EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs: Russia’s army and its military budget should be limited

The full text of the questions and answers at the press conference of the EU High Representative Kaya Kalas – November 26, 2025.

Question:

My question refers to the publication of Bloomberg about the preparation of the American peace plan. According to information, during its development there was allegedly a high level of participation from the Russian side, although Russian officials do not confirm this. Could such participation influence the EU’s attitude towards the plan? Because earlier everyone said that the EU supports the American initiative. And the second question: is it normal practice for the mediator to use a draft prepared by one of the parties?

Answer by Kaya Kalas:

It has already been confirmed in the media that all these points are in favor of Russia. If they are in her favor, it is clear that they came from that direction. And I return to the main point: in this war there is one aggressor and one victim. In order to achieve peace, especially long-term peace, we must see commitments from Russia. In the draft that we saw (and it is not the final version), there was not a single concession from the Russian side. In the future, it is necessary to clearly understand what exactly Russia should do. We could at least start by having it start to comply with the international treaties it has ratified – at least twenty of them, all of which prohibit attacking others. That is why it is very important to keep the focus on the one who commits aggression.

Question:

Is Belgium wrong to block the reconstruction loan?

Answer:

Belgium is acting within its national interests and is expressing completely legitimate concerns. The discussions were detailed and everyone at the table listened carefully and looked for ways to mitigate the risks. If there are risks, you need to understand how to divide them. And all expressed solidarity with Belgium in case it needs such support.

Question:

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said in an interview that the war could be over by the end of the year, and the Kremlin says it is satisfied. Do you agree?

Answer:

At the moment we see no signs that Russia really wants peace. In recent days, it has been continuously bombing the civilian population and civilian infrastructure – this does not indicate readiness for peace. Russia could start with an unconditional ceasefire, which Ukraine agreed to back in February. Only then would there be an opportunity to sit down at the negotiating table.

Question:

Bloomberg also reported that US Representative Steve Vitkov allegedly “instructed” the Kremlin on how to present a peace plan to Trump. Do you consider Vitkov to be the right figure for the issues that determine the future of Europe? Do you see him as a “Kremlin agent” or a “useful idiot”?

Answer:

It is not my competence to determine who represents another state. And similarly, other countries should not determine who represents EU states.

Question:

Is the EU participating in the negotiations at the same level as other parties? And are Ukraine and the EU in a strong enough negotiating position?

Answer:

If you look at Russia’s situation, it is far from in such good shape as it wants to show. The economy is in bad shape and there are no “victories” on the battlefield that it claims. This is important, because great pressure is the way to the moment when Russia will be forced to really negotiate. So far it is not. If she is not in such a situation, she will not make concessions – she will demand even more. And it is dangerous for everyone. Russia systematically attacks other states, so this risk must be minimized – otherwise any other country could be next.

Question:

The question about the reconstruction loan: after today’s discussion, does the idea of ​​using frozen Russian assets look more acceptable? And the second: if Ukraine is faced with a choice – an unjust peace or the loss of the US as the main ally – is the EU ready to become the main support?

Answer:

The options document outlines several possible solutions for financing Ukraine and its defense needs. But the reconstruction loan is the best option. It was also announced today that work is ongoing and specific proposals will be presented. There are many questions, especially about technical nuances. But there is an awareness of the need at the political level. The urgency is also clear – especially since it’s something Russia doesn’t want. We need to continue work on sanctions against the “shadow fleet”. Russia’s oil revenues fell by 35% in November alone thanks to EU and US sanctions.

Question:

You say that it is important to distinguish between the aggressor and the victim. We hear about proposals to limit the size of the Ukrainian army, but nothing about limiting the Russian army, which started the war. Is this approach correct? Should Ukraine limit its military while Russia can rearm freely?

Answer:

Very good question. If we want to prevent the continuation of the war, we need to limit the Russian army and its military budget. If a country spends 38% of its budget on the army (and only 16% on social needs), it means that it will want to use that army again. It is a threat to everyone. Therefore, the focus should be on the concessions and restrictions that Russia must make. We have always said that the size of the army is a sovereign right of the state. One should not fall into the Russian trap and talk about “restriction of the Ukrainian army”. Ukraine has never attacked Russia – like all 19 countries Russia has attacked – they have never attacked it either. Therefore, it is Russia that must be limited so that it can no longer start a new war.

Question:

Is it realistic to talk about a “just peace”? The US no longer uses the term. Russia is likely to retain the captured territory and return to the global economy. Is it not better to admit that the maximum is “bitter peace”?

Answer:

If we want this to not happen again or spread further, we need a just and lasting peace. I will fight for it as much as I can, because it is a matter of European security. If aggression succeeds, it will be an invitation to use it again – and in other regions. This is a threat to everyone, especially small countries. As Paul-Henri Spaak said: there are two types of countries – small countries and those that have not yet realized that they are small.

Source: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/informal-foreign-affairs-council-press-conference-high-representative-kaja-kallas_en