rsemmes
Active Member
This is my final point here. And a couple of you made that point. As I said again each night now, about 15 to 20 missiles are sent into Kyiv, Lviv, Kharkiv and other big population centres in Ukraine. And hundreds of drones. The interception rate has come down. And the interception rate has come down because some of the NASAMS systems now in Ukraine do not have enough interceptors to fight back. And also, the Patriot systems, of course, need constant supply of PAC missiles for them to intercept these missiles. And I agree with the parliamentarian who said that you also have to dig into your own stockpiles.
Europe is now building its defence industry, and that is vital, but it cannot, at the moment, provide nearly enough of what Ukraine needs to defend itself today and to deter tomorrow.
Then, second topic, investing in defence. We had a successful Summit in The Hague in June, where we agreed to invest five per cent of GDP annually in defence by 2035 and to speed up the production and the innovation of our defence production. Five per cent, of course, is a lot, and boosting our industrial base is not easy. But here my simple message is, we need to do it, and we need to do it fast.
Remarks by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte
This (digging) is in January, I have to wonder what we will be providing in June. Not only that, we have to invest in our industry to prepare it for an increase in production, regenerate and augment our stockpiles and, actually, increase that production now.
The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said it verified that 2,514 civilians were killed and 12,142 injured in conflict-related violence in Ukraine in 2025, nearly all of them in Russian attacks against Ukrainian-held areas.
The United Nations has said in the past that the “actual figures are likely higher” for civilian casualties in Ukraine, since many reports are “still pending corroboration” and it has no access to occupied territory and limited access to areas near front lines.
This is what I mentioned as "overkill". CNN is providing facts, but selected facts. It is not providing (certainly, CNN does not have to) even an estimate about Ukrainian dead in the occupied territory and it is not providing any number about Russian civilian casualties.
Should I point out at the missing numbers or at the numbers that are being repeated everywhere?
If Russian crude oil cannot be segregated and processed separately by the refinery, but evidence is provided by the third party that no Russian crude has been received or processed in the ‘production line’ over the past 60 days prior to the bill of lading date of the cargo at issue, import into the EU is allowed. Third-country refineries may issue such an attestation, which may serve as supporting evidence. EU operators may ask their counterparts to provide additional documentary evidence (records of vessels delivering crude in the past months etc.).
In this case particular due diligence should be exercised by importers to be certain that the oil products imported from these net crude oil exporting countries do not contain Russian oil products.
The objective of the provision is to limit imports of Russian crude oil ‘through the back door’ into the EU. It should not affect the purchase, import into third countries or transfer by EU operators of such products to third countries, including transit through EU waters.
I need a lawyer here. If it has enough oil tanks, every refinery can store Russian oil for 61 days and then process it unaffected by the "Import ban"? Due Diligence should be exercised?
We will get as much Russian oil ‘through the back door’ as we want. Is that a fair conclusion?
Europe is now building its defence industry, and that is vital, but it cannot, at the moment, provide nearly enough of what Ukraine needs to defend itself today and to deter tomorrow.
Then, second topic, investing in defence. We had a successful Summit in The Hague in June, where we agreed to invest five per cent of GDP annually in defence by 2035 and to speed up the production and the innovation of our defence production. Five per cent, of course, is a lot, and boosting our industrial base is not easy. But here my simple message is, we need to do it, and we need to do it fast.
Remarks by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte
This (digging) is in January, I have to wonder what we will be providing in June. Not only that, we have to invest in our industry to prepare it for an increase in production, regenerate and augment our stockpiles and, actually, increase that production now.
The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said it verified that 2,514 civilians were killed and 12,142 injured in conflict-related violence in Ukraine in 2025, nearly all of them in Russian attacks against Ukrainian-held areas.
The United Nations has said in the past that the “actual figures are likely higher” for civilian casualties in Ukraine, since many reports are “still pending corroboration” and it has no access to occupied territory and limited access to areas near front lines.
This is what I mentioned as "overkill". CNN is providing facts, but selected facts. It is not providing (certainly, CNN does not have to) even an estimate about Ukrainian dead in the occupied territory and it is not providing any number about Russian civilian casualties.
Should I point out at the missing numbers or at the numbers that are being repeated everywhere?
If Russian crude oil cannot be segregated and processed separately by the refinery, but evidence is provided by the third party that no Russian crude has been received or processed in the ‘production line’ over the past 60 days prior to the bill of lading date of the cargo at issue, import into the EU is allowed. Third-country refineries may issue such an attestation, which may serve as supporting evidence. EU operators may ask their counterparts to provide additional documentary evidence (records of vessels delivering crude in the past months etc.).
In this case particular due diligence should be exercised by importers to be certain that the oil products imported from these net crude oil exporting countries do not contain Russian oil products.
The objective of the provision is to limit imports of Russian crude oil ‘through the back door’ into the EU. It should not affect the purchase, import into third countries or transfer by EU operators of such products to third countries, including transit through EU waters.
I need a lawyer here. If it has enough oil tanks, every refinery can store Russian oil for 61 days and then process it unaffected by the "Import ban"? Due Diligence should be exercised?
We will get as much Russian oil ‘through the back door’ as we want. Is that a fair conclusion?
