'The war continues because of Russia' – Zelensky's full speech at European Council
Editor's note: This is the transcript of President Volodymyr Zelensky's address to the Special European Council released by the President's Office on March 6.
President Costa!
President von der Leyen!
Dear colleagues, glad to see you all.
I've already spoken to many of you these days and weeks, and I am grateful for your support. Ukrainians really appreciate that in a time of such great emotions in global politics, European integrity is preserved, and Europe is really trying to do the right thing.
First. I want to inform all of you that our teams – Ukraine and America – have resumed work. We hope that next week we will have a meaningful meeting.
Ukraine has been seeking peace since the very first second of the war, and we have always said that the only reason why the war continues is because of Russia. Ukraine is not only ready to take the necessary steps for peace, but we are also proposing what those steps are. And I ask you to support us in this – support Ukraine and those European leaders who are helping to pave the way for peace.
We see several steps now.
Everyone needs to make sure that Russia, as the sole source of this war, accepts the need to end it. This can be proved by two forms of silence that are easy to establish and monitor, namely, no attacks on energy and other civilian infrastructure – truce for missiles, bombs, and long-range drones, and the second is truce on the water, meaning no military operations in the Black Sea.
The next step is basic trust to the circumstances in which the negotiations are taking place.
Ukrainians, all Europeans, Americans, every human heart in the world that does not agree with the war – we all need to feel that the Russians are not deceiving us. The release of prisoners can be a means of establishing basic trust.
And this should be based on the understanding that any truce and any form of trust building measures can only be a prologue to a full and fair settlement, to a comprehensive agreement on security guarantees and an end to the war.
Let me emphasize once again that Ukrainians do really want peace, but not at the cost of giving up Ukraine. Is Russia capable of giving up the war – this is the question that any negotiations must answer.
Read also: Trump's alignment with Russia derails Europe's push for a peacekeeping force in Ukraine
And please be sure that Ukraine will share all the details of peace plans and talks' process to all of Europe, every European nation that helps must be on board on the path to peace.
Second. I urge you to continue to support the position that any issues related to Ukraine's security should be resolved with Ukraine's participation, just as any issues related to the security of your nations or any issues related to the security of our entire Europe should be resolved with your participation. Only this can guarantee peace on the continent and respect for the interests of all European states. That is why we are trying to ensure that European interests are represented. Anything that affects the security of Europe should be resolved with the participation of Europe.
Third. I thank you for your determination to help us defend Ukraine. Every day and every night we have to protect lives. Russian ballistic missiles continue to strike our cities. The shelling at the front continues. Russian sabotage groups are still trying to enter our territory across the border in Sumy and Kharkiv regions. Moscow is not reducing its investment in death, increasing its army, and making no pauses in trying to overcome sanctions. Russia now has 220 brigades with war experience. In five years, they will bring this number to 300. We need to respond to this by taking care of lives now, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
I welcome the European Commission's efforts to re-arm Europe and the Rearm Europe Plan is the right initiative. The defense funds under this European Plan should strengthen all parts of Europe, and I call for a significant part to be allocated to arms production in Ukraine – our industrial capabilities are the fastest and most relevant to the current security threats.
Read also: Trump lifting US sanctions on Russia would be 'huge win' for Putin, 'chaos' for global economy
I welcome the efforts of my European colleagues – and this is not just about the EU, but about Europe in a broad sense – to increase national defense spending and modernize national armies. Everyone in Europe needs this. When we agree on the format of the Armed Forces of Europe, this format will rely on the strength of national armies and on the experience of deploying partner contingents in Ukraine, which is what we are now working on.
I also welcome the investments of all partners in the defense industry – in Ukraine and in your countries, the industrial base of Europe must grow.
Europe should become the place where the most technologically advanced and effective weapons in the world are produced, and this is not a fantasy if Europeans really set themselves this goal.
And a few more things. I'm grateful to you for the 16th EU sanctions package, and we must continue this pressure. We need a 17th sanctions package. The sanctions should work until Russia stops the occupation.
I know that a special European financial instrument for Ukraine's resilience is being developed, please speed up this work.
In all these circumstances, it is needed to speed up the work of our teams in the negotiations on Ukraine's membership in the EU. As of now, the work on clusters is actually blocked without any rational reason. We need common sense, we need to unblock the work on clusters, and this can be done at the leadership level.We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
12 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump may have to choose: Making trade deals or keeping his car tariffs
President Donald Trump is telling domestic audiences he won't cut his 25 percent tariffs on foreign cars as part of any trade deals he negotiates. But other countries — who collectively send millions of vehicles to the U.S. each year — haven't gotten that message. Trading partners like the EU, Japan and South Korea are laboring under the impression that the auto tariffs, which Trump imposed in April, are still on the table, according to two people familiar with the talks between Trump officials and those countries, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. If Trump is really unwilling to lower or eliminate his tariffs on foreign cars, it could prove to be a major hurdle to securing meaningful trade deals with some of the country's top trading partners. Japan, South Korea and Germany sold more than $121 billion in cars and car parts in the U.S. in 2024. The White House did not answer when asked if auto tariffs were on the table for negotiations and instead reiterated the goal of the tariffs. 'No president has taken a greater interest in reviving America's once-dominant auto industry than President Trump, and the auto industry is a key focus of the Trump administration's trade and economic policies,' said Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson. 'Discussions with our major trading partners continue, and the Trump administration continues to seek better trade deals for American industries and workers.' A decision to lift the tariffs for more countries, particularly those whose companies compete most fiercely with American carmakers, risks alienating a powerful manufacturing bloc and undercutting a central tenet of Trump's trade agenda — forcing companies to build more products in the U.S. The Trump administration has assured American automakers that when it comes to auto tariffs being used as a bargaining chip, they have 'nothing to worry about,' according to a person familiar with discussions between the administration and Detroit's 'Big Three' auto companies, granted anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talks. Trump has said a deal to lower the tariff on a small number of British cars, announced last month, was an exception. 'I won't do that deal with cars' for other countries, Trump said when announcing the terms of negotiation with the U.K. on May 8. The British auto brand Rolls-Royce is 'a very special car and it's a very limited number too. It's not one of the monster car companies that makes millions of cars,' he noted. Even that agreement, which lowered the tariff on 100,000 cars, less than 1 percent of total U.S. annual car sales, drew a sharp rebuke from U.S. automakers. 'This hurts American automakers, suppliers, and auto workers,' the American Automotive Policy Council, which represents General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, said at the time, saying they hoped it 'does not set a precedent for future negotiations with Asian and European competitors.' The tension between the two goals — boosting domestic auto production while also negotiating delicate agreements to lower trade barriers — highlights the challenge facing the administration as it races to secure deals with dozens of countries before the president's double-digit 'reciprocal' tariffs are slated to kick back in next month. 'To ease the sting of those tariffs on the auto sectors for Korea and Japan is of course a high priority for them,' said Michael Beeman, a former assistant U.S. trade representative who focused on Japan and South Korea. 'I think for those countries, to be able to declare success from the talks at home, they would expect some sort of consideration.' The auto tariffs have already been a sticking point in negotiations with Japan and South Korea, both of which are invested in maintaining a high level of domestic auto manufacturing. Auto exports from South Korea to the U.S. have exploded over the past 20 years, from $8.7 billion in 2005 to $37.3 billion in 2024, according to data collected by the Census Bureau. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has said publicly that any trade deal with Japan would have to result in lower auto tariffs. Now, as the two countries are on their fifth round of talks, with a planned meeting between Ishiba and Trump at the G7 in Canada in two weekends, both countries are projecting optimism about a deal. 'I think we'll also need to address, at a minimum, the auto [Section] 232 tariffs,' said Wendy Cutler, a former negotiator with the U.S. trade representative's office and the vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said when asked what it would take to get a deal with Japan. Cutler said any deal with Japan or South Korea could have a lower tariff for a certain number of vehicles, similar to the deal with the U.K. Or, 'they could also just be very vague and say that the U.S. notes Japan's concern on the auto tariffs, and both sides agree to negotiate possible lowering of the tariffs in this detailed negotiation to follow,' she said. Trump has already agreed to lower tariffs on automobiles once. In his first trade agreement since imposing a global 10 percent tariff on nearly every U.S. trading partner and potentially higher rates on more than 60 countries, Trump struck an agreement with the U.K. that would allow the country to ship 100,000 vehicles into the country at a 10 percent tariff — lower than the current 25 percent tariff on automobiles and auto parts. The deal drew condemnation from American automakers, who noted that it meant a lower tariff on cars imported from the U.K. than on North American-made cars that include U.S.-made parts. They expressed concern that lowering tariffs with major auto manufacturing countries like Japan, South Korea and Germany would make it more expensive to build cars with parts from North America — creating an unfair playing field and effectively undercutting the administration's effort to boost domestic auto manufacturing. Vehicles made across the integrated North American supply chain still face a 25 percent tariff on non-U.S. made content, even if the vehicle is compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term. The Trump administration has continued to press foreign automakers to move production to the U.S. Last week, Trump met with German automakers, who offered $100 billion in investment in the U.S., according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Trump — and Republicans on Capitol Hill — say those commitments are a sign that tariffs are working. 'They make BMWs in South Carolina, Volvo. They make Mercedes in Alabama,' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pointed out during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday. Under Trump, 'They're talking about making the engine now in South Carolina. They're talking about more content in South Carolina.' There has yet to be an uptick in U.S. auto manufacturing, however, a reminder that the investment pledges will take years to fully develop. Auto manufacturing jobs held steady between April and May, though there were 2,240 fewer auto manufacturing jobs in May, compared to 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While welcoming the announcements, the Trump White House has given no indication the investment pledges will convince the president to lower auto tariffs on foreign countries. 'I mean, unless somebody shows me that there's another kind of a car that's comparable to a Rolls-Royce,' Trump said in May, 'and there aren't too many.'
Vox
29 minutes ago
- Vox
Trump deploying the National Guard is part of a bigger plan
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. After protests erupted in response to federal agents raiding businesses around Los Angeles to arrest immigrants, President Donald Trump quickly decided to dump fuel on the fire: On Saturday night, the president declared that he would deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to the city. Given that presidents usually only activate the National Guard upon a governor's request, it's an extraordinary step that bypasses California Gov. Gavin Newsom's authority, since Newsom made no such appeal. This isn't the first time Trump has considered sending in the military to squash local protests. In 2020, when nationwide protests broke out after a police officer murdered George Floyd, Trump also wanted to display an overwhelming show of force to respond to the demonstrations — so much so that he even inquired about shooting protesters. But a standoff between Trump and the Pentagon eventually pushed the president to decide against deploying troops across the country. This time, Trump has a more subservient Pentagon. On Saturday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on X that 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized,' adding that 'they are on high alert.' The chaos unfolding in Los Angeles underscores that Americans are living under an administration that is far too eager to use the power of the state to suppress dissent and a president who is far too keen on siccing the military on American citizens. Trump's latest effort might make 2020 look like a trial run and shows just how unrestrained the president has become. Can Trump deploy the National Guard without governors' consent? It is generally illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement within the United States. But there are exceptions. The Insurrection Act — one of the president's emergency powers — allows the president to use the military against American citizens on domestic soil, including in nonconsenting states, to quell an armed rebellion or extreme civil unrest. That's why President Lyndon B. Johnson was able to deploy the National Guard to Alabama without its governor's consent in 1965 — the last time a president activated a state's National Guard troops against that state's wishes, as Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the New York Times. The Insurrection Act itself was last invoked in 1992, when President George H. W. Bush used it to send troops to Los Angeles in response to the Rodney King riots. However, that action was taken upon then-Gov. Pete Wilson's request. So far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, he has cited Section 12406 of the US Code, which gives the president the authority to call members of the National Guard of any state into federal service when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The president can use as many troops as he considers necessary to 'repel the invasion' or 'suppress the rebellion.' That statute, however, is more limited than the Insurrection Act since it applies only to the National Guard and not the US Armed Forces more broadly. It also states that the order to call in National Guard troops should be issued by governors. Since California did not issue that order, Newsom has said Trump's move to federalize California's National Guard is 'unlawful' and requested that the federal government rescind the deployment. Newsom indicated that his office intends to sue the Trump administration over this matter. Trump is escalating his assault on Americans' fundamental rights — just like he said he would Trump has long made clear his disdain for dissent and protests against him, and now he's taking it to the next level. His move to deploy National Guard troops in California is already an escalation from how he responded to the George Floyd protests in 2020. At the time, Trump focused his efforts on Washington, DC, where — perhaps in a prelude to how he is handling the protests in Los Angeles today — he sent National Guard troops from 11 states into the nation's capital. DC's mayor objected to the deployment, but because DC is not a state, Trump had more leeway to exercise military muscle. He ultimately decided against deploying the military in other states. Trump's reliance on federal officers to squash protests made DC a testing ground for a strategy he could eventually try elsewhere. What he's now doing in California is the natural next step. Indeed, after Trump left the White House in 2021, he lamented over his administration's supposed restraint during the George Floyd protests and said that should he return to power, he wouldn't wait for governors to make requests for federal assistance. 'You're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,' he said in a 2023 campaign rally. 'The next time, I'm not waiting.' During the campaign trail, he and his allies mapped out plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day back in office to quell protests with military force. That is precisely why so many feared a second Trump term. Where Trump may have shown more restraint in his first administration — because he feared political consequences or because some officials stood in the way — critics feared he would be more unleashed in his second, both because he has nothing to lose and because his Cabinet would be staffed with even more loyalists. And that seems to be what's happening now, with the Pentagon seeming just as eager as Trump to unleash the US military on US soil and against American citizens. This is all part of Trump's broader assault on democracy — and his attack on the First Amendment in particular. Since coming back to the White House, Trump hasn't hesitated to punish people for exercising their right to free speech and their right to protest, going after students for participating in protests against Israel. His administration has detained and tried to deport protesters for merely expressing pro-Palestinian views, sending unidentified plainclothes immigration officers to abduct dissidents. Trump is now trying to use the might of the US military to further suppress people's free speech rights, dramatically expanding his crackdown on people's rights. And while Trump cited 'violence and disorder' as the reason he deployed National Guard troops, local law enforcement had not indicated that they were in need of federal assistance to restore order. What likely pushed Trump to deploy the National Guard (and get other members of the Armed Forces ready) is that he simply saw an opportunity to do so and he seized it. He is clearly more emboldened and even more averse to norms than ever before. Since Trump got himself involved in the protests, tensions have only escalated. But if anything, that might be what Trump wants: a dramatic standoff between protesters and federal troops. Ultimately, this strategy is less about 'law and order' and more about sending a message to Americans across the country: speak out against Trump and there will be consequences.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No drug price pledges in talks with US government, Pfizer CEO says
STORY: Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said Monday that he and other drug companies met with the Trump administration to discuss lowering U.S. drug prices but no commitments have been made. He made the comments at a Goldman Sachs healthcare conference. Last month President Trump issued an executive order directing drugmakers to lower the prices of their medicines to align with what other countries pay. According to the order, the administration was to set "Most Favored Nation" price targets within 30 days. The Department of Health and Human Services has said it expects drugmakers in the U.S. to set prices for their products at the lowest price paid by other high-income countries. Bourla said he didn't know what the companies would hear in 30 days and added the meetings with the administration so far were cordial but (quote) "not digging into the substance." It is unclear what mechanism the U.S. government will use to lower drug prices - analysts and legal experts have said the policy will be difficult to implement. Bourla said he is hopeful that, given U.S. pressure on European countries to pay more, prices there could increase. He said that if the U.S. resorts to price controls, Pfizer could consider not making drugs available for government reimbursement in some countries if prices don't increase there. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
