This morning at 10 a.m., Emmanuel Macron will inform the other EU heads of state and government about his talks with Donald Trump. Council President António Costa is hosting a video conference specifically for this purpose. The press wants to hear what the “substantial progress” is that Macron spoke about at his press conference with Trump. In any case, the Kremlin yesterday rejected Trump’s claim that President Vladimir Putin would accept European peacekeeping troops to secure a possible ceasefire in Ukraine.
While Europe is urgently looking for solutions to ramp up its defense capabilities, a new idea is making the rounds: the Rearmament Bank. The idea was developed in a concept paper by the former commander of the British armed forces, Nick Carter, the think tanker Edward Lucas and Guy de Selliers, who was involved in the creation of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in the early 1990s.
The paper, which is available to Table.Briefings, proposes the creation of a new bank owned by a number of European NATO states. With a starting capital of ten billion euros, the bank is to raise 90 billion euros on the capital markets. This would make 100 billion euros available to finance armaments projects by means of loans. However, the authors emphasize that the amounts could also be higher.
The bank would allow cooperation with non-EU states such as the UK and circumvent vetoes by governments close to Putin within the EU. The bank would grant its loans to the participating states and arms companies. The states would also have to conclude long-term purchase agreements with the manufacturers as security so that they invest in their production capacities.
According to the concept paper, the bank would charge interest rates close to the market. This also means that it would not solve the problem of the budget margins of certain member states being too small. The authors of the paper suggest that the bank’s loans should be excluded from the debt and deficit calculation of the EU debt rules.
The idea has so far been well received by the Polish and British governments. According to reports, however, Paris and Berlin are also interested in the idea. It will be taken into account in further deliberations, according to the Union. The UK is bringing the idea to the discussions of the G20 finance ministers in South Africa these days. Discussions are also expected at the EU summit in March.
Have a nice day!
When the EU Commission presents the Clean Industrial Deal (CID) and its plan for affordable energy prices on Wednesday, both industry representatives and climate activists across Europe will breathe a sigh of relief. The package of measures to support industry with decarbonization and modernization is long overdue.
The central fields of action are addressed, says Kerstin Maria Rippel, Managing Director of the German Steel Federation, in reference to the CID draft, which was made public in advance. In trade policy, for example, it is important to build on our own potential for action in addition to multilateral cooperation. “This includes, in particular, protection against cheap imports from the Far East, most of which are harmful to the climate.”
Rippel therefore welcomes the fact that the Commission has announced a revision of the trade defense instruments. “We are counting on the Steel and Metals Action Plan in particular.” The Commission announced on Tuesday that it would hold a Strategic Steel Dialogue with stakeholders on March 4 and present the action plan in the spring.
The initiatives announced for the introduction of lead markets for low-emission raw materials, combined with European Content criteria, are also a step in the right direction, says Rippel. “Because they combine economic strength with climate-neutral production.”
However, these lead markets must come quickly, warns Linda Kalcher, Executive Director at the Brussels-based think tank Strategic Perspectives. She calls for a comprehensive investment package to achieve the climate targets and strengthen competitiveness in order to support the industry. The construction sites are large in terms of grids, (digital) infrastructure, electricity storage and support for low-carbon production. “This must be dealt with quickly.” Otherwise, there is a risk that China will leave the Europeans behind in wind power and the automotive industry, as it has already done in the solar industry.
In the medium term, European debt is also needed to finance the projects, says Kalcher, “but without a watering can.” We first need to sort out which industries are most at risk. This also requires a federal government capable of taking action, as a reform of the debt brake can hardly be avoided.
Due to the economic situation, Kalcher is calling for cost efficiency to be defined as a clear partner for technological openness. “In this way, the focus is strongly directed towards economic factors and shortages: If nuclear and CCS are not economically viable in the electricity sector, then the focus is increasingly on renewables and storage.”
The Clean Industrial Deal also means that Europe will increasingly rely on market power and protectionism when it comes to raw material cycles. The circular economy with limited resources is the key to reducing dependence on imports and increasing the resilience of the EU economy to disruptions and interruptions in global supply chains.
Simon Wolf, Head of German and European Climate Policy at Germanwatch, criticizes: “In order to achieve the laudable goal of becoming the global market leader in the circular economy by 2030, the Commission is focusing too one-sidedly on recycling and waste management.” In doing so, it is not exploiting the innovation potential for new business models through the reduced use of raw materials and lower CO₂ emissions, particularly in heavy industry.
For a long time, it was unclear whether the Commission would present the proposal to update the EU Climate Law alongside the Clean Industrial Deal and the plan for affordable energy prices. A spokesperson for the Brussels authority has now confirmed that the EU’s 2040 climate target will be enshrined in the Climate Law in the course of the spring, but will not be presented on Wednesday. The Commission is proposing a 90 percent CO₂ reduction by 2040 compared to 1990.
Peter Liese, climate and environment spokesperson for the EPP, welcomes the sequence in which the competitiveness plan is presented first and new climate targets at a later date. “From a psychological point of view, we must first prove that cutting red tape works before we introduce new targets.”
Michael Bloss from the Green Party, on the other hand, criticizes the approach. “The Clean Industrial Deal is incomplete without the climate target.” The climate target is the polar star for the modernization and decarbonization of industry, says Bloss. “Without linking modernization, innovation and climate action as central pillars of the European industrial strategy, we cannot compete with China and the USA.”
Experts also see thematic gaps. “The Clean Industrial Deal has many gaps. An opportunity was missed with hydrogen,” says Bernd Weber, Managing Director of the think tank Epico. The regulation in the Delegated Acts is too complicated: “Planning certainty does not help investors if the whole approach does not work.”
The Hydrogen Europe association is at least satisfied with the current extension of the subsidy framework until the end of 2030. The maximum rate for the promotion of green hydrogen, for example, has been raised from 35 to 45 percent. However, the H2 lobby would have liked to see the lead markets extended from the steel sector to other industries. In addition, climate protection contracts – i.e. the promotion of ongoing operating expenses – would still have to be approved individually in accordance with the energy aid guidelines.
“The hydrogen void has been filled with gas,” criticizes Julia Metz, Director of Agora Industrie. “If we rely on natural gas, this will not reduce energy prices,” says Metz and reminds us of CO2 pricing. This approach will also not help with energy security, let alone climate action.
An as yet unpublished study by the Centre for European Policy considers the financing model proposed by the Commission for LNG export plants in particular to be unsuitable for contributing to energy security in Europe. “Under the tolling model, the operators of liquefaction plants do not receive ownership of the LNG, but merely a fee for their service,” writes author André Wolf.
This alone does not ensure that sufficient supply contracts are actually concluded between LNG suppliers and European customers. Japan has also secured long-term contracts in the USA. However, the financial resources would be better spent on renewables.
However, it is doubtful whether the Commission’s action plan for lower energy prices will achieve its most important goal – especially in the electricity sector. The most important elements for Agora expert Metz are:
It remains to be seen to what extent the proposed guarantees for PPAs will actually reduce financing costs. So far, PPAs have been expensive for the industry and have tended to relieve public budgets or the general public of the burden of promoting green energy.
When it comes to making demand more flexible, all experts emphasize the reducing effect on system costs. However, there is a lack of key figures to measure progress in making the electricity system more flexible and also in terms of security of supply, says Kristian Ruby, Secretary General of Eurelectric.
The support measures also focus too much on renewable energies. “The risk is that the Clean Industrial Deal will only work in countries that have opted for a renewables-only strategy,” says Ruby. Countries that rely on nuclear energy, on the other hand, would not be able to use state guarantees for PPAs, for example. France and ten other nuclear energy countries also recently expressed their concern in an open letter to the Commission.
Ruby also believes that the danger of intervention in pricing has not yet been averted. The Iberian model, with which Spain and Portugal have limited the influence of gas prices on electricity prices by the state, shines through in the action plan. “If the threshold for market intervention is low, there is a risk of constant intervention. And if each member state is allowed to pursue its own measures, there is a risk of fragmentation of the internal market,” says the energy manager. However, there would then be no incentive to invest in generation capacity.
The EU Commission is planning to significantly weaken existing regulations on sustainability reporting (CSRD) and the EU supply chain law (CSDDD). This is suggested by a paper published by the Commission at the weekend. Table.Briefings reported on the document. The actual scope of the cuts is to be presented today, Wednesday. It will probably only become clear shortly beforehand whether the meeting will take place. The Commission canceled a briefing for journalists yesterday, Tuesday, three hours beforehand. Apparently there was still a need for coordination.
However, one thing is clear: If her proposals do not deviate significantly from the plan that has been pushed through, which according to information from Table.Briefings does not look likely, the public debate is unlikely to calm down. The camps are too polarized.
“The EU must immediately postpone the application of the CSRD and CSDDD directives by at least two years,” says Thilo Brodtmann, Managing Director of the German Engineering Federation (VDMA). “A lazy compromise that ultimately brings no concrete improvements in day-to-day business would shake the confidence of small and medium-sized enterprises in the long term.”
“Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Economic Affairs Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis are trying to destroy the CSDDD – for the benefit of the most destructive corporations,” explains the communications agency 89up, which specializes in EU politics, NGOs and activists.
The fact is that the legislative work of several years is currently being called into question. However, there is hardly any experience of practical implementation. There are only a few CSRD reports hot off the press across the EU, and the CSDDD is not yet being applied at all. The Commission has not submitted and carried out impact assessments and stakeholder surveys for its changes, and there were only three days left for internal consultations. “This is being rushed through,” says Green MEP Anna Cavazzini. “It is a completely unusual practice for laws to be reopened so quickly.”
“The entire process has become highly politicized,” says Jurei Yada, Head of EU Sustainable Finance at the think tank E3G. She believes that in the face of competition from the USA through the Inflation Reduction Act, the tense economic situation in Europe and the rise of conservative and right-wing populist forces, she has identified a dwindling self-confidence in the EU. People do not currently believe in the strength of the internal market and what can happen if companies on the continent act according to uniform ESG criteria.
The harmonization of standards and rules was originally a key part of the Green Deal. Reporting and due diligence obligations were tightened and expanded in order to steer private investment towards demonstrably sustainable companies. There is widespread agreement in politics and business that the EU has overdone it and set overly detailed requirements that should be rolled back.
However, sustainability-oriented investors fear that the pendulum is now swinging too far in the opposite direction and the target will be missed again. “We need ESG data and EU-wide transparency of companies and supply chains,” says Tessa Younger from British asset manager CCLA. If this does not happen, there will be “no level playing field” and it will be impossible to see where progress is being made.
For Annika Ramsköld, Vice President of Corporate Sustainability at energy company Vattenfall, the stakes are even higher. “ESG laws can be used to build more resilient supply chains,” she says. This makes companies less vulnerable to risks in energy supply and raw materials and less dependent on markets such as the USA, China and Russia.
The conservative EPP in the European Parliament has already announced that it will support the omnibus package “with all its might.” FDP MEP Andreas Glück, who has dealt with the CSRD, the CSDDD and the taxonomy in the Environment Committee, among other things, also believes that the path the Commission has taken is the right one. Especially after the “massive increase in bureaucracy in recent years,” he says. “Regulations such as the taxonomy or the deforestation regulation fall on the feet of companies.” Changing this is “low hanging fruit.”
In the interview, he quotes a figure from the EU Commission: According to this, 90 percent of the smaller companies currently envisaged could be exempted from the reporting obligation and still reduce 99 percent of the greenhouse gases currently emitted. However, he is unable to say how plausible this figure is and why no one should have noticed this in the calculations beforehand. The EU Commission will have to answer this question when it presents its plans for the omnibus law.
Not even the bad image of the traffic light government can affect him: Boris Pistorius enjoys enduring popularity in Germany; he has led the corresponding ranking of politicians for two years. “People like his straight-talking attitude,” explains Robert Alferink, chairman of the SPD in Pistorius’ home town of Osnabrück. After the election, the party once again had to put up with the question of why it chose Olaf Scholz and not the Minister of Defense as its candidate for Chancellor.
Pistorius apparently also has fans abroad. In Lithuania, several politicians have now spoken out to say that they would like to see him continue as Minister of Defense. “We have done a lot of work with him in terms of hosting the German brigade in Lithuania, and this work could be continued in a natural way,” said Asta Skaisgirytė, foreign policy advisor to President Gitanas Nausėda, on Lithuanian radio.
Parliament President Saulius Skvernelis would also welcome it if Pistorius were to continue. He is “very strong-willed and a great helper” in the current deployment of the Bundeswehr brigade, said Skvernelis according to Lithuanian media reports.
Pistorius has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to remain defense minister. Perhaps the support from the Baltic states will help. Sarah Schaefer
This morning at 10 a.m., Emmanuel Macron will inform the other EU heads of state and government about his talks with Donald Trump. Council President António Costa is hosting a video conference specifically for this purpose. The press wants to hear what the “substantial progress” is that Macron spoke about at his press conference with Trump. In any case, the Kremlin yesterday rejected Trump’s claim that President Vladimir Putin would accept European peacekeeping troops to secure a possible ceasefire in Ukraine.
While Europe is urgently looking for solutions to ramp up its defense capabilities, a new idea is making the rounds: the Rearmament Bank. The idea was developed in a concept paper by the former commander of the British armed forces, Nick Carter, the think tanker Edward Lucas and Guy de Selliers, who was involved in the creation of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in the early 1990s.
The paper, which is available to Table.Briefings, proposes the creation of a new bank owned by a number of European NATO states. With a starting capital of ten billion euros, the bank is to raise 90 billion euros on the capital markets. This would make 100 billion euros available to finance armaments projects by means of loans. However, the authors emphasize that the amounts could also be higher.
The bank would allow cooperation with non-EU states such as the UK and circumvent vetoes by governments close to Putin within the EU. The bank would grant its loans to the participating states and arms companies. The states would also have to conclude long-term purchase agreements with the manufacturers as security so that they invest in their production capacities.
According to the concept paper, the bank would charge interest rates close to the market. This also means that it would not solve the problem of the budget margins of certain member states being too small. The authors of the paper suggest that the bank’s loans should be excluded from the debt and deficit calculation of the EU debt rules.
The idea has so far been well received by the Polish and British governments. According to reports, however, Paris and Berlin are also interested in the idea. It will be taken into account in further deliberations, according to the Union. The UK is bringing the idea to the discussions of the G20 finance ministers in South Africa these days. Discussions are also expected at the EU summit in March.
Have a nice day!
When the EU Commission presents the Clean Industrial Deal (CID) and its plan for affordable energy prices on Wednesday, both industry representatives and climate activists across Europe will breathe a sigh of relief. The package of measures to support industry with decarbonization and modernization is long overdue.
The central fields of action are addressed, says Kerstin Maria Rippel, Managing Director of the German Steel Federation, in reference to the CID draft, which was made public in advance. In trade policy, for example, it is important to build on our own potential for action in addition to multilateral cooperation. “This includes, in particular, protection against cheap imports from the Far East, most of which are harmful to the climate.”
Rippel therefore welcomes the fact that the Commission has announced a revision of the trade defense instruments. “We are counting on the Steel and Metals Action Plan in particular.” The Commission announced on Tuesday that it would hold a Strategic Steel Dialogue with stakeholders on March 4 and present the action plan in the spring.
The initiatives announced for the introduction of lead markets for low-emission raw materials, combined with European Content criteria, are also a step in the right direction, says Rippel. “Because they combine economic strength with climate-neutral production.”
However, these lead markets must come quickly, warns Linda Kalcher, Executive Director at the Brussels-based think tank Strategic Perspectives. She calls for a comprehensive investment package to achieve the climate targets and strengthen competitiveness in order to support the industry. The construction sites are large in terms of grids, (digital) infrastructure, electricity storage and support for low-carbon production. “This must be dealt with quickly.” Otherwise, there is a risk that China will leave the Europeans behind in wind power and the automotive industry, as it has already done in the solar industry.
In the medium term, European debt is also needed to finance the projects, says Kalcher, “but without a watering can.” We first need to sort out which industries are most at risk. This also requires a federal government capable of taking action, as a reform of the debt brake can hardly be avoided.
Due to the economic situation, Kalcher is calling for cost efficiency to be defined as a clear partner for technological openness. “In this way, the focus is strongly directed towards economic factors and shortages: If nuclear and CCS are not economically viable in the electricity sector, then the focus is increasingly on renewables and storage.”
The Clean Industrial Deal also means that Europe will increasingly rely on market power and protectionism when it comes to raw material cycles. The circular economy with limited resources is the key to reducing dependence on imports and increasing the resilience of the EU economy to disruptions and interruptions in global supply chains.
Simon Wolf, Head of German and European Climate Policy at Germanwatch, criticizes: “In order to achieve the laudable goal of becoming the global market leader in the circular economy by 2030, the Commission is focusing too one-sidedly on recycling and waste management.” In doing so, it is not exploiting the innovation potential for new business models through the reduced use of raw materials and lower CO₂ emissions, particularly in heavy industry.
For a long time, it was unclear whether the Commission would present the proposal to update the EU Climate Law alongside the Clean Industrial Deal and the plan for affordable energy prices. A spokesperson for the Brussels authority has now confirmed that the EU’s 2040 climate target will be enshrined in the Climate Law in the course of the spring, but will not be presented on Wednesday. The Commission is proposing a 90 percent CO₂ reduction by 2040 compared to 1990.
Peter Liese, climate and environment spokesperson for the EPP, welcomes the sequence in which the competitiveness plan is presented first and new climate targets at a later date. “From a psychological point of view, we must first prove that cutting red tape works before we introduce new targets.”
Michael Bloss from the Green Party, on the other hand, criticizes the approach. “The Clean Industrial Deal is incomplete without the climate target.” The climate target is the polar star for the modernization and decarbonization of industry, says Bloss. “Without linking modernization, innovation and climate action as central pillars of the European industrial strategy, we cannot compete with China and the USA.”
Experts also see thematic gaps. “The Clean Industrial Deal has many gaps. An opportunity was missed with hydrogen,” says Bernd Weber, Managing Director of the think tank Epico. The regulation in the Delegated Acts is too complicated: “Planning certainty does not help investors if the whole approach does not work.”
The Hydrogen Europe association is at least satisfied with the current extension of the subsidy framework until the end of 2030. The maximum rate for the promotion of green hydrogen, for example, has been raised from 35 to 45 percent. However, the H2 lobby would have liked to see the lead markets extended from the steel sector to other industries. In addition, climate protection contracts – i.e. the promotion of ongoing operating expenses – would still have to be approved individually in accordance with the energy aid guidelines.
“The hydrogen void has been filled with gas,” criticizes Julia Metz, Director of Agora Industrie. “If we rely on natural gas, this will not reduce energy prices,” says Metz and reminds us of CO2 pricing. This approach will also not help with energy security, let alone climate action.
An as yet unpublished study by the Centre for European Policy considers the financing model proposed by the Commission for LNG export plants in particular to be unsuitable for contributing to energy security in Europe. “Under the tolling model, the operators of liquefaction plants do not receive ownership of the LNG, but merely a fee for their service,” writes author André Wolf.
This alone does not ensure that sufficient supply contracts are actually concluded between LNG suppliers and European customers. Japan has also secured long-term contracts in the USA. However, the financial resources would be better spent on renewables.
However, it is doubtful whether the Commission’s action plan for lower energy prices will achieve its most important goal – especially in the electricity sector. The most important elements for Agora expert Metz are:
It remains to be seen to what extent the proposed guarantees for PPAs will actually reduce financing costs. So far, PPAs have been expensive for the industry and have tended to relieve public budgets or the general public of the burden of promoting green energy.
When it comes to making demand more flexible, all experts emphasize the reducing effect on system costs. However, there is a lack of key figures to measure progress in making the electricity system more flexible and also in terms of security of supply, says Kristian Ruby, Secretary General of Eurelectric.
The support measures also focus too much on renewable energies. “The risk is that the Clean Industrial Deal will only work in countries that have opted for a renewables-only strategy,” says Ruby. Countries that rely on nuclear energy, on the other hand, would not be able to use state guarantees for PPAs, for example. France and ten other nuclear energy countries also recently expressed their concern in an open letter to the Commission.
Ruby also believes that the danger of intervention in pricing has not yet been averted. The Iberian model, with which Spain and Portugal have limited the influence of gas prices on electricity prices by the state, shines through in the action plan. “If the threshold for market intervention is low, there is a risk of constant intervention. And if each member state is allowed to pursue its own measures, there is a risk of fragmentation of the internal market,” says the energy manager. However, there would then be no incentive to invest in generation capacity.
The EU Commission is planning to significantly weaken existing regulations on sustainability reporting (CSRD) and the EU supply chain law (CSDDD). This is suggested by a paper published by the Commission at the weekend. Table.Briefings reported on the document. The actual scope of the cuts is to be presented today, Wednesday. It will probably only become clear shortly beforehand whether the meeting will take place. The Commission canceled a briefing for journalists yesterday, Tuesday, three hours beforehand. Apparently there was still a need for coordination.
However, one thing is clear: If her proposals do not deviate significantly from the plan that has been pushed through, which according to information from Table.Briefings does not look likely, the public debate is unlikely to calm down. The camps are too polarized.
“The EU must immediately postpone the application of the CSRD and CSDDD directives by at least two years,” says Thilo Brodtmann, Managing Director of the German Engineering Federation (VDMA). “A lazy compromise that ultimately brings no concrete improvements in day-to-day business would shake the confidence of small and medium-sized enterprises in the long term.”
“Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Economic Affairs Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis are trying to destroy the CSDDD – for the benefit of the most destructive corporations,” explains the communications agency 89up, which specializes in EU politics, NGOs and activists.
The fact is that the legislative work of several years is currently being called into question. However, there is hardly any experience of practical implementation. There are only a few CSRD reports hot off the press across the EU, and the CSDDD is not yet being applied at all. The Commission has not submitted and carried out impact assessments and stakeholder surveys for its changes, and there were only three days left for internal consultations. “This is being rushed through,” says Green MEP Anna Cavazzini. “It is a completely unusual practice for laws to be reopened so quickly.”
“The entire process has become highly politicized,” says Jurei Yada, Head of EU Sustainable Finance at the think tank E3G. She believes that in the face of competition from the USA through the Inflation Reduction Act, the tense economic situation in Europe and the rise of conservative and right-wing populist forces, she has identified a dwindling self-confidence in the EU. People do not currently believe in the strength of the internal market and what can happen if companies on the continent act according to uniform ESG criteria.
The harmonization of standards and rules was originally a key part of the Green Deal. Reporting and due diligence obligations were tightened and expanded in order to steer private investment towards demonstrably sustainable companies. There is widespread agreement in politics and business that the EU has overdone it and set overly detailed requirements that should be rolled back.
However, sustainability-oriented investors fear that the pendulum is now swinging too far in the opposite direction and the target will be missed again. “We need ESG data and EU-wide transparency of companies and supply chains,” says Tessa Younger from British asset manager CCLA. If this does not happen, there will be “no level playing field” and it will be impossible to see where progress is being made.
For Annika Ramsköld, Vice President of Corporate Sustainability at energy company Vattenfall, the stakes are even higher. “ESG laws can be used to build more resilient supply chains,” she says. This makes companies less vulnerable to risks in energy supply and raw materials and less dependent on markets such as the USA, China and Russia.
The conservative EPP in the European Parliament has already announced that it will support the omnibus package “with all its might.” FDP MEP Andreas Glück, who has dealt with the CSRD, the CSDDD and the taxonomy in the Environment Committee, among other things, also believes that the path the Commission has taken is the right one. Especially after the “massive increase in bureaucracy in recent years,” he says. “Regulations such as the taxonomy or the deforestation regulation fall on the feet of companies.” Changing this is “low hanging fruit.”
In the interview, he quotes a figure from the EU Commission: According to this, 90 percent of the smaller companies currently envisaged could be exempted from the reporting obligation and still reduce 99 percent of the greenhouse gases currently emitted. However, he is unable to say how plausible this figure is and why no one should have noticed this in the calculations beforehand. The EU Commission will have to answer this question when it presents its plans for the omnibus law.
Not even the bad image of the traffic light government can affect him: Boris Pistorius enjoys enduring popularity in Germany; he has led the corresponding ranking of politicians for two years. “People like his straight-talking attitude,” explains Robert Alferink, chairman of the SPD in Pistorius’ home town of Osnabrück. After the election, the party once again had to put up with the question of why it chose Olaf Scholz and not the Minister of Defense as its candidate for Chancellor.
Pistorius apparently also has fans abroad. In Lithuania, several politicians have now spoken out to say that they would like to see him continue as Minister of Defense. “We have done a lot of work with him in terms of hosting the German brigade in Lithuania, and this work could be continued in a natural way,” said Asta Skaisgirytė, foreign policy advisor to President Gitanas Nausėda, on Lithuanian radio.
Parliament President Saulius Skvernelis would also welcome it if Pistorius were to continue. He is “very strong-willed and a great helper” in the current deployment of the Bundeswehr brigade, said Skvernelis according to Lithuanian media reports.
Pistorius has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to remain defense minister. Perhaps the support from the Baltic states will help. Sarah Schaefer
