Check against delivery! 

Thank you very much for waiting. 

It has been one of the shortest [informal] Foreign Affairs Council meetings, but I have to say one of the most tense, in a challenging environment. I do not want to exaggerate, but certainly the situation [around the world] is worrisome – wherever you have a look. 

We had the visit of the new Foreign Affairs Minister of Ukraine [Andrii Sybiha‎] with news from Ukraine. We [were] dedicated to the two most pressing issues for the European Union and for the wider world impact in this week: Russia’s war against Ukraine and the very dangerous escalation in the Middle East - I mean Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank, wherever in the region. 

First, on Russia and Ukraine: For the first time, we were joined by Ukraine's new Foreign Minister, Andrii Sybiha, who substitutes our friend, [Dymitro] Kuleba. 

He briefed us about the continuing and intensified Russian escalation and bombing of civilian targets with missiles, drones, and glide bombs. It is clear that Russia has been receiving new arms, in particular missiles from Iran. This is what we believe – even if Iranians deny it, but it looks like it. 

In any case, Russian drones and missiles have been continuing to approach, and sometimes entering into the European Union Member States' space. This is very risky. The Russian drones and missiles are entering and approaching, and, in some cases, borderline entering in our airspace. 

Russia continues to hamper global food security. For a long time we have not been talking about food security, but the threat continues. Most recently, they [Russians] have been hitting a ship transporting Ukrainian grain to Egypt, in the Black Sea, in the Romanian economic zone. Not in the territorial waters, but in the Romanian economic zone. A ship transporting grain to Egypt has been hit by Russian missiles. 

In the middle of this situation, Ukraine is reacting fully and in line with its right to self-defence – Article 51 of the United Nations Charter – and needs more than ever our support. 

In the last days, Ukraine managed to destroy important stockpiles of Russian weapons very deep into Russian territory – in some cases, 500 kilometres from the border. This has been an important success for the Ukrainian army: it was about two big stockpiles of ammunition at 500 kilometres from of the border, which is certainly an important military capacity. 

On the other side, unhappily, there is the energy situation. 

This morning, I attended the G7+ meeting, chaired by Secretary of State [of the United States, Anthony] Blinken and the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, where we discussed about the energy situation in Ukraine. It is clear that Russia wants to put Ukraine into the dark and the cold. The winter is coming, and following Russian attacks against energy targets, Ukraine’s energy production capacity has been reduced by two-thirds. 

Just imagine, here in New York, or in any European Union Member State, losing two-thirds of the energy capacity production. First, on the electricity, due to the siege of Zaporizhzhia by the Russian troops. Secondly, due to the last bombings, they lost 9 gigawatts of production capacity. 

Winter is coming, and we have to support Ukraine, not only providing military capacity, but electricity production capacity. Otherwise, this country will be facing a very hard time in winter. 

In order to support Ukraine, we have made - at the [European] Commission - a proposal to raise up to €35 billion alone to support Ukraine, both militarily and economically. 

Both things have to be done at the same time. It does not make sense to provide [it] with an electricity generator today, if it will be destroyed tomorrow. It is not just “destroy and replace”. We cannot replace everything being destroyed, because it will be an endless process. 

So, we have to provide [Ukraine] with electricity generation capacity, with energy production capacity. One Member State is taking a power plant and taking it into pieces and sending to Ukraine to be reconstructed inside Ukrainian territory. At the same time, we have to provide air defence capacity, in order to avoid these capacities being destroyed as soon as they are being put into work. 

The call is to support Ukraine from energy and from the military side. For that we will provide this loan - €35 billion. Well, it is a proposal, it is not done. It is a proposal. Sometimes we announce proposals as if they were decisions. The decisions belong to the Council [of the European Union]. And the Council will have to take their position by a qualified majority, in this case. 

Yes, the situation in the battlefield, it is complicated. But Russia is still trying to fight in different fronts, especially the one opened with success by Ukrainian forces in the last weeks [in Kursk]. 

But there is a critical situation for Ukraine: it is energy production. No industrial country can survive without energy, without electricity. When you lose two-thirds of your production capacity, you are on the brink. So, we have to reinforce our capacity to supply capacities – both to replace what has been destroyed and to avoid these to be destroyed the following day. 

More air defence capacity and more capacity to allow the Ukrainians to attack the Russians from where the Russians are attacking them. Otherwise, they will do it with full impunity. 

At the same time, there is a peace process – or there is a will to end the war. And we are supporting the process started by Ukraine to achieve a just and lasting peace, a real peace. This is the only viable way forward. 

This will be our coordinated message here in the United Nations this week when we will meet our partners [from all] around the world. We will meet a lot of people around the world today, here, tomorrow, this week. 

And we want to support the peace process started with the Summit of Peace in Switzerland this June. 110 countries and organizations participate in this process. 

We look forward to the presentation by President [of Ukraine, Volodymyr] Zelenskyy of his ‘Victory Plan’ – a different thing. Ukraine has to improve their military situation in order to go to the peace negotiations in a good way, in a position of strength. 

So, Victory Plan is about how to conduct the war, Peace Plan is about how to get peace. And one thing is strongly related with the other. 

We see other peace proposals emerging. I want to be clear: any viable way forward has to be based on [respect for the] United Nations Charter. And these include Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and the right to self-defence. 

There is a United Nations General Assembly resolution, of February 2023 - not so long ago - with 141 votes in favour; and this should guide the peace efforts. 

And this resolution, allow me to remind it, calls on Russia to completely and unconditionally withdraw from Ukraine following a cessation of hostilities. This was, this is, and this remains [the basis for] a just and lasting peace. 

The Minister debriefed us on Ukraine’s efforts to advance on the European Union path, while defending itself from Russian aggression. I welcome and I can only encourage this approach, because remember, Ukraine is a candidate to become member of the European Union. 

I mention it because in a few weeks, before the end of my term, I will present together with my colleagues in the [European] Commission, the next enlargement report, where we will take stock of the progress achieved by our candidates, and, in particular, by Ukraine. 

Ukraine is fighting on several fronts at the same time, doing the reforms required to be a Member of the European Union, and fighting in the battlefield, and fighting in the rearguard. Trying to make the civilian population survive, be protected from the attacks, and have the economic and financial capacity to fulfil all the commitments of a state.

Our military support to Ukraine has reached €46 billion with the last figures, which is certainly an important amount. Together with our economic, financial, humanitarian support, it is more than anyone else in the world, and overpassing the €100 billion. 

Then we discussed on the Middle East. 

The meeting was very short, but these two issues, together with the third one, Venezuela, kept the Ministers very busy. 

On the Middle East, we discussed the ongoing, intensified hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, across the Lebanese border – and in Beirut itself – and the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. 

There are no more words to describe the situation in Gaza. There are no more words. The catastrophe continues. And the escalation in Lebanon is extremely dangerous and worrying. 

I was in Lebanon some days before, just before the explosion of these electronic devices [that] has been creating terror among the Lebanese population. 

The escalation is extremely dangerous and worrying. I can say that we are almost in a full-fledged war. We are seeing more military strikes, more damage, more collateral damage, more victims. 

Since Tuesday, in Lebanon, 500 people have been killed, and over 4,400 people have been injured. Among them, a high number of children and women. 

And what do we see through the TV screens? We see thousands of people escaping to the north, provoking big jams on the transport system, escaping because they have been warned that the attacks will continue, and the bombing too. 

I was some days ago on at the border between Lebanon and Israel, visiting the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) troops with a certain high-level degree of risk. I learned from them how things are going, the intensity of the fighting, of the bombing, both sides - each one has its own responsibility. 

But now we are seeing how civilians in Lebanon are paying an intolerable, unacceptable price. When in some days we talk about 500 people killed and 4,400 people injured, this is something that escapes any kind of consideration about the civilian casualties. 

It is again in the Geneva Convention, [the prohibition] to make explosives at a distance without taking any consideration for the environment where these explosives are exploding – either in a queue in a commercial centre, in a public square, on the street, in a hospital, wherever. 

These are targeted and at the same time random attacks. Targeted because of the purpose and random because of the consequences. 

I condemned it. I continue condemning it. The civilians are paying a high price, almost a full-blown war, which must be averted, including by renewing intense diplomatic mediation efforts. Here in New York, it is the moment to do that. Everybody has to put all their capacity to stop this path to war. 

Two weeks ago, I said I was in the south of Lebanon, and despite the warning signal, I think we are still hoping and working to stop this escalation. But the worst scenario – I have to say it – is materialising. The worst expectations are becoming reality. We need peace in the Middle East, because the ongoing escalation is a danger for the whole region. 

The path towards peace starts with a single step: ceasefire in Gaza. 

Ceasefire in Gaza and the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which was adopted in 2006 – my God, almost 20 years ago. Almost 20 years [after], I am still asking for the implementation of this resolution. 

You understand why the Secretary General of the United Nations [António Guterres] has said these days that the Security Council is losing legitimacy? [It is] because either they do not agree on anything, or when they agree, it is not implemented. 

This is a serious concern for the international community. These are the words of the United Nations Secretary General. The multilateral system is gripped. 

It is [now] United Nations General Assembly who is taking the political lead because the Security Council is unable to take decisions. And when they take decisions, [like the one] almost 20 years ago, we are still asking for its implementation. 

The resolution calls for a full cessation of hostility between Israel and Hezbollah and the withdrawal of both to the delimitation line. Well, we need to continue asking for this immediate ceasefire across the Blue line, as well as the situation in Gaza. 

They are not different. They are interlinked. They are strongly interlinked. What is happening in Gaza is triggering other war scenarios in Lebanon, in the Red Sea, and unhappily – and we do not talk enough about it – on the West Bank. 

The West Bank, which is called openly ‘Judea and Samaria’ by the Israeli authorities, as if it was already being annexed. 

Certainly, a ceasefire in Gaza is the only way to facilitate [to avoid] the escalation in the whole region. [It has not been] not reached yet. 

There was a “Biden Plan” presented, I do not know how many weeks ago. By the way, presented as a plan coming from the Israeli side. Well, it is still not there. 

Yesterday we had an important dinner to discuss about the prospects of the peace in the Middle East. And someone said - and I think he is right: “Start discussing about the political solution. Do not wait for the ceasefire, because the ceasefire maybe will not come ever.” So, do not wait for that, start discussing about the political solution, because you have been waiting for too long about the ceasefire. 

But I think it is our collective responsibility to continue asking for the [respect of] international law, humanitarian law, [to] engage with all parties, and to keep pushing them to the negotiation table. That is what the Foreign Ministers will do, all of them in a coordinated manner in their outreach to partners this week. 

Let me add two words on Venezuela. 

The issue was raised by Spain at the beginning of our discussion. 

You know the situation in Venezuela. You know that we cannot recognise the legitimacy of Maduro as being democratically elected. That we regret that Edmundo [González Urrutia], the candidate from the opposition, had to flee to leave the country and to look for political asylum in Spain. We will continue supporting the Venezuelans' right to democracy, to freedom, and political rights. I asked the Venezuelan authorities to end the repression, to end the arbitrary arrest and harassment of the opposition and civil society. 

We call for an immediate return of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to Caracas. And we insist that only a Venezuelan-led, peaceful, and inclusive solution will make a democratic transition in Venezuela possible. 

Allow me to finish my grim report with a positive note. The positive note is the Pact for the Future adopted. It is a milestone for the international community. Certainly, very much important. 

The Pact for the Future has been approved and it shows that we can come together and take decisions if the interest of future generations is there. I want to remark Russia’s attempt to spoil it and again to undermine our multilateral systems and the global cooperation. 

We held a tripartite meeting - African Union, European Union, United Nations, with the Secretary General yesterday - and together with our African partners, we have been working hand in hand in the adoption of this pact. I can say - with an important contribution of the European Union Member States - that this pact has been agreed. 

And I think that we have been working hard in order to take into consideration the concerns of the African people. People all around the world were very much interested in approving this pact, while Russia was trying to obstruct this agreement. But happily, [Russia] has been clearly isolated in this purpose. 

Thank you. 

Q&A

Q. Did you discuss this ‘victory plan’ today in this meeting with your colleagues? And the second question, you already said it a couple of times, that you believe that Ukraine should not have any limits with using weapons, like Western weapons, on Russian territory. Do you see any positive signs that this decision can be eventually made?

We will continue discussing that during this week, and in particular at the G7 level. I am leaving you to attend a meeting of the G7. This was an informal meeting. In informal meetings, decisions are not taken. In any case, Member States consider that this is something that belongs to their national capacity to decide. Some have already taken this decision, others still not, or they do not want to. Others, maybe they have not, but they do not say it. In any case, I know that inside and even [in] the decision-making process of the United States, this is being discussed. I will continue discussing it during this week. You know my position; my position is clearly in favour. Not everybody is supporting this position, but let's see what the position is at the end of the week.

Q. Did you discuss the victory plan on this meeting?

We do not know the victory plan. We know the label, but we have to wait to know what is inside the box.

Q. I have two questions for you. First one is about Lebanon. You said we are almost in a full-fledged war. Do you expect an Israeli invasion very soon of Lebanon, a ground invasion, I mean? My second question, will you be meeting with the Iranians this week to discuss Lebanon and to discuss weapons sent to Russia, Ukraine.

Yes, I am going to have a meeting with my Iranian counterpart [Abbas Araghchi]. I always do it. This is my seventh, and last United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Seventh; and I always meet with the Iranian minister. Unhappily, I am sorry, the last one was, as you know, was killed in a helicopter accident. I know the new Minister because I have been working with him in the past. We will discuss about everything, and in particular the nuclear deal, the support to Russia. We will do it, but I cannot tell you [about it] before doing it. We have to keep the lines of communication with Iran open. Whatever we disagree on, whatever we think we are not doing in the right way – there is a new President in Iran. The new President of Iran has been meeting with the President of the European Union Council; it is normal. We have to continue having lines of communication with Iran. That is why my Political Director [Deputy Secretary General, Enrique Mora] attended the inauguration in Iran. We will continue discussing with Iran, even to tell them what we think is being done wrong.

[On Lebanon] in less than one week – less than one week – 4,400 people are wounded and almost 500 killed. If this is not a war situation, you will tell me how you call it. Certainly, [there] has not been a land invasion. I am not a member of the staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, so I cannot tell you which are their plans, but it is clearly that they have been announcing once and again that the only solution is a full-fledged war, an invasion.

It is not an invasion [yet], but there are air attacks, there are strong bombings. I do not want to say that on the other side, Hezbollah does not have a lot of responsibilities also. Everybody has to understand who is doing what. But certainly, the influence of Iran in the Lebanese politics is evident. From one side or the other, due to the war in Gaza or wherever, hundreds or thousands of people have been displaced, both in the north and in the south. Also in the south, 150,000 Israelis also had to leave. But the solution is, I think, is not to increase the level of warfare. I do not know if it is going to be a land invasion or not, but in some cases you do not need to. If you have a strong aerial control, and you have a strong military capacity to bomb, maybe you do not need to invade. I am worried by the situation of the United Nations forces in Lebanon. Certainly, they could be caught in a fight. I hope that this is not going to create a difficult situation for them.

Q. You condemn, you call for a ceasefire. You are not the only one, of course. Israel does not seem to be listening. What more can you do, for instance, tonight with the G7? What more can you do, Europe can do? What more can the U.S. do to really influence Israel? Thank you.

That is a good question. Certainly, it seems that in spite of all the diplomatic capacity that we have deployed, nothing has been able to stop the war. I see that in these peace negotiations both sides are procrastinating. They pretend to [negotiate], but in fact, for one reason or another, there is not a ceasefire agreement. So, in these situations in the past - [we must] have a look at the history. The history is very long. The history is very long. In [19]82 there was a big war in Lebanon. And in 1991, there was a peace process in Madrid. In both cases, the diplomatic pressure came together with some, let's say, incentives. Measures. It seems that for the time being, this is not the case. “Why should I change my behaviour if I do not pay any penalty for doing [this]? Why should I change if there are no consequences?”. This week, we will talk about it.

Q. The Al Jazeera Bureau has been closed in Israel. And now in the last few days, our operations have been shut down in the West Bank, which is being illegally occupied by Israel. Now, once again, this is an example of Israel acting with impunity on its action on the press, but it also appears to be typical of what you have just said, of it is operating without any pressure from outside forces.

Yes, the closing of the Al Jazeera offices was in Ramallah, no? And with the West Bank. It is very bad news and we certainly have to condemn it. Israel has imposed in Gaza the longest blackout in a war in history. The longest blackout. No press was inside Gaza, only Al Jazeera - paying a high toll on the number of journalists being killed. This is something that everybody has been condemning. But believe me, I do not have any capacity to make this behaviour change. This [creates] a lack of information of what is happening inside Gaza or what is happening in the West Bank. That is a fact. I am not inventing anything. This is a blind situation where there is no witness on to what is there, being able to explain and to show what is happening. Al Jazeera was there, and was giving a precious service to the information of the people. So, I regret and I condemn the closing of the office in Ramallah. 

Q. How do you take the fact that these attacks happen in this moment when it was supposedly a week where everybody was supposed to meet in New York and discuss peace? Do you take this as a provocation already? And my second question, I am coming back to Leon’s question; this morning one of the 27 heads of state told us “only Netanyahu can stop this.” You are telling us we need to do concrete actions; we need to push. So, what kind of concrete actions can be taken or are we in total powerlessness?

You know, I am not a commentator. I am not a [political analyst] or another think tanker. I have full responsibility of what I am saying and what I cannot say. So, you will understand perfectly that, you know, the diplomats have to say the truth, only the truth, but not all the truth. So, there are issues in which I cannot enter without taking a lot of risk. But have a look at the history. I cited you two dates in history, 1982 and 1991, and explore what was happening then.

Q. What can you do? What are your tools in your toolbox?

We have [them]. Well, thank you for your attention. I am sorry for presenting things in a way that is not exactly the best situation, but things are the way they are. Put the action on the positive note, that we agreed on the Pact for the Future. And Russia was completely isolated in this discussion. 

Thank you. 

• Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-261096