MEP Gheorghe Piperea: Unlike Russia, the EU cannot afford a 15-year war

As a member of the European Parliament, how do you assess the work of the previous European Parliament? How do you assess the effectiveness of the EU's international policy, in particular the EU's position on the conflict in Ukraine?

Between 2019 and 2024, the European Parliament has focused almost exclusively on false and harmful topics for the European economy, causing more poverty and over-indebtedness of the European institutions, the Member States and the population, while leaving almost untouched the insidious policy of the European Commission. We are talking particularly about the policy guided by Ursula von der Leyen, based on usurping power within the Union and, above all, of taking over some of the essential, exclusive competences of the Member States, competences enshrined in the Union Treaties.

The European Commission has managed the covid crisis in a disastruous way. The proof is that today, as we speak, the European Court of Auditors reports illegalities, the unfair use of European public money and the lack of transparency concerning all the technical, logistical and financial decisions made as a pretext for "fighting" against the pandemic. Moreover, the Belgian Public Prosecutor's Office and the EPPO are investigating, at the same time (or in a competition difficult to understand for the average taxpayer) the non-transparent purchases of vaccines, negotiated by a small circle of decision-makers, including Ursula von der Leyen. The European Parliament, although it had the necessary and useful legal means and instruments, did not exercise control and supervision over this type of crisis management.

More recently, the European Commission has an obsession with war and arms race. A leading role in this obsession was given to the old Leninist slogan ‘whoever is not with us is against us’. The people or personalities who talk about peace and about the real problems of our world – poverty, hunger, the loss of rights and freedoms – are the enemies, the extremists, the pets that must be kept within a cordon sanitaire so as not to contaminate the pure and elevated parishioners of the personality cult of the high-ranking European bureaucrat.

Meanwhile, the European Union is in exorbitant debt of EUR 480 billion. It's ridiculous, but Mr. Draghi, in his report on European competitiveness in September 2024, proposes an additional EUR 800 billion per year in debt, and Mrs von der Leyen proposes a EUR 450 billion Eurobond debt for armaments.

Member States' sovereign debts have risen to unsustainable levels, which will require further devaluations of the payment currency and new taxes and levies. Countries such as France, Italy, Spain can no longer hope for development due to hyper-indebtedness, and countries such as Germany or the Netherlands are stagnating or entering recession due to the closure of economies through sanctions against ideological enemies of the European Commission.

The population is becoming more and more over-indebted and poor. More than 100 million Europeans are poor and hungry. Despite having a job, a third of Europeans are unable to cover their current monthly debts from their salary. One fifth of European children drop out of school early, in order to work.

However, the European Parliament is rather interested in human rights violations in Venezuela.
As far as the EU's position on the war in Ukraine is concerned, obviously, the normal reaction that we must have (and all of us must have) is to condemn the aggression and to provide moral and humanitarian support to those who have suffered and are suffering as a result of the war. Economic support to Ukraine is also acceptable, but limited by the national and Community interests of the EU Member States. However, supporting Ukraine militarily and financially has always been inadequate and disorganized. While states such as the United States and the United Kingdom have delivered weapons and military equipment in a limited manner, EU countries have never agreed on a common strategy.

Ursula von der Leyen said and thought to be doing one thing, but France, Germany, the Netherlands or Italy said and did a different thing. The armament provided was old, delivered in a hurry, the soldiers on the front were lacking proper training etc. Economically speaking, Russia was sanctioned multiple times, but the EU member countries continued to source, directly or indirectly, gas, oil, grain and fertilizers or pesticides from Russia, practically financing the continuation of the war by Russia. And the financial support for Ukraine has fallen into the black hole represented by the Ukrainian political and administrative establishment, the most corrupt and mafia-type one in Europe (and maybe even in the world).

Taking all the above into consideration, it is obvious that one cannot talk about the effectiveness of the EU in matters of geo-politics, diplomacy and war.

How do you assess the new composition of the European Parliament?

Although the composition of the European Parliament has changed substantially, notably through the increase in the number of Italian, French, German, Dutch and Austrian Conservatives, as well as the emergence of Romanian or Bulgarian Conservatives, the decision-making process is still confined to the three major European parties that seized power in the EU – European People`s Party, Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, and Renew.

Next, these parties, plus the tight decision circle in the European Council (Scholz, Macron, Sanchez, Rutte, Tusk, Mitsotakis) have imposed a so-called ‘sanitary cordon’, a policy of isolating anti-establishment politicians and dissidents that bears upsetting similarities to some practices of Nazism (the Poles are the first that should remind you of the ghettos in Kraków and Warsaw occupied by Hitler).

An action by French conservatives from the Rassemblement National party against the European Parliament is currently pending before the EU General Court in Louxembourg on the grounds that they removed all conservatives of the `Patriots for Europe` Group from decision-making and from all governing bodies of the European parliament. The motivation is serious – in France, during the June 9 elections, Rassemblement National won one third of the vote. Hence, blocking Rassemblement National by using the `deep state` of the EP is nothing more than silencing a third of the French people. This constitutes a violation of the principle of representative democracy, which is present in the Treaties of the Union.

On the other hand, there is also good news: the conservatives of European Conservatives and Reformists are being represented in the EP governing bodies at the level of Vice-Presidents, Quaestors, Chairs or Committee Vice-Chairs. There is a beginning in everything.

Also, the European People`s Party alliance with Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats no longer seems so tight. On the one hand, Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats accuses the European Commission of intending to accumulate too much power, to the detriment of Parliament and the Council. On the other hand, the European People`s Party does not fully agree with the Green Deal, especially since it seems that it will destroy the automotive industry in countries such as Germany, Italy or France.

Why did you vote against the EP resolution on Continued financial and military support to Ukraine by EU Member States?

I voted against that resolution because it is nothing else than a new way of poking and incitement to continuous war.

What irritated me most about that resolution is the call for increased spending on military support to Ukraine.

In Romania, military support to Ukraine (in addition to the economic and humanitarian support) is a state secret. From the resolution of 17 July 2024, we learned with astonishment that Romania, along with the other Member States, contributes with 0.25% of GDP to the costs of the war in Ukraine. This is in addition to the 2.5% of GDP that NATO already claims on a yearly basis. And the resolution of July 17 calls for an increase of this percentage.

Moreover, the July resolution was resumed during the September session in Strasbourg, thus a new resolution proposes even more money for the continuation of the war in Ukraine. Unlike Russia, which can continue this war for 10-15 years, with the necessary resources, the EU, and Romania in particular, cannot afford a 15-year war. What we can do is, under the umbrella of a negotiated peace, to prepare seriously (and not reactively and irrationally) for an effective defense against Russia's possible war intentions with NATO member states.

Let's not forget the nuclear threat.

Let us not forget about the lost, stolen, or destroyed weaponry – it will go to the Russians and the Chinese (who will replicate and improve it by reverse engineering) and, of course, to terrorists - either private or state-owned. And the main target of terrorists will be European cities.
Finally, I also noticed a legal nonsense in this resolution. Namely, it proposes that Ukraine should be lent by the G8 states with a minimum of $50 billion, under the warranty of «assets to be confiscated from Russia and the Russians». Think about when there will be again peace with Russia, and when relations will normalize: how many lawsuits, how many reparations, how many massive fees will we be obliged to bear for this madness, along with our children and grandchildren?

NB: perhaps the Europeans did not know either that the EU is contributing with 100 billion EUR to this war, on top of armaments delivery and refugee hosting.

How do you assess the new composition of the European Parliament? Can we expect the EU to return to a diplomatic dialogue to resolve the conflict in Ukraine in a diplomatic way?

I believe that we can return to a state of dialogue and negotiation only if the political spectrum changes after the US elections on November 5.

And the way to resolve the conflict in Ukraine through dialogue and negotiation will not be addressed if actors such as Ursula von der Leyen, Macron, Scholz, Sanchez, Tusk or Orban are pushed forward as ‘negotiators’. It takes a whole new type of discourse, hence we need new faces.