 Hello and welcome to this very special CNBC news debate and conversation here from the World Economic Forum in Istanbul. I want to welcome all of our guests in the audience and also our guests here on the panel. Over the next hour we're going to be talking about the EU, the neighborhood, and beyond. We're going to be talking about the challenges that the EU is facing at the moment, Turkey's position within that narrative, and also given what we've seen over the last several months in terms of the situation in Ukraine, whether it's time for the EU to face up to its responsibilities in terms of its own security. And I want to introduce now our panelists, Georgia President, Geordi Margaspili, Turkey's Minister for European Affairs, Volkan Burskar, and Portugal's Minister for European Regional Development, I believe, Miguel Maduro. Now I want to kick off with the first question to all of the panelists, which I think is an important one. Given the challenges that we know that the EU faces at the moment, we've got slow growth, we've got unemployment, you have economic integration without political integration, is the EU proposition still a strong one in your opinion? And I'm going to start with the President. Well, the EU has historically been an area, a family of nations, Europe has been a family of nations where, to which we as a nation, as a culture, as a society have been targeting our development. Of course, this has been, this was an historic choice, this has not been linked to this or that decade, it went for quite a long time. And it's linked with our political aspirations, it's linked with the way we think, the way we live, it's linked with our culture. But for sure there are steps which we develop in this direction. You mentioned economic integration without political integration, and I think those two go hand in hand with each other. What we did as a country this year was that we signed an association agreement which is furthering our trade and personal communication tracks into European Union. And this association agreement is a historic agreement for us, and it's a new step that we take in becoming closer to the natural habitat of Georgia, the European Union. I think that in this context we'll be bringing quite an interesting possibilities not only for the country, but for the entire development of region, of the Caucasian region, of the Caspian Sea, of the Black Sea, and of the possibilities within the Union. With Georgia's further integration into Europe, I think what we will get is we will get further possibilities to deepen and strengthen our democratic institution to make our economy more stable. But EU is also getting quite a bit from it, because they are getting a country which is really a gateway to Caspian Sea resources, gateway to some of the most interesting Asian markets. A country which is very open, has a very liberal system of trade and doing business in Georgia, very moderate taxation system. And at the same time the country that is creating historic possibilities of transfer of oil, gas, of creating further infrastructure in railway highways, which is creating quite a bit of possibilities of affecting a stable trade with our Asian partners. So I think that this issue right now is very beneficial. Caspian region is getting more integrated into European culture, into European structures, economic or political, and Georgia is not already interested, but is also committed to furthering this process. So I do understand and acknowledge the complications in some waves of widening EU, or the complications that are linked with the current situation that you have just mentioned, but at the same time we look at the process much more historical. We are on this track for a while, we will remain there and we are taking all the steps forward. Minister Bosco, what are your thoughts? Thank you. I think what we are looking at vis-à-vis the European Union today is much different than perhaps two decades ago. European Union was an attraction point for many countries to join, because it was distributing welfare and really making progress in the economic levels, the social levels of member countries. Perhaps the picture is gloomy today. It is not anymore a kind of an entity which distributes welfare anymore. Even the help to the member countries who were in economic trouble was not as strong as it was expected. Perhaps with the new countries joining, the political decision-making system is a little bit slow, and it is not perhaps as fast as it should be during crisis moments. But still I think the European Union is the best in the world, and the values and standards it has produced and presented to the world I think is the target. From that perspective, I think for Turkey, Europe is not anymore reaching economic benefits or welfare distributed, but we are looking forward to reach the values and the standards, because it is not becoming a member to an organization, NATO or UN or whatever. This gathering is concerning people's everyday life, from food security to education, from environment to energy, from whatever the chapters are covering. So it has an effect on making life better for the individuals, for the countries. We are after that, and I think the European Union will be a better organization presenting these kind of values and standards to also the candidate countries, and as much as these countries become closer to these values, I think the world stability, peace and living together concepts will be in a better shape. Minister Maduro. First, let me say that I agree that Europe still faces some very important challenges, and certainly the risk of economic stagnation should be our priority. But I also believe that we have made very important progress during this crisis, and one needs to understand that we were kind of fixing an airplane while flying, what is not an easy exercise. And certainly the worst is over. Still, what I believe is important is that the Union hasn't fully faced what I will call its existential question for the future. How are we to manage our interdependence? That's our crucial question. And in my view, the answer to this question, for two reasons, requires more Europe, not less Europe. It makes the idea of Europe, of which you were asking about, even more important than in the past. Why? Because the consequences of this interdependence are to fold. On the one hand, increasingly, particularly in a monetary integrated and economic integrated area, such as Portugal leaves the Euro, the policy choices of one state have impacts on other states. And there are systemic consequences of this integration that have profound impacts on domestic policies of states, too. This has economic, political, social justice consequences, and we need to address those. So for example, the Euro crisis itself can be presented as the consequences of the impact that the policy choices by some states have on other states, but also as the consequences of the systemic consequences that free flow of capital, monetary integration, as creating, inducing or aggravating the negative consequences of some of those policy choices. So what Europe needs now, it's to have a better balance regarding those economic, social justice, and political consequences. For example, and this is the view of the Portuguese government, we certainly need common rules. We need discipline in the sense that all states must comply by the same set of rules so as to prevent the negative externalities that the policy choices of one state may have on others, that we have witnessed in the past. But this must be balanced by a stronger fiscal capacity on the part of the union. Otherwise, the legitimacy of the union will be put into question. Now, how are we to do this? It's not easy to increase the fiscal capacity, even if we limited it to the Euro area. Well, it will have to rethink the own resources of the European Union. The union should not redistribute the wealth of some states or other states, but by reorganizing the nature of its own resources, it should be perceived by the European citizens as distributing the wealth that is generated by the internal market that is generated by economic integration. The other area where we need to work, in order to have the instruments to then address the challenges that the union faces, is the relationship between European politics and national politics. What we have seen throughout this crisis is that we increasingly need decisions at the European level and we need them. There's no way out of it because of the interdependence in which we are. But these decisions are affected by national political incentives, determined in national political spaces. And these national political spaces have not internalized the consequences of interdependence. So often, they provide the wrong incentives for action at the European level. So the way to overcome this is by increasingly have a European political space that complements the national political space. What we have seen with European elections, its consequences, the first president of the commission that results from the majority in the European elections is a positive sign in that regard. And it is crucial because if we don't, in a context where the union will increasingly exercise discipline over national policies, and it needs to, because of that interdependence I mentioned, if we don't offer to the European citizens choices between different political programs at the European level, then the only choice they are left with is to be for or against the European Union. And we don't want that and we shouldn't allow that to happen. I want to pick up then on your own experience in terms of Portugal's narrative. You joined the European Union, you benefited from some huge investment there, then you hit the debt crisis and things got a bit difficult. Overall, would you say this has been a positive experience for Portugal and an argument for the EU narrative going forward? Certainly, certainly. Portugal has since the accession to the European Union converged with the rest of Europe economically, socially. We had at the level of our infrastructures, of the level of our public equipments, public infrastructure. We are in many areas above the average in the European Union. We stopped the convergence process when the euro started. But not because of the euro, I want to be clear about it, was because while benefiting from cheap credit, we didn't make the structural reforms necessary to be international competitive as required by a monetary union, by being part of a monetary union. And this is what we are correcting now. For many, Portugal has had a tradition of external deficits. We had last year the first external surplus in 25 years and the first trade surplus in many decades. Now, this was possible because we have taken the structural reforms necessarily to increasingly be international competitive, just the recent global competitiveness ranking. Portugal have the highest improvement and in many other rankings because we've made structural reforms on labor, tax, education, modernization of the administration. So it is a success story in many respects. It is a success story that has had a negative turn when we were part of the euro because we didn't adapt enough in terms of competitiveness. That's what we have been doing in the past two and a half years and that's what we want to continue to do. I'm responsible for the EU structural funds in Portugal and in the next cycle of EU funds, the large majority of these funds will be devoted to the competitiveness of the economy, to innovation, to transfer of knowledge from science to the economy, to human capital. Those are our priorities. So if I would have a recommendation, certainly it is very positive to be part of the European Union, but it doesn't dispense you of doing your own work, particularly in terms of becoming competitive. So a positive story there for Portugal, but I do want to turn to the story, the ongoing story of EU ascension here in Turkey. Turkey seems to be still on that road, but it's a slower process and a very different process to what happened in Turkey. And I want to ask about in terms of the progress that you've made over the last 10 years, since they're an argument that you really don't need the direct interference of Brussels. What's in it for Turkey now in terms of the growth story, in terms of other markets even? I mean, isn't Africa becoming more interesting and Asia becoming more interesting as well? Well, I think it's a very long history and story. Turkey has been running after whatever the European, it was, it was European economic community that became European Union, but 50 years of a relationship we're talking about, it shows how decided, how tolerant and how much Turkey wants to become member in that respect. No other country could have really remained in this field waiting so long. But it also shows that Turkey and EU has a mutual interest because in this kind of relation normally what keeps the relation alive is mutual interest. And that's why we, I have mentioned to you before that we look forward to reaching the values, the standards and enjoying the benefits from that perspective. And I think Turkey has a lot to give to the European Union. What European Union can become should be being a superpower, replacing the lost leg of the superpower balance. But to become a superpower, I think the wonderful values which created the European Union is not enough. You need to have your energy sources in secure conditions. You have to have strong markets. You have to have a young population skilled and working hard. You have to have a strong army. Why I'm listing these four issues, that is what Turkey can provide and what EU can benefit from Turkey's membership. But having said this, we are not looking to short term or long term dates when or how to become, but we're trying to prepare ourselves to a each state which shouldn't be longer than what is needed. And if we are ready, then I don't think the European Union, looking at that correct picture and looking at the advantages of having Turkey as a member would not have the luxury to say no. And I don't think there are people who have lost their minds in that kind of a situation. So what we're doing is actually we really completed our political reforms in order to start the negotiations. The terminology is Turkey has fulfilled sufficiently the political criteria and that was the reason we were allowed to start negotiations. But there's a difference between or a gap between sufficiently fulfilling the political reforms and completely fulfilling. So that small portion is now our task. We're trying to also finalize that. Secondly, we are really, as there are some difficulties opening chapters, we have found a way out technically which is possible is we open the chapters in Turkey. And the real picture, the official picture 14 chapters are opened and one chapter is closed. But in reality, we have opened 27, 28 chapters and closed 13, 14 chapters. So in a way, Turkish legislation, Turkish-Aki has been almost to the level of the European Union. In that kind of a relation, you may be right when you look at a picture which shows that there's a slowdown, but we don't look at the same picture. We haven't slowed down, we have really fulfilled our part. So if one day the political obstacles are removed and you will say to Turkey, okay, we are ready to open 10 chapters, if we haven't done this work in the last eight years or so, we would have needed another three, five years to open 10 chapters. But today we are in a position to open 10 chapters in a few months. So we haven't lost time. Perhaps that is the good point. And the public support, also some people think that we are losing the public support, which is not the case at all. If you correctly read the public opinion polls, the absolutely against portion to the EU is less than 10% all the time, seven, eight percent. What changes is the undecided. So we have, today we have 55% supporting, but if we can make more attempts and more positive moves, then we can convince the undecided. And perhaps in a year or so, you will look at a different public opinion poll, which might be 75%. So essentially a lot of this is just about laying that groundwork, which is really what you're doing. I wanna ask the president about the groundwork in terms of the Georgia's relationship with the EU. There's been a perception by many, an idea has been passed around that the agreements that you came to with the European Union in June were just putting fuel to the fire in terms of Mr. Putin and in terms of his strategy for combating what he sees as European expansion into his territory. What would you say to that? Was that a correct perception? And talk us through a little bit about that relationship. I mean, are the benefits of that relationship with the European Union gonna outweigh your security concerns every time? Well, as I mentioned before, our choice for European integration is determined by manufacturers. First of all, as I mentioned, this is historic cultural factor and the need of being part of the family of nations who live with respect of individual freedoms which developed their nations through democratic institutions, basically being the part of that culture that has been developing on this continent. On the other hand, there was also an economic factor in our choice because European market, and this has been mentioned several times today, is the biggest market in the world with half a billion very wealthy members of this market, buyers in this market, with the huge development possibilities and the market that is actually, that will, I believe, rediscover opportunities in Georgia and in Caucasus gradually. Because we have mentioned here today several times energy security issues linked to development of Europe, and I believe that Georgia is creating a diversified tracks of energy security, of provide provision of the commodities as well as other communication possibilities. So I think that we had a specific argument in not only cultural and political, but also economic argument in being interested in joining the through association agreement to join the European zone and further to declare very clearly that our further target is membership, is a full-fledged membership of you eventually. Well, we have not been alone in the process. The process has been developed originally five years ago through an Eastern partnership format, including six countries, three of which have signed actually the association agreement, and the three countries are Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Now we know the dramatics linked to Ukrainian signature and all issues that have been developed since this issue became very high on political agenda. The advantage or the tragedy of Georgia at the same time is that we have already gone through this. What happened in Ukraine this year and what was linked actually to the signature of association agreement and Ukraine's European choice was a story that we have already seen since six years ago. It was 2008 when Georgia's territories were occupied. It was actually a very active engagement of our European and Western partners that the occupation has been stopped, but we couldn't further the agenda and the territories to remain occupied. So if we are talking about being a free nation's new free democracies being punished for their free choice, one of which is association agreement. It's one of the form of the free choices of those nations. I think that we have already, unfortunately, have already paid the price for this free choice in 2008. Actually, if we talk about EU and efficiency of EU policy, I think the fact that something that happened in 2008 in Georgia has been repeated after six years and that we see the same case scenario in Crimea, in other parts of Ukraine, is something that we could also find our blaming, because if we've been efficient during these six years, if the Georgian case on occupation be high on all of the international forums and international agendas, including European and our other Western allies, I think that it would not be so easy to play the dramatic case which we observed in the beginning of this year in Ukraine. Well, anyway, we've seen that we have already taken the pain of free choice and the free pro-Western choice some six years ago, but still we are trying to play a very constructive role even in that dimension. We are trying to further our trade relations with Russian Federation, though we have no diplomatic relationships with them. That would make things a bit difficult. It is a tricky task, believe me, but we are on the way. We will present a great case scenario for that. We are trying to maintain very close economic relationships with the states that are joining Russia's customs union, Russia's initiated customs union. In this case also we are providing a very interesting case where a country which is a member of the association agreement and the country's signature of DCFTA is trying to maintain a very positive trade dynamics with the countries of, let's say, other alliance. At the same time, we are trying to show and to send a message that the choice of association agreement that European choice is not a choice against anyone. It is not a choice at the expense of anyone, but it's a choice that will bring benefit to all countries and our neighbors engaged. Because once more, if all Georgia possibilities on trade, transport, on investment be accomplished, if the free trade with Europe be acknowledged by all the countries engaged, I think that they will find a great benefit in this. So to sum it up, we've been moving in that direction. We have already paid stuff in advance, unfortunately. Fortunately, acknowledgement of the fact that this was a very bad case and this has repeated again and this could be repeated again if not be reacted very actively is becoming more active in Europe. So we are on that path. That's a historic path. That's a historic choice that we take very firmly. So essentially what we've seen over the last several months, I believe, is that the EU is hamstrung by the fact that it can't make a collective decision quickly. And it's very difficult to go on the offense when you're hamstrung by energizing concerns and growth concerns and these kinds of worries. I want to ask you, Minister Maduro, where is the EU's responsibility here? What is the responsibility to their Eastern members and also at the same point? Isn't it about time that they start taking responsibility for their own energy security as well? Yes, we have a responsibility, but one also needs to contextualize the difficulties in the actions and decision-making process of the European Union. When often I hear those claims, I tell a joke of Woody Allen that I say it reminds me how people often talk about the European Union. The expectations they have on the one hand and they claim that the Union should do and the criticisms they make on the other hand. And the joke is the following. There's these two people that spend, this is not a restaurant in Istanbul for sure, but spend the entire evening complaining of how bad the food is in a restaurant they are eating, terrible, the worst food I've ever eaten. And at the end they say, and the portions are so small. Now often when people talk about the European Union, reminds me that. And why I'm saying this, because what you are claiming, that is for the Union to be extremely expedite in decision-making, for the Union to be able to be more consequential in the principles that it sets forward, what it claims that it ought to be done and then the means that it uses to pursue it will require in some areas, particularly the area of external action and I think you were mostly referring to that, will require on the part of the European Union a transfer of powers from its member states and from those member states and the peoples of these member states are not ready to give the Union yet. So we have to work with the instruments that we have. But let me say with regard to, for example, the accession process of Turkey. I think it's very important that we continue committed to that process. The minister knows Portugal is a very good friend of Turkey and that is continues to be strongly supportive of Turkey's accession to the European Union. We know there are difficulties, there have been difficulties. There have been positive developments recently, the opening of one chapter on regional development. We support, Portugal supports the possibility to open new chapters and I think maybe the process has been affected too by the fact that in the past, we've been going to say three years the Euro crisis but in fact even before that because of the constitutional treaty we have lived now almost ten years in permanent crisis in the European Union, constitutional crisis. And so this has taken a lot of our energy from other processes and I think that is positive and I hope that that will be the case that we'll be able to give new impulses to the accession process of Turkey but also to the relationships in economic terms with the countries such as Georgia. I think the association agreement with Georgia is very positive. In Portugal we are taking an expedite procedure for ratification. I think it's a new type of association agreements that we should continue to pursue and I fully agree with what the president was saying on two things. First, economic political cooperation and integration is not a zero sum game not between Georgia and the European states not also regarding third parties. It should not be seen as a process that is to the detriment of third parties but second thing and equally and perhaps even more important the degree of political and economic integration that Georgia is to have with the rest of Europe or that Turkey is to have with the rest of Europe or Portugal is to have with Europe is a decision for these peoples to take themselves and that's as simple as that. What happens when most of those decisions end up going the way that Germany wants those decisions to go? What happens then? Is there a way to re-jigger the narrative? That's an exaggeration and a simplification of how the process happens. I think that the process and the decision making process in the European Union has the participation and the input of many more actors than that. First, one ignores that the council is not the only decision making in a lot of those issues. What the council decides is framed by the input of the commission by the powers the commission has within the council the idea that you are passing that somehow Germany has a dominant voice overall the other member states is not exactly the case too. Germany itself knows that it would have no interest on playing such a role and moreover increasingly will be the case that the parliament will be assertive of its own powers and of pursuing a policy for Europe that will be not necessarily in the hands of individual member states. I think one of the consequences of the European elections we had on the fact that the next commission will be a direct result of a majority that results from an electoral competition and corresponds to a majority in the European parliament is that this commission and particularly the president of the commission will have a political capital. He can claim that he has a legitimacy that flows directly from European elections. This is a political capital that no president of the commission has had so far and that he can use to oppose to the council and this will help to have again a better balance between the powers of the commission the parliament and the council. I think in Portugal we've been very supportive always of the role of the commission the community method and I think that the consequence of these European elections and of the increased political capital commission goes in the right direction. The system may evolve I often give this parallelism with semi-presidential systems. We may have the executive that is the commission responsible to the parliament and then the council playing a veto player rule but it will depend actually on how the political culture will evolve. There is a transformation going on in Europe on the nature of its politics. It's a result of these European elections. How exactly the institutional model will absorb that, will incorporate that and what will be the results in terms of political practices including the balance of power between the commission and the council, it's not exactly clear yet. I want to bring it back to the energy though. Minister I want to know from your perspective, I mean obviously Turkey is not an energy rich country. You've managed to make it work by diversifying the places where you get your energy and what's your advice to Europe at this point? Well I already mentioned in my previous statement that without energy security you can't become a superpower. You have to really secure the energy roots or your sources and I think the region is the next wave of natural gas potential resources so points where Europe or the western world can import oil or natural gas. For example, Iran has the biggest natural gas reserves. Then comes Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan is expanding north and Iraq coming Qatar so this part of the world can be the alternative to the Russian natural gas which actually is one of the headaches European Union and European countries are facing and they're negotiating power against the Russian Federation is weakened because of their dependency on only one source or less, I mean not enough sources. So Turkey I think proved first of all as you very wisely observed it's not an energy rich country but it has not been easy to bring together a lot of projects. The first with the oil being transported by Georgia to the Mediterranean natural gas and now we are having this ton up project where again natural gas is there. The famous Nabukov project for example which was actually designed as an alternative to the Russian gas didn't have the gas so it's in a way gracefully faded away but Turkey was able to produce an alternative to that which has gas in it and through secure means we will be able to do that. I think this is one of the important elements without causing any instability without making any country unhappy. I think this will be also a new potential to bring countries who doesn't have a peaceful intention or trying to impose its power to the region or to the world would perhaps face with a new reality where their interests will also balance their own ambitions. I want to ask the president in terms of what we've seen over the last several months in Ukraine and your own experience. When you look at it from a bit of a broader perspective let's say would you say that Europe was naive to think about the strategic relationship with Mr. Putin. You say you're talking to Russia but not through direct diplomatic channels so obviously it's an important relationship for you guys going forward as well. What are your thoughts? What we've seen recently is slow as we have discussed but the right decision that has been basically reached by European countries and Western countries to acknowledge what is basically which has been reached in Wales at the NATO summit to acknowledge that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. And we are talking about political acknowledgement of the fact and it was good that our allies came to this decision but we can say the problematic part was that it took quite a bit of time to acknowledge the reality. But if we go even further I think that what we all have to do is to build a very peaceful oriented partnership oriented but very principal decision to the rhetorics and geopolitical ambitions of Russian Federation. Russian politicians have been talking about the privileged areas of interest including countries like mine like Ukraine the countries that were at some point part of the Soviet Union and which have regained independence for the last 20 years. These kind of rhetorics to your neighbors I think that this is disturbing the overall environment not only in the ex-Soviet Union area but including the environment in Russia. So instead of dealing from time to time with the problems in Lugansk and Ukraine or with problems in Crimea or with problems in Abkhazia or with problems in Tskhinoa and Georgia and being shocked and overwhelmed from these conflicts I think what we all have to do is to build a very consistent response to the overall geopolitical strategy of Russia talking about its closest neighbors and to state very firmly that this is unacceptable no matter where it happens so what we have seen for the last last years is that our European colleagues find out that there is a conflict in this area or there is a conflict in this area where the all area has already been described by Russians as an area where they have the right to of special interference now I think that this is very disturbing disturbing for us as independent countries and I think that it should be disturbing for our European partners as well because when we are talking about stability in Europe stability in the world the problems that are emerging from time to time whether it is Syria or whether this is Iraq or whether this is Afghanistan actually the issues that Georgia has been always a very responsible player I think that those issues are not decided if we consider ourselves only in the borders of union and don't feel that things that are happening in our closest neighborhood and that politics that is developing in our closest neighborhood is going to influence us so I think that the future is to it's to rational politics the future is to a very principle response to geopolitical ambitions of the countries going beyond the international law beyond the regular regular morals of international relations and whenever we see this kind of rhetorics we should expect eventually problems there so I think that things that happened in 2018 Georgia things that happened in 2014 in Ukraine this rang a bell for our European partners who acknowledged that they should have a very principle position on the stability of the countries and that this is not only because of principles but this is because of internal interest of European countries internal interest and needs that European countries have because if we are talking about country like Georgia once more we provide a very interesting possibilities for furthering Eastern-Western partnership this kind of possibilities shouldn't be undermined by some irrational and spontaneous spontaneous action so I hope that still we are going to face Georgia some more principle standpoint jointly by the union jointly by our allies and a principle standpoint that will eventually lead to rational de-escalation of the existing conflicts I'm talking about principled responses I have to ask Minister Bosker about this recent deal with the Russians in terms of agricultural produce this new relationship I mean you're working on EU ascension obviously doesn't that undercut the sanctions that EU has put forward it's kind of like taking a girl to a dance and going home with someone else isn't it well first of all we have very good relations with the Russian Federation I think it's the best in the last 300 years or so but our economic relations was the triggering factor to reach that kind of a mutual beneficial relation with the sanctions imposed on Russia we are having difficulty first of all from our benefits side but also we are always defending the idea that if European Union is deciding something we should be there if it is having some effects on the Turkish interest if EU decides without consulting with Turkey and imposes sanctions then we don't find ourselves in a position to be in it I mean it's a very delicate situation so and I personally believe that sanctions don't give results in my diplomatic life for 40 years I haven't seen any sanctions giving results it didn't have any effect in Libya, Iraq, Iran so principle when you apply sanctions the people who are with you of that country and are against the leadership or regime is going into a more difficult life and they become instead of your friends they become also reactionary that is what happened in other countries so putting sanctions against Russia I don't think is something which would bring results what we have done is we have opposed the intervention of the Russian military forces in Ukraine we are very much concerned about this we do not accept the invasion of Crimea at all and we have always announced that the territorial integrity and political stability of Ukraine is dear for us because Ukraine is our neighbour we have good relations so your prescription would have been we have declared that we will not go along with sanctions to Russia but as I have mentioned in my previous statement instead of sanctions I think the better way to bring a country which has some ambitions territorial wise or influence wise in a region is to provide them more interests more capacities potential earnings so that I think that will work in imposing sanctions if EU doesn't have a military power EU is a soft power so I think EU should really see what it has in his hand and I think EU has made a mistake in Georgia and in Ukraine by giving wrong messages to those countries and provocating those countries to make wrong steps and when wrong steps were made the EU help was not there and actually needed so I think that is a reality EU is a soft power and EU shouldn't give military having messages to a country like Russia which is still the hidden superpower which has nuclear capacities which has a very strong army and a stable leadership and forward to another 10 years I want to get the president's thoughts on those comments in terms of aggression and in terms of sanctions really not having worked well we still hope that sanctions will have its impact on the Russian policy we don't think that they will threaten or destroy Russia but we think that they will have their impact and they will send a message to the future to society to business circles to people who are influential in this political system but do you think that the EU was directly trying to get you do you think that the EU in terms of encouraging you and your aspirations was really trying to provoke Russia indirectly or I think we are talking we are describing now 2008 let's not mix the cases I think Minister was talking about 2008 and not now and in 2008 there was a different dynamics there was I think that even 2008 was reinterpreted now by EU the fact that 2014 are the parts of the same scenario it's something that our European partners understood now but this time I don't think that we had any problems through our integration and association agreement with European Union it went pretty smoothly it went without serious tension or confrontation with the Russian Federation furthermore we are able to increase our trade simultaneously with Russians and to bring our traditional products back to Russian markets so in this respect I mean I can say we have quite a success we have much less success on regaining the territories that were occupied but we have built the positive dynamics with Russia now I think that eventually the process sanctions will further lead to the political dialogue because those are not sanctions without political without political dialogue our European partners our American partners are in a very intensive discussions with the Russian leadership how to come out of this situation and I think that combined policies with a very firm commitment on keeping this issue high on political agenda when we are talking about measures of sort of response to this issue it's not only economic measures and sanctions it's very importantly keeping this issue high on political agenda I'm talking as a representative of nation who has enjoyed a great support from our European and American partners on stopping the Russian aggression in 2008 we enjoyed the support the occupation was stopped later we enjoyed the support on non-recognition of these territories but the issue has disappeared from the top political agenda the issue has downslated to the 22nd or 25th news you know and as a result of that you got repetition of the same scenario in Ukraine what I think is most crucial is not the sanctions only but being principle on unacceptance of this kind of policy and having this sentence of unacceptance and position of unacceptance very high on the political agenda of the countries that are engaged in the region because it's important for each of us I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there the ministers and the president for joining us on CNBC from the World Economic Forum and thank all of you as well thank you