Should Moscow win readmission to European cultural and sporting events even as it continues both its murderous campaign against Ukraine and hybrid war against Europe? Wednesday’s parliamentary debate exposed a staggering degree of disagreement among EU lawmakers.
Russia still shells Ukraine, yet its flag may soon fly in European galleries and stadiums. That prospect prompted the European Parliament’s 29 April plenary to debate the “danger of normalising relations with Russia”.
Glenn Micallef, who holds the mind-boggling title of European Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture and Sport opened with a straightforward message. “Normalisation is not reconciliation, and silence is not neutrality. Silence is complicity,” he said. “Moscow weaponises sport and culture for legitimacy while it continues to attack Ukrainian cities, to deliberately destroy its cultural heritage,” he said. Brussels has already threatened to pull a €2m grant from the Venice Biennale unless it revokes an invitation to a Moscow official to reopen the Russian pavilion.
Pressure, not podiums
Mr Micallef stressed that Europe’s stance carries cash. “In the cultural sector alone, since the start of the war, we have mobilised €50m to support Ukraine’s cultural and creative sectors.” Bans, he insisted, must hold until “sport is no longer a platform for propaganda. Flags, anthems and uniforms are not neutral. Allowing them is a political choice.”
His warning found ready echoes across the chamber. Most deputies wanted tougher lines; a vocal minority saw hypocrisy. MEP Pekka Toveri (EPP/FIN) accused Kremlin-linked oligarchs of buying influence. “Russians are infiltrating themselves back to the European sports arenas with the help of corruption,” he said, pointing to a €23m offer by Vladimir Lysin to shooting federations.
You might be interested
MEP Nela Riehl (Greens-EFA/DEU) focused on art. “Russia does not deserve a pavilion at the Biennale,” she declared. MEP Rasa Juknevičienė (EPP/LTU) drew a grim parallel: “Imagine if you did this to Hitler, and then you would understand what it means to open the door to Putin.”
MEP Adam Bielan (ECR/POL) called any détente “naive”. “Every invitation extended to a Russian sportsman goes against Ukraine,” he warned. MEP Ville Niinistö (Greens-EFA/FIN) agreed. “Being weak is fuel for Putin’s war,” he said. “Sports or cultural events are for Russia one key tool for achieving international legitimacy.”
Not bridges but barricades
A clutch of deputies bristled. MEP Paolo Borchia (PfE/ITA) said the commissioner had “betrayed the Olympic spirit”, adding that culture should “build bridges, not burn them”. MEP Tomasz Froelich (ECR/DEU) called collective bans “a retrograde civilisational step” and asked why America had never faced similar penalties for its wars.
Allegations of double standards peppered the session. MEP Benedetta Scuderi (Greens-EFA/ITA) asked, “Either we think that you cannot normalise relations with countries that bomb civilians – or we are saying that the crimes committed by some are okay and others aren’t.” MEP Marc Botenga (The Left/BEL) pushed further. “No to Russia, yes to Israel. It is this hypocrisy what is undermining you completely, commissioner,” he said.
Normalisation is not reconciliation, and silence is not neutrality. Silence is complicity.
— Glenn Micallef, Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture and Sport
Backers of the ongoing ostracism hit back. MEP Dan Barna (Renew/ROU) argued, “To invite Russia back to major events while its missiles still strike against Ukrainian hospitals and schools doesn’t make us inclusive. It makes us accomplices.” Mr Niinistö reminded critics that parliament froze contacts with Moscow as soon as after the annexation of Crimea, adding, “Any inch of conciliation is a weapon to claim legitimacy for their lies.”
Stadium stakes
Sporting bodies drew heavy fire. MEP Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmerman (Renew/DEU) mocked International Olympic Committee overtures. “Sport leads to acceptance on the world stage,” she said, and the IOC “is rolling out a red carpet”. MEP Hannes Haide (S&D/AUT) noted that Russian missiles had recently struck a Ukrainian arena. “Such steps are necessary,” he urged of bans. MEP Laurence Farreng (Renew/FRA) lamented that Milan–Cortina organisers had “folded to Russian pressure”.
Art proved no safer. MEP Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz (EPP/POL) branded the Biennale stand “Putin’s circus” and demanded that Brussels “stop their financing immediately”. MEP Petras Auštrevičius (Renew/LTU) called cultural invitations “the well-known Potemkin strategy”. Support came from MEP Mārtiņš Staķis (Greens-EFA/LVA), who thanked colleagues for co-signing a letter urging the commission to pull funds. “Normalisation is not neutral, it’s support,” he said.
Moral arguments framed the finale. MEP Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D/ESP) warned, “Normalisation always benefits the aggressor.” MEP Nikola Minchev (Renew/BGR) asked, “Why should Russia be rewarded? It continues to kill civilians.” Mr Micallef closed by recalling that “these decisions do not happen in a vacuum and they carry political and security consequences”.
A test of political sanity
Deciphering the political message the debate sends to the powers that be is crucial. The debate featured, apart from Commissioner Micallef and the chair, MEP Ewa Kopacz (EPP/POL), 38 speakers. Twenty-six of them spoke in favour of the continuing ostracism of Russia even in cultural and sporting settings. Twelve members—just one short of a full third—took the opposing view. Their motivations varied.
Imagine if you did this to Hitler, and then you would understand what it means to open the door to Putin. — MEP Rasa Juknevičienė (EPP/LTU)
The fact that Moscow treats every bit of its communication—domestic and international—as a potential power move has been thoroughly documented. So has the fact that this includes spreading pro-Russian narratives via sporting and cultural events. It follows that whoever advocates for this to happen freely during wartime, must therefore fall into one of three categories: the uninformed, the unbothered, and the sympathisers.
It is possible to conjure up the image of a French citizen living on the island of Réunion to be oblivious to any Russian threat. In the European Parliament, the same degree of ignorance would be difficult to grasp.
“Undignified, embarrassing, and stupid”
And yet, there goes Mr Borchia claiming that “There is a sacred moment at which weapons should be put down and peoples at war need to enter into dialogue.” Could it be that the Italian lawmaker is simply unaware of the Gerasimov doctrine, becoming a ‘useful idiot’ in the process? Is there any other type of thinking behind his Wednesday’s remarks? We may never know. What we do know is that he, in effect, is doing Putin’s work.
The unbothered form a different school of thought, or lack thereof. In that vein, MEP Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI/SVK) asked a pointed question: “On what basis should the European Union be deciding who can do what or who can’t do what?” Unfazed by the fact of war, Ms Roth Neveďalová proceeded to castigate Mr Micallef instead: “And, commissioner, the artificial intelligence that prepared your speech, you should fire it, because it was undignified, embarrassing, and stupid.” She used the term “artificial intelligence” the way one might utter ‘floccinaucinihilipilification’: you rehearse it to impress, without being familiar with the meaning of any of its constituent parts.
Then there are the sympathisers. MEP Kateřina Konečná (NI/CZE) responded to an impassioned plea by MEP Reinier van Lanschot (Greens-EFA/NLD) to stick with Ukraine through thick and thin with a retort “I don’t even know what kind of bullshit we are discussing here”. Instead, she was concerned about the closure of the Strait of Hormuz (undeniably a worry in its own right). It was heartening to watch the hard-line Czech old-brand communist extol the virtues of international trade in oil; that notwithstanding, she made no attempt to conceal which side of the conflict she is on.
A bit of statistics
The debate provided a sample of which political groups and member states provide the most fruitful hotbeds of pro-Russian thinking. The complete list of pro-Moscow speakers, when combined with the list of those speakers who approved of the Commission’s position, yields the following picture (breakdown by political group, pro-Commission speakers to pro-Moscow speakers): EPP 7:0, S&D 6:0, Renew Europe 5:0, ECR 4:1, Greens-EFA 4:1, ESN 0:1, PfE 0:1, Left 0:3, NI 0:5.
No to Russia, yes to Israel. It is this hypocrisy what is undermining you completely, commissioner.
— MEP Marc Botenga (The Left/BEL)
Breakdown by country shows this: Poland 7:0, Lithuania 4:0, Finland 2:0, the Netherlands 2:0, Latvia 2:0, France 1:0, Spain 1:0, Romania 1:0, Ireland 1:0, Austria 1:0, Germany 2:2, Bulgaria 1:1, Belgium 0:1, Portugal 0:1, Czechia 0:2, Slovakia 0:2, Italy 1:3. (No members from Malta, Luxembourg, Hungary, Estonia, Sweden, Cyprus, Greece, Croatia, Slovenia, and Denmark participated.)
The debate brought about no vote—leave alone changing any legislation—yet it sort of continued the consensus: Russia must stay off Europe’s cultural and sporting stages until the guns fall silent. Whether that stand hastens peace or merely entrenches resentment remains to be seen. For now the Union treats every medal podium and art pavilion as the trench it is.
