Informal meeting of foreign affairs ministers: press remarks by High Representative Kaja Kallas after the meeting
European External Action Service (EEAS)
30.08.2025
Copenhagen
EEAS Press Team
Check against delivery!
Good afternoon,
We had a very long discussion today, a very long day with the EU ministers, and I can already tell you that we did not cover all the points, so we did not get to the working methods discussion that we desperately needed. But we will do that in the coming months, definitely.
So, what took the time was very substantive discussions, first on Ukraine. The European Union and all the Member States support the diplomatic efforts to achieve peace and the end of Russia's war. But, it is clear that Russia is not preparing for peace. It is the opposite. They are preparing for more war. This week, Russia launched its second biggest air attack on Kyiv since the war began.
The strikes killed many civilians and damaged offices that belonged to the European Union and the British Council. Russian airstrikes also hit a US factory. So today, Ministers discussed ways to further increase pressure on Russia to really negotiate, to really come to the negotiation table and sit down and discuss with Ukraine. Sanctions have deprived Russia of tens of billions of euros to fund its war - and sanctions work.
Ministers discussed the possible building blocks for the next sanctions package. Options include secondary sanctions on those backing Russia's war, as well as import bans and tariffs on Russian products. Efforts against shadow fleet ships must also be stepped up, and I have asked the Member States for their proposals next week. The goal is to exert maximum pressure on Russia. Of course, new actions would be stronger if matched by our partners, including our transatlantic partners.
Today, Ministers also discussed the use of Russian frozen assets for Ukraine's defence and reconstruction. It was a very good and very substantive discussion. We needed this to hear all the arguments from all the sides, to really debate on the substance matter, and this discussion will continue. Ministers acknowledged the need to address Ukraine's financing gap and to hold Russia accountable for war damages.
To achieve this, it is crucial to explore all available avenues while minimising the potential risks. I want to stress that financial markets did not react when we froze the assets. Financial markets are calm now, as we discussed this, and there are risks, but I'm confident that we are able to mitigate those risks.
One thing is absolutely clear where everybody agreed, and this is that, given the devastation that Russia is causing in Ukraine and has caused in Ukraine so far, it is unthinkable that Russia will ever see this money again unless it fully compensates Ukraine the damages caused.
Second, Middle East.
First on Iran, the E3 - so France, Germany and UK - have begun the process of reimposing UN sanctions on Iran, and we had a short discussion on this. The 30-day deadline has started, and this does not mark the end of diplomacy. Tehran still has the chance to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and resume negotiations with the US over its nuclear programme. The ball is in Tehran's court. I stand ready to support any kind of diplomatic efforts towards finding a solution.
On Gaza, Israel's announcement that Gaza City is now a combat zone threatens to worsen the humanitarian situation. If a military solution was possible, the war would already be over. Gaza needs less war, not more war. And on the West Bank, Israel's decision to advance its West Bank settlements is illegal and undermines the two-state solution.
So of course, we discussed what more can we do.
We have been very active in contact with Israelis trying to improve the humanitarian situation on the ground. But of course, more needs to be done. Many EU Member States have taken measures not against Israel, but against the Israeli government. There is a very important distinction to be made. It is not against Israel, but the actions of Israeli government that are going on, including sanctioning the ministers, and suspending arms exports - this is what the EU member states have done.
On the European Union side, there is no sugar coating to the reality where we are. It was clear that today, a broad majority of Member States gave more ideas. What more can we do to really improve the situation; we will explore those ideas further. But it is clear that Member States disagree on how to get the Israeli government to change course.
The options are clear and remain on the table. We have presented an option paper. But the problem is that not all EU member states are on board. But again, we had a very good discussion on different options, and we will continue to try to find ways to explore, what can we do.
And finally, on the issue of denying visas to Palestinian Authority, so that they cannot participate in the United Nations General Assembly. In the light of the existing agreements between the UN and its host state, we all urge for this decision to be reconsidered, considering the international law and the way United Nations has been built up. So, this is the agreement that we all had on this topic.
Thank you very much.
Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/media/video/I-275995
Q&A.
Q. I want to ask you, yesterday morning you mentioned that in terms of sanctions against Russia, what would hurt the most would be more sanctions against oil and gas and as well as secondary sanctions. After a day of discussions, do you feel like we are any closer to achieving some of those measures in the next package?
Thank you. The work is ongoing. There were a lot of other ideas also put on the table, for example, financing institutions, and also the way our UK colleagues were mentioning - the things they have done and we can look into those possibilities. Crypto is one thing, although I don't know how it is doable in practice, but anyway, we are really exploring all the options and preparing. So, we agreed that the ministers will propose concrete matters also for next week, so that we can move with this. But I think Lars, you can echo that we had a very, very good discussion on really what more could be there, of course, in the end, the question is where we find agreement with everybody.
Q. On the Middle East, is it not the case that you are moving further apart on Gaza? We now have more countries, including Denmark, specifically calling for the suspension of the free trade part of the Association Agreement. So, in a sense, it is not just, as you said this morning, High Representative, that you are divided. Actually, the divisions are growing and the differences are growing. You are growing further apart. On frozen assets, the Belgian foreign minister was very clear this morning. He said: "You cannot kill the goose that lays the golden eggs". And he said he is also not open to even looking at riskier investments in terms of using the windfall profits so is not it the case that this is really a non-starter for now? Thank you.
Thank you. If the majority is growing, then the division is not getting bigger, but it is actually getting smaller, because the majority is growing. So, it depends how you look at it, but it is true that we still do not have an agreement on those measures. Like I said, there is no sugar coating in the way it is. Today, we had a very frank discussion on really asking those countries who are not in favour of one or the other measure. Okay, but what could be there? What could be then the measure, if we all agree, the diagnosis that the situation is grave, then the question for us is: What do we do about this? And there we have a growing majority on different topics, but we do not have yet the necessary votes together.
On the frozen assets. Like I said, we had a very frank and open discussion. So, I wanted to frame the discussion so that it's not the yes or no issue, because we have to think ahead to also have an exit strategy. We cannot possibly imagine - and, by the way, there is a European Council conclusion that those assets remain frozen until Russia has paid for its damages - so, we cannot possibly imagine that those assets are giving back unless they pay for the damages. We do not see them paying for the damages. So, we need to have an exit strategy so that, how do we go about this? And like I said, there are risks, of course, what also Belgium was raising and many, many others as well. Let's work on the mitigation of those risks. How we can put the really the solution together for the day after. Because if there comes a peace agreement, then there is also this question: What happens with those assets? And we need to have the answer, considering that we are a European Union that also respects the rule of law and everything, we have to have those rules in place, in addition to the international law that is already saying that those who are causing the damages should pay for the damages that they have caused. And the damages caused in Ukraine are done by Russia, not by European countries.
Q. Can you point to one concrete step regarding Israel that the countries actually agreed on today. After today's meeting, do you expect a more unified EU putting pressure on Israel and taking concrete steps?
First, we had an informal Council, so that means that we actually do not adopt decisions here, but we really have the political debates on where is the room. So, no decisions today. We were just testing where we can move, especially those countries who have been against. Are they willing to move on other topics, on other measures that we can do? That was the situation.
Q. You said this morning that you are not very optimistic regarding coming to a conclusion among the countries. And would you say that it is time to deal with the rule of consensus within the EU, regarding foreign policy to make sure that the EU, going forward, can make decisions and standing on marks, regarding Israel, for example.
Yes, that is why I wanted to have the point on the agenda today about the working methods. Do they really discuss how we can deliver? Because my personal feeling is that the people of Europe are also losing trust in Europe if we are not able to deliver on the decisions. So, this is really time to look in the mirror and say, what more can we do to be more effective? But unfortunately, the Middle East, the Ukraine discussion, took all our time, and I really did not want to limit the ministers this time, because it was important that we had the frozen assets discussion, very open and frank. But what we agreed is that I will have these discussions in smaller groups of Member States regarding the working methods, so really how we can go further, not theoretically, but really practically, on really concrete items, and within the limits of the treaties, of course.
Q. High Representative, you pointed to some measures that individual Member States have taken, but ultimately you have to go out in the world and be the diplomatic face representing the European Union. It has been more than a month since the proposal to bar Israeli startups from accessing some EU research funds under the horizon Europe programme. In that proposal, the European Commission said Israel is violating human rights in Gaza and breaching EU cooperation rules. We know that is stuck in diplomatic deadlock. So how is that stalled action impacting your diplomacy and your credibility, and do you have a message to those big countries, including the likes of Germany that are not in favour of EU level cooperation?
If you ask personally how that feels, that I am the face that is to blame that we do not have a decision, then it is hard. It is very hard. But the way the European Union works is that the High Representative is not making the decisions, but 27 have to come to agreement. That is why I am working so hard to get that agreement, to really address the sensitivities that one Member State or the other has, to find a compromise, to deliver. That is why, again, coming to the previous question, I really want to have the discussion also about the working methods to be more effective, to be able to deliver. Because it is true that I have to be responsible. I am the face that that has to then also comment these things. And it is hard. Of course, what we cannot overlook is that we are actually very active on this file. We are in constant contact with the Israelis, really putting the pressure on them. And we have achieved; if we take the humanitarian understanding that we have, there are more trucks getting into Gaza with humanitarian aid. There are more border crossings opened than before. There are vital reparations of critical infrastructure. There is fuel being provided. There are things that are improved, but it is not enough. I totally agree with you. Also, we are the biggest providers of support to the Palestinian Authority. We are the ones keeping the two-state solution alive. We are the ones who are the biggest providers of humanitarian support to Gaza people. But of course, this is what we see in the news. It is frustrating that we cannot do more. We are discussing, and I can feel - all the ministers feel - the pain that we want to do more to help those people.
Q. High Representative, you mentioned that all Member States support diplomatic efforts to achieve peace in Ukraine. But this morning, before the meeting kicked off, Hungary's Foreign Minister wrote on X. He described that the talks would be a pro-war tsunami for Ukraine, and that it would revolve around Ukraine's EU accession bid and military support. I'm curious, did he change his tune? What was the flavour in the room from the Hungarian foreign minister? And another question, on frozen Russian assets you said that it was discussed today. What did the discussion resemble regarding burden sharing and the legal repercussions? Is this a viable option? Is that the feeling that you are getting from the Member States, as a substantive option?
Of course, we do not comment on what one or the other Member States said in the room, but we had good, constructive discussions. Also, very open and very critical at time. So, not following what one or the other Member States are saying in their doorstep comments, but I can say in the room, we had very open and frank discussions.
On the frozen assets. Yes, one of the questions was about the burden sharing of risk, and there, the Member States were voicing that, of course, we are in solidarity with Belgium. So, they are not left alone with the risks - so let's work on the mitigation of those risks.
Q. It is actually two follow ups to what you said on the frozen assets. When you say it's unthinkable that Russia ever sees these immobilized assets again if they do not compensate for the damage done during the war, could you please explain the thinking behind it? Because it's very well possible that in peace negotiations, Ukraine renounces any reparations if it gets in return more control over their territory. So, it is clearly a chip in the negotiations. So why would you exclude beforehand that any such deal could be done? That's the first question. The second question, is this debate really about the, what you say, exit strategy or the end game? So, what happens in peace negotiations with Russia? Because a number of foreign ministers this morning explicitly said they wanted to use the money to fund Ukraine next year, and they pointed to the extensive financing needs and gaps. Are we not talking about something that is to happen before any talks with Putin might take place?
On your first question, there is a European Council decision that states that the assets remain frozen until Russia has paid reparations. That is the basis; so these are frozen by the European Union. And so, of course, unless this European Council decision is changed, then this is the point. So, this is a decision by all 27 Member States, and that is the basis for our discussions, really.
And now to other question. Yes, it is true that many Member States raised this issue, that Ukraine's funding gap is enormous, and we need to find the funding now. But it is also clear the political reality that Belgium and many other countries are not willing to discuss it now in this, but everybody agrees still that Russia should pay for the damages, not our taxpayers. So that's why I am stressing on the exit strategy, to be politically realistic, to work to find a solution there. Because there is the basis where everybody agrees.
Q. On the same topic of the working methods. I do not want you to pre-empt the discussion, but what would you like to get out of your colleagues? And bear in mind that you were a Prime Minister, so you very well know what it means for a country to renounce its sovereign decisions on very delicate issues like the foreign and security policy.
I do not want to pre-empt the discussions, of course, but the frame should be the treaties. Yes, coming from a small country that, for 50 years, did not have a voice, we really cherish the equal voice that we have around the table - as Estonia, in my previous capacity. Now, also, a majority of Member States have been very constructive to try to find compromises, in the spirit of compromise, "okay, I have a problem with this issue", and then others will propose, "okay, but maybe you know your problems can be mitigated by this solution." And I think this is the way it should be. If there is a risk that you are losing your voice, then you're also more prone to compromise, because you want your voice to be taken into account. So, of course, it is a very complicated issue, but I think it is an issue of credibility of the European Union. We are in this pivotal moment where our citizens are losing maybe trust in the European Union because we cannot deliver. It is a broader issue. It is just not a question of one decision, or the other. It is a broader issue, whether the European Union, as such, is able to deliver, whether we are relevant also on the global sphere.
Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/media/video/I-276315
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
