here and I do believe between the public sector foundational issues that the EU and the United States are working towards, the private capital will be there alongside. And that is really a remarkable statement, and it is our entire desire to making sure that that capital is put into the ground as soon as possible, that each and every Ukrainian citizen can see the renewal, the rebuild, and they see a pathway for stable and predictable stability and freedom. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Larry. As you can see, we have a galaxy of heads of government here, but I thought I would begin with the one gentleman who is not a head of government at the stage, who is Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO. Mark, first, thank you for being here. I know you've been busy for the last 24 hours saving the Western Alliance, for which we all thank you. And you're almost getting as much applause as the Ukrainian soldiers. I guess the question would be, if I may, do you feel after these last few days that the crisis has been resolved over Greenland and that Greenland will remain a sovereign territory of Denmark? And does all of this give you a sense that the United States under the current administration is truly committed to the support of Ukraine and to the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine?
Yes. But let me say on Ukraine, absolutely, the answer is yes. And I've never doubted this. President Trump is the one who broke the deadlock with Putin, started to negotiate, which was crucial because he was the only one who was able to do that from his position when he came into office in January. And he is pushing with Steve Witkoff, with Jared Kushner, with Marco Rubio endlessly, of course with help from many Europeans—Jonathan Powell I see here, and so many others in this room—working day in, day out to get the Ukraine issue solved, to get the war brought to an end, a sustainable end where Russia will never ever try to attack again.
And when it comes to the Arctic, President Trump in his first term already said we should spend more time and more energy on the Arctic, and to defend the Arctic against the Russians and the Chinese because the sea lanes are opening up. Greenland, yes, not only Greenland, it is the whole Arctic. Seven nations in NATO, one outside NATO: Russia. And these seven have to defend themselves against Russia and China. And what we discussed yesterday—it was a very good discussion—is how can we do that? One, how can collectively the NATO allies help here, the seven in the high north and also others to support that. But the seven in the high north, including the United States, because also the United States is an Arctic country because of Alaska, and of course Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway. How can we make sure that these countries collectively make sure that the Arctic stays safe, that the Russians and the Chinese stay out?
And then when it comes to—so that's one workstream coming out of yesterday, and the other is to make sure when it comes to Greenland particularly that we ensure that the Chinese and the Russians will not gain access to the Greenland economy or militarily to Greenland. And that will be a discussion taken forward based on what already happened last Wednesday when Marco Rubio and Vice President Vance had their discussions with the Danish delegation to take that work forward to make sure that that can never happen, that the Russians and the Chinese gain access to the Greenland economy or in a military sense.
But of course, all of this is not about Greenland or the Arctic. First of all, this is about how can we protect ourselves against our adversaries. Our main adversary is Russia for NATO. And of course, we see China massively building up, so let's not be naive about China. But Russia is our main adversary, and these incredibly courageous Ukrainian soldiers, the Ukrainian military, the Ukrainian population are defending their country against Russia. And what I would hope today we will discuss how we can help them. They need interceptors. They need our military support going forward.
I know we have these peace talks going on. Great. Hopefully, they will conclude soon. Yes, I know the European Union freed up 90 billion. Fantastic, but we know that will only be concluded somewhere in April, May. And today, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Lviv, but also so many smaller cities in Ukraine are being hit by Russian missiles, by Russian drones. We know that water supply is down. We know that electricity is down. It is minus 20 degrees in Kyiv as we speak. So what we need is to keep our eyes on the ball of Ukraine. Let's not drop that ball. And that means, yes, great peace talks, fantastic, we will do everything to conclude them successfully, but it will not happen tomorrow. And they need these interceptors, this military support, tomorrow.
So we have to stay concentrated. So to my European and Canadian friends, we have to do that. And the US is willing to supply as much military stuff Ukraine needs, particularly these interceptors, paid for by Europeans and Canadians. We have to keep going that flow, making sure that is still there and that we don't lose sight of this main subject, which is fighting the Russians. The Ukrainians are doing it. They need our support. It's also about our collective security. That's what is at stake here.
How do I turn this on? I'm already failing at my co-moderating task since I can't turn the microphone on. Mark, congratulations on the last few days. Fareed, thank you for sharing the stage. And Victor, thank you for again putting together this extraordinary breakfast. And I salute our Ukrainian heroes. This for me is the most important breakfast in Davos, and I'm delighted to be here. Alexander Stubb, President Stubb, I wanted to turn to you and ask you: how do we actually get to the next stage that Mark Rutte has mentioned and to what Larry Fink just called the resolute peace and security that Ukraine needs? What are the next steps, and how do we get Russia to the table?
Sure. Thanks a lot, Zanny, and thanks Victor for the invitation. And thank you to all Ukrainian soldiers for what you do for protecting Europe. Before I begin, let me just gently remind on the Arctic question that NATO was just expanded with a country that has 1 million individuals trained in Arctic conditions, and that country is Finland. So I think we can do a lot on Arctic security.
Now my two points: one on the peace process, and the second one on the narrative of the war. On the peace process, I think we are in a good place in the sense that the United States, Ukraine, and Europe, or more specifically the coalition of the willing, is on the same page. Ever since Jared Kushner came in with the help of the work of Jonathan Powell and many others, we're now in a concrete stage where we're looking at somewhere between five plus two documents which have to do with security guarantees, the prosperity package which Larry has been working on, a sequencing document, and many, many others, and the 20-point plan, of course. I think on this particular situation, we're going to be in a position whereby we have full agreement between Ukraine, the United States, and Europe on what I would consider to be a good package which has, I think, the elements for a lasting peace.
But here's where I come to my second point, and that is that I'm not convinced that Russia will approve this. And this is the worry that I have, and that's why I fully agree with Mark that this is not over right now. What we need to do is to focus on the today and the near future, and how we can provide and sustain and help Ukraine.
Now on the narrative of the war, this is something that I'm a little bit baffled both in the international discourse and perhaps in some of the things that we hear also coming from the United States. Let's make this clear: Putin has failed in every and each one of his strategic aims. Number one, he wanted to take over Ukraine and make it Russian. He failed. He will not take over Ukraine, and Ukraine will become a member of the European Union. Number two, he wanted to prevent the enlargement of NATO. He got two substantive military powers into the alliance and doubled his border with the alliance because Finland joined. Number three, he wanted to project power around the world and in the region. Look what's going on in Central Asia. Look what's going on in the South Caucasus. Look what's going on in Iran. Look what's going on in Syria. Look what's going on in Venezuela. It's not exactly a success story from the perspective of the Kremlin.
My final point is to say, from a military perspective, there seems to be this narrative that Russia is winning. I fundamentally disagree. In the past 1,000 days, Russia has advanced a maximum of one percentage point of Ukrainian territory. Today, the cost of that is 1,000 dead soldiers per day. That's 30,000 roughly per month. And this is dead, not only wounded, on the Russian side. In Afghanistan, in 10 years, 20,000 Russian soldiers died. On top of that, the Russian economy is suffering. There's zero growth, no more reserves. If inflation rates continue to multiply on the level at which they have been this year, that will be 30% of inflation this year. Add to that 16% interest rates.
I don't think that the argument that Russia does not want to end the war because it believes that it can advance holds. I think the argument that Russia does not want to end this war because it is too expensive for Putin to end. He will not be able to pay the Russian soldiers. So the big dilemma that we right now have is how can we force Russia to end this war? And there are only two things that we can do: one, continue to provide Ukraine with everything that's possible; and two, put more economic pressure on Russia. And then we will see that Ukraine will have won this war at the end of the day. Thank you.
Let me move over to the President of Latvia, who is an old friend of Ukraine, has been at this breakfast many, many times. There is now talk of fast-tracking Ukraine's membership into the European Union. Usually this process takes a long time. Understandably, there are many conditions. There are many legal and economic reforms that Ukraine has to do, or a country has to do, to become a member of the European Union. How is this going to work with Ukraine?
Well, thank you very much. I want to congratulate you for this update because I feel now like in an interrogation room with the bad cop and the good cop asking all the questions. But coming to your question, I do believe, and I very much agree with Alex, that we must work to ensure that Ukraine becomes a European Union member. Having said that, I think that we need also to reckon with three elements.
Number one is Ukraine itself, because membership in the European Union is both strategic and political, but also it's merit-based. And the reform process—fight against corruption, justice reform, also the alignment of many Ukrainian economies to European standards—is going to be an issue.
Number two, and I think that's going to be also the moment of truth for all 27 EU member states, when we will have to convince our publics, when we will have to face many interests from agriculture to industry. And then, of course, it's going to be a very, very tough work taking also into account what is happening in many of the European countries from the internal political point of view. From the point of view of Latvia, we will do our best to get Ukraine as fast in the European Union as possible.
And number three, the third element is I do believe also that when we look at Ukrainian membership in the European Union, we probably need also to address this from the broader perspective. Normally we have seen the European Union as a political union, as a monetary union, as an economic union. But if Ukraine enters the European Union, I do believe it's also going to make European defense identity much, much stronger. And this is something where I would say, when we talk about Ukrainian membership, yes, we will have a lot of questions. We'll have questions about quotas when it comes to goods and services. We will be having a lot of discussion about reforms. But when we talk about that, let's keep in mind that Ukraine in the EU makes the European Union also much stronger from a security and defense point of view, with the largest fighting army in Europe, with all what they have done. And also, I want to use this opportunity to say that when we see those soldiers fighting right now, they also understand that they are keeping the whole of Europe out of the war, out of the war of aggression that Russia would probably be able to launch as we speak. That's where the strategic choice for me is obvious: Ukraine must be in the EU. But I also understand it's not going to be a very easy political debate across European capitals.
I'd like to turn to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands to continue this conversation about the challenge for the EU. Prime Minister, the President of Latvia has just laid out what Ukraine needs to do, but also what the European Union needs to do. And maybe you could elaborate on how you see the EU rising to the challenges both of providing financing for these years to come, so that we can have this resolute security that Larry Fink laid out, but also the seriousness of the path to EU membership. It will be difficult, as the president laid out, but what do you think needs to be done to give the people in this room confidence that the EU is for real on this?
Well, yes. I think the last decision the European Council made in December was very important: 90 billion for support for Ukraine for the years '26 and '27. It was a tough European Council, but in the end we made it, and I think it was a very strong signal to the people of Ukraine that we are there and that we are there for them, and that we fully realize, as the Netherlands have been from the start, that this is not only about Ukraine, but that the Russian aggression war against Ukraine is also about freedom and security in Europe. And that's also why the Dutch actually provided a lot of money, a lot of financial support, political support, and military support. And also we're welcoming those who need to go out of Ukraine and find a place somewhere in Europe, and I think that is important. So there can be no question about the support that Europe and the European Union gives to Ukraine.
And in relation to the membership, there's no question that the place to be for Ukraine is the European Union. But the pathway to the membership of the European Union, I would probably agree with the President of Latvia: it's a balanced process. The country is currently at war, and it's amazing what the country has been doing in its own governance to step up to the threshold of the European Union, and we should salute that and further support that. And then in the end, there will be a membership of Ukraine for the European Union.
Can I just ask one follow-up on to that? When you say in the end, what kind of timeframe are we talking about?
Yeah, I think that's very difficult because if we look at the way we are dealing with it now, it will take a couple of years. We have to be honest about that, because we don't want to bring the European Union itself unstabilized when a country comes in too quickly. So we have to find ways to make very clear that the European Union is the end station for Ukraine. It's the home for Ukraine. But at the same time, we have to be very careful also with regard to our population, but also to the institutions and also for Ukraine itself, that they step up to all the thresholds that are needed to come into the European Union.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take this opportunity to just once again break from the program on stage because we have a very special guest with us. We have President Trump's representative to deal with negotiations on Ukraine and many other matters, one of the most important members of the Trump administration and the point man certainly on the discussion of how to negotiate some kind of settlement, Steve Witkoff. Can I get you, Steve, to tell us a little bit about the progress of the talks and how close you think we are to a deal?
Sure. First of all, thank you, Kellyanne. Thanks for having me. You can't say no to Kellyanne. She asked me last night to be here. But it's an easy one because I have many friends here, including my new friend David. So first of all, thank you. I think we've made a lot of progress. I think in the beginning of this process there was a little bit of confusion. I was going to Moscow quite a bit, but I think it was important that we go there because we're at the end now and I actually am optimistic. I spent the evening with David last night, with General Budanov, who's now Vice President Budanov, and Rustem. They've been amazing, by the way. To the Ukrainian people here: you have an amazing negotiating team. We've spent a lot of time together—I don't know how much, but it could be 100 hours together since Geneva. It's literally that comprehensive.
And I think we've got it down to one issue, and we have discussed iterations of that issue, and that means it's solvable. So if both sides want to solve this, we're going to get it solved. That's my view, and I told the president that last night. And last night, Mark, I think—and it informs on this—the president sent out the tweet. We had a great meeting about NATO, about the European-American alliance, which informs on this conflict too, I think, as we discussed.
So I just feel encouraged. David, you're great to work with, and Rustem. And by the way, I want to mention President Zelenskyy because he's been on this issue. He's available. He's accessible. Whenever there's a need to call him to get a steer, we get on the phone with him. And of course, as everyone knows with President Trump, just as he said yesterday, Mark, with you when we were talking about direct negotiations, he said, "Well, can I handle the negotiation directly?"
So, the president is always accessible as well, just the way he is. So we're off to Moscow tonight. We're not staying over; we're going right to Abu Dhabi. That's an important data point because in Abu Dhabi will be the working groups: military-to-military, prosperity. Jared and I talk all the time about the importance of prosperity, and of course we have what I would regard as the best-in-class prosperity advisor on the team, and that's Larry Fink. Yes. And Larry was good enough to volunteer for the job. I volunteered for the last 11 months, so why shouldn't Larry volunteer? And Jared as well, by the way; he's now a volunteer as well. President Trump is very good at saving money. David Dava, okay, he gets us all for free, and you do too now.
So, prosperity is really big. All night long we spent at dinner last night talking about the upward trajectory for the Ukrainian economy and financial system, capital markets, the jobs. The president has talked about a tariff-free zone from Ukraine that I think would be game-changing. You'll see industry move into that area in a huge way. Imagine you get to outcompete because you're not paying tariffs and sending goods into the United States. So there's some huge things that we've talked about that the Ukrainian people deserve because they have been so courageous in this fight and they're under some real difficult conditions today.
And I am completely empathetic on behalf of the president and our administration to that. And that's part of why we're going to Moscow: to have that discussion about how we end this thing and how we make it better for your people. So with that, I'll turn it back to the panel and I'll thank you for allowing me to be here today and make some remarks. And I want you to know that this is the most important endeavor that Jared and I have. We are tasked with doing everything possible to get this solved. And with the president's indomitable spirit and President Zelenskyy's indomitable spirit—because I'm pretty sure that he feels, as President Trump does, it's time, this is time to end this—I think we're going to get it done. So, thank you.
Thank you so much. It was incredibly valuable to hear literally from the negotiator's mouth where things stand. Let me go next to the Prime Minister of Belgium. One of the ways that Europe can demonstrate that it is serious about confronting the challenge from Russia would be, it would seem to me, confiscating Russian sovereign assets. This is an easy demonstration of European will. It does set a precedent, there's no question. And it feels to me that the precedent it sets is if you ruthlessly and aggressively invade your neighbor, violate international law, and commit war crimes, your money is not safe. Why is that not happening? I ask this because the government of Belgium has had a somewhat complicated stance on this issue.
So now I know why you invited me. It's a very nice question. It's, of course, a very sensitive topic. I think first and foremost, I want to say it's Europe's obligation to finance Ukraine, and we did. Europe will never win beauty prizes for the way it takes decisions, but at the end of the day, there is a result: 90 billion to finance Ukraine this year and next year. So we got a solution. It went unnoticed, but we also decided that the Russian central bank money, the immobilized assets—not the frozen assets, the immobilized assets, most of which are in Belgium in the clearing house Euroclear—are immobilized for an indefinite period. This is a very important decision.
Because of course, you cannot just take somebody's money. We're not at war with Russia. Europe is not at war with Russia. You cannot simply confiscate money. That is an act of war. You shouldn't underestimate it. It has never happened in history. Immobilized money, even during the Second World War, was never confiscated. It would be the very first time that that would happen in history, and that would have grave consequences for Europe, for the trust in the financial system, for the Eurozone. It is not to be underestimated. There's no such thing as free money. Anything that sounds simple in reality is very complicated.
And it went unnoticed, but we immobilized indefinitely. It is no longer depending on the sanctions that we have to prolong every six months. And we all know that not everybody at the European table—Europe is not a country, it's not a superstate with a supreme leader, it is a confederation; everybody needs to agree—and we all know a difficult truth: some European countries are not so pro-Ukrainian. Some might at some stage say, "We no longer want to prolong sanctions," and then immediately you have to release those assets. Now if you take assets, confiscate them, spend them, and at a certain moment in time you have to repay them, then you have a big problem.
So I think we took a very good decision: the financing of Ukraine is there, and the assets will be immobilized until the end of the war, which means that, as it always went in history, when there will be a peace deal, the assets will be on the table. And let me be very clear about that at that moment: if I have my way and I have a say in this, every penny of that money will be used for the repayment and the reconstruction of Ukraine. I would be very sad to see one euro returned to Moscow. But we have to respect international law. It will happen at that moment, and between that moment and now, Europe will finance the war in Ukraine, as we should do because they are fighting for us.
Well, that's a very reassuring statement. Zanny, do you have a—
It is a very reassuring statement, but I think your frankness, Prime Minister, in saying not all members of the European Union—you said some are not so pro-Ukraine, and I think it is important to take that realism in the next question, which I'm going to pose to the Prime Minister of Croatia. Because I would like to ask you, over the next few years to get to this goal that you have all committed to, that Ukraine should be part of the European Union, what are you going to do? First of all, how does the EU need to change? And what are you going to do to be credible to everybody in this room that this really is a goal that is imminent and not a goal that is decades hence? Because the European Union does have a history of talking about membership and then taking decades to get there.
Well, first of all, thanks to Victor for another invitation for the Ukrainian breakfast. And on behalf of the Croatian government and someone who has been here for years, Croatia certainly belongs to the group of countries which is very clearly pro-Ukrainian in terms of solidarity and support all along, stemming from our own experience. Because Croatia, due to the Greater Serbian aggression in the beginning of the '90s, had at one point also 27% of its territory occupied. Ukraine today has around 19 and a half percent, and that is the result of the aggression that is actually ongoing now for more than 12 years. When it comes to the European Union stance towards Ukraine here, I would say that there are some of us who have bilateral agreements with Ukraine clearly defining our support towards membership. This is something I signed with President Zelenskyy before the second aggression in December in 2021.
I think that Dick has said something which is very important. The overall situation with Ukraine, in my view, has three elements: one is the peace process, second is integration towards the European Union, and the third one is reconstruction. Of course, the conditio sine qua non is to stop the Russian aggression against Ukraine, which actually at the moment we don't see stopping because of the continuous drafting of new soldiers on the Russian side. Basically, if they lose 1,000 people a day, there are 1,000 new conscripts coming and being prepared for the Ukrainian front. Unfortunately, everything that Alex has said in respect to the effects of the restrictive measures and sanctions, and the weakening of the Russian economy and the inflationary pressures and everything that is supposed to have an effect, has not translated into a political change in Russia. This is the key problem. And I think Ukraine is of course aware; all of us who are there are aware. In other circumstances, maybe you would have had a grassroots movement, civil society, media, independent institutions, opposition over there. We don't see it, unfortunately. We are observing very closely, but we don't see it and we do not really see that this will change. This is important.
So on the EU side, there is one element which all our Ukrainian friends need to be aware of: the approach to the enlargement so far was based on the so-called merit-based approach of every country that aspires to be a member, which means there are criteria and a process. When the process is fulfilled, everybody agrees with the Commission's assessment in the Council, and then the process can be completed. What we see now are the signals of a different approach, and that approach is geopolitical. And that is, in my view, the only real chance that speedier integration of Ukraine to the European Union will happen.
But it will not happen without two critical debates: the famous fourth Copenhagen criteria—I mean the Copenhagen of 1993, which is the so-called absorption capacity of the European Union. And the absorption capacity in terms of Ukrainian EU membership means impact on the budget, impact on key policies such as agriculture, cohesion, and most of all, the decision-making process. This will have to be combined in a way so that we deliver. That's why I'm not surprised that the Netherlands, who has always been, I would say, the watchdog of the proper enlargement, is a little bit more reserved than those countries who are friends, and I can say it, and Mark was exactly the same as you are. So it's not a change; I think Ukraine has to be aware of this. So one thing is the political aspiration; the other thing is actual consensus on the date and its implications.
So I think we are at a good position today, but before that, the key thing is to end the war. What I would advise—and I said this to President Zelenskyy—all the peace agreements and documents, they have two aspects: one is the moment in the context when they are signed—the pressure, the time, the sort of exhaustion of the difficulties that you are in—and their historical consequences 5, 10, 20 years later. My advice is never to leave an ink of a pen on the paper that would give up Ukrainian territory. I think this is critically important for the whole legacy of this generation of Ukrainians, everything they have done so far, not only for the Ukrainian interest, but also as a clear precedent for the stability of the international system and international law, international relations in the future. This is something that we should not forget in trying to help Ukraine to attain the peace and prosperity, of course, which we shall support, and we as a country have supported them in every possible way that we could.
Let me move to a Ukrainian friend, the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, Taras Kachka. One of the challenges that Ukraine faces in meeting these conditions for Europe is the perception that Ukraine still remains a very, to be honest, bureaucratic and corrupt country. In fact, there has been a recent corruption scandal that engulfed Ukraine, required the resignation of key members of the government. What do you think Ukraine can do that will assure Europe and the international community that it is actually engaging in the kind of deep structural reforms, almost a reconstruction of its government, that would be required to genuinely qualify for European Union membership?
Thank you for this question that is addressed to the most bureaucratic-looking member of the Ukrainian cabinet.
So I think that first, you see how the project of bringing prosperity to Ukraine is complex, since we need seven-plus speakers to explain all dimensions. So I will concentrate on your questions, but I agree with the majority of what was said. And I think that it's important to understand where we are, not only on what we need to do, but where we are in our position, so that all our partners want predictability, trust, rule of law. We also want predictability in security guarantees, in financial support, and predictability in accession to the EU.
So we need to agree that we are in consent with a merit-based approach to EU accession, but we want your commitment to accept us by a certain date so that it will not happen somewhere in uncertainty. And if we are talking about complex figures, we need to find a solution how to bring Ukraine to the EU and provide free tariffs for certain territories to export to the United States, however complex it is in EU trade law.
But let's talk about the rule of law and corruption, where I think that we need to be conscious that we are in, let's say, the final and the most complex stage of structural transformation that lasted since 2015 or 2014. So thanks to the current parliament and MPs, we have an independent and very functional anti-corruption framework, and the figures for last year—I will quote as a bureaucrat—NABU has started 737 cases last year. The Special Anti-Corruption Prosecution made 124 indictments against 280 persons in Ukraine, and courts issued 93 sentences against 130 persons. So it is there, and in my opinion, since I actually presented the resignation of these two ministers in parliament, every discovered case in Ukraine is a win because we are getting cleaner.
And yes, indeed, we still have some, let's say, echo of the July events. So indeed, it was a mistake, and we all made a lot of mistakes. But we fixed our mistake, and the question whether other mistakes are fixed—we still have a lot of indecisiveness among our partners, and that's why we really are committed to do the things. And we highlighted this in papers on prosperity, that we are committed to all reforms within EU accession. We are saying that we want merit-based accession, and tomorrow I will report to member states on our success and so on. But we need to spend this year not yelling about complexities, not to lecture each other, but to close all these things: to close the peace deal, to advance on the accession, on prosperity things, and next year maybe celebrate accession to the EU, even if it sounds fantastic. Thank you.
What a wonderful note of optimism. And I'm delighted to hear this level of detailed commitment from you and these warm words of encouragement from the—
prime ministers of the European Union. But I'd like to turn now to a contribution from the floor from Jonathan Powell, my fellow countryman and national security adviser to the United Kingdom. You heard those wonderful words from Steve Witkoff earlier about how well the negotiations were going and that you were going to Moscow. And I'd like to ask you, Jonathan, as a man who's got tremendous experience in reaching successful negotiations too, what do you think needs to be done to get President Putin to agree?
