Anne-Marie Goussard, the honorary consul of Lithuania in France, is a writer, expert on the history of dissent, disinformation, and influence, and a passionate advocate for human rights. In this interview, she discusses why Russia continues to expertly manipulate the West and what needs to be done to ensure Moscow’s defeat in its war against Ukraine.
***
– Recently, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has been receiving less attention in political debates and Western media. How do you explain this shift?
— International politics often fails to capture widespread attention, but this is an issue of existential importance. The outcome of Putin’s war against Ukraine will shape the future of Europe’s democracies for decades. Putin has declared war not just on Ukraine but on the democratic world. This isn’t about what these nations do or don’t do, especially regarding their support for Ukraine, but about what they represent.
Moreover, Putin waited until February 2022 to launch his assault on France, Europe, and other democratic states.
For over 20 years, he has called the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century and has waged a hybrid war against the free world ever since.
Today, the issue isn’t whether we want war—we don’t. It’s not about whether we enjoy fighting—we certainly don’t. But regardless of our desires, we are already part of the war in Ukraine because Putin is waging war against us all.
– Why do so many people deny that Putin’s Russia threatens European and global security?
— This is a hybrid war, unlike anything we’ve seen before. It operates on multiple fronts, using every possible tool to destabilise and influence: disinformation, manipulation, election interference, cyberattacks, social media exploitation, and the spread of conspiracy theories. Its aim is partly to destabilise democracies and create chaos. We’ve seen it time and time again—whether it’s the interference in U.S. elections or what happened here in France during the 2017 presidential campaign.
The goal is clear: to destabilise democracy by sowing chaos. We saw this in Stockholm with the staged burning of the Quran, organised by the Russians to stir tensions in the Muslim world, including Turkey, and delay Sweden’s NATO membership. In the U.S., Russia supports both white supremacists and Black Lives Matter activists, deliberately stoking division. In France, during the Covid-19 pandemic, Russia was behind hacking hospital websites, vandalising buildings with Stars of David, leaving red handprints on the “Wall of the Righteous” near the Holocaust memorial, and even placing fake coffins under the Eiffel Tower. These are just a few examples of the kind of havoc Russia is trying to wreak.
We see similar tactics in Russia’s attempts to interfere in New Caledonia through Azerbaijan and in Africa, where it deploys a full range of strategies: mercenaries, aggressive disinformation, election interference, and support for coups, among others.
Putin’s objectives are clear: to instill fear and doubt, divide European nations, weaken the bond between Europe and the United States, and erode democracy on a global scale.
– At conferences supporting Ukraine, you often say that Ukraine’s fight for freedom is also a fight for a free Europe. How clear is this to ordinary French citizens?
— By supporting this brave Ukrainian resistance, we are not only fighting for Ukraine’s sovereignty but also for the principles of international law. We are fighting for the freedom of Ukrainians and for our own. For Putin, this “special operation” goes far beyond Crimea and Donbas. Its ultimate goal is to take control of Kyiv, subjugate the Ukrainian people, and erase the nation through Russification. For Putin, “the Ukrainian people do not exist.”
This war and Russia’s rearmament are not confined to Ukraine. For Putin, “Russia has no borders,” as his campaign posters declared during the last so-called “presidential” elections. Or as he has put it: “Russia’s borders are the borders of the Soviet Union.”
We see the threat unfolding in Georgia, Romania, and Moldova. The Baltic states are also in danger. Even the Duma is now questioning the USSR State Council’s decree on recognising the independence of Lithuania.
We must wake up and, above all, resist the temptation to succumb to fear.
– Russian lobbyists in the West often use the word “peace,” but what they really mean is Ukraine’s capitulation. Does the French public recognise this manipulation?
— For Russians, the word “peace” doesn’t hold the same meaning it does for us. Putin and his allies aim to create a so-called post-Western order. For Russia, along with its key allies like China and Iran, peace is about shaping a “new post-democratic world order.” Moscow is using the fight against the remnants of colonialism in Africa and other regions as a way to re-colonise those who managed to escape Soviet influence.
— And the word “compromise” doesn’t have the same meaning for them either…
— In his lengthy speech justifying the attack on Ukraine, Vladimir Putin claimed he was “forced” to act because the West refused a “reasonable compromise” on NATO, peace, and security in Europe, which he had presented in December 2021. But in reality, this so-called “compromise” was nothing more than an ultimatum demanding that NATO retreat to its 1997 borders. Essentially, it required leaving countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and the three Baltic states unprotected and allowing them to fall back under Moscow’s control.
The state news agency RIA Novosti made this point crystal clear: “This is not a proposal for negotiation but an ultimatum — a demand for unconditional surrender. The West has no choice but to lose face if it doesn’t want war with Russia.” This is Putin’s version of peace and what he considers a “reasonable proposal.”
Putin does not want a ceasefire. When he mentions it, he does so merely to maintain appearances, attaching unacceptable conditions such as the complete surrender of occupied territories and even the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from certain regions. His ultimate goal remains unchanged: to capture Kyiv and Odesa and overthrow what he refers to as Zelensky’s “Nazi” government.
If we are truly committed to peace today, we must do everything in our power to support Ukraine and prevent the Russian army from advancing, bombing Ukrainian cities, and destroying civilian lives. This means standing with Ukraine for as long as necessary, ensuring that Putin does not win.
– The current French National Assembly has many far-right and far-left deputies who echo Russia’s “peace” narrative. What influence do they wield?
– Extremist parties in France, both on the right and left, are objective allies of Putin. The connections between the National Rally and Putin’s Russia make it clear that the Kremlin seeks to undermine French support for Ukraine, sow doubt about the effectiveness and durability of European aid to Kyiv, and weaken the alliance between Europe and the United States.
Marine Le Pen claims to “respect the heroic Ukrainian people,” yet at the same time, she opposes long-range weapons targeting Russian territory. Her position on “peace” and “compromise” is vague, and her party rarely comments on major international or geopolitical issues. This ambiguity conceals a deeper agenda. Consider the evidence: Le Pen has expressed a clear preference for Russia over the United States. In a 2012 interview with the Russian newspaper Kommersant, she stated, “France has more cultural and strategic interests in common with Russia than with the United States.” In that same interview, she admitted to “admiring Putin.” She even suggested that there was more democracy in Putin’s Russia than in France, saying, “From a constitutional perspective, nothing prevents calling Russia a democracy. The tone of the opposition press is much freer and more aggressive towards Putin than towards Sarkozy in France.”
On the annexation of Crimea, Le Pen stated, “Crimea was Russian for two centuries and Ukrainian for only 80 years, handed over by a dictator on a whim. The people of Crimea freely expressed their opinion and chose to join Russia.” In September 2014, when President Hollande bravely cancelled the delivery of Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia, she remarked, “This is submission to American diplomacy.”
Today, the leaders of the National Rally are more cautious in their rhetoric. They publicly condemn Russian aggression and express support for Ukraine. However, their stance is much more ambiguous in practice, as shown by their voting record in the European Parliament.
— Could you please elaborate?
– If we focus on the votes “against” (excluding abstentions), we can clearly see how Members of the European Parliament from Marine Le Pen’s party have consistently supported Putin. In 2019, they voted against the “Resolution against treating Russia as a strategic partner,” the “Resolution condemning human rights violations in Russia,” and the “Resolution condemning the Russian law on ‘foreign agents.'”
In 2020, they voted against the “Resolution on European action against Russian threats to European security and interference” and the “Resolution against the poisoning of Navalny and the coup by Lukashenko in Belarus.”
In 2021, they voted against the “Resolution condemning the arrest and detention of Russian opposition figure Pivovarov,” the “Resolution calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops amassed on the Ukrainian border,” and the “Resolution condemning the closure of ‘Memorial’ and Russia’s repression against civil society organisations.”
In 2022, they voted against the “Resolution on financial support for Ukraine.”
Furthermore, when the National Assembly voted on the bilateral agreement between France and Ukraine, the National Rally abstained despite their public expressions of support. Notably, the factions of “France Insoumise” and the Communist Party also voted against.
– French television often broadcasts Putin’s nuclear threats. How justified is this?
– For Putin, nuclear weapons are primarily a propaganda tool. With the backing of Russian propaganda and its loyal transmitters, he continually raises the issue of nuclear threats, knowing that it scares the Western public. This is something we must be aware of. However, it’s also important to understand that in all military doctrines, including Russia’s, nuclear weapons are only meant to be used when a threat endangers a country’s vital interests. In Russia’s case, this simply isn’t the situation. No one—neither Ukrainians nor NATO—are threatening Russia’s existence. It has no justification, either political or military, to use nuclear weapons, even tactical ones. To violate the understanding that all nuclear states have agreed upon would isolate Russia from the international community permanently. China has already warned Russia about this, and the Americans have made it clear: any use of nuclear weapons would result in the destruction of a significant portion of the Russian army.
– Donald Trump, the future U.S. president, has threatened to cut military aid to Ukraine and significantly reduce America’s presence in NATO unless European countries take more responsibility for their defence. What would it mean if the West abandons Ukraine, and what role could France play if U.S. policy shifts as Trump suggests?
– It’s difficult to predict what the U.S. position will be after January 20, 2025. If American aid declines, Europe will have to step up its efforts, increasing supplies of equipment and training. Regardless of what happens, this uncertainty should act as a wake-up call for Europe, pushing it to become more self-reliant and mature in its approach.
The meeting between the newly elected U.S. president and Ukraine’s president, organised by the French president, marks a shift in both reality and intention, signalling a desire for meaningful action. The appointments of Kaia Kalas as the European Union’s Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Andrius Kubilius as the EU’s Commissioner for Defence and Space, are both encouraging developments. Both leaders understand the gravity of the threat and are prepared to confront it head-on.
