What Dragoş spoke about.

Mr President, many thanks, dear colleagues, for this debate – a debate that raised the points that have accompanied us during our work, during the negotiations for the past three years. Have we found the right balance between protection and innovation? Do we have the right safeguards for citizens against the risks that technology can bring or against the potential abuses by governments or by bad actors? Have we secured this legislation enough for the future to cater for the incredible speed with which it evolves? To all of these questions, I have one answer: absolutely, yes. And we should feel proud that the answer is ‘yes’, because of the work that this House has done. We introduced enablers for business and innovation. We introduced additional safeguards against, in these communities, massive surveillance. We introduced additional prohibitions on high risks, on democracy, on elections, on migration or border management. So I look forward to our vote tomorrow. Let’s make history together.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, it is customary to begin with thanks. I will actually continue where my colleague left it. I want to say, first of all, thank you, Commissioner Breton, and thank you to the Commission as such for the foresight of putting forward this proposal when no one else around the world was actually looking at this option. I also want to thank the shadow rapporteurs for putting the incredible energy and effort that was required from you and your teams to draft those over 3 000 amendments, to streamline them into a coherent mandate, and then negotiate that with the Council. I would thank the Council if they were here, but they are not. And I want to specifically thank Brando Benifei for being such a great colleague and co-rapporteur. So this is it, colleagues. We delivered, the EU delivered. No ifs, no buts, no later. These are the rules we have forever attached to the concept of artificial intelligence, the fundamental values that form the basis of our societies. And with that alone, the act has nudged the future of AI in a human-centric direction, in a direction where humans are in control of the technology and where it – the technology – helps us leverage new discoveries, economic growth, societal progress, and unlock human potential. Much work lies ahead that goes beyond the act itself. AI will push us to rethink the social contract resting at the heart of our democracies, along with our education models, our labour markets, the way we conduct warfare. All this to say that the act is not the end of a journey, but rather the starting point for a new model of governance built around technology. Going back to the act itself, we must now focus our political energy in turning it from the law in the books to the reality on the ground. First, implementation: the rules we have passed in this mandate to govern the digital domain, not just the act, are truly historical, pioneering, but making them all work in harmony with a desired effect and turning Europe into the digital powerhouse of the future will be the test of our lifetime. Second, we need to work with others. The EU now has an AI office to govern the most powerful AI models. The US and the UK have established equivalent structures and many more will follow suit. It is imperative to connect these initiatives into a strategic triangle and then into a network, and that will allow us to stay on top of any unforeseen developments in AI that might require a coordinated response. Third, we need to play on the global scene in accordance with our weight, not just by making the rules, but also by exporting them. We need to put our entire diplomatic and political clout in promoting the European model of AI governance. This is a strategic priority for the next mandate, alongside reducing our strategic dependencies and increasing our resilience – because the future is AI-fuelled and we must continue to shape it. One final thought. We haven’t yet witnessed the full power of AI. The existing capabilities have already surpassed anything we could have imagined a decade ago, at speeds we have never thought possible, and this will continue exponentially. For lack of a better term, artificial general intelligence, or AGI, is something we need to prepare for. Any AI possessing an intelligence that is superior to that of a human being will open up infinite possibilities, but at the same time, will raise never before encountered ethical, moral, and yes, even existential questions. We have in the act a first answer to those questions, but we must be prepared to cater our governance for quantum leaps that we know AI could do. I will conclude not as a politician, but as a parent. This regulation makes me feel more confident about the future of my children, and I am humbled to have played a part in shaping it together with you, all those present in this Chamber.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, dear colleagues, weak economies make weak democracies, and weak democracies are susceptible to populist rhetoric inside or to blackmail and pressure from outside. And neither of these will stop. Isolationist rhetoric will rise, as well as bullying for resources – pressure on the global trade and economic rules-based system. And while we are pressed ourselves to consider inward-looking autonomy, we cannot lose sight that free trade, economic integration and well-considered interdependence remain fundamental to attain our strategic objectives. Global Gateway is an important tool for that. Investing wisely around the world, strengthening local economies in democracies in the process, means investing in the future of Europe. Make no mistake about it. China is following its interests, exporting its values and views of the world via trade, including in our own backyard. So let us also build and consolidate partnerships that further our values and the shared interests of our Union and of our partners.

– Mr President, this horrendous war on our continent was not supposed to last that long. Putin thought it would be quick. We thought Ukraine wouldn’t stand its ground, and most thought our drive in solidarity as a Union wouldn’t last either. But here we are in a reality where everyone was wrong in the initial planning, except Ukraine and its brave people, who believed in their cause from day one and who fought and died every single of these 700 days. Today, our task must be crystal—clear – Ukraine’s resilience is non-negotiable. Our peace is no longer a natural given right. For both of these reasons, we must equip our Union with what it takes to become a credible, long—term security provider. An articulated defence industry vision, the instruments to deliver it, and a defence commissioner to keep all this together. Now, in the immediate term, we must put our money and weapons where our political mouth is. That is how Ukraine can win this war.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear Minister, dear colleagues, our union is as strong as its institutions and these institutions, bodies and agencies are only as strong as their credibility and the manner in which they fulfil the mandate received from all citizens. Credibility is linked with transparency, and at times it requires the courage to admit when mistakes are made, to draw the right lessons from those mistakes, and to communicate both the good and the bad, the achievements, but also the shortcomings. This is how we gain the trust of our citizens, by showing them that we are constantly trying to improve and deliver to the best of our ability on their needs. With Frontex, we had arrived at such an inflection point two years ago when the credibility of its work, otherwise immensely important for our Union and done with dedication and professionalism on multiple occasions, was put to the test by bad management and the naive belief that ugly things can be kept under the carpet. Well, they cannot. And it took Ombudsman and Olaf investigations to flesh them out. On our part, as Parliament, we organised ourselves in the scrutiny group and together across political groups we delivered a strong message as to what the expectations for change were. And now, with this resolution, we put a final touch on those findings and we draw on what failed and had to be corrected: Things like reporting mechanisms, role of the Frontex fundamental rights officer, the interplay between Frontex and national border authorities. But we also highlight the progress made. Since agency changed at the very top, the advances in new procedures, better accountability and oversight with visible effects in operational terms, in important pressure points at our borders such as Moldova or Ukraine.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, what do we need to make EDIP relevant? We need money, political will and credible implementation. Money alone won’t do. Without the political will and a shared platform for cooperation, it will be a waste – it will further deepen the gaps and lack of interoperability. So money needs to be invested in a way that brings forward our political objectives, which in turn must come from a shared and fully assumed sense of necessity and urgency about our defence in Europe. Yes, defence is a national competence. Yes, it is outside the Treaty. Yes, we have NATO. Yes, we have an uneven spread of industrial capabilities across the Union. But all that will never change if we are not prepared to make bold decisions now. It is time to recognise that we have to invest to become the owners of our own defence. And for that we need to work towards a fully-fledged defence Union, and that path must be prepared by an instrument such as EDIP and a designated Commissioner for Defence in the future.

Mr President, dear High Representative, dear colleagues, like every year we take stock in this report of the state of relations with the US. We note the points of convergence or divergence, the shared interests, the values holding us together. And I want to thank Mr. Picula, our rapporteur, for the work done in this report. But this is no ordinary moment in our common history, because the year to come will bring a real challenge, a true test of political will. Our two democracies, which have been for decades the blueprints for the rules-based global order, are facing the most serious test of resilience. We both face a wave of extremism raging through our societies and electorates, politicians on both sides promoting isolationism, calling into question multilateral organisations. And looking at the coming wave, it is still us, the political forces on either side of the Atlantic, that must build as many bridges as possible, that must plant as many anchors as possible. The transatlantic bond must remain strong and be echoed by a sense of shared responsibility towards our own future and the future of the world. This report identifies such anchors, from the commitment to continue supporting Ukraine to aligning strategies and priorities in foreign affairs, new technologies or global trade. Let us continue nurturing transatlanticism, remain a rational voice, and keep our hand firmly reaching across to all American friends that share this commitment.

Mr President, Commissioner Breton, dear colleagues, the Critical Raw Materials Act is a clear statement of intent. We want the EU to be a visionary and astute geopolitical actor with the tools to match that ambition. Besides the important trade and environmental aspects that this agreement covers, we are stepping up the game in strengthening our resilience and fostering our priorities in a divided world with many challenges to come. With this Act, we are creating the right conditions, sourcing the right materials for achieving the green and digital transition objectives. By boosting investment and encouraging innovation within the Union and beyond its borders, we reduce dependencies so that we can remain competitive without renouncing our values, refusing to be economically and politically coerced. I think this is one of the major achievements of this legislature, and I want to congratulate the rapporteur and the shadows for the work done in this file.

Mr President, dear Vice-President, dear State Secretary, we always declare that our EU-US bond is about shared values, and yet we often get bogged down in semantics about irritants or low-hanging fruits. Even worse, we get confused about friends and foes. The reality of today’s geopolitics must make us more clear-eyed than ever: together and well attached to our values, we can secure the resilience of our democracies and economies, maintain open and safe trade routes, advance on critical technologies and reinvest in building partnerships and alliances around the world. Now the question, which I also want to raise to the Vice-President, is: how do we anchor the objectives set out in the summit declaration to weather the possible political highs and lows that next year’s elections might bring on both sides of the Atlantic? What are the concrete projects and what are the stakeholders outside or inside the political spectrum that might be ensuring continuity of purpose and delivery regardless of electoral outcomes? Because the time for identifying those projects and for investing those stakeholders into existing processes such as the TTC, that time is now.

Mr President, the Republic of Moldova must be given the green light for opening EU accession talks. This is the message that this House has passed consistently over the last year, and this is the message that we shall pass again in the resolution that we vote this week. And I want to thank also all of my colleagues in all political groups for being consistent, for being fully aligned on this objective. Of course, there are tough reforms that Moldova must go through in its economy, in its judiciary, in all branches of its administration, and the Moldovan authorities have demonstrated against impossible odds, and under continuous pressure and hybrid warfare from Putin’s Russia that they have the political will and executive stamina to deliver on these reforms. They have taken concrete steps in bringing oligarchs their empires down. They started clearing up the judiciary of corruption and incompetence. That is what the Commission must recognise in the upcoming report and what heads of state must take into account. The important decision regarding accession will be made later this year and then we all EU institutions must be prepared to do our part of heavy lifting to accompany the Moldovans in their reforms with our own political commitment, with technical expertise and know-how and the financial assistance to match. That is what we must do, that is what being geopolitical is all about. This is how we best tell Putin that his disturbed vision of imperialism will not win in Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, we all knew from the first debates we had in our respective committees that this regulation had a profound geopolitical impact, given its timing, the global context and also, above all, given its implications. Of course, there are things that we can and must do at home for our supply chains and production capacities, and this text puts the finger on these things, above all, simplifying permitting for key projects inside the Union to increase the base of critical resources that we can generate ourselves. But this act is mostly about what we must do abroad, in our trade with partners around the world. This is where we have to be strategic, pragmatic and holistic. Yes, the priority is securing materials we need, but the partnerships we now seek are also an occasion to build new bridges and create new trust with countries in Africa, Latin America or Asia. It would be naive to think interdependencies can be done away with altogether, but we can reimagine them. We can set new rules of the game, invest in projects that grow the local industrial and production footprint and find new grounds to boost development, democracy and dialogue. I think this text creates the conditions for all that. And I congratulate Nicola Beer and the team of rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for the work that they have done so far on this.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, this file has been concluded with a lot of effort – an effort which might appear somewhat misplaced, particularly in light of the relatively modest budget that was agreed upon. But this instrument retains its relevance and importance nonetheless, because it gives us a good reflection of where we stand politically in preparing the ground for a true defence union. And I commend the rapporteurs for their patience and tact in navigating these negotiations. Beyond its symbolism, EDIRPA is also important because it puts into motion the wheels for Member States to work together and cooperate more in matters of defence. And here I call on the Commission and the Council, which is missing, to ensure its proper enforcement. There will be bureaucratic reservations in many national administrations and there will be reflexes of sovereignty, but all these must be overcome and ministries of defence must be convinced to enter this exercise in the most pragmatic way. Which brings me to the last point. I see EDIRPA as only the beginning. We have tested our arguments and seen where our differences lie. Let us learn from this lesson and be even more ambitious at the next step.

Mr President, good morning, colleagues, dear Vice-President Jourová, it is quite befitting that you are participating actually in today’s debate, because I think that today’s debate is more about values than it is about technology. Over the past 15 000 years, we went from making stone tools to splitting the atom, walking on the moon and building artificial intelligence. And yet, with all that behind us, scholars argue that we are only at the very beginning of our history. In other words, we are still the elders of humankind, those whose actions will shape the existence of thousands of generations to come. From a historical perspective, we are at the dawn of setting up governance systems. We are barely testing the social contract between citizens and the state, which means the long-term impact in our current decisions is significant in that most of history is not yet written. We now witness the meteoric development of generative AI. We know it will have a massive impact on the world as we know it, and we also know it is only the beginning of this technology. It will keep on leaping many times over. Powerful generative AI will be very soon fully integrated into millions of downstream companies and impact billions of people on a global scale. It is no doubt the most disruptive and consequential technology in our history to date. When we look at our values, which we often take for granted, it is the way we etch them in history now that will determine if the billions of people coming after us will go on living by them. That is why global convergence on generative AI needs to be driven by us and by those who share our values. As the first ones to work on legislation for AI worldwide, we are well positioned to lead, but we need to be smart and humble about it, because the impact of generative AI on history will be global. We need to work with our partners, that is clear. But we cannot stop there, we must also call on those who are still on the fence, those who contemplate democracy, but also feel tempted by an authoritarian use of technology. We must strive to bring them all to the table, so that the history we write for the humans is yet to be born remains that of a world based on human dignity, on freedom, on democracy, on equality, on rule of law and human rights.

Madam President, dear colleagues, thank you very much for the vote today, for all of you, no matter how you voted. And now, dear President, according to Rule 59(4) I ask that the file is sent back to the interinstitutional negotiations. In fact, we start tonight.

Madam President, dear colleagues, this institution, our Parliament, has been the political trailblazer on AI for the last three years. When we voted in Committee three weeks ago, 300 media outlets around the world reported on that vote, and 99.6% of those reports were positive, laudative of the address of what we are doing here in this Parliament. So let’s live up to this expectation when we vote today. Give Brando and myself a powerful mandate with which we can go through trialogues and then come back to you again with a text that meets everyone’s ambitions.

Madam President, thank you very much for the debate today. We all use big words. We said change the world. Transformative impact. Turning points for humankind. Oftentimes we use these words as political exaggerations, but with AI, these are right on point. We are facing a turning point in history. Many may not see it yet. And we needed a small demonstration provided by a powerful chatbot over the past months to alert leaders and policymakers around the world. But we, here in the EU, we are doing something about it. We are taking up our responsibility as lawmakers to protect our society from potential harm and give our economies a clear direction as to how AI can be used for good, of that we can all be proud. Two last points that I consider important. First, as also Executive Vice President Vestager said, is global convergence. As we vote to negotiate these rules, we must look also outward and invest politically in the effort of a global framework for addressing the benefits and risks of AI. The Brussels effect is one thing, and our rules will inevitably be a model for other jurisdictions, but we must work with a sense of shared responsibility and interests with all our like-minded partners to achieve the geopolitical objective of having AI alignment. Second, the AI revolution must leave no one behind. We must push our governments to engage citizens to explain what is coming, to rethink education and reskilling of our workforce, to face confidently the transformation around them. Otherwise, all good intentions may go to waste. So in the end, I make this plea in front of you. Vote tomorrow with this sense of responsibility and with the satisfaction that we are on the right side of history.

Mr President, dear Commissioners, dear colleagues, as we move into this debate, I want to address the one question that I got the most over the past four years, working with many of you in the AIDA Committee and then working on this file. Is this the right time? Is this the right time for Europe to regulate AI? And my question is resolutely ‘yes’. It is the right time because of the profound impact the AI has. And I am convinced that all of you today will be bringing these arguments to the fore. It is the right time also because hoping that companies will self-regulate is not enough to safeguard our citizens in our societies. And we are now hearing more and more of the digital giants out there fearing their own products. It is also the right time because we’ve done preparations and worked seriously, responsibly on this file. And I want to start by thanking the Commission for having the foresight already some years ago to start preparing these rules and put them forward. I want to thank the leadership of all political groups and the leadership of this House for having the foresight to establish a Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence, because we are now better prepared as lawmakers and I think we have ever been, to actually tackle these rules. And now let me move on to the rules themselves. What will we vote tomorrow? I will walk you through some of the key elements in many thanks to my co-rapporteur Brando with whom I worked very well for already pointing some out, I will try not to repeat them. We have worked hard to provide a definition of AI that is not only agreed by all political groups in this House, but also aligned with that of the OECD and other partners such as the US. This gives the democratic world a starting point for developing a common terminology when discussing AI. We are providing thorough texts developed in parliaments, start-ups and SMEs in Europe with a strong network of sandboxes so they can innovate, they can grow and develop technology in accordance with European values and in respect of fundamental rights, increasing the trust in their products as well as their competitiveness. We have worked to put in place a coherent governance structure that makes sense. It is meant to ensure that we consolidate the digital single market, that Member States have the proper tools and support in place for the enforcement of this regulation, that Europe has a future-proof approach to new developments in AI and that we do not repeat some of the mistakes we have done with GDPR. Ten or even five years down the line it is this governance structure that will give Europe the ability to deal with the rapid evolution of AI and to reap the most benefits from it. And we have worked first and foremost to ensure our citizens’ rights and freedoms are not just respected but protected and strengthened. We don’t want mass surveillance. We don’t want social scoring. We don’t want predictive policing in the European Union, full stop. That’s what China does, not us. We want all public authorities, whether they distribute benefits or whether they enforce the law to be accountable, transparent and focused on our rights with strict democratic oversight. Last but not least, I am proud that we had the foresight to devise a preliminary set of rules for AI. What took me by surprise and by storm is generative AI based on powerful foundation models. We worked on rules that allow technology to flourish and develop while ensuring that the models potentially used by millions of smaller companies and start-ups, as well as by hundreds of millions of individual users, that they are safe. We introduced obligations of diligence for content generated by these models and of transparency regarding copyrighted material used in their training. And very importantly, we found overwhelming consensus among all political groups on these rules. And that, I think, gives a very powerful statement, Colleagues, I say, taking full responsibility for my words, we are making history. We are writing history. We are shaping the global development of AI in the right direction with humankind and human interests at the very centre. Thank you very much. And I really want to give a special thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs for how we have come together around this text that we will vote on tomorrow.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I think we all agree that we want a stronger, more powerful Union. It is in the interests of our Member States, our citizens, and in the interest of our strategic partners. This debate should therefore not be about choosing sides. Our partnerships are clear; they cannot be unfollowed. Now competitors and rivals are also well known and we have a strategy on how to deal with them. So let’s focus less on semantics and more on actions needed to improve our capabilities and develop coherent foreign policy tools. Playing with the 50 shades of strategic autonomy and then wasting time elucidating their significance is not only weakening our global position, but it is strengthening our rivals. China wants nothing more than to see us divided. Our priorities should be clear: the Taiwan Strait and the Indo-Pacific must remain free and open. China must respect international rules from trade to technology, all the way to the right of Ukraine to its sovereignty and integrity under the UN Charter. So let’s focus on delivering that.

Mr. President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, President Maia Sandu and the citizens of Moldova have chosen a path. They chose a model of society built on democratic rules, on individual rights and freedoms, on an open economy. This model is in stark contrast to Putin's view of how a country works. In Putin's world, there are privileged and submissive, there is brute power as the only source of truth and legitimacy. In Putin's world, oligarchs are given access to resources, tolerated theft and enrichment on the back of the rest of society in exchange for blind loyalty. The success of the model chosen by the Republic of Moldova and President Sandu or the success of the model of Ukraine and President Zelenskyy only negates Putin's model. This is what the war in Ukraine is about and this is what the Republic of Moldova and its political leadership are subjected to incessant hybrid attack. The Moldovan oligarchs affiliated with Putin are now leading this attack, paying mercenaries of protests, manipulating the opinions of the vulnerable, and all this to sabotage democracy and the European path for which Moldovans make so many sacrifices. We, the European Parliament, must ensure that we continue to support Moldova and if Mr. Borrell were here, I would have asked him to add the oligarchs of Moldova, Shor, Platon, Plahotniuc to the list of sanctions of the European Union.

Mr President, Madam President, High Representative, dear Colleagues. One year ago, Russia unravelled a plan, which we now know was in the making for many years. Putin’s frustration with history went back to the USSR, to the breakdown of Yugoslavia, to the Bucharest NATO summit and, in general, to the moment when he looked himself in the mirror and thought he was not big enough for the rest of the world to fear. Therefore, he had to rewrite history at any cost. In order to do so, he lied and he killed, and he will continue to lie and to kill until we give Ukraine the arms they need to stop him. In direct contrast, we heard President Zelenskyy speak to this House just last week. We all saw his determination and dedication to Ukraine’s European hopes. This is the type of leader that is big enough – and not for others to fear, but to follow and feel proud to bring to the EU table. We must continue to support him, match his level of ambition when it comes to EU integration and be bolder in our actions. Be bold like Ukraine is.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear Council representatives, dear colleagues, it is said that time and resources are everything in wartime. I would add hope and morale. I hear more and more arguing that giving hope to Ukraine and Moldova last year when accepting their candidate status was wrong because it created false expectations. Well yes, that historic decision did create expectations, legitimate expectations that once we went down the path of thinking and acting strategically, geopolitically, that we would stay on that path. Working hard to start the process of accession negotiations, like our resolution says, is the minimum that we must do to be consistent with ourselves and with the commitment that we made to the Ukrainian cause and people. We cannot afford fatigue or commodity, just like the Ukrainians on the front cannot. Let us be courageous in maintaining hope for a Ukraine that wants to be in the European family. Slava Ukraini!

Madam President, dear colleagues, I’m actually speaking today on behalf of my colleague Anna Donáth, who is the rapporteur on this file on behalf of LIBE and worked alongside the shadows to arrive to the result today. Online targeting and ad delivery techniques have grown to be the business model for the big tech industry. It capitalises on our personal data, including very sensitive one, and not only the data that we consciously provide, but also the one that is inferred from our daily online activities. The use of such data creates specific audiences, fosters polarisation, causes deep divisions in our societies, risking the integrity of public debate, of electoral processes and ultimately of our democracies. As LIBE rapporteur, my colleague, Anna Donáth, is proud of the broad agreement and the solid text found in this House to counter these unhealthy practices and to protect our democracies and fundamental rights by restricting the use of those data. Instead, we propose a system based only on consent on personal data provided by the users. Additionally, this House worked hard to achieve an effective European enforcement mechanism with the European Data Protection Board in the lead. Our EP report gives protection to our citizens from the misuse of personal data and preserves European democracies from interference, manipulations and disinformation from malicious political actors.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, for far too long we have been shy and at times naive about how we deployed our soft power as a Union. We have funded projects all over the world, deployed often more development aid than any other foreign donor, and yet achieved little visibility for our investment and not enough political clout. And while we were doing all that, Russia was pushing its narratives around the developing world and China was buying true influence and leverage with the Belt and Road. So yes, it was high time to become pragmatic in our use of money and truly strategic in how and where we spend it. But the Global Gateway’s success is in the way we implement it. We must map out our interests around the world, coherent to the new geopolitical realities. We must also do better in understanding the real needs of those that we put on this map, reading well the political context of each partner and the realistic space of negotiation and mutual benefit that can be achieved in the relationship. If a bridge is what the country needs, then let’s build a bridge. If it is a railway, then let’s build a railway. But at the same time we must also be agile enough to avoid that we build a bridge where China is buying a strategic harbour. What this means is that the Global Gateway cannot be implemented as a business—as—usual instrument with bureaucratic spreadsheets and formula. It requires constant political analysis and guidance, clever use of the Member States’ historical knowledge and leverage in different countries and regions, and dynamic decision—making on where we spend and how we capitalise on investment. Without that, it will just be more of the same.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, accountability is the basis of a society, a mark of its evolution through centuries of civilisation and a fundamental brick in how international relations work. With his invasion of Ukraine, Putin broke all norms set by law or common sense and, as a result, the people of Ukraine have suffered beyond imagination. Of course, all crimes committed in this war must be punished and, of course, we must work with and within the UN framework to prosecute these crimes. But Putin’s Russia must also be held to account for its crime of aggression, and for that we must work swiftly to set up a special tribunal and coordinate as much as feasible with the ICC. Setting up an interim prosecutor’s office in The Hague can be a good first step. Once again, if we let Russia and Putin get away with aggression without consequences, it means that we, as a society, have failed. We, as an international body, have failed. We, as citizens demanding respect for basic fundamental rights, have failed. We, as human beings understanding suffering, have failed. So let us do the right thing.