What Andrius spoke about.

Madam President, it is a good report, and it is important for us to understand that a major strategic goal of our foreign and security policy should be peace on the European continent. The major challenge to peace – authoritarian and aggressive Russia. New security architecture on the European continent is possible only when Russia will transform itself back to democracy. The European Union has an immense soft transformative power of democratisation in its neighbourhood. The European integration of Ukraine is the only way how the EU can help to create success of Ukraine, which would have a major impact on the democratisation of Russia. It’s good that integration of the Western Balkans, in this report, is recognised as very important for the stability and security of the whole continent. I cannot understand why it is impossible to say the same about the importance of Ukraine’s integration? The Balkans got such a sentence after the war ended in 1999. Do we really need a war against Ukraine in order for Ukraine to be treated in the same way?

Mr President, today we should speak not only about Kazakhstan, but also about all the post—Soviet post—imperial authoritarian area, which is becoming an area of brutality, oppression and blood. We know what a tragedy had happened recently in Kazakhstan, when during the period of peaceful protests, brutal riots were artificially initiated as a pretext to seek the Russian—led military deployment. The outcome of this brutal action against those peaceful protests is very bloody: several hundred dead, many injured and nearly ten thousand detained. There is a need for objective international investigation of all the recent tragedies in Kazakhstan, of course. But even now, we can make three general conclusions. First, recent developments in Kazakhstan, in the same way as 2020 developments in Belarus, have shown that ordinary people and civil society in those countries are fed up with authoritarian regimes, corruption, lack of justice and lack of rule of law. And that is a reason why people are demanding essential change in their countries. Second, the Kremlin is becoming geopolitically weaker in the region, and the only way for the Kremlin to keep influence on authoritarian regimes in the post—Soviet area is to play the role of military gendarme against any democratic developments. And third, in the post—Soviet area, we see clear evidence that authoritarian regimes, with the assistance of the Kremlin, are bringing only persecution, torture and deaths of innocent people, and only those countries which, after the fall of Soviet Empire, managed to establish democracies and the rule of law are able to keep peace and protect basic human rights. History repeats itself. Soviets collapsed when militaries were started to be used against peaceful protesters. Now, the end of authoritarianism in the post—Soviet area is also coming closer and closer.

Madam President, as we know, Putin wants to destroy Memorial. Many human rights organisations were destroyed by the Kremlin up till now. But Memorial is a unique organisation which was created by Andrei Sakharov back in 1989 in order to preserve memories about the atrocities of the gulags and Stalin’s crimes. Andrei Sakharov understood in a very clear way that in order to build a new democratic post—imperial Russia, Russia needed to recognise the tragedies of its past. The largest victim of Stalinist crimes was the Russian nation itself. The nation needs to recognise the crimes and the tragedies of its past, because this is the only way to overcome the nation’s post—imperial nostalgia for its imperial past, which is the biggest enemy of a young post—imperial democracy. After Yeltsin, a young Russian democracy failed to survive. It appeared that in the society of young democracy, nostalgia for the imperial past was stronger than a democratic mentality. And now Putin wants to destroy memories about Stalin’s crimes. He wants to destroy an institution which was trying to bring the truth about Stalin’s crimes to ordinary Russians. It is symbolic that Memorial, in its activities, combines its care about the memories of Stalin’s crimes in the past and its care about Putin’s crimes against human rights today. There is no big difference in the mentality of the Kremlin during Stalin’s time and during Putin’s time. For both, human life means nothing; for both, human dignity, human rights and the sovereignty of nations means nothing. The only difference is that one was stronger in mass persecution, while the other is stronger in mass kleptocracy. Putin wants to destroy Memorial because he wants to destroy memories about Stalin’s crimes. For Putin, Stalin is an example to follow, not an object to be criticised. The logic of Putin is very simple – there is no need to register or investigate either the crimes of Stalin or the crimes of Putin. We cannot stop Putin right now in destroying Memorial, in his attempts to destroy memories about gulag crimes and in his attempts to bring Stalin back to glory. The future of democratic Russia will stop him, and history shows that such a future is unavoidable for Russia also, but for the time being Putin can succeed in destroying Memorial. What should be our answer? First of all, we need to be ready to recreate Memorial inside the European Union, which would take care of the safety of archives and memories which were collected by Memorial in Russia. Second, we need such a Memorial inside the EU to collect all the evidence about Stalinist unsolved crimes not only in Russia, but on the whole continent of Europe. One last point. Since Putin is finishing destroying the last human rights organisations in Russia, we need to establish a special EU envoy for human rights in Russia, whom we could call the ‘Memorial envoy’ and who would be responsible for collecting, analysing and publishing all the data about human rights violations in today’s Russia. Mr Putin, you can destroy Memorial, but you will not destroy human memory, including the memory about your crimes.

Mr President, what we are discussing today is not just one more instance of the aggressive behaviour of the Kremlin. It is possible that, in the future, this day will be shown as the day when the geopolitical future of the European Union in the 21st century started to be designed. Putin, who started the war against Georgia in 2008 and against Ukraine in 2014, is now demanding that those countries should not take care of their security, and that the West should abandon them. Here is the most important question to us, not to Georgians or Ukrainians: are we ready to succumb to the Kremlin’s brutal threats and blackmail on the future of Georgia and Ukraine? Are we ready to take big new steps in the ‘appeasement of Putin strategy’? We know where the appeasement of Hitler brought not only Europe, but the whole world. The appeasement of Hitler came to a culmination when Hitler blackmailed the West on the future of Czechoslovakia and the West succumbed. Now Putin is blackmailing the West on the future of Ukraine. Are we ready to succumb again? If not, than it is not enough just to say that NATO and the EU will not listen to the Kremlin’s demands. It’s time to move forward with the real Euro—Atlantic integration of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, starting from the Eastern Partnership Summit, which will start tomorrow, and moving forward with the MAP for NATO membership. If that is not done, then it will become clear that the future of those countries is being sacrificed for the appeasement of Putin. For the sake of appeasement, there were no decisions made to invite Georgia and Ukraine for the NATO Bucharest Summit in 2008. Because of that, Putin decided that he could start his wars against Georgia and Ukraine. Now we see that the continuation of that appeasement brings only new threats and blackmail and, if we succumb now, we shall be responsible for the recreation of real aggressive Fascism in the 21st century and for all the future tragedies of the European continent. (The speaker spoke in Ukrainian)

Madam President, first of all, we are discussing a very important issue, and second, we give our full support to this important resolution, and thank the initiators very much. Everybody knows what the Kremlin’s Wagner Group is and what kinds of war crimes they have committed in Crimea, Donbas, Syria, Libya, the Central African Republic and other places: torture, killings, sexual violence, mass summary executions, disappearances and so on and so on. Until now, nobody has been brought to international justice. We also need to understand what the Wagner Group is, according to international law. It is not a private military and security company, and it is not a voluntary group of mercenaries. It is a Kremlin regime proxy organisation, a proxy military force with clear elements of criminal gangs in their activities. Such a state proxy organisation is covered neither by conventions which prohibit the activities of mercenaries nor by any kind of international regulations which are applied to private, military and security companies. That is why it will be very important, after this resolution is passed, to continue our job in the Parliament and other EU institutions in order to deal with such entities as the Wagner Group. My proposals are, first, to make a full—scale investigation into Wagner Group activities and crimes with a special parliamentary report, not just with an urgency resolution, which is good and needed for the time being; second, to qualify the activities of the Wagner Group as activities of state—organised and state—sponsored criminal gangs; third, to create an international law which would set out that states or entities which hire such proxy organisations as the Wagner Group also become internationally responsible and liable for the crimes committed by the Wagner Group; and fourth, to create an international law which would define that, for the crimes of such criminal gangs like the Wagner Group, Russia, the Russian State and the Kremlin regime, which created such proxy criminal organisations, are also internationally responsible and liable.

Madam President, I am from Lithuania, that is why I am really grateful to the Commission. And I will not speak about Lukashenko today, but I will emphasis that, in this House, it’s quite popular to say that defence of the EU’s borders is in some way against the human rights of migrants. It’s wrong. Yes, we need to take care about the humanitarian crisis of those migrants who became hostages of the Lukashenko regime in Belarus. But we also need to take care of the safety of those hundreds of thousands of migrants, who potentially will be tempted to take the same route towards the EU if they see that the EU is not able to defend its borders. Those who now are criticising Poland or Lithuania should understand what kind of crisis can be created if the borders were not defended. Let’s find an effective humanitarian solution today, but let’s not create false hopes, which would lead to much bigger suffering, with much bigger numbers of potential victims.

Mr President, I am from Lithuania. For me, it is very clear: Lukashenko and Putin have a strategic goal to escalate situation on EU border. Let’s be ready. What do we need to do? The biggest mistake of Europe would be not to defend its own borders. That is why I would like to praise the daily job of our border guards. First of all, EU needs to answer to Lukashenko’s hybrid warfare with clear support measures to assist defence of EU bodies, including with the construction of physical infrastructure where it is needed. Also, EU needs to immediately stop the influx of migrants into Belarus, organised by Lukashenko, with immediate sanctions against those airlines and Belarussian airports, which are used in this smuggling crime. But we need to remember that the major reason of the threats is Lukashenko’s regime itself, and Putin’s support for his crimes. And that is why EU needs to target directly both the Lukashenko and Kremlin regimes. EU needs to show clearly that because of his crimes, Lukashenko’s secret treasures will be arrested immediately, and Lukashenko himself will be brought to the International Court of Justice in the Hague for the breach of the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants and Convention against Torture. Putin needs to know that the EU will introduce new sanctions against Kremlin, if Kremlin continues to support the crimes of Lukashenko. The weakness of democracies in their response to Lukashenko’s crimes in an effective way since last year inspires him to become even more aggressive and to start new international crimes. Let’s stop with that weakness on our side. With authoritarians, we need to talk the language of tribunals on confiscation of their secret treasures, and needs to be done now.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, when we are talking about push-backs on the borders with Belarus, we need not to forget about the illegitimate Lukashenko regime and his crimes. He is the reason for the suffering which people of Belarus and millions on the borders are living through. Let’s push back Lukashenko out of power and there will be no more sufferings of ordinary people either from Belarus or from far-away countries. Let’s not allow Lukashenko win this hybrid war against the European Union, that he shall us to discuss only about migrants in order not to have time to discuss Lukashenko’s crimes. I would like to thank the Commission, including for the recent communication on a renewed EU action plan against migrant smuggling, which clearly shows that what we are facing in Lukashenko’s actions  is a special hybrid warfare, using state-sponsored smuggling of migrants. We need to remember that the smuggling of migrants is an international crime, which should be punished by all the force of international criminal law, including United Nations conventions. So, my question is very simple: is the Commission ready to bring Lukashenko to criminal responsibility for criminal smuggling of migrants?

Mr President, since we are coming to the end of our discussions I will make a few conclusions and messages from our debate and from the report. The first one: There is strong cross-party support in this House for this unique report, which means that everybody is for more intensive relations between the EU and Taiwan. This is a message not only to China but also to EU institutions: Taiwan is no less an important partner than China. Taiwan is a striving democracy of Chinese people and it is a good example of democracy for mainland Chinese people. One more message: The formula ‘One country, two systems’ means that at some time in the future both sides can unite themselves under the democracy umbrella. And the last message: China should abandon its attempts to threaten democracy and independence of Taiwan or its attempts to threaten Lithuania for our support to Taiwan. I want to thank Parliament and the Weimers report for the language of support to us, and would like to remind the Chinese authorities that thirty years ago the big Soviet empire collapsed when it tried to fight against the democracy and independence of small Lithuania.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, all of us we know what crimes against Belarusian people Lukashenko is committing, for what international crimes he is responsible. There is no need to repeat all the list. I would like to use this opportunity to thank Commissioner for your support for the Lithuanian authorities in defence of EU borders. But the only way out from this crisis is new, free and fair elections in Belarus, which not only Lukashenko, but also Putin are so heavily afraid of. There are three major factors, which are making influence on developments in Belarus: Belarusian peoples’ protest, Putin’s support for the brutal Lukashenko regime and western support for Belarusian people. With the lack of clear Western leadership in resolving the Belarusian crisis, with the protests temporarily silenced by brutal force, there is the only one significant factor in the field – Putin’s support to Lukashenko, and Putin is responsible for all Lukashenko’s crimes. This is why the EU has to make it clear that if the Kremlin continues its current policy on Belarus, the EU will have to introduce additional containment and deterrence measures on Russia. And second what we need to do, we need to consider bringing Lukashenko crimes to the International Court of Justice immediately on the basis of the Chicago Convention, Montreal Convention and the Convention against Torture Violations. In addition, EU needs to establish a special task force to work with universal jurisdiction cases at the EU and Member States level. the EU needs to show real leadership and to prove that it is able to resolve major political and humanitarian crisis on its borders. And Žyvie Belarus!

Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur for a really good report. I will try to spend my minutes on some comments on Chinese policy towards EU Member States – this means Lithuania. The government of my country, Lithuania, in the spring decided to leave the so—called 17+1 format, which China created for relations with Central Europe in order to split the EU. Also, our government decided to upgrade relations with Taiwan and decided to open a Taiwanese, not Taipei, representation in Vilnius. Of course, China became very angry over Lithuania, recalled the ambassador, and our business in China experienced different pressures and sanctions. I would like to thank all of you for the support and solidarity which you have shown to us. We in Lithuania, several years ago, saw the same behaviour against Lithuania, against our business, shown by Russian authorities. We survived and we learnt a lesson. Business with an economy which is led by authoritarian regime is a risky business, very risky. So today we need to send a clear, simple message. Business with China or in China is a very risky business. Second, China is big, we as Lithuania are small, but we shall not be defeated because we are together.

– Mr President, this report on the European Parliament recommendations on the direction of EU-Russia political relations is a report on a really important topic. Russia is an important country which has a big influence on all the developments in the Eastern part of the European continent and the EU needs to have a clear long-term strategy with clear goals and clear instruments for our policy towards Russia. Our report is based on several clear principles. First of all, we want to have good relations with Russia, but it depends on Russia. With Russia, led by the authoritarian, kleptocratic and aggressive, both domestically and externally, Putin regime, it is impossible to have good relations. The Russia of today is the greatest threat to European security. Second principle. We are making a clear difference in our attitude towards the Kremlin regime and towards Russian people and Russian society who are the first victims of such a regime. We are very critical of the Kremlin regime and very positive and optimistic about the future of Russian society. Third principle. We are absolutely sure that, in the future, Russian people will live with a European-type democratic system of governance. If Ukrainians can do it, if Belarusians are striving for it, there is no reason why Russian people cannot go the same way. And we are absolutely sure that in the future the EU will have good and pragmatic relations with democratic Russia. The report gives several clear recommendations to EU institutions on EU future policy towards Russia. First of all, to concentrate our efforts on a very clear long-term goal and how to assist the Russian people to transform their country back to democratic, European-type development. This is the first time the European Parliament has given such a clear direction on the major goal of EU political relations with Russia. The report elaborates that the Strategy of EU political relations with Russia should have three major pillars: push back, contain and engage. It sounds in a very similar way like it was first declared by Vice-President Borrell, but in the report maybe we are bringing more precise and concrete content to those three pillars. The first pillar, ‘Push back’. Push back against the Kremlin’s aggressive policies of today, both external and internal policies. Clear non-recognition policy of occupations and annexations in Crimea, South Ossetia, Donbas; more effective type sanctions which should be better coordinated with transatlantic partners, including sanctions against oligarchs; possibility of non-recognition of legitimacy of elections, if they are stolen; effective implementation of the Green Deal as an instrument to cut EU dependency on Russian gas, and so on. Second pillar. Containment pillar. Sets out how to contain Kremlin hybrid influences and how to make EU clean and safe of Russia hybrid threats and corruption practices inside of the EU. If we want to help democrats in Russia to transform their country and to get rid of Kremlin autocracy, we need to make ourselves clean of Kremlin influences. And the third pillar ‘Engage’. Engage not only with Kremlin, but engage strategically with civil society in Russia. Let us offer the Russian people a clear vision of what kind of relationship we’re going to establish between the EU and Democratic Russia – visa free, free-trade agreements, EU-Russia real modernisation partnerships, and so on and so forth. That is what we can do in the future. The Russian people need to know that transformation of their country will be beneficial to all of them who now are the first victims of their authoritarian and corrupt regime. What else can we offer? Let us offer Russian people also inspiration and an example to follow. Much more ambitious EU support to make a success of the Eastern Partnership region, especially Association Trio countries: Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Their success, built with more ambitious EU integration policy, could bring a real inspiration to the Russian people to follow a similar democratic way of development. And the last point. As you know this weekend there will be elections to the State Duma in Russia, so-called elections. Lukashenko last year stole the election results after the elections. Putin is trying to steal them even before the elections have taken place. More than 100 of the most important opposition or independent candidates were not allowed to participate in the elections. Navalny is in prison, no OSCE observers are allowed to come. Our report recommends not recognising the Parliament of Russia as the legitimate parliament if the elections are recognised as being fraudulent and having been conducted in violation of democratic principles and international law. That is why next week will be a test for all of us, and the EU institutions, not to be afraid to say that elections were organised in violation of democratic principles and international law, since even now there is a lot of evidence that this is the case. Our report is a message to the Russian people: we are together with them. We need Russia as a good neighbour, with whom we can have good relations. We want the Russian people to enjoy the same human rights, the same rule of law and democracy privileges as we have and we enjoy. We want the Russian people to enjoy a modern and prosperous country. Such a development of Russia would be beneficial for Russian people and for the whole of Europe. And the EU can do a lot to assist Russian people in such a transformation of their country. The EU needs to understand and accept its exceptional role and responsibility in such a transformation. And first of all the EU needs to overcome it’s ‘Westlessness’ as was diagnosed by the Munich Security Conference and Wolfgang Ischinger. Our report provides recommendations on how to overcome this ‘Westlessness’ in political relations with Russia. The report was supported by a large majority and consensus among major political groups in the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET). Such unity is also a strong signal to the Kremlin. I hope that we will be able to keep the same unity here in the plenary. I would like to thank all the shadow reporters with whom it was a real pleasure to elaborate this important report.

Madam President, a few words about the Council’s conclusions on Russia. I can really congratulate Council with ‘No’ to proposals on having immediate EU-Putin Summit, but the Council perhaps spent too much time on discussions ‘to meet or not to meet’ Putin, and here were too little discussions on the long-term strategy how ‘to push back’ Putin on democracy, on Navalny, on Ukraine and on Belarus. And of course we need to be effective in pushing back on human rights and democracy inside of the EU if we want to push back the Kremlin on democracy. While following the Council’s discussions on Russia, I am able to make only the following conclusions: the European Union and its institutions until now has a deficit of belief that Russia at some time can transform itself and return back to a democratic type of development. Second, EU institutions have a deficit of willingness to assist Russia in such a transformation. Third, EU institutions have a deficit of understanding how to assist Russia in such a transformation. And fourth, EU institutions have a deficit of courage to recognise, that so-called ‘dialogue’ with the Kremlin will not change Russia, because President Putin is not able to change his own behaviour. That is what the European Parliament was asking the Council – to review and update EU strategy towards Russia, and the Council unfortunately, for time being, failed to deliver. I hope that the European Parliament will be able to recommend those lines in its forthcoming report on EU policy towards Russia. Only with such kind of strategy on the table is there a value to have a meeting with President Putin.

Madam President, really it is an opportunity to praise the EU Institutions, the Commission and Council and the EEAS on a successful initiative to introduce the Magnitsky Act in the European Union. I will try to make some very practical remarks about our steps forward. First of all, the preventive effect of Magnitsky sanctions should be strengthened: the same type of crimes should lead to the automatic initiation of the same type of sanctions against all the similar perpetrators. Second, the preparation of sanction lists should be made in a more centralised way by the EU Institutions and should depend less on national states. Third, decisions on sanctions should not demand unanimity but should be adopted by qualified majority. Corruption should be also included as a reason for EU sanctions, as is done by Great Britain, US and Canada. Global democracies should synchronise their efforts to defend human rights and rights for democracy, especially in countries where people are still struggling with brutal autocracies – and especially in countries which have European roots but suffered a long denial of human rights during the Soviet period and are now suffering new authoritarian regimes.