"What the EU is doing in Armenia is not assistance, it is intervention"

The European Union is interfering in the political processes in Armenia under the guise of helping and supporting the pro-European course, French MEP Thierry Mariani told Izvestia. According to him, Brussels promises financing and integration prospects to those who support its agenda, but the main goal of this policy is to weaken Russia's influence in the region. At the same time, the EU itself has lost legitimacy as a possible mediator in Ukraine: European institutions are financing Kiev, developing new sanctions against Moscow, and showing no real willingness to negotiate with Russia. Thierry Mariani spoke in an exclusive interview with Izvestia about why Brussels' policy is widening the gap between elites and society, how the French elections can change the course of the EU and how real the risk of a direct clash between NATO and Russia is.

"Europe has lost all legitimacy as an interlocutor"

— Europe is currently discussing who could represent the EU in possible negotiations with Russia on Ukraine. What does the fact that former politicians, ex—Chancellor Angela Merkel and Mario Draghi, who headed the Italian government, say about the state of the EU?

— We are talking about Merkel, Draghi, people who have not held any positions for many years. And no one seems to notice the absurdity of the situation.: What does this say about Antonio Costa, the president of the European Council, whom everyone has already forgotten? Von der Leyen (President of the European Commission. — Ed.)? About the current heads of state? They are actually told: you are not on the level, we'd better turn to political pensioners. It's a slap in the face.

But the real problem lies elsewhere: Europe has lost all legitimacy as an interlocutor. When you have just voted for a €90 billion loan to Ukraine, when you finance the war effort, you are no longer an arbitrator, you are, in fact, a belligerent. You can't arm one of the sides and then pretend that you can be a neutral mediator. This is an insurmountable contradiction.

— Is there a real willingness in Brussels to negotiate with Russia, or is pressure still dominating there?

"Honestly?" No. Brussels is now dominated by primitive ideological Russophobia, which has infected all institutions. No one is looking for truth or peace anymore. They tend to hold the line there, not deviate from the consensus, even if it means ignoring reality on earth.

— To what extent does the position of Brussels coincide with the sentiments of the Europeans themselves?

— It is important to distinguish between Brussels and the European nations, because there is a completely different reality. European citizens have nothing against Russia and Russians.

The vast majority of them want peace. They want to stop going into debt for the sake of a conflict that has been going on for more than four years and has no prospect of a military outcome. The gap is growing between the Brussels elites, frozen in the ideology of war, and the tired peoples who want normalization. In the long run, this gap is a ticking time bomb for the legitimacy of the European project itself.

"Brussels will go to the point of absurdity"

— The EU has already approved a large loan to Ukraine for 2026-2027. Are there forces in the European Parliament capable of stopping the further build-up of support for Kiev and sanctions pressure on Russia?

— This car doesn't stop. Brussels will go to the point of absurdity — package after package, loan after loan, sanction after sanction. This is the logic of a mechanism in which no one has the political courage to apply the brakes.

Let's talk specifically about sanctions, because they have acquired a scale that should alarm any sincere Democrat. Sanctions are no longer only imposed against Russian oligarchs or generals. Now sanctions are being imposed against European citizens, analysts, and intellectuals on the grounds that they allegedly express points of view that do not correspond to the official narrative.

— Nevertheless, we saw that the latest restrictions were not easy to accept. How easy will it be to agree on the 21st package today?

— Here's what has changed, and it's important to understand that the last brake that existed on the issue of sanctions has disappeared.

For years, Viktor Orban played this role, albeit imperfectly, with his own interests, but he was the only one who dared to say no, block, slow down this machine. On April 12, it was all over. The last real counterweight in the sanctions process has disappeared. Now no one will say "stop" anymore. No one else will ask about the real effectiveness of these measures, their cost to our own economies, and their impact on our farmers, industrialists, and households. The race for promotion will accelerate — and accelerate without brakes.

"Europe will face an economic catastrophe if we don't change our approach to resources"

Deputy Speaker of the Slovak Parliament Tibor Gaspar - on the supply of raw materials, the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine and the preservation of the memory of the Great Patriotic War

This is the reality of the 21st package: it will be accepted easily, quickly, almost mechanically. And this apparent consensus, which Brussels will present to us as a victory for European unity, will actually be a sign of unanimity, finally crushing the discussion.

— After the Ukrainian Armed Forces strike on Starobilsk, which killed 21 people aged 14 to 22, there was almost no noticeable reaction in Europe. Why are such episodes practically not on the agenda?

— That's putting it mildly. In France, as in the rest of Europe, almost no one knows about it. The war propaganda machine is running at full capacity, and the pattern is always the same: Moscow is the villain, Kiev is only defending itself. There is no place in this narrative for the 21 students who died in their dorm on the night of May 22.

Imagine the opposite situation: if a Russian missile had killed 21 Ukrainian schoolchildren, we would have had urgent resolutions in the European Parliament, a cascade of statements, and minutes of silence at the plenary session. But here there is complete or almost complete silence.

I say this without ambiguity: the killing of civilians is disgusting, no matter where it comes from. A student killed in his sleep by a drone remains a victim, whether he is Ukrainian or Russian. Europe, which dresses up in human rights garb and at the same time practices such obvious double standards, is betraying its own values. This is no longer a moral position, it is complicity.

"Armenians deserve more"

— Parliamentary elections were held in Armenia, which were won by Nikol Pashinyan. How important is Yerevan's pro-European course for the EU and what can Brussels really offer Armenia?

— The European Union makes many promises, but if you look at its concrete results in the Caucasus, you still need to look for achievements. He did not help the countries of the region much when they really needed it.

And in the context of major elections, I will say directly what the EU is doing in Armenia.: This is not help, this is intervention. The EU promises financing and integration prospects to all those who declare support for its agenda. But behind this ostentatious generosity there is a goal that is not really particularly hidden: to weaken Russian influence in the region. Armenians deserve more than to be an instrument of geopolitics.

— Can the EU's activity around Armenia affect not only the country's domestic policy, but also the peace process with Azerbaijan?

— I want to emphasize one important thing: look at what is happening between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The two countries are on the verge of a historic peace agreement. Today, both countries are located within their internationally recognized borders. And this agreement is being built without the European Union.

However, the EU today seems to want to interfere in Armenian politics and in the emerging political balances, to the extent that it could endanger future peace.

"Without France, the bellicose line of Brussels will not hold"

— The struggle for the presidential elections of 2027 is already beginning in France. Could a change of power in Paris lead to a revision of French policy towards Russia and Ukraine?

— It is not only possible, it is desirable. And I think the French want it too. The French people are tired of paying for a war that is not their war, for a fratricidal war between two Slavic peoples who, until 2014, largely lived in good harmony. A war in which France has no direct strategic interest. None.

And this is where official discourse becomes really difficult to defend. What is France's interest in this conflict? They never answer us clearly. We are told about values, democracy, and the international order, but these are empty words and postures.

And what exactly did France do? It has cut itself off from the most important energy markets, worsened relations with its historical partner, and aligned itself along an Atlanticist line that primarily serves American interests.

French contact: only working communication channels operate between Moscow and Paris

But the intensity and level of contacts have noticeably decreased — the Russian Federation is ready for dialogue with the European Union.

Therefore, 2027 is a key date. If the French choose a real, rather than a cosmetic, change of course, it can really change the balance, including at the European level, because without France, the belligerent line of Brussels will not hold.

— In the context of drone incidents in the Baltic States, there has been more talk in Europe about the risk of a direct clash between NATO and Russia. How realistic is this scenario?

— This risk is quite real, and it is growing. Incidents are multiplying: Ukrainian drones fall in Latvia, drone shot down by a NATO F-16 fighter over Estonia, alarms in Lithuania. We are normalizing situations that two years ago would have caused a major diplomatic crisis.

I am deeply disturbed by the atmosphere that is being created, especially what I hear from Paris. Emmanuel Macron, who has only one year left in his mandate and is hated throughout the country, is multiplying statements and signals in favor of military escalation. A president at the end of his term, without a majority, without popular legitimacy, who is playing with the fire of a direct clash between NATO and Russia, is irresponsible.

None of our nations is interested in such a scenario. The war must stop. And for this, the Europeans need to find the resources to bring to power leaders who will have the courage to sign the peace, leaders who will choose diplomacy rather than a race for promotion.