What Andrius spoke about.

Mr President, dear Members of Parliament, first of all let me assure that the EU will stand up for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela. I have taken good note of our exchange and will convey to High Representative Kallas the different positions expressed today. The debate today proves that we collectively remain committed to the democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people. It is high time Venezuela built a future defined by peace and democracy without repression or fear. The EU will always stand by those defending human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The European Union demands that the voice of Venezuelans is listened to. Their democratic will must be respected.

Mr President, Minister. honourable Members of the European Parliament, the European Union firmly stands in solidarity with the people of Venezuela in their brave strive to restore democracy and reclaim their human rights. Last year, on 28 July, millions of Venezuelans peacefully used their votes to express their will for democratic change in their country. According to publicly‑available copies of the electoral records, Edmundo González Urrutia obtained a large majority of the votes. The authorities, however, have refused to publish disaggregated results as mandated by law or allow independent electoral audits. In choosing to disregard the will of the people, and instead reinforcing repression against the population, Nicolas Maduro confirmed that he has no legitimacy of a democratically‑elected president. Our position remains unchanged: the will of the people must be respected. The European commitment to democracy does not allow otherwise. As stated by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union on 10 January, we will continue to work with all Venezuelans to foster dialogue and a democratic way out of the crisis, led by Venezuelans. Venezuelans expect us to support their effort. We do so in constant dialogue with key regional and international partners, as well as at multilateral fora. The persecution of the democratic opposition, human rights defenders and members of civil society is worsening throughout Venezuela. The tactics of intimidation have now extended to their families. What is their crime? Defending their fundamental liberties and seeking a democratic future for their country? We condemn the arbitrary detention of at least 2 500 citizens, including several European Union citizens. All political prisoners must be unconditionally released. Mr González himself had to seek refuge in Spain, while Ms Machado remains in hiding within the country. I salute their courage. The determination to serve their fellow citizens makes them worthy of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought this Parliament awarded them last December. The European Union firmly stands by those defending human rights and democratic values in Venezuela. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was recently allowed back into the country. This is a step in the right direction, but it must be allowed to perform its full mandate. The long crisis in Venezuela has taken a severe toll on the livelihoods of the population. Over 7 million people have fled the country since 2015, seeking better living conditions. To this day, access to basic goods, water and sanitation, electricity, healthcare and education is a daily challenge for millions of people in the country. Large swathes of the population live in poverty. The European Union remains committed to alleviating the suffering of the most vulnerable. Since 2016, the European Union has allocated EUR 461 million in emergency humanitarian aid for the Venezuela crisis. In coming years, we intend to maintain our support for the people of Venezuela. Honourable Members, let us support firmly a Venezuelan‑led dialogue towards a peaceful political transition. That is what millions of Venezuelans fighting for democracy expect from us. This is a proper way for Venezuela, so rich with natural resources, to bring back economic prosperity and social justice to all the people of Venezuela.

Mr President, dear colleagues, let me say a few words in conclusion. First of all, we need to remember that Belarus is in the geographical centre of Europe and in the close neighbourhood of several members of the European Union, including Lithuania, Poland and other countries. That is why we want Belarusian people to have the possibility to enjoy the same freedoms as we are enjoying now. And we would like to behave like previous generations of European politicians who wanted that we – Lithuanians, Poles, Romanians, Slovaks – also would have possibility to enjoy freedoms when we had no such a possibility. The Belarusian people are fighting a battle for freedom. They deserve our solidarity, not only in words but in actions. Their struggle is our struggle for human dignity, democracy and peace. Once again today, we call on the regime to stop the repression; to stop its complicity in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine; to release all political prisoners; and to allow the Belarusian people to freely realise their right to democratically elect their leaders of their country and to make a democratic decision on the geopolitical direction of their country. The European Union will stand firm in all its commitments, and we will continue to support those who courageously fight for democracy and justice.

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear honourable Members of the European Parliament, for me, it's the first time to come back here to this position in a new capacity, so it's emotional, but of course, it's also very close to my heart to speak about the situation in Belarus. The ongoing repression, arbitrary detentions and widespread human rights violations, as well as restrictions on any genuine political participation and lack of credible opposition candidates, clearly do not provide the context for free and fair elections in Belarus. The so-called presidential elections on 26 January are not an exercise in democracy, but rather a facade orchestrated by the Lukashenka regime to cling to power. The regime decision not to timely invite the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to observe the elections, in full contradiction with its international commitments, is yet another proof of the total absence of credibility of the electoral process in Belarus. Honourable Members, the situation in Belarus is alarming. More than 1 200 political prisoners still remain behind bars in appalling conditions, with many of them being denied any contact with the outside world. Many brave individuals who dared to dream of a free Belarus have been silenced, exiled or forced into hiding. Civil society organisations and independent media have all been dismantled. Since the fraudulent elections of August 2020, tens of thousands of Belarusians have faced brutal repression, arbitrary arrests, torture and even death. Belarusians have seen their dictator becoming the accomplice in a war that they do not support, gradually giving up the country's sovereignty, prosperity and identity under the pressure of Russia. In response, the European Union has taken decisive measures to isolate the regime and support Belarusian people. In December, we adopted the latest package of sanctions on Belarus, targeting those responsible for human rights violations against the Belarusian people. The EU has also continued to raise awareness on the situation of political prisoners and urge their immediate and unconditional release. We are standing together with the suffering heroes of the Belarusian fight for democracy, Siarhei Tsikhanouski, Maria Kalesnikava, Viktar Babaryka, Andrzej Poczobut and Ales Bialiatski, and hundreds of others. Last year, the European Union launched a dedicated dialogue with democratic forces and Belarusian civil society, led by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. We have opened doors to Belarusians fleeing persecution. Over 400 000 now live in the European Union. We are supporting efforts to achieve justice, leading the work on resolutions at the Human Rights Council, and we are supporting the International Accountability Platform for Belarus. In December, we have reaffirmed our commitment with a new contribution of EUR 30 million for the people of Belarus. This brings our overall support to EUR 170 million since 2020, and when Belarus will embark on a democratic transition, the European Union stands ready to provide support to stabilise its economy and reform its institutions, through a comprehensive plan of economic support of up to EUR 3 billion. Through the Belarus Days organised in December, the European Union has sent a powerful message of support to the Belarusian people and their democratic aspirations. Honourable Members, we will continue to be united and determined in exercising pressure on the regime and demanding justice for the crimes committed. We will also continue our solidarity with Belarusian society, including by welcoming Belarusian citizens, especially youth and students, to the European Union. We will work together with the European Parliament and other public and non-governmental organisations to help the people of Belarus realise their rightful place as a free and democratic nation in a peaceful Europe.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has stressed not once that one of the most important priorities for new Commission will be defence and security of Europe, which is directly related to security of Ukraine. I quote Commission President: 'The best investment in European security is investing in the security of Ukraine.' The first question is: are we investing enough in Ukraine security? My answer is very simple: we are investing a lot, but not enough. Last year, all the Western military support to Ukraine reached only EUR 40 billion, when Russians spent for the war more than 120 billion. Even if we would be ready to spend not 40 billion, but 100 billion, we would have a problem to supply large amounts of weapons because capacities of our military industries are very low for the time being. Even if we are giving weapons to Ukraine, we are – at least some of our countries – introducing red lines of restrictions not to use them against targets in Russian territory. All those three reasons show very clearly we are not investing in the security of Ukraine and in our security enough. How to change the situation: we need immediately to find much larger financial resources for military assistance to Ukraine. And we can do it. We need to radically ramp up production of our military industry and to integrate Ukrainian military industry with European one. And we need to remove any red lines in defence of Ukraine security, which means in defence of our security.

Madam President, it is very important that we are starting this term with a very strong resolution on Ukraine declaring that our policies towards Ukraine will be continued. But continuation is not enough. We need to see that during those two years, our support to Ukraine was really enough for Ukraine to defend itself, but not enough for the victory. Let’s look into the numbers. Last year, the Russians spent for the war in Ukraine more than USD 120 billion. The Ukrainians managed to collect and to use for their defence only USD 80 billion, and out of those 80 billion only 40 billion were from the West. So really, we can look into the perspective of Ukrainian victory only if we shall increase quite largely by two or three times our support, military support, to Ukraine, and that is what we need to do. For those who are arguing that Ukraine should agree with the peace conditions of Putin, I would suggest to look into the possibility to offer to Putin territory of their own country. That would be very precisely what you should do. Peace can be achieved only if Ukraine is winning and its territorial sovereignty is defended, and that can be done only with our much longer support.

Madam President, today we have two major issues with enlargement: how to make the enlargement process a success and how to keep the European Union alive after enlargement. The first priority now is the question of how to bring the whole negotiations and enlargement process back on a ‘Central European track’ with negotiations for 3 or 4 years, and to move away from the experience of the Western Balkans negotiations trap. In order to move away from such a trap, first of all we need to understand that enlargement will be very important not only for Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans, but also for the European Union itself. Enlargement to those countries will make the European Union stronger from an economic point of view, safer from a security point of view and more powerful geopolitically, since such an enlargement will allow the European Union to assist positive transformations in the broader region of Belarus and Russia. In order to achieve such a goal, first of all the countries of Central Europe celebrating the 20th anniversary of their own membership will need to avoid becoming real obstacles to the next wave of enlargement. They will need to overcome historical disagreements with their neighbours. They will need to be not afraid of economic competition and not afraid of transformation to real democracy in EU decision-making with QMV. In order to achieve such a strategic goal of enlargement during this decade, we will need to have a powerful commissioner for enlargement and specialised committee on enlargement in this House during the next mandate. We need to understand that the next wave of enlargement is the most important geopolitical project of the European Union for this decade.

Madam President, dear colleagues. First of all, it is absolutely clear that the government of Georgia introduced a Russian-style ‘Agents of Foreign Influence’ Act in order to deliberately derail Georgia from the path towards the European Union. Second, it is absolutely clear that such a step is done by the Georgian Government because they deliberately want to show the Kremlin that they are implementing the Kremlin’s hybrid agenda. Third, we need to say very clearly that as long as such legislation is part of the Georgian legal order, any decisions leading to recommending the launch of accession negotiations should be permanently suspended. Fourth, we need to help the Georgian people to defend themselves from Kremlin hybrid influences on Georgia through the introduction of an EU Public Instrument of Russian Hybrid Influence Index, which will catalogue politicians and political parties in the EU and EU candidate countries according to their connections to the Putin regime and their involvement in spreading Kremlin narratives. Fifth, we should call on the Council to supplement the Copenhagen criteria for EU accession with the conditionality of a candidate country’s ability to stand up against Russia’s hybrid influence. Sixth, we should be very clear: the major obstacle on the European path of Georgia towards the EU is not the Georgian people, but the Georgian Dream Government. The same was happening with Slovakia, in 1997, when because of the Vladimír Mečiar government’s behaviour, Slovakia was invited to start negotiations only when Slovakia voters voted down that government. (The speaker ended his intervention with a phrase in a non-EU language)

Madam President, dear colleagues, every day brings new damages to Ukraine, the amount of which goes far beyond the EUR 400 billion. Russia needs to pay fully for those damages. The victory of Ukraine demands a Western annual military support up to EUR 100 billion. According to Vice-President Borrell, the measures on Russian assets currently on the EU table allow to generate only around EUR 3 billion per year, while frozen Russian financial assets amount to nearly EUR 300 billion. That is why the EU should use the internationally recognised instruments of countermeasures, enabling Member States to seize all the frozen assets – not only the profits or revenues they generate – and use them to support Ukraine’s reconstruction and military needs. The fears that such confiscation is prohibited by the international principle of legal immunity applicable to state assets are totally wrong, since the recommendations of the international law and United Nations foresee that the states may use the countermeasures instrument in response to the internationally wrongful act of another state. That is exactly the case. The similar mechanism was used by the United States against Iranian state funds in 1981, as well as against Iraqi state funds in 1992, to compensate the damages inflicted on Kuwait. The same mechanism will be implemented by the US administration now, after the US Congress approved the confiscation of USD 20 billion of Russian frozen assets. It is time for the EU to make a bold decision on countermeasures and to confiscate all the EUR 300 billion of frozen Russian assets.

Madam President, dear colleagues, despite all the tragic pictures from the region, we need not to forget that the main problem in the region is terrorism: Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Iran. The fight against terrorism, which is occupying cities and regions, always was bloody. Let’s compare liberation of Mosul in 2017 and situation in Gaza today. Mosul city had up to 12 000 ISIS terrorists, which were fighting against liberation of the city by American-led coalition. Liberation took 10 months, the city was destroyed by heavy bombing, up to 40 000 civilians were killed. Today, Hamas has up to 40 000 active fighters in Gaza. Numbers of casualties during liberation of Gaza are not very different from the numbers in Mosul. Liberation of Mosul was welcomed by all the western democratic world. If somebody knows how to avoid civilian casualties in the battles against terrorists who are occupying big cities, tell us. The victory in such a battle is needed not only for security of Israel, but also for the future of Palestinian people. In order to create the proper future for Palestinian people, first of all, the security of Israel should be guaranteed. That is why terrorism needs to be defeated. The Abraham Accords, guaranteeing mutual security and development, need to be signed, and Palestinian Arabs need to be helped to heal from paradigm of terrorism and influence of Iran. And only then, with the help of a secure Israel, we shall be able to assist the Palestinians in developing their ability to govern themselves. It is a long way to peace in the region, but the only way.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Russia is threatening to occupy our territories by military means, and Russia is trying to occupy the hearts and minds of our people by hybrid means. They are attacking the hearts and minds of people in Germany and in Spain, in Lithuania and in Poland, in Georgia and in Moldova. We need to empower our people to defend themselves and to make conscious political decisions not to vote for Kremlin hybrid agents. The question always will be how to recognise who is the hybrid agent of the Kremlin. There is a very simple method to have such an answer: the so-called duck test. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. We can introduce very simple criteria for a Kremlin duck test to recognise that somebody probably is not a duck, but a Kremlin hybrid agent. If a politician or political party suggests not to give Ukraine weapons and says that it will help to achieve peace, if the party introduces foreign agent laws, if the government declares the LGBT community an extremist organisation, if the government puts political opponents into prison, if the party gets financial support from the Kremlin or is financed by local oligarchs with business ties to Kremlin, those politicians, political parties or governments most probably are Kremlin agents. We should ask the European Parliament’s Research Service to start to produce a special regular Russia Hybrid Influence Index based on those criteria, in order to help European citizens to understand for what kind of Kremlin hybrid agents they are going to vote.

Mr President, dear colleagues, we answered the Russian aggression against Ukraine with a strong geopolitical move, with an ambitious enlargement agenda, but the whole enlargement process can be very slow. The Western Balkans are an example, and we do not want to repeat it. The process will depend on both sides, on the political will of candidate countries to make reforms, and on the political will of the 27 EU Member States to support enlargement. I am more concerned with our side, because we still do not know how to stop the Orbánisation of the Union, when one country can blackmail and misuse veto power for selfish purposes. The blackmail through veto power that Hungary was using on Ukrainian issues in the last several years is a clear violation of Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union, which demands from Member States their sincere cooperation and loyalty to the Union. The Commission has an obligation to defend the Treaty, but the best way to defend enlargement from Orbánisation threats is to abandon the possibility to use the veto right during the negotiation process. Let’s do it.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Alexei Navalny believed in the dream of beautiful Russia of the future, in the future of a normal, democratic Russia. Because of that, he was killed. Do we believe in the future of democratic Russia, in the possibility of democracy in Russia? If not, then let’s be at least honest. Let’s not speak how much we support Russian civil society and Navalny’s cause because, in such case, those are only empty words. Navalny was a brave leader who was mobilising millions of people with his personal example and words ‘don’t be afraid’, because only in such a way, Russia’s transformation into the beautiful Russia of the future can be created. We shall not help such transformation only with inflation of our traditional boring statements of solidarity and condemnation. Like our statements of solidarity are not helping Ukraine to win the war. Ukraine needs ammunition and we can deliver it. In the same way, only the victory of Ukraine can bring the collapse of Putin’s regime and open the doors for Russian people to transform Russia. Let’s not be afraid of the defeat of Russia. We can make it happen, we can be brave and help Russian people. That is how Navalny’s dream will be realised.

Madam President, colleagues, planning the future of our defence and security, we need to get rid of the illusion that our security can be built only on our fears. Now, with Russian war against Ukraine, we are lost in the crossroads of our fears. We rightly fear what will happen with our security if Russia will win in Ukraine. But at the same time, we fear that chaos will happen in Russia, if Russia will be defeated. We fear a long-term war in Ukraine; that we shall become tired of such a war. And we fear to give Ukraine enough weapons for the victory in the near future, because we are afraid that Putin will escalate. President Roosevelt once prudently said, ‘The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’ Let us stop our fears and let us declare: Putin needs to be defeated and he will be defeated. And we shall invest into Putin’s defeat. That will open the doors for positive transformations in Russia.

Mr President, dear colleagues, we can see that under the leadership of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Armenia is showing a clear political will to diminish its security dependency on the Russian Federation. Also, we remember that on 17 October last year, in his address to this House, Mr Pashinyan underlined that the Republic of Armenia is ready to be closer to the European Union as much the European Union considers it possible. We need to congratulate the bravery of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statements and steps, which are bringing Armenia closer to the European Union. The European Parliament should respond politically and propose an ambitious agenda for the future of EU relations with Armenia. Our political responsibility is to address Armenia’s European aspirations, shared by the Armenian people, and our wish is to have Armenia as part of the European family, enjoying the full benefits of European integration. The EU needs to develop a new step-by-step roadmap to prepare Armenia for rapprochement with the EU, including its candidate status. It is obvious, from another side, that Russia will angrily react to such a brave behaviour of Armenia, and there will be security and economic challenges to Armenia. That is why Armenia needs strong security guarantees from the EU and Western democracies, and the EU needs to be ready to mitigate the Armenian economic challenges created by Russia. A European perspective for Armenia is the only way that sustainable peace around Armenia can be established. It will be beneficial also for Azerbaijan.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we need to stress that Russia’s interference in the democratic processes of the Member States and EU institutions is exceptional and unique in terms of the threats and dangers it poses to the fundamental principles of democracy in Europe. Russia gate is much more dangerous than Qatargate. Such an exceptional character of Russian foreign interference requires special focus dedicated specifically to the threats of Russian interference. Till now, our institutions were failing to defend us against such threats. Maybe investigative journalism and voters in Latvia and Spain, especially Catalonia, in Italy, France and Germany, and in all other countries can help us. That is why I would like the European Parliament to prepare a special information paper, a sort of ‘shame book of Europe’, with all the data on cases of Russian interference in the democratic processes of the Member States that have been uncovered by investigative journalists in the Member States. And such a report should be published before the European elections. Saving democracy is a business of democracy itself.

– Mr President, Ukrainians for two years and with a lot of sacrifice have been defending not only their country, but also all of us, including Mr Wallace. The victory of Ukraine depends on our political will to deliver what is needed for victory. Ukrainians are not failing with their bravery and sacrifice. We are failing with our assistance. Our assistance during those two years allowed Ukraine not to lose a war, but it was too short for the victory. Let’s remember that last year, Russia managed to spend more than EUR 100 billion on its war, while the Ukrainian side – with all our assistance – had only EUR 80 billion. All EU military assistance in the last year reached less than 0.1 % of EU GDP. We do not look serious with such numbers. The problem is that all our assistance depends on individual voluntary decision of each Member State on how much support to provide. Such an arrangement does not produce enough support. We have an example of our collective approach through the European Union plan for munitions deliveries. Despite its shortcomings, it is a good example of how the EU needs to act. We need to have an EU plan for the victory of Ukraine, which would cover all the military needs of Ukraine, not only artillery shells. Such a plan should start from the obligation of each Member State to deliver military assistance of not less than 0.25% of national GDP. As Sven Mikser said before, it would allow military production to be significantly increased both in Ukraine and in Europe. That is how Ukraine would start to prevail. The victory of Ukraine is needed for us, and let us make it. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, Viktor Orbán is misbehaving domestically with violation of democracy, rule of law, human rights, European values, and is misbehaving externally with blackmailing of all the EU with misuse of veto right. What Orbán is doing domestically, we can discuss for a long time, but now we are concerned with the veto blackmail, which is external action. But still we are speaking only about Article 7, which is devoted to defend EU values against domestic misbehaviour of national governments. I would like to remind that there is also Article 4, Part 3 in the Treaty, which says, ‘The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives’. It is very clear that Orbán’s actions jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives to support Ukraine, and he is not refraining from his permanent blackmail tactic. This is a clear violation of the Treaty. I would like to remind also that according to the Treaty, Article 17, the Commission shall ensure the application of the treaties. Let’s act now and let’s stop blackmail of the Union.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the united West is 25 times stronger than Russia, and has the economic power to support Ukraine to win the war. But still, it is not the case. Last year, Russia spent more than EUR 100 billion for its war in Ukraine. Ukraine, with all the assistance from the West, spent for its defence only EUR 80 billion. Last year, Russia spent 6 % of its GDP for the war, Ukraine 25 %. EU military assistance for Ukraine was only 0.075 % of EU GDP. The US did a little bit better at 0.1 %. Assistance to Ukraine is very different by different countries. Lithuania and Estonia gave 1.4 % of GDP. Germany increased up to 0.5 %, but France’s assistance is only 0.02 %. Numbers are showing that if all the NATO and EU countries would support Ukraine with no less than 0.25 % of their GDP, Ukraine would prevail. This is a victory formula. Let’s do it!

Madam President, dear colleagues, let me first of all say that any kind of blockade of border-crossing roads and of Solidarity Lanes to Ukraine is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable. Such a blockade, what we see now, is heavily detrimental to Ukraine’s economy, to its capabilities to defend itself, to its possibilities to have an efficient delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid. A 60-km-long queue of 2 100 lorries is not what EU or Poland should provide to Ukraine as a symbol of our solidarity. Ukraine is fighting the Russian invasion and is defending the whole of Europe, but at the same time is facing two blockades from two sides: from the Russian side a military blockade of its Black Sea ports; and from some EU Member States a blockade of the border-crossing roads. Such a situation is completely unacceptable. It denigrates and severely damages the reputation not only of Poland, but also of the European Union as a whole, and it serves only the interests of the Kremlin. It is clear that Russia will be forced to pay the damages which Russia has inflicted on Ukraine’s economy, including by the blockade of its seaports. That is why organisers of the recent border road blockades should also know that it will be legitimate that they will have to compensate Ukraine the losses caused by their blockade. At a time of Russia’s war against Ukraine, any additional damage to Ukraine’s economy inflicted from the side of EU Member States is totally unacceptable, and no economic arguments can justify such infamous actions. As Members of the European Parliament, we cannot remain silent bystanders when the most important European value of solidarity, of solidarity with Ukraine, is being damaged by our European business companies, and we shall not remain silent also in the future.

Madam President, tomorrow positive decision on enlargement and on Ukraine will change the future of the whole European continent. But if Viktor Orban will decide to veto the Council decision on enlargement and on beginning of negotiations with Ukraine, that will be a betrayal. Betrayal vulgaris. It will be a betrayal of Ukraine, of the people who are killed while defending their country and the whole Europe who are defending their pro-European choice. It will be a betrayal of Ukrainian Hungarian minority, which is united in asking Viktor Orban to support decision to start negotiations with Ukraine. It will be betrayal of Western Balkans because this is Ukraine, which is playing the role of ice breaker, of the historical stagnation of the enlargement process which the Western Balkans were the first victim of. It will be a betrayal of the whole of Europe. Betrayal is not a nice moment to witness, but at the end it will make us stronger. Mr Orban, you will not win against the whole Europe and you will not win against Ukraine.

Mr President, dear colleagues, today we are celebrating 30th anniversary of the EU decision on Copenhagen criteria, which was also a strategic signal that Central Europe and Baltic states are invited to join the European Union. What is the difference in between of then and now? At that time we in the Central Europe and Baltics were quite chaotic, not very stable, post-totalitarian democracies. EU was prudent and brave enough in Copenhagen to offer us a perspective to join EU, and in that way it stabilised us and modernised us. EU enlargement is the most effective instrument to transform EU neighbourhood into stable and successful democracies. At that time our economies were less than 30% of EU average. Now we are reaching EU level and we are overcoming some economies of the old Europe. At that time, EU was unfortunately not brave enough to offer the same perspective for Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, and that is the reason why those countries were left behind in their development and lost almost all those 30 years. After the first wave of enlargement into Central Europe, EU declared that it ‘lost appetite’ for further enlargement, including into Western Balkans and Ukraine, and that was the biggest geopolitical mistake of EU, because that led to Russia’s war against Ukraine. Now it’s time for EU to come back to the geopolitical prudence and bravery like it was done in Copenhagen. From now on, negotiations with accession countries should continue for three or four years, like it was in our case, and let us be ready in 2030 to celebrate new members of EU – Western Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.

Commissioner, things are moving, but Ukraine is not able to achieve the victory immediately and it depends on our deliveries. That’s very clear. Second, really, you know, of course, this is not only your responsibility. It’s good that, you know, production capacities are increasing, but can we look into possibilities really that, you know, the EU will start to invest, for example, into drones production in Ukraine because General Zaluzhnyi recently has said that, you know, what is missing really is electronics, drones, antidrones, and things like that. And that is what Ukrainians can produce. So I have the sense that you are not, you know, keeping money in your pocket.

Commissioner, really, it is good to see you, but the problems we know very well. The EU is not delivering what it promised, 1 million shells are not here. My question will be very simple. You know, the EU economy is ten times stronger or bigger than the Russian economy – maybe more. So why are we not able to produce enough weapons for Ukraine? What is missing? Do you agree that political will is the biggest problem on the EU side? And do you have the plans how the EU will really start to produce what it promised, either investing into military production on the EU side or in production on Ukraine? For example, even drones can be produced in Ukraine. So what is the plan?

Madam President, well, dear colleagues, everybody today repeats that this is a historical day. But I will add, this is a historical day which will change Europe. At the end of the road, there will be different not only Ukraine and other applicant countries, but also different European Union, and a difference in the whole European continent since Ukraine’s membership in the EU will also change Russia and Belarus. Ukraine, with its fight and its international status as icebreaker broke through EU enlargement stagnation. That is beneficial for all the accession countries, including Western Balkans, Moldova and Georgia. Hopefully, Ukraine also will bring back to the European Union ambition to negotiate like it was done with Central Europe – three years – which means that the whole enlargement process can be finished before 2030. Ukraine’s icebreaker is really needed for Europe.