Ms Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze:

Yes. Ukraine experienced serious difficulty in breaking through with our European integration plan. It was the negative decision of the previous authorities under President Yanukovych not to sign the association agreement that triggered the Revolution of Dignity and it was only after that, with the great losses, we had the chance to sign the association agreement and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, DCFTA. Then, we, as opposed to any other state in the world, had to go through the process of having a referendum on the ratification of the association agreement in the Netherlands.

We learned a year later that with the harsh involvement of the Russian Federation there, the results were negative for Ukraine. We even had difficulties in terms of having it ratified, even though I think Ukrainian people deserved it more than anybody else. Since 2014, before its ratification, we have said that the association agreement should be implemented. Along with that, we started work on a set of reforms enabling Ukrainians to travel visa-free. All of that ensures that we are definitely not starting from scratch on the issue of accession to the EU. We are much closer together. We redirected our trade and more than 44% of our exports were to the EU before the full-scale invasion. We have been successful in a quite a lot of transformation by meeting many of the important criteria on the path. We are not starting from ground zero, as it were. However, there is a lot that will definitely have to be done. I believe that our recovery plan has to be about recovery and transformation. It has to be a recovery and reform plan. The funding that will have to be provided to Ukraine through financial aid, lines of credit and investment will also have to be topped with financial assistance for the reform agenda that is still very much needed in Ukraine. While we have been successful, for example, in setting up the anti-corruption institutions, in order for those institutions to deliver on their tasks efficiently, they will have to go through a period when they are tested in action. Some will probably have to be fine-tuned to an extent. We also have a lot to deliver on in ensuring that the rule of law in Ukraine is exemplary in the future. There are many other areas in which we need best practices that could be brought with EU expertise and direct engagement with Ukraine.

On the Marshall Plan, as far as I understand it, it has been decided that it will be known as the "Brussels Plan for Ukraine". It will be very similar to the Marshall Plan that was introduced after the Second World War. It is good that we are already thinking about it. The Marshall Plan was introduced three years after the end of the Second World War. If we are thinking about a similar plan for Ukraine now, we can include the most important deliverables for Ukraine. It will be important for that to be felt by the Ukrainian people. With regard to numbers, we can probably talk about numbers now but unfortunately we are experiencing additional losses to the economy and infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, universities, places of cultural heritage, people's homes and multistorey buildings, every single day. Unfortunately, those numbers are going to grow. We will only understand what kind of allocations will be needed for Ukraine after the end of the war. We are definitely looking at the numbers, not only as aid and credit, as I said. Investment policies will also provide a big opportunity for other countries to develop sectors in Ukraine that they might be best at. The Ukrainian Government is asking other countries to consider what sectors of the economy they would like to focus on as part of the future recovery. The Ukrainian Government is also suggesting that each EU country works with a particular region or area in Ukraine as part of the recovery plan. The plan is in the making. I am sure that the ambassador has all the materials that have already been prepared for the recovery plan. From my perspective, I will end on the point on which I started, namely, that recovery has to be tied to a reform agenda. I do not think that two parallel tracks will be the right way to go.