Committee on Security and Defence – Extraordinary Meeting with Commissioner Kubilius
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
SEDE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsAndrius Kubilius
We have unfinished business to take care of together with the parliament. We need agreements on key files that you are negotiating with the council. To start with defense readiness omnibus, which I would remind we as a commission approved last year in June. So June is coming of this year, and still we are in trial of negotiations. We cannot afford to slow down or water down.
Speaker 3
We're asking industry to speed up, and we must ourselves step up. Putin will not wait for us to finish the last dialogue in order to test us. And the role of parliament is decisive. You are jointly in the lead on three legislative files on this package. And in the last dialogue, parliament and council task teams to find common ground base for a technical level.
Andrius Kubilius
The goal is to reach an ambitious agreement in the coming weeks. So let's make it happen. The same is true for the military mobility regulation. The parliament made a great own-initiative report on military mobility quite recently. It had a real impact on our commission proposal.
Speaker 3
Today, I welcome the draft report by the SED and TRAN committees, and I thank you for your firm support for the goals of our military mobility regulation. You know it is not enough to produce fast, but also what is very important is to deploy fast. That is essential for our ability to deter and defend Europe. Your first discussion of the report last week was very promising. I look forward to continuing our close cooperation so we can have a swift and ambitious agreement.
The sooner we start the dialogues, the better. As the two lead committees suggested, let's get it done before the summer break. For our militaries to move fast, we must first legislate fast. You can rely on my full support and support of my services. On Ukraine support loan, we consider that this is now a really outstanding issue, a very important issue.
I thank you, I thank the parliament for triggering the urgency procedure for the regulation implementing the Ukraine support loan. And thanks a lot for your commitment and for being a driving force on this file. While the current Hungarian government agreed on the council in December, it's unblocked, as you know, the MFF amendment that allows common EU borrowing from the capital markets. But now the elections are over, the people have spoken, a new wind is blowing, and in any case, we're ready to implement the loan as soon as we get the green light. We are taking the necessary steps.
For example, on April 1, the College approved the Ukraine financing strategy and the first defense product schedules for drones. Things are moving on the council side too. They are discussing their financing strategy to approve a council permitting decision. Ukraine definitely needs this money. For 2026, Ukraine has requested defense assistance to a total of €28,300,000,000. The first product schedule focuses on drones from Ukraine's cutting-edge defense industry.
For the next product schedules, we expect more involvement of the European defense industry. The more cooperation between the Ukrainian and European defense industrial base, the better. Another running issue is our safe program of defense loans. In February, on February 1, I signed the EU Canada international agreement which allows cooperation with Canada under SAFE. I now call on the European Parliament to approve this agreement.
Last Friday, the council adopted the implementing decision to make financial assistance available also to France and the Czechia. The commission can conclude loan agreements with the member states concerned and start with paying the pre-financing payments. So member states can start using safe funds and can cover the upfront payments requested by industry. Out of the 19 member states that requested alone, only the Hungarian plan has not yet been cleared by the Commission at this moment. We expect to be able to find a solution shortly.
Besides running issues, we also have new proposals on the table. Before Easter, we presented Agile. Agile is about defense readiness, support for innovative SMEs, and learning from Ukraine. Agile goal, rapid delivery of innovative defense technologies and products to the armed forces. Agile is a fast and simple delivering funding support in four months, a mission driven to answer operational short-term needs of armed forces and affordable focusing on low-cost products.
Is based on what SMEs told us they need: faster funding, access to testing and demonstration, and clear pathways to contracts. Agile's budget is limited to what is left in this MFF, only around €115,000,000. But this money will be enough to pilot Agile so we can build on lessons in the next MFF. For that to happen, Agile needs to be operational by 2027. Again, we count on Parliament and the Council to make it happen. Time is of the essence.
In my view, this file would qualify for a fast-track procedure. And more proposals are coming. For adoption this autumn, we are working on proposals for a common market for defense products and services, so that we can fully mobilize our European market for defense. I welcome the recent report you prepared in this committee on that issue, which shows we think alike. And your report will certainly inspire our work.
We will revise the defense procurement directive with simpler rules so member states can buy better together in the European. We especially want to make the procurement of innovation easier. Another important goal, the organization of supply chains for better security of supply. We also plan to present a communication on the common market for defense products and services, taking stock of progress to date with a clear, ambitious direction for the future and concrete steps towards a more integrated, more European and more efficient defense market. Finally, award on the OEU Space Shield, the last initiative planned by our 2024 work program.
This summer, we will present a communication on the European Union Space Shield, a plan for all our space capabilities for defense and government users. We are now gathering input in workshops with member states and industry. So, in a nutshell, this is our progress on the commission work program for 2026. This is a common program, we have a common responsibility for the defense of Europe. And I know I can count on you to work together on this important goal to safeguard the defense and the future of Europe.
During this mandate, we managed to achieve a lot. Somebody said that during the first year, we did altogether more for European defense than was done during the previous ten years, maybe. But the challenges ahead are much bigger than those we managed to overcome until now. The biggest challenge is that Russia still is outproducing us despite the fact that we are investing a lot, but our production amounts are increasing too slowly. The publicly available numbers show what a big challenge we have in front of us.
Last year, the annual production of cruise missiles, Russia 1,100, European Union 300. Annual production of ballistic missiles: Russia 900, EU zero. Annual production of artillery ammunition: Russia 4,000,000, European Union 2,000,000. Annual production of infantry vehicles: Russia 3,500, European Union 500, etc. I can continue the numbers.
We don't want to switch to a war economy in Europe, but we need to remember that production numbers are the first deterrent. If we really want to deter Russia, we need to outproduce Russia. For that to be achieved, we need to produce. In 1939, he had started the war because he was convinced that he was able to outproduce all other Europeans. He lost the war when the Americans mobilized themselves and started to heavily outproduce Germany.
In order to outproduce Russia, first of all, we need to learn from Ukraine how to produce not only technologically excellent, but also very expensive and difficult to scale up hot couture defense production. Also, we need to learn how to make massive and much cheaper, good enough production. Ukraine is ready during this year, 2026, to produce around 700 Flamingo type cruise missiles. And during this year, they are ready to start to produce their own ballistic missiles. Next year, together with European partners, they will start to produce new anti-ballistic systems.
Our industries need to understand that if they will not find their ways how to radically increase their production, then Europe will start to look at how together with Ukraine to outproduce Russia. And I will finish with a clear message, which I hope will be understandable not only in this house. Europe is investing big amounts into defense, not in order to increase the prices of weapons, not in order to increase delivery times of weapons, and not in order to increase profits of the industry. Europe is investing in defense in order to defend peace. That can be achieved only with sufficient production.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much, commissioner. So we will now move to questions and answers in a ping-pong format. I will give two minutes for each coordinator's question and two minutes for each reply. And I start with Nicolas Paspole de la Parte. Nicolas, the floor is yours.
Nicolás Pascual de la Parte
Thank you very much, Madame Chair. Thank you very much, Commissioner Andrew, for showing up here again. I think that as you have said, Commissioner, we have done a pretty good job in the last year in security and defense ready matters. We approved the white paper, it's only one year before. Later on, we approved the road map that defined the content of this white paper.
Now, right in front of us, the signing of the new European strategy of security. And I think here that I said that before, but I think that it's now time to repeat it. We need a level of ambition in this strategy of security that encompasses all the problems we have confronting and not to renounce to create a real Europe of defense. I say that because outside this house and outside these institutions in many countries, they think that it is still not time for creating this European technological and industrial base, that they want to come to Brussels as a kind of cashier to get money in order to create their own national capabilities, not European wide projects, common procurement, European wide components and services. I think that this is something we have to prevent happening.
The money that we are going to give our members' cities for joint projects, for common projects, for European projects, not for national champions. That's why we need to go ahead with this technological industrial base, a European Union of Integrated Industries, not collaboration, not cooperation, integrated and with a European preference. We have agreed upon 65% in Egypt. Probably we have to reach later on 80%, or whatever. But again, we have to convince everybody that we have a small time in front of us in order to create common capabilities, joint procurement, and chains of command.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Andrius Kubilius
I can just agree with everything what you asked, maybe to use this momentum just to additionally say a few words. Definitely, one of the biggest problems of our defense industry is its fragmentation. We can read again and again Mario Draghi's report in order to understand what a problem we have. We are doing a lot in order to overcome that fragmentation with support for joint procurement. For example, SAFE loans, we're pushing for joint procurement.
Yes, we got two sets of contracts in the safe program as joint procurement. Instruments. We are now pushing for totally new instruments like EDPCI, European Defense Projects of Common Interest, where again we are trying to bring countries together to develop the project. But that fragmentation still is having a very heavy impact on everything we have today. And we need to understand that this fragmentation is a consequence of our historical legacy.
That in Europe, we have national defense policies, which is written down into the treaty, and that brings on this as an outcome this industrial fragmentation. So in order to overcome, really, we need to look at how to become politically more united. You know? And that's what I think is, you know, will be one of the big discussions which we shall face all together. Because from another side, what challenge we are facing is, of course, that our Transatlantic partners were eroding to national defense strategy and what Albert Scholby was speaking here about NATO three zero is asking us to take responsibility on European defense onto our shoulders, which will demand from us really to have much more tight institutional arrangement and much more political cooperation among ourselves.
Sven Mikser
Yes. Thank you, Chair, Commissioner. Thank you very much. And, I think we all heard very loud and clear your mild criticism. And I think it is indeed the case that we very often, when confronted with a very urgent matter such as the defense implication omnibus that we all recognize the urgency, then we are ready to cut some corners procedurally in order to save precious seconds and minutes, and then we get stalled for months thereafter.
And this is clearly something that we cannot and should not afford. But my question is this. I mean, even with all those projects that you described and that we undertake at the European level, the bulk of the resources will continue to have to come from the national defense budgets. And we have taken very ambitious commitments, all the governments have. But we have done this before, and very often, we have let them slide thereafter. So my question is, in the light of these recent developments, in light of the shakiness of the Transatlantic relationship at the moment and all these economic challenges that have been compounded by this US and Israeli war on Iran and the emanating blockade of the Straits, do you see the national governments holding firm in their commitment to actually reach the level of defense spending that would allow us to realize all those ambitious goals and commitments?
Thank you.
Andrius Kubilius
Well, I think that we know definitely with all the recent developments, perhaps what Madam Chair was saying at the very beginning, all of us would feel that the situation around Europe is becoming more tense.
Use this microphone. Okay.
Andrius Kubilius
Microphone. Yes. Good. So the situation is becoming more tense. Now it's not only in the Northeastern part of Europe, in Central Europe, but also in the South.
And that is definitely why, you know, I see much more of understanding that we need to invest into our defense. And if you look into opinion polls, for example, recently published by Politico, you will see how much European citizens want Europe to become strong in defense, and how much they prefer European defense instead of any kind of other possibilities of defense. So that's one thing. Second, definitely, shall face different issues including issue of possibility to spend some money and to procure weapons, which we need to have in order to develop our capabilities because still now we were procuring 40% of our weapons from United States. While talking back in Washington DC, and here I was talking with secure with Grunkevich, which I would, you know, suggest to invite to the committee, the situation now is very clear.
During, you know, this war in Iran, Americans spent two sets of their stockpiles of missiles and interceptors. And for the next four or five years, what they will produce, they will use for the army. So the question for us now, we were buying 40. Now it means that we need to find a way to replace. That is why our production needs to increase much more rapidly than it was increasing until now.
Speaker 3
And that is what is a concern for all the ministers. You know, and ministers really are very much concerned that the prices for the same weapons because production is, you know, increasing too slow if to compare with how rapidly money is increasing. The prices are increasing very rapidly, and ministers, I will not use the words which sometimes they say to me, you know, in rough language, I will say how they, you know, evaluate the situation.
Speaker 9
Thank you, chair. Commissioner, I will speak French. Thank you, commissioner. My question refers to the last topics you brought up about the stakes involved in missiles and munitions. You've been on a missile tour throughout Europe to make a point about the European production capacity.
You'll be in France soon, as a matter of fact. So my first question is whether you can give us, tell us about the travels you've had throughout Europe and what your expectations are when it comes to anti-aerial defense capacity in Europe, which is crucial. This is particularly relevant to the situation in the Middle East with delays in production and with American involvement in Europe, particularly because our countries are no longer a priority in the American geostrategic plan. In our discussions and work up till now, urgency has been more important than autonomy, particularly when it comes to munitions and missiles. Because in the context of Egypt, we have afforded derogations in favor of European production.
So bear in mind the situation we're facing now and the new stakes, which have appeared since the last time we worked on this. Do you think we need to harden these European preference criteria, particularly in the run-up to the next MFF? Do we need to abandon these derogations which have been granted to the munitions and missile sectors when it comes to the European preference? How do you see the evolution of European autonomy when these matters are concerned? Thank you.
Andrius Kubilius
Well, thanks a lot for a very good question. By the way, immediately, in one hour, I am taking the train to go to France. Tomorrow, we shall visit, you know, several very important missile producers in France. Now I can just tell you my impression, you know, where we are and what still are remaining the issues which we need to resolve. We decided to go for missile tour when we got the responsibility to prepare Ukrainian support loan, billion, my our services. You know?
And we were doing a lot despite the fact that Vito was, you know, a political obstacle. From Ukrainians, we got a very clear message about what is our priority. And our three priorities, 7,000,000 drones, extended range 155 ammunition, and then, of course, missiles. Choose those, like, drones and ammunition are more or less, you know, manageable. Missiles, of course, is a big issue.
I would remind you of numbers. You know, last year, Ukrainians faced 2,000 missile attacks. Out from then, 900 were ballistic. Russians modernized their ballistic missiles. Now the missile is able to take to change the trajectory, and it becomes much more difficult to hit.
So for Ukrainians, there is a need of, you know, 2,000 or even more Patriot missiles per year. The whole production of Patriot missiles in the United States is 750 per year. And then, of course, a lot of missiles were used in Gulf countries, and those are numbers also note. Now what we see as the problems. First of all, of course, what industries are complaining?
Speaker 3
Permits. That is why our omnibus is crucial. Second, lack of long-term contracts or lack of long-term visibility. What will be the demands looking in the longer term? Second, third one, supply chains.
Big companies, big primes can raise some money by themselves, but they depend on a supply chain of several thousand SMEs for whom to raise the money. It's much more difficult, especially without contracts. And the last point is what I said before, how to move from haute couture production more towards good enough, which can be massive, easy to scale up, and so on. So those are big challenges which we are still facing, but we're looking at how we can overcome them.
Rasa Juknevičienė
Thank you, chair. Thank you, commissioner, for your presentation. Indeed, in last one and a half years, a lot of work has been done, but there are some threats that are not, like theoretical in the future. And of course, I'm talking about the droughts. And as you all know, as Lithuanian, very well that quite often they are crossing Latin, Lithuanian and Polish borders.
And things are getting slightly better from our side, how to deal with them, but still very far from good. And as we know, we had the European Commission initiative, Drone Wall, which then transformed into drone initiative. So it'd be good to hear what is the developments in this area with this initiative, what's going on and how do we move. And the second, it's a bit connected. Of course, when we talk about the defense industry and weapons, they all consist of different components.
And some of them are critical components and come from maybe different or cross-industries. And if we want to achieve Europe's independence, of course, we need to be independent in the components also. And do we have any like assumptions or understanding in which part we have some gaps or problems which we need to fix, it's, I don't know, electronics, materials, or any other critical components? So, do we have something on this? Thank you.
Andrius Kubilius
Thanks a lot. Really, very good question. On drones, definitely we still see weaknesses on our side. First of all, weaknesses that we are not able to in the most effective way detect drones. So we need to change our detection system or to bring new systems to see or hear drones.
That's what Latvia is doing. So that's one thing. Second, we, as I said, you know, we started a new instrument called EDPCI, European Defense Project for Common Interest, where now we have several of those projects like drone defense initiative for Eastern Flank Watch, you know, with a proposal from several member states to develop that as a common European project. I think that can be really beneficial for such development. Very soon in May, perhaps, member states will propose initial initiatives they need to bring more developed projects.
And definitely, are looking also on who is able to produce what in Europe. We are mapping what we call mapping on drones. That is what we're doing. And the same is with the security of supply. We have the observatory for critical technologies.
What we need to have in mind when we are looking into bottlenecks in the future production. So that is one of the permanent questions to all the industries that they should inform us discreetly in a sensitive way, because definitely we need to be ready from that point of view. What can become a real problem. For example, we all of us, we know that in drones to produce those small engines, we have the problem with magnet materials, where again dependency on China is a very, very, very big one.
Nathalie Loiseau
Thank you very much. Natalie Loiso from Renew.
Thank you, commissioner. You already touched upon the topic I wanted to address. That is how we support Ukraine, because I think we agree that in the short run, our best defense is delivered by the Ukrainian resistance. And you mentioned that the war in the Middle East has diverted military equipment from the US and from Europe towards the Middle East to such an extent that Ukraine might lack necessary equipment, air defense, missiles. You are touring Europe, and rightly so.
But after what you have witnessed already, that is a slow rhythm of manufacturing, a slow level of orders, what do you think should be done? A few years ago, your predecessor, Thierry Breton, came with ASAP to foster the manufacturing and delivery of ammunition. Would you consider something similar so that now that we know that the US is turning its back on Ukraine and that everything is on the European shoulders, we do what we have to do because it's our interest and it's our priority.
Andrius Kubilius
Definitely, it's very clear that this is our priority. And even becoming big and stronger with all what I was telling about what are the consequences of Iran war for the supply of weapons from United States. So I did not manage to answer the previous questions about our autonomy. Autonomy comes to know in real terms that Americans will not be able to provide any to us. So we need to look at how we can build our own production.
ASAP really is a very good instrument, which was established by previous commissioner Bretonne, and we test it. Really, it works. 2,000,000 of ammunition is out from before that we have 300,000 per year, now we have 2,000,000 as a consequence of Assap. So now in Egypt, we have Assap much broader. It can also be used for supporting missile production.
The only problem is that the money which we have in Egypt is 1,200,000,000.0. So how to do and what to find additional money, that's a remaining question. From another side, from one side, really, I am depressed by our numbers and our slow, you know, pace of production. From another side, really, I am absolutely amazed how Ukrainians are building their own production. It's incredible.
Speaker 3
You know, from one side, we saw and I visited in Kyiv, you know, production of Flamingo. We were talking now with Destinus, a Ukrainian company which is working in the Netherlands and producing again missiles, interceptors, and so on in big numbers, not really good enough. You know? And that is what, you know, really, they have very clear plans. Ukrainians have very clear plans how they will, you know, go through this period when perhaps, you know, Patriot missiles will be much more difficult to find.
So as I said, they are planning to start to produce also anti-ballistic systems together with Europeans. So what we can do, we need to support the Ukrainians in that drive. So that would be my very simple answer. It would be good if we and Europe also would be able to become much more dynamic in development, learning from Ukraine, creating joint ventures with Ukrainians. But still, we are quite behind.
Thank you very much, Martins.
Martins null
Thank you, madam chair, and good to see you again, Mister Corbilius. I have two questions, one about the standing force and second about the command and control. So, commissioner, in January, you proposed a standing European force of 100,000 troops. That got a lot of attention, but also a lot of skepticism. So are you still promoting this idea? And has it gained any attraction with the member states of all your colleagues?
And what is the actual next step to move it from the speech into something concrete? And then about command and control. You have also talked about the need for European headquarters and European command and control. And we spoke last week with the EU military staff. And the argument we heard was that building up C2 at the EU level should come first, even before we have a large joint force.
Because without it, we cannot take over command of the national forces when we need to. So, do you agree with that order of priorities? And are you looking at expanding the MPCC beyond its current limits, so it could plan and run something bigger?
Andrius Kubilius
Yeah, I'm always trying to steal something. So thanks a lot, very good question. I would maybe remind you, you know, what context we were talking about. The context is, you know, and we need to remember that we are facing at the moment, you know, two big shocks and said is Iran, you know, which, you know, also I would call as a shock, you know, especially on availability of defense products, on availability of weapons. But the first two ones is, you know, the shock that Russia can, you know, start aggression against us.
This is one shock. Second, that Americans really are very clearly declaring that they will shift more and more towards the Indo Pacific. Now that is what is written into their national defense strategy. That is what I would certainly know again recommend to read Elbridge Colby speech to the NATO council on so called NATO 30. Why they are very clearly saying that they would like to see Europeans taking responsibility for conventional defense of Europe, primary responsibility?
Speaker 3
Americans will be able to provide only secondary support, whatever that means. No. Perhaps very limited because they will take, you know, they will move into Indo Pacific. Now if Americans are going with that strategy, and I do not have arguments to disagree with them, that Europe needs to take much more responsibility, then we need to see what we shall need to replace here on the European continent when Americans are leaving. First of all, we shall need to have European strategic enablers instead of American strategic enablers, where we are very heavily dependent on them.
Then if Americans are attracting the 80,000 or 100,000 military troops which they are now keeping on the European continent. The question is how we shall replace them, because American troops are playing the role of rapid reaction force with very high qualities. So how shall we bring that quality instead of Americans? Shall we look into combination of 27, something like that, but experts are saying that the quality will not be reached. We need to have something like a European force, standing force.
That is where this European rapid reaction force idea, European Army is coming from. I still keep that as important. Now everything else on headquarters, other things, think that is really will be very much needed discussion because when prime ministers and our leaders and chancellors are talking about European pillar of NATO, which we need to build and strengthen, that, of course, will demand from us very clear answer what kind of headquarters we shall have. Either we are creating European ones, or we are organizing existing NATO headquarters. That will be a big question mark.
Now in addition to that, of course, you know, what you were talking with European military staff people, I think it's very important also for us to see what role we shall give them when we're talking about operationalization of article 42 7. That can come even quicker than bigger architectural questions about the European pillar of NATO.
Speaker 18
So you said that the European Union is not there to sponsor the profits of the military multinationals. But then, at the same time, you note that the Russians are producing more with less resources. And I think that does raise some questions. And I've seen that 2024-25, Rheinmetall, which has had a lot of European support, has paid €750,000,000 out to shareholders, Thales over €1,000,000,000, BAE over €1,000,000,000, and MBDA, which you will be visiting, I think, next week, several hundreds of millions too. And I do find that striking because the European Union is giving them taxpayers' money.
Speaker 16
So we're making available that money, and then they're paying it out to shareholders. I think that does raise some concerns. And then in the US, now there are some investigations going on to see whether there has been a structural fix or setup. And, apparently, they're paying for a screen button, which is then used in Iran, and they're paying billions of dollars. And at the same time, this is something which could have been made for much less money.
Speaker 21
And we have seen that a few years ago, the EU was held hostage by the pharmaceutical industry when it came to the price of vaccines. We paid 2 or 3 times the price of a certain vaccine. Some colleagues didn't want transparency at the time, and now people object that I recall the point. But my question is, do you have a specific view when it comes to the real costs of development, research, and innovation within these enterprises? What does it really cost?
Speaker 17
What is the justification for these prices? And has the commission put in place any new follow-up mechanisms for looking at what becomes of our funding? How are you sure that this is being used effectively so that we also have transparency? And then in parallel with what is going on in the U. S, are there any investigations on potential over-invoicing of taxpayers by these large businesses?
Well,
Andrius Kubilius
My initial statement last sentence was exactly expression of very similar concern, which I share with the industries when I visit them. And I'm saying that really we are investing in defense in order to build defense. And our best profit is peace, not profit in finances or industries. So what I would try to correct, first of all, when we're talking about that Russia is spending much less money, we need to compare comparable numbers. If you will look into how much Russia is spending for defense in so-called purchasing power parity terms, you will see that they are spending almost 90% of what we are spending for defense.
Speaker 3
So this is not such a big difference. And they have, of course, a poor economy. So, of course, industries, I would be very happy if we would see that industries are making profit in selling more of the produced weapons, not because of the increasing price of the weapons. We have strict rules on auditing how industries are using the Q budget. But we are not, this is what member states need to look at because we are not procuring.
Andrius Kubilius
Member states are procuring what industries are producing. But definitely this topic of how to keep, how to say, defense products inflation under some kind of control, that topic is very, very important.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much. And the next will be Mr. Neuherf on the ESM. The floor is yours.
Hannah Neumann
Thank you very much. I'll speak in German. Mr. Corbilius, you repeatedly mentioned that we have to learn from Ukraine, and this is something that we can see quite clearly. Of course, Ukraine is at war right now.
And then Ukraine presents its achievements, of course, with huge support from abroad. That means dependency as well. And third, Ukraine is conducting a high-tech war. There are two high-tech, if you like, sectors. One is, of course, the European Union, and then what's developing in Ukraine.
And the other involves the abilities, the space abilities, in other words, satellite-supported abilities. And here, Ukraine, of course, depends on Starlink. That means on a US American private enterprise. This is what provides the service to Ukraine, Starlink. And the ESA with regard to that, well, they're considerably behind as far as investments, as far as space capabilities.
And the director of ESA at the Paris Air Show said that all other space countries or countries involved in space are investing much more than ESA is investing. And the second part involves the artificial intelligence system, support system, that's used on land and in the air. And once again, Palantir, a US enterprise, with its Gotham program, has, of course, created this program and supported it considerably. And my question is, is there in the European Union any sort of enterprise which has been involved in activities which would be comparable to the activities of Palantir in Ukraine, and which would be able to produce some sort of concrete results in the foreseeable future as well? Thank you.
Andrius Kubilius
Well, first of all, on space abilities. Yes, we very well understand the challenge of what we call strategic enablers. I was speaking about that we need to invest into replacement of American strategic enablers, which we are using in a very intensive way here on the European continent. And among strategic enablers, the most important enablers are exactly related with the space. Space secure communication like Starlink or space intelligence data, which also has very big value in modern warfare.
So we're building our capabilities. Iris Square, as you know, will be something like a European Starlink. Some experts are saying that it will be better than Starlink. I don't deny that. You know, we shall see.
Speaker 3
And also we are looking for building our Earth observation governmental service for intelligence data from space. Technologically, we in space are really good. We should remember that, for example, Galileo is the best navigation system in the world. It's better than the American GPS system. So we can do a lot.
Andrius Kubilius
Sometimes we're starting too slow, but then when we are gearing up, we're able to have results. Now, definitely, artificial intelligence is coming into defense technologies. Palantir is a very well-known company, really for battle management systems. As I understand, the Europeans are also building some kind of their own products. For example, Italian company Leonardo was suggesting, you know, a defense system based on so-called Michelangelo project.
Speaker 3
We shall see how it will go. Battle tested battle management system, you can see again. In Ukraine, so called Delta system, which produces which gives, I think, similar outcomes as Volantir system. I'm not saying which is better, but, you know, really, we can learn a lot from Ukrainians.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much. It's time for a second round. Colleagues, we have 30 minutes for the next question. So please reduce your question to one minute, and we start with Christoph Gomer.
Christophe Gomart
It's always a pleasure to be able to talk things through with you, Commissioner. There are capabilities that we cannot produce on our own, each on our own, without working together. We can't be dealing with these things on our own. Otherwise, we are fighting a pipe dream. And I think there are various priorities.
Firstly, industrial combat. We need to reduce European dependencies. And it's not just about a single market, but an intergovernmental market, and we cannot have a European preference with just 24. It needs to be 27 countries. So we can't just be having all the partnership countries.
And then there's the Internet issue. We may not win in AI if we don't have a sovereign cloud and a sovereign social network. Then there's the space combat. We need to have an advanced alert system. We don't have that now in order to detect and stop missiles, but also to occupy space.
And as you've said, we have the opportunity with Galileo and Copernicus, which are great projects. We need to pursue them. Then there's military combat. NATO is disengaging, and we need a stronger military in the EU. And, also, we need to strengthen the moral elements of our population.
Thank you.
Andrius Kubilius
Well, I just can agree with a lot of what you have said despite we can call, well, that discussion, do we have or do we need to have a single market in defense or that should stay as an intergovernmental market that we can continue. But I would say that really everywhere in Europe, we have a single market except that in defense, we have possibilities for derogations according to Article 346. Maybe we would use that article less intensively. We would have a little bit of different situation. And I would be happy to see that, for example, the German government would buy French products more easily or the French government would buy Lithuanian products more easily.
So that's what the market is about. Now really a lot of things which you mentioned, we need to develop our capabilities. I hear from our military leadership, really, a lot of concern about SORAN military cloud, which is a crucial, you know, part of now of modern defense arrangement. And other things really in demand. And as I said, what we were speaking about before and when we were discussing a lot about eligibility criteria and how to build our autonomous industrial capabilities with less dependency on American industry.
Now it's almost, I don't know how to say, naturally can become a reality because of how much American industry will be involved in producing what is needed for replenishment of American stockpiles. So that's that changes again the situation. Perhaps what we need to understand is that both in the United States and in Europe, we lack production in general. So we need to look how we can maybe strengthen each other in some ways in order to be more able to produce what is needed. But that's another topic.
Tobias Billström
You, Commissioner Kobilius. I am, first of all, very glad about your comments on the current market of defense. I think we are very much aligned, and I'm looking forward to your communication on that. But my question is really also on Article 427 that you just mentioned. I think you're absolutely right.
Europeans expect the European Union to provide for their defense, especially given the erratic behavior of the White House. But so far, we haven't seen much progress on the operationalization. So I would really like to ask you how far we are on that and what are the barriers on that at the moment? And the second question I have is, like, I also just came back from the United States. We see the problems the American industry has in producing missile-like air defense missiles.
And where are we actually in Europe on increasing our production? We had the European Sky Shield initiative. We had also, a couple of years ago, when we had the same problem with artillery, lack of artillery ammunition. Can we have something similar right now on air defense, like a European initiative on ramping up production, but also coordinating our purchase and our procurement of these air missiles, especially with regard to Ukraine, because they cannot wait and neither can we, and we need that production now. We need it on the European level.
Thank you very much.
Andrius Kubilius
I think that on missiles, I was really, you know, trying to explain even before what we have. We have, you know, I am really very deeply involved into starting trying to understand what is the situation with our missile tour. Now we are going to, after I was in Poland, in Italy, in Germany, in Sweden. Now I am going to France, then maybe the Netherlands and maybe Norway. You know, that's where missiles are produced.
And everywhere I see very similar problems. I was naming them. Now to resolve them very quickly, it's perhaps not so easy. It will take some time, but we can learn again. I can tell we can learn a lot from Ukraine, and we can finance Ukrainian possibilities to produce what is needed for them in a really effective way.
Now on 42-7, yes, that discussion is going on in commission. And in the ES, we are developing different language, but perhaps everywhere is a very similar understanding. First of all, we need to remember that 42 seven is broader than just military assistance. And I did my own research in, let's say, digital research in looking into how we are able to pro support the victim of aggression, the country which is facing military aggression now in, let's say, in civilian parts. Really, I was surprised how much of instruments we have developed as European Union, as commission. And sometimes, you know, since I had experience to be prime minister, I started to think it would be good to have on the table as a prime minister some kind of, you know, playbook where you would be able to, you know, if day x is coming to very quickly, you know what to do, you know, whom to call and what assistance you will get.
On military, there are some questions, you know, of legal sort, how we can better coordinate, who can take some kind of coordination role, exactly what role can be played by European Union military staff or especially departments. That can also be resolved, I think, quite soon. Also, what we perhaps need to also look into is that it will be good that we would be looking into 40 not only how to trigger it and what then is coming, but how to prepare for 42-7. If really we are facing in some countries in advance some developments around with adversary developments, we can look into possibilities how really to build some additional mutual assistance instruments where other member states can start to think about what they will provide in advance as that could make forty two seven really very practical and very effective.
Alexander Mondre.
Alexander Mondre
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, commissioner, for all that you are doing. Look. To succeed in that, we need the political will by member states. We need the resources or money, and we need a competitive and strong industry.
And to the last goes my comment. There is now this roundtable organized by the commission mapping of the European defense industries. And I just noticed that, you know, there's some sense of the lack of information among the member states, you know, the feedback on the selections of those companies which are invited or not. And here, I think it is very important. Just to make one parallel, so we had the automotive debate.
So commission was legislating something, offering some incentives, bringing some bigger on board. But then, you know, the company is facing the reality. They are now facing the verge of collapse in Europe. And I think we need to avoid this situation. So my question is, what are your plans to engage more, the defense companies and the member states together?
Andrius Kubilius
Well, definitely, you know, we are trying to use those opportunities to engage as much as possible both in Brussels, but also in the countries. One of the example is this missile tour, which really is very, very beneficial for us to understand all that, to have, you know, ground information about what industries are facing. And the problems are, you know, very similar. Perhaps on our side, what would be good, what industries really are complaining that they have a lack of this long term visibility, lack of contracts and lack of visibility. And that is most valuable information that they're asking us.
If we would find a way to provide such kind of more clear information, that would be much more of guarantees for the industries not to be afraid to expand their production lines. So that is why we are talking, for example, on IDIP, in IDIP format, about new instruments like supporting the build of so-called defense readiness stockpiles, because that can create some kind of permanent demand, or let's say the new instrument what we call our warm industrial facilities, when the governments or commission will pay some fee for the industries to keep their production lines ready to search to scale up very rapidly. So a lot of those things we are looking clearly at how to create for industries very clear information and ecosystem, what is from our side, what is the demand, and how we are able to support the industry. So that's definitely our very clear task.
Speaker 27
Madam President. Thank.
Thank you very much, madam chair. I'll speak French. Commissioner, I wanted to ask about the agile report that you mentioned during your speech. I think that Agile is something important because indeed it's important to support innovation, and there are lots of small businesses that struggle to scale up. And being able to give them something.
Even if there's only €5,000,000 per project, which is not a lot, it's still significant. And also to act swiftly for 2027. I think that's something we appreciate. However, there is something which concerns me in this report, and this is the financial setup. Because the funding will come out of EDIP, where we're already having difficulties getting enough funding, it will come out of IRIS 2, where we are already, again, very concerned about the ability to move fast on IRIS 2. And then there's a space program, the European Defence Fund.
These are funds which are already earmarked. And we, in the European Parliament, as a budget authority, are looking at the redeployment of budgets. And so our concern is really that we should have separate funding. We're willing to work fast with you on this, but on the condition that we have a different financial proposal. Thank you.
Andrius Kubilius
Well, thanks a lot. We know your concern. Really, it's reasonable. But the point is that what we want to do, really, is want to create a pilot project, Agile, and to test it during this MFF period. And in this MFF, we have in all the spending lines very limited amounts of money.
To create a special financial instrument, perhaps it will take more time before the new MFF will start, and we shall not be able to test this program. I understand your worries about that we're taking also some limited amount of money from Iris Square or space program. Definitely, this is a reality. But I would say, again, first of all, Agile also will be possible to use by space companies for defense purposes, which are working for defense purposes. So this is one thing that it's not like that the space is excluded.
And second one I see how much on a national level, how much of defense money now are allocated to space programs. In Germany and other countries, I consider that space is not lost during this period of time because of our developments in defense. Space is exactly maybe winning some kind of substantial new financial resources.
Billy.
Villy Søvndal
Thank you for being here again. I fully share your impatience. A lot has been done, but even more is lacking. When I visit defense industries, their main claim is that they need more security for the future if they are going to make the long-term investments. Could we make somehow some kind of derisking guarantees in a situation where, as you said, we are going to replace what's produced in The US today?
That's one question. Second one is about Ukraine. When I was the last time, they had a lot of capacity which was not used, but they had a lack of finance to use this capacity. There are a lot of good reasons for doing it. It says this in real life, it's half surprise and it's money to Ukraine.
Andrius Kubilius
Well, again, I agree with you now, absolutely on security for the future, member states' industries are complaining. And that is why we are looking for all the different new instruments, as I mentioned before, like defense readiness stockpiles, like our warm facilities. We can look into new types of contracts, framework contracts, and so on in order really to bring much more of this long-term guarantees. Of course, it depends very much on member states, how they are, because they are procuring weapons, what kind of contracts they are signing. Industries are very much complaining that for some, for all the different reasons, governments are signing very short term contracts, not long term contracts.
So that is one thing. And again, with either program, we have this ASAP type facility, which can exactly support or can co-fund the extension of manufacturing capability. So there are some instruments available. Now on Ukraine, very briefly, agree with you now. Really, like yesterday, perhaps yesterday, Chancellor Mertz being together with Zelenskyy said that Ukraine now has the most advanced, most innovative defense industry in all the world. So that is what we need to take into account when we are talking in general about how much we are producing in Europe.
Not only in the European Union, but maybe also in Europe, we're having in mind the United Kingdom, Norway, and Ukraine. And our money going into Ukraine really are creating very big added value. So we can look, you know, for additional ideas how to finance, but this is what I agree absolutely with you.
Mikhail Chawba.
Mikhail Chawba
Yes. Madam chair, the commissioner, first of all, I would like also to refer to the latest European pulse poll you mentioned, it was mentioned by, presented by Politico, that 86% of the Europeans are supporting European defense and strengthening its ability. It's also thanks to your work and our SADA committee. My question will go to the military mobility. As you know that I'm a SADA reporter on the military mobility package, and I would like to report to you and to my colleagues that we have collected over 1,200 amendments to the military mobility legislative package.
And tomorrow, the shadows will meet and decide on compromises. And referring to this, my question will go to the one issue, which is your opinion about the future scope of the military mobility framework in terms of its potential extension beyond the framework. So as you know, the European Union has signed a lot of EU security and strategic partnerships. And do you see this need in the future to extend and envisage this cooperation on military mobility beyond?
Andrius Kubilius
Well, I would understand extension of military mobility to our, let's say, neighboring countries like Ukraine, like other candidate countries to the European Union, and especially for Ukraine, this is very vital for the defense and security. But when we are talking about broader partnerships, I don't know how much we can look into joint projects of military mobility, for example, together with Japan or now we signed with Australia, and so on. So it's a little bit from a practical point of view, yes, we need to look a little bit broader, but on the European content. So that would be my suggestion.
Peker.
Pekka Toveri
Thank you, chair. Mister commissioner, one comment and one easy question. The comment is about the Defos Omnibus. I'm one of the board past that who is trying to negotiate it, and we are currently in a boxing ring where the parliament is in a center's empire, and then we have a council and commission on their corners, refusing to move even to the center, even to fight. We need the willingness to compromise.
Otherwise, these are not going to go. But if somebody is willing to compromise, as parliament has done already, we can move very fast. Thank you. And the question is about sea mines. We've seen in Strait of Hormuz what a dozen mines on a maritime chokepoint can do.
The big superpower is on its knees and can't do anything. Well, we have in Europe more capability for maritime mine countermeasures than Americans have, but still not enough considering that we are surrounded by chokepoints, and Russia has the biggest sea mine storage in the world, and they are not stupid. So it's not a sexy thing, but is there any discussion about improving our mine countermeasure capabilities in Europe? Thank you. Mine countermeasures, meaning, you know, three mine countermeasures.
Andrius Kubilius
On compromise, I was thinking that we are in the center as commission, you know, and parliament and council are, you know, fighting. Well, I hope that, you know, in that, you know, all three of us, we shall find compromise decisions. I hope so, but not what would be important, really not to water down. You know, what we have as most important, you know, points, so that's that would be important. Now on the mining capabilities, I need to confess that I am not very familiar with what is needed and what we need to have. Definitely now, with almost no issues, we see how much it can be needed.
And if, you know, we can talk maybe in a separate, you know, meeting on what in your experience, what is missing and what we can, you know, build up. That would be good. As I understand, several countries proposed as European CDPCI, also the project related to maritime security. So maybe it can also cover those issues which you spoke out.
To Nino.
Nino
Thank you. First of all, dear Andreas, it's good to see you back in the parliament, and I would like to congratulate everybody involved in the success of the European service module as a part of NASA Artemis 2 mission, of course. And my conclusion is if European industries are capable enough to carry Americans beyond, far beyond the dark side of the moon, I think they are capable enough to provide more security and more production of what is needed for Europeans to feel more safe in a way. But my wish is to draw your attention to another part of Europe where fragile stability meets intensifying geopolitical competition. We didn't mention it so far.
Speaker 34
So how do you assess the overall security situation in the Western Balkans? And what do you see as the biggest threat to security and stability, particularly concerning non-EU and non-NATO countries? Just for reminder, Russia minister Lavrov today claimed that the EU is militarizing and attempting to turn Serbia into a buffer zone against Russia. How do you view these remarks? Thank you.
One minute for this part.
Andrius Kubilius
of the world. Artemis, of course, is great, you know, and great that we really provided very important technology for that Artemis to become a success. Now definitely the security situation also investment in Balkans is a very big issue. I cannot speak about any kind of details here. In my view, if we are talking in general about geopolitical security, we should really push forward our agenda of enlargement and especially the Western Balkans.
Could be one of those stabilizing factors. Now Serbia, we know much better all the situation and all the developments. I hope that a lot of things now are happening which push member different countries to reconsider where they want to go. And we see really that also it's now threatening the environment around not in the Eastern part of Europe, but also in the South, is really pushing the governments to look for much stronger security development. So Europe is really the best choice for everybody who is living on the European continent.
European Union is the best choice to take care of security. So, of course, Russia is not happy that, you know, some of so-called traditional partners can change, you know, direction. I think that Russia is not very happy with the elections in Hungary, but that is how things are developing in Europe. I think that some leaders can also take lessons from recent Hungarian developments.
Thank you very much, Costa.
António Costa
Thank you, madam chair. Mister commissioner, just a piece of information, by the way. I don't know if you have been addressed, but today, this morning, we had an incident in Cyprus, a very serious incident. What began SREVT in veterinary inspection in the buffer zone in a bi-communal village called Pila has escalated to a very serious incident. And as we talk now, according to reports, there are 15 Turkish army tanks in the area.
So the presence of the Turkish occupied army in EU territory in Cyprus is not just a violation of international law and EU rule of law, but also is a source of instability and aggression. With that in mind, here is my question. How do we go about with European defense and security to make sure that our exports and know-how are restricted only to third countries that share our values and align with our defense vital interests, and respect international law. And connect that, please, if you can, so with the 42.7 defense clause. Thank you.
Andrius Kubilius
So, yeah, of course, we are concerned about all the instabilities which can develop anywhere in Europe or in the different regions, you know, and how to say, the situation worldwide is very fragile. It's enough of, you know, spark to have full fire and the stabilization. So really, it would be very important for everybody to look how to keep that stability. Now you asked very clearly about exports and EU regulation. At the moment, the European Union is not regulating exports at all.
This is for member states to regulate, and some member states are very strong in opposing any kind of or even thinking about possibility of introducing some kind of more clear legal language into that field of export. So that's one thing. Forty two seven definitely is important for all EU, especially in those regions which are now sometimes facing different challenges of the military or cyber or hybrid to know challenges. And that is what we I hope that we shall have proper language in how member states can ask for assistance and how that assistance can be provided.
Ignacio
Thank you very much, commissioner.
Since the last time that we saw you in Europe, we have a new threat to defense and security in the Mediterranean. Looking at the situation, well, recently, I'm observing the indifference of a number of different European governments with regard to the situation. Look at Spain, where the government has created chaos, true chaos, creating an agreement with a number of situations, forging ties with companies, creating a conflict of interest. And this, one year after it was established, is a strategic company for Spanish defense, for European defense, for Ukraine as well, a key defense element against Russian drones producing the necessary radars. So looking at the importance of this particular company, do you think that this type of political manipulation can affect the development of programs and destroy the entrepreneurial image, if you like, of the defense industry in Europe on the international stage?
Thank you.
Andrius Kubilius
Well, I cannot comment on any specific issue. We are not well informed. I can just say that, again, coming back to those opinion polls, which we were referring to here, which were recently published in Politico, we can see that, you know, Spanish people as German, you know, citizens, as Belgium citizens, very similar in their attitude towards European defense. They are very much in favor of European defense, very much in favor even of European army, very much in favor of supporting Ukraine. So that's what citizens are thinking about.
You know, leaders should follow the citizens. That's my very simple comment.
Speaker 40
In the last 60 minutes, first of all, I'd like to say that the people in Spain are in favor of a European army. But aside from that, I'd say that in 60 seconds, two questions. One, on the European intelligence system. How is management taking into consideration a managed, integrated system? Is there a capacity?
But there is no capacity, I would say. So we have a situation, which is an ecosystem around ecosystem in Europe, which really doesn't facilitate this type of cooperation. The second question on AI, military AI. Now we just came from Taiwan, where we were looking at Palantir, Waron and a number of different AI systems, all, of course, U. S.
Speaker 42
Systems and Huawei microchips, the Chinese technology. So, what is the model for AI military intelligence in Europe? What is it? Right now, how are we going to deal with this entire situation when we really don't have an AI military system in Europe?
Andrius Kubilius
Well, on European intelligence developments, we can remember present news report was very much, you know, exactly stressing the need for Europe to have a proper and well-coordinated intelligence system. So we have some, you know, developments, but we need perhaps to look into much stronger developments in that framework of us building the whole new defense architecture, like not new, but, you know, much more developed, like European pillar of NATO. You know, that would be very important. On artificial intelligence, volunteer, and other systems. Yeah. We are, you know, in some cases behind all those technological developments, but we can catch up.
I said that in Ukraine, I see a lot of, you know, good examples where we can learn, and we can see a lot of European companies coming into joint developments with Ukrainians. So I would not say that we are here in big trouble. We really need to develop those systems which are now very much used, and we see that in Ukraine. You know, as I mentioned, Delta system, battle management system, very well advanced. I don't know how much Europeans have of something of our own production, but talking with some big companies, they are moving in that direction.
Esther
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for being here. I try to be agile, and my question would go for the agile, the new program that you have presented towards March. I understand that this is a program that is filling the gap between the EIC, the Innovation Council, Defense Fund, but also the ADIP. And we have the pain point of the budgetary pain point, but I understand this is a pilot. So I was just wondering whether you see this as part of the future European Competitiveness Fund, because here we have a security and defense window.
Speaker 47
And also how the priority setting of the program would go. Would it be top down, bottom out, mix? Because we have the EDA Descartes, for instance, the priorities. But the European Innovation Council is fundamentally bottom-up. We have the budget also that is coming from different funds.
Speaker 44
So would it somehow be linked towards the priorities? And also, my other question would be, how would you see to ensure that there is really market uptake also from the member states so that procurement and that these are not only components, but also, if I understand correctly, they would go for the components that would be part of a more complex defense system. So my understanding is correct. Thank you.
Andrius Kubilius
Well, yeah, no, I think that your understanding is correct, and we shall discuss, of course, here in the parliament also our proposals. Our proposal is really to move also again learning something from Ukraine to go into what I would call good enough products, and to have much more rapid decision making. How we are making decisions on grants and how we are helping the companies with good products, which are needed for the frontline to move ahead very quickly towards production of what they will produce. So we were working on this agile and as a program together with the member states. So we hope that member states really will be very interested.
The whole program has a very clear mission. It's mission-driven. And well, I would not say that bottom-up or top-down. It will work, I hope, really, as an example that we can make, in some cases, very effective and quick decisions on development of specific products.
Thijs
Thank you, Chair. Yes, because this week it is also my role to ruin the good mood. We are not a problem. Are you not a problem. You are saying the right things and doing the right things, but that is in sharp contrast with the council.
Speaker 48
I cannot say anything else on that. And we have had several meetings also this week, where the council really reflected absolute lack of sense of urgency. So my question to you is, what do we need to do or what should happen to get the right sense of urgency? Second question on 42.7, you mentioned it. And these things and all the advisers on the internal market, they are in our reports on the internal market, in the CSDP, in the drones report.
Speaker 46
But on 42.7, can you reflect on where exactly the problem is with the development of the doctrine when it comes to territorial defense? I'm not talking about out of area operation, but why is it so difficult for certain member states to understand that defending Estonian territory is defending European territory as a whole? Thank you.
Andrius Kubilius
Sales of urgency, yeah, it's a very important question. And I would be happy if we would find some kind of miracle solution how to push all the institutions to make decisions, especially on defense, now in a very rapid way. If we are not looking for war economy, let's look maybe for defense decision making as some kind of specific procedural approach that would be good. I proposed and we are discussing one of the institutional arrangements, which I would call a top down approach in defense, which would allow to have much more top down approach in defense, because sometimes, really, a bottom up approach in defense is bringing not very much needed decisions in a proper time. And my proposal was about the European Security Council.
So that's what we are also looking for and discussing. On forty two seven, perhaps, you know, really, there is not so much of debates about constitutional nature because article speaks very clearly. If a member state is facing military aggression, then all other member states need to come with mutual assistance by all means. So that's now very clear. Now the question, perhaps, is very simple.
Should it be, you know, only member states level coordination and nothing else? And then you as a prime minister, if you are, you know, under attack, you are coordinating assistance from all the member states by yourself asking, you know, can you give me a helicopter? Can you give me, you know, air fighter and so on? As no. Again, since I was prime minister, I would see that as some kind of nightmare, you know, scenario.
Speaker 3
Plenty of problems, and then you are calling everybody around. The question here is, you know, can European Union institutions give, you know, some kind of assistance in coordinating that mutual assistance. So that's, in my view, a question. And especially when we are talking about military assistance, I think that here we can find, you know, proper language not violating treaty or, you know, as you know, EU is not involved into defense per se. EU is only on defense, you know, industry things on assistance to develop capabilities.
Andrius Kubilius
But you can be in some way facilitating coordination through our instruments which we have.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
23 questions, 23 answers. Thank you very much for your time, commissioner. It's really very important, and you could see how important it is for us. So safe trip and successful trip to our colleagues in Paris. And dear colleagues, our next meeting will take place in two weeks in June in Brussels.
Thank you very much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.