So that is why we need to win this war and we cannot talk about a war going on in Ukraine as not a common war anymore. We are part of this and we have been a part of this for three years now and at the same time we have to be able to defend ourselves. So we have to do our homework in Europe and we have to do it very, very fast.
We have to spend much more on defence and security and we have to grow our economy so we are able to do what is needed to defend our country. So let’s see. I mean, Zelensky is saying he is open to talk with Putin. I don’t know if we can trust Putin. I have my doubts. We have to try but we have to ensure that Ukraine and Europe win this war.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you. I think this is exactly the direction we need to go. Prime Minister, us winning means Russia losing. It means a Russian defeat. How do you see a Russian defeat? What has to happen for Russia to be defeated?
Sweden’s View on Russia’s Defeat
ULF KRISTERSSON: Well, first of all, not to repeat, I agree with everything the word of Mette. Sometimes we are asked, what is really your strategy? And I think it was Mette who first coined saying, actually we do have one. From 2007 onwards we did not have one. Now we are actually fighting against them. Then you can always discuss, are we successful enough? Are we doing enough? And obviously not, but still doing the right thing. I think, before I ask your question, I think Vladimir basically pointed to all the principle factors in this. No talks about Ukraine without Ukraine. No talks about Europe without Europe. That does not in itself guarantee a good result or the result we would like to see, but it provides a foundation for us to be part also of the long term solution. I think that is important.
But basically, I mean, what it needs to end in is of course Ukraine entitled to make their own decisions. I mean, obviously, the decisions Sweden and Finland made after the full scale invasion to have the right to make your own security policy decisions in the long term. That is basically the needed result of that. And in that sense, every result that simply ends in a possibility for the Russians to rearm, to regroup and to come back and to go further than they did before, that is obviously an extremely bad solution. And I think the jury is still out. It’s not obvious that we’re going to have a bad result, but it’s equally not obvious that we right now are going in the right direction.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much. Chancellor, Chairman, I’m sorry, Chairman. It is a panel of Heads of State. It is a panel of Heads of State. Of course, Chairman, Chairman, it cannot be overstated how important for a joint European response is Germany. What is your vision? What is your vision for a peace in Europe, a peace in Ukraine, and of course, a defeat of Russia?
Germany’s Stance on Ukraine and Transatlantic Relations
FRIEDRICH MERZ: So first of all, many thanks for your compliment, but there are still 60 million voters between you and me. If you allow, I would like to set up the bigger framework we are working in, actually, and there is an elephant in the room here, and the elephant is the transatlantic relationship. And I think I should give some brief comments on what we have heard yesterday and today on our relationship. My first comment goes to the outcome of the elections. We respect the presidential elections and the congressional elections in the U.S., and we expect the U.S. to do the same here.
My second comment goes to our shared values and shared powers. We stick to the rules which are given by our democratic institutions. This includes our own legal approach to deal with, for example, published information and opinions. Free speech remains free speech, and is and remains part of our open democratic society. But fake news, hate speech, and offenses remain subject to legal restraints and control by independent courts. And I think I should say that in front of the events which took place in D.C. yesterday, we would never kick out a news agency out of the press room of our Chancellor. And our legal framework in the European Union is and remains valid for all private persons and private companies doing business in Europe, independently from where they come from and where their headquarters are based.
We look for close cooperation with the Trump administration and with the American market, and we strongly believe in free trade, open markets, and that’s the reason why we would like to see tariffs brought down to zero as fast as possible. We don’t believe in trade conflicts or even trade wars. And my last comment goes to the foreign security policy. We know that we have to catch up quickly our expenses on defense, and we know that this is triggered by the events we are seeing since three years now. But I fully agree with Mette Fredriksen and others here on the podium. By the way, I wish all the Social Democrats in the European Union were as clear as we have heard here from the podium, by the way. But this is something which is not challenging just the territory of Ukraine.
This is challenging the entire political order which we have set up after 1990. So this is the reason why we are standing behind Ukraine, not just because of Ukraine, but because of our own security on our European continent. And I absolutely share the view which was mentioned here that we have to do everything what we can to bring the country, to bring Ukraine into a position of strength. And as soon as they are starting to negotiate, they have to sit on the table at the key country, and we as the Europeans have to be strongly behind them. And it’s absolutely unacceptable that Russia and the United States of America are negotiating without Ukraine and without the Europeans on the table.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much, Chairman. President Pavel, but I really have to press, and I have to press the panel. What is Europe bringing to the negotiating table? What can we give today to Ukraine that we haven’t given yet, that would strengthen Ukraine’s position in its negotiations with not only Vladimir Putin, but it looks like also President Donald Trump?
Europe’s Support for Ukraine
PETR PAVEL: If we look at President Putin’s objectives, it was full control of Ukraine, demilitarization, removal of democratically elected government, and in fact erasing Ukraine from the map of the world. I think our best approach would be to tell him that whatever effort he put into this endeavor, it will fail. We will have to express our clear determination that if Ukraine wants to be part of European Union and eventually NATO, they are authorized to do it if they meet all the conditions, and of course if the organizations agree. I think it’s a principle that we should cherish.
In that sense, we are already providing Ukraine a lot of military support. We can further expand either Danish model of building their capabilities in place, also reinforce capabilities like ammunition initiative, giving them more financial resources, but we should also start in parallel with providing them with military capability, thinking of post-war reconstruction. That would be a clear and sound message to Russia that we count with Ukraine. We take them on board. I believe that coming up from the level of the EU with something like Marshall Plan for Ukraine would be an excellent idea, how to not only organize our support for reconstruction, to prevent any pressures for corruption on both sides, but also we can start preparation of Ukraine for EU accession in a very successive way, step by step. I think that would really work.
It would demonstrate that whatever objectives the Russians had, they failed, and as they always looked at Ukraine somehow from above, because they called them ho-ho’s based on history, we can show them that these people they were laughing at will have much better living conditions that the Russians have in their own country. They would have a freedom to travel, freedom to work, and I think that will be the best demonstration of Russian failure in Ukraine.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much, President. Going on, Prime Minister, what can we put on the table? Would you, for example, support giving frozen assets to Ukraine? Do you imagine such an agreement in Europe in the next six months happening around that? And are there other things that we can provide if we agree that this is so incredibly timely from every single side?
METTE FREDERIKSEN: Yes, yes, yes.
Support for Ukraine and NATO Membership
METTE FREDERIKSEN: I’m sorry, there’s two Prime Ministers. Of course, the frozen assets is one way forward. I don’t have any restrictions on that. I have said repeatedly for a couple of years now, please get rid of the red lines for Ukraine, because it’s only giving them a lot of difficulties, no matter if we’re talking about economy or weapons and so on. The best thing to give Ukraine, let’s be honest, I know some allies are against this, is NATO membership. If they were a member of NATO, we would never have to have the war in Ukraine. It’s the cheapest, it’s the easiest way forward to protect countries transatlantic, it is to be in NATO.
I know it’s a difficult path because some good big allies are not in favor of this, but then at least these good big allies have to discuss with the rest of us what kind of security guarantees can we then offer Ukraine that are as good as NATO membership. And I’m just going to repeat, it’s the cheapest, it’s the easiest way, that’s NATO membership. So of course, economy is one way forward, security guarantees is number two. Thirdly, and you know, for three years we are repeating ourselves, they still need a lot of stuff and measures on the battlefield. I mean, they are fighting a war, and if you are fighting a war, you need weapons. And even though we have donated a lot, all of us, we are still not providing them with what is needed.
We promised in Washington last year to give them at least six or seven air defence systems. Have they received six or seven air defence systems? The answer is no. And you cannot protect a country without air defence systems. So I mean, frozen assets, yes. Security guarantees, yes. Give them the strength before negotiations, yes. But on the battlefield, there is only one thing that counts. Do you have the weapons? Do you have what is needed? And sorry guys, there is no excuse for this. We have the weapons, but talking about that, we have to ramp up production.
And the Czech initiative, we have been working extremely closely together, has been very effective on ammunition, artillery ammunition, good. We found out a year ago that the stocks were out, so we started this new initiative, it is now one year old, to support production directly in Ukraine. And let me tell you one thing, I mean, they are able to produce much faster and cheaper than the rest of us, and they are in a war. I mean, it is almost, I mean, no, we have a problem friends. If a country at war can produce faster than the rest of us, yes, we don’t want to be in war, but can we take the other part of this sentence? And ramp up production, and we need to do that transatlantic.
So I really, really believe, and I would strongly encourage all of us to ramp up production. I am not saying we are at wartime, but we cannot say we are at peacetime anymore. So we need to change our mindset, we need to have a sense of urgency, I think we need a kind of an emergency break inside the European Union, get rid of all the legislation and all the bureaucracy, produce what is necessary, do transatlantic to ensure that Ukraine will get what they need, but also to ensure that we are able to protect ourselves, because some of us are willing to spend much more defense and security, but we cannot buy what is needed. So industry and production lines are also extremely important.
European Defense Spending and Fiscal Rules
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Absolutely, and on that actually I would like to ask Chairman Merz, I think everyone right now in the room agrees we have to spend more on European defense, and 2% is the floor, there is no doubt about it. In closed rooms here everybody says we understand it, we get it, we got the memo, now we are realizing it. But we have to know also where we get the money from. And you have seen a lot of ideas floating around, including relaxing EU fiscal rules, and the Stability and Growth Pact rules, which would allow us to actually borrow on markets for defense bonds for the European Union. Would you support as Chancellor such an idea?
FRIEDRICH MERZ: Well, the first answer is that we have passed through Parliament in Germany a special asset, we call it Sondervermögen, of 100 billion Euro, to do all the work and to purchase all the equipment we need for our army, and we are doing so. And this is enough to formally fulfill the 2% requirement until 2027. From then on we have to spend much more money from the regular budget, from our federal budget, and the question is open where this money comes from.
I am open to have any debate on resources, but I am not willing to accept that we are speaking only about money. There are two preconditions in my view. The one is we have to come to a unanimous vote of all the NATO states, and the next opportunity is the Hague by end of June. And this is not a question that one is moving ahead with numbers. This is something which we have to agree on jointly. And this makes no sense to bring numbers into the public debate, three or four or five, before we are having a consensus with the NATO.
My second point is, beyond money, we need simplification of our systems, we strongly need standardization of our systems, and we strongly need scale, economies of scale. I am not willing to accept, I give you an example in a number, I am not willing to accept that we are producing more than 150 different military systems within the European Union, and spending more money, more money, more money on our different systems. Standardization, simplification, economies of scale is at least as important as new money and new goals in terms of part of our GDP. So if this is a combination of all, I could agree, but if not, I am not willing to accept that, only to spend more money and leave all the other things like we did in the past.
This is now really a change of an era, Zeitenwende, this weekend here is much more, is much clearer than any time before, and if we are not hearing the wake up call now, it might be too late for the entire European Union.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much. And actually we are going to do a round backwards, and one very short question as I have you, Chairman. I wanted to ask you all about security guarantees for Ukraine. The Prime Minister said very clearly, NATO membership is what I am going to support and fight for. Is the new government going to support NATO membership for Ukraine? Because the previous government, the current government has been very, very cautious.
FRIEDRICH MERZ: Well, from the last NATO summit, there is an agreement within NATO that Ukraine gets the perspective of becoming a member. And with this to be changed, NATO has to do it jointly. And I don’t agree with anybody who is putting NATO membership off the table before the negotiations with Russia have begun. So there is a status, there is an agreement, there is something NATO has already decided, and to change it might be an option. But this is not something which one NATO member alone has to decide on.
Security Challenges in the Baltic Sea
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much. Prime Minister, Sweden has been, not only Sweden of course, but Baltic countries, Nordic countries have been dealing with a number of direct attacks on our infrastructure, underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. Could you tell me what is the plan to respond to this? And how are we also putting this into a larger strategy when it comes to the war that Russia has waged against Ukraine and against the European continent?
ULF KRISTERSSON: Just allow me to add on Friedrich’s remark that if NATO one year concludes that Ukraine has an irreversible path to NATO and the year after that decides we were not really telling the truth, that is the enormous kind of, it really questions the character of decision-making in the NATO.
Well, the Baltic Sea is obviously under threat. We normally, I think Mette put it in a good way saying that we are obviously not at war, but obviously not at peace either regarding the Baltic Sea. And we are quite careful, we don’t easily single out or attribute countries for doing hostile things against our cables or electricity cables or things like that. But equally we don’t just believe in random things suddenly happening quite often, you know. I fully understand that there might be such a thing as a seriously bad seamanship, but they normally don’t occur that often and on that scale, you know. So there is something pretty odd in that.
So we take it extremely seriously. Finland has caught basically even though it was formally voluntarily and we did the same with different vessels and they are thoroughly being examined and we, at least we attribute the countries that behind them even though it’s, and the character of hybrid threats is, it is supposed to be hard to detect whether there are intentional damages or not. So that almost proves it basically. So what we are doing now, we are, well, the NATO operations centre is one part of that. We are collaborating extremely closely between all the Baltic countries right now in the air. I was myself looking at these vessels the other day from air and we do it also on the surface. So I think we have pretty good possibility to detect them and to deter them, but obviously we need to do even more to stop them totally. There is a good connection also to the Ukrainian war in that because the Russian shadow fleet is heavily present on the Baltic Sea and a lot of oil and money is basically coming that way. So there are different good reasons to stop it and I think we are taking that much more seriously now than we did previously.
European Unity and Sanctions
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Before I turn to the public for the last 15 minutes, and I see already a lot of good hands, a lot of good hands, very quickly, Prime Minister and President, our strength was our unity, especially on sanctions. Do you think that unity is threatened within the next half a year or a year? Do you imagine a situation in which one or more countries decide not to prolong EU sanctions and what happens then? Prime Minister, please.
METTE FREDERIKSEN: That risk is of course, there is a risk, but I think until now we have managed to stay tuned and acting much more collectively and united than maybe even ever before within the European Union. I mean, you can hear, when you listen to me, I’m not very optimistic on behalf of the world at the moment because I don’t think the challenges are going to disappear. I believe in the opposite, unfortunately, but I’m very optimistic about Europe and the European Union and I’m also optimistic about NATO. I mean, NATO and the European Union are stronger today than we were before the war.
So until now we have managed, but I think at the same time there is a risk, of course, that some countries at a certain point will say, well, we cannot support Ukraine anymore, but then the rest of us has to continue. So for me it’s not, what is necessary to do has to be done and maybe at one stage it will not be with unity. I don’t know about that. I will work very hard to ensure that. We had, as Antonio Costa said before, a very good discussion only a few weeks ago. I have never heard all 27 countries in the European Union being so much aligned on defence and security before. I’ve never heard it. I mean, all of us are now saying the same. We have to spend much more. We have to ramp up production.
I totally agree with you that standardisation and so on is an important thing, but when we are talking about how much we have to spend, we have to look at reality. If I look at our eastern flank, the Baltic Sea, high north Arctic region, terrorism, the Sahel region, Middle East, fragile countries just outside the European Union, Moldova, Georgia, the West Balkans and so on, 2% is not enough. In the Pacific, 2% is not nearly enough. So I think we have to start from that corner. What are the realities? Our most important task as political leaders are to protect our people, our values, our countries and our continent and our alliance with the US and Canada and other good friends. And if we are to protect everything we believe in, 2% is not enough. That’s the conclusion, I think.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much, Prime Minister. And last, President, on this unity question, many here worry if European unity will not crumble if under pressure of the Americans. And I think for the first time we need to have a clear scenario, a way forward if the United States decides on something that’s clearly against European interests or will be pushing for a scenario in Ukraine which we cannot accept. Will you worry then about European unity?
PETR PAVEL: With all the differences in assessing of different problems and we face that in NATO very frequently, I am a strong believer in the value of the alliance and the EU. We have developed a culture of coming up to a common position, to an agreement despite all the differences. And that’s why I strongly believe that both the United States and Europe have a common interest of working transatlantic bond. It serves both sides without any doubt. And being allies truly gives us an opportunity to be very open, blunt if necessary, but always open to listening, understanding each other and coming up to a position. I think we have to find the strength to speak up. Not everyone has it, especially when we get under pressure of a view presented in an authoritative way.
European Unity and Transatlantic Relations
PETR PAVEL: But I think we have to speak up, we have to be so confident. If we are sure about our arguments, we have to tell them in a very open way and push on coming up to a common position. And always put forward that we are the allies, not the competitors, not the opponents.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much. And let’s open, I saw people who already rose their hands. Titi, Agnes and then Alexander. Let’s take three questions together and then if we manage, we take a second round of questions.
Audience Questions
TITI TUPURAINEN: Thank you, Katarzyna. I am Titi Tupurainen from Finland. And I think one of the most important questions over European destiny is the question of Ukrainian military resources. Who gets to benefit from Ukrainian military resources? Battle-hardened armed forces, world-class arms industry, who gets them? Is it Russia who would get them after some kind of a deal? It would try to colonize Ukraine in order to get its outstanding world-class military resources. Or is it Europe? Hopefully together with the US, but if necessary alone, Europe would get most powerful ally of Ukraine because of its outstanding military resources. Do we realize that? What is at stake when it comes to Ukrainian military resources and how could we better unite with Ukraine?
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much. Agnes, please.
AGNES: Thank you very much for this very important discussion and thank you very much especially for you, the Danish Minister President, for your very clear words. So I have a question to Mr. Merz. Thank you, Mr. Merz, also for your very clear message that Germany will be close to Ukraine also in the future. So a simple question. When you are the new Chancellor of the Republic of Germany, are you ready and give you green light to support Ukraine and deliver the Taurus?
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much. Aleksandr?
ALEKSANDR: Thank you very much. Great questions from my colleagues already. This time brief. No, that is a moment because if Russians will kill people like me, then they will take our sons to kill you. That is so easy. That is at stake and you should remember this. And my question really, I want to hear from Mr. Merz. Is Germany ready to lead? We need a leadership in Europe and yesterday’s speech of Mr. Vance showed it to everybody, even to blind, I think. So that is the question to you. Leadership, Taurus is German equipment.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you. And then maybe next we will take a question. Please introduce yourself.
TAN DECI: Thank you very much. Tan Deci, MP and Chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee. I think we would all agree that Vladimir Putin has made a huge strategic blunder which has led to colossal death and destruction. But it is incredible to have now the membership of both Sweden and Finland within NATO with their amazing capabilities. But with the potential absence of US leadership within Europe, do you think that other European nations have what it takes to show solidarity and leadership? Do you think that the UK should be showing leadership and stepping forward to take that leadership role? And what would your message be to those nations who are not even meeting the 2% target?
Panel Responses
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much. Okay, we go back to the panel. I am sorry, Chairman Merz, it seems that you are on the spotlight. So two questions. What about the Taurus? And most importantly, what will be your vision for a peaceful Europe?
FRIEDRICH MERZ: Well, my personal position and the position of my parliamentary group has always been clear on these cruise missiles. And I would like to repeat again what I am saying during the election campaign now, that we should be willing to deliver. But only if we are having an agreement within the European partners. And there are at least two who are delivering missiles, cruise missiles, that is the UK and France. And we should come to a common position how to do that and how to coordinate our efforts. And yes, we are having a majority in Parliament on that, as far as I see. Still in the existing Parliament and most likely in the upcoming Parliament, there will be a majority. But this will be an executive decision, not a parliamentary decision. And my personal view and my willing is still and remains to deliver within the European coordinated framework of delivering more weapons to Ukraine.
I am hearing very often during the meetings and the one-on-ones we had here on this conference, that there is obviously a lack of German leadership within the European Union. And I fully agree with all those who are demanding more leadership from Germany. And frankly, I am willing to do that. Because I am seeing that Germany is in a strategic position in the centre of Europe, that so many things in Europe depends on Germany, that we are having to take a new role, which is traditionally the role Germany had taken in the past, with Adenauer beginning and Helmut Kohl and others, who were willing to take joint leadership within the European Union. And I think this is more important than ever. Because we are seeing now these fundamental changes, especially in our transatlantic relationship. And we didn’t hear what the Trump 1 administration told us. Now we have to listen and we have to learn a little bit more painfully than we had the chance to do eight years before.
UK, I would like to see the United Kingdom very close to the European Union, very close to our strategic efforts. I am still regretting that they left the European Union, but this happened. You will come back. I still regret that. It wasn’t necessary and we all know why it happened. This is now the past. This has happened. But we have to do everything, anything what we can do, to bring the UK closer to the European Union, within NATO at least, and beyond.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you very much. Prime Minister, to add to this group of questions, I am surprised nobody asked about the question of troops on the ground in Ukraine. Troops on the ground. So Europeans actually sending troops. And this is something that President Trump has alluded to. This is what the administration, as I understand, has taken upon, discussed. Of course there are probably more questions than really answers about this. But what would be Sweden’s approach? Do you think Europeans should be on the ground and in what role?
ULF KRISTERSSON: Well, two quite obvious comments. One is, of course, that before you put troops on the ground, you really have to think through what should happen if those troops are being attacked. I mean, that’s the trivial to say that. Do you think that the Trump administration has an answer to that? That leads to my second conclusion. If we are to take responsibility from the European Union side, from European Union countries, for all the solutions after an agreement, we obviously need to be part of the agreement. There is no possibility just to leave the consequences for an agreement to European Union countries.
But of course I don’t exclude the possibility for an agreement that needs to be protected also by European Union countries. But I have a very hard time to say that that could be made without very, very credible guarantees on what is happening if they are being attacked. Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, it’s obvious to say that. But it’s so easy to just stay loose on the ground without thinking through that. But that’s also why we are so needed in all these talks that ends up in an agreement.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Is this also the position of Denmark and the Czech Republic, please?
METTE FREDERIKSEN: I totally agree with Ulf on this point. But let me say, when you are to form a political strategy, and it doesn’t really matter if it’s a national or a European, you cannot have a lot of question marks. You have to be willing to write the conclusion. So instead of saying, can we spend more than 2%, we have to say, okay, we have to defend ourselves. Maybe more on our own than we want to. What is the need then? That would be much more than 2%. How are we going to reach it? Instead of, you know, you’re putting the questions the other way around. Can we do more for Ukraine? Stop putting that question on the table. We have to put it the other way around. So if we don’t want Russia to win the war, then the question should be, okay, if Ukraine has to win this war, what should we do then to ensure that? If we want to protect ourselves, we want to protect our, I mean, there’s nothing more important than protecting your own citizens, your society, our common values, our continent, the transatlantic alliance. If we are to protect ourselves, what is needed to do that? So we have to put the questions, it has to be, yeah, exactly.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Thank you. Thank you. Can you come with me the rest of the day? Natalia is fantastic, yeah. Thank you so much, Prime Minister. We have 30 seconds, actually. President, following on what the Prime Minister said, when we meet here next year at this time, what would you like for us to be the answer? So where will we be on Ukraine?
PETR PAVEL: It’s great to have 20 seconds, and Christabel, well, I think all of us would like to see, to have a peace agreement that would be as just as possible for Ukraine, measures that would ensure at least for a foreseeable future before Ukraine becomes a member of NATO and the EU, that it is capable to repel any possible attack against its territory, and all the measures ready for Ukraine to successfully become a member of both the institutions. I think that would be the outcome that I would love to see.
KATARZYNA PISARSKA: Excellent. And with this optimistic message, let’s give a huge round of applause to our panel.
Related Posts
