The NATO Vilnius Summit: A Conversation with Ukrainian Ambassador Markarova and French Ambassador Bili

On July 11 and 12, NATO leaders will gather in Vilnius to discuss their response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. What can the world expect from the summit? What are French and Ukrainian expectations of security guarantees and assurances for Ukraine in and outside NATO? How do they assess the impact of European responses to the war on the transatlantic relationship? And what is the outlook for Ukrainian economic recovery and reconstruction in the years ahead?

Join the Carnegie Endowment for a timely conversation with Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova and French Ambassador Laurent Bili on the future of European defense and Ukraine's place in Europe's security architecture. Sophia Besch will moderate.

Event Transcript

Note: this is a rush transcript and may contain errors.

Tino Cuellar:
Good morning. My name is Tino Cuellar, I'm the President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. To those of you in person, welcome, to those of you online, we welcome you as well. The Carnegie Endowment was created over a century ago to help bring the world closer together and reduce risks of conflicts through knowledge and ideas. We believe in intellectual candor in the service of a more prosperous and peaceful world.

So we gather today, the 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius is drawing to a close, making this a truly pivotal moment. We are observing, marking the progress of developments in Europe, watching closely as the war and Ukraine's prospects for recovery continue to stay front and center in our thinking. Publicly available data confirmed the importance of this moment. It indicates that while Ukraine's air defenses are performing well, its territorial gains are slow. While inflation is down and the Western price gap on Russian oil appears to be working, government expenditure in Ukraine still outpaces revenues. While G20 members have voted overwhelmingly to censure Russia and international institutions, the United Nations has recorded more than six-million refuges from Ukraine around the world.

All of which means that this is the moment to think seriously about Ukraine's needs, a security architecture, a framework for economic recovery, financing, and the international political threads that hold all of this together. That's what we think about at Carnegie. We think about how those threads come together, we're doing that through the work in multiple programs, we're doing that also through a new initiative that we have launched on Ukraine and its future. But in Washington, Berlin and Brussels we're also producing ideas and analysis on the implications of the war for European defense's security policy more broadly.

So I'm delighted to welcome two distinguished officials who are as good as anybody I could imagine here in Washington to offer their reflections on the summit, the emerging architecture of support for Ukraine's defense and recovery, the impact of the war on European defense policy, and the transatlantic relationship. Ambassador Oksana Markarova has served as Ukraine's Ambassador of the United States since April 2021, perviously she served for five years as Finance Minister and Deputy Finance Minister, during which she was an architect of Ukraine's macroeconomic revival program, and a steward for her country's relationship with the International Monetary Fund. Prior to her career in public service, Miss Markarova spent 17 years working in senior leadership roles in private equity and the financial advisory sector.

Ambassador Laurent Bili arrived in Washington earlier this year representing France. His distinguished career in the Foreign Ministry has included postings as France's Ambassador to Thailand, Turkey, Brazil and most recently China, where he was posted in 2019 and navigated the Zero COVID policy. In fact, USA Today I gather has reported that because Ambassador Bili was posted to China during that period, he received a grand total of three visitors. I expect he'll get more visitors here in the United States. I'm delighted that the pace and depth of his engagement in Washington has helped to make him a leading voice already in this city, he hasn't lost any time since he arrived, and I'm also delighted that both ambassadors have what we hope will be a longstanding relationship with the Carnegie Endowment.

Moderating today's conversation will be our very own Sophia Besch, a fellow and acting co-director of our Europe program, which she leads our work in Washington on crucial European defense, security and economic issues. Sophia, the floor is yours, and welcome, everybody, again.

Sophia Besch:
Ambassadors, you can go ahead and then I'll be at the very left. Yes, please.

Laurent Bili:
So you be at the end, the very left.

Sophia Besch:
All right, fantastic. A very warm welcome from me as well to those of you who join us in the room. I believe if we need additional chairs, then I'm sure we can help. To those of us who are joining us online as well, virtually, and a warm welcome to the two of you ambassadors. I'm really glad that we can host you here at Carnegie today in the immediate aftermath of the Vilnius Summit, and in the immediate aftermath of the G7 publishing their joint declaration of support for Ukraine, which we have just read briefly in the greenroom. I'm sure there were no surprises for the two of you. I'm really glad that we can get your help interpreting some of the results that we have seen this week, and also giving a bit of an outlook on what this all means for European defense and for transatlantic security cooperation.

I'm glad that we have this combination of Ukraine and France, I think it's a really interesting combination of countries. Of course, Ukraine, the questions about the future of Ukraine and Ukraine security are at the heart of any conversation we could have about European defense and security these days. France and President Macron has made some really interesting announcements I think since the war broke out, some really interesting changes potentially in French foreign security and defense policy. I'm hoping that we can discuss some of these shifts here today this morning.

The first thing I want to talk about though ... Oh, first, before I do that, I should do some housekeeping. We are going to have a conversation between us for about 40 minutes, and then I want to make sure that we leave some time for questions also. You can ask questions online by putting them in the YouTube comment box, you can also ask questions in the room by scanning the QR code on your seat, I will then see them on my iPad and I will get to them after our conversation. All right.

Let's launch into it, and the first thing I want to talk about of course is the question of Ukraine's future in NATO. Yesterday the NATO Summit published its communique where leaders pledged to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the alliance when allies agree and conditions are met. Ambassador Markarova, President Zelenskyy had acknowledged in the past few weeks and months that it was not going to be possible of course for Ukraine to join NATO while the war was still ongoing, but he has criticized also yesterday I think the lack of the clear timeframe and the somewhat vague conditions in the communique. What do you make of this particular result of the Vilnius Summit and what does this mean for thinking in Kiev?

Oksana Markarova:
Well, first of all, thank you for having this event, especially today. I think it's very appropriate for us to talk at the Foundation for International Peace about all these elements of how do we restore international peace, which has been shattered in 2014 by the first invasion of Russia, and in 2022 by the full phased war that they have started. With regard to NATO, our position has been very clear Ukrainian position for quite some time. When we decided that [inaudible] made the civilization choice and we have made it over and over again in the past, that our future is in European Union and in NATO. This is something that all Ukrainian people support literally, overwhelming number of Ukrainians vote for this, this is something that is in our constitution, this is something that we really work hard in the past to get to.

We already executed 13 annual national plans with NATO, all of them have sat very positively. We, in 2020, became the EU peace status country with NATO, and right now I think there is no dispute that, with regard to inter-ability using the NATO standard equipment, actually reforms what we have done in our armed forces during the past eight years, that we are moving towards the membership in NATO. Now, NATO is the family of now 31 countries, and each of them have to say yes. We will work tirelessly for each of them to say yes. I think people like to look at the specific summits as the end of something, what are we making of this decision?

Of course, every summit is important, every interaction with NATO is important, but this is not the end. For us, the goal is to become members of NATO, even that is not the end, because after we become members of NATO there is a lot of work together, how do we make ourselves more strong and how do we defend ourselves? Because this war, this invasion, unprovoked, unjustified invasion of Russia is exactly about that, whether we as democracies can defend ourselves. So there is a lot of positive steps, a lot of positive signals, the creation of the Ukraine NATO Council, which is a very important element. It's the next stage of how we will now interact with NATO as a potential candidate.

There is overwhelming support, including in the declaration. There are ongoing discussions, there is pledge of the majority, if not all NATO countries, to continue to support us in this effort. So again, whether we wanted to have an invitation now, of course. I will not be ... If you look at the NATO, there are three layers of readiness of the country, right? The value levels of the readiness, and I think nobody can dispute that with regard to democracy and values, for which we not only share, but we fight for them on the battlefield, that Ukraine is ready. There is the armed forces' readiness, and we have seen how all the NATO compatibility formed during the past eight years allows us now to fight with a much larger enemy with the support of our friends and allies.

But it's us who are fighting on the battlefield there, I think our army is not only the battlefield army, it's one of the few armies that actually use a lot of NATO type of equipment very effectively. Even so, there are reforms also, which again Ukraine has done a lot during the past eight years, and I have been part of the process of the Minister of Finance. Are we at the ideal situation where we can say we've done everything? Definitely not, that's why we're doing reforms right now, that's why we have a very comprehensive reform agenda with Europe Union as a candidate country. That's why in the IMF program there are some reforms, and we're implementing them as we fight on the battlefield.

So we see it, I see it as a very positive step, it's one step in the direction in which we would like to go with our brothers and sisters from the Europe Union and other NATO members. But there is still a lot of work today, including convincing. As you said, it's when conditions are met and allies agree. Those are the two clear passes on which we are going to be working out, making allies agree and making the conditions.

Sophia Besch:
Great, thank you. Thank you so much. I want to make sure that we talk about the EU enlargement process as well. But first, Ambassador Bili, France was a part of the group of Europe countries that was supportive of going I think a little bit further, maybe including the word invitation in the NATO communique, France, Poland, the UK, Eastern European member states. Why was the alliance not able to outline a clearer path in this communique, and what are the consequences of this language for Paris?

Laurent Bili:
Well, first of all, as you say, we support the aspiration of Ukraine, and I think that's the important part. Supporting the aspiration, also make sure Ukraine is winning the war, and Ukraine would win the peace. That means that Ukraine will be in a position to deter any further aggression from Russia. Going back to the NATO Summit, I think we have to really, together with the G7 declaration, I don't think that's a question of the precise wording at the end, it's not important. I think it's quite to give a clear message that the future of Ukraine is in NATO, that we are going to that direction.

But at the same time, as ambassador just said, we just have to work with the rule of consensus, to build the consensus on the direction that we want to achieve. That's where we are, but I just think that after that NATO Summit and the G7 declaration, it's not a question of if, it's a question of when. We are on track.

Sophia Besch:
Okay, fantastic. I want to talk about the G7 declaration then, which was published literally minutes before we began this event. Fortunate timing. The way that this multilateral security commitment from the G7 was framed was that the goal is to build a Ukrainian military that can defend itself and deter future Russian attacks, but also I think the intention is to reassure Ukraine that allies will continue to support them as long as it takes, right? Ambassador Markarova, I'm interested if you think that this declaration can do that, if the reassurances are there, and if so which are the most important elements of this declaration for you?

Oksana Markarova:
First of all, let's say that the United States, as strategic friends and partner, and Europe Union, and France and other countries have been already shown that language of the declaration was their ideas. We fight on the front lines, we pay the ultimate price of course for this fight for freedom, and the losses in Ukraine and the destruction and the atrocities are horrific, and we wouldn't be able to do it of course without our brave president and our armed forces, who are doing heroic efforts on a daily basis. But we wouldn't be able to do it also without the support that we have received from day one from our partners.

So everything you read in the declaration about the weapons, about the support, about training, about building the Ukrainian force, is actually there on the battlefield, we see it already. But I think the importance of this declaration in the framework of the NATO Summit is that the G7 countries said loud and clear for everyone, including the war criminals in Kremlin to hear, that this is not going to stop. That this support has been there, and as we are asking all our friends and allies to double down now on this security assistance, but also on the budget support, but also on sanctions for Russia, and we hear loud and clear that the G7 countries are saying that this is how it's going to be.

What is also very important at the end of the declaration that you will see the phrase that these efforts are going to be made while Ukraine is working towards our transatlantic, Europe-Atlantic membership. Meaning that it's not a replacement for our future in NATO, this is what we're doing now while we're working towards it. That's also a very important element. So look, I think it's a very powerful document, it's a very powerful declaration, and we see it in practice and hopefully this will allow all of us to take it to the next level, and with more weapons and more sanctions and more joined efforts, through that get faster to just peace. Because this is what it is all about for all of us, nobody wants more peace than Ukrainians, nobody wants peace more than Europeans, nobody wants peace more than Europe.

All our democracies and all our life post World War II, the prosperity of the countries was based actually on the peace that was achieved. That international security infrastructure needs to be repaired. So for us this is about peace, and we're really, really glad to work on this and to hear now in public this joint declaration.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. Ambassador Bili, I also want to ask you about the reassurance and the sustainability element of these pledges. We talk a lot about the forthcoming US election next year, but France has also had a close call election recently. So what extent do you think that these multilateral agreements can help to reassure Ukraine that support in fact is not dependent on domestic moves and election cycles? Then if you want, I think we've also heard that these multilateral arrangements are supposed to encourage further bilateral commitments and individual pledges, and if you can say anything on what France has recently announced or plans to announce in the future, I'm sure we'd all love to hear that.

Laurent Bili:
First, I wanted to take just one sentence of the declaration, because I think it's a very colorful one when it says, "We are firm that the security of Ukraine is integral to the security of the Euro-Atlantic region." I think it's a very powerful sentence, because it means a lot. It's not a distraction for us, it's really an integral part of our security. I don't think in that sense it may be affected by domestic politics. In France, our support of Ukraine is overwhelming across the board of all parties. Sometimes you may have heard of a nuance, but it's a really marginalized voice in a public scene. I think people really understand what is at stake, it's really a fight for freedom and democracy.

It's also to protect a world that, as Ambassador Markarova just said, was really built, our prosperity was built on peace. What happened was really a wake-up call that, after investing for 30 years an agent of peace, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the civilian war, the prospect of the war, convention war in Europe was possible. That we should make sure that it's not going to succeed, and to deter any further aggression anywhere, any time. So in that sense I really don't ... I'm not too afraid about changes in any countries. Of course, we observe as a domestic scene, we have contacts, but I do think that people realize how important the struggle of Ukraine is for all of us.

Sophia Besch:
Okay.

Laurent Bili:
You mentioned about weapons. Yes, we had a new advancement at the NATO Summit, it's a SCALP missile, which is the same in fact as the Storm Shadow.

Oksana Markarova:
Yes, Storm Shadow.

Laurent Bili:
Storm Shadow, that's a French version, it's a co-built missile that has the ability to strike on a further, so quite further down inside Ukraine territories, but we are in the front line, so it's quite an important element. In terms of deliveries already going on for some time, so it has been anticipated. So it's the confirmation of which we have done all along, that we try to provide a system, sometimes with other partners like CAESAR artillery, which was already quite a game changer in terms of length, and vehicles, also [inaudible], which is an anti-ballistic missile. We have been working a lot and we continue to do so, and of course these kinds of elements, which are really state-of-art in terms of ability to strike behind the line is very important. We hope that it will also encourage other partners to join in that direction, and I think it's also your wish.

Oksana Markarova:
Absolutely. We really appreciate the [inaudible] that are literally guarding our children and our cities from the destruction. But to have these longer range missiles has been a discussion for quite a while, we are very grateful to the UK, now to France, and we really hope that we will get more capabilities from the US, because that will allow us to get to peace faster.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. I want to talk about Ukraine's future in the EU next. President von der Leyen, the President of the EU Commission has said that the EU has no future without Ukraine. Ukraine has been declared a candidate country and has already been achieving some of the conditions that are necessary to join the EU. I think there is agreement consensus among EU member states and the EU institutions that some reforms will be necessary before that enlargement can take place, reforms of the EU that is, in order to stay effective in its decision making processes.

I'm not sure that we quite have agreement yet among Europeans about the extent and the timescale of these reforms. Ambassador Bili, President Macron has said that he wants enlargement as fast as possible. What needs to happen beforehand? When do you believe that Ukraine will be able to join the EU? What do you think about this idea of EU security commitments to Ukraine as well?

Laurent Bili:
Well, I think in Bratislava, [inaudible] the president has made a very important speech, because somewhere in the last year France has been seen as maybe more cautious in that enlargement. So some of that speech really cleared Zelenskyy about where we stand about enlargement and the prospect of Ukraine, but also with the Balkans to join. At the same time, we also mentioned that there is some homework to be done within the EU, because of just their ability to have a function of EU, which was not built for 27 members, which is going to function as even more members.

So we have talked about homework to be done, as much as Ukraine has also, this path to enlargement. You have to, maybe for US, you have to understand that enlargement is not just about enlarging and the day after you just meet, it's also about incorporating so many changes in your domestic legal system to become part of a single market. So it's a lot of real detailed work that they need to be done, and it takes time. But again, I think what is very important is the direction and the direction of scale.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. Ambassador Markarova, what difference would EU membership make to Ukraine's security?

Oksana Markarova:
Well, first of all, I think we have remind that our return to the European family and our membership in Europe Union is actually central to our fight for independence and dignity. In 2013, Maidan, our revolution of dignity, started not because of the mining, not because of the low salaries or something like this, it started because Yanukovych, then Russian owned president of Ukraine decided to not sign the association agreement with the European Union. That's what took people to the streets, and we fought on Maidan, and then when they invaded us first time in 2014, it was Ukraine and European flags in hands.

This is our fight for our civilization choice, to be free, to be democratic, to be independent, to be Ukrainian, but also to be European. So the reforms, and it's a full set of comprehensive reforms in every sphere, because in order to become member of the Europe Union there is not one set of standards. There is a set of standards, but there are different ways of how to implement it, but you have to be compliant with the European standards. We started this process when we signed the Association Agreement long ago, and all our reforms during the past nine years, before this full-fledged war, actually issue reform was done in a way to get us closer to the Europe Union.

Now, we're very grateful for all the countries that voted last year during the full-fledged war to make us candidate country. It has been a big step for the European Union, it's the kind of light at the end of the tunnel for Ukrainian people that not only we fight for it, we want to be Europe, we want to be members of the European Union, but Europe wants us to be. It's a very important element, that's why we're doing this reform. Now, we will do them as quick as it's possible. We are changing our legislation, we're trying to make change in a number of regulations. There is ongoing process on so many different levels with the European Commission, from finance to climate to legislation to the ruler floor to anti-corruption. There is a long list of reforms.

But I want to also close by saying that actually the path towards European Union, for us, is as important as the future membership itself. Because while we implementing these reforms, we're actually improving our legislation, we're improving the business climate, we're improving in general the situation in the country, making it more attractive, not only for businesses to invest, but for our people, making our democracy stronger, building our institutions according to the European standards so that we can also deliver and serve our people better. So every reform that we've made, not only making us closer to the European Union, but also making us closer to the Europe, to the Ukraine we want to build for our citizens. So again, the goal is great and I'm positive that we will be there, and looking at how President Zelenskyy pays special attention to this makes this a priority. I know that we will be there sooner than some people think, but also every reform is a plus for Ukraine.

Laurent Bili:
This was a fight of Ukraine has been an inspiration for the ... I think we have to transform ourself. I was speaking abour single market, because it's a lot of what we have to do when you accommodate, but also thinking bigger, thinking more strategically, thinking about having support for military capability, because we are not living anymore in a world that we knew. It's a new world in which we are living, and we have to mobilize new funding for building industrial bases to support Ukraine with a lot of instruments. That has been done in a very short time, and I think it's also thanks to the courageous people of Ukraine, which have been an inspiration for leaders.

Sophia Besch:
I think that's such an important part, and I want to ask to move the conversation to thinking bigger, as you say as well, and just get your assessments on the impact of this war on European defense and on transatlantic cooperation. Ambassador Bili, I am going to quote President Macron's brain-dead comment, but only to then also cite his more recent comment where he has said that, "The alliance has been jolted awake by the shock of the Ukraine war." Of course, we have seen Europeans step up their security and defense commitments. We have already mentioned some of the changes that have taken place I think in the French position on enlargement, there's also been a French invitation to have a conversation about European deep strike capabilities, and offer to have a conversation about the nuclear deterrent again. Are we witnessing [inaudible] in France? Is that what is happening, and if so what are the main tenants and how sustainable is it?

Laurent Bili:
I think we have somewhat been consistent in a certain way, and just also being pragmatic. [inaudible] So referring to the discussion about NATO, and I'm going to add when I was [inaudible] the same discussion about G7, is G7 relevant today? Is NATO relevant? Suddenly the importance of like-minded countries being in the same struggle changes everything, because we have a purpose, we have a common strategy goal, and that makes the alliance more relevant. It makes also the EU as a political actor more relevant, and probably you are kind enough to mention the strategy, because it's not the best seller sometimes. But I think it's really part of that vision, that if you want to have a real strategic alliance, you need to have partners, partners which have got capabilities, which are able to take their part of the burden sharing.

For us, it's not two different paths. I started my career building European difference, I'm still thinking that we are doing the same thing that we are doing in a different strategic framework, and we are just building the capabilities that can be used within NATO, that can be used by the EU, that will make the alliance stronger. So is it a change of time? I don't know, but it is the world we are living in. I see more like a consistency of a dream of Europeans about to take their share of the battle.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. So the vision remains the same, but the context is changing perhaps. All right. I think we have to, Ambassador Markarova, when we talk about the Euro-Atlantic response to this war, we have to talk about the fact that role that the US has played has been crucial I think in both the commitments, but also disciplining the European response sometimes. I've heard from several European diplomats over the past year that they were glad that President Biden was in the White House at this point in time. I'd like to get your assessment on how important the role of the US has been in the response to this war. The ambassador brought up European strategic autonomy, so I'm going to play off of that. I wouldn't have done it myself, I thought with the brain-dead comment I had already done enough. But if you want to comment on the role of the US in that, and also I'd be interested, who are the European countries that you are looking to for leadership in shaping the European response?

Oksana Markarova:
Well, let me start by saying how critical and very important and effective US leadership has been, but also how European leadership was very important in that. So I wouldn't say or, because it was teamwork actually. At times, we have seen the US leading, and in some areas we now see the Europe leading, or the Great Britain which we have to name now in addition to the European Union. But of course, the United States, and I always say that US is a strategic friend number one, and it's of course President Biden and administration, but I also have to and I always say, because it's true, it's on a very strong bipartisan basis.

Without this very strong bipartisan support and both parties really being at the forefront of this fight for freedom, not only giving us all the supplementary budget money, which is unprecedented for the United States, as grant money, boost for security systems, budget systems, energy systems, but also working very actively with us. Also, leading in some areas like with the Ramstein Group for example on security assistance, with Secretary Austin taking personal leadership in it. He did not miss any of the meetings, he personally oversees preparation for each of these monthly meetings, and now we have over 50 countries that actually get together on a monthly basis to discuss in a closed format what we can do together more in order to provide more weapons, to address some of the challenges.

We see the same with [inaudible] in the way in the expert controls, but also support to the Ukraine, with Samantha Power leading and the whole USAID team, on the development assistance and support on the ground, with Secretary of Treasury Yellen leading on the sanctions front and budgetary support. So it's really leadership taken to the next level when you understand it's important. They all do it not only because they want to support Ukraine, because they understand what ambassador just said, it's important for the security of the transatlantic community. It's important for the US, it's important for France, it's important for Europe Union. You said, "Let's take it to the more strategic level." It's not just about transatlantic community.

What Russia has done with the energy, creating energy risk, food security risk, it's important for everybody. It's important for Middle East, it's important for the Latin America. We have to work a lot, and you see now for Ukraine it's a priority. Our minister probably spends as much time in Africa and in South America and in Asia now, Foreign Minister Kuleba, as he does in Europe, because it's important to work with all foreign colleagues, because by threatening the UN principles and by actually threatening the food security globally, Ukraine has been in top five exporters of all major crops and sunflower oil and everything else, Russia has created challenges.

We have to talk not only about Ukraine and this war now, but also remind about the war crimes that Russia did in Syria, them taking Georgia, them taking Moldova with Transnistria in early '90s, them poisoning people on the streets of the Great Britain, downing MH17, and we can go on and on and on with their war crimes, which we altogether did not do enough to stop before. That's emboldened Russia, but also emboldened other dictators that are out there. So coming back to the leadership, I think it's great to have the US in the leadership seat, and we need more of it, it's great to have the Europe Union and individual countries like France in the leadership as well, because it will take a village for all of us to win. We need all of us to win this in order to restore the global security.

If you look again, in security of course you ask, "Is the country number one in providing us security assistance?" But as we just discussed, some of the capabilities, the longer range, we see the leadership in Great Britain and France, and then hopefully with the cluster munition. I want to address it specifically, because I know it's a very discussed issue right now, but it's such valued by Ukraine decision, by President Biden. It's not that we are starting from the position where everything is nice and rosy in Ukraine, nobody's under threat and we're getting the cluster munition. No, Ukraine is the most mined country in the world already, Russia is using all kinds of prohibited munitions, including much worse cluster munitions, which are much worse and more deadly and deadly for civilians. We Ukrainians were asking for these munitions for a long time, because we will use them on our territory, against the perpetrators and invaders, in a very responsible format, we will register their use and we will de-mine it as soon as we're liberated territories.

Without this, we will not be able to liberate faster, and the people who have been killed, raped, tortured, including children on those territories, will suffer much more. So this leadership, I really like this very proactive and constructive competition in who is leading more in this, but in general I think we are all working together in this. We are very grateful to our partners for everything they have done to us, and this is the moment when we say thank you, but we need more, because we still did not win. By saying we need more, it doesn't mean we are not grateful. We are very grateful for everything, we just need to double down now to get to peace faster.

Laurent Bili:
On that I'll just add that we just recognize leadership of the US and we appreciate it, just from time to time we would like to remember that we still have spent something like seven, eight-billion US dollars in support of Ukraine.

Oksana Markarova:
Exactly.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. I have many more questions, and I have many, many questions from the room, and questions are also coming in from our online audience. So I want to ... There's a question here about precaution and the Wagner mutiny, and it's true that we're talking about European defense, we've talked about Ukraine, we've talked about the Europeans, we've talked about the Americans, we haven't yet actually spoken about Russia. The situation remains opaque of course, it's Russia, but it's been a couple of weeks now, so Ambassador Bili, maybe can I get your assessment on, first, lessons learned from Paris, what have we learned about Putin's Russia from this attempt at mutiny?

Laurent Bili:
Well, there still are things that we don't know, but what we know is that their power is probably less strong than it's supposed to be, and it's a lesson for many countries as well. So we hope that from that experience, some countries will reconsider their mindset toward the regime and the support that they can get from Russia.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. Ambassador Markarova?

Oksana Markarova:
Russia is the last 19th century type of empire, which already totally irrelevant in the modern context, that still exists on the planet. It can only hold it together by the use of brutal force, completely destroying the civil society inside Russia, completely subjugating everyone inside Russia, and constantly invading or attacking someone outside, creating this constant fight for enemies outside, so that an autocrat, like a war criminal Vladimir Putin, can stay in power. This is what they have been doing since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it's actually no different from what the Soviet Union was doing or the Russian Empire has been doing before.

I think this situation with another war criminal, Prigozhin, has shown us what it is. It's a mafia/FSB/autocratic state run by one war criminal, and others competing for the resources and attention. I think everyone has seen how there is no institutions there, there is no police that is able or even willing to stop a couple of thousand people who are marching through the whole country, taking over a city of Rostov or others. So I think it all, again, we can not, it's up to the Russian people what they want to do with their own country, or for their nationalities that they still keep captive, like they've done to Ukraine and Baltic States and others during the Soviet times, it's up to them what they want to do with their country and their lives.

But for us, it's another moment of realization that it's a typical autocratic regime with the bad intentions, and we just have to treat it as such. Also, realize that, coming back to our NATO discussion, that the concept of the buffer zones and neutrality does not work anymore. You're either part of the countries, or the clubs of the countries with values, who believe in democracy, defend democracy, uphold democracy, or you're sliding back into what we see in Russia where it's not only the lack of democracy, it's the lack of human dignity or lack of any respect, or any rules. Because if anyone can march through the country, shut down a couple of governmental helicopters, kill law enforcement and kill the military personnel and not be punished for that, can you imagine a situation like that in any of your countries? So it's another wake-up call for all of us.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. Ambassador Bili, you mentioned that maybe these developments in Russia are going to affect the thinking of some non-European, non-North American allies on Russia, and there's a question about that here actually. President Macron has said repeatedly that the West needs to address some of the global grievances that have come out of the response to this war, can you explain the French position and what are the French plans to address some of these criticisms?

Laurent Bili:
Well, I think it comes somewhat a surprise to see that the world community didn't understand the way we did, what was at stake was the world order, the world based on rules. So we have to think about why it didn't work, and so in Africa it's quite obvious that there was the impression of a double standard, that it's much more important when the war is in Europe than wars are going on in Africa. A lot of grievance went back, and one of the main ones is really about development and the idea that we are focusing on things that are of our own interest, but we forget about the rest of the world.

One of the responses was the summit in mid-June in Paris about the new financial pact with the idea to address [inaudible], the fight against climate change, and the question of development and to have a financial surge for addressing part of this grievance. But I think part of these difficulties come from also narrative, which are fueled by also disinformation, fake news coming from Russia and some other countries, with the idea that democracy, there is not one model, there is different models of democracy. After all, Russia at the end is probably not an autocracy, but a real democracy, it's just us that we didn't understand what is democracy. So this kind of event shows that this kind of democracy, as Ambassador Markarova just said, probably not as democracy as they pretend to be, and not leaders they pretend to be, and not as supportive as some may think they will be in the future.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. Sarcasm about democracy is brave, but I'm sure our audience understands-

Laurent Bili:
Yes. Sometimes French people forget that a certain degree kind of joke is ... But I could make this a title for the one we need after.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. Ambassador Markarova, Ukraine has also scaled up its diplomatic presence in Africa, in the Middle East, in Asia, President Zelenskyy has traveled and given speeches. How would you assess the results, if there are already any, of this diplomatic offensive?

Oksana Markarova:
Well, I think it's always good to talk to people. You talk to ... We will talk, President Zelenskyy said, to anyone except for Russia and those who participate in this war, like Iran and Belarus for example at the moment. Not to talk to leadership, but even to people. Of course, we will talk to everyone. It was very important for us, because for centuries, again, as I said before, not only for the three decades after 1991, Russia dominated in the informational sphere there and during the Soviet times also. They did a lot of propaganda which was anti-Ukrainian, anti-Estonian, anti-Latin, anti-Georgian. It was very much focused on Russia/Soviet Union as the good guys, and they were fighting against anyone who would even dream about a sovereign or independent Ukraine, and would spread it elsewhere.

So we see the results of this engagement already, because again, first of all, as the number top five exporters of the food, there is a lot of relations with a number of these countries already. There is a lot we can do together, a lot we have done together in the past. With our engineering and digital capacity, we're working a lot as the representative of Ukraine to the organization of American States, in addition to being ambassador to the US. The more we work and the more we talk with this country, the more actually support we have. If you look at the vote in the UN, 153 countries, sometimes less, but as much as 153 countries supported Ukraine and condemned Russia actions.

Because you don't need to be in Europe to see the situation clearly, you don't need to be in our context to differentiate between a complex whatever conflict internal situation or a very blunt aggression of nuclear autocratic country, member of the Security Council of the UN, that simply attacked, unprovoked, unjustified, their peaceful neighbor that was never going to attack Russia. We never posed any threat to Russia throughout our history, unless of course choosing being independent and democratic is a threat. That was the only reason for this attack, in this century and in previous centuries as well.

So we feel that we have a number of countries that not only support us, but also we can do a lot together. I think this is a crucial moment when, again, it's not just for the transatlantic family, the G7, the UN, the European Union that needs this architecture to be restored, all of us need it. A number of countries in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, look at this and they think, "Hmm, what will happen if God-forbid my neighbor decides that he can invade me?" The rules either work for everyone or they don't work at all. This erosion of rules, again coming back to the previous issues, I just want to support the ambassador's point that some of the grievances we hear from our colleagues from these places are well grounded. We didn't address some of the erosion of this international oath in the past, because it was somewhere far, because we didn't think it's ...

But as Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." We either restore it for all, and this is our chance to restore it for all, to use this not only to restore peace in Ukraine and in Europe, but also look at what didn't work to prevent it. What should we do in order to prevent it in the future? Of course, the goal is to win now, for us it's existential, for us it's existential as a nation, but also as people. We have been physically killed by Russians on a daily basis.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. We're never going to get through all of these questions, but I'm going to attempt my best. There is a question here about Ukrainian economic recovery and reconstruction, and I think it's really important that we contextualize our conversation on security commitments, because so much of the security commitment is needed in order to mobilize private sector investment, in order to enable economic reconstruction recovery. We've had the London Recovery Conference recently on Ukraine. Ambassador Bili, how do you assess the results of that conference? It also triggered a controversial conversation about what to do with frozen Russian assets, and what are French plans when it comes to economic reconstruction recovery? In two minutes.

Laurent Bili:
Two minutes. Let's say that we start to anticipate that work, because we think it will happen, and the sooner, the better. We have a special envoy of the French president working on reconstruction, which is [inaudible] different sources that we are. The question of the assets that could be used is also very important. So we are working on all these fronts together, once again with just a single goal, to support Ukraine.

Sophia Besch:
Okay. Do you want to comment on the results of the conference?

Oksana Markarova:
Two minutes?

Sophia Besch:
Sure.

Oksana Markarova:
We have one hour, you know it's my favorite topic I like to discuss. But if briefly, we need to win, we need to confiscate the assets, there is nothing controversial about it, they have to pay for what they've done. We need to create environment in which business will come in numbers into Ukraine, so that we can leapfrog and create the Ukraine 2.0, which is going to be not only good for Ukraine, but also an answer to so many global challenges. In order to do that, we need to address the security issue, the path of course to NATO membership, but working towards NATO membership through other instruments, and we need to, right after we win, to work collectively together how to rebuild Ukraine in the most innovative and digital and inspiring way. I'm positive it will happen as soon as we win, that's why for reconstruction the weapons and sanctions and everything that I keep talking all the time is such an important prerequisite. We need to win first in order to get there.

Sophia Besch:
Yeah. There's a question here for Ambassador Bili, the question says, "France has given Ukraine long range missiles while the US has not, why has France chosen to take the political step to send the missiles? Are you recommending to the US that they also send attackers?" I doubt that you will be able to respond to the second part of that question though, by all means, but maybe you can give a little bit more context on why France has made that decision.

Laurent Bili:
I appreciate your comment. So focusing on the first part of the question, it has been a long discussion between our president when the decision was made, because we think it's the right thing to do. We need to give Ukraine the means to win the war, and it's an element that is very important to make sure that raise that possibility, and also raise some kind of understanding between us of what can be done or not with the weapon. But we trust Ukraine and we support Ukraine in this fight.

Oksana Markarova:
Let me comment on the second part of the question. We need this, we need all the capabilities that we can, so that our brave defenders can faster liberate the territories. Longer range missiles is something that we have been asking since the first day of this brutal invasion. So we're very grateful again to France, to the Great Britain for providing it, it really makes a difference on the battlefield. We still are working and asking both our friends here in the US, but also anyone else who has those capabilities to give it to us. We have proven that we're using them in a very responsible way, that we are targeted destroying the enemy's ammo, warehouses, their command posts and everything else, and the more weapons we will have, the longer range we will have, we will use them on our territory in order to liberate our country. So I think this is the moment when we really need them.

Sophia Besch:
Yeah. I'm going through these questions and I don't want to do any of them injustice by saying you have to answer them in a minute or less, because are arriving at the end of our time. But I will still do it. Perhaps by just picking one for just one of you, for Ambassador Bili, because this question says, "One criticism of the NATO communique is that it did not express sufficient support for the explicitly strengthening the capabilities of the European pillar of NATO." For example, by backing EU defense initiatives. The question I would like to ask, how does France view the importance of US support for strengthening the Ukraine pillar in NATO?

Laurent Bili:
Well, I think in that part of the communique, the difficulty was not coming from the US side. So we are confident that there is a broad understanding of the importance of having realized and the real European pillar was in NATO.

Sophia Besch:
Beautiful. All right, we've come to the end of our event today. I'm sorry to everyone who has submitted really excellent questions, but we do other events on these subjects, I'm sure you can ask them then. I want to thank, and please join me in thanking the two ambassadors for coming here this morning. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of you who have attended in person, and thanks to-

Thank you.