Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen

Woensdag 16 februari 2022 - Straatsburg

4. De betrekkingen tussen de EU en Rusland, de Europese veiligheid en de militaire dreiging van Rusland tegen Oekraïne (debat)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the European Council and Commission statements on EU-Russia relations, European security and Russia’s military threat against Ukraine (2022/2518(RSP)).

Dear Colleagues, as announced at the beginning of this part-session, our agenda of this week is dominated by the situation in Ukraine.

Today, we are starting our day with the most pressing debate on EU-Russia relations, European security and Russia’s military threat against Ukraine amidst intense international diplomatic exchanges to de-escalate the situation.

I am pleased to welcome the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles, who are with us to discuss the latest developments on the ground in the wider context of European security and EU-Russia relations. Welcome to the plenary.

On behalf of the European Parliament, we have repeatedly expressed solidarity with the people of Ukraine as they continue to face the uncertainty of the past weeks and fear of Russian military aggression. What we are witnessing here is also a threat to peace in Europe.

I want to recall that, in September last year, the European Parliament adopted a resolution that called for containing Russia’s influence in the EU and its Eastern Neighbourhood and, in December last year, we also adopted a resolution where we criticised the actions of the Russian authorities and underlined our preparedness to ‘agree swiftly on further joint action’, including sanctions.

Today, just after this debate, we will vote on granting EUR 1.2 billion of ‘macro—financial assistance to Ukraine’. I would like to thank the European Commission for this timely proposal to support Ukraine’s financial stability and resilience in the current difficult circumstances.

Also later today, the Conference of Presidents will discuss the declaration on the situation in Ukraine.

I would like to stress that, while we urge for a de-escalation of the current tension between Ukraine and Russia, this Parliament stands ready to support swift, forceful and concrete action, in coordination with other European institutions. The Union’s unity and close cooperation with our partners are key for the European Union to play a strong role on the international stage and to contribute to peace and security. We would be interested to know how lessons learned from the current situation will also be reflected in the works on the future Strategic Compass for the EU.

Finally, I would like to thank you, President Michel, President von den Leyen and High Representative Borrell, for your engagement in the intense consultation on identifying ways to address the situation at the EU’s eastern borders and your efforts to uphold fundamental principles of the existing European security architecture.

Without further delay, I would like to give the floor to President of the European Council, Charles Michel, for your statement.

  Charles Michel, President of the European Council. – Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, dear High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, this week is expected to be an important geopolitical week for the European Union. We will hold our joint summit with the African Union. Some 80 delegations of African and European leaders are arriving in Brussels to negotiate a strategic partnership between our two continents.

Yet, the extremely serious situation in Eastern Europe has crept into all our agendas. Allow me to lay out the range of actions taken by the EU to deal with this crisis, in very close coordination with our allies. And let me explain how the European Council will approach our future decisions, whether in the short or longer term.

Ladies and gentlemen, Russia has undertaken an unprecedented military escalation against Ukraine. The Russian authorities have repeatedly said they have no aggressive intentions towards this sovereign country. And this despite already annexing part of Ukrainian territory, Crimea, in 2014 and constantly undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, especially in eastern Ukraine.

Encircling a country with an extraordinary deployment of military forces, never seen before, can only be seen as aggressive and threatening behaviour. This escalation not only endangers the stability and integrity of Ukraine, it also threatens peace and security in Europe and the rules-based international system.

We, the EU, NATO allies, Member States, are working together at every level, on a daily basis, consulting politically and acting together. We are working at a level of intensity and quality that we have not seen for years. Our unity is stronger than ever and we have adopted a strong and clear strategy in three areas.

First, diplomacy. We have chosen to give every opportunity to the diplomatic route. European and American leaders have undertaken countless diplomatic initiatives and missions. We have activated negotiating platforms for dialogue with Russia, such as NATO, the OSCE, or the Normandy format. And I would like to commend Olaf Scholz and Emanuel Macron for their important role.

We have never stopped giving priority to diplomatic channels, even when these efforts did not seem to produce immediate tangible results. Yet, in the last two days, Russia has signalled that it may be open to diplomacy and we urge Russia to take concrete and tangible steps towards de-escalation. Because this is the condition for sincere political dialogue.

We cannot eternally attempt diplomacy on one side while the other side is amassing troops.

Mesdames et Messieurs, en sus de cet engagement diplomatique, nous travaillons sur le deuxième sujet, qui est la préparation des sanctions et des mesures restrictives, pour le cas où elles devraient être nécessaires. Le Conseil européen, au mois de décembre, a eu l’occasion de fixer avec clarté le cadre politique des 27 chefs d’État ou de gouvernement. Nous considérons que, s’il devait y avoir une agression militaire contre l’Ukraine, le coût pour la Russie devrait être sévère et les conséquences devraient être massives; mais nous devons aussi être francs les uns par rapport aux autres: cela veut dire que les conséquences pour nous, Européens, seraient lourdes également, et, le moment venu, si cela était nécessaire, nous devrions être prêts à assumer cette responsabilité.

Je remercie le travail préparatoire qui est mené par le haut représentant et par la Commission. Le Conseil européen et les États membres, si nécessaire et le moment venu, auront l’occasion de se prononcer et de prendre les décisions politiques sur ce sujet, et cela en étroites coopération et coordination avec l’ensemble de nos partenaires et de nos alliés.

Enfin, Mesdames et Messieurs, il est un troisième point qui me paraît essentiel: c’est le point qui touche directement au soutien à l’Ukraine et au peuple ukrainien. Bien sûr, ce soutien doit être, comme il l’est depuis longtemps, politique. Nous affirmons la souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriale de l’Ukraine, nous le répétons. Nous reconnaissons également cette aspiration européenne, cette aspiration euro-atlantique de l’Ukraine. Ce soutien est aussi financier, parce que les circonstances, on le mesure bien, provoquent d’ores et déjà un dommage significatif quotidien pour le système économique ukrainien. Nous saluons la décision rapide annoncée par la Commission: 1,2 milliard d’euros mobilisés sur le terrain de l’aide macrofinancière.

Je pense que nous allons devoir aller au-delà de cela, avec l’ensemble de nos alliés et de nos partenaires. C’est pourquoi je veux lancer ici cette proposition d’initiative de mettre en place, en étroite coopération avec l’Ukraine et l’Union européenne, une conférence des donateurs, afin de soutenir la robustesse économique de l’Ukraine, envers qui cette menace brutale a été engagée, et de soutenir aussi le programme des réformes – tellement importantes – pour ce pays.

Enfin, Mesdames et Messieurs, je voudrais clôturer ces quelques mots par deux messages. Le premier message, solennel, je veux l’adresser au peuple ukrainien. En 2014, le peuple ukrainien, fier et libre à Maïdan, dans les sacrifices qui ont accompagné ce moment de cette histoire, de leur histoire, de notre histoire, a fait le choix de la liberté, a fait le choix de la démocratie libérale et a fait le choix de l’état de droit. L’Union européenne, depuis ce moment, n’a cessé de soutenir et d’accompagner ce choix libre et souverain du peuple ukrainien. Je veux affirmer avec solennité que l’Union européenne restera du côté de l’Ukraine. L’Union européenne ne laissera pas tomber le peuple ukrainien.

Mesdames et Messieurs, le deuxième message, je souhaite l’adresser à la Russie et à ses dirigeants. Le choix, aujourd’hui, est entre la guerre – et les sacrifices tragiques qui l’accompagnent – et le courage de l’engagement politique et de la négociation diplomatique. Très clairement, l’Union européenne est pour le choix de la diplomatie et de la négociation. Nous saurons faire preuve de ce courage. Nous saurons aussi faire preuve de la fermeté qui serait nécessaire si un autre choix devait être posé. Je pense à ce courage de la négociation pour garantir des solutions durables, afin d’assurer la stabilité et la sécurité mutuelles. C’est le choix que nous devons aux peuples d’Europe. C’est le choix que les dirigeants russes doivent au peuple russe.

Mesdames et Messieurs, dans quelques heures, les 27 dirigeants européens seront réunis à Bruxelles pour ce sommet avec l’Afrique. Je ne doute pas que nous aurons l’occasion d’exprimer la fermeté, l’unité et la force de l’Europe pour porter nos valeurs et pour rester aux côtés du peuple ukrainien.

  Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission. – Madam President, President Charles Michel, High Representative Josep Borrell, honourable Members, the very reason why our Union was created was to put an end to all European wars. So it is particularly painful for me to address you today, as we face the largest build-up of troops on European soil since the darkest days of the Cold War.

The people of Ukraine are bravely trying to get on with their lives, but many of them keep emergency bags by their front doors, with basic clothes and important documents, in case they have to rush away from home. Others have stockpiled food cans to prepare for the worst. Some have even set up shelters in their basements. These are not stories from the 1940s. This is Europe in 2022. And this is happening because of the deliberate policy of the Russian leadership. Ukraine is a sovereign country. It is making its own choices about its own future. But the Kremlin doesn’t like this, and so it threatens war. And this is the essence of the current escalation. This is something we simply cannot accept. I think diplomacy has not yet spoken its last word, and we saw signs of hope yesterday. But now deeds have to follow those words.

In the last seven years, Ukraine has suffered from the Kremlin’s constant aggression. But despite that heavy burden they have, Ukraine has come such a long way. It has taken important steps to fight corruption, it has rebuilt its infrastructure, it has created new jobs for its talented youth. And our Union has accompanied them, putting together the largest support package in our history. Of course, the people of Ukraine know that their democracy still has some flaws and issues to deal with, but Ukraine today is a sovereign, more free, more strong country than in 2014, and this is precisely why the Kremlin is threatening it again.

We stand firm with Ukraine. The idea that the Kremlin should decide what Ukrainians can or cannot desire we simply cannot accept. The idea of spheres of influence are ghosts of the last century. This crisis is about Ukraine, yes, but it is also about much, much more. It is also about what it means to be a sovereign, independent and free country in the 21st century. It is about everyone’s right to live free from fear, and it’s about every country’s right to determine its own future. This is the message that our Union has to send to the Kremlin.

Like everyone in this room, I truly hope that the Kremlin will decide not to unleash further violence in Europe. Yesterday, Russia was certainly sending conflicting signals. On the one hand, the authorities announce Russian troop pullbacks. On the other hand, the Duma votes for the formal recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent republics.

But I still strongly believe in diplomacy. It is good to hear yesterday’s commitment to the Minsk Agreement. President Macron and Chancellor Scholz have travelled to Kyiv and Moscow. Several others are also speaking to both sides. I am constantly exchanging with all of them, as well as with President Biden, Prime Minister Trudeau and Prime Minister Johnson. I must really say the transatlantic community has not been so united for a long time. Let me just mention one recent episode.

Earlier this month, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov wrote 36 letters to each and every Member State of the European Union and NATO ally with a series of demands. He received two letters in response: one from Josep Borrell, on behalf of the European Union, and one from Jens Stoltenberg, on behalf of NATO. The European Union and its transatlantic partners are united in this crisis, and our call to Russia is crystal clear: do not choose war. A path of cooperation between Russia and us is still possible. But let’s stay vigilant. Despite yesterday’s news, NATO has not yet seen signs of any Russian troop reduction and, should the Kremlin choose violence against Ukraine, our response will be strong and united. The European Commission and the EEAS have been working closely with all Member States to prepare a robust and comprehensive package of potential sanctions, and we have worked in very close coordination with our friends from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Let me say that in these weeks we have built a unity of purpose that is truly remarkable, both within the European Union and with our partners. In case of Russian aggression, Europe’s reaction will be swift and robust. We are not just talking about freezing assets and banning travel for Russian individuals. Russia’s strategic interest is to diversify its one-sided economy and to close its current gaps. But for this, they need technologies in which we have a global leadership: high-tech components for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us. So our sanctions can bite very hard, and the Kremlin knows this as well.

On another topic, we are also ready in case the Russian leadership decides to weaponise the energy issue. We see that, at a time of high demand, Gazprom is restricting its gas supplies to Europe. We see a ten-year low in storage by Gazprom. We see no sales on the spot market. This is strange behaviour for a company: that, in times of skyrocketing demand and prices, they are not trying to maximise their profits. This behaviour has already damaged Russia’s credibility as a reliable energy supplier. For weeks we have been in talks with a number of countries that are ready to step up their exports of liquefied natural gas to the European Union. In January, this resulted in record deliveries of LNG gas – more than 120 vessels, that is the equivalent of ten billion cubic metres of LNG – and, on top, we’ve done our homework. Since the annexation of Crimea, we have increased the number of LNG terminals in the European Union. We have reinforced our pan-European pipeline and electricity interconnector network, and the good part in this story is that these investments in infrastructure we have made will in future be the backbone for the possibility to supply with green hydrogen. So they are future proof. During the last weeks, we have looked into all possible disruption scenarios in case Russia decides to partially or completely disrupt gas supplies to the European Union, and I can say today that our models show that, with all the measures we have taken, we are now on the safe side for this winter. On top of this, we have also developed, with a number of Member States, a new set of emergency measures which we could trigger in case of complete disruptions.

But one of the main lessons we have already learned from this crisis is that we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency on Russian gas. We must heavily invest in renewables. Our alternatives are renewables because, though renewables are clean and good for the climate, they are also home grown and good for our independence. That’s where our future lies.

Honourable Members, this is a crisis that has been created by Moscow. We have not chosen confrontation. We are hoping for the best, but we are prepared for the worst. We now have two distinct futures ahead of us. In one, the Kremlin decides to wage war against Ukraine, with massive human costs – something we thought we had left behind after the tragedies of the twentieth century. Moscow’s relations with us would be severely damaged. Tough sanctions would kick in, with dire consequences on the Russian economy and its prospects of modernisation.

But another future is possible: a future in which Russia and Europe cooperate on their shared interests. A future where free countries work together in peace. A future of prosperity, built on the respect for the fundamental principles that have been enshrined in the UN Charter and in the European security architecture since the Helsinki Final Act. This is my aspiration, and I am sure the Russian people share this aspiration too. It is now up to the Kremlin to decide. But whatever path they decide to take, we will stand our ground. Europe will be united on the side of Ukraine, on the side of peace, and on the side of Europe’s people.

Long live Europe!

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señora presidenta del Parlamento Europeo, señor presidente del Consejo Europeo, señora presidenta de la Comisión, señorías, lo que ocurra en Ucrania marcará el futuro de la humanidad. Todos los seres humanos deberían estar preocupados por lo que allí ocurra. Porque si de nuevo se impone la ley del más fuerte y un país puede amenazar a otro y puede atacarlo y disgregarlo territorialmente, echaremos marcha atrás en la historia.

El gran éxito de la Unión Europea es precisamente el haber renunciado a la guerra como forma de resolver los conflictos. Y por eso tenemos que estar con Ucrania, tratando de prevenir una guerra en nuestras fronteras. Y eso forma parte fundamental de lo que llamamos política común de seguridad y defensa, que tengo el honor de intentar desarrollar.

Y la presencia aquí hoy, en este Pleno, de las instituciones de la Unión: el Consejo Europeo, con su presidente, la Comisión Europea con su presidenta y el Consejo, al que tengo el honor de representar y cuyas formaciones de Asuntos Exteriores y de Defensa presido, marca la unidad europea frente a la posible agresión de Rusia contra Ucrania. Y esta unidad se ha hecho más fuerte y patente en estos días. Y creo que es una de las grandes consecuencias positivas de esta crisis.

Ha habido una aproximación común y todos los Estados europeos han respondido unánimemente para dar una respuesta que deberá concretarse en lo que llamamos sanciones o medidas coercitivas, según el Tratado. Sanciones que deberá aprobar el Consejo a propuesta del alto representante y que habrán sido elaboradas con la inestimable cooperación de la Comisión Europea, para medir cuáles son sus costes y sus consecuencias. Y, ciertamente, bajo la dirección política del Consejo Europeo. Y eso ocurrirá si Rusia agrede a Ucrania.

Pero déjenme que insista en el aspecto fundamental de nuestra unión, que es la consecuencia más positiva de esta crisis; una crisis que se ha basado en la amenaza a la integridad territorial de un Estado; una crisis que afecta a la estructura de seguridad en Europa, que no puede ser puesta en cuestión a través de amenazas; y una crisis que afecta al derecho de cada Estado soberano a escoger libremente sus estructuras de seguridad y sus relaciones internacionales.

Allow me to talk a little bit about what the role has been of European diplomacy in these events. It has been said that Europe was ‘missing in action’. We have heard that Europe was missing in action and things are happening without our presence, without our participation, led by the United States, who are negotiating over our head. I think that we have to respond to this criticism, which seems at all unfounded for several reasons.

First, because Member States of the Union have been consistently debating the issue of security in Europe and Ukraine, and we have achieved remarkable unity. Because several Member States, France and Germany, have taken a number of political initiatives to promote a peaceful settlement of the crisis, and these initiatives have been carried out in coherence with the positions of the Union and in conditions of greater transparency.

Third, because Russia deliberately tried to ignore the existence of the European Union by sending letters only to the United States and NATO in December, considering that we are completely irrelevant and have nothing to say about the security issues in Europe. For Moscow, security in Europe is being defined in Washington.

Later, when they noticed that despite this dismissive attitude, nothing was going on, Mr Lavrov finally decided to send a letter to the 27 Member States that he had ignored until then.

Why such a U—turn on the Russian position? For two reasons.

First, because they realised that the European front was not cracked and Atlantic solidarity was very strong. So he tried the manoeuvre, which was to send letters to the 27 Member States, hoping to have 27 different answers.

But in this case, Mr Lavrov didn’t succeed because we sent him a single letter, saving him the time to read 27 letters, all of them equal. Just one – one letter representing the position of the European Union on behalf of the 27 Member States.

This is a good example of how we Europeans can work together, and together with our allies, with the US and other like-minded countries with which we have had a continuous and very much positive coordination. So we have been present, participating in the negotiations – if we can call them negotiations, or at least conversations – until now.

So what can we envisage next?

Well, we don’t know. Nobody knows. There are encouraging signs, but also very much worrisome events like the vote in the Duma asking Putin to recognise the independence of the two – let’s say – republics, in the Donbas. We don’t know what Putin is going to do. But what is clear is that we have to continue offering both things at the same time – the will to negotiate, to be ready to participate in talks because yes, Russia also has security concerns and that has to be taken into consideration. On the other hand, to prepare our capacity to respond – our dissuasion tools, sanctions as the President of the Commission and the President the Council had been referring to.

On that, we have been working and on that we are ready to act. But most of all, we are ready to continue negotiations, talks, in order to look for a diplomatic solution to the worst crisis that Europe has lived since the end of the Cold War.

I repeat again, this crisis not only affects Ukrainians, and not only Europeans – it affects the direction of humankind.

  Manfred Weber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin Metsola, Präsidentin von der Leyen, Präsident Michel, Vizepräsident Borrell! Gut, dass Sie alle da sind. Es ist zunächst mal wichtig, dass wir als Europäer in diesem Moment gemeinsam die Lage beurteilen und heute diskutieren.

In diesen Tagen geht es um ein Grundversprechen, um das Grundversprechen der Europäischen Union, nämlich das Grundversprechen nach Frieden. Die Angst der Ukrainer können wir uns wahrscheinlich kaum vorstellen, die Sorge, die dort derzeit herrscht. Aber es geht nicht nur um die Ukraine, es geht eben um uns: Frieden sichern.

Die erste Frage, die wir uns stellen müssen, ist: Um was geht es eigentlich in diesem Konflikt? Manche versuchen zu sagen, es ginge hier um die NATO-Osterweiterung, es ginge um Sicherheitsinteressen. Ich glaube das nicht. In den 80er-Jahren sind Menschen in Danzig auf die Straße gegangen, haben für Freiheit und Demokratie gekämpft. Dann Ende der 80er-Jahre in Dresden, im Baltikum, in Budapest: der Fall des Eisernen Vorhangs, der Zusammenbruch des Kommunismus. Dann der Maidan in Kiew, wo Menschen für Freiheit und Demokratie gekämpft haben und auch gestorben sind, und jetzt, vor wenigen Jahren in Minsk, in Belarus, wo Menschen für diese Idee auf die Straße gegangen sind. Die Idee der Freiheit gewinnt. Sie geht Schritt für Schritt unaufhaltsam nach vorne.

Ich war selbst am Maidan im Jahr 2014, habe mit den jungen Menschen dort gesprochen. Und deswegen muss für uns Europäer eines klar sein: Wir stehen an der Seite der Menschen, die für Freiheit und Demokratie eintreten. Es ist vielleicht wieder ein Moment, wo wir sagen müssen: Es geht um unsere Grundwerte, und wir werden sie verteidigen – whatever it takes. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die größte Bedrohung für Putin sind nicht die NATO-Truppen, sondern eine freie, demokratische Ukraine. Das ist die größte Bedrohung für ihn.

Die zweite Frage, die wir beantworten müssen, ist: Was ist unsere Aufgabe jetzt? Wie können wir Frieden sichern? Putin versteht nur die Sprache der Macht. Und heute heißt das, wir brauchen eine klare Rechnung, die wir ihm präsentieren: Die Kosten sind hoch! Für meine politische Partei, die Europäische Volkspartei, kann ich klarstellen, dass Nord Stream 2 nicht ans Netz gehen kann, sollte es zur Eskalation kommen. Der Ausschluss von russischen Banken vom internationalen Finanzmarkt ist für uns unvermeidlich. Und die bereits von der Kommissionspräsidentin angekündigte Beschränkung von Lieferungen von Hochtechnologie steht auf dieser Liste.

Aber lassen Sie uns ehrlich sein: Paris ist im Wahlkampf, in Deutschland ist man nicht in der Lage, „Nord Stream 2“ in den Mund zu nehmen. Wir sind bei diesen Fragen derzeit nicht stark. Deswegen wünsche ich mir, dass wir stärker werden, dass wir die Rechnung, die wir präsentieren, auch klar formulieren. Jede Unsicherheit motiviert Putin, seinen Weg weiterzugehen.

Die dritte Frage, die wir uns stellen müssen, ist: Wie können wir mit Putin ins Gespräch kommen? Gibt es Möglichkeiten des Kompromisses? Dialog ist wichtig, die Aussprache ist wichtig. Aber bei den Grundprinzipien gibt es keine Verhandlungsmasse. Die Souveränität von Staaten ist unantastbar. Es gibt keine Einflusszonen, in denen Putin entscheidet. Und Krieg ist kein Mittel von Politik im heutigen Europa. Deswegen ist die völkerrechtswidrige Annexion der Krim nach wie vor völkerrechtswidrig.

Und die vierte Frage, die wir uns stellen müssen, ist: Hat nicht Putin schon verdammt viel erreicht? In Belarus hat er freie Hand. Lukaschenko ist heute eine Marionette des Kreml, und sie machen gemeinsame Militärübungen. In der Duma wird die Forderung erhoben, die Ostukraine als Staat anzuerkennen, die Spaltung der Ukraine zu vertiefen. Eigentlich ist das schon Anlass für weitergehende Sanktionen, die wir jetzt auf den Weg bringen müssen. Und vor wenigen Wochen haben wir hier im Europäischen Parlament Alexei Nawalny den Sacharow-Preis überreicht. Jetzt erreicht uns die Nachricht, dass er weitere 15 Jahre in Haft gehen muss, ohne Rechtsgrundlage, ohne ein faires Verfahren. Putin versucht, die Opposition und die Idee der Freiheit wegzusperren in Russland. Und schon allein das ist ein weiterer Grund, Sanktionen gegenüber Russland zu diskutieren. All das geht unter – unter dem Säbelrasseln von Putin, das wir erleben, unter der Drohung dieser großen Kriegsgefahr.

Und die fünfte Frage, die ich aufwerfen will, ist unsere eigene Rolle als Europäische Union. Und lassen Sie uns ehrlich sein: Wir sind noch nicht ausreichend vorbereitet auf diese Stürme der Weltpolitik, die wir derzeit wieder erleben. Wir sind noch nicht ausreichend vorbereitet. In Genf sitzt kein europäischer Politiker am Tisch, wenn über die europäische Sicherheitsarchitektur diskutiert und entschieden wird. Deutschland und Frankreich versuchen sich zu koordinieren, aber es könnte besser funktionieren in der Koordinierung. Wir wissen, dass bei den Sanktionen immer noch die Frage im Raum steht, ob vielleicht Viktor Orbán oder einzelne andere ausscheren und unterschiedliche Positionen vertreten. Und ich muss auch kritisieren, dass in dieser historischen Phase eben kein EU-Gipfel stattfindet, wo die Staats- und Regierungschefs sich treffen und miteinander in der Lage sind, ein starkes Signal auszusenden, dass wir an der Seite der Ukraine stehen. Kein Treffen der Staats- und Regierungschefs in dieser historischen Phase!

Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die Entwicklung ist ein Weckruf. Wir müssen endlich in der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik unsere Kraft entwickeln, die Einstimmigkeit beenden, eine Cyberabwehr-Brigade aufbauen, um unsere kritische Infrastruktur zu verteidigen. Und wir brauchen endlich einen echten Außenminister, der in der Lage ist, für die gesamte Europäische Union wirklich mit Kraft zu sprechen.

Ich selbst steh jeden Morgen in der Früh auf und denke mir: Kann denn das sein, dass wir wieder über Krieg reden? Ich glaube, vielen Europäern geht es so. Aber ich sage Ihnen: In Moskau sitzt einer, der bereit ist, Krieg anzuwenden – er hat es mehrfach bewiesen. Wir werden in einer neuen europäischen Realität aufwachen, wir werden in einer neuen Europäischen Union aufwachen. Und wir müssen uns jetzt darauf vorbereiten. Frieden und Freiheit sind die Versprechen der Europäischen Union. 44 Millionen Ukrainer erwarten Solidarität. Wir als EVP – und ich denke auch das Parlament – stehen hinter ihnen.

  Iratxe García Pérez, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, han pasado más de ocho años desde la Revolución de la Dignidad de la plaza Maidan, desde que el pueblo ucraniano inició su lucha por acercarse al proyecto de las libertades que representa la Unión Europea. Hemos sido su socio más leal en la integración económica, el apoyo al proceso de reformas y la defensa de la soberanía e integridad territorial de Ucrania. Hoy el Parlamento Europeo reafirma su compromiso y su apoyo a Ucrania.

El reto que Rusia plantea a todos los europeos, al final, lo que hace es brindarnos la oportunidad de reforzar nuestra unidad y nuestra determinación, y también para defender nuestros intereses y los del continente en su conjunto. Pero no olvidemos que, para detener el espíritu imperial de Putin y su hostilidad a los derechos humanos, Ucrania y la Unión Europea deben cumplir también con sus propias obligaciones. Por nuestra parte, debemos seguir apoyando todos los foros diplomáticos para la resolución del conflicto en Ucrania, como el Cuarteto de Normandía y el Grupo de Contacto Trilateral.

Para llegar a una solución negociada, la Unión Europea tiene que estar representada de forma efectiva en las negociaciones porque, como defiende acertadamente el señor Borrell, no podemos ser un espectador neutro en aquellos asuntos que afectan directamente a nuestra propia seguridad. Ninguna región del mundo posee un sistema de seguridad tan justo como el europeo. Los principios básicos consagrados en la Carta de París y en el Acta Final de Helsinki, todos ellos firmados por Rusia, son los únicos capaces de garantizar la seguridad en Europa. La integridad territorial y la soberanía de los Estados, la inviolabilidad de las fronteras, el derecho de los Estados a elegir sus propias alianzas y la resolución pacífica de las disputas son logros irrenunciables, porque el progreso de los europeos y europeas solo será realidad si hay seguridad.

Nadie en la Unión Europea puede negar la necesidad de una mayor autonomía estratégica ni nuestra vocación protagonista en el mundo. No permitamos que Putin y sus chantajes pongan de rodillas a Europa. Desarrollemos nuestras capacidades de respuesta ante las nuevas amenazas, avancemos a corto plazo en la creación de reservas estratégicas y compras conjuntas de gas y continuemos liderando como destino final la construcción de un nuevo orden mundial energético cimentado en las energías renovables y socialmente justo.

Es el momento para la diplomacia, sí, pero también lo es de la disuasión. Cualquier nueva agresión contra Ucrania tendrá enormes consecuencias para Rusia. Hasta que una guerra empieza, se puede evitar. El rechazo a la guerra y la voluntad de construir la paz es la base esencial del proyecto europeo. No podemos renunciar a lo más admirable que hemos conquistado: la libertad y la democracia, que han dignificado la vida de millones de seres humanos. El presidente Zelensky también debe mantener su compromiso con la senda de la democracia. Erradicar la corrupción, reformar el poder judicial y consolidar las instituciones democráticas son la mejor arma frente a Rusia. Porque el único temor de Putin es que la democracia y nuestro modelo social lleguen a la Plaza Roja de Moscú.

Todos debemos tener algo claro, y es que vencer con la fuerza no es convencer, y en la vida hay que convencer. Putin no convencerá porque convencer significa persuadir y para persuadir necesita algo que le falta en este momento: necesita razón y derecho. Por lo tanto, nos queda mucho trabajo por hacer. Ucrania puede estar segura de que la familia socialdemócrata estará a su lado. El mayor homenaje que podemos rendir a las personas que perdieron la vida en la plaza de Maidan y en el valle del Donbas es nuestro compromiso con un vecindario estable, próspero y democrático.

  Stéphane Séjourné, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Madame la Présidente de la Commission, chers collègues, j’aimerais tout d’abord exprimer, au nom de mon groupe, Renew, une profonde solidarité envers le peuple ukrainien. Pour la troisième fois en moins de vingt ans, le peuple ukrainien fait face à une pression extérieure inacceptable. La résilience et le calme des citoyens ukrainiens forcent notre admiration. Cette maison se souvient du courage de ce peuple, qui a payé de son sang le choix de son destin européen. Ce Parlement sera toujours aux côtés des Ukrainiens pour défendre les choix souverains, l’intégrité territoriale et l’indépendance de leur pays. Je tiens d’ailleurs à saluer le travail du président Zelensky et de son gouvernement, qui ignorent les provocations et maintiennent leur cap réformiste.

Si nous ne sommes en rien responsables de la situation, nous avons un devoir moral d’agir. Premièrement, nous devons agir aux côtés des Ukrainiens. Nous devons condamner avec force les mesures de déstabilisation du gouvernement russe. Nous devons rappeler la Russie à ses engagements internationaux, tant à l’OSCE que dans le respect du droit international de l’ONU, notamment en matière maritime (qui n’est aujourd’hui pas respecté). Nous demandons à la Commission de faire un geste fort auprès du peuple ukrainien, en ouvrant la porte à l’intégration graduelle au marché unique, et d’aller au-delà de l’accord d’association.

Deuxièmement, nous devons agir pour le maintien de la paix. Notre Union est née de la promesse de la paix, qui doit rester notre seule et unique boussole. C’est ce que les citoyens européens nous demandent; c’est ce que les citoyens ukrainiens souhaitent; c’est aussi, semble-t-il, l’opinion majoritaire de la population russe, qui, malgré une propagande permanente, reste aujourd’hui opposée à une intervention militaire – il faut aussi l’avoir en tête. D’ailleurs, les initiatives française, allemande et polonaise, que chacun a saluées, restent également un élément de réouverture du canal de dialogue, qu’il faut aujourd’hui saluer dans cet hémicycle.

Troisièmement, nous devons agir pour être prêts à toutes les éventualités. Je voudrais remercier le président du Conseil et la présidente de la Commission pour ces deux interventions. Notre attachement viscéral à la paix ne veut pas dire être naïfs. Toutes nos institutions doivent déjà travailler pour définir la réponse collective de l’Union européenne, quel que soit le scénario. J’invite par conséquent la Commission et le Conseil à préparer d’ores et déjà des sanctions d’une envergure inédite et des aides aux États qui seraient les plus touchés par une telle décision. Nous devons être prêts à agir immédiatement. Cette fois, l’Europe doit démontrer que sa puissance économique est au service de ses intérêts géopolitiques.

Enfin, nous devons agir aussi pour assurer à long terme la sécurité de notre continent. Soyons lucides, c’est la force d’attraction de notre modèle qui pose problème à Poutine. C’est l’aspiration européenne de l’Ukraine qui est vue comme une menace aujourd’hui. Parfois, quand j’écoute certains Européens, j’ai l’impression que nous sommes les seuls à ne pas voir ce que nous sommes. Nous sommes une puissance en devenir, une puissance économique, sociale et attractive, mais surtout une puissance démocratique.

Chers collègues, l’unité européenne est clé dans ce conflit. Ni les élections nationales, ni les tentatives de déstabilisation, ni l’allégeance de certaines forces politiques au Kremlin ne doivent mettre en péril notre unité européenne, pour la paix, pour l’Ukraine, pour nos valeurs et pour nos concitoyens.

  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Ukraine is under threat. A country that just as any other country wants to decide on its own future but is bullied by its big neighbour. But this is not just a threat to Ukraine. It’s also an attack on the basic idea of how states relate to each other. It’s a threat to international rules and to European security. And it saddens me profoundly that we have to debate this dangerous development in our Eastern Neighbourhood today.

This European Parliament was born out of the devastating experience of war and violence. The EU was built as a peace project and a model of democratic cooperation. President Putin’s nationalist and imperial course of action and suppression runs contrary to the mere idea of our common Union. Putin’s actions therefore challenge us as Europeans, and we as Members of this Parliament, carry a historic responsibility to stand up and clearly condemn Russia’s threats of aggression.

As the EU, as its Parliament, we stand united against the Russian threat and in full support with Ukraine. The people of Ukraine have our support for choosing their own path for living in peace and for undertaking reforms that will transform their country for the better.

We need to be prepared for sanctions against individuals, entities and sectors in Russia. I am talking, for example, about freezing assets, about entry bans, and yes, I am also talking about Nord Stream 2. This pipeline must be part of our common sanction regime. And yes, sanctions have repercussions, also for ourselves, but we must act in face of an aggression.

As a Union we need to reduce our dependency on Russia, especially when it comes to energy. We have the technologies to do so and we have ample supplies of sun and wind. What energy we use is a geo-strategic decision. And we need to make the right one.

Let’s not forget that the Ukrainian people have suffered greatly already because of the Russian aggression going on for years in eastern Ukraine. Almost 15 000 people have died. More than a million Ukrainians had to flee their homes. Conflicts can only be solved by diplomatic means. Russia must withdraw its troops and end the threat of invasion. It must return to the table of frank and peaceful negotiations. Negotiations that must be based on international law, mutual respect and a common vision for peace on our common European continent.

This is a key moment for international peace, stability and security. Now is our time to show through words and through actions that we stand united as one, and that the people of Ukraine can count on us.

  Marco Zanni, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Presidente von der Leyen, signor Presidente Michel, credo che oggi il messaggio che le istituzioni europee devono dare al popolo ucraino è un messaggio di solidarietà e non possiamo lasciare spazio alle ambiguità che, molto spesso nel passato e anche nelle discussioni recenti, l'Europa e l'Occidente hanno dato su questa questione.

Io ho ascoltato con attenzione quanto detto dalla Presidente von der Leyen, quanto detto dal Presidente Michel e dall'Alto rappresentante Borrell e non concordo sull'ottimismo di come ha agito l'Europa in questa situazione. Rimangono ancora molte ambiguità nell'approccio che mettiamo sul campo davanti alla questione russa e alle minacce che il regime di Putin oggi pone ai nostri confini. Dobbiamo fermamente e convintamente far capire all'Ucraina che l'Europa è pronta a tutto per proteggere la sua integrità territoriale e la sua libertà, e questi sono principi su cui non possiamo transigere.

Dobbiamo poi analizzare con attenzione anche quali sono stati i nostri errori e il perché di questa ambiguità, del fatto che l'Europa non sia stata in grado di dare, di fronte a questa crisi, un messaggio unitario e concreto. Chiaramente ci sono stati degli errori. Abbiamo parlato delle dipendenze che i nostri Stati membri hanno dal regime russo, ma queste situazioni non sono nuove, non le abbiamo scoperte oggi, sono situazioni che conosciamo da anni e niente abbiamo fatto per ridurre questa dipendenza.

L'ambiguità è un problema, perché è vero che le dinamiche dei regimi dittatoriali sono difficili da capire per noi che apparteniamo a paesi liberi, ma è altrettanto vero che siamo in grado di comprendere benissimo che le nostre debolezze e le nostre ambiguità danno spazio alle minacce, danno spazio e potere a chi vuole portare la guerra ai nostri confini.

È triste constatare che a vent'anni dall'ultima guerra che abbiamo vissuto all'interno dell'Europa, quella in Kosovo e quella nei Balcani, spirino ancora venti di guerra ai nostri confini, e questo è un insuccesso di tutti, è un insuccesso dell'Europa, è un insuccesso dell'Occidente.

Per questo credo che, ovviamente, quello che dobbiamo evitare oggi è una guerra, è un'escalation che porti a un conflitto militare, che nessuno vuole e che nessuno oggi è in grado di affrontare. Ma con fermezza dobbiamo correggere gli errori che abbiamo fatto in Europa e dobbiamo avere anche il coraggio di dire che questa ambiguità è ben chiara, ma molto spesso la nascondiamo sotto il tappeto, come il fatto che il primo lobbista di Putin in Europa purtroppo sia un ex capo di governo del paese più importante di questa Unione europea.

Credo che ci sia spazio ancora per lavorare su una soluzione pacifica, non transigendo sui nostri principi, che ci sia spazio per riportare indietro le lancette, che ci sia spazio per far sì e per mostrare che l'Occidente è unito, ma l'Europa deve lasciare indietro le sue ambiguità, deve dare un messaggio di compattezza con gli alleati occidentali e insieme, nel quadro della NATO, dobbiamo risolvere questa situazione. Altrimenti, la nostra ambiguità sarà sempre una debolezza e non riusciremo mai a essere protagonisti, in maniera positiva, nella risoluzione dei conflitti e nella tutela delle libertà di cui dovremmo essere forieri.

  Ryszard Antoni Legutko, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, when in 2008, the Russian Army invaded Georgia, Poland’s President, Lech Kaczyński, gathered political leaders from Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in Tbilisi and at the public meeting, he said these memorable words, ‘Today it is Georgia. Tomorrow Ukraine, then the Baltic States. And in the future, maybe Poland.’

Well, unfortunately, these words are not only memorable, but they sound prophetic, too. But, there is a discrepancy between East European and West European political sensibilities. For most East Europeans, Russian imperialism is a fact that has determined and continues to determine their very existence. For the West Europeans, it is simply news in the media, sometimes sensational and exciting, but generally, it is a rather tedious story in a far—off land, presumably made up by some political fantasies.

To make the matter worse, Russia has become an object of deep attraction for many Europeans and additionally, an engaging partner in power-politics, also in economic relations, not to mention the notorious Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2. The fact that former chancellors of Germany and Austria, former prime ministers of France and Finland have been working for Russian businesses, were employed by Russian businesses, is meaningful. These gentlemen and many others too, also ladies let me add, are not mavericks, but they represent what is typical of a large segment of European political establishments.

To call a spade a spade, Europe is a weak link in the line of defence against Russian imperialism. No wonder that Putin likes to humiliate European politicians and has been quite successful in this. Those politicians desire to accommodate Russia and are keen on conducting business as usual with her, and this is the reason why they de facto accepted the annexation of the Crimea.

Well, recent signals from Europe and also from outside Europe could be rather mixed. But there is a lot of reassuring talk about the hardening of the European position vis—à—vis Russia. We’ve heard a lot of tough words today, a really significant EU pep talk, but how hard this position has really become, not in words but in deeds, we will know in the weeks and months to come.

  Martin Schirdewan, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Europa blickt in den Abgrund eines Krieges zwischen Russland und der Ukraine, dessen Preis zuallererst die Zivilbevölkerung zu zahlen hätte.

Der Schlüssel zur Überwindung dieser Krise, die die gesamte europäische Friedensordnung in Frage stellt und bedroht, lag von Anfang an in Diplomatie, in Deeskalation und in beidseitiger verbaler und militärischer Abrüstung. Das gilt nicht nur für die aktuellen Bemühungen, den Frieden zu sichern, sondern auch für die vergangenen Jahre, in denen die Beziehungen zwischen dem Westen und Russland sich systematisch verschlechtert haben. Der Ausschluss Russlands aus der G8, die Einstellung der Treffen des NATO-Russland-Rats, die Einstellung der Treffen im Normandie-Format und die Nichtumsetzung des Minsker Abkommens sind Ausdruck eines beidseitigen Scheiterns der Diplomatie.

Ein neuer kalter Krieg wurde über Europa gelegt, der droht, zu einem heißen Krieg zu werden. Und in einem bemerkenswerten Artikel, lieber Kollege Weber, hat ein bekanntes deutsches Nachrichtenmagazin in die Zeit zurückgeblickt, in der die westlichen Mächte mit der damaligen Sowjetunion kurz vor der Selbstauflösung des Ostblocks verhandelten, und deshalb detailliert dargestellt, dass etliche der Beteiligten der Sowjetunion mündliche Zusagen machten, dass sich die NATO keinen Zentimeter gen Osten ausdehnen würde.

Wir kennen die Realität: 14 hauptsächlich mittel- und osteuropäische Länder sind seit 1990 der NATO beigetreten. Die geostrategische Architektur der Welt – und da können Sie noch so dazwischenrufen, wie Sie wollen – hat sich in den letzten 30 Jahren geändert. Alle Seiten müssen an einer Friedensordnung arbeiten, die den multilateralen Charakter unserer Welt anerkennt, die auf internationalem Recht basiert und die die legitimen Sicherheitsinteressen aller Akteure berücksichtigt. Nicht die NATO ist die internationale Ordnungsmacht. Diese Rolle kommt noch immer dem internationalen Recht und den Vereinten Nationen zu. Und ich hätte mich sehr gefreut, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wenn das in dieser Debatte deutlich zum Ausdruck gekommen wäre.

Die Beilegung der aktuellen Krise erfordert von allen Beteiligten die unbedingte Bereitschaft, den Frieden zu bewahren. Russland muss die Sicherheit seiner Nachbarn ebenso garantieren, wie die Ukraine aufgefordert ist, das Minsker Abkommen umzusetzen. Die absurde Idee einer weiteren Ost-Ausdehnung der NATO trägt nachweislich nicht zur Sicherheit in Europa bei, sondern zur Destabilisierung. Frieden in Europa wird es nicht gegen, sondern nur mit Russland geben – um auch hier Bezug zu nehmen auf die Verhandlungen des deutschen Bundeskanzlers gestern mit Wladimir Putin.

Doch um ganz klar zu sein: Ein Angriff Russlands auf die Ukraine wäre völkerrechtswidrig. Er würde langfristig russischen Interessen ebenso Schaden zufügen wie einer neuen europäischen Friedensordnung – und das muss die Regierung Putin wissen. Wir wissen aber aus bitterer Erfahrung, dass erfolgreiche Entspannungspolitik nicht auf den Behauptungen von Geheimdiensten basieren kann. Gerüchte sind bereits Teil der Eskalation, und falls Sie das noch nicht gelernt haben, dann hören Sie mir einfach zu: Fakten sind die Basis des Friedens.

Wir wissen auch, dass die US-amerikanischen Gasunternehmen in der Krise einen Boom erleben. Die Gewinne sprudeln, und Investoren feiern auf Kosten der europäischen Sicherheit. Die Lehre, die es daraus zu ziehen gilt, ist, dass europäische Sicherheitsinteressen nicht zwangsläufig mit US-amerikanischen Interessen übereinstimmen. Europäische Interessen müssen hier von uns bestimmt werden, ohne transatlantischen Gehorsam. Frau Kommissionspräsidentin, europäische Energie-Souveränität basiert weder auf russischem noch US-amerikanischem Gas, sondern auf dem schnellstmöglichen Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien.

Über Frieden in Europa muss in diesen, in unseren europäischen Hauptstädten entschieden werden – und nicht in Washington oder im NATO-Hauptquartier.

  Andrea Bocskor (NI). – Elnök Asszony! Az Európai Unió és tagországainak biztonsága szorosan összefügg Ukrajna biztonságával. Ukrajna fontos stratégiai partnere és közvetlen szomszédja az Európai Uniónak, ezért erős aggodalomra ad okot az ukrán–orosz határnál kialakult törékeny helyzet. Magyarország a feszültség feloldását a diplomáciai tárgyalásos úton való rendezésben látja, ezért jégtörő szerepet vállalt a párbeszéd megteremtése és a háború elkerülése érdekében. A békés megoldás az egyetlen helyes út, és a minszki megállapodások végrehajtásának nincs alternatívája. Kerülnünk kell a pánikkeltést, mely már hatalmas anyagi veszteségeket okozott, és a diplomaták menekítése sem egy jó üzenet, és minden olyan intézkedést is kerülnünk kell, amely kiélezheti a helyzetet.

A konfliktusban már több ezer ember vesztette életét, belső menekültté váltak több millióan és a munkanélküliség, a magas energiaárak, az infláció, a koronavírusjárvány, ezek mind-mind nagy kihívások elé állították Ukrajnát, az ukrajnai lakosságot és köztük a kárpátaljai magyarokat is. Ezért mindent meg kell tennünk a béke érdekében, és támogatnunk kell Ukrajnát, hogy gazdasági és politikai értelemben is egy stabil, demokratikus, életképes és független ország legyen.

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident

  Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Mr President, I am happy to have European family heads and Members together to express solidarity with the Ukrainian people, who are like us, and want to live like us in the same European family. The EU Founding Fathers have assumed their leadership to unite and try a democratic Western Europe.

Now it is the time for us to assume a similar leadership, to unite all democracies in the European continent, because without a strong Ukraine, there will be no strong Europe. The EU will be as strategically strong, and will be able to become an important actor there. It is not the time for naive Chamberlains or illusions that relations with Putin’s Kremlin can be mutually productive, or that the concessions will help. It is important that the West remains united in solidarity, even if this escalation will end without military action.

We must agree on what leading role the EU must play, and what it can do to help Ukraine and other countries striving for EU membership. If Europe will return to business as usual with the Kremlin, we will be doomed to a circle of hybrid, and not only hybrid, wars. Also an intensive treatment for EU is necessary, including saving EU from cancer cells, that the Kremlin-controlled corrupt has.

Already today, Putin deserves a tribunal for threatening to start a war to kill people. For Navalny, who is a symbol of a poisoned and imprisoned Russia and for whom I wish strength.

I thank the Ukrainians.

  Pedro Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a ameaça de invasão da Ucrânia trouxe à memória os dias sombrios da Guerra Fria, com os povos de ambos os lados a viver o medo de uma ameaça permanente. São tempos a que ninguém quer voltar. Bem, na verdade, quase ninguém.

O Sr. Putin e alguns dos seus companheiros têm-nos mostrado as saudades que têm dessa época. Ao deslocar um enorme exército para a fronteira com a Ucrânia, para realizar os maiores exercícios militares do mundo desde há mais de 40 anos, o Governo russo quis transmitir à Ucrânia, à Europa e ao mundo uma mensagem de intimidação e ameaça. Da parte da União Europeia e dos nossos parceiros transatlânticos, a mensagem foi compreendida. Soubemos unir-nos e dar resposta à altura das circunstâncias.

A nossa linguagem não é a da guerra, mas fizemos saber ao Sr. Putin que a guerra não sairia impune. A nossa mensagem não é a da ameaça, mas ficou claro que não nos sentimos intimidados pela ação russa. A nossa linguagem é a do diálogo, é a do direito internacional. É a linguagem da diplomacia, com a qual se resolvem as tensões, evitam os conflitos e se encontram compromissos e soluções.

É esse caminho que, de forma coesa, este Parlamento e a própria União Europeia apresentam à Rússia para resolver a situação, com realismo, bom senso e transparência e em pleno respeito pela independência e integridade territorial da Ucrânia. A escolha cabe agora ao Sr. Putin. Quero acreditar que saberá fazer a escolha certa, a bem da Ucrânia, da Europa e da própria Rússia.

  Petras Auštrevičius (Renew). – Mr President, may this be clear to all: Ukraine is part of the European family, as is Belarus. Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security, and it’s of concern to all of us.

The military threat posed by Russia to Ukraine only confirms the hopelessness and aggressiveness of the Kremlin. I very much hope that the West has seized the opportunity to learn the lesson of unity, solidarity and common response. We will need this lesson in the future, because Putin seems to have neither the will nor the interest to change.

By giving Ukraine the opportunity to reform on the basis of European experience and partnership, we are supporting and investing in the future of a democratic and prosperous Ukraine. We are enabling the country and its people to follow the path they embarked on back in 2014 with the Revolution of Dignity. Ukrainians decide their own future, and I am strongly convinced that the future of Ukraine is not Finlandisation, but Europeanisation.

  Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, ‘war is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves.’ These words belong to one of the greatest pacifists, Leo Tolstoy, who ironically also happens to be the person who President Putin claims to have influenced him most.

Evidently, the Russian President has stifled his voice of conscience and brought our continent to the brink of war. How else could he summon 135 000 soldiers to the Ukrainian border? Ukraine is a great country of great people. Today it is stronger than ever. It stands up for itself and will only be stronger tomorrow. This is the reason for the Kremlin’s warmongering. Putin knows if he does not take over Ukraine now, he won’t be able to do so in the future.

What the Russian president sees as a window of opportunity could be a lethal trap for his country. Ukraine will be for Russia what Afghanistan was for the Soviet Union – an imperial overstretch and a painful end to Putin’s empire. War is not only unjust and ugly, but also senseless, as there are no winners. It brings only destruction and suffering to people on both sides. If Putin starts the war, ordinary Russians will have to suffer the consequences – Russian mothers crying over their fallen sons, pensioners feeling the chilling effects of Western sanctions.

Ukrainians are strong because they fight for their country. They do not stand alone, because they have reliable friends and, above all, because they have the truth on their side.

  Jaak Madison (ID). – Mr President, I was listening very carefully to the speeches, and I would like to mention two things in particular. First of all, Ms von der Leyen mentioned that Russia is now weaponising energy policy.

Well, I would like to say we told you about five or six years ago that if we’re going to build up the Nord Stream 2 between Germany and Russia, of course they will weaponise it. That is obvious. There is no energy policy without other policies. This is also very clear with economic policy and defence policy, but the Germans wanted to build Nord Stream 2 with Russia, and here we are now. Of course they’re weaponising it. Germany doesn’t like to be surprised. It’s a bit ridiculous.

Secondly, everybody else mentions that we are ready for anything. Ms von der Leyen and Mr Borell also mentioned that we are ready for every scenario. Hopefully we are, but, on the other hand, if you look at the facts, when Estonia just wanted to give some military help to Ukraine, who blocked it? The German Government. The German Government said ‘No, no, no you will not give it, because it was our military equipment in the 80’s – in the Soviet time – when it belonged to East Germany, and we will not give it to Ukraine.’ So, I really don’t see this harmony inside of the EU.

Of course, it’s a very clear fact that Russia is a threat, but I really don’t think that we have to panic here. However, we have to be ready for everything. That is also obvious. When the previous speakers said that war is senseless and pointless, of course for us it’s pointless, but we are taking it too emotionally. We don’t really think about what Russia really wants to have.

Even if you look at the troops – 135 000 troops next to the Ukrainian border – this is not enough to occupy all of Ukraine. Ukraine is a totally different country compared to what it was eight years ago. They have made really good progress on the right side. But 135 000 troops are easily enough to carry out some small actions in eastern Ukraine.

If you look at what they’re doing in the Russian Duma, they are now legally recognising Donetsk and Luhansk as independent countries. It takes only a few days. Maybe when they are at risk, they will ask for military help, because the Ukrainian Government will maybe attack those independent countries. These 135 000 troops are easily enough for small military actions.

  Roberts Zīle (ECR). – Priekšsēdētāja kungs! Komisijas Augstā pārstāvja kungs! Ukrainai šodien ir Vienotības diena. Par ko ir šī Vienotības diena? Par to, ka Ukrainas sabiedrība vēlas iet Rietumu demokrātijas ceļu, un viņu valdība — demokrātiski ievēlētais prezidents un valdība — vada šo ceļu. Bet, protams, šī sabiedrība nav vienota Ukrainā, būsim atklāti, un Ukrainas valdībai ārkārtīgi vajadzīgs šis Rietumu demokrātiju atbalsts šinī brīdī caur šo Vienotības dienu, jo, iespējams, ka Kremlī kāds uzskata, ka ukraiņi būtu jāatbrīvo no huntas — kā tas tiek uzskatīts bieži vien neoficiālās versijās, — un brāļus ukraiņus aplaimot ar citu valdību.

Šis ir brīdis, kad Ukrainas kursam ir vajadzīga šī pastieptā roka no Rietumu demokrātijas — no mums, no eiropiešiem. Un tas nozīmē, ka mūsu arī līderu deklarācijā ir jābūt nopietniem punktiem par to, ka Ukrainai ceļš uz Eiropu ir vaļā — uz Eiropas Savienību. Protams, tas nav ātrs, bet tas ir, un, protams, ir jābūt arī ne tikai naudai, bet arī atbalstam [no] militārās tehnikas, vai sauksim to kaut vai par aizsardzības ieročiem.

Ir ārkārtīgi svarīgs jautājums arī par to tā saucamo nekaitināšanas jautājumu. Iespējams, ka Ukrainas prezidentam, kaut vai attālināti, bija šonedēļ iespējas runāt Eiropas Parlamentā, iespējams, ka nē, bet šī nekaitināšanas politika, manuprāt, parāda, ka šī izstieptā roka mazliet dreb, kas ir slikta ziņa Ukrainas sabiedrībai. Būsim nopietni arī vidējā termiņā ar energopolitikas izmaiņām, kas ir ārkārtīgi svarīgs jautājums pavisam drīz.

  Manu Pineda (The Left). – Señor presidente, hemos estado muy cerca de que las dos mayores potencias nucleares entraran en conflicto abierto utilizando a Europa como su tablero de juego. Y hablo en pasado porque los Estados Unidos y su brazo militar, la OTAN, se han quedado sin argumentos, pero realmente nunca los han necesitado para iniciar sus guerras.

Los Estados Unidos siguen montando guerras lejos de su territorio y muchos gobiernos europeos han actuado de forma irresponsable, echando gasolina al fuego. La OTAN está utilizando Europa y, especialmente, las fronteras con Rusia, como una enorme base militar al servicio de intereses comerciales, militares y geoestratégicos que no son los de Europa.

Señor Borrell, nosotros tenemos muchas diferencias, pero eso no impide que yo lo considere a usted un hombre de paz que busca resolver los conflictos por la vía política. Le pido que no permita que la Unión Europea se convierta en la tropa, en una base militar, en un tablero de juego al servicio de este imperio decadente que está poniendo en peligro la existencia misma del planeta.

  Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο ορατός κίνδυνος πολεμικής σύγκρουσης στα ρωσο-ουκρανικά σύνορα αφορά τον ανταγωνισμό για το μοίρασμα αγορών και επιρροής ανάμεσα σε Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, ΝΑΤΟ, Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και Ρωσία. Καμία πλευρά, όμως, της ιμπεριαλιστικής σύγκρουσης δεν εκφράζει τα λαϊκά συμφέροντα. Επίσης, «πάει πολύ» να «υποδύεται» η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση το «περιστέρι της ειρήνης», όταν έχει οδηγήσει σε πολέμους στο Αφγανιστάν, τη Λιβύη, τη Συρία και αλλού.

Η δε αμερικανική βάση στην Αλεξανδρούπολη, στη βόρεια Ελλάδα, εξελίσσεται σε κέντρο προώθησης αμερικανο-νατοϊκών στρατευμάτων για την περικύκλωση της Ρωσίας και φέρει την υπογραφή της σημερινής και της προηγούμενης ελληνικής κυβέρνησης, γεγονός που εκθέτει τον ελληνικό λαό σε μεγάλους κινδύνους.

Η ανησυχία του λαού πρέπει να μετατραπεί σε αυτοτελή αγώνα για να «ξηλωθούν» όλες οι ξένες βάσεις, να μην υπογραφεί η νέα ελληνο-αμερικανική συμφωνία, να γυρίσουν τα στρατεύματα από το εξωτερικό· για απεμπλοκή από τα ιμπεριαλιστικά σχέδια ΗΠΑ, ΝΑΤΟ, Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης· για να ανοίξει ο δρόμος της αποδέσμευσης από όλες τις ιμπεριαλιστικές ενώσεις, με τον λαό στην εξουσία.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – Mr President, over an eight-year period, the world has witnessed a systematic, multifaceted Russian policy of invading, destabilising and demonising Ukraine. The reason is not that Ukraine was a military threat to Russia or that Russian speakers were discriminated against. Such claims are wrong. Nor should we buy the argument that NATO membership was such a threat. We know it is not our weapons, but it is the power of the values and the attractiveness of democratic societies that pose an existential threat to a repressive Russian state structure behind whose Potemkin facade anything goes.

Yesterday, Putin left all options on the table. During the press conference with the German Chancellor, he continued his obvious lie that a genocide was ongoing in the Donbas. His interpretation of history deprives Ukrainians of all features of statehood, claiming it was one people, one empire, one language, one church. No, Mr Putin, it is not.

Let us now be prudent. With the implementation of the Minsk Accord, let us not exert undue pressure on Ukraine in order to appease Russian claims. They cannot hand out hundreds of thousands of passports to the citizens of Luhansk and Donetsk and claim the recognition of these Russian Bantustans and, at the same time, demand that Ukraine grant a special status to this region.

Ukrainians must stand together against the external threat, but they also need to put their internal divisions aside. Now is not the time for nit-picking partisan infighting. Join forces and implement the ambitious reform agenda that will one day make you an irresistible European country that enjoys all perspectives of a common future. We stand with Ukraine.

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Mr President, Mr High Representative, Commissioner, our relations with Russia have been at a low point for a while. Most political challenges at our external borders have directly or indirectly Russia as a common denominator.

The list of open issues is long: disinformation, hybrid threats, funding of anti-democratic forces in the EU, and foreign interference. But today, our primary focus should be Ukraine. After an eight-year war with 14 000 victims, situation in and around Ukraine evolved into a global threat.

Russia is also actively undermining Ukraine’s democratic and socio-economic development for years through political and economic means, as well as through disinformation.

 

So how can we best help Ukraine in this crisis? Despite the lack of progress, there is no alternative to continued talks. Diplomacy is still the only credible way to avoid doomsday scenarios. Meanwhile, the European Union has to continue supporting Ukraine, building deterrence, boosting Ukraine’s economy and defence, and supporting reform processes as well.

We should also work to increase the potential costs of Russian aggressions by introducing sanctions against individuals, banks and companies involved in plans to attack Ukraine. Halting Nord Stream 2, in case of aggression, would increase our leverage while doing all of the above.

Ukraine is a sovereign country with internationally recognised borders that has a full right to decide on its geopolitical orientation. The ongoing crisis has shown once again that any local crisis in Europe can turn into a global threat with possible deteriorating consequences. This should be an urgent call for the EU to enhance our own ability to respond quickly and in a unified way.

While awaiting a much-needed comprehensive EU strategy towards Russia, we stand with Ukraine.

  Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, cher Josep Borrell, l’Ukraine ne veut pas d’une guerre, l’Europe non plus, pas plus que les États-Unis, et je suis profondément convaincue que le peuple russe, lui aussi, veut la paix.

Pourtant, plus de 130 000 soldats russes sont massés à la frontière ukrainienne. Des manœuvres russes sans précédent se déroulent en Biélorussie. Des navires russes croisent en mer Noire en nombre tout à fait inhabituel. On nous annonce que des troupes pourraient être retirées; mais dans le même temps l’Ukraine subit de nouvelles cyberattaques et Vladimir Poutine dénonce un prétendu génocide au Donbass, qui n’existe que dans son imagination. C’est Vladimir Poutine, et lui seul, qui menace de recourir à la force. Si une guerre advient, en dépit des efforts diplomatiques d’Emmanuel Macron et d’Olaf Scholz, en dépit de la retenue observée par Volodymyr Zelensky, le président russe en sera le seul responsable et il devra en payer le prix.

Il a choisi d’intimider l’Ukraine et de tenter de l’affaiblir non pas parce que l’OTAN le menace, mais pour un motif beaucoup plus profond et qui nous concerne tous. Aujourd’hui, Kiev tourne le dos à la Russie et regarde vers l’Europe. L’Ukraine ne rêve en rien d’un retour vers l’Union soviétique. Ce qui fait rêver l’Ukraine, c’est l’Union européenne. Mes chers collègues, nous sommes le plus grand espoir de l’Ukraine. Je nous appelle solennellement à ne pas la décevoir.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa puheenjohtaja, arvoisa korkea edustaja, äsken kuulimme puheita siitä, että EU on toiminut yhtenäisesti ja painokkaasti, mutta näistä puheista huolimatta on mielestäni selvää, että EU ei toimi tässä kriisissä koko painollaan.

Nato on tässä kriisissä keskeinen, ja EU:ta heikentää se, että sen kuusi jäsenmaata on Naton ulkopuolella. Jotkut näistä jäsenmaista saattavat vielä uskoa puolueettomuuteen, vaikka tosiasiat eivät puhu enää puolueettomuuden puolesta. Jotkut taas niistä toivovat, että EU on muuttumassa puolustusliitoksi, ja tätäkään toivetta eivät tosiasiat tue.

Siksi arvoisat kollegat minusta olisi erittäin tärkeää, että Nato kutsuisi kaikki sen ulkopuolella olevat EU:n jäsenvaltiot jäsenikseen. Nimittäin Putin on jo saanut aikaan sen, että esimerkiksi Suomessa on tapahtunut aivan selvä liikahdus Naton suuntaan. Kuten tiedätte, Suomi on jo vuosia ollut Naton läheinen kumppani.

On välttämätöntä, että osoitamme tässä tilanteessa vankkumattoman tukemme Ukrainalle, sen suvereenisuudelle ja alueelliselle koskemattomuudelle. Lännen on pysyttävä yhtenäisenä ja osoitettava olevansa tosissaan vastatoimista. Sanktiot on kohdistettava nyt myös Putiniin ja hänen lähipiirinsä, väistämättä kaasu- ja ydinvoimayhteistyötä.

  Hélène Laporte (ID). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, hélas, la France n’a obtenu aucune avancée diplomatique à la suite de la visite d’Emmanuel Macron à Moscou. Et pour cause: à ce jour, la menace potentielle d’un conflit avec l’Ukraine est surtout une position avancée par les États-Unis. N’oublions pas que le grand patron de la marine allemande a été destitué parce qu’il avait osé avancer une position différente – en indiquant que cette menace de guerre était une ineptie. Comment comprendre également que le Quai d’Orsay ne demande toujours pas à nos ressortissants de quitter le territoire ukrainien? Restons dans du factuel. D’ailleurs, les manœuvres russes à la frontière sont entièrement déclarées et, si invasion il doit y avoir, l’effet de surprise eût été plus opportun.

«J’ai obtenu qu’il n’y ait pas de dégradation et d’escalade», affirme avec force Emmanuel Macron au sortir de son entrevue avec le président russe. Mais, là encore, une position différente est rapportée de la part de la Russie, le porte-parole du Kremlin ayant immédiatement déclaré que ces propos n’étaient pas exacts. Actuellement, de nombreuses armes sont vendues par les Américains à l’Ukraine. Il appartient à la France d’avoir une politique gaullienne, qui nous maintienne à égale distance entre les États-Unis et la Russie.

Derrière ce conflit se cache une problématique sur l’énergie. D’un côté, nous souhaitons fermer le robinet du Nord Stream 2 avec le premier producteur de gaz aux frontières européennes; de l’autre côté, nous achetons du gaz au Qatar et à l’Algérie, qui ne sont pas connus pour être de grandes démocraties.

Rappelons enfin que Kiev est objectivement sous perfusion d’argent public européen. Cela nous pose question quant à l’influence que nous souhaitons avoir dans cette région du monde. Le vote en urgence lundi soir, sans débat, d’une aide macrofinancière d’un montant de 1,2 milliard d’euros au profit de l’Ukraine en est l’exemple. Mais ce n’est pas tout: il faut rappeler également qu’une somme de 17 milliards d’euros a déjà été versée au moyen de dons et de prêts, lesquels ne seront jamais remboursés, alors même que la Cour des comptes a conclu à une mauvaise utilisation des fonds, liée à la corruption.

Je vous remercie et terminerai en disant que personne ne souhaite la guerre au niveau européen.

  Witold Jan Waszczykowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Od dawna niestety bezowocnie wielu z nas nawołuje o kary dla Rosji za szantażowanie Ukrainy i części Europy. Niestety po wizycie kanclerza Scholza w Moskwie przestałem wierzyć, że takie sankcje nastąpią. Przestałem wierzyć też w znaczące wsparcie dla Ukrainy. Wysyłamy Ukrainie tylko wyrazy politycznej solidarności.

Cieszy mnie jednak, że zaczynamy rozmawiać o większej pomocy finansowej. Jednak już czas, aby rozpocząć następny etap współpracy po Partnerstwie Wschodnim, które chyba wyczerpało swoje możliwości. Otwórzmy ścieżkę do członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej dla Ukrainy, Mołdawii i Gruzji. Po pierwsze, może być to przyłączenie do inicjatywy Trójmorza – to sektorowa współpraca w dziedzinie energetycznej i infrastruktury transportowej. Po drugie, otwórzmy dalsze sektory i agencje unijne. Trzecim krokiem powinno być włączenie tych państw do wspólnego rynku, na przykład na wzór Szwajcarii. I wreszcie czwarty element to członkostwo po spełnieniu kryteriów kopenhaskich.

Ekonomiczny sukces Ukrainy w Unii, czyli pozytywny alternatywny rozwój społeczeństwa postsowieckiego w Unii, to wielki przykład dla Rosjan i zmora dla Putina. Zgotujmy ten los Putinowi.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, we’ve had three months of this farce now, and the line between the real and the imaginary is blurred. The US and UK have used the media to flood pages, screens and airwaves with a load of unsubstantiated fear-mongering and lies gleaned from unaccountable, anonymous sources in the intelligence community.

This has reached such a pitch that when Ukraine begs to the US and NATO to stop creating hysteria and provide some proof for the supposedly imminent any day now Russian invasion. Ukraine is ignored by the forces that pretend to protect them. NATO’s raison d’être is protecting Western corporate interests and the interests of the military industrial complex.

But it looks like now they’re also protecting the interest of US gas and oil. The warmongering of NATO and the US these past few months has done nothing for peace in Europe, and the role played by NATO think tanks like the Atlantic Council was not good.

People who want peace in Europe should be calling for NATO to be abolished.

  Milan Uhrík (NI). – Pán predsedajúci, milí progresívni protiruskí štváči, už niekoľko mesiacov rozprávate o tom, ako chce Rusko zaútočiť na Ukrajinu.

Už niekoľko mesiacov liberálne médiá píšu články o tom, ako je Rusko nejaký démon, ktorý ich chce ohroziť celú Európu.

Pred pár dňami americký prezident Biden zverejnil senilné proroctvo, že vraj dnes má napadnúť Ruská federácia Ukrajinu. Čo sa stalo? Nič.

Poviem vám to v mene viac ako polovice občanov Slovenskej republiky podľa štatistík. Máme toho už naozaj dosť, a toto je odkaz najmä pre všetkých amerických vojnových štváčov a ich prisluhovačov v Európe, v Európskej únii, aby si zbalili americkú armádu a odišli z Európy a neťahali nás do svojich konfliktov, do svojich vojen.

Európa chce mier. Prosím vás, dajte si dobre tieto provokácie aj na Ukrajine.

Pozrite sa na maďarského premiéra Viktora Orbána ako v mieri, konštruktívne rokoval v Moskve o spolupráci, o lacnejších cenách energií.

Toto je cesta, ktorou musí Európa ísť. Spolupráca a nie vojna.

  Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Mr President, today we need to understand that Russia under Putin is a declining post-imperial power. Russia under Putin is a desperate new ‘sick man of Europe’. Internally Putin is afraid of Navalny, externally, he’s afraid of the example of success of a democratic Ukraine.

Authoritarian Russia under Putin is the biggest threat to security on our continent. Putin will not change himself. Threats to Ukraine will continue during the years to come, because this is the way the Kremlin aims to weaken the Ukrainian economy.

Future of democracy in Russia, not a dialogue with autocratic Putin, is a long-term goal for a new security architecture in Europe. Strong and able to defend itself, Ukraine will deter Kremlin aggression, since only the weakness of its opponents is provoking Putin for further threats and aggression.

That is why the West must invest in the political, military and economic success of Ukraine. EU integration is the only way to create such a successful democratic Ukraine, for that purpose, the EU should put forward for Ukraine a new process of accelerated reintegration beginning with integration into the EU single market.

Such an integration strategy for Ukraine is the most effective long-term strategy to deter Russia. European integration and Western unity is a unique European instrument to keep long-term peace on the European continent.

  Sven Mikser (S&D). – Mr President, we have said always that we support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And inevitably, the notion of sovereignty includes a country’s right to choose its own alliances. Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations are fully legitimate, no threat to anyone, and their realisation must be conditional only on Ukraine’s performance, not a third-country veto.

Russia’s massive military build-up on Ukraine’s borders has brought our continent closer to a large-scale military conflict than at any time since the end of the Cold War. It’s only natural that we want to de-escalate the situation, but we must act in a way that will really result in de-escalation. Appeasing the bully or consigning to her more territorial control will not bring about sustainable de-escalation. In fact, it would only give the aggressor a signal that the intimidation tactic works.

What we need is a strong collective deterrent posture by the community of democratic nations. Deterrence is not by nature escalatory. Its aim is to discourage the potential aggressor by changing her calculus, by delivering an unambiguous message that the cost of waging an act of aggression far outweighs any benefit it might be expected to bring. I do believe that President Putin is a rational player who will not rush into a conflict that is bound to bring him more pain than gain.

A strong deterrent posture consists of two main parts. The first is a clear and united message to Russia that a new aggression will result in a decisive response from the international community. Inevitably, that response must include a package of crippling sanctions.

The second part is bolstering Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. Again, I want to stress that a more confident Ukraine with stronger defensive capabilities will reduce, not increase, the likelihood of a new aggression by Russia. We must be strong and united.

It may appear to some that doing nothing is a peaceful act. In reality, nothing is further from the truth.

  Bernard Guetta (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Haut Représentant, mes chers collègues, sachons voir nos succès. Ne le faisons pas pour humilier quiconque et moins encore pour nous en enivrer, mais faisons-le pour prendre enfin conscience de notre force. Unis comme jamais entre partenaires européens et entre alliés américains et européens, nous avons donné à réfléchir à M. Poutine. Il a dû peser les risques des sanctions, de l’isolement et surtout d’un tête-à-tête avec la Chine, tête-à-tête tellement contraire aux intérêts de la Russie. Il reparle maintenant de diplomatie, de négociations et de quête d’une entente.

Eh bien, Monsieur Poutine, nous y sommes prêts. Parlons sécurité, mais ne parlons pas que de vos supposées inquiétudes. Parlons aussi des faits, de vos ingérences, de vos concentrations de troupes, de votre refus de laisser vos voisins choisir leur destin et leurs alliés. Rassurez-nous, Monsieur Poutine. Rassurez vos voisins, conservez leur amitié en respectant leur liberté, au lieu d’en faire des adversaires, en les menaçant et en aidant, comme au Bélarus, à les opprimer. Rassurez-vous aussi, Monsieur Poutine, puisque vous auriez des inquiétudes: nous n’aspirons qu’à la paix, à la stabilité et à la coopération. Entre partenaires et alliés, nous devons maintenant nous consulter et finaliser des propositions à vous faire. Nous serons prêts; mais la paix, une paix durable, dont bénéficierait notre continent commun, c’est à vous, Monsieur Poutine, d’en ouvrir la voie.

  Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the one positive thing about this week is that we are talking, but history will judge us only if we think beyond short-term. Yes, in the short-term, we have to overcome the current crisis and talking and negotiating, especially the tough negotiations that we are experiencing is a great, great step forward.

But what about the mid-term? How do we make sure that we have a sustainable solution and we do not allow Russia to repeat its threatening posture vis-à-vis Ukraine and its other neighbours again and again and again?

We must make clear that we can only return to business as usual if Russia will cease its propaganda crusade against Ukraine, its threats against Ukraine and its lies against Ukraine – just as we heard the lie about an alleged genocide or discrimination of Russian speakers, which are not true.

We have to do everything possible that the blackmail that we are experiencing will not be repeating itself. And yes, we must start thinking about how to develop the Minsk Agreement beyond the mantra that we have been repeating so far, because we need a tool that is effective in the mid-term and in the long-term we will have to engage with Russia where we can, but we must disengage where we must, and we must disengage also in the energy area.

That’s why Nord Stream 2 is not part of sanctions. Nord Stream 2 is unacceptable no matter what.

  Harald Vilimsky (ID). – Herr Präsident! Meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren, wenn wir heute das Ukraine-Russland-Thema erörtern, wäre es aus meiner Sicht auch hilfreich, sich das Jahr 2003 zurück in Erinnerung zu rufen – das Jahr 2003, wo nämlich der damalige US-Präsident Bush, der damalige US-Verteidigungsminister Powell und der britische Premier Blair die Weltöffentlichkeit belogen haben und in den Irakkrieg hineingetrieben haben.

Erinnern wir uns auch zurück an das Jahr 2014 nach dem Maidan, wo hier die Ukraine neu geordnet wurde und der Sohn des damaligen US-Vizepräsidenten Biden, nämlich Hunter Biden, in den Aufsichtsrat von Burisma, eines der größten ukrainischen Energiekonzerne, gehievt wurde und die US-Amerikanerin Jaresko, glaube ich, im Expressverfahren umgebürgert wurde und am Abend desselben Tages dann Ukrainerin war und Finanzministerin wurde.

Es geht hier immer um Geschäftsinteressen, und auch hier hat der aktuelle Konflikt aus meiner Sicht den Geruch von veritablen Geschäftsinteressen. Ich möchte als Österreicher zusätzlich anmerken, dass ich aus einem Land komme, das der Neutralität verpflichtet ist, und ich Russen wie Amerikaner gleichsam mag und hier nur ein Ziel vor Augen habe: Frieden in Europa langfristig zu sichern.

Aber ich glaube nicht, dass, wenn wir als Europäer hier zum Spielball zwischen US-amerikanischen und russischen Interessen werden, das auch wirklich gedeihlich für den europäischen Kontinent und diese Union und diese Europäische Gemeinschaft ist.

Aus meiner Sicht wäre hilfreich, diesen Konflikt zu lösen ohne Beteiligung der US-Amerikaner, die mit Sicherheit – und ich spreche die beiden Administrationen an – eine Provokation nach der anderen gesetzt haben, wo klar war, dass hier die NATO-Osterweiterung in der Form nicht stattfindet und die NATO dann trotzdem von 15 auf fast 30 Mitgliedstaaten erweitert wurde. Ich schlage eine tripolare Konferenz zwischen den Europäern, den Russen und den Ukrainern vor, um hier dauerhaft Frieden abzusichern und uns nicht länger zum Spielball geopolitischer Finanzinteressen zu machen.

  Anna Fotyga (ECR). – Mr President, Putin’s Russia supporting ethnic cleansing, then self-determination, using hybrid war, political corruption and energy blackmail against the West, killing opponents on our territories. The aggressor, always pre-empting non-existent strikes in its propaganda. We have to stay united and firm. I stand by Ukraine. They know it. I stand by the people of Belarus and free Georgian society. The European Parliament should reiterate its long-standing position on Nord Stream 2: to halt it immediately. Not in case – immediately, because it is a very bad project, and the message sent at this dangerous time to Russia may be very bad, with dilution of our position.

  Marc Botenga (The Left). – (begin van de redevoering naast de microfoon) ... de-escalatie nodig in Oekraïne en zoals altijd in de diplomatie betekent dit dat we met bijzonder onprettige mensen moeten onderhandelen, zoals Vladimir Poetin. Maar Charles Michel riep hier net op om honderden miljoenen te mobiliseren om Oekraïne in de westerse of Europese invloedssfeer te integreren. Hij kreeg steun van nationalistisch rechts tot en met de Groenen. De Groenen zijn duidelijk vergeten dat ze ooit uit de vredesbeweging kwamen.

Maar stel u even voor wat er zou gebeuren als China of Rusland straks honderden miljoenen, miljarden zou mobiliseren om Mexico in zijn invloedssfeer te krijgen. Hoe zouden de Verenigde Staten reageren? Denk daar even over na.

Destijds besefte Europa dat. Tot voor kort beseften we dat de neutraliteit van Oostenrijk of Finland belangrijk was. Vandaag bent u die lessen vergeten. U wilt Oekraïne in de NAVO integreren en dat leidt tot conflict. Onderhandel. Stop met die uitbreiding van de NAVO. Onderhandel en creëer een gezamenlijke architectuur voor vrede in Europa.

  Miroslav Radačovský (NI). – Pán predsedajúci, je dňa 16. 2. 2022, útok na Ukrajinu sa nekoná a to je dobre. Nevieme, čo bude poobede.

Včera 15. 2. 2022 veľvyslanec Ukrajiny v parlamente Slovenskej republiky uviedol, čítam: „Ukrajina nemá žiadne informácie o útoku Ruska na Ukrajinu, tak ako o tom hovoria predstavitelia Spojených štátov“, ďalej pokračuje „takéto vyhlásenia Spojených štátov stoja Ukrajinu pol miliardy dolára každý deň“.

Mohol by niekto upozorniť našich amerických priateľov, že dezinformácie nie sú dobré. Nenávisť medzi politikmi sa pomaly prenáša na nenávisť medzi národmi, a toto nie je dobré.

Veľký syn poľského národa, pápež Ján Pavol II, 22. 4. 1990 pri návšteve Československa uviedol, čítam: „Studená vojna skončila. Nikto by nemal byť porazený a nikto víťazom, pretože takéto delenie na víťaza a porazeného môže viesť opätovne k nenávisti medzi Východom a Západom“.

Ján Pavol II ďalej uvádza „zdravé telo dýcha oboma pľúcami, aj pravými aj ľavými. Pokiaľ je jedna strana pľúc chorá, choré je celé telo“.

Ja ako konzervatívny politik sa riadim slovami veľkého syna poľského národa a som za diplomatické riešenie týchto problémov.

  David McAllister (PPE). – Mr President, as many colleagues from different political groups have underlined this morning, the current escalating tensions and the threat of unprecedented military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine are indeed not only targeting Ukraine but also threatening the rules-based international order and threatening Europe as a whole. And this is why we must stand together in this crucial moment.

As the European Parliament, we will not waver in our support of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally-recognised borders. Ukraine has a sovereign right to choose its international alliances freely. The Russian Federation must cease its military threat against Ukraine and immediately, as well as fully, withdraw its forces and military equipment from the border of Ukraine. Any further military aggression against Ukraine would have massive and unprecedented consequences and severe costs in response, including restrictive measures coordinated with our international partners.

It is on the Kremlin to de-escalate and to engage constructively through established mechanisms. The double track of diplomatic engagement and deterrence remains key to solving the current situation.

A final remark: following Monday’s vote to apply an urgent procedure, we are now, this noon, set to give the green light to an emergency EUR 1.2 billion loan to Ukraine to cover its external financing needs in 2022. This demonstrates our solidarity and support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

  Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Niezależnie od tego, jak skończy się obecny kryzys wywołany przez Rosję groźbą inwazji na Ukrainę, najwyższy czas, by z tej kolejnej lekcji wyciągnąć wnioski. Rosja od kilkunastu lat prowadzi awanturniczą politykę zagraniczną, nieustannie zaskakując inne kraje, zwłaszcza zachodnie, swoimi działaniami. Inicjatywa jest zawsze po jej stronie, a to skazuje naszą politykę na reaktywność. Jeśli dodamy do tego dość powszechny oportunizm dyktowany interesami finansowymi i gospodarczymi, a także chęcią odsuwania od siebie kłopotów, jeśli przyprawimy tę mieszankę nieznajomością Rosji i naiwnością sugerującą, że zawsze można jakoś się porozumieć, otrzymamy w efekcie politykę nieskuteczną, traktowaną przez Rosję z pogardliwym lekceważeniem.

Po raz pierwszy deklarowana przez Zachód reakcja na ewentualną agresję Rosji zawiera zagrożenie rzeczywiście poważnymi i kosztownymi sankcjami, których pan Putin nie może nie uwzględnić w rachunku strat i zysków. Moim zdaniem należy pójść dalej i wiarygodnie zagrozić interesom skorumpowanych elit. Europa musi też energicznie dążyć do uniezależnienia się od dostaw rosyjskich surowców energetycznych. Kraj, który łamie prawo międzynarodowe, ograbia sąsiadów z części ich terytorium, odwołuje się w swojej polityce do brutalnej siły zbrojnej, korumpuje partię i polityków w naszych krajach, prowadzi intensywną kampanię kłamstw w przestrzeni cyfrowej, nie może być traktowany jako wiarygodny partner. Bezpieczeństwo naszego systemu energetycznego nie może zależeć od kaprysu autokratycznego przywódcy Rosji. Czas na własną inicjatywę, na działanie kompleksowe i wspólne. Dziś pilnie pomagajmy Ukrainie. Jutro poważnie zastanówmy się, jak wyeliminować przyczyny naszej bezradności wobec zagrożeń ze strony awanturniczego do sąsiada.

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA
varapuhemies

  Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Madam President, a lot has been said already, and for me it’s very clear: if we want to become a real geopolitical player, we need to get our act together by making ourselves less reliant on the Russian gas supply, by building a shield against Russian attacks and, most importantly, by setting up a real European Defence Union. We have to believe in the power of Europe.

But what really worries me, Mr Borrell, is that Putin does not want to speak to Europe. He simply refused, and we allowed him to. Last week, President Macron was in Moscow and yesterday, Chancellor Scholz was in Moscow, but actually it should have been Europe at that long table. We would be much stronger if we talked to Russia – if you talked to Russia, Mr Borrell, on behalf of Europe – with one voice, and I’m sure, Mr Borrell, you agree with that.

That is why I have three questions, Mr Borrell. Have you been in contact with the leadership of Germany and France? Can you confirm they have presented Putin with a common EU front? And can you confirm they have not given Mr Putin an inch?

  Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Ačiū gerb. Pirmininke, gerbiami kolegos. Kremlius ir toliau kelia karinius konfliktus, vykdo politiškai motyvuotus žudymus, naikina demokratijos likučius savo šalyje, galiausiai imasi spaudimo priemonių dujų kainų manipuliacijomis, o sankcijų šešėlyje generuoja milžiniškus pelnus iš eksporto.

V. Putinas nori nuspręsti, kokią ateitį turi pasirinkti suverenios šalys. Noriu tiesiai paklausti: kodėl taip yra? Dėl to, kad Europa vis stengiasi laviruoti, nes yra priklausoma nuo Rusijos resursų. Kada Europa iš tiesų žada užsitikrinti strateginę autonomiją ir turėti galimybę ne žodžiais, o veiksmingai sprendimais kovoti su priešiškais ES režimais? Tegyvuoja Ukraina.

  Peter Kofod (ID). – Fru Formand! Flere talere før mig har jo allerede understreget den alvorlige situation, som vi befinder os i lige nu. En situation, hvor der er en risiko for, at det kan blive værre. Jeg vil gerne starte med at udtrykke min dybe sympati og støtte til Ukraine. For det bør selvfølgelig altid være sådan, at et land har muligheden for at vælge sin egen skæbne og sin egen fremtid, uanset hvad naboerne rundt om måtte synes om det. Og det gælder selvsagt også Ukraine. Jeg synes, det væsentligste for Europas sikkerhed og forsvar, det er vores alliance med amerikanerne og med briterne. Det er vores samarbejde i NATO-regi, som jeg meget gerne ser opprioriteret, men det er selvfølgelig en opgave, der ligger hjemme i vores egne lande, at tage sig af det. Men hvor havde Europa været den dag i dag, hvis det ikke havde været for amerikanerne, og hvis det ikke havde været for briterne? Den alliance er så hamrende vigtig, og i denne situation faktisk vigtigere måske end nogensinde før.

Jeg er også nødt til at sige, at det undrer mig, at man i Tyskland har fået den idé, at man kan skille energipolitik fra andre politiske områder. At man tror, man kan tale energi på den ene side, og at det ikke har indflydelse på sikkerhedspolitik og på udenrigspolitik, for det har det selvfølgelig. Ting hænger sammen. Og i denne tid, særligt nu, hvor energi er så dyrt, som det er, så har det selvfølgelig også en enorm betydning, hvem man har tænkt sig at gøre sig uafhængige af i de næste mange, mange år. Det har den amerikanske præsident også for nylig påpeget over for den nye tyske kansler. Jeg håber, at man i Tyskland vil tage en bredere debat om Nordstream 2, fordi det er, i mine øjne, fuldstændig umuligt at forestille sig, at man kan skille energipolitik fra udenrigspolitik.

  Hermann Tertsch (ECR). – Señora presidenta, la debilidad produce monstruos y la debilidad europea, sumada ahora al caos y a la debilidad del Gobierno actual de los Estados Unidos, han invitado a Putin a mostrar su peor rostro. Ya tuvimos el primer capítulo de este drama bajo Obama, cuando se dejó atropellar sus líneas rojas en Siria y tuvimos, como consecuencia directa, Crimea.

La debilidad, como digo, produce monstruos y hay que parar a Putin allá donde está. Su amenaza no es a Ucrania solo. Su amenaza es a toda Europa y, sobre todo, a toda la Europa oriental: a Polonia, a Lituania, a todo el Báltico, a Bulgaria y a Rumanía. Hay que decirle a Putin que no puede amenazar a países que están reconocidos internacionalmente, uno de los cuales lo tiene ocupado en este momento. Y, desde luego, no puede jugar con los favores europeos, como es Nord Stream, que debe ser suspendido de inmediato.

  Nikolaj Villumsen (The Left). – Fru Formand! Befolkningen i Ukraine fortjener fred og frihed. Den nuværende russiske aggression, annekteringen af Krim og besættelsen af Østukraine er fuldstændig uacceptabel. Putin udnytter EU-landenes afhængighed af russisk gas. Hvis vi vil kunne sige fra over for Putin, så er det afgørende, at vi styrker den grønne omstilling og gør os uafhængige af fossile brændsler. Det kan kun gå for langsomt. Med Nord Stream 2 er EU paradoksalt nok ved at øge sin afhængighed af russisk gas, samtidig med den militære opbygning. Det kan ende grueligt galt. Vi skylder den ukrainske befolkning at gøre alt for at undgå krig. Lad os styrke den diplomatiske indsats. Lad os stoppe den hovedløse oprustning. Og hr. Borrell, lad os sætte Putin og oligarkerne stolen for døren og stoppe Nord Stream 2 en gang for alle!

  Márton Gyöngyösi (NI). – Madam President, in Yalta exactly 77 years ago, superpowers divided Europe for half a century, ushered in the era of Cold War and shoved Central and Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain against its will.

Once again, Russia is aiming to divide our continent by extending its sphere of influence. Putin is reviving the Brezhnev Doctrine and the Cold War rhetoric. Mr Borrell, you mentioned exemplary unity and solidarity within the EU while we have Viktor Orbán acting as a fifth column within our community, echoing Moscow’s position, blocking NATO initiatives, downplaying the impact of sanctions, betraying not only its allies but over 100 000 Hungarians living in Ukraine’s Zakarpattia.

I was happy to hear Mr Legutko, speaker for the ECR Group, to recount the European collaborators of Moscow. Representatives of PiS, the Polish ruling party, could help the EU by influencing their key ally in Hungary, Viktor Orbán. They are our best hope, at least in this regard, until the Hungarian elections on 3 April.

  Radosław Sikorski (PPE). – Madam President, we tried to integrate post-Soviet Russia into our community. We admitted Russia into the Council of Europe. We signed a partnership and cooperation agreement. We were ready to sign partnership and cooperation agreement II, which would have been an association agreement in all but name. But Mr Putin has gone the way of conquest, and that, of course, has to be countered.

I welcome the words of the President of the European Commission that we need to become more independent in the energy sphere. European defence is one thing, but what we really need is a gas union. Just as the Commission buys uranium on behalf of Member States and then distributes it among Member States, we could be using the power of monopsony, of being the largest client customer for Russian gas. I call on Germany to overcome the selfish logic of Nord Stream 2 and to become the leader of the gas union. This would be good for the environment, good for the European economy, good for Member States (we would all get gas cheaper) and good for our standing with Mr Putin. He will not change his mind thanks to partnerships between cities – it’s not the language he understands. He will change his behaviour if we confront him with actions, not just words.

  Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Madam President, once again we’re discussing a crisis in the centre of Europe created by Russia, and trying our best to avoid any unnecessary confrontation. Once again, we see a flow of European and world leaders to meet the biggest European bully, and we are clapping our hands with relief if he decides to move echelons of his soldiers a few hundred kilometres from the Ukrainian borders.

Of course, we should use all our diplomatic means to achieve the peaceful ending of the current crisis. I believe we can achieve this only by being united in our response. We should push even more for a common approach to any security crisis. For this reason, we have to ask governments of our Member States to dedicate adequate attention and financial resources to the defence sector.

We also have to free ourselves from big dependency on one big supplier in any areas of our life, including energy. For that reason, I welcome the efforts of EU diversification of energy supply.

As the European security system cannot be decided in the corridors of Kremlin, the same way the path of Ukraine cannot be decided in the Kremlin either. Ukraine’s future should depend on the choice of its people.

But the EU has the right and the moral obligation to stress again that Ukraine has a place in the European family, and Europe will help Ukraine in these difficult times by all possible means – financially, with expertise and with defence and military equipment.

  Malik Azmani (Renew). – Madam President, we have all witnessed the escalating pressure on Ukraine and Putin is without doubt playing a very dangerous game of brinkmanship. What is he really trying to achieve? Well, nobody knows, besides Putin himself. And what we do know is that putting a gun to Ukraine’s head is no way to preserve peace in Europe or to enhance Russia’s security. One misstep, one mistake and Putin could unleash a devastating conflict that will jeopardise our collective safety and stability. This is why the Union needs to support Ukraine in any way we can: complete the list of severe sanctions, increase financial support for Ukraine, and enhance the defensive capabilities of Ukraine. I commend High Representative Borrell for his hard work in coordinating also with our transatlantic partners, and I call on our Member States to maintain our unity and to stand firm if we want to prevent a new war in Europe.

  Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Paní předsedající, vážené kolegyně, vážení kolegové, scházíme se na tomto plénu v datum, o kterém mnozí v posledním týdnu spekulovali jako o dni ruské invaze na Ukrajinu. Nejen lidem, kteří válku zažili, ale i těm, kdo by tuto zkušenost ve svém životě rádi oželeli, se při takové možnosti svírá hrdlo. Podíváme-li se na výčet bezpečnostních hrozeb za posledních několik let, marně bychom hledali incidenty, které by nebyly agresí Ruské federace. Gruzie. Ukrajina. Špionážní skandály, atentáty na evropské půdě či dezinformační kampaně, všude nacházíme rukopis Kremlu. Ať už se současné napětí vyvine kterýmkoli směrem, je třeba si uvědomit, že Rusko s evropskými státy válku dávno vede, jen používá jiné než tradiční metody. A vyhrává. Daří se mu rozdělovat – zbývá panovat. My se musíme sjednotit a soustředit se jak na krátkodobé hrozby, tak na dlouhodobé dopady kroků Kremlu. Jinak prohrajeme i bez boje.

  Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kollegen! Die Lage an der russischen Grenze zur Ukraine ist immer noch besorgniserregend und sehr undurchsichtig. Ob der Teilabzug russischer Truppen entsprechend einer dauerhaften Entspannung gedeutet werden kann, ist aktuell völlig unklar.

Um die Situation aber langfristig zu verbessern, sind verschiedene Schritte nötig. Zum einen bedarf es einer Garantie vonseiten der Ukraine, dass sie der NATO definitiv nicht beitreten wird. Wie der renommierte amerikanische Politologe John Mearsheimer schon trefflich formulierte: Keine Großmacht möchte eine andere Großmacht als Nachbarn haben.

Stellen wir uns einfach mal vor, Kanada würde einem Bündnis mit Russland beitreten. Die USA würden sich sicher sehr darüber freuen. Diese Fakten zeigen eins sehr deutlich: Die NATO bewegt sich seit Jahrzehnten sukzessive auf Russland zu und nicht umgekehrt. Eine einseitige Verurteilung Russlands lehne ich deshalb ab. Es darf auch keine neuen Sanktionen gegen Russland geben. Stattdessen sollten die bestehenden Sanktionen perspektivisch zurückgenommen werden, um diese unnötigen Spannungen abzubauen.

Die Ukraine sollte wiederum den Status eines neutralen Staates einnehmen, um Beziehungen zu Moskau und zu Washington unterhalten zu können, ohne sich in irgendeiner Weise auf irgendeine Seite zu schlagen und da wieder Konflikte zwischen den beiden Mächten auszulösen.

Natürlich muss Russland aber eins klar sein: Den Visegrád-Staaten, den baltischen Staaten oder unseren polnischen Freunden stehen wir natürlich im Falle einer russischen Aggression oder Bedrohung kompromisslos zur Seite. Was uns aber alle eint, muss ganz klar sein: Ein Krieg muss unbedingt verhindert werden!

  Beata Szydło (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Rosja leży bliżej Unii Europejskiej, niż czasami zdają się pamiętać niektórzy politycy czy nawet my, tutaj, w tej Izbie. A Putin jest bardziej bezwzględnym dyktatorem, niż łudzą się ci, którzy próbują z nim robić interesy. Wykorzystuje bezwzględnie słabości, naiwność i brak odwagi w relacjach z nim. Nie można mieć złudzeń, że, pozwalając na budowę, np. Nord Stream 2 czy uzależniając Europę od gazu rosyjskiego, nie będziemy ponosili tego konsekwencji. Oto ten moment właśnie nadchodzi.

Musimy być solidarni, zjednoczeni i jednoznaczni w swoich decyzjach. Dzisiaj musimy wspierać Ukrainę i musimy też pamiętać, że polityka Unii Europejskiej wobec Rosji musi być zdecydowana i jednoznaczna. Tego potrzebuje dzisiaj Europa, tego potrzebuje dzisiaj Ukraina.

  Γιώργος Γεωργίου (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριοι Επίτροποι, η CIA προέβλεπε πόλεμο σήμερα. Πόλεμος δεν έγινε. Μήπως κάποιοι τον ήθελαν; Μήπως κάποιοι τον χρειάζονται; Είναι πολλά τα λεφτά από τις πωλήσεις των όπλων, του φυσικού αερίου, των εμπορικών συναλλαγών. Μιλούν οι ΗΠΑ για επιθετικότητα άλλων, όταν οι ίδιες ξοδεύουν 800 δισεκατομμύρια για στρατιωτικές δαπάνες, διαθέτουν 800 βάσεις σε όλον τον κόσμο και χιλιάδες στρατιώτες στην Ευρώπη.

Η κυρία von der Leyen απειλεί με μαζικές κυρώσεις τη Ρωσία· δεν μας λέει, όμως, ποιος θα πληρώσει το κόστος. Μήπως και οι ευρωπαϊκοί λαοί; Η Ευρώπη, ουρά του ΝΑΤΟ, παρακολουθεί αμήχανα τις εξελίξεις που συμβαίνουν στην αυλή της. Το είπαν ο Καγκελάριος Scholz και ο Πρόεδρος Macron: χωρίς να είναι ασφαλής η Ρωσία, δεν θα είναι ασφαλής ούτε και η Ευρώπη.

Ας ακούσουμε τις φωνές της λογικής. Η Ευρώπη πρέπει να σταθεί στο ύψος της. Αυτό επιτάσσει η ιστορία της: να σταθεί αποφασιστικά δίπλα στην ειρήνη ενάντια στον πόλεμο. Απαιτείται διπλωματική λύση άμεσα που να διασφαλίζει τη μη διεύρυνση του ΝΑΤΟ προς Ανατολάς, με ταυτόχρονη παράλληλη απομάκρυνση των ρωσικών στρατευμάτων από τα σύνορα της Ουκρανίας. Να δώσουμε χώρο στην ειρήνη.

  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE). – Madam President, let us be clear what military aggression by Russia against Ukraine means. It means the instant international isolation of the Russian Federation. It means political isolation. It means economic isolation for the Russian Federation, and we all know that isolation brings poverty. It means poverty for the people of Russia. For 20 years, the rule of Mr Putin has led the people of Russia down. Today, the average salary in Russia is smaller than the average salary in any of the 27 Member States of the Union. Today, life expectancy in Russia is shorter than life expectancy in any of the 27 Member States of the Union, and the media in Russia are much less free than the media in the European Union. People in Russia today are living in worse conditions than the people of the European Union: this is the truth. It needs to be told. And an aggression will mean an immediate worsening of the living conditions in Russia. People will be poorer very soon. We do not want this to happen, but this is what will inevitably happen if Russia invades Ukraine.

We also need to find ways to talk to the citizens of Russia. We need a plan, and this belongs in the Strategic Compass of the European Union to tell the people of Russia why democracy, freedom of the press, rule of law are good for them, and why peace is the first condition for prosperity. And for us, dear colleagues, defending Ukraine means defending ourselves. We can only live in safety inside the borders of the European Union if we are surrounded by safe neighbours. We can only be safe within the borders of the EU if Ukraine is safe. Defending Ukraine means defending Europe and defending the European Union.

  Andreas Schieder (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wie jetzt schon oft gesagt worden ist: Die Lage ist ernst. Die Kriegsgefahr in Europa, in Osteuropa ist so real und aktuell wie seit Langem nicht mehr. Und vieles wurde schon über die Hintergründe und die Zusammenhänge gesagt.

Ja, Russland trägt die Verantwortung für diese Eskalation, und daher muss auch unser europäischer entschlossener Appell Russland gelten, die Truppen von den Grenzen wieder abzuziehen. Unser wichtigstes Ziel als Europäer – und das gehört ganz klar hier herausgearbeitet und unterstrichen – ist, den Krieg zu verhindern. Dialog und Deeskalation ist unser wichtigstes Ziel. Wir wollen Frieden in ganz Europa.

Die Menschen in der Ukraine haben sich zu Recht ein Leben in Frieden verdient. Aber auch die Menschen in Russland wollen ein Leben in Demokratie und wollen diese militärische Bedrohung, wie sie jetzt herrscht, nicht. Alle Akteure müssen raus aus dieser Gewalteskalation. So sehr wir auf Dialog und Diplomatie setzen, müssen wir uns aber auch vorbereiten, auf Sanktionen zu setzen, wenn die Lage noch ernster wird.

  Frédérique Ries (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Vladimir Poutine, décidément, souffle le chaud et le froid. On craignait une invasion pour ce matin, pour aujourd’hui; c’est l’inverse qui semble se produire: le Kremlin annonce maintenant le retrait d’une partie de ses troupes. Prudence. L’avenir nous dira s’il y a réellement désescalade. En attendant, Vladimir Poutine est maître des horloges, de l’agenda et du tempo depuis des semaines, tandis que l’économie ukrainienne a un genou à terre.

J’ai une minute seulement. L’Union européenne doit assumer ses ambitions géopolitiques au-delà des slogans: être ferme au nom de tous et de chacun, ficeler son paquet de sanctions et avancer sur cette défense commune. Nous devons aussi, bien évidemment et avant tout, cette solidarité infaillible au peuple ukrainien, qui paie cher le prix de sa liberté.

Je me souviens, Monsieur le Haut Représentant, comme si c’était hier, du président Viktor Iouchtchenko dans notre hémicycle de Strasbourg, un hémicycle orange de bas en haut. Vous présidiez la session, vous étiez Président du Parlement européen à l’époque. C’était en 2005. Je vais le citer: «Les frontières de l’Europe et de la liberté vont jusqu’à Odessa et à Kiev.» Je le cite, c’était il y a dix-huit ans, et l’Europe balbutie, mais combien de temps encore? Je conclus, Madame la Présidente. Que l’on ne s’y trompe pas, c’est bien notre Union, notre ADN, nos valeurs et notre paix qui sont en jeu ici.

  Jakop G. Dalunde (Verts/ALE). – Fru talman! Oavsett hur den nuvarande situationen i Ukraina slutar måste vi ta hotet om rysk aggression på allvar. Att Ryssland använder hot om våld som diplomatiskt påtryckningsmedel, det är oacceptabelt oavsett i vilken utsträckning hotet faktiskt verkställs.

Rysslands agerande underminerar folkrätten och den europeiska säkerhetsordningen. Även om det just nu är hotet mot Ukraina som är själva hävstången är målet med politiken att kunna utöva inflytande över alla Rysslands grannländer. Om Putin har för avsikt att splittra EU måste vi visa att det har motsatt effekt, att det för EU-länderna närmare varandra och skapar en säkerhetspolitisk enhet. Det är grunden för ett ökat motstånd mot Putins imperialistiska maktanspråk.

Europeisk solidaritet med det ukrainska folkets självbestämmande, och fast beslutsamhet, är vägen framåt för Europa. Gemensamma sanktioner mot Ryssland och insatser för att stötta Ukraina är avgörande.

Jag upprepar, ett hot om våld är ett allvarligt brott mot den regelbaserade världsordningen, oavsett i vilken utsträckning hotet faktiskt verkställs. Om din granne kommer över till dig och viftar med en pistol och hotar dig är det ett brott, även om pistolen inte avfyras.

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, позволете ми един цитат. Цитирам: „Нито един договор с Русия не струва дори хартията, на която е написан.“ Не се надявайте, че веднъж възползвали се от слабостта на Русия, ще получавате дивиденти вечно. Руснаците винаги ще идват обратно, и като дойдат, не се надявайте подписаните съглашения да ви оправдаят. Затова с руснаците си струва да се играе или честно, или въобще да не се играе. Оставям ви за домашно да се сетите от кого е този цитат. Той е от един велик европеец, но половината от вас ще изпоприпадат само при споменаването на неговото име. Но така или иначе той е бил прав.

На 5 ноември 1994 година в Будапеща е подписан договор, който гарантира, трябва да гарантира териториалната цялост на Украйна, в замяна на отказ от ядрено оръжие. Към това време Украйна е третата в света държава по силата на ядреното си оръжие. Виждате колко струва този договор, а страна по него е и Русия. Защо става така? Защото европейското лидерство към днешна дата е некомпетентно, беззъбо, неумело и не знае какво трябва да направи. Защото европейските лидери отиват да се договарят сепаративно, защото европейските лидери не могат, не знаят как да изработят една позиция, която да отстояват и която да защитават. Половината говорят за енергийна независимост, другите обаче си пускат тръби, защото е изгодно за тяхната икономика. Ето така няма да се получи и така няма да стане, уважаеми. Казвам го с цялата сериозност на тази тема.

Това, което всеки един от вас трябва да знае, е, че начинът, по който политиката се води в момента, е погрешен. Г-н Борел, Вие говорите в момента за единство. Какво единство, г-н Борел? Всеки европейски лидер отива и се договаря сепаративно – единство няма. Не се лъжете, да не се лъжем. Чувам тук някакви хора се опитват да кажат „Слава на Украйна!“, ама тихичко така, да се запишат в листа на изказващите се. Украйна има нужда от сериозно партньорство, от сериозна поддръжка и от икономика, а не от празни приказки, от декларации и от игра на шикалки.

  Emmanuel Maurel (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, nous voulons tous empêcher l’embrasement. Nous voulons tous empêcher cette fuite en avant qui met en péril la sécurité européenne. Évidemment, nous sommes tous d’accord sur le fait qu’une agression, même limitée, à l’encontre de l’Ukraine justifierait une réponse politique et économique forte et commune de la part de l’Europe. Nous devrions tous être d’accord aussi pour dire que, parmi les grandes puissances qui jettent de l’huile sur le feu, il n’y a pas que la Russie – mais cela, c’est difficile à entendre.

Dès lors, il faut agir pour empêcher cette catastrophe, sans que l’Ukraine soit menacée ni déstabilisée. Cela suppose d’appliquer les accords de Minsk, comme le demandent la France et l’Allemagne de façon répétée, dans le cadre du format Normandie. Mais cela suppose aussi – je suis désolé de le dire – que pour l’instant l’Ukraine n’adhère pas à l’OTAN, car il est devenu évident qu’une adhésion de l’Ukraine à l’OTAN serait un facteur de guerre; l’ignorer en balayant d’un revers de main les objections de la Russie, ce n’est pas une attitude responsable.

Je le répète et vous le savez tous: contrairement aux États-Unis, la Russie reste – et restera – sur le continent européen. Comme le disaient très bien hier le chancelier Scholz, mais aussi le président Macron, il n’y a pas de sécurité européenne s’il n’y a pas de sécurité russe.

  Esteban González Pons (PPE). – Madam President, for years, we have tried to avoid any kind of conflict with Moscow, but we can’t anymore. This is not the time for speculation or cheap political talk. Putin has made his intentions clear to Ukraine, to Europe and to the world. He insists that diplomatic options are still on the table, but his troops are prepared for the invasion of an independent nation. Negotiating with tanks and with a gun to our heads is not negotiating. It is blackmailing.

Make no mistake, the target is Ukraine, but we, the European Union, are the goal. The threat is there, it is now, and it is a real one. The only question that we have to answer is: what are we going to do about it? Do we stand down? Are we going to be prisoners of a dictator or do we unite, put our political difference aside and stand together against this act of aggression? Rather than being afraid, let’s hold our heads high and make him understand that he will never divide us.

Last, I don’t want to forget that yesterday a new trial began against Alexei Navalny. Please remember that today, more than ever, Navalny represents Russia’s hope. Let’s not condemn Russia to suffer a dictatorship forever.

  Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, os sinais parecem anunciar um desanuviamento da tensão nas fronteiras entre a Rússia e a Ucrânia, mas não podemos baixar a guarda. Não tenhamos ilusões: a paz não é um dado adquirido, é uma construção permanente que temos que tomar definitivamente nas nossas mãos.

Não voltamos as costas à Aliança Atlântica, mas não podemos ter a nossa segurança definida entre Washington e Moscovo. Sejamos ousados se queremos ser relevantes. Enquanto a palavra estiver do lado da diplomacia nada está perdido. Mas é necessário não perder de vista que só seremos construtores da paz se estivermos preparados para responder solidariamente à ameaça da guerra.

Por ora, recomenda-se a contenção retórica de todos os lados, nervos de aço e não cedência na solidariedade com a Ucrânia. Não podemos ceder na defesa dos valores inscritos na Ata Final de Helsínquia e na Carta de Paris.

  Urmas Paet (Renew). – Madam President, for years, Russia has been keeping their military in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova against the will of the governments of those countries, thereby impeding the normal development of these countries. Also, in the current situation where Russia has surrounded Ukraine with its military, carries a purpose that Ukraine itself should not be able to decide on its future. Russia’s goal is to get Ukraine into its sphere of influence. It wants Ukraine to give up its path towards the EU and NATO.

So far, Ukraine has managed to endure, despite the huge pressure. Democratic western countries should not make things more difficult for Ukraine. This means that we must remain with the Ukrainians by supporting them every way we can. It means also a physical presence in Ukraine. Above all, we must maintain a strong and visible diplomatic presence in Ukraine. The continuous and high-level presence of democracies in Kyiv and in other parts of Ukraine is of essence, especially these days.

  Grace O’Sullivan (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Ukraine, a word ironically originating from the Slavic word for ‘borderland’. As tensions rise along its borders with Russia, activities close to Ukraine’s border with Belarus are an ominous reminder we are, all of us, citizens of a world where the threat of nuclear knows no borders.

Footage aired last week showing the chilling sight of Ukrainian military undertaking ammunition training in Pripyat, a now abandoned city in Ukraine, once home to workers of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, just one kilometre from the border with Belarus. Troops crept around empty apartments, an abandoned library, along quiet school playgrounds, all in sight of Chernobyl – scene of the world’s worst nuclear accident, where today huge tanks store radioactive waste in the aftermath of that ongoing tragedy.

There is no safe way to store nuclear waste, and disturbing those dumps could have catastrophic impacts on humankind and the environment that crosses multiple borders with the message, when it’s too late, that peace must always be the ultimate goal.

  Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Wejdą, nie wejdą – takie pytanie zadawaliśmy sobie w Polsce w 1981 r. Takie pytanie zadawali sobie Polacy w roku 1956. Gdy wchodzili, jak w 1920 r. czy w 1944 r., mordowali nas i dławili wolność. Teraz zadawaliśmy to pytanie w stosunku do Ukrainy. Na szczęście tej nocy nie weszli – to nie znaczy, że niebezpieczeństwo zostało zażegnane i że to pytanie nie pojawi się znowu.

Niestety Unia i niektóre państwa członkowskie zlekceważyły rosyjskie zagrożenie mimo wojny w Gruzji w 2008 r., mimo wojny na wschodzie Ukrainy w 2014 r.. Niemcy pod rządami Angeli Merkel, tej wielkiej Europejki, inwestowali w Nord Stream 2, uzależniając się coraz bardziej od gazu rosyjskiego. Czy teraz Niemcy, Francja i cała Unia oprą swoją politykę na właściwej ocenie Rosji i jej politycznych tradycji i strategicznych celów?

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Vice-Presidente Borrell, Vice-Presidente Schinas, Caros Colegas, é de registar que os grupos e os deputados que sempre mais defendem aqui a autodeterminação dos povos e a soberania dos Estados são aqueles que menos defendem a autodeterminação e a soberania do povo e do Estado da Ucrânia.

Eles pactuam com a ocupação de Donbass, Donetsk e Lugansk, com a ocupação e anexação da Crimeia e até com parte da Geórgia ou da Transnístria. A União Europeia não pode falhar. A relação transatlântica não pode falhar. Com os EUA, o Reino Unido, o Canadá. Nós não podemos ignorar a aspiração dos ucranianos, do povo ucraniano, a uma democracia liberal, livre da corrupção e uma economia de mercado que traga prosperidade e bem-estar.

A Rússia tem de perceber que não pode condicionar, não pode pôr e não pode dispor da vontade de um povo europeu, soberano e livre, como é o povo ucraniano. É fundamental que a NATO, de Taline a São Francisco, de Vilnius a Vancouver, esteja unida para defender a liberdade dos povos e dos povos europeus em particular. Tucídides disse: “Os fortes fazem o que podem e os fracos sofrem o que devem”. A Ucrânia não é fraca. A União Europeia não é fraca. A NATO não é fraca. Somos fortes porque estamos unidos contra os ditadores.

  Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Elina avait 20 ans fin 2013. Étudiante en philosophie, elle fut l’une des premières à descendre dans la rue, un drapeau européen dans les mains, pour lancer la révolution. Andreï avait 25 ans, et il était DJ. Je l’ai vu, début 2014, un bouclier en fer attaché au bras, affronter les balles des snipers.

Vouloir être libre, aspirer à rejoindre la famille des démocraties européennes: voilà l’unique crime d’Elina et d’Andreï, voilà l’unique crime du peuple ukrainien, voilà pourquoi la Crimée fut annexée et le Donbass occupé, voilà pourquoi 130 000 soldats russes sont actuellement massés aux frontières et menacent de faire basculer notre continent dans la guerre; parce qu’une nation européenne entend vivre libre en Europe.

Nous doutons souvent de nous-mêmes et de nos démocraties; mais écoutons, regardons la jeunesse ukrainienne, et nous saisirons le sens profond de nos cités, la valeur de cette Union que nous essayons pas à pas de construire. C’est aujourd’hui à Kiev que l’on comprend le mieux ce qu’être européen veut dire.

  Michal Šimečka (Renew). – Pani predsedajúca, dnes nikto z nás nevie ako táto kríza skončí. Ale s istotou vieme, že predurčí budúcnosť celého kontinentu. Ak totiž začne byť v Európe normálne, že silné štáty môžu svojvoľne zašliapnuť tie slabšie, násilne rozhodnúť o ich osude, zobrať im slobodu a suverenitu, potom máme problém všetci. A najmä tie menšie štáty na okraji EÚ. Ako politik zo Slovenska preto považujem za kľúčové, aby Európska únia postupovala rázne a jednotne v dialógu s Moskvou, v politickej a finančnej pomoci pre Ukrajinu, a samozrejme v príprave tvrdých odvetných sankcií. Nebránime tým len Ukrajinu, ale aj vyšší európsky mierový princíp. Totiž princíp, že aj malé štáty majú nárok na rešpekt, na suverenitu, na bezpečnosť. Vďaka Európskej únii dnes už nemusíme žiť v džungli, kde silní môžu všetko a slabí musia všetko strpieť. A ak dnes ponecháme Ukrajinu jej osudu tak všetci sa v tejto džungli môžeme znovu ocitnúť.

  Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE). – Arvoisa puhemies, Venäjä on kulkenut jo kauan tiellä, jossa maan johto hakee suurvalta-asemaa geopoliittisella vallankäytöllä ja aggressiivisella ulkopolitiikalla.

Venäjän johto ei ole kyennyt uudistamaan maan taloutta, eikä se ole kyennyt lisäämään kansalaisten hyvinvointia. Voimapolitiikka on myös siksi vaarallista ja arvaamatonta, että se on osin seurausta heikkoudesta.

Venäjä uhkaa toimillaan Ukrainan ja ylipäätään Euroopan vakautta. Samaan aikaan mikään muu maa Euroopassa ei uhkaa Venäjää. Sen rajat ovat turvalliset, mutta sen kaikkien naapurien eivät ole. Syy tähän on Venäjän omassa toiminnassa. Venäjä on itse miehittänyt Krimin ja tukee Itä-Ukrainassa bulvaanina toimivia kansantasavaltoja.

Venäjälle on tehtävä selväksi, että se ei voi jatkaa tällä tiellä. Sen on kunnioitettava naapurimaidensa suvereniteettia, ja EU:n on nostettava sen omaa kykyä toimia myös kovan ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan alueella yhtenäisenä ja aloitteellisena. Emme voi vain reagoida, vaan meidän on ohjattava Euroopan suuntaa myös turvallisuudessa.

Emme voi vain vastata kirjeisiin, vaan meidän on itse tehtävä aloite rauhan ja demokratian puolesta. Muutoin Venäjä jatkaa hajota ja hallitse -diplomatiaansa, jossa se jakaa Euroopan unionin 27 erilaiseen ääneen, ja sitä me emme voi sallia.

  Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Fru talman! Ska EU skicka pansarvärnsvapen eller filtar och fältsjukhus till Ukraina? Vapen eller miljardbelopp som kan försvinna?

EU-kommissionen ska inte belåna budgeten och ska inte spendera mer än de har. Vi Sverigedemokrater har röstat mot budgetstöd till misskötta ekonomier i EU och utanför EU. EU har gett budgetstöd till Ukraina fem gånger tidigare. Ytterligare 12 miljarder kronor till Kiev handlar inte om det aktuella hotet från Ryssland. Kommissionen varnar för att pengarna kan försnillas eftersom det rör sig om icke öronmärkt budgetstöd som kan användas fritt.

Att revisionsrätten pekar på landets utbredda korruption borde få varningsklockorna att ringa. I stället bör vi ge militär utrustning genom fredsfaciliteten och straffa Ryssland med hårda sanktioner om de invaderar. Mitt eget land, Sverige, bör bistå med försvarsmateriel, men se det är Socialdemokraterna emot.

Vårdslös hantering av skattepengar och falsk solidaritet med det ukrainska folket är vad det är. När britterna skickar vapen till Ukraina inspireras de svenska sossarna av tyska regeringen som vill skicka hjälmar. Det är hyckleri.

  Andrzej Halicki (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Ta debata nie jest tylko debatą o bezpieczeństwie Ukrainy, to w gruncie rzeczy debata o naszej przyszłości, o bezpieczeństwie Europy, w tym także mojego kraju, Polski. Bo czego najbardziej boi się Putin? Putin boi się dobrego przykładu, dobrego przykładu, który idzie z naszych społeczeństw, z naszych krajów. Boi się, że Ukraińcy wybiorą taką drogę życia, jaką wybraliśmy my, Polacy, czy inni sąsiedzi, Słowacy, Węgrzy czy Rumuni, czyli demokrację, prawa obywatelskie, szybki rozwój i bezpieczeństwo, bezpieczeństwo także gwarantowane przez NATO.

Naszym obowiązkiem w tej Izbie, tu w Strasburgu i w Brukseli jest powiedzieć Putinowi jasno – Ukraina ma prawo wyboru swojej przyszłości, ma prawo liczyć na pełne członkostwo w Unii Europejskiej, ma prawo liczyć także na bezpieczeństwo i my musimy Ukraińcom w tym pomóc. Solidarność z Ukrainą to jest nasz obowiązek w imię bezpieczeństwa w Europie, w imię naszej przyszłości.

I jeszcze jedna uwaga, Putin boi się tego dlatego, że obawia się dobrego przykładu zaraźliwego także w Rosji. Bo przecież demokraci w Rosji są coraz silniejsi, a nie słabsi. Oni też widzą, jak można żyć. I dlatego nie możemy zapomnieć o demokratach w Rosji. Wolność dla Aleksieja Nawalnego i solidarność z Ukrainą to dziś nasz obowiązek.

  Dietmar Köster (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Das Wichtigste ist jetzt, den Frieden in Europa zu bewahren. Gestern sind dafür wichtige Schritte einer Deeskalation angekündigt worden. Der deutsche Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz hat dazu beigetragen, indem er Waffenlieferungen in die Ukraine ablehnte und dadurch Gesprächskanäle nach Moskau offenhielt.

Ja, es ist richtig, dass der russische Truppenaufmarsch zu der aktuellen bedrohlichen Situation geführt hat. Ich hoffe, dass Moskau seine Ankündigungen wahrmacht und die Manöver beendet. Aber wer eine verlässliche europäische Sicherheitsarchitektur in Europa haben will, muss auch die Sicherheitsbedenken aus russischer Sicht ernst nehmen, ohne sie zu teilen. Und wenn sich Moskau von der NATO-Expansion bedroht fühlt, muss man darüber reden und verhandeln.

Die nur zu begrüßenden unterschiedlichen Gesprächsformate müssen in eine europäische Sicherheitskonferenz überführt werden. Sicherheit in Europa kann es nicht gegen, sondern nur mit Russland geben. Das ist die Basis für eine europäische Friedensordnung.

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (Renew). – Madam President, Ukraine is Europe, and Ukrainian security is European security. High Representative, unity among Member States is most important for us, but we cannot have unity if we have Orbán going and negotiating alone with Putin.

Common action within NATO, and full support for Ukrainian independence, territorial integrity and strategic choices should be supported by us. This is the only way to answer to the unprecedented military aggression that country has been facing recently from the Russian Federation.

At the same time, we need to continue providing political support, economic help and assistance to Ukraine, including in defence and security related areas, and to develop a long—term strategy. This requires Europe to formulate a geopolitical answer, because this crisis is also a lesson for us, and it could dramatically change the way Europeans think about their own security.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Dass wir Europäerinnen und Europäer mit der Ukraine solidarisch sein müssen, ist hier von den meisten Rednerinnen und Rednern zu Recht betont worden. Nur die Extremisten von links und rechts machen sich zu Instrumenten des russischen Neoimperialismus. Doch die Abwendung einer neuerlichen Intervention in der Ukraine ist nicht genug.

Putins Sinnen und Trachten geht auf die Revision der Stabilitätsordnung in Europa. Deshalb muss unsere Antwort allen Aspekten dieser Politik ganz praktisch entgegentreten. Eine russische Anerkennung der sogenannten Volksrepubliken im Donbass müsste harte Sanktionen zur Folge haben. Und wir dürfen nicht zulassen, dass westliche Gier für Putins Aggression genutzt wird. Deshalb: Stopp für Nord Stream 2 und endlich harte Kante gegen russische Korruption und Geldwäsche in der EU.

  Riho Terras (PPE). – Madam President, there is no need to remind you of the severity of the ongoing crisis. Putin’s Russia is working according to the plan: a strategic plan that has no less a goal than challenging the West and changing Europe’s security architecture. Building up a military presence and tightening the noose around Ukraine, day by day, is not just a military drill. It is Russia getting ready to attack one of its neighbours.

The war in Ukraine has already been going on for eight years. The strategic end state Putin has in mind has not been delivered yet. Ukraine has not collapsed, and there is no puppet regime in Kyiv to follow the master’s orders. Putin’s attempt to correct this mistake he made could take place at any moment. Don’t let yourself be deceived by the dislocation of troops. Moving units back and forth is what you do when you prepare for attack. Russia is not de-escalating; they are escalating by adding pressure with cyber attacks. The West should not leave Ukraine. Diplomats and the media should stay in place. Politicians should visit Ukraine daily. This is what Ukraine needs now, in addition to material support from friends and partners.

Last but not least, the EU must reaffirm strongly and openly that Ukraine has the perspective to join the Union one day.

  Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Madam President, yesterday we debated the CFSP and to CSDP here, and I commend the High Representative for his tireless and successful efforts in trying to bring about unity. However, I expect more from the Council – peer-pressuring Member States and deliberately jeopardising this very unity for internal political reasons or with misconceptions of history.

We must stand foursquare behind the free and independent people of Ukraine, through diplomacy, through the provision of defensive aid, and through hard cash. This is also about us, about our values, about upholding international law. It must be crystal clear, ahead of any further aggression, how high the price will be: freezing assets, stopping freedom of movement for everyone related to the regime, banning Russia from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) and halting Nord Stream 2.

My message to the Russian people, who are not our enemy, is: do not let Mr Putin drag you into a senseless war. To the people of Ukraine: long live democratic Ukraine!

  Dragoş Tudorache (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, dragi colegi, mă alătur celor care au susținut aici solidaritate față de Ucraina și poporul său și determinare maximă față de Putin. Dar Putin a fost mereu acolo. Putin ne testează de ani de zile capacitatea de reacție și voință politică. Ne-a testat în Georgia, ne-a testat în Crimeea, ne-a testat dând sprijin altor dictatori, precum Maduro sau Bashar Al-Assad.

Întrebarea este ce suntem noi pregătiți și dispuși să facem. Eu cred că a venit timpul să ne asumăm fără echivoc o politică externă comună prin asumarea majorității calificate în procesul decizional și înființarea armatei europene, complementară și interoperabilă cu NATO.

Trebuie să ne asumăm cu prioritate decuplarea de dependențele strategice care pot fi folosite împotriva noastră: energie, resurse naturale strategice, tehnologii avansate, mai ales când aceste dependențe sunt față de state nedemocratice.

Și, întorcându-ne la Putin și Ucraina, trebuie să ne asumăm cu resurse și angajamente concrete prezența sporită în regiunea Mării Negre, o regiune de importanță strategică din punctul de vedere al securității și al energiei.

  Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, pour dissuader Vladimir Poutine d’engager un conflit sanglant aux portes de l’Union, nous devons être solidaires et fermes. Face au nationalisme expansionniste absurde d’un homme prêt à sacrifier des milliers de vies humaines, aucune complaisance n’est possible. Je condamne ceux qui se livrent, dans nos démocraties, à cette complaisance, qui ferment les yeux sur la corruption et l’agressivité du régime russe et sur ses violations des droits de l’homme.

Dans ce moment si important pour les Ukrainiennes et les Ukrainiens, mais aussi pour notre sécurité dans l’Union européenne, j’attends des États membres qu’ils fassent preuve d’une cohérence exemplaire. Tous les États membres doivent soutenir le régime de sanctions. Tous les États membres doivent dire haut et fort que les opérations bénéfiques à la Russie, comme le gazoduc Nord Stream 2, seront arrêtées sur-le-champ si Moscou en vient aux armes.

Une Europe plus forte et plus unie est la réponse à cette crise, que l’expansion de l’OTAN, trop polarisante, n’a pas la capacité de résoudre sur le plan politique.

  Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor vicepresidente Schinas, que no nos engañen, esta lucha es por la supervivencia de nuestro modelo de vida. Nuestra democracia es el plato principal. El objetivo de Putin, como de muchos otros dictadores y aprendices de dictadores, es evitar que la vacuna de la democracia se extienda por sus países. Y para ello utilizarán todas las armas posibles. Las amenazas al territorio ucraniano no son solo un aviso.

Aparte de una alianza de seguridad, que lo somos, y de nuestros compromisos con la OTAN, por encima de todo está la defensa de nuestros valores democráticos, no solo en Ucrania, sino también en Bielorrusia, en Venezuela y en la propia Rusia, apoyando a luchadores por la democracia como Alexéi Navalni.

Me dirijo a los diputados de la izquierda, que saben muy bien que la Rusia de Putin no es el sistema soviético añorado por algunos, que Maduro no es socialista y que el Partido Comunista de China es de todo menos comunista. Son regímenes corruptos llenos de oligarcas que defienden sus intereses económicos e impermeables a la democracia.

Bajo esta premisa inicial, la Unión Europea tiene que estar a la altura de las circunstancias y responder de un modo contundente a lo que está pasando en Ucrania. Practiquemos los valores de los que tanto hablamos. Olvidémonos de la esperanza de la democracia global que alimentamos en los años ochenta y noventa. Estamos en una nueva fase de la Guerra Fría. Democracia versus autocracias. No podemos bajar la guardia.

Y, sobre todo, nuestra baza es la economía, que sigue siendo nuestra arma más poderosa. Hay que tener las sanciones claras, preparadas y dirigidas hacia este tipo de amenazas a nuestro sistema democrático.

  Evin Incir (S&D). – Fru talman! Vi befinner oss i det värsta säkerhetspolitiska läget på flera decennier. Ryska soldater, stridsvagnar och missiler har omringat Ukraina. Landet är i akut behov av hjälp. Ukrainas suveränitet och territoriella integritet är en fråga om vår – Europas och hela världens unga, barn och folk – rätt till självbestämmande.

EU måste därför agera gemensamt för att trycka tillbaka förtryckarregimen i Moskva. Att inte ha röstat för det makroekonomiska stödet till Ukraina är ett agerande som utgör ett hot mot fred och säkerhet i Europa och hela världen. För en hållbar fred och säkerhet krävs också att alla delar av befolkningen involveras.

Min fråga till er, höga representant och vice ordförande, är därför: Hur säkerställer vi att vi lever upp till våra åtaganden att inkludera både unga och kvinnor i fredsprocesserna, enligt FN-resolutionerna 1325 och 2250? För det enda jag sett hittills är män, män och fler män.

  José Ramón Bauzá Díaz (Renew). – Señora presidenta, aún no sabemos con certeza qué es lo que pasará en Ucrania en las próximas horas. Pero sí tenemos una cosa clara: que los europeos hemos despertado de un letargo que duraba treinta años, donde pensábamos que una guerra en Europa era simplemente imposible. Y esa posibilidad, desgraciadamente, es muy real.

El chantaje ruso no se hace contra Ucrania o contra la OTAN, se hace contra la Unión Europea y contra los principios y valores que representa, principios que también comparten nuestros socios ucranianos y nuestros aliados norteamericanos. Y, en ese sentido, estos valores a los que se enfrenta Putin y que, sobre todo, a los que ha declarado la guerra durante muchísimos años, también tienen sus enemigos en la propia Unión Europea. Ayer, los diputados comunistas de Podemos, que forman parte del Gobierno de España, decidieron votar en contra, no apoyar las ayudas económicas que Europa quiere dar a Ucrania. El comunismo, ideología criminal blanqueada en España por algunos conniventes, pero criminalizada en Europa por su totalitarismo sanguinario es, precisamente hoy en día, el mayor cómplice de Putin frente a un momento en que la democracia más lo necesita.

Señor Borrell, a los matones como Putin se les planta cara. Me consta que ese es su deseo y siempre nos tendrá a su lado.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I could not imagine until today that the Nazi slogan, the slogan of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, would be pronounced from this tribune so many times and echoed in the Hemicycle. We are living in the time of information wars, and one of the instruments is, of course, the slogan. One of the instruments is disinformation, and we are giving an example of it now by having the title of the debate: Russia’s military threat against Ukraine. It is not proved. It was repeated – it was even mentioned today – that Ukrainian diplomats are denying this elsewhere in the European Union because it’s damaging Ukraine. I will speak about facts: facts registered by the United Nations, OSCE and other bodies. These are children killed in Donbas. In the last eight years, 152 children were killed and 146 injured. The latest case is the case of Vladik Dmitriyev, the four—year—old boy killed by a drone...

(The President cut off the speaker who was displaying a poster)

  President. – Colleague, I am obliged to tell you that, according to the Rules of Procedure, this is not allowed. I am very sorry. Your time is out. You have to do this outside the plenary.

  Traian Băsescu (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, domnule Înalt Reprezentant, domnule comisar, pretenția Kremlinului de a negocia cu NATO și SUA o nouă arhitectură de securitate în Europa prin stabilirea zonelor de influență din timpul URSS arată negarea, de către Rusia, a dreptului suveran al statelor independente de a-și decide singure sistemele de alianțe și modul de a-și asigura securitatea.

Lunga listă de cedări și compromisuri excesive făcute în favoarea Rusiei de dragul afacerilor unor mari companii europene, dar și pentru aprovizionarea cu gaze în condiții preferențiale au finanțat armata cu care Putin amenință azi pacea unor state europene. Altfel spus, atât de îndrăgitul „business as usual” cu Rusia s-a făcut în detrimentul securității Ucrainei, a țărilor baltice, a Poloniei, a României, a Bulgariei.

În aceste zile, Statele Unite și Regatul Unit au reacționat rapid și masiv, consolidând militar Ucraina și flancul estic. NATO este singurul scut real pentru securitatea europeană. Cel puțin pentru moment, soluțiile pentru securitatea europeană sunt: accelerarea procesului de dobândire a independenței energetice față de Rusia, descurajarea militară și economică a Rusiei și încetarea compromisurilor politice în favoarea Rusiei.

  Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Jesteśmy drugą demokracją świata. To ogromna odpowiedzialność nie tylko za wspieranie demokratyzacji świata, ale także za pokój na świecie. To niestety kolejna debata i kolejna sytuacja, w której widzimy, że pokój nie jest dany raz na zawsze. To kolejna lekcja, do której mogliśmy się jako Unia Europejska lepiej przygotować. To kolejny kryzys stworzony przez Rosję, bo Rosja chce Białorusi i Ukrainy, a Białoruś i Ukraina chcą niepodległości i wolności. Potrzebne jest zatem nasze realne działanie, wsparcie finansowe dla tych państw. Potrzebne jest przywództwo Unii w sprawie konferencji na rzecz przyszłości Białorusi i wsparcia dla Ukrainy. Potrzebna jest nowa strategia Unii na rzecz Białorusi, której nadal nie wypracowaliśmy, i plan dla Ukrainy, bo dotychczasowe niestety się nie sprawdziły. Potrzebne jest także zlikwidowanie zasady jednomyślności w polityce zagranicznej Unii, bo dzisiaj mamy 27 ministrów spraw zagranicznych, a przez to 27 różnych stanowisk. Niech żyje wolna i niepodległa Ukraina!

  Dita Charanzová (Renew). – Madam President, Ukraine is an independent and a sovereign state, a free European nation that should decide its future itself. So our message today to our friends in Ukraine is that Europe is ready to help, from arms to funds. It must be clear who are the true friends of a free Ukraine and that the Europeans’ doors are open.

I still hope for a diplomatic solution. However, if Russia acts, we as Europe must be ready to respond. These sanctions must hit hard, not only the economic ones, but also the oligarchs and corrupt officials in Russia. More than anything, we must show our solidarity with Ukraine. Ukraine needs strong allies in these difficult times. Glory to Ukraine.

  Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Sind wir uns dessen bewusst, dass wir jedes Jahr mit Dutzenden Milliarden Euro durch unsere Gaseinkäufe das Regime von Putin finanzieren, indirekt den militärischen Aufmarsch an der ukrainischen Grenze mitfinanzieren?

Wer heute nicht versteht, dass Gas nicht nur ein klimapolitisches Problem ist, sondern auch ein sicherheitspolitisches Problem, der hat – denke ich mal – seine Hausaufgaben nicht gemacht. Die Kommission hat das erkannt, und sie sucht nach Ersatzlösungen für die Gasversorgung Europas. Mittel- oder langfristig müssen wir aus Gas aussteigen – eben nicht nur aus klimapolitischen Gründen, sondern auch aus sicherheitspolitischen Bedenken.

Dass sich Orbán gerade jetzt mit russischem Geld und russischer Technologie ein Atomkraftwerk in Paks II hinbauen lässt – übrigens auf einer Erdbebenlinie –, ist nicht nur ein umweltpolitisches Problem, sondern auch ein sicherheitspolitisches Problem. Hier werden die Interessen der Europäerinnen und Europäer und die Interessen der Ungarinnen und Ungarn an das russische Regime von Wladimir Putin verkauft.

Last, but not least: Wer nicht erkennt, dass wir durch die Taxonomie, die Gas in ein grünes Label für private Investitionen mit hereinnehmen soll, unsere Abhängigkeit nur noch mehr verstärken, der hat den Ernst der Lage nicht erkannt.

  Christophe Hansen (PPE). – Madam President, the situation on the EU’s eastern borders, especially at the Ukrainian border, is far from being resolved. Let’s not get fooled by the Potemkin retreat of his troops that Putin is or is not staging while we are speaking. Let’s not be fooled while the online networks of Ukraine’s defence ministry and two banks are knocked out by cyber-attacks. This is not a coincidence, and my colleague, Riho Terras, has highlighted this. Putin couldn’t care less about an economic crash in his country when the situation of instability allows him to maintain and extend his power grab elsewhere.

On our side, we need to support Ukrainians wherever we can. Therefore I more than welcome the macro-financial assistance we granted this week to Ukraine. But the current crisis also cruelly highlights, once again, our weakness when it comes to speaking with one single voice in foreign policy. Did Macron, Scholz or Bettel convey the same message to Putin? I strongly doubt this. So when do we get, once and for all, rid of unanimity in foreign policy?

Dear Executive Vice-President, how are you planning to speed up the development of PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) to better be prepared for the next crisis that will inescapably come down the road? The success of these projects will be the precondition to be taken seriously on the international stage. Putin is trying to divide the West to better reign – no doubt about that. But this should be our chance and our encouragement to unite. Putin’s worst case scenario is a united West. Let’s not get fooled. Let’s stick together.

  Klemen Grošelj (Renew). – Spoštovani! Kriza na ukrajinsko-ruski meji dokazuje, da živimo v nepredvidljivim svetu brezkompromisnega tekmovanja, v katerem uporaba sile postaja žal realnost.

Aktualna kriza ne odloča le o prihodnosti Ukrajine, ampak se na njej lomijo kopja prihodnosti evropske varnostne arhitekture, ki je zagotavljala relativni mir in stabilnost v Evropi zadnjih 30 let in ima temelje v zahtevnih pogajanjih med in ob koncu hladne vojne. Zavedati se moramo, da gre za tektonske premike v evropski varnostni arhitekturi, ki pa so proces, ki poteka že nekaj časa in se bo nadaljeval. Na žalost zelo verjetno v nizu kriz, katerim smo in še bomo priča v širšem evropskem prostoru.

Zato bo odločilnega pomena, da se tako ZDA kot Nato in Evropska unija zavedamo, da bo ta proces od nas zahteval enotnost, nedvoumno zavezanost temeljnim demokratičnim vrednotam, potrpežljivost in odločnost, vztrajnost ter veliko mero modrosti. Zakaj? Soočeni smo z zahtevno geopolitično igro, v kateri bomo lahko prevladali ne samo z diplomatsko spretnostjo in vojaško odločenostjo, ampak tudi z jasno zavezanostjo demokraciji. Evropska unija pa mora ob tem okrepiti ne samo svojo vojaško, ampak tudi energetsko, surovinsko in pa tudi tehnološko suverenost.

  Massimiliano Salini (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la buona notizia è il parziale ritiro delle forze armate russe dal confine ucraino. Ma questa notizia è accompagnata, anzi preceduta, da dichiarazioni del Presidente ucraino Zelensky e del Cancelliere tedesco Scholz, nei giorni precedenti, che non lasciano tranquilli, perché in quelle dichiarazioni Zelensky dichiara che l'ingresso ucraino nella NATO è solo un sogno e il Cancelliere Scholz dichiara che l'ingresso ucraino nella NATO non è nell'agenda politica.

Non possiamo ritenere che questa sia una vittoria, non possiamo abbassare la guardia, non possiamo dichiararci soddisfatti. Le 36 lettere arrivate dalla Russia verso i paesi NATO, a cui abbiamo risposto con un'unica voce come Unione europea e NATO, sono un'ottima notizia ma sotto l'unica voce, quindi sotto l'unica lettera, devono esserci un'unica politica.

Nessuno ci aveva costretto a dipendere quasi totalmente dal gas russo, eppure lo abbiamo fatto. Nessuno ci ha costretto a ritirarci molto spesso da alcuni degli scenari più complessi geopolitici, ad esempio in Africa, lasciando spazio alle nuove ambizioni geopolitiche russe.

Ecco, che dietro quell'unica lettera ci sia un'unica politica ed un'unica strategia economica europea.

  Carmen Avram (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, „Voi nu înțelegeți Rusia”, ne acuză oficialii Moscovei și au dreptate. Cum să înțeleagă Uniunea Europeană, cu valorile ei, o dictatură cu nostalgii imperialiste, condusă și azi de oameni care vin din negura URSS și nu mai vor să plece?

Pe de altă parte, însă, este greu de înțeles de ce atunci când intențiile lui Putin ne sunt foarte clare, cum ar fi, de exemplu, masarea aproape de granițele noastre a celui mai mare dispozitiv militar de la prăbușirea URSS, Uniunea Europeană nu reușește să vorbească răspicat și să decidă la unison represalii.

A tăcea, a ezita, a tolera șantajul sau a spera că Putin va deveni, într-o zi, apostolul păcii, sunt greșeli care pot pune în mare pericol construcția noastră democratică, mai ales în estul Europei.

Oricare ar fi deznodământul acestei crize, dacă Uniunea vrea să fie un actor global puternic și credibil, trebuie să renunțe la mănuși, pentru că regimul Putin nu va renunța la bocancii cu care intră periodic în viața noastră, decât dacă va avea în noi un interlocutor hotărât, corect în business, dar și rapid în reacții la unison atunci când jocul este murdar.

  Katalin Cseh (Renew). – Madam President, let’s pause for a moment, and let the dark truth sink in. For the first time in decades, there is a very real chance that there will be war in Europe. As we debate in this very House, there are still Russian troops staring down Ukraine on the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood. We’ve all read the news that they might attack today.

Many of us in this Chamber come from countries bordering Ukraine. This is real. This would be our war. We might not be fighting it, but we will feel the consequences. And we should be responsible for preventing it.

And yes, we are in the 24th hour, but Europe still has not exhausted all of its opportunities. We need to leave no doubt that a war will have severe repercussions. And this must include suspending the Nord Stream 2 project or closing down Europe’s financial system for Russian state-sponsored actors.

And in the longer term, we need to rethink our ties with Russia. If Putin is capable of holding a continent on high alert for months, Europe must have the tools to do the same. This is an existential question. Before achieving this, all the Commission’s talk about the geopolitical Commission remains, unfortunately, empty.

  Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, the Commission President rightly said that this conflict was about democracy, about values and about freedom. And she’s right.

But also in such a conflict, diplomacy plays a very important role. It seems to me that it was the rather clear position of NATO, the first stance of US diplomacy and efforts of some European politicians that turned the situation to the better. EU foreign policy didn’t play a sufficient role.

I guess this is another wake up call for us. We need such a foreign policy that would work and that would be recognised. European countries also should invest more in the military. We cannot afford to be again the free rider of NATO.

Also, we must be much better prepared for conflicts with countries that are an important supplier of energy, like Russia. Not ex—post evaluation, but ex—ante assessment of the risk and sufficient guard, how to protect our people and how to protect our economy.

We shouldn’t fool ourselves. Despite easing the pressure, Russia is still sponsoring war in East Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians are suffering, and we have troubles to find the right way to help them and also protect our interest.

At the same time, I believe that the politics of Mr Putin are getting more aggressive and less predictable. We, again, should not be naive. Suffering by his country wouldn’t change his mind, because it doesn’t affect his well—being. Only very bold sanctions can have an impact. So the next time, we must be much more better prepared than this time.

  Leszek Miller (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Wczoraj w Moskwie kanclerz Scholz powiedział, że wojna w Europie jest nie do pomyślenia dla jego pokolenia. Dla mojego pokolenia również jest nie do pomyślenia i dlatego trzeba czynić wszystko, by zapobiec scenariuszom, które kończą się wojną. Przewodniczący Rady Europejskiej i Komisji mówili dziś, że dzięki dotychczasowym działaniom dyplomatycznym udało się doprowadzić do pewnej deeskalacji konfliktu – to prawda. Rosja nie pozbywa się jednak argumentu wojskowego i wciąż utrzymuje siły mogące stanowić poważne zagrożenie dla Ukrainy, których będzie gotowa użyć do interwencji militarnej. Otoczenie Ukrainy wojskami jest przecież zachowaniem agresywnym, a nie sygnałem pokojowym.

Obecny kryzys powinien być kolejną lekcją dla Europy. Rozmowy dyplomatyczne prowadzone są głównie przez przywódców państw członkowskich, a nie szefów instytucji i dyplomatów unijnych. Niestety mieści się to w strategii Rosji ignorowania Unii Europejskiej. To, co możemy dziś zrobić dla Ukrainy, to znacząca pomoc finansowa i mapa drogowa członkostwa Ukrainy do Unii Europejskiej.

  Guy Verhofstadt (Renew). – Madam President, I’m asking myself what Mr Borrell is going to take from here as a conclusion of this debate. In my personal view, I think there’s an enormous unity in this Parliament. Besides some people on the extreme left who still think that the Soviet Union exists, and besides a part of the extreme right which is financed by Putin, I think all the rest have a huge unity.

I think that the conclusion of this debate, if I can give some advice or make a suggestion, is that we need a more robust strategy of the European Union. It’s true you did your job, and maybe more than is possible with 27 Ministers of Foreign Affairs, but the conclusion of this debate is that we need a more robust stance.

On 20 February 2014 I was at Maidan, when in the morning 49 people were killed by snipers, and I saw in the eyes of these people how they in fact belong to Europe and want to be in the European Union. Their future is there, not with Putin. Even those people who speak Russian in Ukraine don’t want Putin to come in.

So I think we have to be more robust. We need to do more. First of all, maybe use the European Peace Facility to make a common transfer of defensive weapons to them. We could do that. We have the instrument to do that. And finally – and then I will stop, Ms Hautala, because I know that you have a strong instrument with you, your hammer – we also need a pro-Russian agenda. Because Putin is not Russia, and there is an opposition there with Navalny, who needs our full support because, in the end, there will only be stability and security in Europe if there is a democratic Russia at our borders.

(Keskustelu keskeytettiin.)