Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says Ukraine should win the war. What exactly does that mean?
Nicholas buses
Responsible editor for foreign policy.
Follow I follow
Matthias Rub
Political correspondent for Italy, the Vatican, Albania and Malta based in Rome.
Follow I follow
Not to be under Russian rule, to preserve its own independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
And a policy based on the will of the people.
What will the EU do to achieve this goal?
More of what we've already done.
Supplying arms to Ukraine, weakening Russia's economy, isolating Russia internationally.
I don't understand people who say that the more weapons you supply to Ukraine, the longer the war will last and the greater the suffering of Ukrainians.
Even in Europe some say that.
This argument can also be heard in Germany.
But I ask these people: Doesn't it matter how this war ends?
Should the Ukrainians get on their knees, torn to pieces by the Russians?
Is that what you want?
These people say that if no weapons are delivered, then the war will end.
And then what?
You see, wars end in negotiation.
But you have to come to the negotiating table from a position of strength, and the task now is to put the Ukrainians in that position.
We will also discuss this issue at Thursday's G-7 foreign ministers' meeting in Weissensee, where Germany is currently chairing.
What could a result at the negotiating table look like?
I dont know.
It will depend on how strong each side is.
Will the EU sit at the negotiating table?
This is a matter between Ukraine, Russia and an intermediary.
Who could that be?
Not us.
The Russians would not accept that, just as we would not accept Russia as a mediator.
China does not go either, since they lean towards the Russian side.
Turkey is doing a very good job there.
She has good relations with both sides.
Of course, the best would be the United Nations.
Negotiations in the EU about an oil embargo are not easy. What does that mean for a gas embargo, what would be the next step?
We pay Russia much more for oil than for gas.
If we stop that, then we have already achieved a lot.
Gas, on the other hand, is a strategic product because it is not only a source of energy, but also a raw material for the petrochemical industry.
And there it cannot be replaced.
We now have to find new suppliers.
How fast is that?
We were too naive to place ourselves completely in Russian hands and not have any LNG terminals on the coast in Germany, for example.
We have to admit that we made a mistake that we have to correct.
It will take a little longer, but we will get rid of Russian gas.
Another problem with oil is that the Russians can sell more to Asia.
You can't prevent that.
Not even through secondary sanctions?
The legal texts we are currently working on only stipulate that we will no longer buy from Russia.
India is already buying a lot of oil from Russia and they will continue to do so.
But you probably won't pay as much as we do.
It doesn't make any sense that we should spend our money to help the Ukrainians and at the same time fund the Russian war.
But we have to be realistic about it.
Not everyone in the EU can stop Russian gas and oil supplies overnight.
Countries like Hungary have objective reasons when they say I have no coast for the oil tankers and no pipelines.
We need a solution that fits everyone.
There was the difficult discussion about heavy weapons. Will we have to deliver more and more to Ukraine?
What is a heavy weapon?
Artillery and tanks for example.
Those are normal weapons in a war.
I know that the position of the Europeans is a bit demanding.
We say we don't take part in the war, but we take sides.
We want to weaken Russia's war machine.
We want to weaken the ability of Putin and his regime to baselessly attack a sovereign country.
We want to help Ukraine defend itself.
But we don't want to go to war with Russia.
You have developed a new strategic concept for the EU, the "Strategic Compass". Doesn't the Ukraine war show that there is no way around NATO?