Baltic states issue statement backing Ukraine's EU, NATO membership

The parliamentary foreign affairs committees of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania issued a joint statement on June 6, affirming their firm support for Ukraine both in its defense against Russia and in its pursuit of EU and NATO membership.
Following their meeting in Lithuania on June 6, the Baltic states reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine's EU integration, stating their goal of concluding accession talks and welcoming Ukraine as a full EU member by Jan. 1, 2030.
Ukraine applied for EU membership in 2022 and was granted candidate status within months. Accession talks began in June 2024, with European leaders setting 2030 as a target for Ukraine's potential accession.
Despite broad EU support for Ukraine's accession, Hungary remains a major obstacle. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced on March 7 that his government would conduct an opinion survey on Ukraine's potential EU membership.
In their statement, the Baltic states also urged the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague to take "concrete political steps" toward Ukraine's membership in the alliance. They argued that Ukraine's NATO accession would 'consolidate a just and lasting peace not only in Ukraine but also in all of Europe" and help uphold the rules-based international order globally.
"Ukraine's NATO membership would provide a more effective and enduring framework for safeguarding Euro-Atlantic security," the statement reads.
Ukraine applied for NATO membership in September 2022, months after the outbreak of the full-scale war. The country has not received a formal invitation, as the 32 members have not reached a consensus.
The statement also reaffirmed the Baltic countries' pledge to support Ukraine 'until its full victory,' and welcomed expanding defense cooperation between Ukraine and like-minded partners. It encouraged inviting Ukraine to join the U.K.-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), calling it a meaningful step toward deeper regional security integration.
"We call upon the Foreign Affairs Committees of other national parliaments, international parliamentary assemblies, governments, and responsible institutions to endorse this statement and to adopt corresponding actions that would ensure continued and determined support for Ukraine's victory, reconstruction, and full integration into the Euro-Atlantic community," the statement read.
Read also: Nordics, Baltics urge concrete steps toward Ukraine's EU membership
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

12 minutes ago

• The Hill

How the AP decided to refer to the conflict between Israel and Iran as a war

The Associated Press is calling the current conflict between Israel and Iran a war, given the scope, intensity and duration of military activities on both sides. Other news organizations also have decided to refer to the conflict as a war, while some are still sticking with words such as 'conflict' or 'fighting.' When a conflict in the world spills into military action, it's important to use the correct terms to describe it. Sometimes a one-sided attack occurs without further action, or a conflict bubbles up and then ends quickly Using 'war' widely to describe these kinds of situations can diminish the word's importance. Then, when actual war breaks out, people might not understand its significance. The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: 'A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,' or 'a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.' The fight between Israel and Iran meets those criteria, though neither has officially declared war. Since Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran's military and nuclear program, there has been a significant escalation in the conflict. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel. Israel has assassinated high-level Iranian officials; targeted the country's infrastructure; called for hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate Iran's capital, Tehran; and said it will continue its offensive. The AP provided guidance on the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war in the days and weeks after fighting began. In both cases, editors considered the number of casualties, the intensity of fighting, the involvement of each party, and what each country was calling the conflict. In both cases, the AP started using the word 'war' to describe the conflicts. AP capitalizes the word 'war' only as part of a formal name, which as of now does not exist. Decisions on how AP uses the term 'war' happen in real time. AP's news leaders and standards editors will continue to monitor developments to see whether changes are necessary. At this point, the level of fighting constitutes the countries being at war, no matter what happens next. If fighting were to end soon, AP would continue saying the countries had been at war. News leaders would consider whether the level of fighting at that time amounted to being at war. If other countries intervene in the war, AP would describe the intervention as military action in support of Israel or military support of Iran. AP would also consider whether the action constitutes those countries also being at war.

Fox News

15 minutes ago

• Fox News

The new map that could be guiding Trump's Middle East moves

Video President Donald Trump came back into office promising no new wars. So far, he's kept that promise. But he's also left much of Washington — and many of America's allies — confused by a series of rapid, unexpected moves across the Middle East. In just a few months, Trump has reopened backchannels with Iran, then turned around and threatened its regime with collapse. He's kept Israel at arm's length — skipping it on his regional tour — before signaling support once again. He lifted U.S. sanctions on Syria's Islamist leader, a figure long treated as untouchable in Washington. And he made headlines by hosting Pakistan's top general at the White House, even as India publicly objected. For those watching closely, it's been hard to pin down a clear doctrine. Critics see improvisation — sometimes even contradiction. But step back, and a pattern begins to emerge. It's not about ideology, democracy promotion, or traditional alliances. It's about access. Geography. Trade. More specifically, it may be about restarting a long-stalled infrastructure project meant to bypass China — and put the United States back at the center of a strategic economic corridor stretching from India to Europe. The project is called the India–Middle East–Europe Corridor, or IMEC. Most Americans have never heard of it. It was launched in 2023 at the G20 summit in New Delhi, as a joint initiative among the U.S., India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the European Union. Its goal? To build a modern infrastructure link connecting South Asia to Europe — without passing through Chinese territory or relying on Chinese capital. IMEC's vision is bold but simple: Indian goods would travel west via rail and ports through the Gulf, across Israel, and on to European markets. Along the way, the corridor would connect not just trade routes, but energy pipelines, digital cables, and logistics hubs. It would be the first serious alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative — a way for the U.S. and its partners to build influence without boots on the ground. But before construction could begin, war broke out in Gaza. The October 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel's military response sent the region into crisis. Normalization talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel fell apart. The Red Sea became a warzone for shipping. And Gulf capital flows paused. The corridor — and the broader idea of using infrastructure to tie the region together — was quietly shelved. Video That's the backdrop for Trump's current moves. Taken individually, they seem scattered. Taken together, they align with the logic of clearing obstacles to infrastructure. Trump may not be drawing maps in the Situation Room. But his instincts — for leverage, dealmaking and unpredictability — are removing the very roadblocks that halted IMEC in the first place. His approach to Iran is a prime example. In April, backchannels were reopened on the nuclear front. In May, a Yemen truce was brokered — reducing attacks on Gulf shipping. In June, after Israeli strikes inside Iran, Trump escalated rhetorically, calling for Iran's "unconditional surrender." That combination of engagement and pressure may sound erratic. But it mirrors the approach that cleared a diplomatic path with North Korea: soften the edges, then apply public pressure. Meanwhile, Trump's temporary distancing from Israel is harder to miss. He skipped it on his regional tour and avoided aligning with Prime Minister Netanyahu's continued hard-line approach to Gaza. Instead, he praised Qatar — a U.S. military partner and quiet mediator in the Gaza talks — and signaled support for Gulf-led reconstruction plans. The message: if Israel refuses to engage in regional stabilization, it won't control the map. Trump also made the unexpected decision to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria's new leader, President Ahmad al-Sharaa — a figure with a past in Islamist groups, now leading a transitional government backed by the UAE. Critics saw the move as legitimizing extremism. But in practice, it unlocked regional financing and access to transit corridors once blocked by U.S. policy. Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. Welcoming Pakistan's military chief was less about loyalty, and more about leverage. In corridor politics, geography often trumps alliances. None of this means Trump has a master plan. There's no confirmed strategy memo that links these moves to IMEC. And the region remains volatile. Iran's internal stability is far from guaranteed. The Gaza conflict could reignite. Saudi and Qatari interests don't always align. But there's a growing logic underneath the diplomacy: de-escalate just enough conflict to make capital flow again — and make corridors investable. That logic may not be ideologically pure. It certainly isn't about spreading democracy. But it reflects a real shift in U.S. foreign policy. Call it infrastructure-first geopolitics — where trade routes, ports and pipelines matter more than treaties and summits. To be clear, the United States isn't the only player thinking this way. China's Belt and Road Initiative has been advancing the same model for over a decade. Turkey, Iran and Russia are also exploring new logistics and energy corridors. But what sets IMEC apart — and what makes Trump's recent moves notable — is that it offers an opening for the U.S. to compete without large-scale military deployments or decades-long aid packages. Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. For all his unpredictability, Trump has always had a sense for economic leverage. That may be what we're seeing here: less a doctrine than a direction. Less about grand visions, and more about unlocking chokepoints. There's no guarantee it will work. The region could turn on a dime. And the corridor could remain, as it is now, a partially built concept waiting on political will. But Trump's moves suggest he's trying to build the conditions for it to restart — not by talking about peace, but by making peace a condition for investment. In a region long shaped by wars over ideology and territory, that may be its own kind of strategy. Tanvi Ratna is a policy analyst and engineer with a decade of experience in statecraft at the intersection of geopolitics, economics, and technology. She has worked on Capitol Hill, at EY, at CoinDesk and others, shaping policy across sectors from manufacturing to AI. Follow her takes on statecraft on X and Substack.

CNN

20 minutes ago

• CNN

The US can end Iran conflict with one call, official from Iran's presidency says

Diplomacy with Iran can 'easily' be started again if US President Donald Trump orders Israel's leadership to stop its strikes on Iran, Majid Farahani, an official with the Iranian presidency told CNN on Friday. 'Iran believes in civilian dialogue,' he said. 'Directly or indirectly is not important.' 'President Trump can easily stop the war by only one telephone (call) to (the) Israelis,' he said, repeating the Iranian position that talks were impossible while Israeli bombs were striking Iran. Farahani said that Iran would not countenance halting nuclear enrichment – which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes - but added that concessions were possible. French president Emmanuel Macron says "moving towards zero enrichment" should be a priority in European talks with Iran in Geneva. CNN's Becky Anderson speaks to French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Christophe Lemoine about the diplomatic efforts to stop the Israel-Iran conflict. 'Maybe it can be lower but we don't stop it,' he said. In recent days, European powers have joined American and Israeli calls for a ban on enrichment, hardening their positions on the key issue, with France putting forward 'a clear position on zero enrichment,' France's foreign ministry spokesperson Christophe Lemoine told CNN Friday. Iran says it needs enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, while also manufacturing large quantities of near-weapons-grade material. Trump's decision to open a two-week negotiating window before deciding on striking Iran has offered a slim – if improbable – path to a peace deal between Iran and Israel. Talks are taking place in Geneva between the foreign ministers from Iran, Britain, France, and Germany, along with the European Union's foreign policy chief, the first confirmed face-to-face meeting of its kind since the conflict began. After days of increasingly aggressive messages from the Trump administration, it has opened the possibility that military action can be averted. Indeed, Trump's own camp appears to be starkly divided on whether to pursue direct strikes against Iran. 'If America gets involved in the war,' Farahani said, 'there are so many options and all (of) those options are on the table.' Pro-government protests Friday on the streets of Tehran saw an outpouring of anger at both Israel and the United States. A CNN team in Tehran witnessed massive crowds, with protesters waving Iranian, Hezbollah and Palestinian flags and burning US and Israeli flags. Chants of 'death to Israel, death to America' – a staple at such events – rang out, while Iranians spoke of their fury at the bombing campaign. 'Trump, you are threatening my leader,' one woman told CNN, 'Don't you know that my nation believes death is sweeter than honey?'