Two months ago, during a session of the European Parliament, MEP Dainius Žalimas delivered a decidedly undiplomatic speech about the Ukraine peace negotiations. "When a country is waging war in self-defence against aggression, there are only two paths to lasting peace: victory or capitulation," he reminded his fellow MEPs. But this gives rise to the question: if this logic is sound, which way is Ukraine headed now, as it entertains the "peace" proposals of Donald Trump?

Žalimas answered this and many other questions for us – and his answers were just as undiplomatic.

We also discussed the EU accession talks, and the MEP frankly admitted that the option of decoupling Ukraine and Moldova is currently being considered, and explained what that would entail. We went into detail on the problem of Hungary and its veto as well.

Dainius Žalimas is a Lithuanian politician and lawyer who until recently headed Lithuania’s Constitutional Court. We spoke in Kyiv during one of his many visits. The MEP travels to Ukraine frequently, including to the front line, and even understands Ukrainian.

"There are two ways to end the war: capitulation or victory"

Do you have any idea of how the war will end?

I don't have any idea what the end will be. I know what the end should be.

And I think we all know, and all of us Europeans, including Ukrainians, share the same understanding of that.

There are two classical formulas for how to end the war: capitulation or victory.

I don't like capitulation, especially the capitulation of Ukraine, which is being imposed currently not only by Russia, but by the Trump administration as well. Let's be frank: when he speaks about his vision of how the peace agreement should be reached, he sticks to Russian conditions. So that’s the capitulation of Ukraine.

But it is contrary to international law, contrary to the rules-based international order. So we Europeans, together with Ukrainians, must stand against this.

Then there's the second choice – victory.

I think that's clear to everybody, except probably Trump... But even for him, I think, it is quite clear who the aggressor is in this war. It's not that he doesn’t get it – the issue is that he is just seeking different goals. But that's another topic.

So, since it’s clear who the aggressor is, then under international law, the legitimate situation should be restored, which means the full restoration of Ukrainian territorial integrity, meaning regained control over all the occupied territories, including Crimea. The latter is important: Crimea doesn't have and shouldn't have any special status under international law and shouldn't be separated from the other occupied territories.

So the restoration of control over all the territory of Ukraine is the first element.

The second element is reparations. Here it's also very clear who should make reparations and to whom – that Russia should pay Ukraine for all the damage. I would stress: all the damage!

And the third element is accountability. I mean the individual criminal responsibility of those who are responsible for the aggression and the accompanying crimes – crimes against humanity, war crimes, and possibly genocide.

So the formula is clear, and that should be the aim.

But when it can be achieved in practical terms – that's a good question, and nobody knows the answer, especially under the current Trump administration. Nobody in this world can reasonably predict when it can happen.

But this is the goal. We should work on it, and we should pursue it.

You see the end of the war as either capitulation or victory. But the negotiations Ukraine is currently being pushed towards, are they about victory or not?

No. Since the Ukrainian side is being forced to agree to certain conditions, and since those conditions are contrary to international law (and for me that's clear), then it's not the road to victory.

I would agree that simply for the purpose of saving human lives, we need to stop atrocities and to stop military actions.

That means some truce, or peace.

Stopping military activities does not mean that Ukraine should cede any territory to Russia, and it does not mean it’s a sort of final settlement. The final settlement should be in accordance with international law.

So this is not the end of the war, but a pause.

Yes. It's about the suspension of hostilities – even long-lasting ones.

If we proclaim that a deal which does not comply with international law would be proclaimed as the final one, this would have wider negative consequences for the entire world.

That's why it's important to stress that it's only a suspension of hostilities in a situation which is not promising to either side from a military perspective.

Still, I see that people in Europe have stopped talking about a Ukrainian victory. We don’t hear the word "victory". When I heard you say it, it was the first time in a long while.

In the European Parliament we can still hear the word "victory".

But you're right, people are looking from a short-term perspective.

And a short-term perspective makes you adjust your actions and your vocabulary to the current developments, especially provoked by the Trump administration, who avoid even the word "aggression".

But I don't believe this is the long-term perspective.

The word "aggression" remains commonly used everywhere except in the US.

And also there are also references to victory without the word "victory" being spelled out directly. European states continue to refer to the restoration of legitimate situations under international law. That's what we mean by victory.

There are natural reasons for this.

We need to find ways to behave better in a situation in which the US is actually taking another side. And nobody, I think, knows the perfect answer or the perfect way.

"America is withdrawing from Europe"

In the European Parliament, you are responsible for relations with the United States. Can you explain what is happening with the US?

America has always faced the dilemma of whether to be engaged in world affairs or to pursue the so-called policy of self-isolation. We knew that even from historical examples – after the First World War, there was a period when the US withdrew its activities from Europe.

But I think it's also a reflection of the so-called "deterioration of politics", when certain populists become able to take power by manipulating the crowd – taking very simple statements, which usually, by the way, do not correspond to the truth, and manipulating the crowd with very primitive slogans.

That is the challenge we have not only in the US, but everywhere, with the new global age of modern technologies.

The section of society we can call "the crowd" does not think deeply and is captured by very simple slogans like "America first".

This change creates a challenge not only to the international rules-based order, but it is also a challenge for American internal policy. And in internal policy, we see that Trump is not only destroying the international order, but attempting to destroy American democracy. His behaviour and actions are against the rule of law and are very similar to what Putin is doing.

On the other hand, mistakes were made by previous US administrations, like in migration. And here comes the crowd, and they want simple answers and very primitive decisions – exactly what Trump appeared able to offer.

Of course, there are also many questions about the Republican Party. Traditionally, the Republican and Democratic Parties in the US served as a sort of filter that did not allow such people into "big politics". But unfortunately this time it didn't work.

But I still hope that American democracy will be able to resist and to survive. We are already seeing popular demonstrations, we are seeing the judiciary performing its duties and overturning some of the president's decrees. So I hope that the game is not lost.

Let’s see how events develop. But for now, we can say with certainty that the US is "pulling out of Europe". And accordingly, Europe needs to get used to living without US involvement. Is there an understanding of this in the EU?

Yes, there is.

This understanding is prevailing in my political group [the Renew Europe group in the European Parliament, which also includes French President Emmanuel Macron's party].

And also in general, this understanding is prevailing.

America is indeed withdrawing from Europe. Not physically yet, but ideologically, that's for sure.

What the Trump administration is doing is much closer to autocratic regimes than to Europe. And he criticises Europe the same way as [Hungarian President Viktor] Orbán, for example, or Putin. They are all using our own concepts like freedom of speech against us.

But still, there are many forces in America that will be capable of resisting this. Let's hope that after Trump's administration, America will be able to come back.

Since you mentioned Orbán, let’s talk about Ukraine’s future. Will Ukraine join the EU?

Without a doubt. No doubt about that.

The decision is already taken. And all the practical steps by the EU show that we are ready to open negotiations on the accession of Ukraine. We are also preparing ourselves for the future membership of Ukraine.

We are even trying to raise the ambition to have Ukraine as a member before 2030. The most optimistic scenario is the participation of Ukraine in the European Parliament elections in 2029. This is the aim we should pursue.

Yes, I agree there are obstacles. There's a veto by one member state – Hungary, led by Orbán.

But let's not forget that next year we will have elections in Hungary, and Orbán is really afraid of losing them.

And the second thing is that the EU still has the instrument of suspension of voting rights for Hungary.

Do you think that’s realistic? Discussions around the mechanism provided by Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty have been going on for a long time, but nothing is happening.

Yes, there's a lack of political will at the intergovernmental level. The European Parliament is in favour of this step, but the Council requires the unanimity of 26 states on this issue.

But the European Union’s patience with all the steps taken by Orbán's regime can also run out.

You really may call the Hungarian government a "regime".

It is suppressing its own citizens, Hungarian citizens. Even the freedom of assembly has been recently denied in Hungary for people belonging to various minorities.

Even more importantly, the ideas being spread by Orbán's regime aim to dismantle the European Union as such, as a project. To "reform" it by limiting or even abolishing the Court of Justice of the EU and the Commission as such – that means the dismantling of the European Union.

I don't think this can go on indefinitely. The moment may come when the decision will be taken.

"We really should suspend Hungary’s voting rights"

It seems the EU is now set on waiting for the next elections in Hungary, scheduled for April 2026, which means Ukraine will not hear good news about its accession for another year. Is that right?

Formally – yes, you're right.

It could happen that Ukraine will not formally open any chapter in the EU accession negotiations until there are new elections in Hungary. But only formally!

The most important thing is what's going on on the ground. We are not stopping our dialogue  with Ukraine or practical integration, which is the most important, as it creates a common area between Ukraine and the EU.

But formally yes, the formal start of negotiations can be postponed until Hungary simply withdraws its objections.

We have certain hopes that the dialogue recently launched between Ukraine and Hungary may help remove this obstacle even before next year’s elections.

But on the other hand, let me share Lithuania’s experience. Lithuania was the last Baltic country to be invited by the EU to accession negotiations.

Why was that?

Because we had made less progress in comparison with Estonia, for example. But we ended at the same time.

So if you ask me about Moldova, the fact that Moldova may start the negotiations earlier than Ukraine doesn't mean that it will become a member of the EU earlier.

So you believe Ukrainians shouldn’t be anxious about the news that accession talks with Moldova are beginning?

Yes. Let's not overestimate this news. The formal start of negotiations doesn't mean anything.

For example, you remember the EU started accession negotiations with Türkiye a long time ago. Türkiye has no prospect of joining the European Union. So the formal start of negotiations should not be overestimated.

Yes, it's a significant step, showing progress. But it can be taken a year later, with the prospect of joining the Union at the same time, the way it happened with Lithuania – finally, we joined the EU on the same day as Estonia.

I’m constantly hearing ordinary Ukrainians asking: why hasn’t Hungary been kicked out of the EU? I know the standard answer – that the EU has no formal procedure for expelling a country – but that doesn’t convince people.

I agree, we really should suspend voting rights for Hungary. We should do that, there is no doubt, and it's a pity that we don't have a political consensus on that.

But simply to expel the country from the European Union – that's really not so easy.

The European Union is a very deep integration project. Leaving the EU is not as simple as expelling a country from the Council of Europe for instance, as Russia was. You expel the country, cutting all legal ties, and that's it.

But here we have not only legal integration and harmonisation of our national legal systems, but also deep economic ties, common movement of capital, and free movement of people.

You remember how long it took for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union, even when both sides had agreed to it.

It’s the same with Hungary: economic, personal ties etc. are not so easy to cut in one day.

But would you agree that in terms of values, Hungary is no longer a European country?

Yes, I agree. But also, there are more and more solid grounds to say that Orbán's regime is not the same as the people of Hungary.

We see that from the massive demonstrations against the Orbán regime. And we see that in the capital, Budapest. The elected mayor of Budapest is a very strong political opponent of the ruling regime.

So there are centres of civil resistance against the Orbán regime.

But yes, the policies of Orbán's regime do not correspond to EU values, and there is no doubt about that.

In all fields, including its foreign policy regarding Ukraine and its support of Russia, it does not correspond to EU values.

Hungary’s recent decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court is also in contradiction with the EU line, and it could become one of the reasons to suspend Hungary’s voting rights in the EU, because it’s a serious violation of our common values.

And of course Hungary’s internal policies, where we see the suppression of the free press, of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, the persecution of political opponents, and lack of independence of the judiciary.

So really, there are systemic and serious problems.

We have talked about our opponents, so to wrap up, let’s talk about our friends. Who are Ukraine’s friends in the EU? Obviously Lithuania is near the top of that list.

Unfortunately we are too small a country to help you more substantially.

You have a very large number of friends. Yes, all three Baltic states are there, and first of all I am proud to say Lithuania, but also Estonia, Latvia.

Poland is there too, although it has certain differences and sometimes also shows signs of an self-isolative policy, and their decisions (even those not specifically targeted towards Ukraine) can give the impression that Poland sees its defence as something very autonomous.

But you have good friends in all the countries of the EU, I believe. Regarding the accession of Ukraine, 26 EU members are in favour. Even the Slovakian government hasn't expressed its opposition.

Only Hungary remains.

The other 26 all stick to the general EU line in support of Ukraine’s membership of the EU.

Sergiy Sydorenko,

Editor, European Pravda