Ten-year US-Ukraine security deal is a 'landmark event', FM Kuleba says

Hello and welcome to Ted. Ted France 24th flagship interview show. Our guest today is Metro Kuleba. He's Ukraine's foreign Minister. He joins us from the G7 summit in Fasano, Italy. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Kuleba, for being with us. It's my pleasure. So the G7 is announcing an agreement for the use of some 260 billion dollars in Russian frozen assets. The vast majority are held in Western Europe, and this will be used as a guarantee for a loan for Ukraine. Is this satisfying or were you hoping to be able to use more of those assets? Well, it's a major step in the right direction, but we still have to cover the last mile. That should lead us to seizing all Russian assets currently frozen in Western jurisdiction. The legal argument to support this case is there, and we welcome the anticipated decision of the G7, but it's definitely not the last one. We have to move forward until the issue is fixed and Russia pays with its frozen assets for the damage it inflicted on Ukraine, for all the destruction it brought to our country. It makes more. It makes false full sense to make Russia pay with its own money, right? Just another announcement that Ukraine and the US would sign a bilateral security agreement. Is this a landmark for you or is this just maybe some guarantees after all the struggle to get the Ukraine aid in the US Congress? Well, it is a landmark event. It's the first agreement of this kind that Ukraine and the United States are signing since Ukraine gained independence in 1991. It is even more important that this is not an isolated agreement. We are signing this similar agreements with all G7 countries and beyond this group. So we are creating a new security architecture around Ukraine that makes assistance provided to Ukraine more sustainable and solid, right? There was also another piece of news from NATO. Hungary, which was not in favour of NATO providing military aid to Ukraine, has now agreed to do so. Is this also good news or is just something that is not going to change your cooperation with NATO? Well, I think it's worth saying that when NATO allies reach consensus on any fundamental issue related to Euro Atlantic security, it's a good news per SE, whether it's related to Ukraine or not related to Ukraine. But given that the biggest threat to Euro Atlantic security comes from Russia that attacked Ukraine, of course, we welcome any decisions that help us to move forward and to solidify NATO's assistance. First and foremost, reaching consensus is an issue for allies to resolve. And whatever the format of that decision is, as long as consensus is there, we we welcome it, right? There's a NATO summit in Washington in July. Joe Biden was speaking to Time magazine recently, and he was talking about peace in Ukraine. He says it doesn't mean Ukraine becomes part of NATO. Do you think that the US and others are now more reluctant to see Ukraine coming to NATO? Do you see this as a step in the wrong direction? I believe these words are overly quoted. Everyone is focusing on them. Taken from one interview while ignoring the fact that the United States remained the largest provider of military assistance to Ukraine, the largest provided of other types of assistance. The future of Ukraine in NATO is clearly fixed in all fundamental documents of the alliance, including the last business summit declaration. It clearly says that Ukraine will be a member of NATO and invitation to become a member will be extended. So I don't think that this particular wars of President Biden, they challenge, they shatter this, this well established position, membership of Ukraine and NATO is just a matter of time and tactics. So how do we get there? But I don't see anything threatening that outcome, right? I just want to touch upon military aid. Obviously, Russian ballistic missiles are causing major damage, especially on the energy infrastructure of Ukraine. Ukraine and especially you have been demanding Patriot anti missile system to the US, its allies. the US just announced it would send a second battery of Patriot systems to Ukraine. The President Zelensky says you need 25 of them. Are we getting there or is this still lasting too much time? A couple of months ago, President Zelensky clearly said the threshold of utmost urgency, which is 7 Patriot systems or similar systems to address to accommodate the most urgent needs of Ukraine. And you see from the public announcements already made from Germany, from the United States, from Italy, that we are approaching this threshold. And I have no doubts that we will, we will reach it. So we need 7 to get to form urgent needs, but in total to cover our country and save it from enormous destruction by by Russian missiles, we need 25 S once we get 7 batteries. How many do you have? How many do you have currently? I'm I think I will not make the life of our enemy easier by disclosing all the numbers, but everyone should be aware of one simple fact. Whatever the price of air defense system or missiles to it is, the damage caused by Russian ballistic missiles to Ukraine's energy and civilian infrastructure is much, much more expensive. So the best way to save money from helping Ukraine to recover from these damages is actually to provide Ukraine with air defence systems. On June 1516, Switzerland host the first global peace summit. This was done at the request of Ukraine. Joe Biden will not attend, nor will the leaders of India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, China. Are you still hoping that this will be a successful summit despite those important leaders not attending? I think what matters first and foremost is the number of countries and the geographical representation of these countries that will attend. Some leaders do not attend because of the conflict of schedules, irreconcilable conflict of schedules. We don't have any doubts that President Biden would be willing to attend the summit, but he runs a presidential campaign and he has to be in the United States. As far as we understand that he's sending his vice president, which is also a very strong message of support. Some other leaders are not coming, but sending their high level representatives. So we should count countries who will attend and who will not attend the summit. That will be the, the, the line that will help us to see to see the map, that will help us to see the map of Ukraine in the different, the map of the world in a different spotlight. But I'm confident that the summit will be a success. Just wait for another couple of days and you will see it. Russia obviously has not been invited. How do you make peace without your enemy? Well, all those who argue that you have to put Russia at the table now ignore 2 facts. First, Russia does not want to be at the table. Everything Russia does signifies that they chose war over peace. And 2nd, we tried, many for many years we tried to negotiate with Russia at the table and we learned one very important lesson. Putting Russia at the table to negotiate and making them negotiate in good faith are two different things. This is why Russia is not at the first summit, because if it was, it would dis obstruct the summit. It would water it down. But second, Please remember that they themselves said they would not participate. Once the coalition around UN Charter principles and territorial integrity of Ukraine is built, we will find ways, appropriate ways to to reach out to Russia and make them negotiate in good faith. This is the strategy. And please, everyone who questions it, please look at the practice of negotiating with Russia rather than a theory of negotiations, right? The French President has been much more outspoken against Russia. He talked about the coalition of structures to be sent to Ukraine, sending Mirage planes, and even the possibility of sending ground troops to Ukraine. How do you explain that? Well, President Macron has ambitious vision. He understands that Russia poses a threat not only to Ukraine, but to entire Europe. The ideas that he comes up with are not easy to implement. So it takes time to hold discussion among partners and allies. But it's important that he holds firm his his position that he's moving forward. We would not want to prejudge the outcome of these discussions, but it's we welcome the fact that these questions are in principle put on the agenda. Last question, you probably followed the election elections for the European Parliament and both in France and Germany, parties that have pro Russian leanings. The National Rally in France, the IFT in Germany had strong showings and the National Rally is now the favorite to win the snap elections called here in France. Are you afraid that this will mean less support for Ukraine? No, listen, we we are not afraid. We are, we are a country at war against an extremely powerful enemy. Trust me, we are not afraid of anything. We will be managing any reality that we will have to face. I think the developments in Europe is first and foremost an issue for Europeans themselves, because they have to make a choice about the future of Europe, how Europe will look like. And we will be part of Europe. So we care about it, but we we don't worry because we just, we are not afraid because we just don't have fear. Same question about Donald Trump coming back to the White House. Same answer. Mitro Coleba, I want to thank you very much for appearing here on France 24 from the G7 summit in Italy. And thank you all for watching this show.