Russia has been conducting disinformation campaigns against Western countries for many years, systematically distorting global history. For example, only recently have media outlets begun publishing truthful information about the fact that Hitler did not start World War II alone, but together with Stalin — that they jointly invaded Poland, and that even Hitler’s offensive against France took place with Stalin’s support. This is a new interpretation that had rarely been discussed in Western media, and only now is it starting to enter the public consciousness. That is why Europe must move toward active measures, with the containment of Russian disinformation becoming a top priority.
The European Parliament must also declare the need to send international observers — whether from the Red Cross or another humanitarian organization — to the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine. This would help stop Russia’s practice of persecuting Ukrainians in those areas, people who are being systematically denied their right to exist. Russia must feel the consequences of its actions. Russian citizens must come to understand what is happening and grasp the true cost of this aggression. Sanctions must not only be maintained but strengthened. Moreover, frozen Russian assets should be used to rebuild Ukraine. And without question, visas must no longer be granted to the children of Russia’s elite.
This was stated in a big interview with Guildhall by Helmut Brandstätter, Member of the European Parliament from Austria (Renew Europe Group).
— Mr. Brandstätter, over the past few years, numerous investigations conducted by both Ukrainian NGOs and several European institutions have revealed that one of the key objectives of the Russian intelligence services’ destabilizing activities in Europe has been to weaken public support — particularly support for the supply of military aid to Ukraine. It has now been three years since the full-scale invasion began. How would you assess the current situation today?
Helmut Brandstätter: First of all, I can speak from Austria’s experience. To be honest, it took us more time than many other European countries to realize what the Putin regime actually represents. Why did that happen? Because after 1989, strong business ties were established between the Russian and Austrian economies. Many Austrian companies — including banks, insurance firms, and service providers — successfully entered Eastern European markets, including Russia. This strengthened the belief that the situation had fundamentally changed.
Many recalled Putin’s speech in the Bundestag in 2001, hoping for positive transformation. Even the events of 2014 did not lead to serious reconsideration within Austrian society. Many companies continued doing business, ignoring the occupation of Crimea and the fighting in Eastern Ukraine. Disinformation played a major role in this: a significant portion of public opinion continued to view what was happening as an «internal Russian matter» and believed that Moscow was simply «taking back what was theirs».
However, these narratives did not emerge spontaneously in 2014 — they were prepared in advance. Russia’s disinformation campaigns have a long history. We know about their «troll factories» and other influence operations, which had already been active long before the full-scale aggression began. Russia had a plan. Europe, on the other hand, typically only reacted. And this is exactly where our systemic vulnerability lies. That is why I insist today: we must also have a strategic plan. A plan that will allow us to effectively counter disinformation and, most importantly — to prevent it, not merely respond after the fact.
Today, discussions on the internet are increasingly centered around the dates marking the end of World War II — May 8 and May 9. More and more people are beginning to say: yes, Hitler started the war, but he did not do it alone. The argument is voiced more frequently now that he acted in coordination with Stalin. They divided Poland together. And even in the campaign against France, Hitler had Stalin’s support. It was only later that he made a strategic mistake by deciding to attack the Soviet Union. But at the very beginning of the war, it was a joint plan — not Hitler’s unilateral initiative. For me, this came as a revelation — it’s the first time I’ve seen this kind of assessment appear in Western media. Previously, this interpretation of Stalin’s role in starting World War II was almost absent from the public discourse. This is clearly a signal: we are once again in a position where we are forced to react, rather than act proactively. And while reaction is better than doing nothing, it is clearly not enough. That’s precisely why I am convinced: we need to move toward active measures.
First — to stop the spread of disinformation. For this purpose, the European Union has adopted the Digital Services Act. We must send a clear signal to people like Elon Musk and other owners of large platforms: fact-checking is essential. If knowingly false information is being spread, it must be taken down. Moreover, we have the right to know how the algorithms of these platforms work. After all, it is often these very algorithms that allow lies to spread faster and farther than verified facts.
Second — and this is a far more complex task — is countering disinformation within Russia itself. I understand that only a minority there opposes Putin’s regime. But we know that more than a million young Russians have already left the country. These are the people who can become our allies in working with Russian society. They can explain to their fellow citizens what is actually happening in their country. This is a long-term strategy — it will not bear fruit in months or perhaps even in years. But the day will come when Putin’s time will be over. And Russia will always remain your neighbor.
— We remember that even during the Soviet era, one of the key priorities of the United States was engaging with the population of the USSR. Despite the authoritarian regime, there were groups of people who shared democratic values. And although they represented a minority, it was precisely those individuals who were the focus of a long-term engagement strategy.
Helmut Brandstätter: This work was especially important in East Germany, thanks in part to Radio Free Europe. That’s why today we need to develop a long-term strategy — a campaign in support of a free Russia. I have no illusions: none of this will bring results in the coming months, or perhaps even years. But Russia will remain our neighbor even a hundred years from now. More than 25 years have passed since the Cold War ended. Sooner or later, the regime in Russia will change. It may not become a full democracy, but there may be another government — one that is less aggressive. And when that happens, it is vital that there are more people within Russia who understand what has truly been happening.
I recently read an article in The New York Times about how more and more mothers and wives in Russia are trying to find their loved ones who went missing in the war. Increasingly, they are asking themselves: ‘Why do we even need this war?’ But we have not yet tried to explain to ordinary Russians why all of this is happening. It’s not about NATO. It’s about an attempt to seize an independent country by force — something that has happened before. Yes, this will be an extremely difficult task. But it is the European Union that must take it on. In Brussels, I will advocate for the creation of a comprehensive information strategy. There must be an information bureau, there must be a digital space for a ‘free Russia.’ We must convey to the Russian people what is really going on. At the very least — we have to try.
— Russia is not going to disappear. And it is naive — sometimes even outright foolish — to believe that even if Russia suffers a military defeat in the war against Ukraine, its society will suddenly become friendly toward Europe.
Helmut Brandstätter: Of course, that will not happen. Nevertheless, I still hope for Ukraine’s victory. But even in that case, it is crucial to prepare public opinion to understand that change will not be instant or all-encompassing. Recently, I listened to Garry Kasparov. He said that Ukraine’s victory will have many consequences, including for Russian society itself. Russians have only changed when they lost wars. When they won, the situation only worsened. And I think he is right.
This is my personal opinion, but we need a full range of influence. We need people who can explain to Russians what is really happening. However, there is another important point: Russia must feel the consequences of its actions. Russian citizens must realize what is going on and understand the cost of this aggression. Sanctions must not only be maintained but also intensified. Moreover, the frozen Russian assets should be used to rebuild Ukraine. And, undoubtedly, visa issuance to the children of the Russian elite must be stopped. While they throw parties in Saint-Tropez and London and post entertaining videos online, their country wages a destructive war. I would strip them of their privileges and access to the benefits of the West.
— Mr. Brandstätter, there is currently active discussion about the prospect of negotiations and the possibility of “freezing” the conflict. Some Western politicians are suggesting that Ukraine reconsider its position and, in effect, agree to a partial relinquishment of its sovereignty. However, it must be clearly emphasized: it is not Ukraine that should change its stance, but the aggressive Putin regime. In this context, it is important to shift the focus of the debate. What measures of pressure on the Russian regime could be applied to change its destructive policies but have so far not been implemented? What specific tools with real potential remain unused?
Helmut Brandstätter: Certainly, the decisive moment was 2014. That’s when the first sanctions were introduced, but at the same time, Russia began large-scale lobbying efforts to have them lifted. I can give a concrete example: in 2016, the Austrian far-right party signed a cooperation agreement with the United Russia party. One of the main reasons for this move was precisely to counteract sanctions — they actively promoted a pro-Russian agenda. There is documented evidence of this, including German-language materials with direct quotes showing how this party pushed amendments in the European Parliament exclusively in the Kremlin’s interest.
Where was our mistake? We assumed this was simply an expression of their political stance. We failed to explain to the public that, in reality, they were acting as Putin’s puppets. We did not convey how deeply this influenced Austrian society. A similar mistake was made in other European countries: we underestimated the scale and systematic nature of Putin’s long-term disinformation strategy. Today, we also face acts of sabotage carried out by so-called «sleeper agents» — people who have lived in Europe for many years but act on orders from Russian intelligence services. They are well-prepared and generously funded. And we only observe and react after the fact. This is not enough. This situation demands a fundamental change of approach.
— So, speaking about leverage over the Russian regime: about 60% of Russia’s budget revenues come from oil and gas exports. That’s simple math. If Russia’s oil revenues decrease, it will undermine the entire economy. What other tools can be applied to genuinely reduce Russia’s income from oil and gas sales?
Helmut Brandstätter: Regarding gas, at least there is a plan. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, recently stated in the European Parliament that by 2027, Russian gas supplies will be completely phased out. Naturally, countries like Hungary and Slovakia view this differently. But, for example, Austria was heavily dependent on Russian gas, and signing a long-term contract with Gazprom in 2018 was a serious mistake. Now the situation has changed, and we are moving towards abandoning Russian gas.
As for oil, there are two key directions. The first is to find alternative sources, since we still need oil. The second is the active development of renewable energy sources. This is the next important step. Notably, many right-wing parties oppose renewable energy — they are against wind and solar power, against electric vehicles. Why? Because they have an interest in maintaining our energy dependence on Russia. Essentially, they act as Kremlin lobbyists. Our task is to explain this clearly to society.
I am currently finishing a book titled «Trump, Putin, and the European Puppets», where I explore this topic in detail. But unfortunately, if only 20,000 Austrians read it, that won’t be enough. Perhaps a few newspapers will write about it, but we need as many people as possible to understand a simple truth: these political forces are not patriots of their countries but proxies for Russian interests. They represent dependence, not sovereignty. And we must keep repeating this message until it becomes obvious to society.
— Recently, the Ukrainian state news agency published a report on Russia’s ethnic cleansing in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine. This truly shocked me, and I would like to ask you a question about it. While negotiations about a possible freezing of the conflict are ongoing, Russia continues to forcibly deport Ukrainians, conduct forced conscriptions into the Russian army, and destroy Ukrainian culture. The Geneva Conventions clearly state that the humanitarian aspect must be at the center of resolving armed conflicts. How do you assess the ongoing ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories? And what can the international community do to stop these crimes, even if the war continues?
Helmut Brandstätter: This is something I have only recently discovered. Although I was familiar with statements from Vladislav Surkov (former deputy prime minister of Russia, who was behind the concept of the «Russian world», the annexation of Crimea, and the start of the war against Ukraine in Donbas in 2014) and Alexander Dugin (a Russian ultra-conservative philosopher, ideologue of the «Russian world» and the «holy war against the West»), and understood their rhetoric, it is only in the past few weeks that I have begun to delve deeper into the details. Unfortunately, the logic behind their statements becomes painfully clear: in their interpretation, you are either Russian—or you have no right to exist. And they state this openly and unequivocally.
As the international community, we have failed to communicate this essence clearly enough. Many in Europe still mistakenly view the situation as a simple territorial conflict. But this is not just a struggle over land. It is a war over the recognition of the Ukrainian people’s right to exist at all. It is an existential confrontation. And sadly, we have not yet effectively conveyed to the world the history, culture, language, and identity of Ukraine. How to change this situation—I do not yet know.
— Perhaps an international mission should be considered?
Helmut Brandstätter: I’m afraid Russia is unlikely to agree. They allowed international observers at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, but that was an isolated case. Nevertheless, it is an idea that should be discussed in the European Parliament, and a corresponding resolution adopted—to express the desire to send representatives of the Red Cross or other organizations so they can see what is truly happening in the occupied territories.
It is especially important to speak about kidnapped children. I have studied relevant reports, as well as materials on forced conscription of young men — they are forcibly taken into the army and treated brutally. There is abundant evidence of humanitarian crimes, but we do not sufficiently highlight these facts publicly. We need to explore initiatives, possibly involving the church, so that religious representatives can gain access to these territories. However, until Russia gives permission, our options remain limited.
— And the last question. At the beginning of the war, there were debates: should the goal be to achieve a clear victory for Ukraine, or simply to prevent its defeat? How would you assess the current level of unity within the European Union on this issue? Can we now say that the consensus supports the idea of an outright Ukrainian victory?
Helmut Brandstätter: Certainly, the situation is not the same across all countries. We hear what Orban says, what Fico says. We see what’s happening in the Czech Republic and Romania. When it comes to the liberal group and the Renew Europe group in the European Parliament, there is undoubtedly 100% support for a Ukrainian victory. Interestingly, there are also strong members in the Greens who believe it is necessary.
However, among the Social Democrats and most members of the European People’s Party, the situation is more ambiguous. The reason, again, is propaganda. Many people are afraid of nuclear war. Today, Putin says he will not use nuclear weapons, tomorrow Medvedev says the opposite, then Vladimir Solovyov suggests on his TV channel using nuclear weapons on Berlin and London, and Putin changes his stance again. This creates a game playing on Europe’s fear of a nuclear threat.
Many Europeans genuinely fear a third world war, especially a nuclear strike. And this is not just about strategic nuclear missiles but also tactical nuclear weapons. On the other hand, I believe Putin now wants to improve relations with the United States and understands that even using a small atomic bomb would be the end for him. Personally, I am not afraid of that, but many in Europe feel genuine terror.
— Perhaps that’s exactly why German Chancellor Merz’s initiative to deepen relations with the UK and France makes sense. When relations with the US become complicated and unpredictable, a reliable nuclear partner is needed. Although, to be honest, I’m not sure France would actually use nuclear weapons even in defense of itself.
Helmut Brandstätter: The decision, of course, is made solely by the president. But when Merz announced his intention to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, a heated debate immediately broke out in Germany: what does this mean? Does it imply that we are becoming participants in the war, and does it put us at risk? Putin plays very skillfully on these fears.
But there is a real war going on in Ukraine. The incredible resilience of the Ukrainians is striking. When we traveled by train, I saw mothers with children out walking, people going to work. It was as if all these people were saying: «We are here, and we will fight». Last week, I met twice with representatives of the Ukrainian Leadership Academy. There, young people told me: «We fight for our country because we want to live in peace and freedom». For Europe, this seems self-evident — after all, we live in freedom and do not have to worry about it being under threat. But Ukrainians see this threat. That creates enormous challenges for Europe.
— What is your personal position towards Ukraine’s victory?
Helmut Brandstätter: Regarding my personal position on Ukraine’s victory, of course, I sincerely hope for its achievement. However, I understand that I personally cannot directly influence the course of events — I cannot send weapons, nor can I fight on the front lines. But, as Garry Kasparov very aptly noted, Ukraine’s victory would be important not only for Ukraine itself but also for Russia. Defeat could give Russia a chance for reforms and an opportunity to live a normal life.
However, there is a fundamental difference: in Europe and Ukraine, we speak about each person, about individual destinies. Today, when I once again saw photos of the fallen (Ukrainians, — ed.) near St. Sophia Cathedral, I realized how many lives have been lost. In Russia, there are no such counts; they do not even know the names of the dead. For the Russian regime, this is a struggle of the Russian Empire, not of individual people. That is why Putin does not spare millions of his own citizens, while Ukraine cannot afford such indifference because every person for us is an individual. This is the essence of the fight against the «empire of evil». They are not fighting for people but for the idea of national superiority, which cannot be abandoned under any circumstances, even at the cost of millions of lives. And this is precisely what makes the conflict so heavy and painful.
Taras Moklyak, Guildhall news agency, exclusive.
Только главные новости в нашем Telegram, Facebook и GoogleNews!
Tweet