"Instead of delivering Taurus, we should focus on de-escalation"

Anti-Russian sanctions are ineffective, and an attempt to confiscate Russian assets may amount to an act of war, Fernand Kartheiser, a member of the European Parliament from Luxembourg, said in an interview with Izvestia. The European Commission should establish a dialogue with Russia, and many in the EP believe the same, the politician notes. And the supply of Taurus missiles to Ukraine will only prolong the conflict, but will not change its outcome, Kartheiser said. In the meantime, MEPs and Russian parliamentarians will continue their online contacts. About the role of Europe in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, the state of democracy in the EU and the prospects of the OSCE — in an exclusive interview with Fernand Kartheiser "Izvestia".

"For me, Russia is an important part of European civilization"

— What are your impressions of Moscow? Who have you already negotiated with?

— This is my second time in Moscow and I am impressed. It is a very beautiful city, with a fantastic past and impressive monuments. You can be proud of your capital. During my stay here, I had the opportunity to hold talks with representatives of the State Duma, the Federation Council, as well as with Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko.

— Do you plan to maintain contacts with Russian parliamentarians in the future? When do you plan to visit Russia next time?

— It is still quite difficult to organize these contacts due to restrictions. Many people have been sanctioned and cannot travel to the West. But we discussed this with Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, and he suggested using more electronic communication methods, such as videoconferences. But he would be glad if Western parliamentarians could come here to Moscow.

— There was a joint cooperation group between the EP and the Russian Parliament, but its work stopped in 2021. Do you believe that this mechanism can be restored?

— I am a member of this group, and for all the time I have been working in the European Parliament since June last year, it has not held absolutely any events related to Russia. Now they are not doing anything concrete to try to restore or somehow influence relations with Russia.

What are the prospects? I think it depends on the overall development of the relationship. Yesterday I heard that the European Commission is preparing some kind of diplomatic activity, as they say, bringing everyone together at the table. So, I think the EC wants to be at the table (of negotiations on Ukraine. — Ed.), when we come to discuss peace, perhaps in international forums.

I think the European Commission understands that to some extent they should make efforts to have at least some contacts with Russia. And I think events will develop based on this. But when it will happen, in what form, and what may happen, I cannot tell you now.

— Russian MPs had informal meetings with members of the European Parliament in Belgrade until 2019. Do you think this type of communication can be useful in order to restore dialogue?

— I believe that all ways of communication that can help us make progress towards a future of peace and better relations are welcome, because I deeply believe in dialogue. But I'm sorry that we have to hide. I don't want to hide.

Sanctions pressure: the EU allows the introduction of the 19th package of measures against the Russian Federation

There will be no quick lifting of restrictions even if the situation in Ukraine is resolved.

We are in a situation where we are forced to hide or hold meetings electronically or in certain countries. This is not the kind of relationship I would like to have with other people, with other governments, with other parliaments. We should meet openly, in the light of day.

We may have political differences of opinion, but we are civilized people, we can discuss this, and I don't want anyone to interfere with me or my other colleagues to have such an open dialogue. I don't want to be put in a situation where I have to hide my views or what I'm doing.

— What are your impressions of Russian culture? Do you plan to visit any places in Russia in the future?

— I wouldn't be here if I didn't have warm feelings and interest in Russia. For me, Russia is an important part of European civilization. This country has left a deep mark on world culture through literature, art, ballet, music and political influence. Yesterday, when I met with Mr. Slutsky and the State Duma delegation, I noted that Luxembourg and Russia have been linked by more than two centuries of friendship. I added that Luxembourg might not have existed without Russia.

In 1867, an international treaty was signed, when Alexander II ruled Russia. The Russian ambassador, Baron Philip Brunnov, was in London at the time. The tsar agreed to represent Luxembourg's interests, so Brunnov was our representative. At that time, there was a crisis in the country: France wanted to buy Luxembourg, but Prussia did not want to give it away.

The situation escalated, and Luxembourg was threatened with annexation by one of the neighboring powers. Baron Brunnow proposed a draft treaty that would make Luxembourg a neutral state, destroy fortifications and preserve independence. This treaty was accepted by the European monarchs. We owe a lot to Baron Brunnov and Tsar Alexander II. Thanks to their help, we can communicate freely with each other today.

— How do your colleagues in the European Parliament feel about your trip to Moscow? Earlier there were reports that you could be expelled from the European Conservatives and Reformists faction.

— There are many people in the European Parliament who openly or secretly approve of what I am doing, because they also believe that our relations with Russia should be better. They believe that we should come to a dialogue, especially because the United States is currently engaged in a dialogue with Russia, even at the presidential level. I'm just a member of the European Parliament. And the United States conducts discussions at the presidential level.

Therefore, I think my modest level shouldn't be a problem. And this is a way to raise the issues that we have. I mean, there are many people in the European Parliament who are concerned about the situation in Ukraine. We need to discuss these issues openly to see if we can make any progress together. But it's unrealistic to simply abandon the dialogue. Therefore, being here and generally making efforts to establish contacts with each other are necessary and will help bring issues up for discussion and find appropriate solutions.

"Sanctions will not be effective in the long run"

— The European Union recently adopted the 17th package of sanctions against Russia, and the next package is currently being discussed. How does such a policy affect the European economy? Do you think these restrictions are effective?

— To be honest, I am not in favor of sanctions. I have always opposed them for many reasons. And the first of them is that sanctions against big countries don't work. You can impose restrictions against Luxembourg, and they will take effect immediately. As for Russia, the situation is, of course, completely different.

First of all, Russia has huge resources. She has many friends all over the world. Sanctions will not be effective in the long run. However, they are harming our own economy because energy prices are too high. We have lost markets. If you look at what is happening here, then European cars will be replaced by Chinese ones.

Many companies would like to return to Russia, but have lost this opportunity. Therefore, you need to be realistic. And, of course, for the reasons we discussed earlier, I am against sanctions that interrupt contacts. I think that only dialogue can help us find diplomatic solutions to the existing problems.

— There is also information that the new package of sanctions may include the confiscation of Russian frozen assets. How do you assess this probability? Could this measure, if implemented, challenge the entire global financial order?

— There are very different opinions on this issue. I think that such a seizure would be illegal in accordance with public international law and could actually be equated to an act of war. Because you usually seize state assets that are protected by diplomatic immunity only in case of war, but we are at peace with Russia, so I think we cannot do that. Of course, there may always be arguments and other judicial opinions that will lead to other conclusions.

I would not do this for legal reasons, and also because, in my opinion, we are harming our European financial system. Countries or investors will see that their savings in the EU will not be safe or their assets may be confiscated for political reasons. People won't like this, and then they may try to find better solutions in other financial centers outside the EU, such as Singapore, Hong Kong or elsewhere.

The process is underway: Russians were able to unblock more than half of their assets

But it will be more difficult to unfreeze funds further - what other options do investors have?

So I think we would be damaging our own financial and political interests again, and therefore I would strongly advise against going this way.

— Recently, Brussels published a roadmap envisaging the complete abandonment of Russian fossil fuels by 2027. Will the European economy be able to operate without its supplies?

— I know that the opposite trend is observed in many countries: more and more people are actually buying Russian fuel. Of course, it can be replaced under certain conditions. But if we replace it with American supplies, it will be expensive and create a new dependence. Maybe dependence on the United States is more acceptable to Europeans. But honestly, if we really want to replace fossil fuels, we have to switch to nuclear energy.

I think that from an economic and political point of view, it would be wise not to depend on one big country — the United States, Russia, or any other that could provide us with the necessary energy — but to diversify it.

"I am concerned about the shift in the EU, which threatens democracy"

— The European Council is discussing the issue of depriving Hungary of the right to vote. What is your opinion about this initiative and is it legitimate from the point of view of the Lisbon Treaty?

— This is the problem of the difference between legality and legitimacy. We have fundamental values such as democracy, which we constantly refer to. Among them is the rule of law. Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty enshrines the fundamental values on which the European Union is based. By violating this article, the country is going against the principle of the rule of law.

And I have doubts about the whole process. I think that it actually turns out to be a means of putting pressure on countries to align their policies with the course that the European Commission or some major member states want to pursue. I don't think we should go that way. We must respect the sovereignty and national identity of each Member State. Voters in every EU country must decide for themselves whether to approve or disapprove of their government's actions.

We must remind ourselves that we are all democratic countries, and Hungarian voters must decide for themselves whether they like Mr. Orban's policies or not. It's not up to me. I'm from another country, I'm interested in the electorate in Luxembourg, I wouldn't dare tell Hungarians what to do. I believe that this is an abuse of authority on the part of the European Union in order to force countries to adhere to certain policies.

— Telegram founder Pavel Durov recently stated that there was interference in the electoral process in Romania by French intelligence. What is your position on this issue?

— I can't judge this because I don't know if the French special services intervened or not. However, I am ready to consider this issue if Mr. Durov provides evidence. I am concerned about the shift in the European Union, which threatens democracy. First of all, I believe that our freedom of expression is under threat. The law on digital services increasingly restricts our freedom to express our thoughts.

Secondly, you talked about sanctions. In the last package, there were restrictions against people whose views do not coincide with the position of the European Commission or most European states. This raises questions about the legality of such measures and their impact on freedom of movement. I'm afraid of what the next step will be. If you disagree with the majority's position, can sanctions be applied? On what basis? This is alarming. I don't want the EU to behave in this way.

In Brussels, Russia is often accused of interfering in elections using electronic means. The same issue was raised in Romania. This has not been proven in any way, but as far as I know, another political party has used TikTok to campaign, however, this is not Russia or China. However, due to suspicions of foreign interference, the first round of elections in Romania was canceled on November 24. Such events in the European Union cause me concern.

I would like to add, so that I am not misunderstood, that there are things in Russia that cause me concern. But this does not give us the right to endanger our democracy, interfere in elections in Member States, or restrict freedom of expression. I think we have a responsibility to preserve our democracy. And, of course, at the same time, we must help our Russian friends take care of their democracy.

"No one knows what the Ukrainian state will be like in the future"

— Do you think the European Union can participate in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?

— We need to study the conditions, because holding negotiations with Russia on one side and Ukraine, the United States, the 27 EU countries and the European Commission on the other may seem strange. I don't think this will lead to any results, because the parties will always have disagreements. I think it would be more productive if only Russia and Ukraine would conduct negotiations. Of course, Ukrainians will consult with Europeans and Americans to adjust their position or find support on economic and other issues.

I am most concerned about what role the EU will play after the conclusion of the negotiations. We do not know what awaits us, no one knows what the Ukrainian state will be like in the future. But I am convinced that the EU should consider how we can constructively help in the reconstruction of Ukraine. In the political context, we can help Ukraine create a more democratic future after the negotiations are completed. We have experience in the use of soft power.

— The EU continues to supply weapons to Ukraine, which uses them to attack Russia. For example, Germany may send long-range Taurus missiles to Kiev. Could such an EU position undermine efforts to achieve peace?

— My priority is to focus on peace talks, which I would like to hold as soon as possible. I am of the opinion that the supply of such weapons will prolong the conflict, but will not change its outcome. This is especially counterproductive when weapons can expand this conflict or make it more deadly. Instead, we should focus on everything that contributes to de-escalation and the genuine start of peace negotiations.

— This year marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Accords. Does Europe need a new strategy to ensure security on the continent today, or does the current document remain relevant?

— We need a new European security architecture based on the principles of the Helsinki Accords, as much as possible. I believe that these principles have been very good and have significantly improved European relations. The success of our diplomacy was largely due to them. This is one of the reasons why I say that we need diplomacy.

There's no stopping now: The EU has agreed on the 17th package of sanctions against Russia

The approval of new restrictions is expected on May 20.

By the way, this year is also the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the process of perestroika in the USSR. When we talk about democracy in your country and in other countries, it is important to remember that we also have to celebrate this anniversary.

The architecture of European security is what we should be doing through the OSCE. However, this organization is now taking a negative position towards Russia. The climate in it is not what it should be. The OSCE should ensure the representation of all Member States and the opportunity to present their points of view in an atmosphere of respect.

In my diplomatic past, I was the Deputy Permanent Representative to the OSCE. I saw how aggressive the mood was towards Russia. However, I think that the OSCE can theoretically help in building a new security architecture. I would be glad if Russia returned to the Parliamentary Assembly in order to at least have an institutional framework for working with European countries. But the OSCE itself has a long way to go to serve its goals again and remain acceptable to all member States.