What Paulius spoke about.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the first and perhaps biggest challenge for European cybersecurity is that Europe is falling behind the United States and China in the development of advanced AI technologies. Last year, 5 000 major cyber-incidents were recorded across Europe, and behind this activity we usually see Russia and China. This is not only a technological challenge, but rather security and defence. Lithuania and other countries on the eastern border have experienced for years cyberattacks, disinformation and hybrid operations against our institutions and critical infrastructure. In Lithuania alone, authorities recorded nearly 4 000 cyber incidents last year – a 63 % increase compared to the previous years, amounting to more than 10 cyber incidents every single day. Now, advanced AI systems are making these threats even more dangerous. At the same time, Europe still depends heavily on non-European AI technologies. We are strong in regulation, but not in capability. Legislation such as the European Chips Act should help Europe strengthen its own AI capacities. We need European innovation, European computing capacity and European expertise in cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. Our task is not only to regulate existing, but to boost creation of our own technologies, strengthening Europe's security and resilience.

The first thing you really like is the conspiracy theories that are broken from your finger. The second thing, you very much like to wash the essence. And the third thing about the details of the LRT law was the opportunity for the Lithuanian government to talk in the working group. Sadly, they have formed one in which the vast majority are simply clichés of power. Normal discussion is not possible. Dear colleagues, our Lithuanian government is making a really dangerous mistake in this regard. And I wouldn't want to continue.

Mr President, colleagues. ... Because I am more appealing to the Lithuanian government. Welded porridge, the smell of which has reached Europe. It is really a shame that we have to talk about it in this room, but we need to talk about it. Only a truthful and open word can stop an attack on freedom of speech. How else can one call the actions of the government directed towards the politicization and capture of the Lithuanian national broadcaster LRT? It is understandable, and it is possible to discuss the management and financing of the Law on LRT, but when all this is pushed by a bulldozer in a complex and urgent manner, not only without consulting the public, experts, journalists' associations, but despite numerous protests. There are bad parallels with countries where freedom of speech is at stake or is already being undermined. Let us remember the case of Hungary, Slovakia, Georgia or even more pronounced Belarus. The path to authoritarianism begins with the enslavement of free speech. It is shameful and sad that the government of my homeland, Lithuania, is on this path. Please, get out of here. It is understandable that the ‘Dawn of the Nemunas’, which has emerged from the margins of anti-Semitism, and its old-fashioned atam, will hardly escape. However, the social democrats and confused peasants could still face a leadership crisis. Just admit you're wrong, and stop.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I share much of the vision outlined by the Commission. I strongly support actions to mitigate hybrid threats, strengthening cyber security measures, enhancing resilience and preparedness. Digital networks must be treated as critical infrastructure. I equally share the European Union's ambition to become a more competitive global player through harmonisation, the creation of a genuine single market and the use of economies of scale. However, this is also where I have some concerns. While the act is, in theory, intended to support all market participants, there are growing fears among smaller telecommunication operators regarding competition. The DNA seeks to centralise operations to deploy pan‑European services. Smaller local providers fear this will create an uneven playing field compared to large providers capable of operating across all 27 Member States under a single passport. Although mechanisms are introduced to lower entry barriers and facilitate expansion for smaller firms, the overall direction appears to favour large‑scale infrastructure investment. In conclusion, the regulation that leads to increased market concentration risks undermining smaller and more innovative telecom operators. This could ultimately result in higher costs for end users and reduce innovation – an outcome we must avoid.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, thank you for your presentation. Dear colleagues, in the digital era and with AI involvement in most aspects of existence, cybersecurity is of utmost importance. Considering the single market of the European Union, we should accept that there will be not separate, individual cybersecurity systems in different Member States, different areas or companies. More and more, we are interlinked in our digital economy, hence cybersecurity incidents in one place can result in an overall security issue. Altogether, as the European Union, we must stop the threats coming from third countries. Every week we face systematic and mostly state-sponsored cyber-attacks targeting our resilience, our economy, our democracy. For countries on the eastern flank, this pressure is even stronger. Cyber- and hybrid attacks are not occasional incidents. They are persistent and state-linked. In most cases, more obviously or not, we have Russia or China on the opposite side. Cyber risks have grown faster than our rules, while fragmentation and uncertainty still weaken the single market. That is why the revision of the Cybersecurity Act is both timely and necessary. This also means recognising the growing role of ENISA – the revised act must ensure that ENISA has a clear mandate, the right tools and adequate resources. So far, our main expectations appear to be reflected in the Commission's approach. If we certify toys and foods for safety, we must also certify the digital systems that run our hospitals, our energy networks and our public administrations.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, our market is flooded with millions of parcels sold online, often from third-country sellers entering the EU with minimal checks. Too many of these products are unsafe, non-compliant and impossible to trace when something goes wrong. Consumer rights are meaningless if enforcement stops at the border. Online marketplaces play a central role in this. Their business model is built on scale, speed, and aggressive marketing, including dark patterns, constant promotions, and influencer driven sales. They cannot continue to profit from exposure while claiming no responsibility for what is sold on their platforms. But we must also talk about who is most exposed - Children. Minors are increasingly targeted by online advertising for cheap, unsafe and inappropriate products. The European Parliament has rightly called for stronger protection of minors online, including age-appropriate design and restrictions on harmful practices, as well as clear age limits for social media. These priorities must be addressed not only in content regulation but also in commercial practices.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, this file is of utmost importance as well as urgent. My sincere thanks to the rapporteurs, Ms Vaidere and Mr Niinistö, and the whole team. They were very strong and committed. However, I am sorry but I slightly lack the adequate ambition from the Council and the Commission. To fight back the most brutal regime of the century, you must be united; you must be courageous. The compromise bans imports of Russian pipeline gas and LNG six weeks after the regulation enters into force, with a transition period allowing existing contracts to run until short-term LNG and pipeline gas contracts are phased out by April and June next year, respectively. However, the compromise was achieved largely because Parliament agreed to make concessions, especially dropping the ambition to ban oil as well. The Commission promised to present a legislative proposal at the beginning of next year. So the responsibility now lies with the Commission to keep the commitment to finally rescue Europe from Russian fossil fuels. We will be waiting.

Madam President, colleagues, China is playing hard. For example, Lithuania continues to be brutally blackmailed. Politically motivated sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions on Lithuanian exports remain in place, as do sanctions against two Lithuanian banks. Yes, the EU has managed to defuse recent escalations on rare earths, but you never know. We must use more strictly the instruments already at our disposal, including investment, screening and enforcement, also an asymmetrical response, like tariffs on small packages, which are flooding our market with a pace of 12 million per day. Our response must be proactive, diversifying supply chains – including recycling and circularity – activating domestic mining and cooperation with like-minded partners, still including the United States. Dear colleagues, if tomorrow you wake up in a world where all your daily equipment – mobile, computer, vehicles, you name it – are made in China, do not expect that your daily decisions will not be made in China.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I hope that we all do agree that one of the main challenges of the European Union is the administrative burden. So if we want to cut red tape in the financial sector, we have the chance to do it now by adopting this legislation without a delay. The political compromise we reached delivers important progress. The scope has been broadened: not only the three European supervisory authorities, but also the Single Resolution Board and the newly established European Anti-Money Laundering Authority will be covered by the new rules. The European Systemic Risk Board will also be included to some extent. We agreed on the 'report once' principle. The European supervisory authorities will prepare a report on a possible single integrated reporting system. This moves us towards a cross-sectoral integrated reporting framework where data is submitted once, then shared and reused as much as possible. This is a crucial step towards smarter supervision, less red tape, and stronger trust in our financial system. It is also about Europe's competitiveness: by simplifying reporting, we give smaller players and innovators more space to grow while laying the foundations for a modern, digital EU financial data space. Let us send a strong signal today: Europe is serious about efficiency, about innovation and about making regulation work better for everyone. I count on your support.

Madam President, dear Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, dear colleagues, countries bordering Russia have been facing hybrid warfare, including GPS disruptions, for years. A major incident such as the spoofing of the plane carrying Madam President Ursula von der Leyen and you, dear Commissioner, was unfortunately only a matter of time. Russia is developing technologies not only to target specific regions of the European Union, but to threaten Europe as a whole. The number of spoofing and jamming sources continues to rise. For example, in 2025, the number of spoofing sources in the Kaliningrad region alone, bordering Lithuania, increased from 5 to 29. This phenomenon increasingly extends beyond the aviation sector. The maritime sector is affected, with ships forced to bypass seaports because their signals are jammed. Farmers near the border struggle to cultivate their land due to interference that disrupts connected tools such as drainage systems. Even private devices and civilian applications are being impacted. Most importantly, Russia remains largely unaccountable before the international community. Actors who disregard international rules and pose a direct threat to the safety of international transport must be sanctioned. Our response must be firm and coordinated: strong sanctions and investment in resilient technologies.

Madam President, dear colleagues, first of all, thank you for the positive outcome. I hope that in the end we will get even more of you on board. But in order to do that, we have to go into interinstitutional negotiations. So, under Rule 60(4), I ask for the referral back to the committee responsible for the institutional negotiations.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, once again, to achieve the two main objectives of this regulation – environmental and the problem of critical raw materials – and also not to put additional pressure on the automotive sector during tough times, we need a balanced approach. Some groups want higher targets for recycled materials and even higher environmental standards, but other groups are more cautious or do not want this regulation at all. That is why we tried to achieve the balance during the negotiations with the groups. The balanced approach is a must in this matter. While the sector is huge and diverse, the regulation will impact not only the manufacturers but the whole chain: the dealers and dismantlers, waste management and recycling industry. Different stakeholders have different and sometimes even contradictory interests – we must have everyone in mind, especially the SMEs. That is why I ask colleagues to support the achieved compromise. Specific amendments could be valuable to some businesses, but it could have a negative impact on the other side of the chain. We have to see the whole picture and pay attention to the practicalities of the industry. I am looking forward to seeing the positive voting tomorrow, of course, with your help, and looking forward to interinstitutional negotiations. I hope we will listen to each other, and I hope we will listen to a whole market, a whole sector, and we will reach a reasonable compromise.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the End‑of‑life Vehicles Regulation supports circular vehicle design and sustainable waste management. There are two main objectives of this legislation: to reduce the negative impact on the environment and to solve the problem of critical raw materials in Europe. The demand for rare earth elements and other materials is increasing, and Europe lacks these resources. That means that circular economy and efficient recycling is a 'must do' for the European Union. Dear colleagues, I think we have achieved the necessary balance in the proposed compromise, advocating for realistic targets and a fair level playing-field for all the stakeholders in a broad automotive sector and beyond. There are some specific points I want to address. Only the base vehicle remains in the scope to protect SMEs from excessive burdens. The explicit exemptions are introduced for trailers, motor caravans, military and special purpose vehicles, also vehicles of historical and cultural interest. The compromise lowers the mandatory recycled plastic target to 20 %, to be reached six years after the regulation enters into force, and 25 % in 10 years. Of this, 15 % must come from recycled plastic from end‑of‑life vehicles themselves. As for the 'closed loop' target, up to 50 % of the target can come from pre‑consumer waste. The compromise secures that components must only be designed for removal when technically feasible, ensuring recyclability and reuse without unrealistic burdens. The proposal shifted the obligation to company‑wide circularity strategies, not per model, cutting red tape for all, especially SMEs once again. There are no mandatory contracts between producers and treatment operators to protect SMEs, and in the application of extended producers' responsibility. In Article 37, the documentation requirements apply only to exports, not to sales within the European Union. Roadworthy vehicles can be sold without any additional documentation. This is very important: we do have millions of contracts in EU, and this would be an undue administrative burden. Further, I am not sure if it would help to fight the missing vehicle problem. Missing vehicles are missing because they are illegally dismantled, and we should rather enforce the fight against illegal dismantling and harmonise the registration and deregistration process. The compromise based the distinction between used vehicles and end‑of‑life vehicles on technical criteria, while safeguarding owners' right to repair. Treatment facility rules are refined so that a mandatory component removal applies only when technically feasible, once again balancing environmental ambition with industrial practicality. Dear colleagues, I would like to thank you all for your amendments, valuable discussions and constructive negotiations finally reaching the compromise. Many thanks to all the advisers who did a tremendous job, and also to my co-rapporteur from ENVI Committee. I ask you to support the well‑balanced proposal.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the recent years have taught us painful but vital lessons. From the war in Ukraine to the COVID‑19 pandemic. We have seen how fragile supply chains can be when crisis strikes. Solidarity must be backed by preparedness. I congratulate the Commission for responding to these lessons. The Union is putting in place a coordinated approach to securing access to essential goods, from fuel and food to medicine. We are establishing a new stockpiling network to share best practices, identify gaps and avoid duplication. But this strategy is not only about storage. It is about speed, coordination and resilience. However, the recent accusations against President Ursula von der Leyen for her necessary actions during the pandemic are nothing more than political theatre and reveal a troubling lack of understanding of how crisis must be managed. In times of emergency we need leadership, strong political will and immediate action. We need courageous and effective decision-making because delays can cost thousands of lives. That is why we must empower our leaders to act with flexibility and speed when crisis strikes. I hope that one day we will find a common legislative recipe for that. With rising geopolitical tensions and hybrid threats, Europe must be ready.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the development of digital markets, the introduction of the digital euro and trusted digital identities are the building blocks of a digitally resilient European Union. These initiatives strengthen the single market, empower our businesses to innovate, and give our citizens greater control and security in the digital age. About 63 % of euro area card-based transactions are processed by non-European countries, and 13 out of 20 Eurozone countries are dependent entirely on international card schemes or mobile solutions. Foreign platforms dominate e-payment solutions and mobile apps. Reliance on intermediary banks costs eurozone firms EUR 20 billion annually in fees. With the digital euro, we ensure that monetary sovereignty remains in European hands, while enhancing our resilience in the face of international policy uncertainty.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, eighty years ago Europe rose from the ashes of the most brutal war in human history. However, in some European countries, the suffering was not over. For Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Poles and many other nations occupied by the Soviet Union, it was the beginning of the new wave of Stalin's repressions. Imprisonment in gulags, mass deportations to extreme exile demolished millions of lives. But we resisted; we fought the enemy. We fought alone. In Lithuania and Ukraine the partisan war lasted for a decade, taking away thousands of the bravest. We must remember this in the context nowadays, because the enemy is the same. The peacemakers of the Second World War declared 'we will never let this happen again'. Well, today these very foundations are under attack once more. The unprovoked and unjust invasion of Ukraine, war crimes, genocide of the Ukrainian people and mass propaganda mirrors the aggression and the suffering we once said would never be tolerated. I ask everyone here today to keep that promise. Not any peace, but a just peace must be our ultimate goal, and only then, for the final time, can we say 'never again'.

Madam President, Commissioner, honourable colleagues, as a consequence of Russia's brutal, unprovoked war against Ukraine, damage to Ukraine's infrastructure is estimated to be around EUR 160 billion. Following the full-scale invasion, its GDP contracted by nearly 30 %. We must help Ukraine achieve a lasting and just peace and ensure that it has access to all the available tools for rebuilding. But it is only the economy numbers that can be calculated. But who will evaluate the thousands of lives that were lost in terroristic attacks against civilian infrastructure during this Kremlin's genocide against the Ukrainian nation? They die and suffer, also for us. Our moral debt to Ukraine is uncountable. We should focus more on frontline regions like Kherson and Kharkiv, which are constantly under attack – even now, as we speak. Rebuilding them means restoring the dignity and the hope of millions of Ukrainians. As we look towards peace, we must recognise that rebuilding Ukraine is a strategic investment for the future stability and security of our continent.

Mr President, dear colleagues, it is a textbook reality that when an unfriendly state prepares for military aggression, it begins with disinformation, cyber‑attacks and disruption of communication infrastructure. This strategy has been evident for decades and we have witnessed it when Russia attacked Ukraine. The same tactics to disrupt communication networks are being observed in various parts of the European Union itself – for example, the recent undersea cable sabotage in the Baltic Sea. Our sovereignty is only as strong as our resilience, including the resilience of our strategic infrastructure. Information is power, and the ability to control and protect our communication networks is a fundamental pillar of security. Yet the EU remains dangerously exposed to external dependencies in this domain. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia recently disconnected from the BRELL electricity grid. For years, the Baltic states relied on an energy system that could be manipulated externally. For years, we invested in infrastructure to finally break free. This example must serve as a broader lesson for the EU. We must extend this thinking to our communication networks, ensuring that they remain secure, autonomous and resilient against external threats. A Europe that cannot safeguard its own communications infrastructure is a Europe at risk.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, colleagues, by granting some of the EU Member States greater access while restricting others, the US fragments our unified approach to AI development and places certain European countries at a competitive disadvantage, despite all being part of the same economic and regulatory framework. Treating EU Member States differently in AI chip access contradicts the spirit of transatlantic cooperation and weakens Europe's ability to develop a strong, independent AI sector. The EU relies on American‑made AI chips, but we cannot allow this dependency to be used as a tool to divide us. This division is especially sensitive in the current geopolitical context, where unity and resilience are critical. The EU and US have something in common: the same enemies and threats. Both Russia and China are major potential threats for regional and global stability as well as peace. Let us unite our efforts. We should target China in alliance with the EU, rather than open several front lines with transatlantic allies. If Washington truly views Europe as a trusted partner, it should work with us to strengthen transatlantic AI cooperation, not create artificial barriers within our own borders, and together confront our common threats.

Mr President, 63 000 Ukrainian people, both military and civilians, are listed as missing. Arbitrary detentions and enforced disappearances have become routine Russian tactics. Among those reported missing are Ukrainian prisoners of war, who face brutal treatment and are unlawfully prosecuted under false criminal charges. In its treatment of Ukrainian prisoners of war, Russia is violating the Geneva Convention. One of the most distressing aspects of this crisis is the abduction of Ukrainian children. Since the beginning of the invasion, nearly 20 000 children have been forcibly taken to Russia. This is part of a calculated policy of genocide against Ukrainians. The identity of these children is being erased. They are stripped of their Ukrainian heritage, issued new Russian identity papers and placed for adoption. Tracking and recovering them is an immensely difficult task. The European Union cannot stand by. It is vital to support identification efforts and the creation of a global genetic database, and to impose sanctions on individuals and entities involved in war crimes. Let us provide assistance to the Ukrainian authorities in their search for the missing. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European Union has the highest goals for decarbonisation. However, Europe itself is not the main problem. The Asia-Pacific region leads global carbon dioxide emissions with approximately 18 000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, driven largely by China, which alone accounts for about 30 % of global emissions. Following this is North America, contributing around 15 000 metric tonnes. Europe produces significantly less, at approximately 10 000 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Our efforts alone cannot resolve the global crisis. The fight against CO2 emissions must be a global endeavour. Let me ask you something: why are the wealthy regions of the world investing much more in climate change than the poorest? The answer is obvious: while facing poverty, unemployment, social exclusion, security threats and other existential challenges, you will not bother about global warming. Europe is on the edge of huge economic problems. We will end up in a vicious circle. The fight for the climate did not make us more competitive, and the angry society will not give the mandate for a further green course. A strategy that sacrifices Europe's competitiveness risks undermining its ability to innovate and lead on the global stage. The priority must be ensuring our global competitiveness, rather than engaging in an isolated battle against climate change.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, while the Commission's autumn forecast predicts a modest return to economic growth in the EU – 0.9 % GDP in 2024 – this cautiously positive outlook must not blind us to the reality. Let us compare that to global growth predictions, which are 3.2 %, United States 2.6 %, and China 4.8 % growth. Who is losing? Also, it is vital to address geopolitical risks that could undermine this moderate long-term stability. Russia's continued brutal aggression against Ukraine and the escalating conflict in the Middle East impacts energy security and economic resilience. Growing protectionism in global trade will harm EU's export-oriented economy. The automotive sector is under pressure from a shrinking workforce, rising costs of essential raw materials and unfair competition from China. European steel, heavy manufacturing and textile industry faces challenges as well. The European Union must act decisively to strengthen its industrial base, address labour force shortages, secure resilient supply chains, and focus on targeted policy interventions to ensure the competitiveness of our key sectors.

Madam President, dear colleagues, Donald Trump won the elections. So should we Europeans feel lost in despair, cornered, and let Viktor Orbán do the talking? Are we going to watch, with gloomy faces, Orbán and Robert Fico popping the champagne? Please. The United States is a democratic country and has been our strongest transatlantic ally for decades. We have always stood together against tyrants. Trump is starting the tariff war against China. Europe is facing the same problem with electric cars, batteries and solar modules from China as well. But why should this tariff war spread between everyone in the world? Maybe we should proactively propose an economic alliance for the United States in this tariff war. We created an economic alliance in Europe: the European Union. Why not think of a real transatlantic economic alliance, the economic NATO?

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, Europe is in a vicious circle. We all knew it, but Mario Draghi clearly stated it: the king is naked. We are not competitive anymore. We lack innovation. But who creates innovation? The people. But we are in a big shortage of those people. First of all, the demography. We are dying out. Secondly, the immigration does not solve the problem of shrinking labour force and does not reduce the skills gap because the migrants do not necessarily meet the right skills portfolio. This debate should be a clear message to our educational sector as well. The universities and schools should provide more up-to-date programmes in accordance with the market demand. But, of course, I do not question the need for EU to invest more. Investment in our brightest people and their haute couture skills is a most worthy investment. The skills shortage is a growing barrier to innovation. We have talent, but not enough. Europe produces only 850 science, technology, engineering and math graduates per million inhabitants per year, compared to more than 1 100 in the United States. So, having this type of dynamics, the problems will eventually grow. Additionally to the direct solutions in the educational system, we should also have in mind the demography and targeted immigration policy. Dear colleagues, the developing artificial intelligence and its adaptation in various sectors will open problems in the labour market that we never faced. Let's be aware.

Madam President, dear colleagues, Europe is full. In parallel with a strategic and cautious integration policy – which is a long‑term solution – the only answer is fostering returns. We should be especially alert in the context of instrumentalised immigration. During Lukashenko's hybrid attack on Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, around 150 000 illegal crossings were registered in a short‑time slot, and these crossings were accompanied by the special forces of Belarus, which in some cases forced the migrants to enter the European Union using their brutal armed force. Any kind of further escalation is possible in such a context. Our countries faced a need for an urgent solution. We Lithuanians built a physical barrier on our own account in a record time, but what we really lacked was the common European‑wide approach to returns. The negotiations with third countries on admitting their nationals, for example Iraq, were complicated. Only together as the EU, we can do it. To demolish Schengen and to build walls between ourselves is not a European solution. To strengthen the external borders and to foster the return process, this is the answer.