Thank you, Jennifer Rankin from The Guardian,

our friends at the Financial Times have reported that the Commission has resumed work on options for use of Russia's frozen assets for Ukraine.

Can you confirm if this is the case?

Yes, Balazs will tell us where we are on the topic of the. Russian frozen assets. So, indeed, now.

I think what we are looking at right now as a matter of priority is to deliver first of all on the €45 billion which has been committed for 2026 under the €90 billion loan for Ukraine.

The announcement that I've just made, makes it clear that under the defense like we have allocated all the money for this year.

So what we'll do now is to look at the disbursements because there's a difference between what has been allocated,

28 billion around and what has been disbursed.

So for example, on the defense we have disbursed around 8.4 billion, so there's a gap there, so there's quite a bit of work lying ahead in the remaining months of the year.

And the situation is very similar under the other pillars of the 90 billion loan, be it the macro financial assistance program where the target is 8.35,

but we are at 3.2, and then you have the Ukraine facility therefore now no disbursement has taken place.

So that's already a lot of work and that's our priority.

Now in addition to that, there are exchanges ongoing between us and Ukraine,

between us and the IMF Commissioner Dombrovskis has been very active over the course of this week.

He met the Ukrainian Prime Minister on Monday.

He met the managing director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, on Tuesday specifically to have an understanding of the fiscal developments in Ukraine,

and what came out of those meetings is that additional work will be needed.

Notably also technical level in order to better understand how the fiscal situation is evolving in Ukraine and better there is potentially an emerging financing.

So we've got to carry out that work first.

We need to establish the needs before we can potentially discuss ways of addressing it.

So that's where the situation stands at the moment. Thank you, very clear. Yes, Jennifer, I follow up.

But in, in principle, you're, you're open to making a proposal,

reviving a proposal to use the Russian frozen assets, is that right?

We left it in December at a very important discussion at the European Council.

We never said that it was out of the table.

It remains there as a tool, but now what we are focusing on,

as Balazs just mentioned, is really working with Ukraine very clearly, first to address our commitments.

On the disbursement, the timely disbursement of the EA loan,

and then see if and what are any additional financial needs before we can speak of concrete possible tools to address them. Yes, please. So, Sabino answer, thanks.

I understand that before assessing any possible use or tools, you have to address other issues, but I still would like to know if you assessed or evaluated in any way this new proposal that is,

Floated around on a different mechanism that is not the reparation loan anymore within the Euroclear money,

but taking the account into Euroclear and moving it into another vehicle or instrument. Can you comment on that? Have you seen it?

There was a letter by 120 European Euro debutats asking addressed to the President of the Commission,

addressed to Commissioner Dombrovskis, to the President of the EU Council, so have you looked into it? Thank you, Sabina.

At the risk of repeating myself, so yes, the letter we have received it, we are looking into it.

That is something I can, I can confirm, but on the, on the first question you raised again, before we can address a potential issue,

we've got to define the issue and we are in that process, so we are not going to speculate about what a potential way of addressing it could be.

So at this stage we are focused on, on establishing the facts. Thank you, Jorge.

Bala, on these talks, technical talks that are ongoing between the Commission, Ukraine and the IMF, do you have any estimation on how long it could last,

because we're talking about a budget deficit, obviously a very urgent need for Ukraine to address,

so I'm supposing that these talks cannot, cannot last forever.

So do you have an estimation on when we could have a new number, an updated number on Ukraine's needs.

No specific timeline that I could commit to, but as usual as soon as possible.

We know what is at stake indeed, so these discussions are being carried out in a in a speedy fashion, they are,

they are, regular, and let's not forget that for next year Ukraine again we have to prepare what we call the financing strategy.

Which will break down the remaining amount for next year, so the €45 billion for for next year.

We will have to structure it according to the three programs that we have the defense leg, the MFA and the Ukraine facilities.

So these discussions are being pursued in parallel and as quickly as we can, of course. Thank you. Yes. Gina.

Thank you, Jeanna Smialek from The New York Times.

I just wanted to clarify, Paula, you said that this discussion was left in December and then Balazs, you said that you are looking into the,

the suggestion in the letter and so I just was hoping to clarify, are you looking into the letter or was it left?

Like where, where do things stand and if you are looking into it, what does looking into it mean? Thank you, Gina.

Listen, of course, if we receive a letter in this case from more than 100 MEPs, we obviously take such letters seriously, so when we say we look into it, obviously we look into what is being proposed, we look into what is being asked, and then, of course,

whether it is the moment to follow up and So that's what we mean by looking into it, but, as Bala explained,

the focus of the discussion with regard to the topic of the Russian frozen assets is rather on assessing the needs of Ukraine rather than exploring potential ways to address those needs. That's what was meant and explained. Gina. Sorry, just a very quick follow up.

Are you disputing the FT story that there is work going on in this arena or are you just saying that it's not the that work is not the primary focus?

I said no, that's exactly, that's not the primary focus.

We had worked extensively on this, and now the focus is somewhere else. Yes, please.

It's about this budget deficits, so you just mentioned. Something does. OK. Yeah. Is it OK? No, it's not. Yeah, Yeah, it's better.

OK, so Valeria Pashkova of Ukraine, what exact, hurdles for the Commission to find out the budget shortfall, for Ukraine for this, concrete year since,

a few government officials has already stated that it's, it's like,

€23 billion and President Zelensky also, set this, this figure. So why the Commission.

Don't, doesn't trust them or what is the, problem here?

And, also, have you received the official request from the Ukrainian authorities for the front loading of Ukrainian support loan or, I don't know,

the call to change the custodianship of those frozen Russian assets in order to have those additional funds for this year. Thanks. Yeah, thank you.

Look,

so it's one thing what we see in the media and it's another thing what we hear in bilateral direct discussions that we have with the Ukrainian authorities.

So, if you like, our primary source of information is of course what is being shared with us in this meeting directly.

From or by the Ukrainian officials and also the IMF.

So that explains why we will need a little bit more time to establish the concrete, concrete figures.

And as regards the front loading, to my knowledge, no such request has been transmitted to the Commission officially. Thank you. Yes, please.

Hello, Harry Delaney, AFP, just to clarify on the, from the new disbursement of the, of the loan, this,

of this 3, 6.1 billion, how much of it can be spent on patriots from America?

I think the president mentioned 3.2 billion in a statement with the NATO head of NATO earlier. Is that the, the figure? Thanks a lot.

And indeed there was a statement earlier this week by President von der Leyen on the derogations for Ukraine to purchase crucial products,

notably for Patriot air defense systems, but I say notably, and that's because Balazs.

Look, so the way it works, first of all,

I'm a little bit constrained in terms of what I can say because the products are confidential given the operational security considerations that we have at at play here.

But if you look at the 6.1 billion of that 3.2 billion required derogation. OK.

The derogation is, among others for PAC-3, PAC-3 missiles,

but also for other products such as, such as drones.

So the 3.2 are not exclusively for PAC missiles but they are included.

Yes, let me see if other, yes, please. Abramovich Radio Free Europe.

Balazs, could you specify please if the Commission has already received any contracts for verifying,

and usually how long does it take to verify them? Thanks. Yes, thank you.

That allows me to confuse you even more and introduce yet another figure into the discussion,

which is a figure of 4.7 billion that the Commissioner Kubilius also mentioned this morning.

So again, we have a gap here between what has been approved at the 28.3 billion and what has been disbursed, which is 8.4.

So now we can turn our focus to the disbursements and this figure is going to increase quite intensively in the coming weeks and months expectedly.

So what we expect now is that the next disbursement will amount to around 4.7 billion for defense defense purposes.

So that is the next development to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.

Today we're having a real crash course on the disbursement of the Ukrainian loan. Good.

If no further questions to Balazs, we can change topic. Jan.