Posėdžio stenograma

Trečiadienis, 2024 m. vasario 28 d. - Strasbūras

4. Europos gynybos stiprinimas nestabilioje geopolitinėje aplinkoje - Bendros užsienio ir saugumo politikos įgyvendinimas. 2023 m. metinis pranešimas - 2023 m. metinis pranešimas dėl bendros saugumo ir gynybos politikos įgyvendinimo (bendros diskusijos - Europos saugumas ir gynyba)

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on:

– Council and Commission statements on strengthening European defence in a volatile geopolitical landscape (2024/2581(RSP));

– the report by David McAllister, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the implementation of the common foreign and security policy – annual report 2023 (2023/2117(INI)) (A9-0389/2023);

– the report by Sven Mikser, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the implementation of the common security and defence policy – annual report 2023 (2023/2119(INI)) (A9-0403/2023).

  Mathieu Michel, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, Madam President of the European Commission, honourable Members of the European Parliament, 2023 was a very challenging year. The international system continues to face multiple and overlapping challenges. We face two wars on our doorstep while climate, food and energy crises pose threats to global peace and security, hamper global governance and slow down sustainable development. This forces us to fundamentally rethink our Union.

Right now, two issues are urgent priorities: Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the war that has flared up once again in the Middle East. In the current geopolitical contexts, security and defence must be the top priority of Europeans. Two years ago, the Strategic Compass was proposed and launched. At that time, nobody paid a lot of attention. Now the need to strengthen our defence at EU level has become obvious to everybody.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks a watershed moment in European defence. Within weeks, dogmas that had stood for decades were overturned. First, the European Peace Facility was used to incentivise Member States to give more military equipment to Ukraine. Never before had the EU financed the delivery of military equipment to a country at war. So far, the EU and Member States have mobilised more than EUR 28 billion of military assistance. Later, the largest military mission in the EU’s history was launched to train the Ukrainian army. By the end of this summer, 60 000 Ukrainian soldiers will have been trained on EU soil. The training they receive is what Russia’s new recruits often lack. It significantly increases their chances of survival.

But the Russian war of aggression has also highlighted the significant weaknesses resulting from 30 years of neglect in defence capacities. The weaknesses exist in terms of material, but also in terms of interoperability. Today, defence budgets are 40% higher than a decade ago, but we still have a long way to go and we all need to accelerate. We are not going to be able to play a geopolitical role if we are not able to defend ourselves.

Defence is a national competence. It is the Member States that have armies. We must be able to mobilise our armies to face common threats. We have to make them work together better in order to have more interoperability, more mobility, capacity together and more coordination. We need to spend better. But spending more does not automatically mean spending better. To get the best results, we need economies of scales. To ramp up production, the European defence industry needs certainty of long-term demand.

This idea is at the heart of our ammunition initiative. We need to aggregate Member States’ demand, procure jointly and support European industry in ramping up their production capacity. Through the European Defence Agency, we have put in place 60 framework contracts to place orders to the European defence industry.

We must follow this example in other areas. Together with European Defence Agency, EU Ministers of Defence have already identified the key capabilities they need, ranging from ground combat capabilities and integrated air missiles defence to underwater warfare capabilities, space services, cyber defence or other strategic enablers. All this, a stronger EU defence with Member States spending more and better together, will also help strengthen NATO.

Through the Strategic Compass, we are also working to make our armies more interoperable and our EU operational engagement more effective. Evacuations, such as in Afghanistan and Sudan, have shown that EU Member States often depend on outside help to protect and evacuate their citizens. We need the capacity to act with partners where possible, but also alone if needed. By 2025, we will have a Rapid Deployment Capacity allowing us to quickly deploy up to 5 000 troops in response to crisis situations. As part of this work, we conducted last October, the first live EU military exercise in Cádiz in Spain.

Interoperability is also key for our CSDP mission. In this more and more volatile world, they are increasingly important to protect European security interests abroad and contribute to global and regional stability. We are already working closely together in the context of our common security and defence policy missions. Since the beginning of this legislative mandate, the EU has launched seven civilian and military missions, including last week, our new maritime security operation ASPIDES in the Red Sea. Through ASPIDES, ATALANTA and our coordinated maritime presence in the Gulf of Guinea, we are showing that the EU can act decisively when our maritime security is at risk.

Other examples of our concrete operational engagement – and not only military – are the civilian missions launched last year in Armenia to contribute to stability along the border with Azerbaijan or in Moldova to strengthen their resilience against hybrid threats.

Russia’s war against Ukraine has reminded us how critical traditional military capabilities, like tanks, artillery or ammunition remain, but also how much hybrid threats and space, cyber and critical infrastructure as well as information manipulation have changed the threat landscape.

In the past two years, we have seen progress in building capacities in all of those areas. But we can do more. If we want to be a geopolitical player, we need to have the means. And the means start by having a strong defence capacity and a strong defence industry.

  Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission. – Madam President, Mr State Secretary, honourable Members, in the last years, many European illusions have been shattered. The illusion that peace is permanent. The illusion that economic prosperity might matter more to Putin than destroying a free and democratic Ukraine. The illusion that Europe on its own was doing enough on security – be it economic or military, conventional or cyber.

As we look around us, it is clear there is no room for any more illusions. Putin used the peace dividend to prepare for this war. As a result, the world is as dangerous as it has been for generations. Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine is now in its third year and is more entrenched and intense than ever.

We are seeing the potency and the dangers of a rising and disturbing league of authoritarians. North Korea is delivering order after order of ammunition shells to Russia. And Iran is providing attack drones and, crucially, also the technology behind them to inflict untold damage on Ukrainian cities and citizens. The continuing war in Gaza and the large-scale destabilisation in the Middle East point to an era of insecurity and conflict in the region and beyond. And we are also seeing the continued rise of aggressive economic competition and distortion, which brings with it some very real European security risks.

So, to put it as bluntly as outgoing President Niinistö of Finland did last month: ‘Europe has to wake up.’ And I would add: urgently. We all know there is so much at stake here – our freedom and our prosperity. And we have to start acting like it.

We need to start working on the future of the European security architecture in all of its dimensions, and with all of the speed and political will that is required. Because the truth is, we have not been living with conflict merely since 2022, but for far longer. The threats to our security and prosperity and our way of life come in many different forms, and we all know them. Some of them are obvious, some of them are hazier on the surface. Be it tackling political interference, reducing our dangerous dependency – a policy that I have called de-risking – or be it eliminating hostile actors from our critical infrastructure, we Europeans must be on guard. This is not just about defeating bullies on the battlefield, but across all our societies.

The good news is we have started a lot of that work already. In fact, the last years have not only served to shatter some European illusions, but they have also shattered many illusions about Europe. That our unity would not hold in the face of a war on our continent, or that our rules and divisions would hold us back in providing massive financial, military and political support. Well, over the last two years, Europe has shown and proven that it will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. And we have also shown and proven that a more sovereign Europe is not just wishful thinking.

At this point, let me be very clear. European sovereignty will make our partnerships stronger. It will never affect the importance and the need for our NATO alliance. In fact, a more sovereign Europe, in particular on defence, is vital to strengthening NATO. That is why I am pleased with the news that Sweden will soon become a NATO ally. And I want to congratulate Sweden, under the leadership of Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, on the historic step for this country.

At its core, European sovereignty is about taking responsibility ourselves for what is vital and even existential for us. It is about our ability, but also about our willingness to defend our interests and values ourselves. This is what leaders agreed with the Versailles agenda just after the start of the war to reduce our strategic dependencies in critical areas like energy, like key technologies – you remember the semiconductors – economic capacities and, of course, defence.

Member States have stepped up. Just last week, the naval mission Aspides was launched to protect against the direct threat to the freedom of navigation – freedom of navigation that serves as a bedrock of global trade in one of the world’s most critical waterways. And Member States have stepped up their defence spending too. Their national defence budgets have already risen by 20% from last year. And NATO has just announced that it expects 18 of its members to beat the 2% defence spending target this year. That is up from only three members a decade ago. And, together, we are now spending more jointly on common capacities and projects between Europeans. The European Peace Facility has mobilised EUR 6.1 billion to support the Ukrainian armed forces with lethal and non-lethal military equipment and supplies.

The European Defence Fund is investing in high-end defence capabilities in critical areas such as naval, ground or air combat, space-based early warning systems or cyber. And we have taken big steps forward in growing our defence, industrial and manufacturing capacities. In the next weeks, we will announce award decisions under the ASAP programme, and this funding will enable us to roughly double European ammunition production to over two million shells a year by the end of 2025.

Honourable Members, all of this progress shows that Europe has started to grasp the urgency and the scale of the challenge that is ahead of us. But there is a lot more to do and we need to move fast. The threat of war may not be imminent, but it is not impossible. The risks of war should not be overblown, but they should be prepared for. And that starts with the urgent need to rebuild, replenish and modernise Member States’ armed forces. In doing so, Europe should strive to develop and manufacture the next generation of battle-winning operational capabilities and to ensure it has sufficient quantity of material and the technological superiority that we may need in the future. That means turbocharging our defence industrial capacity in the next five years.

At the heart of this must be a simple principle: Europe must spend more, spend better, spend European. We will put forward some proposals in the next weeks with the first ever European Industrial Defence Strategy. One of the central aims of the strategy, and the European Defence Investment Programme that will come with it, will be to prioritise defence joint procurement. Just as we did it very successfully with the vaccines or, for example, with natural gas. This will help us reduce fragmentation and increase interoperability. But to do this we must collectively send a strong signal to industry. This is why we will look at how to facilitate, for example, offtake agreements. They need security and the knowledge that the products will be taken off. Or, for example, advanced purchase agreements where we provide guarantees. This would give our defence industry companies very stable orders and, most importantly, predictability in the long run.

We will increase support for industrial ramp-up, as we are now doing with ammunition with ASAP. We will identify European defence projects of common interest to focus efforts and resources where it has the biggest impact and added value. And we will focus on innovation to ensure Europe has that edge in the new technologies, which we see being deployed across the world in different continents.

This must be a truly European effort. And that is why I am proud to announce that we will set up an Office for Defence Innovation in Kyiv. This will bring Ukraine ever closer to Europe and it will enable all Member States to draw on Ukraine’s battlefield experience and expertise in industrial defence innovation.

Honourable Members, making this step together on defence will not be easy. It will require bold decisions and political courage. And it will require, above all, a new European defence mindset from institutions to industries to investors. That is why I’m very encouraged by the words of President Calviño that the EIB is ready to do more, to contribute, to join projects that boost the European defence industry. And I really call now on Member States to endorse this proposal. Defence industry in Europe needs access to capital.

I would like to encourage our public and private lenders to support our defence industry and in particular, small and medium enterprises. Also in defence, small and medium enterprises are the backbone of our industry. They are the driver of innovation and a critical factor in the single market. And the topic needs undivided attention. This is why I’m personally supportive of a designated Defence Commissioner for the next Commission.

And beyond that, I would like us to think bigger. It is time to start a conversation about using the windfall profits of frozen Russian assets to jointly purchase military equipment for Ukraine. There could be no stronger symbol and no greater use for that money than to make Ukraine and all of Europe a safer place to live.

Honourable Members, ultimately, this is about Europe taking responsibility for its own security. The simple truth is: we do not have the luxury of comfort. We do not have the control of elections or decisions in other parts of the world. We simply do not have the time to skirt around the issue. With or without the support of our partners, we cannot let Russia win. And the cost of insecurity – the cost of a Russian victory – is far greater than any saving we could make now. This is why it is time for Europe to step up. Long live Europe.

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, President von der Leyen, Council, dear colleagues, as EPP, we are, first of all, happy to have the debate today. Such an upgraded top-level debate about the Defence Union. EPP was asking for this for a long period of time and that’s why it is good to have it.

For us, first of all, I want to underline that the subject itself is not innovative at all. I said it already in my last speech: in 1945, Adenauer, Schuman, De Gasperi started with the Defence Union. The French Parliament rejected, De Gasperi had tears in his eyes after it failed in the French Parliament.

The idea, in 1954, was, after the Second World War, unifying armies, never again war in Europe. What a fascinating idea behind it – and we are back to this debate. We are back to this debate – again we discuss this subject with the idea never again war in Europe. But that means today to be strong, and that’s why we are so happy to have this debate.

The first point, from an EPP perspective, is: the debate about NATO-EU is, for us, not a debate at all. The NATO is fundamental for us. We also welcome Finland and Sweden joining the NATO. The EPP parties in Finland always were in favour – even when it was unpopular in the country – in favour of joining. Socialists finally also are supporting now joining the NATO from the both countries, so welcome in the club.

But there is a good outcome. We have them now among us and, in the long run, we must understand that 330 million Americans will not defend, in the long run, 440 million Europeans. We have to do it by our own means. That’s why it’s not in contradiction, it’s the same as what we are doing here to strengthen NATO with a strong EU pillar.

The concrete actions is now to implement the European single market, and there we welcome very much the presentation of Ursula von der Leyen, the ambitions of Ursula von der Leyen. The Americans have one tank, we have 17 different kinds of tanks. The Americans have 30 weapon systems, we have 160 weapon systems. It’s so obvious that we are wasting money.

We have to buy European. We have to care about our jobs. We have to do common export rules for the future, to have common industry in defence. We need to coordinate all this. That’s why the idea to have a Commissioner responsible for doing so is exactly what we need – and on short term, we have to finance it. So, the EIB development is a good one, but I want to add also that, on the taxonomy rules, we have to rethink them, because, currently, taxonomy rules are also an obstacle for financing defence goods. That’s why we have to make it possible that the private sector is financing this.

Listening to the Council speaker, I have to say that we heard so much already about these kind of speeches, that it is national responsibility. My clear demand is: stop speaking, please act now, on the Council side.

We need also joint actions about the areas where we have an obvious European added value, and it is about cyber defence, about a missile defence shield, about the joint mission, for example, in the future of sub-Sahara to not hand over the region to Wagner troops or to the Islamist terrorists. That is another point for us that we have to care about the current state of play, on defending Ukraine.

Erlauben Sie mir, auf Deutsch weiterzumachen. Wir spüren, dass die Geschlossenheit in der Europäischen Union leider Gottes bröckelt. Ich bin enttäuscht über das, was manche Führer auf nationaler Ebene die letzten Tage von sich gegeben haben. Emmanuel Macron hat eine sinnlose Debatte angestoßen über die Fragestellung, ob französische Truppen in der Ukraine eingesetzt werden. Diese Debatte war sinnlos und sie hat Europa und die westliche Hemisphäre gespalten.

Und das Zweite: Der deutsche Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz hat in Deutschland die Weisung ausgegeben, mit der Lieferung von-Taurus Raketen würde Deutschland Kriegspartei werden, was rechtlich falsch ist und was er ja leider Gottes bei den Leopard-Panzern auch schon formuliert hat, was nur die russische Propaganda bestätigt, nämlich, dass damit einige Teile Deutschlands, Europas Teil des Kriegs werden könnten.

Beide Führer haben zur Spaltung Europas beigetragen und nicht zur Einheit Europas. Ich kann nur sagen: Hört damit auf! Putin hasst die Art, wie wir leben. Die Ukraine darf nicht fallen. Wir müssen Russland stoppen. Appeasement funktioniert nicht, wie wir es bei Nord Stream 2 erlebt haben. Und deswegen: Danke an Ursula von der Leyen, Roberta Metsola, Donald Tusk, der sehr stark war. Ich möchte auch Giorgia Meloni erwähnen, die im G7-Gipfel eine starke Rolle gespielt hat. Wir brauchen jetzt Menschen, die zusammenführen, die Einigung zeigen, und nicht Menschen, die spalten. Und deshalb: Putin versteht nur die Methode der Stärke. Und ich möchte am Schluss George Washington zitieren:

‘The best way to prevent war is to prepare for it.’

  Pedro Marques, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, colleagues, an important debate, this one, at an existential moment for Europe and the world.

One has to start by saying we did well on responding to yet another existential threat to the world – that was COVID. We were safe and the Europeans recognise it, but the rest of the world accused us of just taking care of the rich people in the West. We did also well when Putin invaded Ukraine with an extraordinary effort by our High Representative, we were united from the beginning, sanctioning Putin and delivering weapons to Ukraine.

Now, yet another war came to our borders, increasing the uncertainty of the times that we live. We can’t simply look the other way when 30 000 people died in a few months at the hands of the Israeli army in Gaza. The rest of the world is yet again questioning our moral compass. But it is us that should be questioning, ‘What are we doing in these dramatic times?’

President von der Leyen, if we want to be safer in the world, we have to be a more geopolitical Europe, as you correctly pointed out at times. But the world will not forgive us for our double standards. The world will not partner with us if they feel left behind, just as long as they are not Caucasian or rich. If we want to be more geopolitical, we need to keep our moral compass and then we have to go geostrategic and start really mobilising all our instruments.

Where are our concrete actions for lasting partnerships with Africa and Latin America? Will we just give up to President Macron’s domestic problems and turn our back on the rest of the world? We can’t continue to hesitate. We need to go forward, not stall our ambition. If we want to be safe, we need to be stronger to make ourselves respected in the world. Where are the funds, the actual funds that we need for the strategic autonomy of Europe?

A greener Europe will also be a safer Europe for the future. Have you told Mr Weber, President von der Leyen, have you told him this much? Do you know that the EPP is trying to tear down the green policies that we built, also with the work of the Commission, trading the future of Europe and the planet for just a few thousand votes?

A Europe with more opportunities for all is also a safer Europe for all. Where are your concrete policies for a more social Europe? Have you forgotten the politics for the people, particularly those that suffered the most here in Europe?

The EU also misses proposals to really face the threats of China, or even the aggressive IRA of the US. Not with words and strategies, but with resources for our economy to match the ambition of these programmes of particularly the Chinese rivals. A global vision, we do need; a strategy, we do need – but we also need concrete tools to act. Where are our teeth when some of our natural allies, let alone our opponents, challenge our common values or interests?

What did you do in concrete terms to stop Netanyahu’s unacceptable actions in Gaza that followed the madness of Hamas? What did you do to actually promote lasting peace? Why didn’t you personally call for an unconditional ceasefire now that millions have their lives threatened in Rafah, Madam President? Guterres and Borrell, they led by example in this conflict, but from you, I am sorry to say, President von der Leyen, it’s been silence in action after a serious initial mistake.

A safer Europe will be a Europe that projects its strengths in the world to promote peace, not war, to promote development, not inequalities. A safer Europe will be able to be more relevant in its own defence, saying yes to NATO, saying yes to its neighbours. But it has to be a Europe based on solidarity and knowing that, as always, an eye for an eye will only turn this world into blindness.

  Valérie Hayer, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Secrétaire d’État, chers collègues, trop longtemps, nous avons ignoré les signes de la bascule du monde. De plus en plus, nos valeurs de liberté et de démocratie sont désormais attaquées, physiquement ou virtuellement. Malgré ces menaces, nous nous sommes trop habitués à un certain confort. Ce confort, il a pu nous faire oublier par moments la dure réalité que peuvent nous infliger les soubresauts de la géopolitique. L’habitude de la paix, ce formidable miracle européen, est devenu une situation prise pour acquise, alors que cette paix est l’élément essentiel à notre liberté, à notre prospérité.

Chers collègues, à force de ne compter que sur nos alliés américains pour assurer notre défense, nous avons fini avec un sous-investissement chronique dans nos capacités de défense. Le réveil ne pouvait être que brutal! Il y a deux ans, Vladimir Poutine lançait une guerre d’invasion sur le sol européen. Les pires atrocités ont été commises. Les pires menaces planent désormais au dessus de nos têtes. Chers collègues, depuis le 24 février 2022, la naïveté a fait son temps, et c’est pourquoi, aux côtés de sa population héroïque, nous soutiendrons l’Ukraine jusqu’à sa victoire.

Et nous devons nous aussi nous préoccuper de notre sécurité! Nos liens avec nos alliés sont précieux. Les remettre en cause serait irresponsable. Mais à partir du moment où il existe un risque que nos priorités stratégiques prennent des chemins différents, nous ne devons plus tergiverser. Nous ne pourrons pas nous réveiller au lendemain des élections américaines sans avoir anticipé le monde d’après. Nous, démocrates, refusons de laisser notre union à la merci des agresseurs, et ce, contrairement à ceux dont les liens avec Poutine sont connus et documentés ici, à l’extrême droite et à l’extrême gauche de cet hémicycle. Ne comptez sur eux pour ne défendre ni notre continent, ni leur propre pays. Chers collègues, je voudrais également faire passer un message. Inutile d’attaquer nos chefs d’État, ici ou là. Ils sont la clé! C’est un débat stérile. Sinon, nous pouvons refaire le monde et regarder qui nous a mené à nos dépendances. Je ne le ferais pas! Soyons responsables collectivement, sinon nous faisons le jeu de Vladimir Poutine.

Et je pose la question: qui mieux que l’Europe pour protéger l’Europe? Chers collègues, il est temps d’agir. Et cela commence par mettre fin à l’unanimité en politique étrangère européenne, domaine où aujourd’hui, un seul gouvernement, même inféodé à une puissance étrangère, peut mettre en danger nos intérêts vitaux à tous. Il nous faudra ensuite penser à de nouvelles initiatives, et je pense ici à la création de l’Académie militaire européenne, à l’heure où nos forces armées doivent être pleinement interopérables. Mais il faut aussi inventer de nouvelles formes de financement pour notre protection et bâtir un vrai marché unique de la défense pour que nous puissions enfin nous protéger nous-mêmes. Il en va de notre sécurité à tous!

  Terry Reintke, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Frau Präsidentin, Herr Minister! Die Ukraine kämpft für ihre und für unsere Freiheit, für ein demokratisches, für ein freies Europa. Für den Kampf der Ukraine und natürlich für unsere eigene Sicherheit in der Europäischen Union müssen wir endlich Ernst machen mit einer gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik – nicht in irgendwelchen Sonntagsreden, sondern im wirklichen Machen. Denn nur ein geeintes Europa – und das wissen alle hier – ist ein sicheres Europa.

Nur leider zeigen uns gerade einige, wie es nicht geht. Anstatt sich intern eng zu koordinieren und europäisch zu führen, fallen Emmanuel Macron und Olaf Scholz mit offensichtlichen Missstimmungen auf. Macron, der mit seinen politischen Initiativen nicht über die fehlenden Taten aus Paris hinwegtäuschen kann: Frankreich rangiert bei der Militärhilfe für die Ukraine weit abgeschlagen hinten. Dabei brauchen wir viel mehr praktische Hilfe für die Ukraine, auch aus Paris. Und Olaf Scholz? Olaf Scholz fällt gerade leider eher durch völkerrechtlich halbgare Äußerungen zum Taurus auf anstatt mit klarer europäischer Leadership. Auch das reicht einfach nicht, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen.

Denn wir sind gerade an einem zentralen Punkt. Zwei Jahre nach der brutalen Invasion Russlands in der Ukraine brauchen wir mit aller Klarheit eine Botschaft aus Europa, dass wir die Ukraine unterstützen werden, damit sie diesen Krieg gewinnen kann. Wir bräuchten deshalb gerade jetzt einen deutsch-französischen Motor – geeint mit einer proeuropäischen polnischen Regierung im Weimarer Dreieck –, der die Kraft aufbringt, nicht nur für die Unterstützung der Ukraine, sondern auch, um endlich sicherheitspolitisch die richtigen Weichen in Europa zu stellen.

Denn die Zahlen zeigen es: Die Zusammenarbeit in der Verteidigungspolitik ist immer noch die Ausnahme und nicht die Regel in der Europäischen Union. Das muss sich dringend ändern. Seit Jahren erreichen wir nicht die selbst gesetzten Ziele, was die Beschaffung angeht, was die gemeinsame Beschaffung angeht, aber auch, was gemeinsame Forschung und Entwicklung in der Europäischen Union angeht. Das ist nicht nur strategisch unklug für Europa, sondern das ist auch ein völlig ineffizientes Einsetzen von Steuermitteln. Das muss sich dringend ändern, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, und das nicht in 15 Jahren, sondern jetzt – für unsere Sicherheit, für die Ukraine. Denn wir können Putin kein besseres Geschenk machen als eine zerstrittene, national isolierte europäische Sicherheitspolitik.

Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, noch eine Sache muss sich ändern: das ideologische, dogmatische Festhalten an der schwarzen Null gegen jeden Verstand. Nicht nur, weil wir jetzt gemeinsam in die Sicherheit investieren müssen und in unsere Freiheit – denn ja, der Green Deal ist ein ganz wichtiger Teil dafür, unsere Sicherheit und Freiheit zu verteidigen, uns unabhängig zu machen von Diktatoren wie Wladimir Putin –, sondern auch, weil wir diese Investitionen nicht gegen dringend nötige Investitionen zum Beispiel für den sozialen Zusammenhalt in unseren Gesellschaften ausspielen dürfen. Eine sozial gespaltene Europäische Union ist nicht nur ungerecht, sondern eine Gefahr für unsere Demokratie. Deswegen dürfen wir auch da nicht müde werden, für soziale Gerechtigkeit zu investieren.

Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wir haben es in der Hand: Werden wir uns in den nächsten Jahren auseinanderdividieren lassen oder gehen wir mit gemeinsamer europäischer Stärke in die Auseinandersetzung mit Putin, um gemeinsam unsere Werte und die Sicherheit Europas zu verteidigen? Ich weiß, was ich will.

  Nicola Procaccini, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, Presidente von der Leyen, onorevoli colleghi, questa discussione arriva al termine della legislatura e con grave ritardo. Negli ultimi cinque anni in quest'Aula abbiamo parlato molto di più di monopattini elettrici e farfalle che di geopolitica e di difesa militare.

L'idea della sinistra rossa e verde di fare dell'Europa una superpotenza erbivora ha occupato interamente l'agenda della Commissione europea e di conseguenza quella parlamentare. Siamo stati sommersi da grandi discorsi sulla necessità di andare in bicicletta per non emettere CO2. Ci siamo addormentati in un sogno ma nel frattempo il mondo ha continuato a vivere nella realtà e la realtà è un posto bello ma pericoloso. Noi conservatori europei abbiamo sempre avuto le idee chiare in questo senso: abbiamo sempre pensato che l'Unione europea non dovesse occuparsi di tutto, ma di poche cose, anche se importanti: "Doing less, doing better" è sempre stato il nostro messaggio.

La difesa comune dei confini e degli interessi europei è una delle poche cose per cui l'Unione europea serve, eccome se serve! Perché è ovvio che la sicurezza sta nei numeri e non sempre gli interessi coincidono al di qua e al di là dell'oceano Atlantico. Rendere più saldo ed efficiente il pilastro europeo della NATO serve a rafforzare anche l'Alleanza atlantica. Per favore, non scandalizziamoci quando Trump viene a svegliarci dal nostro "sogno verde": non possono essere sempre gli altri a pagare o a morire al posto nostro.

Comunque, oggi non è necessario dividersi sulla prospettiva di un esercito europeo che – consentitemi la digressione personale – la destra italiana sostiene da 50 anni, quando i super europeisti di oggi sostenevano l'Armata Rossa. Ciò su cui possiamo concordare, per adesso, è su una migliore integrazione degli eserciti nazionali e su una produzione comune degli armamenti, che costa ma è necessaria, che se fatta insieme, può consentirci di spendere meno e meglio.

Servono coraggio, realismo e buon senso. Nonostante i ritardi e qualche ipocrisia nei suoi scopi, la missione europea ASPIDES nel Mediterraneo è la strada giusta da seguire. Sono tempi difficili, è vero. Ma in realtà lo sono sempre stati. Publilio Siro, uno schiavo romano divenuto libero molti anni fa, scrisse "Non è facile difendere da soli ciò che desiderano in tanti: la nostra libertà".

  Jean-Paul Garraud, au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, l’Union européenne se rêve en une suprapuissance disposant à terme de sa propre défense. Voici encore une atteinte directe à la souveraineté de nos nations, qui ne peut se partager avec une souveraineté européenne existant uniquement dans l’idéologie des eurobéats. Le soldat n’est pas prêt à mourir pour l’Europe. L’ancien chef d’État-major de l’armée française, Pierre de Villiers, affirmait ainsi: «On meurt pour son chef, on meurt pour des valeurs, on meurt pour sa patrie. On ne meurt pas pour une Communauté économique européenne».

Vantée comme un moyen de renforcer l’Europe face à toutes les menaces, la vision utopiste d’un conglomérat d’armées nationales sous commandement d’officiers d’autres nationalités est irréalisable. Ou alors, il faudrait aller chercher comme pilier de cette défense européenne l’OTAN, qui protégerait surtout des intérêts américains. Et que deviendrait la puissance nucléaire française? Car comment créer une zone de défense européenne sans la partager, ce qui ne peut en aucune façon être envisagé? La tentation est grande pour le président Macron d’essayer d’exister à l’international quand il est si contesté au niveau national, lui qui vient d’être désavoué avec fracas par les nations européennes et les États-unis sur l’envoi de troupes en Ukraine. Ses déclarations guerrières, ajoutées à celles d’autres responsables européens, m’ont persuadé que si l’Union européenne avait disposé d’une armée, elle l’aurait engagée, quitte à nous entraîner dans une escalade mortelle dans le cadre du conflit russo-ukrainien. Pour avoir une Europe forte, il nous faut d’abord et avant tout des États forts. Alors, avant de vouloir créer une défense européenne, renforçons nos propres armées. Elles en ont tellement besoin.

  Martin Schirdewan, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Wenn man Ihnen so zuhört, Frau von der Leyen, aber auch den Kolleginnen und Kollegen von grün bis konservativ, dann vernimmt man immer wieder die gleichen Worte: mehr Geld für Waffen, Aufrüstung, Kriegsfähigkeit, Kampfbereitschaft. Ich finde, es ist sehr einfach – und ihr macht es euch alle sehr einfach –, sich hinter diesen großspurigen Worten zu verstecken, um vom Versagen der eigenen Politik abzulenken.

Dabei ist doch die Unfähigkeit, nur eine der aktuellen Krisen zu bewältigen, offenkundig. Die soziale Ungleichheit in der Europäischen Union nimmt ungebremst zu. Hunger und Armut sind für viele Menschen wieder Alltag geworden. Die Klimakrise verschärft sich weiter. Bei der Migration fällt Ihnen nur ein, Menschenrechte abzuschaffen, statt Menschen zu schützen. Und bei Krieg und Frieden vernimmt man nichts außer diesem schrillen Geschrei nach Aufrüstung, von dem einzig und allein die großen Rüstungskonzerne profitieren werden. Und selbst sozialdemokratische Politiker quatschen mittlerweile ahnungslos von der europäischen Atombombe. Und der französische Präsident Macron will gegebenenfalls Bodentruppen in die Ukraine schicken. Ich stelle Ihnen mal eine ernsthafte Frage, Herr Gahler, für einen Freund: Seid ihr eigentlich alle verrückt geworden?

Ein neues Wettrüsten führt uns nicht in Sicherheit, sondern direkt in die nächste Katastrophe. Sie alle betreiben eine fahrlässig gefährliche Politik, und brutale Kürzungspolitik bei gleichzeitiger Aufrüstung bedeutet, dass die Menschen weniger soziale Sicherheit, weniger Gesundheitsversorgung, weniger intakte Schulen vorfinden, während ihr Geld direkt auf die Konten der Großaktionäre umgeleitet wird. Das kann doch einfach alles nicht mehr Ihr Ernst sein. Und diese Politik ist der Treibstoff, durch den die extreme Rechte gestärkt wird und die Demokratie gefährdet wird.

Wenn Sie irgendeine der großen Herausforderungen für die Menschheit lösen wollen, braucht es doch einen grundlegenden Politikwechsel hin zu einer strategisch unabhängigen Europäischen Union, die natürlich verteidigungsfähig sein muss – was denn sonst? –, die aber natürlich auch den Prinzipien folgt, dass Diplomatie, friedliche Konfliktlösung, die Stärkung internationaler Organisationen und eben nicht ein neues Wettrüsten die Voraussetzung für Frieden schaffen und die deshalb, auch wenn es gerade unpopulär zu sein scheint, gegenseitiger Abrüstung verpflichtet bleibt. Es geht nämlich darum, den Frieden zu gewinnen und nicht den Krieg.

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

  Kinga Gál (NI). – Elnök Úr! Drámai időket élünk. Európának stabilitásra, békére és prosperitásra van szüksége. Ezért támogatjuk a közös védelempolitikát, valamint az európai védelmi ipar megerősítését elősegítő kezdeményezéseket, és az uniós elnökségünk alatt, a magyar elnökség alatt is ez prioritásunk lesz.

Sajnálatos, hogy a most vitatott kétéves jelentés ideológiai alapú ahelyett, hogy az Unió versenyképességének romlását próbálná visszafordítani. Ideológiai okokból támadja alaptalanul a bővítési biztost, noha elismerést érdemelne azért, hogy a bővítési politika lendületet kapott.

A Nyugat-Balkán integrációjának felgyorsítása az EU alapvető stratégiai érdeke. Ellenezzük a minősített többségi szavazásra irányuló javaslatokat, mert erősen korlátozná a tagállamok szuverenitását, és elfogadhatatlanok az ismételten Magyarországgal szembeni politikai támadások, hiszen következetesen elítéljük az orosz agressziót, és humanitárius eszközökkel erőn felül támogatjuk és segítjük Ukrajnát.

De a béke pártján állunk, és kiállunk amellett, hogy háborús retorika és fegyverszállítások helyett béketárgyalásokkal, minél hamarabb véget kell vetni a pusztításnak a szomszédunkban.

  David McAllister, rapporteur. – Mr President, Madam President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, since we adopted our previous report on the implementation of the common foreign and security policy on 18 January last year, the world has changed significantly.

While Mr Putin is relentless in his war of aggression against Ukraine, the horror terrorist attacks launched by Hamas against Israel on 7 October have set the Middle East on fire. In our external action, we need to adapt to these new circumstances. For too long, the European Union has been too cautious; we have not proactively defined and defended our interests in the world. This needs to change.

I would like to fully underline what our Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, has said this morning in this plenary and it was actually our Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, who recognised this already back in 2019 when she spoke of a geopolitical Commission and a European Union that needs to understand the language of power. Listening carefully to all the contributions this morning, one thing is obvious: one logical conclusion can only be a strong defence portfolio.

But what actually does that mean concretely? Yes, I would like to see a Commissioner for Security and Defence in the next European Commission. She, or perhaps he, should coordinate all EU and Member States defence initiatives and ensure that we are stronger by acting together. Yes, I would want to see EU Member States procure their defence products jointly to improve the interoperability of our armed forces and to reduce the costs for taxpayers. The EU defence industry reinforcement act, EDIRPA, was an important starting point, but it is far from enough.

Yes, we must help the European defence industry to increase its production capacity to ensure that our armed forces are fully equipped. We must provide Ukraine with whatever it takes to win this war as long as it takes.

Also, in that regard, we made a first step with the act in support of ammunition production. But we urgently, colleagues, need to go further with a future European defence investment programme and by establishing a well-funded Ukraine assistance fund under the European Peace Facility. Ultimately, it is about further establishing a single market for defence.

The long-term goal, dear colleagues, is, of course, to develop a true European Defence Union, a fully-fledged European Defence Union. All our activities need to be closely coordinated with NATO, with our transatlantic partners, the Americans, the Canadians, the British. Let us remain transatlantic and at the same time become more European. That is the way forward.

And I would once again like to address our Commission President, because since 2019, dear Ursula von der Leyen, you have taken the right approach. You are strengthening Europe’s global footprint and supporting the principles that inspired our own creation, development and enlargement. Since we have discussed my own report extensively in AFET, I will not refer to my own report. I would just like to thank all colleagues involved, especially the shadow rapporteurs, the involved staff members and also the team of the High Representative / Vice-President for the constructive and fruitful cooperation.

Since this will be the final report on the implementation of our common foreign and security policy in this legislature, hopefully the next Commission and the next High Representative are invited to use this year’s CFSP report as a guide for their priorities.

  Sven Mikser, rapporteur. – Mr President, President of the Commission, colleagues, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has made many of us reassess our previously held convictions and beliefs about European security needs.

What is more, it has exposed vulnerabilities caused by decades of underinvestment in defence and security, both in individual Member States as well as at the European Union level. Let me say that, perhaps unlike in Finland or Estonia, the conservatives in some larger countries were also complicit in this strategic naivety.

Russia’s brutal aggression against Ukraine must not succeed. It is our moral duty to support the fight for the survival of a sovereign, democratic European nation. But we have to understand that Ukraine’s defeat would also be devastating for EU security and present a mortal threat to the rules-based international order as we know it.

Since Putin escalated his war over two years ago, the EU has taken many unprecedented steps. The use of the European Peace Facility to reimburse Member States for equipment donated to Ukraine and the initiative to ramp up production of ammunition and missiles are steps in the right direction. But I am sure that the history books will not judge us based on what we did or spent or what we said in this noble Chamber, but on whether we actually managed to help Ukraine win the war.

So we need to do more and do it now. It’s a matter of utmost urgency because while we are talking, Russia is making gains on the ground that will be very difficult and costly to reverse later. We know that Putin’s Russia presents not only a threat limited to the indirect implications of the Ukraine war. There is and will be for the foreseeable future a direct military threat from Russia to EU Member States, territories and people.

In order to provide credible deterrence against the threat or, if necessary, defend our continent, we will need to spend more on defence. It’s true that more Member States are spending 2 % of their GDP on defence than did so ten years ago, but we know that several larger Member States still fall short of that important threshold.

Also, while we have launched on the EU level important initiatives such as EDF, EDIRPA and ASAP to boost joint research and innovation, promote joint procurement and address critical capability shortfalls, it is imperative that we also put additional money on the table. It is impossible to use the same money twice and cannibalising the budgets of existing programmes to finance newer ones is not going to be sustainable.

On the defence-industrial level, I think it’s important that we understand that this new security reality will be with us for the foreseeable future, so our industries must have confidence that the orders from governments will not stop the moment the arms fall silent in Ukraine.

Europe’s strategic autonomy, obviously, will not be unlimited. It must always be our first choice to act together with our friends and allies. It would be a great mistake to brush our allies aside just for the sake of going alone. Let me recall the words of NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg, who recently described the calls for creating a European nuclear deterrent without the US as unhelpful.

But at the same time, we cannot fully ignore the uncomfortable truth that Donald Trump may return to the White House next year. Moreover, there is also far less of a consensus on Capitol Hill when it comes to America’s global security responsibilities than just a few years ago. We cannot completely rule out America’s turn to towards greater isolationism, and this possibility underscores the need to build a militarily stronger and more capable Europe.

Finally, while we need to be ready to go alone if necessary and build alliances whenever possible, it is clear that beyond collaborating with our most immediate allies and fellow democracies, we are only going to prevail if we manage to form larger coalitions and convince the rest of the world that our cause is just.

Immediately after the beginning of Putin’s full-scale war, we managed to pull together a coalition of more than 140 countries in the UN General Assembly. Today, after months of ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, recreating such a coalition would be very difficult.

I am convinced that every one of us condemns the horrific terror attacks of Hamas and demands the immediate release of all the hostages. The vast majority of us are committed to a two-state solution that provides security for Israel and delivers on the legitimate aspirations of Palestinian people. If it is so, we need to do more, we need to do something very tangible in order to end this unnecessary suffering of millions of displaced and starving people.

Only by doing this – which is also a moral obligation – we can convince the rest of the world that we are really committed to maintaining and strengthening the rules-based international order.

  President. – I took notice that Mr Danjean will today have his last speech in the House, and I want to take the opportunity to thank you for your contributions and for your service. I think your seriousness and the reliability with which you have rendered that service is why you are so highly esteemed in the whole House, across the benches. Thank you, Mr Danjean.

(Applause)

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Secrétaire d’État, il n’est jamais trop tard pour se réveiller, même si la guerre russe en Ukraine et les spéculations sur une possible défaillance de l’allié américain ne datent pas d’aujourd’hui, ni même d’il y a deux ans, mais d’il y a déjà dix ans.

Depuis, nous avons eu beaucoup d’effets d’annonce, beaucoup d’incantations, quelques actions, c’est vrai, mais trop peu et trop lentement. Et je vous renvoie à cet égard aux débats que nous avions ici même il y a deux ans, à la veille et à la suite du fameux sommet de Versailles, où on nous avait promis monts et merveilles. Mais tout cela tarde à se matérialiser.

Comment s’assurer aujourd’hui que nous n’en resterons pas une nouvelle fois à des déclarations sans lendemain? D’abord, face à l’urgence, évitons de perdre du temps et de l’énergie dans des débats qui divisent, au lieu de nous mobiliser pleinement sur ce qui doit nous unir et nous rassembler. La priorité absolue aujourd’hui, c’est de produire et de livrer des équipements et des munitions, pas de spéculer publiquement sur des options qui divisent les Européens. Cela vaut pour le président de la République française comme pour le chancelier allemand.

Ensuite, il faut reconnaître qu’il n’y a qu’une catégorie de producteurs, les entreprises, et qu’une catégorie d’acheteurs, les États. La Commission, et vous l’avez d’ailleurs très bien expliqué, Madame la Présidente, n’est pas productrice, elle n’est pas acheteuse non plus de matériel de défense. Ce n’est pas son rôle. Son rôle, et vous l’avez rappelé, est de faciliter et de fluidifier ce lien entre entreprises et États aussi directement et simplement que possible. À cet égard, il est impératif, Manfred l’a rappelé et je ne peux qu’insister sur cet aspect, de sortir de toute ambiguïté sur les contraintes qui découragent les financements publics et privés vers l’industrie de défense. La fameuse taxonomie, qu’elle soit environnementale ou sociale, fait peser trop d’incertitudes sur des acteurs qui sont prêts à s’engager, mais qui ont peur d’être en contravention avec des injonctions parfois imprécises ou contradictoires.

Enfin, les États membres gardent la responsabilité majeure et ils ne doivent pas la fuir. Ils passent les commandes, ils achètent, ils livrent. Qu’ils revitalisent donc au bon niveau la Facilité européenne pour la paix, qu’ils adaptent les règles de la Banque européenne d’investissement, et qu’ils se regroupent ou qu’ils fassent seuls pour acheter et livrer. Mais qu’ils le fassent vite, l’économie de guerre, ce ne sont pas des effets de manche, ce sont des commandes.

  Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Voorzitter, Commissievoorzitter, Raad, collega’s, onze veiligheid in Europa wordt bedreigd. In de eerste plaats door de agressieoorlog van Rusland in Oekraïne. Het moet duidelijk zijn waar wij staan. Dappere Oekraïners verdedigen ook ónze democratie en ónze veiligheid. En wij hebben maar één taak: Oekraïne geven wat nodig is om te winnen. Dat doen we nu niet, en u draagt daar mee de verantwoordelijkheid voor.

Ik wil zien dat u beiden landen die niet genoeg doen – en dat zijn er best veel – aanspreekt, doordringt van de urgentie. Dit is onze gezamenlijke taak. We kunnen dit. Dat weet ik zeker. Maar niet als we twijfelen en aarzelen over munitie, over onze voorraden en over de ATACMS.

Maar er is meer. De vrienden van Poetin in Europa komt u regelmatig tegen. Ook dan staan onze veiligheid, onze waarden en onze democratie op het spel. Dat is niet los van elkaar te zien. Als u zich laat chanteren door Orbán tot het onterecht vrijgeven van tien miljard euro, maar ook, Commissievoorzitter, als u bijvoorbeeld spreekt met president Vučić en hij u schoffeert tijdens een persconferentie, of als u commissaris Várhelyi maar laat begaan met zijn steun voor Dodik en Vučić. Ook dan staan onze waarden op het spel.

We moeten duidelijk zijn naar degenen die stabiliteit en recht ondermijnen, en de mensen steunen die het tegendeel willen. En ja, onze geloofwaardigheid wordt ook beïnvloed door onze stellingname buiten de Europese Unie. En dan heeft u, voorzitter van de Commissie, mij teleurgesteld omdat het u meer dan twee weken kostte om dezelfde woorden van medeleven en humaniteit uit te spreken over de duizenden onschuldige slachtoffers in Gaza als voor de slachtoffers van de vreselijke terreuraanval. U blijft volharden – net als veel regeringsleiders – in het herhalen van de mantra dat het allemaal moet binnen het internationaal recht. Dat gebeurt nu niet, en u weet dat. Er moet nu een staakt—het—vuren komen.

Maar ik eindig positief door u, mevrouw von der Leyen, ondanks mijn kritiek te bedanken voor uw inzet voor Oekraïne. Lever daar niet op in. Laat u niet afleiden door verkiezingen. De inzet van dit Parlement laat zien dat het kan. Effectief, meerderheidsbesluitvorming, scherpe keuzes met betrekking tot defensie, voor Europa, voor onze waarden.

  Malik Azmani (Renew). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I start by paying respect for the Ukrainian people, who continue to fight for our common freedoms.

Colleagues, all Ukrainians ask for is weapons. They need to defend their country. Ukraine is losing ground because they don’t have them. No one can say when or where Russia’s invasion will end, but we know that any victory for Russia is a blow to European security. The less we do now, the higher cost later.

We must produce through the European defence industry, but this will take time. In the short term, what Ukraine needs must be jointly procured worldwide and the Commission should take emergency measures to remove all barriers and stimulate investment in the European defence industry. Now is the time to do what’s necessary to enhance our European security.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, President von der Leyen, Minister, colleagues, it’s good to have this debate. It’s good to have brought unity in this House. But looking at the crisis which we are confronted with, regarding European security, what is it worth to agree on a CFSP report if we don’t have the national leaders that we would need to turn plans into action?

I applaud your speech, President von der Leyen, but other people elected to lead Europe are failing her. Let’s just look at President Macron and Chancellor Scholz – sensing that the helpful leadership of President Biden is waning, they’re presently at each other’s throats, belittling, undercutting and insulting each other. While one of them is a hero of grandiose statements without real substance, the other – whose party is still partly an appeasement party – hides his timidity behind a play with alternative facts ad nauseam.

What about other big EU countries? Where’s Italy? Europe’s historical mother, barely visible. Where’s proud Spain? Her leader, when he spoke to us here, had only empty words and no interest.

Some leadership comes from countries in the EU’s north and east. The proposal from Estonia of 0.25% of GDP going to defence – that’s a leadership proposal.

I think we have to rally citizens when leaders fail. So let’s form a phalanx of parliaments in order to turn this crisis into a step forward. Hic Rhodus, hic salta.

  Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Mr President, Russia and Belarus weaponise migrants against Europe’s frontier. Yet the resolve of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland holds strong – border barriers work.

Unfortunately, the Commission believes physical barriers don’t efficiently improve border management and refuses to fund them. That’s a security problem. They believe EU funds are better spent – I’m not joking – on circus workshops to integrate military-age male migrants and empty parties in the metaverse. Every year, hundreds of thousands of migrants are told to return. Everybody knows it: they don’t! Because their countries won’t even take them back.

Greece wants sanctions against those countries, an EU deportation mechanism. We should support them – it should be in this report – and use the sanctions to pay for physical border barriers. The Commission should immediately inform uncooperative countries that for every migrant they refuse, EUR 20 000 will be deducted from the EU funds they receive. And for every weaponised illegal migrant entering Europe, it will cost them EUR 200 000.

Some of you talk about Fortress Europe like it’s a bad thing. I say: fund that wall and make Morocco, Turkey, Syria and Pakistan pay for it!

  Der Präsident. – Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir haben jetzt noch 40 Redner, bis auf eine Ausnahme haben alle eine Minute. Wir sind jetzt zweimal rum. Wenn jeder seine Rede überzieht, dann werde ich der folgenden Vizepräsidentin empfehlen müssen, das Verfahren der blauen Karte abzukürzen, oder wir kommen total außer Kontrolle. Einige Fraktionsvorsitzende, die gesprochen haben, sind noch da. Wir müssen mit den Redezeiten was ändern, aber ich kann jetzt nicht anders handeln als wirklich auf die strenge Einhaltung der Redezeit zu achten, und ich bitte auch alle Kollegen um entsprechende Disziplin.

  Anders Vistisen (ID). – Hr. formand! I dag skammer man sig over at være dansk, over at have en regering og en statsminister, der prøver at fortie og besnakke danskerne, når det kommer til de reelle intentioner bag EU's forsvarspolitik. Men her er man befriende ærlig. Her siger man åbent, at det handler om skabelsen af en egentlig europæisk hær. At det handler om et angreb på landenes vetoret i udenrigs og forsvarspolitikken. At det handler om at skabe en egentlig EU-udenrigspolitik. Alt det er noget forfejlet vrøvl. Det kommer kun til at skabe mere uenighed, mere ustabilitet i Europa, på kontinentet.

Men i det mindste er man ærlige om, at det er det, der er ambitionen. I Danmark fører vi en forløjet debat, hvor man prøver at sondre mellem det, der er ambitionen her, nemlig at EU skal blive en egentlig superstat, et Europas Forenede Stater med egen udenrigspolitik, med egen sikkerhedspolitik, med eget forsvar, mens man påstår, at man stadigvæk hylder idealet om nationalstaten i mit hjemland. Så i det mindste kan jeg takke jer for at være ærlige, selvom politikken konsekvent er elendig.

  Özlem Demirel (The Left). – Herr Präsident! Frau von der Leyen sagte eben, Europa müsse aufwachen, und meinte damit: Wir müssen bereit sein, mehr aufzurüsten. Wir müssen bereit sein, kriegstüchtig zu sein. Deshalb möchte ich sagen und an die Völker in Europa appellieren und sagen: Ja, wacht auf, Völker dieser Erde!

Denn es sind Tage wie diese, die mich sehr nachdenklich stimmen. Ich erinnere mich an Tagen wie diesen an den Roman „Im Westen nichts Neues“, an die Szenen der jungen Männer, die voller Euphorie in den Krieg zogen und dann einige Jahre später verkrüppelt und desillusioniert aus dem Ersten Weltkrieg zurückgekehrt sind. Sie benutzen hier gerade hehre Worte wie Freiheit, Demokratie, Sicherheit, um Aufrüstung zu legitimieren. Dabei ist Aufrüstung und Krieg genau das Gegenteil davon. Imperiale Kriege sind nichts weiter als die größte Barbarei.

Seit Russlands Überfall auf die Ukraine sagen Sie nur noch: Rüstet auf! Rüstet auf! Größer, schneller, höher, mehr! Und was bedeutet das bitte? Herr Macron meinte gestern sogar, den neuen Napoleon spielen zu müssen und zu behaupten, wir müssen in der Ukraine Bodentruppen haben. Was bedeutet das anderes, als dass hier gerade der dritte Weltkrieg vorbereitet wird?

Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Krieg ist das Gegenteil von Sicherheit. Die Völker Europas sehnen sich nach sozialer Sicherheit. Sie wollen Sicherheit. Deshalb kann ich nur sagen: Völker, wir müssen tatsächlich den Kriegstreibern hier in den Arm fallen und tatsächlich gegen die Aufrüstung eine starke Friedensbewegung aufbauen. Denn es geht um unsere Zukunft, um die Zukunft unserer Kinder.

  Márton Gyöngyösi (NI). – Mr President, dear colleagues, the EU is facing the greatest security challenge since World War Two. While NATO remains the guarantee of its security, Europe has to demonstrate it can defend its own people, culture and values on its own, if necessary.

A precondition for that is the creation of the legal framework for a European army, both at the level of the EU and the individual Member States, followed by a harmonised and integrated defence industry, common military programmes and projects.

I would suggest that in its next term the Commission sets common European defence as a top priority and creates two major portfolios headed by a commissioner each. I am very glad that Ursula von der Leyen mentioned the first one in her statement: one responsible for the establishment of a common army, air force and navy, and another, which is equally important, for harmonising intelligence the activity of the national secret services.

This is critical in European defence given the recent level of Russian interference, targeted killings, hacking and cyberattacks on European territory.

  Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Mr President, first, my congratulations to Sweden. Now, we will be much stronger together, but we must realise that the war started by Russia is not a short-term crisis. Putin started this war thinking that democracies in general would not be able to withstand it. But we must be able to withstand.

We need a clear plan to help Ukraine to win. We need a consensus that each State allocates at least 0.25% of GDP to the victory of Ukraine. This should be the foundation of a real EU Defence Union.

On army, for me, an example of someone who is serious in the European Union about security is the army of Finland. Many EU countries have gotten used to comfort and prosperity and we have unprepared societies. We must consider returning to conscription and training of young people. Don’t give up, Europe!

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Mr President, back in 2016 I had an honour of working on the report of this House on the European defence union. Then, the phrase itself raised many concerns. Unfortunately, time has proven us right.

Even though the geopolitical challenges in this mandate led to several positive steps in the field of common defence, the European Union should be more proactive and less reactive. Common foreign security and defence policies cannot remain the weakest links of our integrations.

Institutional reforms that will increase our cohesion and coherence are absolutely needed. Still, they must be based on a clear assessment of Europe’s needs rather than being used as a political power tool. Only a strategically autonomous European Union can be the best guarantor of peace on our continent, and the best partner to our allies in the NATO.

For the EU, it’s high time to go the extra mile for the sake of its own security and relevance.

  Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, Europa moet wakker worden, voor onze vrijheid, voor onze veiligheid. Ursula von der Leyen heeft het gezegd, wel, ik zou het niet beter hebben kunnen zeggen. Meer uitgeven, meer samen uitgeven, beter uitgeven: absoluut. Werken aan een echte EU-defensie-industrie: absoluut. En dat zal nodig zijn, want herinner u het plan van commissaris Breton. We gingen 1 miljoen granaten produceren binnen het jaar. Helaas moet ik zeggen dat we dat niet hebben gehaald. Ik denk maar net de helft. We moeten ze elders gaan aankopen: in Zuid-Afrika, in Zuid-Korea en dan nog betaald met het geld van anderen.

Dat is waar momenteel onze Europese defensie-unie staat. Want eerlijk gezegd: waar staan we na twee jaar oorlog op ons continent? Waar? Hebben we een witboek voor onze Europese defensie? Hoe zit het met de relatie tussen Europa en de NAVO? We moeten weg van de unanimiteit.

We need a real Commissioner for Defence. We need one Minister for Foreign Affairs. We need, colleagues, a real European army. We need it for Europe, we need it for our citizens.

VORSITZ: EVELYN REGNER
Vizepräsidentin

  Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, la creación de una política propia de defensa ha sido siempre una piedra en el camino de la integración europea. La invasión rusa de Ucrania quizá será el momento en que nos dimos cuenta de la urgencia de cambiar nuestro paradigma de seguridad y defensa. Además, nos estamos replanteando —más a la fuerza que por convicción— algunas de las bases que en buena parte han sustentado nuestra prosperidad relativa. Si realmente apostamos por la famosa autonomía estratégica, por ser un poder normativo o por el poder blando, quizás, no nos bastará. Porque querer más autonomía estratégica implica asumir más responsabilidad.

Pero la cuestión clave de una política de defensa europea es cómo utilizamos mejor, de manera más integrada y eficiente nuestras capacidades. Y en las propuestas de industria de defensa veo, con preocupación, que se pone el acento en producir más, con una lógica temeraria de multiplicación del gasto público, en vez de gastar mejor y con una auténtica visión de integración, superando marcos nacionales y mentales obsoletos. Gastar mejor en defensa tradicional para proteger más otras dimensiones de la seguridad humana relacionadas con la justicia social, el bienestar y la sostenibilidad.

  Anna Fotyga (ECR). – Madam President, the accession of Sweden is a triumph of NATO, but also a triumph of unanimity, adding to our common security and building, even in difficulty, unity of the collective West – unity achieved in respect to opinions of even the smallest nations, in particular those having a long tradition of fighting for freedom and independence.

That, I address to our partners and future allies, in particular to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova: my concerns are, tomorrow, to become yours. All our thoughts and efforts should be to help you to join the collective West as soon as possible and Ukraine to defeat Russia with our help.

  Jaak Madison (ID). – Madam President, dear colleagues, first of all, unfortunately, Ms von der Leyen has left, but we have to understand, of course, that when we talk about the common security and defence policy in the EU, that there can only be a strong policy if we have strong Member States who are spending enough for defence and who are really realising the world we are living.

I was just checking the numbers before this debate. The current situation has been that Mr Macron is very big with the words, very nice words, but the fact is that the French has given to Ukraine only specifically military aid only for about EUR 600 million, from the GDP only 0.067 % has been to aid Ukraine.

When our Spanish colleagues were saying also very beautiful words about the common security policy and how to help Ukraine against Russia, Spain has spent only 0.072 % of their GDP to help Ukraine, and all expenses for defence in Spain are only 1.3 % of the GDP, so it’s pretty far away from the target 2 %.

So I think we have to finish the stories about the common beautiful policy until we don’t spend enough for our own...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, there are 18 condemnations in the common security and defence policy annual report. Not one of them is directed at Israel. Yet, unlike Israel, none of the 11 countries condemned are carrying out a genocide right now.

The report emphasises full support for Israel and for Israel’s right to defend itself in accordance with international law. I would like the rapporteur of the report to please point out what system of law he is appealing to, because nowhere in international law does it allow for a state to claim the right of self-defence against a threat that emanates from a territory it occupies, from a territory that is kept under belligerent occupation.

Israel is a foreign nation illegally occupying Palestine. The Palestinians are the ones with the right to self-defence, not the Israelis. This part of it makes a mockery of the notion of international law of human rights. You are twisting international law to justify a genocide and then accuse everyone else of human rights abuses. This place is losing the plot.

  Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, μαζί με το ΝΑΤΟ και τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, πρωταγωνιστεί σε βάρος των λαών στο δίχρονο ιμπεριαλιστικό πόλεμο στην Ουκρανία κόντρα στην καπιταλιστική Ρωσία, στη γενοκτονία του παλαιστινιακού λαού από το κράτος-κατακτητή Ισραήλ, ρίχνει λάδι στη φωτιά στον πόλεμο στην Υεμένη. Στο πλαίσιο της ΚΕΠΠΑ δίνονται δισεκατομμύρια για εξοπλισμό, τεχνητή νοημοσύνη και πυρομαχικά. Επίσης, εντείνονται οι διεργασίες νέας κλιμάκωσης για αποστολή στρατευμάτων του ΝΑΤΟ και του ευρωστρατού, με «λαγό» τη δήλωση Μακρόν. Ως και επίτροπος Άμυνας ορίζεται.

Γεμάτη κινδύνους είναι η ευρωενωσιακή επιχείρηση Ασπίδες, η ανάληψη του συντονισμού της μέσω του Στρατηγείου της Λάρισας από την κυβέρνηση της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, όπως και η αποστολή της ελληνικής φρεγάτας ΥΔΡΑ· όλα για τα συμφέροντα των εφοπλιστών και των ομίλων διαμετακόμισης, με σύμπλευση και του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ και του ΠΑΣΟΚ. Τώρα να ακυρωθεί η επιχείρηση Ασπίδες και να επιστρέψει η ελληνική φρεγάτα. Καμία εμπλοκή. Ανυποχώρητος λαϊκός αγώνας του λαού ενάντια στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τις κυβερνήσεις που καταπνίγουν τις λαϊκές ανάγκες στο βωμό των ιμπεριαλιστικών πολέμων και της εκμετάλλευσης.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – Madam President, colleagues, on Ukraine I said yesterday what needs to be said. I welcome that there is movement to enlarge the scope of the activities of the European Investment Bank to defence that will hopefully also end the hesitance of private banks to engage in defence-related activities.

I welcome the announcement of the Commission President that she intends to install a Defence Union Commissioner in the new Commission, and I would like to see it as an ambitious approach. As a Commissioner, this ‘DUC’ should be assigned all defence-related EU actions within the remit of the European Commission, and in particular on defence research, the support for the industrial base, military mobility, the procurement and transfer directives, resilience, defence and training. All Commission actions should be encompassed in a single Multiannual Defence in Union Instrument, which the DUC oversees. The DUC should be assigned by the Council the role of the EU’s Special Representative for the Defence Union. In that role, he should in particular oversee the EDA and PESCO, military staff, military committee, military missions and operations and should be responsible for the relationship with NATO and should be assigned the responsibility to inform the European Council about the readiness of the EU to move to a common defence.

  Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman! Jag vill rikta ett tack för allt det stöd vi har fått för Sveriges ansökan om att bli medlem i Nato. Rysslands invasion är ett hot mot hela Europas säkerhet, och EU måste fortsätta sitt stöd ekonomiskt, humanitärt och militärt.

Nu nås vi av rapporter om att ukrainska styrkor ransonerar och får slut på ammunition vid frontlinjen. Därför behöver vi stärka försvarsförmågan, och det arbetet handlar nu om att öka det militära stödet till Ukraina – och tiden är knapp. Vi måste donera mer, köpa in mer och producera mer ammunition.

I EU måste vi stå starka och hålla samman och inte låta oss splittras av de högerextrema krafterna. EU måste fortsätta sitt ihärdiga stöd till Ukraina nu.

  Petras Auštrevičius (Renew). – Madam President, Council representative, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the war in Ukraine, Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine require an urgent and strong EU capacity to respond adequately to the situation. Limited defence budgets of Member States, insufficient defence industrial capacities and slow collective EU action are the main reasons for the EU’s insufficient response towards war on our continent.

Colleagues, the European Commission must establish a kind of war cabinet, now and fully operational. It must consist of the President of the Commission and several key Commissioners responsible for finance, defence industry and common security and defence policy.

Secondly, decisions on a compulsory contribution from Member States to military support for Ukraine must be taken. A common level of support from national budgets is essential. Certain derogations can be provided to neutral ones.

And thirdly, the EU must use the instrument of European bonds to finance long-term defence and production capabilities, which must form the basis for the future creation of the European Defence Union.

  Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, coming from the EU country that has the longest border with Russia, namely Finland, I cannot emphasise too much the need for us to move from words to operational strength in security and defence in Europe.

It is important that we realise that we have to urgently put the focus on conventional weapons for Ukraine and our own defence readiness in making European cooperation the rule for armed forces and defence industries.

The most urgent task is to realise that Russia is in war economy. Russia’s war policies will not stop if we do not support Ukraine enough to force them to do that. Russia has increased, by the accounts of the Bank of Finland , by 35 % the production of war-related industries from the pre-war period in 2002. That means that they will continue as long as they can.

So it’s not enough for us to support Ukraine as long as they need. We need to support them as much and as fast as they need, and that means strengthening European defence and security cooperation and putting the focus on quality and operational strength.

  Alexandr Vondra (ECR). – Madam President, the most pressing challenge of our time is to contain the Russian aggression and to provide, immediately, more military help to Ukraine. We do not need more empty promises, but concrete deeds. We must deliver more guns. At home, we do not need new uniforms, we do not need to build a European army to compete with NATO and we do not need a never-ending debate about extending the QMV.

But we urgently need to generate more resources for our defences and we terribly need to modernise our obsolete armed forces. It’s the way to make Europe stronger, and stronger NATO, to contain Russia and deter it. The entry of Sweden into NATO is certainly a great move in the right direction.

  Francesca Donato (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi è quanto mai urgente esprimere la nostra ferma opposizione alla proposta di Macron di mandare i soldati dell'Unione europea in Ucraina, un'idea folle che scatenerebbe senza dubbio un'escalation bellica, con conseguenze disastrose per tutta l'Europa.

La politica di sicurezza europea deve sempre rientrare in un quadro di difesa, basato su una cooperazione strategica tra i Paesi membri dell'Unione. Per ogni aspetto militare è fondamentale continuare a operare nell'ambito della NATO, l'Alleanza che ha garantito la pace e la sicurezza in Europa sino ad oggi dal dopoguerra. Allo stesso tempo, dobbiamo promuovere un tavolo negoziale fra Russia e Ucraina per cercare una soluzione pacifica e duratura al conflitto in corso.

Il dialogo e la diplomazia, accompagnati dalla deterrenza garantita dalla presenza dell'Alleanza Atlantica, sono sempre state le uniche vie efficaci per risolvere le controversie internazionali e garantire la pace nel nostro continente. Invito dunque tutti a riflettere sulle conseguenze delle nostre azioni e a lavorare insieme per restituire all'Europa stabilità, sicurezza e pace, non dimenticando che la difesa della vita umana e il rispetto delle minoranze sono i principi fondamentali che ci guidano.

  Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Madam President, our Ukrainian friends are fighting a war for us. Once again, others are fighting our wars for us. We must face reality: this is no longer sustainable. Europe needs to be able to protect itself.

This is a serious debate that will define our future capacity to protect our democratic societies and our international liberal order as we know it. It requires vision, leadership and responsibility.

I am happy to see that this debate is gaining more momentum and that the Commission, led by President von der Leyen, is doing all it can to provide us with more tools to keep strengthening our defence capabilities. There is much still to be done: more commitment from our Member States, especially from my country, Spain.

In any case, I am convinced that this debate is evolving and that in her second mandate as President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, alongside this Parliament, will be able to consolidate a European defence policy which will increase our strategic autonomy, bring our European project to the next level and be a real sign to Putin, Xi Jinping, Iranian ayatollahs and all those threatening Europe.

  Jens Geier (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident, sehr geehrter Vertreter des Rates, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mehr Ausrüstung, Kapazitätsaufbau, Kooperation in der Verteidigungsindustrie, die Aufrechterhaltung der Verteidigungsfähigkeit der Ukraine im Kampf gegen das imperialistische Russland – alles das ist richtig. Was aber nicht funktionieren wird: in die Verteidigung zu investieren und allen anderen zu empfehlen, ihre Ansprüche zurückzustellen. Denn das wird unsere Gesellschaften zerreißen.

Energieversorgung und die Industrie klimaunschädlich zu machen kostet Geld. Kinder aus der Armut zu holen kostet Geld. Bezahlbare Wohnungen bereitzustellen kostet Geld. Digitalisierung, Innovation, Infrastruktur – alles das kostet Geld. Investitionen werden sich nicht aus den Haushalten darstellen lassen, und ohne Kredite wird es nicht gehen. Auf alle diese Bedarfe muss die EU und müssen ihre Mitgliedstaaten angemessen reagieren – ohne Sparappelle und Schuldenbremsen.

  Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, notre continent est aujourd’hui à un moment de bascule. La guerre y sévit par le choix d’un homme, Vladimir Poutine, qui veut la capitulation de l’Ukraine et notre asservissement. Les États-Unis pourraient faire en novembre un choix isolationniste et funeste.

Aujourd’hui, c’est à nous de choisir. Ou bien nous prenons le risque de voir la Russie gagner en Ukraine et les États-Unis nous tourner le dos, et ce risque serait considérable pour notre sécurité. Ou bien nous faisons sans attendre le choix d’une vraie défense européenne. Ce qui nous manque aujourd’hui, ce ne sont ni les idées, ni les initiatives. Et je veux saluer ici la conférence réunie à Paris pour accélérer et renforcer le soutien à l’Ukraine. Ce qui nous manque, ce sont les financements pour produire les armes qui feront reculer Vladimir Poutine et le dissuaderont de nous attaquer.

Alors n’attendons plus! Kaja Kallas a proposé un emprunt de défense commun, faisons-le! La BEI pourrait investir dans la défense, donnons-lui le mandat pour le faire! Si nous voulons rester en paix, il nous faut bâtir sans plus tarder l’Union européenne de la défense dans les faits, et plus seulement dans les mots.

  Harald Vilimsky (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Gut, über Europas Verteidigungsstrategie hier zu sprechen. Vorab ein Satz, den Sie sich auf der Zunge zergehen lassen sollten: Willst du Krieg? Dann schicke Waffen. Willst du Frieden? Dann schicke Diplomaten. Ich habe das Gefühl – angesichts dessen, worüber hier diskutiert wird –, dass hier ganz bewusst ein Kriegsszenario nicht geschürt wird, aber zumindest am Köcheln gehalten wird, was etwas komplett Falsches ist.

Ich erinnere daran, dass wir mittlerweile eine Diskussion führen, EU—Truppen in die Ukraine hineinzuschicken. Ich erinnere daran – was aus meiner Sicht absurd ist –, dass wir mittlerweile eine Diskussion führen, die Europäische Union mit Atomwaffen ausstatten zu wollen. Ich erinnere an die – aus Sicht eines österreichischen Politikers – absurde Situation, Sky Shield implementieren zu wollen, was für uns zwei Milliarden Euro an Belastungen wäre.

Ich sage als Österreicher: Besser, ich nehme die zwei Milliarden Euro, stecke sie in das österreichische Bundesheer zur Absicherung unserer Neutralität, anstatt hier diese kriegerische Geschichte weiter voranzutreiben. Ich bleibe dabei: Österreich ist ein neutrales Land, und wir könnten, sollten und müssten uns hier aktiv als Ort des Friedens anbieten. Das wäre der zehnmal bessere Weg, als hier diese Säbelrasselei weiter voranzutreiben.

  Marcel de Graaff (NI). – Voorzitter, de ambitie van de EU om mee te tellen op wereldniveau is ongeloofwaardige propaganda. De EU is een samenraapsel van totaal verschillende landen en culturen, uitgehold door massamigratie, tot over de oren in de schulden, de-industrialiserend, hard op weg om de eigen voedsel- en watervoorziening te vernietigen. De EU wordt een derdewereldland, een derderangs Amerikaanse vazal.

De EU en de NAVO hebben deze oorlog tegen Rusland economisch, politiek en op het slagveld verloren. Daarom bespraken westerse regeringsleiders deze week het sturen van Europese soldaten naar Oekraïne. Ze hebben het over onze kinderen, onze vaders, broers en zonen, waarmee ze deze zinloze oorlog willen rekken om nog meer miljarden te verdienen aan de wapenindustrie. Een EU-defensie-unie is een doodlopende weg van escalatie en oorlogshitserij. Er is maar één weg naar veiligheid en dat is de weg van vrede, dat is de weg van onderhandelingen met respect voor alle partijen.

  Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE). – Voorzitter, vicevoorzitter van de Europese Commissie, staatssecretaris, collega’s, onze defensie versterken moet nu eerst en vooral gebeuren door de snelle ontwikkeling van voldoende performante defensiecapaciteiten, en dat inderdaad met een sterke industrie waarin onze kmo’s alle kansen krijgen. We zien daartoe uit naar het nieuwe strategische kader EDIS en we staan klaar om de Europese Commissie daarvoor te feliciteren. Maar laat ons tegelijk meteen eerlijk zijn met de burgers: de gevraagde budgetten en het nodige maatschappelijke draagvlak zullen overtuiging en vastberadenheid vragen van ons allemaal, zeker in het licht van de oorlog in Oekraïne.

De versterking van onze defensie gaat natuurlijk over veel meer dan onze industrie alleen. De budgettaire afspraken gemaakt in NAVO-verband moeten erg ernstig worden genomen, ook in België. Het is duidelijk dat de impact daarvan ook voelbaar zal zijn voor onze burgers en daarom zijn we dringend toe aan een maatschappelijk debat over het belang en de kost van de nood aan veiligheid.

  Javi López (S&D). – Señora presidenta, el contexto geopolítico ha cambiado radicalmente durante los últimos años y ha significado el fin de la inocencia para Europa y su despertar estratégico.

Una vecindad con graves conflictos en sus puertas, una invasión a Ucrania que ha roto la arquitectura de seguridad europea y, seamos honestos, la posibilidad de que Trump vuelva a la Casa Blanca y que nuestra dependencia del vínculo atlántico haga que nuestra seguridad se vea afectada. Tenemos que dejar de externalizar nuestra política de seguridad.

Durante los últimos años, hemos contribuido para reforzar la industria europea de la defensa mediante la Ley de adquisición común con el EDIRPA, un programa de inversiones europeas, el Reglamento relativo al apoyo a la producción de municiones y la capacidad de despliegue rápido. Y, hay que decirlo, una respuesta madura al apoyo a Ucrania en materia de asistencia militar y una política de sanciones sin precedentes. Pero no es suficiente, necesitamos aumentar nuestras capacidades y modernizarlas en materia de defensa, una mayor cooperación europea y el desarrollo verdadero de la industria europea para ser un actor geopolítico creíble y autónomo en el mundo.

  Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Voorzitter, dames en heren, ik sta hier vandaag voor u als trans—Atlanticus, dus als iemand die waardeert dat onze militaire veiligheid enkel is gegarandeerd bij het superieure militaire strategische vermogen van de Amerikanen. Dat is de belangrijkste reden dat Poetin vooralsnog Europese NAVO—lidstaten niet aanvalt.

Maar die Amerikaanse vrienden hebben wij in Europa van onszelf vervreemd. Bij vrijwel alle wapensystemen die absoluut noodzakelijk zijn om op schaal op te kunnen treden, maar die ook te duur zijn om zelf te ontwikkelen of om zelf te kopen, laten we het over aan de Amerikanen, en daardoor kunnen wij onszelf nu niet verdedigen. Dus, die systemen gaan we vanaf nu in Europa zelf ontwikkelen of zelf kopen, in Europa of in de VS.

Het Defensiefonds van 100 miljard is de absolute noodzaak. Maar een volwaardige Europese pijler binnen de NAVO heeft ook een Europese Veiligheidsraad nodig met landen die niet in de EU zitten, maar wel in de NAVO: Noorwegen, het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Turkije. Wacht niet met het opzetten van zo’n structuur, maar begin daarmee vandaag.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Ministra, Senhor Vice-Presidente,

primeiro queria saudar a adesão da Suécia à NATO que é um facto estratégico fundamental para a Aliança Atlântica e para a Europa.

A invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia de Putin é um desafio existencial à União Europeia, à democracia, à liberdade no mundo e, por isso, é fundamental apontarmos para uma União Europeia da defesa.

Na indústria da defesa, na cooperação militar, que seja o pilar europeu da NATO, que não dê lugar a nenhum exército europeu e que, pelo contrário, reforce a NATO, que, aliás, é uma organização amplamente apoiada pelos países europeus e, em particular, pelo meu país, Portugal. Queria, aliás, dizer que não deve haver deslocação de tropas para a Ucrânia sob o risco de exponenciarmos o conflito.

E queria, finalmente, lamentar que o Partido Socialista português, aqui pela voz de um dos seus eurodeputados, tenha vindo com um discurso viscoso, ambíguo, claramente alinhado para fazer uma aliança com os dois partidos que são anti-NATO, numa altura de guerra. Pedro Marques, que pena estar aliado ao Bloco de Esquerda, ao Partido Comunista que são contra a NATO.

Portugal precisa da defesa da NATO. É uma pena que os socialistas portugueses com um discurso que não falou sobre política externa nem de defesa, tenham vindo... (A Presidente retira a palavra ao orador)

  Νίκος Παπανδρέου (S&D). – Madam President, colleagues, I hear the calls for peace from one of the colleagues and for negotiations. But the people we’re talking about do not listen to negotiations.

And perhaps if we are a third-world country, it’s because we do not have a strong defence policy. Something happened recently and that is called Ukraine. Did we shake our paralysis? Did we wake up for a new voice? Are we changing, building a new Europe? Yes.

In that distant and also close Ukraine, we show that when we want, we can support our ideals. However, the world still doubts us. They doubt us because of our response or absence of response to the destruction of Palestine, to the Kurds in Syria, to Armenia and Central Africa.

And if Trump wins, as Javi López said, we need to have our own defence policy because the umbrella of protection will be full of holes. At some point, we have to give our citizens the sense that Europe can protect its own borders from aggressors.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (Renew). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vogliamo essere noi stessi gli artefici del nostro destino, oppure vogliamo ridurci a essere la scacchiera su cui altre potenze giocheranno nei prossimi anni? Basta ambiguità, basta tatticismi! Dopo un assurdo letargo di quasi 70 anni, è tempo di creare un vero esercito europeo.

Quanto previsto dallo Strategic Compass e già superato dal dramma della guerra in Ucraina. Serve istituire subito una forza di reazione rapida di almeno 50-60 mila unità, non le 5-6 mila attualmente previste. Una forza che sia multi-dominio, in grado di operare con asset e unità tanto nei domini convenzionali, tanto in quelli emergenti, cyberspazio su tutti.

Serve rinforzare la base industriale europea nel settore della difesa, decuplicando il Fondo europeo di difesa e incentivando più cooperazioni rafforzate tra gli Stati volenterosi. E creiamo infine un'accademia militare europea, un quartier generale europeo, così da avere un comando strategico unitario per tutte le nostre missioni e operazioni.

Chiaramente, tutto questo sarà inutile se ancora decideremo all'unanimità. Serve quindi anche passare alla maggioranza qualificata subito. Questo è quello di cui abbiamo bisogno per difendere l'Ucraina e per difendere l'Europa. Questo è il tempo del coraggio, della serietà, è il tempo dell'azione!

  Željana Zovko (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća,

prije svega, želim čestitati izvjestitelju Davidu McAllisteru na izvrsnom izvješću koje obuhvaća sve aspekte vanjske i sigurnosne politike koja je bila izuzetno zahtjevna u prethodnoj godini. Rat u Ukrajini, pogrom Židova i talačka kriza na Bliskom istoku, geopolitičke napetosti u Indopacifiku te rastuće tenzije na zapadnom Balkanu, sve su to izazovi za naše granice, a i za unutarnju stabilnost, kao i sigurnost europskih građana.

Dopustite također da zahvalim izvjestitelju što je uključio moj amandman, bitan za mir i sigurnost, koji uključuje važnost principa podjele vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini, kao što je i vlast bila dogovorena za Good Friday Agreement u Sjevernoj Irskoj, putem pravednog izbornog zakona koji poštuje presude Ustavnog suda, jedinog tijela koje tumači Daytonsko-pariški mirovni sporazum o legitimnom predstavljanju, te presude međunarodnih sudova.

Nedavno je usvojeno izvješće o preventivnoj diplomaciji. Ti amandmani također su uključeni u ovo izvješće o zajedničkoj vanjskoj i sigurnosnoj politici gdje se traži od međunarodne zajednice da razmisli o naučenim lekcijama, da ne gasimo sukobe nego da ih preveniramo.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, empieza ya el tercer año de guerra en un momento en que la situación militar de Ucrania se ha deteriorado. El camino a seguir parece claro: tenemos que reforzar y modernizar nuestra industria de defensa y facilitar cuanto antes munición al ejército ucraniano. La Comisión Europea está actuando ya en este sentido: pienso en el Fondo Europeo de Defensa, el Reglamento de Apoyo a la Producción de Municiones, el llamado Reglamento EDIRPA y otras propuestas que hoy no se han anunciado.

Yo veo bien un comisario para la industria de defensa, pero también deseo que, dentro de las formaciones del Consejo, haya un Consejo de Ministros de Defensa. La amenaza rusa es brutal, gravísima, pero no podemos olvidar otros riesgos a nuestra seguridad. Pienso en la crisis de Oriente Medio, a la que no se ha prestado la atención necesaria en los últimos años, o la grave situación que atraviesa el Sahel, que tiene repercusiones directas en nuestras fronteras.

Por último, la OTAN es esencial, pero los europeos debemos responsabilizarnos cada vez más de nuestra propia defensa y aumentar nuestras capacidades. Parece claro que no podemos depender exclusivamente de los Estados Unidos si, además, no sabemos quién ocupará la Casa Blanca dentro de unos meses.

  Krzysztof Brejza (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Europa stoi dzisiaj przed wyzwaniem, przed którym nie stała od czasu zakończenia II wojny światowej. Realnym zagrożeniem dla Europy, dla jej bezpieczeństwa jest putinowska Rosja, która w sposób bestialski zaatakowała Ukrainę. My, Polacy, wielokrotnie w swojej historii doświadczaliśmy skutków imperializmu rosyjskiego. Cały czas doświadczamy wojny informacyjnej, a także bezwzględnych działań w sferze gospodarczej. Tylko Unia Europejska jako silna i skuteczna wspólnota, ale przede wszystkim wspólnota obronna, tylko taka Unia Europejska jest w stanie odeprzeć zagrożenia płynące ze strony reżimu kremlowskiego.

Premier polskiego rządu Donald Tusk powiedział ostatnio, że nadszedł czas, by przebudzili się politycy i przebudziły się społeczeństwa Europy, bo świat trzęsie się w posadach. Jak nigdy wcześniej dziś potrzeba tego przebudzenia. Potrzeba europejskiej wspólnoty w dziedzinie obronnej. Dziś jest ten czas, by zbudować razem bezpieczną i silną Europę, taką, która jest zdolna do obrony swoich wartości, do obrony pokoju, demokracji, obrony nie tylko dla nas teraz, ale również dla przyszłych pokoleń.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

  Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Madam President, colleagues, planning the future of our defence and security, we need to get rid of the illusion that our security can be built only on our fears.

Now, with Russian war against Ukraine, we are lost in the crossroads of our fears. We rightly fear what will happen with our security if Russia will win in Ukraine. But at the same time, we fear that chaos will happen in Russia, if Russia will be defeated. We fear a long-term war in Ukraine; that we shall become tired of such a war. And we fear to give Ukraine enough weapons for the victory in the near future, because we are afraid that Putin will escalate.

President Roosevelt once prudently said, ‘The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’ Let us stop our fears and let us declare: Putin needs to be defeated and he will be defeated. And we shall invest into Putin’s defeat. That will open the doors for positive transformations in Russia.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, discutăm consolidarea apărării comune. Din păcate, prea puțin s-a vorbit despre pace. Doamna Președintă a Comisiei din nou pleacă după ce își spune punctul de vedere. Nu-i este interesant să afle și punctele de vedere ale Parlamentului. Da, sigur că trebuie să consolidăm apărarea, dar trebuie să luptăm și pentru pace.

Asta așteaptă cetățenii europeni și uite, țara mea are 2,5 % din buget pentru apărare, dar, din păcate, nu este tratată la fel ca celelalte state care au mai puțin pentru apărare și cel mai bun exemplu este Austria. Este discriminată România și la fermieri, și la Schengen. Vorbim aici de consolidare: pentru a putea să consolidăm apărarea și pentru a lupta pentru pace, avem nevoie să ne propunem măcar acest lucru.

Nu avem diplomatic un rezultat foarte bun și da, poate că este bună propunerea să avem un comisar pentru pace, dar ce facem acum? Popoarele sărăcesc, oamenii mor pe front și nu reușim să găsim soluția de pace.

  Ladislav Ilčić (ECR). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća,

poštovani francuski liberali, nemojte kriviti Sjedinjene Američke Države za loše vojno stanje europskih država jer su vas oni uvijek pozivali da povećate vojni proračun, a vaše lijevo-liberalne vlade taj su proračun smanjivale.

Predstavnik socijalista kaže da bi Europska unija trebala biti moralni svjetionik, i ovaj Parlament vrlo rado prihvaća tu ulogu, pa onda svima na svijetu objašnjavamo što bi trebali raditi. No, pitanje je s kojim autoritetom. Mi demografski propadamo, gospodarski nazadujemo, vojno smo sve slabiji i onda bismo pozvali sve druge da budu poput nas?

Trebate priznati da ste vodili pogrešne društvene, gospodarske i migrantske politike. Nama treba jaka Europa, zdravo društvo temeljeno na obitelji, zdravo gospodarstvo temeljeno na slobodi, a ne na socijalističkoj jednakosti na koju se poziva predsjednik socijalista, a koja nikad nije donijela napredak u gospodarstvu, i treba nam suradnja s NATO-om, suradnja s državama s kojima dijelimo istu kulturu i civilizaciju.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora presidenta de la Comisión, las ambiciones proclamadas por la presidenta Von der Leyen de que la Unión Europea madure de una vez hacia un actor geopolítico relevante con una política exterior de seguridad y defensa y, no digamos, que la próxima Comisión incorpore una cartera de Defensa estarán incompletas si no se aborda la reforma institucional que permita superar las contradicciones que muestra la Unión Europea a la hora de tomar sus propias decisiones y que, además, lo haga superando la crítica del doble estándar y del doble rasero.

Si hemos actuado unidos defendiendo a Ucrania frente a la brutal agresión de Putin, debemos hacer lo mismo en la otra esquina del Mediterráneo, ante la desproporción brutal de la ofensiva militar israelí en Gaza, exigiendo no solamente el alto el fuego con una voz audible y unitaria sino, además, el cumplimiento de las medidas cautelares de la Corte Internacional de Justicia y, sobre todo, la solución diplomática de los dos Estados.

  Андрей Новаков (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, през 2023 г. Евробарометър направи проучване: 8 от 10 европейски граждани искат повече пари за отбрана. 8 от 10 искат общи обществени поръчки за отбранителна техника. 8 от 10 искат координирани действия, за да се отбраняваме сами. Сигурно не сте пропуснали да забележите, че това е 2023 г., а през 2024 г.светът не е станал по-спокоен.

Според мен сигналът е ясен. Всички в Европа искат обединени усилия за това да се пазим заедно. Как да го направим, освен да заделим повече пари? Първо, изграждане на инфраструктура, която позволява свободно движение на отбранителна техника. Нали не си представяте да се отбраняваме, докато нашата отбранителна техника чака в задръствания, както се случва и с камионите? Това нещо не може да продължи. Имаме да изграждаме тенти, транспортна мрежа, която да позволи свободното придвижване в спокойно време на хора и стоки, но когато се налага да се отбраняваме – и на отбранителна техника. Задължително, бърза процедура за изграждане на такива обекти. Хората да видят, че Европа стои зад тях в тези трудни моменти.

  Costas Mavrides (S&D). – Madam President, I applaud the Commission President’s initial apologetic statement that illusions have been shattered and, in fact, it is our moral duty to defend a sovereign country, such as Ukraine, being the victim of Russian aggression.

But illusions are still prevailing. Here are some examples. We can’t have strategic autonomy with increasing dependency of our food supply on sources outside of EU. We can’t have internal security with a socially divided EU that doesn’t prioritise the concerns and needs of its own citizens. By the way, European sovereignty is already violated by the illegal occupation of the Republic of Cyprus. And this is EU soil, for which matter the Commission’s President remains silent.

Finally, to accomplish our economic, social, environmental goals, we need common defence and security and that is a proof that we care about EU in total.

  Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałem powiedzieć, że w świetle tego, o czym mówiła pani Ursula von der Leyen, zupełnie niezrozumiałe jest ciągłe przesuwanie zapowiadanego od dawna EDIP-u, strategii rozwoju europejskiego przemysłu obronnego. Chciałem się zapytać pana przewodniczącego Šefčoviča, jakie są tego przyczyny? To jest świadectwo jakiejś naszej wewnętrznej słabości i zupełnie jest niezgodne z tym, co mówiliśmy tutaj o konieczności szybkości działania i naszej jedności. Bardzo prosiłbym o szybką decyzję i wytłumaczenie, dlaczego takie opóźnienie ma miejsce.

  Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señora presidenta, quería aprovechar este debate sobre política europea de seguridad y defensa para añadir una propuesta concreta a las que ya se han planteado.

De la misma manera que de la mano de Nacho Sánchez Amor y Josep Borrell se ha lanzado ya una propuesta de academia diplomática europea, creo que debemos también poner en marcha una verdadera academia militar europea, actualizando y reforzando la actual Escuela Europea de Seguridad y Defensa.

Necesitamos un programa anual y permanente para formar a los oficiales de todos los ejércitos de los Estados miembros, como paso previo para que puedan participar en la Capacidad de Despliegue Rápido de la UE, en las misiones de la política exterior y de seguridad común y también para hacerlo —con un enfoque verdaderamente europeo— en un marco de clases multinacionales, desarrollando un esprit de corps y complicidades personales con carácter previo a la participación en las misiones.

  Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Unia to nie tylko dotacje i fundusze. Unia to wspólnota wartości, której fundamentem musi być wspólna polityka obronna. Putin codziennie przelewa krew niewinnych ludzi na wschodzie, a wygrana izolacjonisty w Stanach jest realna. Europo, czas się kończy. Czas się ogarnąć. Czas przygotować się na najgorsze. Czas przełamać głos krótkowzrocznych populistów. Szydło, Jaki i Saryusz-Wolski, wszyscy jak jeden mąż głosowali przeciwko współpracy obronnej w Europie, ale teraz ich głos już nic nie znaczy. Teraz pojawia się szansa na reformę Unii, bo Polska wróciła do gry. Po pierwsze europejski legion, czyli unijne siły szybkiego reagowania. Po drugie, wspólny rozwój sektora zbrojeniowego. Po trzecie, tarcza atomowa dla Europy. NATO to nasz główny gwarant bezpieczeństwa, ale musimy być gotowi na każdy scenariusz.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, Ireland is a neutral country, but neutrality doesn’t make you immune to modern phenomena such as terrorist attacks, cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, political interference. An example was when our HSE was attacked, a cyberattack, a year or two ago, doing significant damage to our health services.

Also, Ireland hosts, in its territorial waters, thousands of energy pipelines and subsea cables, which are vital for not just Ireland, but the European economy. Russian forces were seen to be observing and monitoring and mapping these some time ago, but our defence forces are underinvested in and are incapable of responding.

We need to work with our European partners and invest more in, particularly, our defence forces, so that they can at least monitor and help defend us from these type of attacks.

  Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, gerbiami kolegos. Sveikinu Švediją jungiantis prie NATO. Taip pat noriu atsakyti dešiniesiems ir kairiesiems, kurie kalbėjo apie taiką. Taika gali įsivyrauti momentaliai, tik tam yra viena sąlyga: agresorius Putinas turi atitraukti savo karines pajėgas iš Ukrainos. O kol to nėra, reikia gintis, reikia remti Ukrainą ginklais tiek, kiek reikia, ir tokiais, kokiais reikia. Reikia tą daryti solidariai, nes kovai su kovido įveikimu mes paskyrėme septynis šimtus milijardų eurų, o paramai Ukrainai, deja, – tik 50 milijardų. Mes turime stiprinti Europos gynybos pramonę, bet to taip pat neužtenka. Mums reikia sustiprinti Europos Sąjungos sienas, kurios ribojasi su Putino agresija. Reikia ne tvorų nuo emigrantų, bet reikia gynybinių barjerų. Ir tam reikia Europos Sąjungos lėšų, kad agresoriui Putinui nesinorėtų patikrinti mūsų sienų.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

  David McAllister, Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte Ihnen allen danken für diese offene und konstruktive Debatte. Es ging ja heute Morgen nicht nur um Sicherheits— und Verteidigungspolitik, sondern auch um den Jahresbericht des Europäischen Parlaments zur Umsetzung der Gemeinsamen Außen— und Sicherheitspolitik wie auch um den Bericht des Kollegen Sven Mikser zur Umsetzung der Gemeinsamen Sicherheits— und Verteidigungspolitik.

Ich habe die zwei Stunden sehr aufmerksam zugehört und habe festgestellt, dass es doch einen breiten Konsens in diesem Haus gibt zwischen den Fraktionen, dass wir unsere Gemeinsame Außen— und Sicherheitspolitik, dass wir unsere Gemeinsame Sicherheits— und Verteidigungspolitik weiter stärken müssen, mit Ausnahme der Vertreter von der ganz linken Extremen und der ganz rechten Extremen. Da dieser Bericht der letzte dieser Art ist, den wir in dieser Wahlperiode beschließen werden, könnte er auch – und das wäre mein Wunsch – zusammen mit dem Bericht des Kollegen Mikser als guideline dienen für die nächste Kommission, für die Kommissionspräsidentin und auch für den nächsten Hohen Vertreter und Vizepräsidenten der Kommission.

Eines ist in jedem Fall klar: Wir erleben einen geopolitischen Epochenbruch. Deshalb ist es umso wichtiger – wahrscheinlich wichtiger als je zuvor –, dass die Europäische Union endlich – wie es Jean-Claude Juncker einmal genannt hat – Weltpolitikfähigkeit erlernt. Wir müssen als Europäische Union endlich unserer außen— und sicherheitspolitischen Rolle in dieser Welt gerecht werden.

Ich möchte nochmals allen danken, die hier im Plenarsaal anwesend sind, die zu dieser Debatte beigetragen haben, nochmals danken den Schattenberichterstattern und dem Team des Hohen Vertreters und Vizepräsidenten der Kommission und insbesondere auch dem Vizepräsidenten der Kommission Maroš Šefčovič, der heute die gesamten zwei Stunden hier im Plenarsaal mit dabei war. Ansonsten möchte ich vollkommen das unterstreichen, was Kommissionspräsidentin Ursula von der Leyen heute zur Sicherheits— und Verteidigungspolitik gesagt hat. Wir müssen jetzt endlich konkrete Schritte gehen.

  Sven Mikser, rapporteur. – Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, representative of the Council, colleagues, I will not repeat what I said during my initial remarks. Let me just say that it has been a very constructive debate and I believe it has further underscored the need for a more confident and more militarily capable European Union.

The CSDP implementation report and also the CFSP implementation report that we are going to be voting on later today, I believe lay out a good and credible path towards that more capable and more confident European Union. It’s been aiming at a moving target and it will continue to be aiming at moving target, but we will have to continue adjusting our sights and making the effort.

I would like to finally thank all the colleagues, especially the shadow rapporteurs, as well as the staff, the assistants and the advisors who have contributed to putting together this report.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, State Secretary, honourable Members of the European Parliament, first, I would like to thank you for this very important debate, which all political leaders of the groups and most of the honourable Members clearly called a milestone.

You would recall that a few years ago, talking about European sovereignty, strategic autonomy or European defence was very difficult in Brussels, but also in this House. But it’s quite clear that two wars close to our borders, energy prices crisis and rough geopolitics, which are shaking the international post-Second World War order and security architecture, galvanised the European response. I would like to reassure all of you that we in the European Commission hear you loud and clear and we respect your calls for urgent action.

Ms Hayer was referring to the European miracle of peace, and it’s clear to all of us that this miracle must be defended now. Ms Reintke was rightly underlining then that United Europe is more secure Europe. Therefore, I appreciate the overwhelming support for strategic autonomy and common procurement.

We know that common procurement or common purchase works. As the common purchase of vaccines, we have incredible results for common purchase of gas, including the latest round concluded yesterday. It clearly demonstrates that if the European Union acts together and uses its political weight and economic strength, we always get excellent results because the world listens and business acts. And I am sure that we will succeed with this approach also in the area of defence.

I would like to thank both rapporteurs, Mr McAllister and Mr Mikser, for the important reports on CFSP and CSDP. And I would like also reassure all of you that all your interventions regarding unwavering support for Ukraine, the importance of complementarity of our actions with NATO, creating conducive environment for financing an investment for defence sector, calls for better interoperability, increase of production capacity and more coordination will be properly reflected in our proposals on the EU Defence Industrial Strategy and investment programmes which we will table next week.

As you probably heard me saying in different settings, I am convinced that European unity is our most precious currency. So let’s use it wisely and again, to build Europe, which should be even stronger, more secure and ready for this new insecure world.

  Mathieu Michel, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, honourable Members, allow me to thank you for your longstanding support to the EU’s common security and defence policy.

Today’s debate illustrates the importance of staying united and firm in supporting Ukraine with the tools to defend itself. In the European Council of 14 and 15 December, EU leaders stressed the importance of timely, predictable and sustainable military support for Ukraine, notably through the European Peace Facility and the EU Military Assistance Mission, as well as through direct bilateral assistance by Member States.

At the Special European Council of 1 February, EU leaders gave a clear task to the Council to reach agreement on the Ukraine Assistance Fund by early March 2024. Work is currently ongoing in the Council.

The European Union has stood by Ukraine and for peace since day one, and we will remain steadfast in our support until Ukraine prevails against Russia’s aggression. It is important to strengthen the defence industrial sector and to work jointly to better create synergies in defence production. In this sense, we are taking concrete steps: the conclusions of the December European Council called for the swift presentation of the European defence industrial strategy.

The Commission, together with the High Representative, should present this strategy very shortly. The aim of the strategy is to strengthen the European defence technology industrial base in the broad sense. The issues of access to war materials and critical technologies, harmful dependencies and security of supply are part of this discussion.

Its aim, however, is not to build a protectionist industry. Its aim is to build a competitive industrial base that will help support and address Member States’ and allies’ requirements. The strategy will offer a framework and vision for the next years, it will not in itself be a legal or regulatory instrument.

Besides, the European Council has also called on the Commission to present a proposal for a European Defence Investment Programme, or EDIP. EDIP was announced in the joint communication on defence investment gaps. EDIP would be an industrial programme building on EDIRPA, ASAP and possible other elements. The EDIP Regulation could serve as the anchor for future joint development and procurement projects of high common interest at EU level.

If we wants to be a geopolitical player in an increasingly dangerous world, we need to have the means to defend ourselves, but also the capacity to respond to challenges and emerging conflicts in other parts of the world, be it in Africa, the Middle East or even the Indo-Pacific.

  President. – Thank you very much State Secretary Michel, thanks Vice-President Šefčovič, thanks to the rapporteurs David McAllister and Sven Mikser and of course to everybody who participated in the debate.

The debate is closed. The vote will be held today.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 171)

  Marc Botenga (The Left), par écrit. – Parfois, nous lisons que la collaboration militaire entre pays européens permettrait de dépenser mieux et donc de dépenser moins. La présidente de la Commission européenne vient d’avouer que ce n’est pas l’objectif. L’objectif est de dépenser plus. Et comment? En offrant des subsides énormes et gratuits aux multinationales de l’armement, dont les cours en bourse se portent pourtant très bien depuis la guerre en Ukraine. C’est une erreur. Cette politique renforcera les entreprises d'armement au détriment d'autres entreprises. D'autre part, certaines entreprises qui pourraient produire par exemple des avions Canadair de lutte contre les incendies seront poussées à produire des avions de chasse. Une militarisation de l’industrie. Direction une économie au service de la guerre. Ce n'est pas cette Europe-là dont nous avons besoin. L’Europe ne doit pas s’inspirer du modèle impérialiste américain, qui dépense des sommes folles afin de pouvoir faire la guerre partout dans le monde. Il faut d’abord rationaliser les dépenses. Nous dépensons déjà bien plus que d’autres pays, pensons à la Russie, l’Inde, ou le Brésil. D’une part, nous devons nous focaliser sur la défense stricte du territoire. D’autre part, nous devons investir dans une sécurité collective sur le continent européen, seule garantie d’une paix réelle.

  Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR), na piśmie. – Jeśli chcesz pokoju, gotuj się do wojny. To przysłowie łacińskie jest dziś jak najbardziej aktualne. Powinniśmy je bardzo poważnie wprowadzać w życie. Historia i rzeczywistość wokół nas potwierdzają prawdziwość tych słów. Niestety, wojna nie jest dziś dla nas zagrożeniem hipotetycznym, ale trwa realnie za wschodnią granicą UE i zagraża nam wszystkim. Rosyjski agresor nie zamierza wycofywać się z ukraińskiego terytorium ani przerywać zbrodniczej napaści. Coraz częściej grozi krajom sąsiadującym z Ukrainą, w tym Polsce. Naszym obowiązkiem jest być gotowymi, by bronić naszej wolności, życia i wartości. Dlatego przystąpienie Szwecji do NATO jest dobrą decyzją, która powinna być też sygnałem dla Ukrainy, Gruzji czy Mołdawii – państw partnerskich i sojuszników NATO. Tylko działając wspólnie, dbając o współpracę transatlantycką, mamy realną szansę, by powstrzymać imperialistyczną, agresywną politykę Rosji i Putina. Ukraina nie może być osamotniona w obronie przed siepaczami Putina. Jeśli nie zostanie on z Ukrainy wyparty, kto wie, gdzie pójdzie za ciosem? Z terrorystami się nie pertraktuje, a lista rosyjskich zbrodni z każdym dniem jest coraz dłuższa. Wspólnie i solidarnie walczmy z tym zagrożeniem, bądźmy tak gotowi, jak to tylko możliwe, bo nie mamy żadnej gwarancji, że rosyjska agresja nie uderzy w kolejne państwo.

  Witold Jan Waszczykowski (ECR), na piśmie. – Z niepokojem odbieram kolejną debatę o europejskiej wspólnej polityce bezpieczeństwa i obrony. Dowodzi ona, że historia nie uczy Europejczyków. Przypomnę, że nie poradziliśmy sobie sami w pierwszej i drugiej wojnie światowej. Ani w zimnej wojnie, ani w konflikcie bałkańskim. Nie daliśmy rady sami w Libii ani w walce z państwem islamskim ISIS. Jesteśmy bezradni wobec rosyjskiej agresji na Ukrainę. Unia nawet nie próbuje rozwiązać ostatniej odsłony konfliktu palestyńsko-izraelskiego. Dlaczego, mimo tak negatywnych doświadczeń, znowu marzymy o samodzielności militarnej, o strategicznej autonomii, kompasie etc.? Wojna rosyjsko-ukraińska powinna definitywnie przekonać nas do ścisłej współpracy transatlantyckiej. Właśnie teraz, gdy za oceanem pojawiają się wątpliwości, powinniśmy przedstawiać wiarygodną ofertę współpracy zamiast autonomicznych, egoistycznych rozwiązań.

Niepokoi również lekceważenie faktów. Nie mamy w Europie wspólnej definicji i wspólnej listy zagrożeń. Nie możemy zatem mieć tych samych odpowiedzi na różne zagrożenia. Nie może też większość narzucać innym sposobów przeciwstawiania się zagrożeniom. Wspólnie zaś musimy brać pod uwagę różne uwarunkowania różnych państw członkowskich. Zachodni przyjaciele powinni zrozumieć wreszcie, że nasze wschodnie doświadczenia i oparte na nich propozycje zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa Europie są realistyczne i praktyczne.

Powstrzymajmy Rosję od ingerowania w Europie, utrzymajmy obecność USA i miarkujmy hegemonistyczne zapędy niektórych państw członkowskich. Tylko polityka solidarna i transatlantycka współpraca zapewni pokój naszej Europie.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.20)

PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA
President