EC Briefing — Wednesday, 1 April 2026

Key Points

• President von der Leyen will receive the Lower Saxony Land Medal in Hanover next week.
• The Commission announced changes to the market stability reserve to enhance stability in the ETS.
• Proposals to lower electricity prices will be presented in the coming weeks, addressing all price components.
• The review of the ETS directive is expected to be proposed in July, focusing on industry concerns.
• The Commission emphasizes a unified response to the current energy crisis while continuing the path to decarbonization.
• Short-term measures will be complemented by medium and long-term strategies to ensure energy independence and efficiency.

Full Transcript

Transcribed automatically from EbS (Europe by Satellite) · English audio track · AI-generated · May contain errors · Verify before quoting

Opening Statement

Good afternoon and welcome to our midday briefing. Today is Wednesday the 1st of April 2026.

Before we start taking your questions, a brief announcement for you relating to the President's agenda for next week. On Tuesday, President von der Leyen will be in Hanover, Germany, where she will receive the Lower Saxony Land Medal and deliver a speech. That's it for her agenda for next week. And now I would like to say welcome to a group of 35 Erasmus students from the Institute of Advanced Studies in Social Communication in Brussels who are visiting the press room today. We hope you'll enjoy this midday briefing and your experience in the European institutions. So that's all of the announcers made and we can now take your questions.

Q (Nikolaus Koma): Sorry to start off, Nikolaus Koma, for your active story. So that is often a nerdy footing, but the Commission just announced changes to the market stability reserve, so this will be to ETS. In response to the announcement, prices have gone up in the ETS, adding further pressure on the competitiveness of European industry and electricity prices. What will the Commission propose in the coming weeks and months to actually rein in the price? Thank you so much. Thank you very much. We have Eva here replacing Anna Kaiser today. Thanks very much, Eva. Go ahead.

A (Eva): Thank you, Niko, for the question. You just had a very exhaustive technical briefing given by our great Director General Kurt from DG Klima. Regarding the prices, we are not going to speculate here about the prices. What is clear is that the proposal that we have presented is here to bring stability, because ETS is a tool that has already worked very well, that has brought stability, that can decrease the volatility of the market, and this is why we also come up with with the updates. Many thanks, Eva. Do we have other questions on energy for Eva here at the back?

Q (Joakim Glumenti, Estonian Public Broadcasting): Hi, Joakim Glumenti from Estonian Public Broadcasting. Just to follow up on that, at the previous Council, the Member States asked the Commission to present proposals that would lower electricity prices and to look at all components that go into electricity prices. Is this not ignoring this instruction if we are not addressing prices right now as well the ETS component of electricity prices? How will the Commission reduce the impact of the ETS system on electricity prices that the Council wants you to do?

A (Eva): I won't tell you the details now, but what I can say, and it was also content of the technical briefing, that the work is not finished, the work is ongoing. We are going to propose also the other part regarding the benchmarks, and we are going to propose the revision, the review of the ETS directive. I can just recall what the President has said after the last European Council, that we will update the benchmarks for free allocations and take into account the concerns of the industry. Then we will increase the firepower of the market stability reserve. This is the proposal that is now on the table that should bring more stability and reduce price volatility. And we are also looking at medium-term measures. The review should come in the course of the month of July.

Thank you, Eva. Just to really emphasize the point that Eva made there, President von der Leyen at the recent European Council made clear that we would come forward with short-term as well as medium-term measures. Commissioner Jorgensen, after yesterday's Energy Council, very much was on that same track. He emphasized that those measures will come soon. Other questions on energy for us? David.

Q (David Carretta, Radio Radicale): Thank you, David Carretta, Radio Radicale. First of all, a small note. If you mention the high-ranking official that has made a briefing and then ask us not to mention his name, maybe you have a problem of rules, internal rules. Having said that, probably I'm not intelligent enough to have the big picture. Yesterday, Commissioner Jorgensen was quite clear saying that the EU must continue on the path of decarbonization because of the situation in the Middle East, price of gas, oil and so on, and the dependency from fossil fuel. This is one side. On the other side, today in July, you are proposing some measures that are going in the other direction because of another priority, which is competitiveness. So, from a policy point of view, am I wrong to see a contradiction between those two issues?

A: Grazie, David. First of all, just to be clear, we shouldn't mention the names of high-ranking officials participating in technical briefings. That's our error. Forgive us. Second of all, to respond directly to your question, speaking on behalf of the European Commission, no, there is no contradiction here at all. What the President talked about at the EUCO in March, what Commissioner Jorgensen talked about very clearly yesterday was preparation. Let's be under no illusions here. We are in a crisis, a crisis not of our making and a crisis to which we as the Commission need to act in the broadest interests of European consumers, businesses and industry. We are better prepared for this crisis precisely because we have more renewables on the grid than we did in recent comparable crises, notably COVID. We are better prepared because we have already substantially diversified our energy supply and that is work that will continue to happen. So, essentially, we are in a better position for volatility shocks. So, the work that needs to happen now, as I think Commissioner Jorgensen made very clear, and Eva will offer more if she wants to, we continue on the path to decarbonisation. We continue on the path to diversifying our energy mix. In order to be prepared for the possible worst-case scenarios in what is already a very challenging situation, we come forward with short-term measures, including the one you heard about today, and soon, as Commissioner Jorgensen said, we will propose more comprehensive measures for the medium and long term. That, to me, is the European Commission doing what it is supposed to do, defending the European interests, looking at the big picture, trying to coordinate among member states so that there is a genuine unified response, and Commissioner Jorgensen appealed yesterday for unity in that sense. So, that is the track we are on, that is the track we are going to stay on, and we are satisfied that we are acting in the best interests of the European Union as a whole. Anything to add, Eva? No, I just want to add that I don't see any contradiction, because as Commissioner Jorgensen said yesterday, we should use also this crisis as an opportunity, which is something what the European Commission has done already in the past in several crises, and he said that the idea is to become truly energy independent. This is what we are already working on. We have diversified our sources, and we are continuing this job, and we need to bring homegrown clean energy, electrification, we need to modernize interconnections and energy efficiency. So, this is a way forward, and it doesn't give any contradiction with what has been done up till now. Thank you, Eva. David?

Q (David Carretta, Radio Radicale): You know, thanks for the excellent briefing by a senior EU official whose name we do not mention. We appreciated the embargoed legal proposal, not just the PR that accompanies it. That was excellent. I think the decision was adopted at 10 a.m., if I'm right, and we received it at 11, 11.30 a.m., so it could have been a bit quicker, whatever. But my question is now, where is the Commissioner? I mean, it would be nice, some of the questions I'm hearing from my colleagues are political questions. You know, the technical questions were answered excellently, as you said, but where is the Commissioner? Why didn't we have a press conference? Was that not possible? Thanks.

A: Thanks, David. Look, the Commissioner is a busy man. He participated in the Energy Council yesterday. He gave a very, I've read through it in detail, a very comprehensive set of responses in the press conference thereafter. We have just provided for you a technical briefing along with some very detailed press materials. We're doing our best here, so we will be happy to convey your enthusiasm for more participation by the Commissioner in future press events to him, and we'll let you know what his response is. Other questions on energy? You want to say something, Eva? Yes, I just want to thank David for following the rules and for the appreciation of how we work with the media. I think his question was more targeted to Commissioner Hoekstra. He's also a busy man, and so we tried to offer you as much as possible, which was the technical briefing, and obviously we are still available for bilateral questions. As always, we do our best to provide the most comprehensive service to you, the journalists of Europe. Other questions on energy for us today?

Q (Tatiana Vysotskaya, European Pravda Ukraine): Go ahead. Tatiana Vysotskaya, European Pravda Ukraine. I'm traditionally asking any news about Druzhba pipeline and expert group, which is, is the European Union still wants to send the expert group to see the pipeline? Is the expert group is still in Kyiv? What do you know about that? Thank you so much.

A (Eva): I'm just backing up Anakeisa. I don't have any more information about the Druzhba pipeline. Thank you, Eva. Other questions for us? Lorenzo.

Q (Lorenzo, Consul Askanews): Consul Askanews. I would like to ask about, it's about energy. There was yesterday a report published by Politico and Transport and Environment also concerning the biofuels and the fact that the ENI, the Italian energy company, is having projects in Africa, in Kenya in particular, to cultivate biofuels. And there was an inquiry about that and the fact that actually some of these biofuels could have a flout system to certify that they are sustainable. We know the biofuels should have a low carbon emission to be admitted and should not be in replacement of food crops. And actually, these two conditions seem to be not respected according to the inquiry. Are you looking into this, into the biofuel regulation and, I mean, the way it is regulated, the conditions that have to be respected and the fact that we know that, for instance, Italy is pushing a lot to have neutrality concerning the technology used and this is something that could be a problem for biofuels. Thank you.

A (Eva): Lorenzo, we have a database of food-based biofuels, but for the rest, I assure you that I will look into it and come back to you bilaterally on this specific topic. Thank you, Eva. Do we have other questions on energy for Eva? Do we have other questions for Eva on the many files she covers? I don't see any hands here in the room nor online. Thank you, Eva. Other questions for us today? Jorge.

Q (Jorge): Hello, Olof. I have a question on the loan for Ukraine. I just saw the news that you are putting forward one of the first legal elements to make this loan a reality. Can you clarify, please, take us through the steps that are still missing before this loan can become a reality? Second, how fast can you make the first payment after Hungary lifts the veto, if it ever does? And a clarification, why does the proposal include a derogation for the procurement of drones? Thank you.

A: Thank you, Jorge. Indeed, I think it's a very good idea to take stock of where we are, because it is extremely important for us to make all the necessary steps in order to be able to start disbursing the 90 billion assistance package to Ukraine. So there are we. In terms of the amendment of the MFF regulation, you know our position very well. There was a commitment made at the level of the 27 member states back in December, and we expect all the 27 member states to live up to this commitment. Not respecting them, not respecting this commitment would indeed constitute a breach of the principle of loyal cooperation. But it has to be clear that this is not the only remaining task to deliver on. We have another, I would say, four documents that we need to adopt, the first of which is actually being adopted today by the European Commission. This is essentially the most important one. It's called the Ukraine Financing Strategy. Now, this document is looking at 2026 only this year. It determines how much we intend to disburse to Ukraine in the course of 2026, to what purposes, and via which channels. Now, this builds on a large quantity of information submitted by Ukraine that we collectively worked out with the Ukrainian authorities. We analyzed it, and today we are green-lighting it on our side, and we are proposing a council-implementing decision on this basis, which will have to be adopted by the council. So this is what's happening today. In addition to that, given that we are using several channels to disburse the funds, we will have a couple of other documents to adopt. So when it comes to the macro-financial assistance part, we will have to, as usual, draft a Memorandum of Understanding, which is actually being drafted. It's being discussed with Ukraine. As regards the funds that will go through the Ukraine facility, we will have to update what we call the Ukraine Plan. Discussions are ongoing on this front as well. And given that this is a loan program, we will have to sign loan agreements as well. So these agreements are also being drafted, and we are doing whatever we can to ensure that all bits and pieces fall in place as soon as possible. Thank you, Balazs, for that very, very clear presentation. Jorge, you have a follow-up?

Q (Jorge): Yes. First, on the timeline, because obviously the question is that the fear that Ukraine might round off or might run out of foreign assistance soon. What timelines do you have after these four documents are ready and approved to disburse the money? If the veto is lifted, how much time do you need to make the first payment happen? And second, what I raised about the drones and the procurement of drones, is it possible to clarify that, why there's a derogation on that front? Thank you.

A: Yeah. Okay. So in terms of the – let me answer your question on the liquidity. So that's really not the issue. So once we have all the relevant elements in place, we can draw on the funds that we have in our liquidity pool and make the first disbursement. So this is really not going to hold up the procedure that I'm going to make it very clear today. In terms of the timeline, so I've alluded to the fact that we've got three channels, three windows through which we're going to deploy the funds. You have, for budget support, two instruments, let's say. One is the MFA, the other one is the Ukraine facility. And for defense, you have a dedicated defense window within what we call the Ukraine loan instrument. And each of these instruments will come with their own respective timelines. So as I said, the MOU for the MFA is still being discussed, so I won't be able to give yet the final details on that front. The Ukraine plan, the updated Ukraine plan, is also being discussed. Therefore, we are not in a position yet to give you the exact timeline. But again, whatever we do will be done in a way to respond to the best of our ability to the needs in Ukraine, and we'll be keeping a very close contact with the Ukrainian counterparts on this issue. On the drones, I will let to my reply later. That's his portfolio. Thank you, Balazs. Jennifer.

Q (Jennifer): Thank you. If I could follow up on the timing point, because a few months ago around December, we heard several times from this podium that Ukraine was going to run out of money by the beginning of the second quarter, which happens to be today. And now there seems to be less urgency in the Commission's thinking about when Ukraine needs the money. Could you just share how your thinking has evolved and when for you, you see Ukraine as really needing the money to be available and the funds to start flowing?

A: Indeed. So when we look at the situation, when we have been looking at the situation, the conclusion that appeared to be emerging was that there will be additional financial needs kicking in in the second quarter of this year. And that's why we set the intention to essentially be ready with all the respective legislation by the second quarter. So a lot of progress has been made. We have seen already the amendment of the Ukraine facility. We've seen the setup of what we call the Ukraine loan instrument by the Council. Today, again, we are taking a major step forward. And in the foreseeable future, you can expect additional elements to be put in place, as I alluded to, the MOU that will underpin the MFA, an updated Ukraine plan and the loan agreements. These are being discussed at the moment. And then on the MFF, as I said, all appropriate contacts are being had. And we are optimistic on that front as well. And we are hoping that, again, the first disbursement can be made in the first part of the second quarter. Thank you, Balazs. Valeria.

Q (Valeria Pashko, Public Broadcaster of Ukraine): Valeria Pashko, Public Broadcaster of Ukraine. I have a follow-up on the figures. You stated that Ukraine submitted the financial strategy for this year. Could you please provide us with some figures that Ukraine outlined in this document? And also, Commissioner Kalas, HRBP, while in Kyiv stated that you may consider again the reparation loans if Orban doesn't lift his veto on this loan, 90 billion loan. Is this really correct, that you are still considering the reparations loan as a plan B in this regard? Thanks.

A: All right. So on the figures, overall for the next two years, so 2026 and 2027, we are looking at 90 billion. Now, when it comes to 2026, the intention is to disburse 45 billion in total, both for budget support and defense assistance. Now, if you break it down in terms of budget support and defense, we are planning to disburse 16.7 billion for budget support in the course of this year, and 28.3 for defense support. And if you want me to be even more specific, as I mentioned, we are using two instruments to deploy the budget support. So 8.35 will be deployed via the Ukraine facility, and 8.35 via the MFA. Now, more broadly on the reparation loan, I'm just going to refer back to the European Council conclusions of December last year, which made it clear that this option will have to stay on the agenda, and the member states reserve the right to come back to it if needed. Thank you, Balazs. Just let me see if we have any notes before I come back to you, David. Go ahead.

Q (David Carretta, Radio Radicale): Thank you, David Carretta, Radio Radicale. Balazs, just a clarification on this option. Would it need an unanimous decision to amend the MFF as the first option, the one with the Russian asset?

A: Now, you remind me of a debate that took place a long time ago. I think the MFF amendment came in when it came to the option of joint borrowing against the HEDROM, which is the option that was retained in the end. And that's the reason why we have the discussion ongoing on the amendment of the MFF regulation. Whether it was needed for the other option, I would have to check. But I think this dimension came into the debate because of the very option that was chosen in the end in December last year. Thank you, Balazs. Do we have other questions on this topic for Balazs or questions on the other topics Balazs covers? David.

Q (David): Well, actually, I'm not sure if it's for Balazs. I think it might be. It's concerning DG Connect funding of Euronews. So there was an excellent article in Euroactive yesterday detailing how Euronews' Budapest office had removed a story concerning alleged links between Viktor Orban and certain companies. My question to the Commission is concerning the almost 3 million that was awarded to Euronews for news from Poland and from Hungary. Does that raise questions in terms of the independence of the media news there and their ability to effectuate that contract which was awarded, I think, on the 10th or the 12th of December 2025? Thanks.

A: Thank you, David. So Euronews is an independent private company. The Commission plays absolutely no role when it comes to editorial or managerial decisions when it comes to Euronews reporting. Now, let me be clear, indeed, that our support to Euronews is not new. We have had more than a decade of longstanding annual support as part of direct support to Euronews to cover European news content. Now, this has stopped. This has opened up now where, indeed, we have now calls that are open to any company that can apply, including Euronews. But let me highlight once again that the Commission plays absolutely no role when it comes to editorial decisions taken by an independent company. Thank you, Thomas. David, do you have a follow-up?

Q (David): Okay. The question has absolutely nothing to do with the excellent reporting of Euronews colleagues here in Brussels. There's no doubt about that. But there are longstanding issues in terms of the financing of the purchase of Euronews, I think, in 2023, and alleged links or proven links to companies in Hungary. It's in that perspective that the question was asked. It's not about whether it's independent or not, but whether it can conform and perform those duties for this contract, which was, I presume, for independent news reporting in Hungary and, I think, also Poland. Thanks.

A (Thomas): I get your point, David. I, indeed, got it that way. I can maybe add that each call, including the ones that were won by Euronews, has clear criteria and objectives. And, of course, the editorial independence of that company or that applicant always has to be proven to the Commission on top of it, definitely.

Q: Thanks, Thomas. You mentioned that you might want to give an extra line on the drones to Jorge.

A (Thomas): To Jorge, yes. Your question on the drone derogation. So, I mean, Ukraine, facing a war, has immediate, short-term, critical, and massive needs to defend itself when it comes to certain critical products, including drones. When these cannot be jointly procured from EU countries or Norway or Iceland or Ukraine, I make a slight echo to SAFE here. You all remember this European preference. At least 65% of the components of these products need to come from within the EU. When this is not possible, a derogation can be requested, which was granted here, which would allow, indeed, Ukraine, with this loan, to buy immediate, short-term needs and to jointly procure them to a higher degree, higher percentage, with third countries. So this is what was done here in this context. I hope it's clear. Thank you, Thomas. Go ahead.

Q (Alexandra Bogdouri, Kathmirini): Just a clarification, Thomas. Thank you a lot for the question. Alexandra Bogdouri with Kathmirini. So this derogation only applies for drones and not other arms purchase on behalf of Ukraine. Thank you so much.

A (Thomas): Exactly. For now, the derogation that was adopted applies to drone specifically. Now, I cannot exclude or prejudge today from this podium if it will not apply to other critical products in the future, be it missiles or whatever else. I mean, at this stage, yes, indeed, it is limited to drones. Thanks very much.

Q: Do we have other questions for Thomas on this topic or the many other topics he covers? Go ahead. On the defence part in the portfolio, this is a question on NATO. There's been renewed criticism of the US administration about NATO. Is there any reaction from the European Commission? Are you worried? This is for Anita. So I'll see whether there are any other questions for Thomas and I'll come back to you. Any other questions for Thomas? Yes, I see one hand raised. Please go ahead.

Q (Anna Ströble-Romero, Tagesspiegel): Yes. Hi. Thank you. Anna Ströble-Romero for Tagesspiegel. So we were expecting the call for the AI Gigafactories to be launched in January or February. Now it's April. So I was wondering when can we expect the call to be opened and what is causing the delay? Thank you.

A (Thomas): Spring? No. Yes, indeed. I mean, soon. Obviously, we're advancing on it. Why the delay? Because this is a very relevant question. I mean, the upcoming call for the AI Gigafactories is of essential importance for the Commission and for the EU as a whole. Indeed, if we want to train appropriate AI models here in Europe at home with the necessary data, infrastructure, talents and computing power, we need these Gigafactories. They're based on supercomputers that already exist at national level. Why does it take time? Because the criteria and the call that the Commission is currently establishing needs to give time and needs to give equal chances to all member states to be able to compete fairly for this. So hence, this slight delay, but we're fully working on it and you can expect it still in spring.

Q: Follow up. Yeah, thanks. I was also wondering if it's still sure that you're going with four or five Gigafactories because this was kind of tied to the interest of the private sector who has to invest a lot of money. And well, lately I've heard some doubts maybe. So is it possible that that would change the number of Gigafactories or is this a certain number? Thank you.

A (Thomas): Thank you. Yes. So we still have potentially 230 billion on the table that were promised by the industry. This is, of course, a very theoretical amount. The president last year in Paris was also very clear about the fact that we need around 20 billion to be able to have to set up four to five Gigafactories. This is still the relevant figures at this stage. Yes.

Q: Merci, Thomas. Do we have other questions for Thomas? No. Other topics, please. Go ahead.

Q (Vitaly Sisov, Freedom TV channel): Thank you, Vitaly Sisov, Freedom TV channel. Maybe you have a comment. President of Ukraine, he proposed ceasefire on Eastern to Russian side and Russian side reject this proposition. What do you think about the idea of ceasefire and will EU support this ceasefire? Thank you. Many thanks, Vitaly. Anita is coming to the stage to answer your question.

A (Anita): Thank you, Vitaly. The EU is supporting the idea of a ceasefire since a long time. Russia clearly isn't because they have rejected it and they chose just once more that they're not at all Ukraine prevails and the pressure is put on the aggressor and not on Ukraine.

Q: Thank you, Anita. Do you want to take the NATO question that came as well?

A (Anita): I'll take briefly also the NATO question on this. We don't speak as such for NATO, but we speak for the EU in terms of our security and our defense. And obviously, we are committed to a strong transatlantic bond, which remains crucial for our security. We're also committed in investing in our security and defense. And this is why we have enabled member states to mobilize up to 800 billion for our security. And also, this includes also the 150 billion specifically for the joint procurement and the safe. We are always stronger together. And for this, NATO is key. Thank you, Anita. Do we have other questions for Anita today? I have a hand back here, and then I'll come back to you, Mose. Yeah.

Q (Nicolás Ayonta, Euractiv): Nicolás Ayonta from Euractiv. You don't speak for NATO, but how is the commission reacting to Trump's threats to kind of pressure EU countries to reopen the Strait of Hormuz?

A (Anita): So we don't comment on comments, and our position is clear throughout all accounts, in particular when it comes to our security.

Q: Thanks very much. Other questions for Anita, please? Mose, is it for Anita or Anuar? Okay, let me just go online then, because I have Sandor from Euronews. Oh, he's gone again. Go ahead.

Q (Sandor, Euronews): Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay. So it's a question related to the leaked phone call between Seattle and Lavrov, which was released yesterday. And as a result, potentially, of this phone call, a Russian woman called Ismailova was lifted from the EU sanctions at least six or seven months later. So I would like to know, was the High Representative aware of, you know, this proposal by Hungary and Slovakia was a result of intense lobbying? Was she maybe suspecting it? And eventually, why the High Representative and other member states agreed to lift this person from the sanctions list? And of course, she was not the only one, because there were many other Russians lifted from sanctions lift at the request of Hungary. Thank you.

A (Anita): Yes, thank you. As always, we do not comment on the listing decisions of the Council. Also, the decisions on the sanctions are confidential. But when it comes to the relationship of trust and the principle of sincere cooperation, this has been also clearly mentioned by the High Representative, who has also initiated a call with the Hungarian foreign minister. And she also stated very clearly, again, yesterday in Kyiv, that European ministers should work for Europe and not for Russia.

Q: Thank you, Anita. Do we have other questions for Anita? You can try it now, Moshe.

Q (Mose): Yes, thank you, Oluf. It's about yesterday's informal foreign affairs council meeting in Kyiv. I think Anita took those questions. And I noticed that High Representative Kallas said in her press remarks at the meeting that the wars in Iran and Ukraine are very interlinked. But that brings my mind to the statement which was issued, a joint statement on Lebanon, but only by nine EU member states plus UK, I think. The statement is very extensive and says all the right things, but there is nothing very concrete what EU can really do in order to contribute to a ceasefire in Lebanon and to political solution. So my question is, first, if the French proposal a week ago on an immediate ceasefire, which would then lead to a process of disarmament of Hezbollah and a political solution between Israel and Lebanon, is that still on the table? And what exactly can the EU itself do in order to contribute such a solution? Because it seems to be a very challenging task, considering that it would involve, in fact, three tasks, both to break the link between Iran and its support to Hezbollah, also prevent Israel from its plans to establish so-called security zones in southern Lebanon, and also to use its leverage on Lebanon's government to bring about the full disarmament of Hezbollah. Thank you.

A (Anita): So I will leave it to Anouar, but indeed the high representative has mentioned that both wars are interlinked also when it comes to Iran that designed the drones that Russia is also using against Ukraine and is also mass-producing by now. But I will let Anouar to comment on Lebanon and Hezbollah. Thanks. Let me just check if there are any other questions for Anita on the files she covers. I don't see any. Then come on up, Anouar, and you can provide the remainder of the response to Moussa. He's almost here.

A (Anouar): Good afternoon. On the first point of your question in terms of interlinkages, indeed, the high rep was quite clear. And this is not new. This is also something that we have been quite vocal on. And the series of meetings that we had with our Gulf partners, EU and GCC, also underlined this angle in the sense that the two war theaters in Ukraine and also in the Middle East and Iran show that there is also scope for cooperation. And we have also seen Ukraine signing also some agreements in terms of defense with Gulf partners, which again proves this point. Now, on Lebanon specifically, indeed, we have a joint position with several foreign ministers of the EU together with our UK partners on Lebanon to support the Lebanon people and Lebanon's government on a war that is not theirs and that they did not choose. The responsibility of the current situation in Lebanon lies with Hezbollah, and we strongly condemn Hezbollah's attack in support of Iran against Israel. Now, we also support the historic and courageous decisions taken by the Lebanese government, and we call for direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. In terms of the disarmament, we have been quite clear in our position, so I will not recall that from the stage. It is clear that Lebanon's territorial integrity must be respected, and we call on Israel to avoid a further widening of the conflict, including through a ground operation on the Lebanese territory. In terms of our support, we are determined, and together with the foreign ministers of the countries that have also signed on this statement to provide humanitarian assistance, including to those that have been displaced, and I think that they amount to more than one million people. From our side, EU level, I think that the President also said it after her call with President Aoun that we are providing 100 million to Lebanon in terms of humanitarian support.

Q: Thanks, Anwar. Do we have other questions on this or related topics for Anwar? I don't see hands raised in the room. I don't see hands online. Merci, Anwar.

Other questions for us today, dear colleagues? I don't see hands in the room. I don't see hands online. Please allow me to thank you once again for always being here with us for our midday press briefings, and we wish you a great Easter break. Thanks very much.

🔔 Starter subscribers: Manage your topic preferences to receive a personalised alert when your topics are mentioned.