitments outlined in the inaugural joint statement, highlighting the key areas of potential tech cooperation: regulatory convergence, joint work on standards, security of supply chains – this is the direction that we need to take. But beyond the many areas of cooperation highlighted in the report, I also wish to acknowledge the elephant in the room, because friends and allies are honest with one another. First, and in the light of recent events, our American friends need to understand that trusted partners and allies consult one another before making strategic decisions. The world is no longer unipolar or bipolar, and acting alone is no longer a recipe for success. Our American friends should also understand that in their contest with China, Europe can be a powerful ally. But Europe does not seem to take sides out of inertia or reflex. Europe has its strategic priorities, and they need to be factored into our transatlantic dialogue as well. They need to nurture our relationship and alliance. Equally important, our American friends need to understand that our objective of strategic autonomy signifies a Europe that is strong and capable, equipped politically and technologically to defend itself, and able to look out for its priorities in its own backyard and worldwide. This is in our common interest on both sides of the Atlantic. But the elephant, of course, has two sides. We in Europe also need to understand a few things and, most importantly, on these we can actually do something. We Europeans need to understand that we are very slow to act, if we do act at all, and we speak with 27 different voices on the world scene. We need qualified—majority voting in our foreign policy and we need to reform the way we make strategic decisions. We need to deliver a united European voice if we want to be consulted. We also need to acknowledge that there is no European strategic autonomy until this autonomy has a positive impact for all 500 million of our citizens in all of our 27 Member States. We need one another and we both need to do our part.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the use of artificial intelligence in law enforcement is a political decision, not a technical one. Our duty is to apply our political worldview to determine what are the allowed uses of artificial intelligence and under which conditions. Europe is built on a set of values. They constrain the realm of the possible, dictating what we cannot do. And our values also guide our way into the future, dictating what we can and what we should do. What we cannot do is to allow the use of technology to lead to a breach of our values. We must only allow AI technologies to be used with straight safeguards and oversight, and we must ensure that human rights are protected throughout. What we also cannot do is to allow authorities to use technology for mass surveillance, mass social scoring or any type of government control over citizens. We must be doubly cautious in protecting our values when dealing with law enforcement, as law enforcement is the prerogative of the state. On the other hand, what we can – and should – do is to seek to use AI to reduce the biases and discriminations plaguing our society, including in law enforcement. Technology is a tool. We should invest in it until it is good enough to serve our values. What we also can and should do is ensure law enforcement is competitive and has the best tools at its disposal to fight crime. Fighting crime is also a way to protect our values and should be a top priority for us. We must therefore strengthen the democratic fibre and resilience of our institutions. And tomorrow’s challenges will not come from the tools themselves but from our ability or inability to use them in accordance with our values.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I will not dwell on how big of a disaster we left behind, but it will be even bigger if we learned nothing from it. We said it will be geopolitical, so let’s be geopolitical on the short, medium and long—term. First, we must aim to secure some form of presence and leverage on the ground, and we have little choice but to work within the UN Security Council for that. Just as we need the UNHCR and the WFP to bring help to refugees in the impoverished Afghan communities. We need to reinvest politically in the UN system and the upcoming UNGA is a good place to start. Secondly, we need to be ready for the migration situation that will reach Europe soon. We cannot afford the spectacle of 2015. We need to act united and coherent, and we must start preparing now. And then we need to get serious about our defence policy and to reform our foreign policy decision-making and the strategic foresight capabilities underlying it. The world is in turmoil. Every crisis is an opportunity for us to own up to our role in global affairs. But without credible defence capacities and an efficient decision-making process, we can stay here and debate all day about geopolitics or sovereignty or autonomy. So let’s walk.