Ukraine's borders must not be changed by force, EU leaders say
In a statement, European leaders said "the people of Ukraine must have the freedom to decide their future."
It added the principles of "territorial integrity" must be respected and "international borders must not be changed by force".
The statement was signed by 26 of 27 leaders. Missing from the signatories was Hungary's leader Viktor Orban, who has maintained friendly relations with Russia and has repeatedly tried to block EU support for Ukraine.
The statement underscored the nervousness felt by Europeans about Moscow's actions in Ukraine, which many countries – particularly those bordering Russia or those in which the memory of Soviet occupation still lingers – believe could pose a direct threat in the near future.
In recent years Sweden and Finland have joined Nato, Baltic countries have reinstated conscription, and Poland has set aside billions to build a barrier alongside its border with Russia.
European countries have a long history of borders being redrawn by bloody wars and are extremely concerned by the prospect of the US allowing that to happen in Ukraine. A legal recognition of Russia's sovereignty over territories it conquered by force is unacceptable to the EU.
However, the notion that some Ukrainian regions currently under Russian control may not return to Kyiv is gaining ground.
US President Donald Trump has insisted that any peace deal would involve "some swapping of territories" and could see Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea. In exchange it would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies.
Last week, while admitting that some Ukrainian territory might end up being de facto controlled by Russia, Nato chief Mark Rutte stressed that this should not be formally recognised.
In their statement, European leaders said "Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has wider implications for European and international security", and stressed the need for a "just and lasting peace".
They also said Ukraine should be capable of "defending itself effectively" and pledged to continue providing military support to Kyiv, which was "exercising its inherent right of self-defence".
"The European Union underlines the inherent right of Ukraine to choose its own destiny and will continue supporting Ukraine on its path towards EU membership," the statement concluded.
Denting the apparent unity of the declaration was a line in smaller print at the bottom of the page pointing out that "Hungary does not associate itself with this statement".
In a post on social media its leader Victor Orban said he had opted out of supporting the statement as it attempted to set conditions for a meeting to which the EU was not invited and warned leaders not to start "providing instructions from the bench".
He also urged the EU to set up its own summit with Russia – though EU leaders have been shunning direct talks with Moscow since it launched its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
On Monday Trump revealed he had sought Orban's advice over the chances of Ukraine winning against Russia on the battlefield. "He looked at me like, 'What a stupid question'," Trump said, suggesting that Orban felt Russia would continue to wage war until it beat its adversary.
EU leaders are due to hold talks with Trump on Wednesday. They will be hoping to put the security of the European continent and Ukrainian interests at the forefront of his mind – at a time when nervousness is growing that the peace imposed on Ukraine may end up being neither "just" nor "lasting".
Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin are then expected to meet in Alaska on Friday.
Zelensky could still attend Trump-Putin meeting, but rest of Europe is shut out
Why are Trump and Putin meeting in Alaska and when will it happen?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Joly: Visits to Saab, Lockheed 'normal' part of her job amid F-35 review
OTTAWA — Industry Minister Mélanie Joly says Canadians shouldn't read too much into her visit to a Swedish defence manufacturer that comes right in the middle of a major government review of the F-35 fighter jet procurement. Joly says she visited Saab's facilities in Sweden this week and was shown the Gripen-E jet, which is one of the possible contenders to replace the controversial U.S.-made F-35 fighter jet. Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered the review shortly after he became prime minister in March, as Canada sought tighter security and defence ties with Europe in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war. The review is to be completed by the end of the summer and Joly says her role in it is to ensure the Canadian government understands all its options and what the industrial benefits to Canada would be in its final decision. Joly says this is a "normal" part of her job, and that she will also be meeting with Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35, in the coming weeks. Joly is wrapping up a trip to Sweden and Finland with Secretary of State for Defence Stephen Fuhr, which was focused on strengthening defence-industrial ties in Europe. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 20, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Wall Street Journal
11 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Moscow Draws Hard Line Over Security Guarantees for Ukraine
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said any Western security guarantees for Ukraine in an eventual peace deal could only be enacted with Moscow's cooperation—essentially rendering them useless against another Russian invasion. Lavrov's remarks, at a Wednesday press conference with the Jordanian foreign minister, ran counter to the Trump administration's assertion that President Vladimir Putin agreed to European and U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine at the Alaska summit on Friday. They were also a potent sign that Moscow's position on the war hasn't shifted despite a surge in diplomatic engagement in recent days.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The state pension age could rise even higher. Here's what the experts think
How would the government make up that gap between people leaving the workforce and receiving their state pension? The government could be paving the way to increase the state pension age to 70, according to reports. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) could follow Denmark's example and link life expectancy to the state pension age, with the country already having pushed the age at which citizens can claim their pension up to 70. The potential plans have been raised as the government undertakes a pensions review to determine the state pension age for decades to come. Independent reviewer Dr Suzy Morrissey is leading the consultation, which has to happen every six years under UK law. Currently, the state pension age is already set to rise to 67 from next year and is scheduled to rise again to 68 between 2044 and 2046. Here's what we know about what is being considered - and what the experts think. What is the government considering? The review is looking at automatically adjusting pension ages to reflect life expectancy increases. The justification is that the move would help keep the public finances sustainable and distribute retirement fairly across generations. Countries employing this method also say that by linking pension age to life expectancy, there is a consistent balance between working years and retirement years for each generation. Denmark, Finland, Italy, and the Netherlands already follow this model, with Denmark set to raise the state pension age to 70 in the 2040s. However, there are some vast differences across these nations. Denmark has a more generous, mainly state-financed national pension, but it has significantly higher pension costs. Pensions take up about 17% of gross domestic product (GDP) spending in the country, compared to around 12% in the UK. Additionally, in countries like Finland and the Netherlands, employers pay a larger share of pension contributions than in the UK. Denmark is an exception where the state finances much of the pension. Finland and Sweden also fund part of pensions through dedicated assets, which helps prepare for ageing populations, unlike the UK's largely pay-as-you-go system. Meanwhile, Italy is believed to be struggling as it is known for having a very ageing population and relatively high pension spending, according to an international pension systems report. Difficult to justify? When analysing the benefits and drawbacks of linking state pension age to life expectancy, Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown and pension columnist for Yahoo Finance, said that it's clear putting up the state pension age would work in the government's favour. The government currently spends more on the state pension than on any other benefit, accounting for 12.2% of its GDP in 2023. Added to this, the government remains committed to the triple lock, a policy guaranteeing that the state pension will increase each year by the highest of three measures: inflation, average earnings growth, or 2.5%. "Pushing up state pension age to 70 would help the government to contain the burgeoning state pension bill," Morrissey told Yahoo News. "Increasing the state pension age could help ease the pressure on public finances, especially given the government remains committed to maintaining the triple lock," Lily Megson-Harvey, policy director at My Pension Expert, told Yahoo News. However, there are a lot of important factors that need to be considered, the expert said – including workers' longevity and health. The health life expectancy index is used to record not just the average life expectancy of a person, but the length of time the average person leads a full and healthy life. According to the latest government figures, this stands at 61.5 for a man, and 61.9 for a woman. "We've seen increases in longevity slow down in the aftermath of the pandemic, and this could make such a large increase difficult to justify," Morrissey said. "As recent data shows this figure is currently around 62 years of age, so the reality is that there are many people who will not be in a position to keep on working into their late sixties and beyond as their health simply won't allow it. "The state pension forms the foundation of many people's retirement income and thought needs to be given as to how to make up that gap between leaving the workforce and receiving their state pension." As the Centre for Ageing Better has highlighted, the main reasons older workers leave or cannot re-enter the workforce are down to health problems and disability. Added to this, many people struggle to find employment later in life. The UK employment rate for people aged 55 to 64 is only 65%, compared with 75–81% in similar European countries, showing that older workers have significantly lower employment rates than younger or middle-aged groups. Older workers are much less likely to be employed than those aged 35 to 49, with the biggest gap in areas like the North East, where there is an almost 20% difference. Morrissey told Yahoo News: "Many people feel overlooked in the job market later in life and this is a huge issue for them personally as well as the job market as a whole. "It is vital that more is done to keep older workers in work for longer so they can pass on their experience and skills while enabling them to continue to build their financial resilience. "We need to see more done to train older workers in new skills as well as the provision of more flexible working practices to enable those who are willing and able to keep working to do so," she added. What about lowering the pension age? Pension reform and age increases have been a long-standing source of controversy. Most recently, the government rejected calls for compensation for Waspi women, who argued they were inadequately informed about the state pension age rise, and either needed to work for additional years or face financial hardship while waiting for their pension. Former shadow cabinet minister Diane Abbott thinks the touted increase is "morally unacceptable", pointing out that almost a third of people never make it to the age of 70. Dr Will Stronge, CEO of the Autonomy Institute, also takes this view. "Raising the state pension age to 70, while intended to preserve fiscal sustainability, risks disproportionately penalising those in poor health, precarious employment or caregiving roles, many of whom cannot continue working until such an advanced age," he told Yahoo News. "It would exacerbate existing inequalities, especially among women, low‑income groups, and those with interrupted work histories who already face inadequate pension coverage. "It also undermines efforts to ensure dignified retirement and social cohesion in an ageing society, shifting burdens onto those least able to bear them." Stronge said that "instead of pushing the age higher", there is a strong case for lowering the pension age. "This is for health, wellbeing and wider care responsibility reasons. At the least, we should focus on reforms that strengthen pension adequacy, encourage fair contributions, and support healthy work-life balance," he added. Megson-Harvey echoes this. "Increasing the state pension age risks deepening inequalities. Many people, especially those in physically demanding jobs or with lower incomes, may struggle to work longer or save enough privately, making them more reliant on the state pension," she said. "This is precisely why long-term pension reform must include access to affordable, personalised financial advice, so that everyone, regardless of income or background, can make informed decisions and adapt their plans with confidence when the rules change." The government declined to comment.
