The political stir in Brussels began when Fernand Kartheiser, a member of the European Parliament from Luxembourg, distributed a letter inviting fellow lawmakers to travel to Russia and meet with members of the State Duma. The note offers logistical help such as assistance with accommodation and promises that personalized invitations to the St. Petersburg Economic Forum will be provided. Kartheiser’s outreach is notable not only for its content but for its timing: the proposed in-person meeting is scheduled for June 3 and would take place on the margins of a major Russian economic gathering.
That invitation has reopened old wounds. Kartheiser is already a contentious figure inside the chamber after being removed from his previous grouping; he traveled to Moscow despite facing internal disciplinary measures and has portrayed his visits as privately funded and politically necessary. In his letter he asked interested MEPs to contact his office directly, stressing discretion. The mix of private initiative, offers of logistical support and meetings with Russian parliamentarians has prompted questions about how far individual MEPs can go before institutional norms and geopolitical sensitivities are compromised.
What the invitation entails
The message circulated to a wide list of EU legislators describes a sequence of meetings and networking opportunities tied to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Kartheiser indicated that attendees would meet “in person” with representatives of the Russian State Duma, and that help locating suitable lodging could be provided. He declined to disclose, publicly, whether other MEPs had already committed, citing concerns that participants may face fallout similar to what he experienced. The proposal echoes a pattern of repeated contacts between Kartheiser and Russian officials, which his critics argue goes well beyond routine diplomacy.
Why Brussels views the outreach as problematic
Several lawmakers and parliamentary groups have reacted strongly, calling the move an attempt to recruit or influence European parliamentarians. Petras Auštrevičius of the centrist Renew Europe grouping characterized the recruitment push as an effort to bring MEPs into roles that could serve Kremlin interests, including acting as informants or amplifiers of Moscow narratives. That criticism sits atop long-standing institutional measures: the official dialogue suspension between the European Parliament and Russian parliamentary bodies has been in place since 2014, and Russian and Belarusian officials have been barred from access to the Parliament since the wider international response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In addition, the EU has adopted multiple packages of sanctions against Moscow.
Responses from institutions and senior officials
Institutionally, the European Parliament has made clear that contacts between MEPs and foreign governments are treated as matters of individual responsibility. A spokesperson reiterated that lawmakers who engage with Russian diplomatic or governmental entities do so in their personal capacity. At the same time, top EU executives such as the European Commission president and the bloc’s chief diplomat have publicly avoided direct engagement with Russian officials, arguing that reciprocal commitments to peace and diplomacy are lacking. Some national leaders have maintained contact with Moscow, but those high-level exceptions have not changed the clear reticence at the EU institutional level.
Transparency and conduct concerns
Beyond political pushback, there are procedural and ethical questions. Parliament rules require MEPs to declare external meetings and to avoid any situation that might imply bribery, corruption or undue influence. Observers and some colleagues have demanded that any visit to Russia be transparently declared and that Parliament resources or staff not be used to facilitate such trips. Calls for stricter disclosure measures reflect worries that undisclosed contacts could grant inappropriate access to sensitive internal sessions or create conflicts of interest.
Kartheiser’s stance and background
Kartheiser has defended his outreach as legitimate political dialogue and said prior trips were relevant to his work, while declining to name potential participants in the new trip. His record of meetings with Russian officials is established, and he now sits as a non-attached member of the chamber after his earlier group expelled him. Critics point to this history and to his own admissions of earlier activities in the 1980s involving both Soviet and U.S. intelligence services as context that heightens concern about his current engagements.
What could follow
The immediate consequence is a renewed debate over the limits of parliamentary autonomy when individual members engage foreign powers. While there are no blanket penalties for personal contacts with Russians, the episode is likely to fuel calls for clearer rules on disclosure, travel and the use of institutional privileges. For now, Kartheiser’s invitation stands as a flashpoint that underscores how sensitive engagements with Russia remain for EU institutions, and how quickly a private initiative can trigger institutional scrutiny and political backlash in Brussels.
