TRANSCRIPT: “It Is An Existential Moment”: The Old Continent’s New Geopolitical Role at MSC 2025

Pleasure being here and thank you all for coming to Munich. Well, this is an existential moment and it’s a moment where Europe has to stand up. And we have showed three years ago where everybody underestimated Europe as well, especially the Russian President, thinking that he would just invade Ukraine and everybody would keep in silence, that we didn’t repeat the mistake from 2014 before. But we said, now is our answer, that Europe has to be strong and bold and that we, besides all the differences we have, we stand united.

And now, three years later, we are at exactly the same moment again. Our answer to others, my nation first, is Europe united. And this is what we show here on the panel, this is what we have shown in the last couple of days, that we made clear there will not be any peace in Europe if it’s not a European peace. And I’m a bit of a younger generation and my responsibility as a politician is that it’s not a shared peace, but it’s a peace that lasts also for our children, that the war of aggression will never come back to Europe and this is what we are fighting for, this is what we are standing for and this is why we formed a security package which has been unseen in the past. Commissioner von der Leyen mentioned that yesterday, financially, also continuing with defence capabilities and we will stay with Ukraine as long as it needs because we stand for European peace forever.

INTERVIEWER: Thank you. I just would like to clarify, when you think about how Europe at this stage is not around the table in terms of peace negotiations for Ukraine, what is your strategy? How can you put the continent at the table and make the United States President listen to what you want from these peace negotiations?

ANNALENA BAERBOCK: Well, we are here and we will not leave our own continent. And I can only repeat, there won’t be any lasting peace if it’s not a European agreed peace. And yes, we have heard here a speech on this stage yesterday. And I want to be crystal clear, this is the moment of truth. Everybody in the world has to decide whether you stand on the side of the free world or you stand on the side of those who fight against the free world.

And we are standing here on the side of the free world. And speaking for my own country, we are so lucky, my generation, that our allies, the US, but also our Polish partners, France and UK, they have brought democracy to my country. And we call it Wehrhafte Demokratie, resilient democracy. Meaning, if you are resilient, you fight against the enemies of your democracy. And our biggest enemy, and this is where I might disagree with the speech from yesterday, our biggest enemy at the moment is Putin’s Russia, because he has declared war on our European peace and on our European democracy.

And this is why my oath, I swore, as a politician in a democracy of Europe, is to defend this democracy against the enemies from outside. But also to defend it against the enemies from inside. This is also called Wehrhafte Demokratie, resilient democracy. If radical extreme right or Islamistic structures are calling on a fight against our democracy, Europe is strong enough to defend it from inside. And this is again the moment where you have to pick a side for the free and liberal world, the world of democracy, and this is what Europe is all about.

The Threat to Europe

INTERVIEWER: Minister Sikorski, I’ll come to you then, because obviously the words from the Vice President was very much that the threat is from within. But the Minister is highlighting that it’s actually an external pressure. How do you assess this? Where is actually the threat?

RADOSLAW SIKORSKI: In Poland we have no doubt that the threat to Europe, to liberal democracy, to decency, comes from Putin’s Russia. Numerous war crimes have been committed. Vladimir Putin is an indicted war criminal. And he’s also made Russia more authoritarian than the late Soviet Union. There are now more political prisoners in Russia than under Brezhnev.

Coming back to your earlier question, I’m not too worried about Europe not having been consulted before the call. I think the call was a mistake. I argued against an early summit because it vindicates President Putin and lowers morale in Ukraine. But when President Trump says that as part of a deal there will have to be European troops, well, we’ll have to be asked to supply them. So sooner or later we’ll have to be involved.

But in a broader sense, this is a crisis. A crisis and a result of Europe having consumed peace dividend for too long. In Poland we’ve had a super law guaranteeing the defence ministry 2% of GDP for 20 years. We are now at 4.7% because we are scared enough. And lastly, President Trump has a method of operating which the Russians called Razvetka boyem. Reconnaissance through battle. You push and you see what happens and then you change your position. Legitimate tactics. And we need to respond. And I’m very glad that President Macron has called the leaders to Paris tomorrow. And I expect them to relate to this in a very serious fashion.

European Defence Spending

INTERVIEWER: One of the comments from President Macron actually has been that we can’t just buy external defence. He has a very strong opinion towards buying more European defence. But how can you, Minister Barrot, actually ask your European colleagues to buy more European defence? Because some of them believe that the way to convince Donald Trump is actually to have further deals.

JEAN-NOËL BARROT: Well, let me first try to fight against some form of Euro-bashing or Euro-pessimism. We here on stage and many of us are proud to say that we believe that Europe is a superpower. Europe is the place where Covid-19 has been fought against the most effectively. Europe is the continent that has pushed back against a full-scale invasion by Russia that was supposed to be the greatest military power of the world and that has failed to achieve its goals.

And as far as technology is concerned, where Europe has been seen for a long time as lagging behind, I cannot help but notice that last week, this week in Paris on Monday, 300 billion dollars, actually north of 300 billion dollars, were committed by investors from all around the world into Europe to develop massive computing power capacities. And so we lost some battles, but we haven’t lost the war, even the technological war.

And if you’re still not convinced with these arguments, look at people outside of Europe and how much the desire for Europe is strong. If the Ukrainians are still waging a heroic war of resistance against Russia, it all started on the Maidan with the European flag in their hands. And who has taken their place today? It is the Georgian people that every night is resisting a government that is trying to push them away from their European path. They’re waving the European flag, they’re singing the European anthem because they see that Europe is democracy, that Europe is freedom and that Europe is a superpower that can protect them once they’re further on the path to European Union.

That being said, of course, there are big challenges for Europe and my colleagues here have mentioned them. And one of them is to scale up the defence spending. And of course, if we have to spend one or two or three additional GDP points into defence spending, it will only be accepted by our people if this creates jobs in Europe, if this creates value in Europe. And this is why President Macron, since 2017, has pushed hard on the idea of European preference for defence because this is a question of sustainability of the defence effort that we need to sustain.

INTERVIEWER: Just to clarify a point on defence spending, earlier the NATO Secretary General mentioned that we need much more than the 2%. From a French perspective, where do you think we’re going to land on that level?

JEAN-NOËL BARROT: I don’t want to make guesses and it’s not only about quantity, it’s also about quality. But these are discussions that are accelerating across Europe, between our leaders, between ourselves, because we realise, we are now fully aware that the era of peace dividends is over. In our past, not that long ago, we would spend 5% of GDP in defence spending. We even went up to 7% or 8% in the 50s in defence spending.

So we are gradually getting ready for that, not only in terms of capabilities, what are the capabilities that we need at national level, at European level, but what are the financing tools that we need to invent or that we need to give ourselves in order to sustain such an additional effort.

The UK’s Position

INTERVIEWER: And Foreign Secretary, where does the UK position itself in the middle of all of this? You’ve tried to be, historically, some sort of bridge between the United States and the EU. How do you look at the current state of your politics right now and how do you fit into that picture?

DAVID LAMMY: Well, let’s go back a bit to the beginning of this crisis. It was the UK and the US working side by side that demonstrated Putin’s intent and provided the world with the intelligence capability to say, he’s going to attack, he’s going to invade. In the United Kingdom, there is a cross-party consensus that we continue to support Ukraine. I was in Kiev just two weeks ago. What I saw were apartment buildings blown to smithereens, people sleeping in their beds, dying overnight. I saw the devastating effect that Russia has deployed its missiles towards Ukraine’s energy supplies. In the past, I’ve met paramedics rushing to save people’s lives. And I know that this is a brutal war of attrition with Russia making advances.

We’ve been clear in the UK, a three billion commitment for every year as long as it lasts. Now, let us be clear, successive US presidents have asked allies in NATO to do more. It wasn’t that long ago, it was the US, the UK and one other, I think, spending more than 2% on defence spending. Now, it’s 23 countries spending more than 2% on defence spending and we all know that we have to go upward. The UK is absolutely committed to 2.5 and will set out a pathway to 2.5 in a few months’ time.

It is clear to me that there is also, and the US has been clear about that, there is a big threat in the Indo-Pacific. People have given the impression that the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are tied as if it’s tied just at this moment. It was tied in the Second World War. 30,000 British men lost their lives in the Indo-Pacific in the Second World War. It has always been tied and we recognise that pacing threat of the United States bears down on that issue.

So of course Europe has to do more. And then there is a question for us. At the moment we are spending 53%, we are committed to that money on military spend towards Ukraine. 60% now is coming from Europe in terms of overall aid to Ukraine. So we have stepped up. But there is a question for Europe. If we look at GDP combined, it’s about 0.01% that we are spending on that fight for Ukraine. We know this is the front line not just for Ukraine but for Europe. We know too that even when we get to a negotiated peace, Putin will not go away.

So this is an existential question for Europe. We need that question alongside the United States. At an appropriate time we will get into a debate about security guarantees. And there will be an arrangement of course. But quite rightly we say that there is an irreversible pathway for Ukraine towards NATO. That is the cheapest and it is the best mechanism to secure peace not just in Europe but across the Euro-Atlantic.

NATO Membership for Ukraine

INTERVIEWER: When it comes to that NATO membership though, I would like to get your thoughts on some of the comments we have heard already at the Munich Security Conference suggesting that perhaps the best way, the best security guarantee we can do at this stage is telling Ukraine if Russia invades you a third time then you will immediately be part of NATO. Do you think that is too late? Do you think that is not good enough as a security guarantee?

DAVID LAMMY: There is tremendous complexity when we talk about security guarantees. And actually in different theatres of conflict you see different types of security guarantee. I was in Ukraine a month before the war broke out. And at that time the OSCE was effectively the safeguard of that guarantee. And there was a monitoring mechanism. It was breached 20 times by the Russians. We cannot go back to that. We cannot go back to Minsk. That won’t work.

But it is also true that when we look at the border, this is 1,200 kilometres of border. There are 250 brigades currently facing off against each other. This would take tremendous manpower and resource. This is also a theatre of conflict where we have seen major advance. Drone technology particularly.

Drone Technology and Security Guarantees

DAVID LAMMY: And the capability now in Ukraine is tremendous. That may assist us with the guarantees that we need. But in the end we will have to come to an arrangement whereby Ukraine has the guarantee and we have the collected guarantee that if Russia breaches a guarantee we can act. And that is enough of a threat that they don’t breach the guarantee. And those are the questions that we will need to get into in the months ahead.

INTERVIEWER: Minister Sikorski, Mr. Lammy, we both asked to come on this. So I’ll start with you Minister Sikorski, please.

RADOSLAW SIKORSKI: Ukraine already has guarantees that have proven to be empty. Ukraine gave up what was at the time the third largest nuclear arsenal to Russia in return for Russia’s guarantees of inviolability of borders. And they were joined by the US, UK, France and China. And yet have not been acted upon.

What you’re suggesting is that we give a guarantee when Russia invades. What do you mean by that? Does that mean we then go to war with Russia? Because that is what it has to mean if it is to be credible. There is nothing more dangerous in international relations than an empty guarantee. It harms the recipient because it makes them too brave. And it harms the giver because it passes on the decision about the conflict to the recipient. We shouldn’t go there. If we want to give guarantees we have to mean it.

INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much. You also wanted to come on this.

Europe’s Role in Peace Negotiations

ANNALENA BAERBOCK: Yes, and maybe connect again with your first question. Because you said as if it is already written in stone who is at the table and who is not at the table. The talks here at the Munich Security Conference and this is why we are all here. Speaking in times of crisis is most importantly. We have heard especially as Europeans and you asked David about EU. I mean we are sitting here as Europeans, EU plus UK. And there is no differentiation between us here. We made that clear in Paris two days ago in a common statement.

And what we have heard here as Europeans all together is that there are different thoughts from the American side. We read many things in the newspaper. Heard here also in our discussions that this was not meant or is not true or whatsoever what has been written in newspapers. But kind of it doesn’t matter because reality is on the ground. And this is why the moment for us Europeans is so important what we have said for three years time. We have elements for peace on the table. It is not that we haven’t spoken about peace. The most easy way out is that Putin understands this was a big mistake bringing thousands of deaths to his own country. I withdraw my troops. If this element is not possible at the moment we have to look at other elements. But the most important one is not to withdraw some elements right now and say they are not on the table anymore because then your options are very limited.

And also think about what would peace mean not only for Ukraine but for Moldova, for the Baltic states, for whole Europe. What would a peace mean if the peace is not a peace for NATO. I mean Putin has made very clear this is not only a war on Ukraine. This is most of all a war on NATO, on the Europeans, on the Americans and the free world. So a peace would mean that at the end NATO is not being destroyed. But like now NATO is stronger than ever before. And we celebrated 75 years of NATO all together.

And remember the quotations in Washington with Truman citing this alliance is there that politicians can focus on the real things of life, that people can go to school, that they have a decent life, that they can have a life where they care for the families. And if this is the idea also for the new US administration the best thing would be to remember Truman that the alliance has to be strong. And this is why also you ask now at the end in Washington DC we all together declared the pathway for Ukraine lies into the way into NATO. And nobody from us is taking it off the table. And therefore it is for me very important to say right now it would be even the cheapest way if there is this NATO option on the table because as has been said if we employ thousands of soldiers this costs a lot of money. If we are saying we have to increase the military support for Ukraine so much it costs even more money.

So if we are talking business and if we are talking money and deals the question what would be the best and therefore also the best win for us all has more dimension than just a deal which lasts three weeks long and then it is nothing worth anymore.

European Defense Spending

INTERVIEWER: Minister Baerbock I also would like to ask you to comment on the early comments from Minister Barrot regarding spending on European defense. He made the comment that it is important to tell European voters I should say that there is jobs that will be created that we are spending more on defense but there is a reason also for Europeans to do so. What are your thoughts on that?

ANNALENA BAERBOCK: That we have done a lot and this is nothing new within the last 72 hours. We have said like two years ago last year here at the security conference I was on stage I was saying Europe has to pay way more for its own peace. We have to increase the European pillar within NATO. We did that. We are in total together the biggest donor. David has the exact numbers 65% of the whole support from European Union because it is not only military. It is the support of all the Ukrainian refugees in our country. It is the support with reconstruction of schools from electricity sites from hospitals on the ground. So altogether we are already the biggest donor. Is it enough? No. Because obviously people are suffering still in Ukraine. So this is why we said here again at this Munich security conference Europe has to do more and Europe will do more because it is about our peace.

But the peace is more acceptable to come if there is this big unity not only with the United States but not only with them. I greeted some colleagues and friends here from the Arab world in the first row. We met yesterday also and in Paris before at the big conference with Arab partners with Gulf partners. I mean Putin has also lost on this front. There are more than 140 states overall in the world who all say if we have to pick a side we are not picking the side of the aggressor but of peace because they know that peace also for the Middle East is interrelated to peace in Europe. Russia has fled Syria. So the question what is the role in Europe has big consequences also in the Arab world. So also the Gulf countries are very keen on this message.

So we have to use this power now altogether and do not forget and I would like to quote Zelensky here. I think it was very important. If you are not standing with Brussels you are standing with Moscow. And if you are standing with Moscow obviously also in another capital like Beijing people are also very happy. So in an interconnected world the peace is interconnected all over.

Forging New Relationships

INTERVIEWER: Foreign Secretary I want to also perhaps elaborate on this and tell us where do you think about how to forge new relationships going forward given all of the pressures that the continent is facing. How do you deal for instance vis-a-vis with China.

DAVID LAMMY: Before I come to China let me just say on this panel what you have got. You have got Germany undertaken as right and vendor transforming their military capability and I am sure you will see increased capability over this next decade in this next period. You have got Poland with one of the largest armed forces here in Europe. And obviously with France and the UK you have got Europe’s two nuclear powers and you have got 50 percent of Europe’s military capability combined. So that Europe can do this of course we can.

And let us be clear because all of us as foreign ministers have how can I put it detailed conversations with our treasury departments. And one of the messages that we are deadly serious about is if Ukraine were to fail the cost would be considerably more. We were spending on average 77 percent of our GDP on defence in the Cold War and afterwards. So don’t think that actually not meeting the challenge now somehow saves us money down the line. So we are absolutely clear about that.

But of course in this new era this new challenging geopolitical era with challenges in the Middle East we have been at other forums discussing what are the security guarantees that go forward in Gaza for example. We have been on forums discussing the huge challenges in Sudan the huge concerns we have got about this emerging crisis between the DRC and Rwanda. And then of course the meeting I had just before coming to the Munich Security Conference was with the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi raising real issues about why it is that there are Chinese companies providing dual use technology that is assisting Russia to kill people on the European continent. And these are very serious questions.

So we recognise that there is a pacing concern also in the Indo-Pacific and rising tensions in the China seas particularly. All of that requires capability. All of that requires the transatlantic alliance. All of that requires new formulas actually as we forge new alliances with countries like Japan South Korea and Australia and others. And so all of that is a demand that we have to meet combined and together.

INTERVIEWER: Minister Barrot I would like to also get a thought from you in terms of the new relationships that you could forge. And I would like to bring up to the table the question of Mercosur. Is this a time where you should actually be negotiating further trade deals with other parts of the world to make sure that you have other allies, stronger allies given that maybe you can’t rely so much on the United States?

JEAN-NOËL BARROT: Great question. But before that what I would like to share as I was listening to my colleagues with whom I agree 100% is that perhaps one of the largest challenges for Europe in building up this independence in terms of security is to bring on board our public opinion**. You see the discussions that we’ve had throughout this conference they’re conversations between people that are fully aware about the level of the threat. But when I go back to my country whether it’s in cities or in the countryside the level of awareness of our co-citizens is much, much, much lower.

I would even suggest that the Munich Security Conference tours the schools in order to raise this awareness because we will need to get our people who have lived during this era of peace dividends without caring about security to shift their perspective on how we even build our national budget to make the sacrifices and effort that will be requested in order to build our autonomy in terms of security. Because we mentioned innovative funding for defence but that will be needed but will not solve all will not be a substitute for the efforts that we will need to make if we want to meet the challenges ahead of us.

Now, talking about trade I think for a start-up that no one around the globe should consider entering into a trade war with Europe and with the EU because there is so much to lose.

Trade Relations and Deterrence

JEAN-NOËL BARROT: In fact the US themselves, last time they started a war, a trade war mostly against China but we got our share of this trade war they basically lost. They got hurt more than they hurt the people that they were targeting with that trade war. So everyone should think twice before waging a trade war with the EU and in fact with the rest of the world. If the EU is the subject of the trade war wherever it may come from, the EU will retaliate. We’ve done it in the past, we’ll do it again. We’ll defend our interests. In fact we’ve built up some very powerful instruments that should deter anyone from waging a trade war and if this deterrence is not enough then we will retaliate if our interests are at stake.

But of course it’s not enough to deter and to retaliate. We need to diversify our relationships and there is the whole world that awaits for the EU to build stronger trade relationships. In fact the European Commission, the entire Commission will be travelling to India at the end of the month to see how we can step up our cooperation in terms of trade. You mentioned Latin America and indeed we need to build a stronger relationship with these countries and I’m thinking also the Indo-Pacific region where many countries want to establish with European countries both at the bilateral level but also at the European, at the sort of collective level, stronger partnerships and relationships that will make us thrive and that will not drag us into a war that we don’t want to wage, a war between the US and China. So this diversification is something we support. We’re working at it at the bilateral level and we support it at the European level as well.

Audience Questions

INTERVIEWER: I want to open up the floor for questions so please raise your hands if you would like to ask a question to our panellists. We have one question here, a second there and a third there.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 1: Hi, hello. Katarzyna Pisarska, I’m the Chair of the Warsaw Security Forum from Poland. First of all, thank you really for showing huge unity. I think it’s really heartwarming to see how much energy and time you have all, four of you, but not only spend to support Ukraine especially in the last few days. But I do want to challenge you a bit. I want you to imagine that you have Donald Trump sitting here and I want to hear what would you tell him? What is the leverage of Europe on these peace negotiations? What will we bring to the table in a positive manner? But also as you, Minister Barrot, talked about trade wars. You were very decisive. We will respond if this does not go the way we want. How could we say this to Americans on the Ukrainian issue? What type of leverage can we give to Ukraine for it to be able to negotiate with Putin and with Trump? If that is the necessity. Thank you.

INTERVIEWER: All right. We’ll take a second question, perhaps a shorter one, so we make sure that we get to hear from all of our panellists. Yes, the lady over there, please.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 2: Thank you. Thank you. This is Federica Nori, Member of the Italian Parliament. Thank you very much for your interventions. A small provocative question for Minister Baerbock, if I can. Minister Baerbock, in light of what is happening right now, so the attitude of the new administration of Donald Trump and how things look like are going to develop, do you think it was a mistake not to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine? Thank you.

INTERVIEWER: We’ll start with this for now because we have too much time left. What would you say to Donald Trump, Minister Sikorski?

Responses to Donald Trump

RADOSLAW SIKORSKI: We have more chairs, we have more chairs. I would tell him three things. Number one, Joe Biden was your successor and predecessor, but he planted the flag of the United States in downtown Kiev and declared on the streets of Kiev the flag of the United States in downtown Kiev and declared on behalf of the United States that the US will be with Ukraine for as long as it takes until Ukraine secures its independence. Therefore, the credibility of the United States depends on how this war ends. Not just the Trump administration, the United States itself.

I would secondly tell him that if you allow Putin to vassalize Ukraine, that will send a message to China that you can recover what you regard as a renegade province. And that would have direct consequences for US grand strategy, for the US system of alliances and possibly for the future of Taiwan.

And I would thirdly tell him that we Europeans control the Nobel Peace Prize. If you want to earn it, the peace has to be fair.

INTERVIEWER: Very clear. Foreign Secretary, perhaps, what would you tell President Trump if he was sitting right there?

DAVID LAMMY: Look, I hesitate to answer that question directly because I’ve already had dinner with President Trump and we had a good discussion and I think there are meetings ahead of us. I will say to Trump what I said to the Ukrainians. The UK has just signed a 100 year partnership with Ukraine. And I would encourage Donald Trump and the Ukrainians to look very carefully at a deepening partnership over the next generations. Why? Because the best deal and the best security guarantee is binding US industry, business, defense capability into their future. That is what will make Putin sit up and pay attention and that is what is attractive to a US President who knows how to get a good deal.

INTERVIEWER: Minister Barrot.

JEAN-NOËL BARROT: I would tell him to make America great again. And America has never been so great than when it participated and contributed decisively to the international order. And it has never been as great as when it fought for freedom. And in fact, Europe and France have never been as great as when they fought for freedom, including in the US. And that’s the story of Lafayette and that’s the story of the American fighters that liberated France and Europe and that we celebrated this year on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of France. And we will be standing by the US when they exercise this greatness and when they contribute to the peace and freedom throughout the world. I think these are the moments in history when they were really and truly and genuinely great.

INTERVIEWER: And Minister Baerbock, what would you say to President Trump and also to address the question on why Germany didn’t send specific support to Ukraine?

ANNALENA BAERBOCK: Because Europe is 100% united. I would not add something new from Germany. I would say keep on going to dinners with David Lammy. Maybe next time you play golf as well. This would be my recommendation for David. Remember what Jean-Noël Barrot has said to you about making the US great again. And always listen to Poland and don’t repeat the German mistakes that we didn’t listen carefully enough when they warned us about Nord Stream 2. So remember what Poland has told them. It’s Europe deciding about the peace prize and it’s Europe deciding about our peace on our continent. And if this doesn’t help, I would underline that maybe the strongest guy is not the one who needs to kidnap children from another territory, but strength is to build the future for your own children and for your own country.

And due to that, this comes to the question of Taurus. I’ve made clear all over this last three years that we need European unity and this is why I also argued in Germany that I think it was a very good decision of our other European friends and partners that when we all have been to Ukraine, we all saw and I saw it with my own eyes and felt it with my own eyes in Kharkiv. When they told me security answer is you just count until 45 and when you have reached 50, you’re still alive and everything is fine.

Because also all the patriot systems, all the Irish tea Germany has delivered will not bring down these rockets if they are coming directly from Russia and Kharkiv is just next to it. And this is why I agreed with my European partners that it’s very important that the supply chain has to be also attacked and that they don’t have to wait until the rocket flies and hits the children’s hospital, but that defense means that you can also shoot it down before it hits your citizens and I’m very hopeful that at this crucial time we are in here right now where we have heard also from German opposition leader running for chancellor and from the current chancellor that they both said we have to do more financially supporting Ukraine, that also afterwards that there is an agreement we have to be 100% aligned on all the defense issues we’re doing together as Europeans.

Closing Remarks

INTERVIEWER: We don’t have much time left, so I just like to get one quick final thought from all of you. I think it’s fair to say that you have a lot of work ahead, but what is going to be your first priority foreign secretary when you arrive back in London after the conversations you had at the Munich security conference? What is the one thing you want to focus on?

DAVID LAMMY: Well, I know that we will be meeting to discuss further alongside our American friends the issue of security guarantees. There’s great depth that we’ve got to reach and that is an issue that we’ve discussed here and we’ll be working very hard to ensure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position if and when those negotiations begin.

INTERVIEWER: Minister Barrot?

JEAN-NOËL BARROT: So of course we’ll do the follow-up of all the discussions we’ve had throughout this great conference thanks to the organizers and then we’ll head to G20 which will this year be a G19 actually and see how it goes.

INTERVIEWER: Speaking of G’s, do you think that Russia should be allowed back at the G7?

JEAN-NOËL BARROT: That’s a question for Annalena.

INTERVIEWER: That’s a question for France too.

JEAN-NOËL BARROT: Let the woman decide.

RADOSLAW SIKORSKI: I think she should be admitted as soon as she withdraws from Ukraine.

INTERVIEWER: Original. And Minister Baerbock, on a final thought, what is your priority after you leave Munich?

ANNALENA BAERBOCK: Well, answering it again, I’m following Poland. I mean, there was a reason why it’s not G8 anymore but G7 because Putin’s Russia and I underline Putin’s Russia. It’s not about the citizens of Russia and I just saw our friend Navalny sitting here. There are people in Russia praying every day again that peace will come back and also liberty for all of them. So we make crystal clear, when this Russia under Putin attacks all the other seven in the group, they cannot sit at the table. If they are ready to stop attacking us, the free world, obviously there is a chair which is free again. So it is in the hands of the aggressor and this is why for us it’s so clear that at this moment, obviously, the chair is not there.

With regard to what do I do when I go back, well, I’m already in my country, so I go back to election campaigning, obviously, but I’m a diplomat here on the panel but I would like to underline this as well. This is a hybrid warfare. This is a hybrid warfare where Russia is not only attacking Ukraine. We have seen this in all the European elections in our continent. We have seen it also again in the German elections that there is interference and that a support of an extreme right party in Germany is no coincidence but it’s part of this hybrid war strategy. He has said that publicly. So what is the thing I’m doing next? Doing everything I can that we form with all the democratic parties together in Germany, a government which is standing up for our peace and having a strong Brandmauer against those fighting peace and freedom and democracy in Europe.

INTERVIEWER: Minister Barrot, she has answered. France is also a member. So should Russia be allowed back to the G7?

JEAN-NOËL BARROT: Well, you know, this is European unity so I’m not going to give a different answer and it’s true that we’re not at war against the Russian people. We’re pushing back against a regime that sees itself as a new empire that considers borders as a variable of adjustment and this is everything we lose because we’ve contributed alongside the US in building a rule-based international world order that rests on the ability and the freedom of people to decide of their own future and in the territorial integrity and the respect of borders. And so as long as Russia in the future goes back to these principles there is no reason to exclude Russia from the international community and the various formats in which we work to uphold the values of this international community.

INTERVIEWER: Very clear. I’m afraid we have to end the conversation there. But thank you to all of you. Minister Baerbock from Germany, Mr. Sikorski, Minister Barrot and of course the Foreign Secretary David Lammy. Thank you.

Related Posts

• Transcript: Trump-Mamdani Meeting And Q&A At Oval Office
• Transcript: I Know Why Epstein Refused to Expose Trump: Michael Wolff on Inside Trump’s Head
• Transcript: WHY Wage Their War For Them? Trump Strikes Venezuela Boats – Piers Morgan Uncensored
• Transcript: Israel First Meltdown and the Future of the America First Movement: Tucker Carlson
• Transcript: Trump’s Address at Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day